Why Is So Much Reported Science Wrong (berkeley.edu) 294
An anonymous reader writes: An article from Berkeley's California Magazine explains some of the reasons science reporting is often at odds with actual science. Quoting: "Where journalism favors neat story arcs, science progresses jerkily, with false starts and misdirections in a long, uneven path to the truth—or at least to scientific consensus. The types of stories that reporters choose to pursue can also be a problem, says Peter Aldhous, [lecturer and reporter]. 'As journalists, we tend to gravitate to the counterintuitive, the surprising, the man-bites-dog story,' he explains. 'In science, that can lead us into highlighting stuff that's less likely to be correct.' If a finding is surprising or anomalous, in other words, there's a good chance that it's wrong.
On the flip side, when good findings do get published, they're often not as earth shattering as a writer might hope. ... So journalists and their editors might spice up a study's findings a bit, stick the caveats at the end, and write an eye-catching, snappy headline—not necessarily with the intent to mislead, but making it that much more likely for readers to misinterpret the results." The article also makes suggestions for both journalists and the scientific community to keep science reporting interesting while being more accurate.
On the flip side, when good findings do get published, they're often not as earth shattering as a writer might hope. ... So journalists and their editors might spice up a study's findings a bit, stick the caveats at the end, and write an eye-catching, snappy headline—not necessarily with the intent to mislead, but making it that much more likely for readers to misinterpret the results." The article also makes suggestions for both journalists and the scientific community to keep science reporting interesting while being more accurate.
It's wrong because... (Score:5, Interesting)
...our generation has largely given up on science. We all reap the benefits but I find the level of science education to be abysmal. People can't distinguish between fact and fiction in news reporting and our wonderful government (many of them) don't want to believe *actual data* about things like global warming, etc. - because it's not "convenient" for their economic or religious beliefs. And of course some of those people become the reporters that report on these things, and they are ignorant, too.
It's really quite sad. We got to #1 in this world because of science, but we are turning into a society of cultish freaks who don't wan't to believe anything they don't like, regardless of the actual evidence.
Re:It's wrong because... (Score:4, Insightful)
The science of earlier generations was weird as well. I think, that compared with the past, we live in a golden age of science.
Think of the racism theories from the beginning of the 20th century. 200 years ago, a large part of the population couldn't even read properly. Slavery was common, the slaves being mostly used for work, without education of course. 500 years ago scientists fought with the church wanting to control science, refuting heliocentrism. And this is only about elites. Science hasn't reached normal people for a long time. We had quite a progress since then.
Re: (Score:2)
Also consider, that never before, science has been made so much in the open. That's thanks to patent laws, and the fact that we don't live in a cold war anymore. Therefore technical progress was done in.
And medicine has seen the requirements raise by a very high degree, due to bad experiences with not so well tested therapies. Think of the polio vaccine or the contergan scandals.
Re:It's wrong because... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
I pin most of the reporting woes on reporters that really don't understand what they are reporting on
This. When they were reporting the finding of the Higgs, the reporter and the anchors were joking about how they not only not understood this, but they didn't understand physics at all. They were proud of their ignorance, laughing it up.
Re: (Score:3)
the reporter and the anchors were joking about how they not only not understood this, but they didn't understand physics at all. They were proud of their ignorance, laughing it up.
It's extremely difficult for a layperson to understand physics at that level. I have a PhD in biology and I don't understand most of modern physics either; I try not to be proud of my ignorance, but I do try to be completely honest about it. If I were trying to discuss it on a newscast I'm not sure what I could do other than try
Re: (Score:2)
Check this story out as an easy-to-see exampe: http://www.news.com.au/travel/... [news.com.au]
In the story they say (in the text) the guy in the parachute got entangled at 75 feet. The video clearly shows it was at like 5 feet, maybe 10. That day when it was on the news and several news anchors repeated that 75 feet w
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Science is in the open, but I pin most of the reporting woes on reporters that really don't understand what they are reporting on.
That isn't really the problem. The problem is that most science is boring, making for boring reports. No-one buys boring newspapers, especially in this day an age. So editors and reporters change key details and make some things up completely just to get eyeballs.
Every paper who printed the headline "everything is just fine" has gone out of business.
Re:It's wrong because... (Score:4, Insightful)
Every paper who printed the headline "everything is just fine" has gone out of business.
And that's the larger point here: the news distorts EVERTHING, not just science.
Newspapers sell by sensationalizing everything. It's why public fears are so out of whack with reality -- you read the paper today, and there's a plane crash, a drive-by shooting in another city, and a terrorist attack in another country. Thus the public worries about these things when they could prevent orders of magnitude more deaths by encouraging public officials to target actual everyday common issues that kill lots of people, like car crashes for example. A car crash that kills someone barely makes the back part of the local section, but something rare and weird ("shark bites swimmer!!!") gets the front page.
The news distorts everything and causes us to take disproportionate notice of rare and misleading stuff. Its distortion of science is no different, so I think it's a bit weird to single out science here. Reporters commonly don't do research, emphasize the rare or weird, and make common errors while burying nuance that would make the story less interesting. It doesn't matter whether the topic is science or crime or accidents or political issues or whatever... the mundane stuff that actually is the most relevant to our lives often isn't newsworthy.
Re:It's wrong because... (Score:5, Insightful)
The science of earlier generations was weird as well. I think, that compared with the past, we live in a golden age of science.
Any time someone bewails the decline of American intellects, this is usually the correct response. At no point in history has the US or any other nation been populated by a majority of sober, thoughtful, rational individuals. There has always been a large population of idiots, and always will be. We only think it's worse now because mass media makes it much easier for idiots to be heard, and, as this is still a liberal democracy of sorts, even idiots are allowed to speak their mind and vote. (And I wouldn't have it any other way.) Oh, and of course thanks to science-informed advances in medicine and public health, these idiots now have a life expectancy roughly double what it was at the start of the 20th century, so they have more time to complain. At the same time, we (educated Americans) tend to be exposed primarily to domestic idiocy, so we don't have an opportunity to observe how stupid and irrational people in other countries are. I only ever meet exceptionally smart and motivated Indians, for example, but I've read enough about India to know that a large part of the country makes Appalachia look like Marin County.
In addition, in the last 50 years science has actually had a significant impact on public policy - so, naturally, there is a corporate-sponsored backlash against it that would have been unthinkable in less enlightened times. Many aspects of the popular backlash are related; the creationist movement is essentially reactionary and would not have existed before the courts started ruling that you can't use the public schools to teach religion (a use that had previously been relatively uncontroversial, since no one really gave a shit what the Jews thought and they certainly didn't care about the atheists).
Re: (Score:3)
The science of earlier generations was weird as well. I think, that compared with the past, we live in a golden age of science.
Any time someone bewails the decline of American intellects, this is usually the correct response. At no point in history has the US or any other nation been populated by a majority of sober, thoughtful, rational individuals. There has always been a large population of idiots, and always will be. We only think it's worse now because mass media makes it much easier for idiots to be heard, and, as this is still a liberal democracy of sorts, even idiots are allowed to speak their mind and vote.
The problem is that those same idiots have more politics power right now than any other time in the country's history. Science used to drive industry. Now that industry is trying to control science. Research used to be the domain of dedicated private researchers. Now pretty much all university and lab funding comes from corporations who don't care about the long term health of the country, only today's profits. In an economy where stocks are bought and sold in seconds, there is no way that long term re
Re: (Score:3)
Oh? That would be why the guy who came up with the notion of heliocentrism was a Catholic Monk, right? Yes, Copernicus was a Dominican.
You're probably thinking of that Galileo kerfluffle, where Galileo called the Pope an idiot in his book about heliocentrism, and the Pope got in a snit at being called a simpleton? Hint: Galileo got in trouble for calling the Pope an idiot, not for heliocentrism, which ide
Pope initially defended Galileo over heliocentrism (Score:2)
Oh? That would be why the guy who came up with the notion of heliocentrism was a Catholic Monk, right? Yes, Copernicus was a Dominican.
You're probably thinking of that Galileo kerfluffle, where Galileo called the Pope an idiot in his book about heliocentrism, and the Pope got in a snit at being called a simpleton? Hint: Galileo got in trouble for calling the Pope an idiot, not for heliocentrism, which idea was developed by that aforementioned Dominican....
Its interesting to note that this same Pope had defended Galileo long before this book was written, when Galileo was first advocating the notion of heliocentrism. The same Pope who at a later date asked him to write a book about heliocentrism.
Re: (Score:2)
History shows scientists being part of the church (Score:4, Informative)
At one time young PhD candidates were being told not to follow their interest and study string theory. That the consensus was against it and you will potentially damage your career.
Men of science have their biases and politics, both men of science who are religious and men of science who are not religious.
Re: (Score:3)
Actually history shows scientists being part of the church for many centuries.
History shows scientists being a subgroup of the people who are literate and have free time. In the past, that meant the clergy, rich people, and people sponsored by rich people. Now, everyone is literate and almost everyone has enough free time to do science if they so wished, and can even get jobs doing science. If your implication is that religion is what was good for science, pray tell what is the current correlation between members of the clergy and scientific advance, and how it compares to non-clergy
I hate that this is always said... (Score:2)
without education of course...
I see this "Not Educated" meme all the time. Mostly by nitwits (not accusing you of being one BTW) who think because they are "Well Read/Literate" that means that their "Education" is complete and anyone who is not has "No Education". Nothing could be further from the truth. People who are illiterate are not "Uneducated" for the most part (especially in the past). They had more practical education. Most of the so-called modern, literate, educated populace would quickly starve to death if nearly everything t
Re: (Score:2)
These types of statements are usually only made by people who have not had much education, and really don't know what they have missed. Yes, "u
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
A lot of people seem really fond of misremembering the past as if it was somehow better. One of my favorites is about how journalists are biased today and that we used to have a lot more investigative, hard hitting, unbiased journalism that exposed the truth. It's usually from young people who weren't actually there. In the example that I used, the history of yellow journalism would be a good indicator that they may be off in the wrong direction.
Hell, the first use of a DOS attack or electronic sabotage was
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
The people politicizing science are for the most part not scientists. I'd like to see some examples of studies that you think are designed to provide a talking point rather than doing science.
Re: (Score:2)
Thats pretty easy.
Cook et Al. 2013
http://iopscience.iop.org/arti... [iop.org]
And many others in the same field.
LOL, I should have expected that.
I presume what you mean by "others in the same field" is climate science. Of course the paper you cited isn't really a climate science paper but more of a sociology paper. And on top of that nobody has yet shown that the paper is wrong, just a lot of technical complaints that show lack of understanding on the part of the complainer. But I will cede that the paper was probably a response climate science deniers claiming not all scientists support the current anthropogenic
Re: (Score:2)
It doesn't help that, for certain theories that are controversial to certain interest groups, vast amounts of deliberate misinformation, not to mention direct attacks on researchers and indeed on science itself, are unleashed.
Want to know why science is held in such low esteem these days; look to Big Tobacco, Big Oil and Creationists.
Re:It's wrong because... (Score:4, Interesting)
Because the tobacco companies in their turn, and the fossil fuels companies in their turn, didn't collude to attack any science that suggested their products were harmful.
As to Creationists, well, they are the prototypical pseudoscientists, and much of the anti-science strategy used by the tobacco and fossil fuel industries to attack science is largely lifted from the hard work Creationists put into attacking biology.
Re: (Score:2)
Attacks on peer review, claims that consensus are somehow a sign of conspiracy, use of mass media to attack theories, construction of elaborate pseudo-scientifc "critiques" which fool those without sufficient command of the field. Creationists were doing this even before tobacco companies started invoking such techniques to defend themselves against a mounting body of evidence that what they were selling was killing a lot of people.
Citation [Re:It's wrong because...] (Score:5, Informative)
As to Creationists, well, they are the prototypical pseudoscientists, and much of the anti-science strategy used by the tobacco and fossil fuel industries to attack science is largely lifted from the hard work Creationists put into attacking biology.
Cite please?
The most comprehensive citation would be the book The Merchants of Doubt: http://www.amazon.com/Merchant... [amazon.com]
But you could start here: http://scienceblogs.com/denial... [scienceblogs.com]
Re: (Score:3)
You're mixing two different arguments here.
What allot forget is that our modern society exists because of cheap energy.
Nobody is forgetting that. But it is irrelevant to the point. The point being made was that the anti-science strategy used to cast doubt on climate science uses the techniques previously used by the tobacco companies and before that by the creationists to cast doubt on science.
So yes, it will take quite a bit of convincing for most people that oil is a bad thing.
nevertheless the strategies used to cast doubt on climate science are the same techniques previously used by the tobacco companies and creationists.
If you don't like those references, there a
Re: (Score:3)
I am not mixing anything. When something has benefits and drawbacks, its important to weight them against each other. Making decisions without considering the impacts is irresponsible.
But the discussion wasn't about "benefits and drawbacks," nor even about making decisions. It was a single, very specific point: anonymous coward asked for a citation for a statement that "the anti-science strategy used by the tobacco and fossil fuel industries to attack science is largely lifted from the hard work Creationists put into attacking biology", and I provided some citations-- five of them, in fact.
If you don't like the citations, that's your prerogative. Feel free to research the point and find
Re: (Score:2)
I think anyone with some familiarity with pseudo skepicism of science would be familiar with Creationist attacks on evolutionary biology. It's not an uncommon topic on Slashdot, and has ended up in the courts on a number of occasions. The Dover trial revealed a good many of the more sophisticated tactics. The chief difference between Creationist pseudo skepticism and corporate interests is that the latter want to preserve business models and profit, while the former wants to preserve a worldview against evi
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
Re:It's wrong because... (Score:4, Insightful)
Many scientists today refuse to let facts get in the way of their theories.
That is a complete myth and would be irrelevant even if it were true. Regardless on what your hypothesis is, in science you present evidence for or against it. Others can verify your claims. That is why, in science, frauds are eventually exposed, unlike virtually anything else. This is also why science has such a strong reputation.
By the way, you are confusing the difference between a hypothesis, a scientific theory and the layman theory.
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I think its more subtle and worst. Its not just a matter of disregarding evidence, there is too much conflicting "evidence" that isn't even going through a first pass filter for sanity. This is ESPECIALLY true of science reporting.
It happens pretty regularly that studies are touted as saying one thing or another based on what amounts to little more than noise. We have studies being done, cherry picked, and hand fed.
Let me erase the topic here to avoid bias and lets take an example I ran into earlier today:
"
Re: (Score:2)
Bullshit. It's wrong because MOST journalism is wrong. The only difference is that it is EASIEST to check whether hard science reporting is wrong. As such, science reporters regularly get called on their bullshit. The same does not apply to other forms of journalism.
Media degenerated into those who just "repeat" ... (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Yes they are. Advertisers pay based on what people watch. Media companies' income depends on advertisers, so they produce what people watch. Companies produce shit because people watch shit.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes they are. Advertisers pay based on what people watch. Media companies' income depends on advertisers, so they produce what people watch. Companies produce shit because people watch shit.
No. Even if your interpretation were accurate the media would be to blame for maximizing profits rather than maximizing information disseminated. Don't forget that people are ignorant in part because the media chooses profits over all else in your hypothesis.
However contrary to your hypothesis the media is still in the business of disseminating news and information and they take short cuts and do it poorly. They lack journalistic integrity. Whatever fraction of the media is devoted to news and informatio
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
And the US got to be #1 thanks to WWII where we imported most of the science from the UK (radar), other parts of Europe (nuclear bomb) and an untapped and undesecrated manufacturing base. Our space program was a 99.8% continuation of the Nazi program under von
Re: (Score:2)
The US has done plenty of domestic development. A helluva lot of work in the computer sciences; not just theory but R&D, happens in the US.
Re: (Score:2)
The US has done plenty of domestic development. A helluva lot of work in the computer sciences; not just theory but R&D, happens in the US.
People like Richard Feynman, Elizabeth Blackburn, Donald Knuth and Michael Stonebraker (just to name a few off the top of my head...)
Re: (Score:2)
Albert Einstein, Wernher Von Braun, Enrico Fermi, Alexander Graham Bell, Niels Bohr, Edward Teller and so many more.
Many outsiders saw the US as the country to get science done. After some of the damage we have done in the last 15 years, I don't know if that's still the case.
Re: (Score:2)
With all due respect to the great Einstein and his adopted country, he did his best work before he emigrated to the USA.
As for Niels Bohr [wikipedia.org], he spent most of his life in Europe, although he was part of the British contingent on the Manhattan Project.
And BTW, Alexander Graham Bell spent a great deal of time working in Canada as well as the USA.
But I do agree with your point:
Many outsiders saw the US as the country to get science done.
Re: (Score:2)
Albert Einstein, Wernher Von Braun, Enrico Fermi, Alexander Graham Bell, Niels Bohr, Edward Teller and so many more. Many outsiders saw the US as the country to get science done...
Five of those men had very specific and (for all but Von Braun) similar political reasons for doing science in the US; I don't think we can draw any generalizations from that, other than the stupidity of alienating and harassing some of your greatest minds just because they belong to the wrong ethnic group.
I'm not sure why you th
Re: (Score:2)
but the funding and resources are still among the best in the world
The US is a large wealthy country who often do things that are at odds with what their government is trying to accomplish, for example during the GWB era the US was the funding source for roughly 50% of all climate science on the planet (largely due to the cost of earth facing satellites). The vast bulk of that research was loudly contradicting everything the Bush administration said and did about AGW. Try as they did, they could not cut off the bulk of the funding or bully the scientists into silence.
Th
It did not take 15 years (Score:2)
After some of the damage we have done in the last 15 years, I don't know if that's still the case.
It's not and I was in the US and saw the change firsthand myself since it affected me. I was an RA with a US university and worked part of the time at Fermilab. When I started there in the late 1990's the senior European postdocs who were on the experiment I was on were all looking for faculty positions in the US. 4 years later, after the 11/9 attacks, almost every European postdoc, myself included, was looking to get out of the US at the earliest possible opportunity. I don't know any who were planning to
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The media IS part of everyday people - they go to the same schools. They are part of society. So the media changes are part of the bigger picture. Sorry you don't really seem to understand that.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You seem so focused on climate change, that was just an example. There are people who are idiots who believe the moon landings were faked, too. Do you disagree that our society's ability to handle scientific information has declined in the past 40 years?
Re: (Score:2)
Yesterday, or was it he day before? NYC had a daytime temperature of 17 degrees centigrade. My town had yesterday night around 2:00 a night temperature of 11 degrees .... how many millinia, million years actually, do you have to go back to have similar temperaturs at a 19th/20th/21st december?
Re: (Score:2)
Satellite temps ignored (which I am pretty sure is data and science all in one) NASA saying it has a 38% chance of being right ...
Don't worry, 2015 will be the warmest year ever with about 95% chance of being right and if the El Ninos of 1982/1983 and 1997/1998 are any indication 2016 will be even warmer. Satellite temperatures are not ignored, just placed in their proper context. They do not measure surface temperatures and derive their temperatures from a proxy for temperature, microwave emissions of oxygen molecules in the atmosphere.
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
Did it ever occur to you why American rockets were built by Nazis? It's because of the scientific and industrial might of the USA that defeated those Nazis during WWII. And why are German and Japanese cars so good? Might have something to do with the billions [wikipedia.org] that America spent on those countries after their well-deserved butt-kicking. I doubt there is anyone who wouldn't prefer to be an average citizen in a Germany or Japan defeated by the US, than an average citizen in a Russia, the UK, or China defeated
Re: (Score:2)
A classic comparison is US and German tanks. Not even close to a fair fight. On a related note I once read something that was quite illustrati
Because hype sells more papers than truth (Score:5, Insightful)
Also, journalists have become corrupt little trolls, trolls matching exactly the "throw something out there and see if anyone will bite" definition.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
That's a mistatement. The problem is that controversy and conflict drives page hits and viewership. so their is a strong economic incentive to present sensational headline, not inciteful journalism.
Speaking of misstatements, I think you meant "insightful". Inciteful journalism is the problem you are pointing out!
Re: (Score:2)
That's a mistatement. The problem is that controversy and conflict drives page hits and viewership. so their is a strong economic incentive to present sensational headline, not inciteful journalism.
Yes, but that was primarily front page news since once you'd bought the newspaper you had it. The rest had to be interesting enough to not appear just as filler, but not really more than that either. And you weren't in a second-to-second competition to bring out the most rushed, poorly fact-checked rumor/story, it came out once a day or at most twice a day. A lot of what you're seeing is exactly like it were, except everything now has to be headline news to get the clicks.
Re: (Score:2)
Television, by its very nature cannot do this. No one would listen to three hours of minutia of some guy reading a report and would insead turn the chan
Reporters are dim (Score:3)
Science reporting is bad because reporters are lazy and rewrite press releases.
If they did simple things, like looked at absolute numbers instead of percentages, or understood absolute and relative risks, or even understood statistics they might do a better job. But that requires math and statistical knowledge, both of which are hard for reporters. If they could do those they wouldn't have been reporters.
Maybe they could apply some critical thinking skills too? Although a reporter with no credentials probably wouldn't get real far down that path.
Re: (Score:2)
Ah but there are times when relative numbers make better sense than absolute numbers.
However both should be given next to each other. Very few people realize we have a 4 trillion dollar budget and then worry about 5 million dollar spendin while ignoring 100 billion in spending.
That is like counting pennies and then eating out at five star restaurants every night
Re:Reporters are dim (Score:5, Insightful)
Science reporting is bad because reporters are lazy and rewrite press releases.
Science reporting is bad because major news outlets have eliminated their budget for people who can do more than this. Thirty years ago many US daily newspapers had dedicated science reporters who put out a weekly "science" section for the paper and covered big science stories as they arose. These reporters had a high degree of familiarity with science topics because this was their beat. The dedicated science journalist and the weekly science supplement are well on their way to becoming extinct [cjr.org].
This is part of a general shift away from expensive, financially speculative "shoe leather journalism" toward cheap, profitable "opinion journalism". This is why on breaking news stories you'll see broadcast news services filling up time with frank speculation, which is the cheapest to produce kind of "information" there is. The intersection of slashed news-gathering capability and a 7x24 news cycle leaves them in a situation like having a half pat of butter to spread on a whole loaf of bread.
Re: (Score:2)
This is part of a general shift away from expensive, financially speculative "shoe leather journalism" toward cheap, profitable "opinion journalism". This is why on breaking news stories you'll see broadcast news services filling up time with frank speculation, which is the cheapest to produce kind of "information" there is. The intersection of slashed news-gathering capability and a 7x24 news cycle leaves them in a situation like having a half pat of butter to spread on a whole loaf of bread.
This.
I know a few journo's, they've all switched careers to marketing (or corporate communications if you prefer) because it was a more honest career.
Re: (Score:2)
Often funny. (Score:2)
It is often funny to read about any topic as reported by journalists when you actually know a little about the topic.
The funniest one I can remember is a guy saying on the news that the Oklahoma bomber had just been identified as "John Doe". The poor guy really believed his name was John Doe. That journalist has committed suicide since. Go figure...
"Journalists" stopped being journalists years ago (Score:3, Insightful)
When you chase any story for "ratings", you're doing it wrong. Just report the facts and stop trying to write fiction. All we have today are a bunch of short story writers who base their story on some truth but try to sensationalize the story to sell more papers, commercials, etc.
You write entertainment, not news, which is not the way it used to be. Unfortunately the true news journalists are either dead or retired.
Re: (Score:2)
"When you chase any story for "ratings", you're doing it wrong"
The paycheck I get by the end of the week begs to differ.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't think you've learned the same history as I did...
Historically, all research was done through private wealthy benefactors (not the government). That never really stopped. What happened is that governments started to fund some specific research. But this research was/is mostly contracts done using semi-private labs.
The real turning point was when governments started funding their own universities and labs in the 19th century. But this is not the modern university research lab that you might be thin
Re: (Score:2)
"Exactly the problem."
How is it? The paycheck comes from my employer considering my work's worth it. And my employer considers it's worth it because money flows his way more when I chase for ratings than when I go for scientific precision.
How can be a problem following the path the market rewards the most? Unless you consider capitalism itself being the problem, that is.
That's how Science Works (Score:5, Insightful)
It is unfortunate that in this day and age, it is necessary to explain how science works, and why it is different from other belief systems.
First science is a belief system. The fundamental axiom of science is that an objective reality exists, is independent of the observer, and that by investigation, truths about that reality can be discovered.
What makes it work is that progress in science depends critically on getting it wrong. A couple hundred years ago, people were looking at fire (Fire's Cool), and wondering how it works. Deep thinkers thought deeply about it, and came up with a hypothesis: There was this stuff, phlogiston, that escaped into the air and that was why fire burned, and why stuff that burned mostly disappeared. Good theory.
Then some pesky scientists - who were trying to put numbers to how much phlogiston was in different things - discovered that if you sealed up stuff, so air couldn't get in or out, and burned something, the weight was exactly the same. Hmm. The scientists first concluded that they had captured phlogiston. Great, let's figure ot what it is. Except that burning different things, led to different kinds of phlogiston. The science was a little wrong.
New experiments brought new results. Burning magnesium led to a weight gain, not a loss, so maybe it captured phlogiston. If that were true, then the ash (calx) should burn, right? More phlogiston! Except that it would not. More problems.
To shorten what could be a very long story, in 1774 or thereabouts, two scientists separately and independently came up with a more correct explanation, something to do with oxygen. In 200 years, their explanation has not yet been found to be fundamentally wrong.
Science moves forward by being wrong. A theory is presented, scientists test it's limits, and if there are things that are wrong, they are made better. The process repeats. Every time a mistake is found, every time science is wrong, it gets better. It's like a fine wine, it improves with age. Also, like a fine wine, it is not democratic. The fact that a whole lot of people seem to prefer that Thunder-stuff wine, does not make it a fine wine. The fact that a lot of people disagree with a scientific principle does not make it wrong, just unpopular.
Why is so much science wrong? Well, Homer, that's how it works.
Re: (Score:2)
However, as the parent mentioned, science has to move through many iterations before a reality is exposed. Furthermore, in studies li
Re: (Score:2)
And just how many scientific theories are outright wrong? Yes, there are abandoned claims like phlogiston and phrenology, but I question if you could ever call any of them "scientific". I can think of a few; non-tectonic plate geological models that proved wrong, alternatives to Big Bang cosmology which were demonstrated to be wrong (although elements of the steady state model remain in the form of the Cosmological Constant). In general, elements of theories are shown to be wrong or inadequate, and you are
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, there are abandoned claims like phlogiston and phrenology, but I question if you could ever call any of them "scientific".
Why not? They (well, phlogiston, at least) were reasonable hypotheses based on observations, with considerable explanatory power that produced lots of testable predictions. That's exactly what you want in a scientific hypothesis. The fact that phlogiston theory was wrong doesn't mean it wasn't scientific.
The worst fate seems to be what happened to Newtonian mechanics, which were subsumed in Relativity and ended up becoming a still useful set of calculations for non-relativistic velocities, more than adequate to land probes on Mars or put humans on the Moon.
But not to operate a Global Positioning System. Newton's theories are wrong. In terms of calculations the degree of wrongness is slight in most circumstances, but in terms of explanations of what's going on
Re: (Score:2)
It is unfortunate that in this day and age, it is necessary to explain how science works, and why it is different from other belief systems.
First science is a belief system. The fundamental axiom of science is that an objective reality exists, is independent of the observer, and that by investigation, truths about that reality can be discovered.
Philosophically incorrect, but a common misconception. To paraphrase Bohr, science is NOT how the universe works. It is what we can say about how the universe works. Repeatability under varying conditions drives science. That does not imply that other conditions and results could not exist, only that we currently do not see them. Think of classical mechanics and a solid sphere, to atomic physics and the atoms that compose that sphere, and particle physics and quantum mechanics that describe the structu
My 2c (Score:3, Interesting)
I use to have a job editing and translating news pieces from a well-known American newspaper into an Asian language for the local readers. Due to my science background, I was frequently assigned the science news. I didn't need to deal with the journalists directly but I worked with the editors.
Those guys were good and intelligent people to work with, but most of them lacked a science background. I had to do rounds of push and pull with the scientific bits. Translating the English word "space" as in relativistic space-time was not the same as translating it in the context of flying to the earth orbit, and I needed to tell them about it. And while I sometimes added my tiny clarifications to the originally unclear message (read: journalist crap), I had to write much longer notes for them.
Also, they were more concerned with the readers' psychological response than scientific rigor. I might have preferred a technically correct way of saying things, but they pointed out that it didn't fit very nicely into the general tone and style of the whole website (not just the article's, but their "overall" style). Very good points, but at first both of us were surprised by each other. We learned to work it out, taking compromises, and I tried to influence them, with limited success.
The moral was that journalists have vastly different priorities compared with a science/tech writer. They may do a good job of notifying the public, but informing, not so much. They paint an image of what it looks and feels like, in a kinda impressionist way, but reading it for education is like studying Monet's lilyponds for botany. The good ones will provide link to sources so the interested reader can dig deeper and judge by himself. The poor ones sell clickbaits.
Multiple reasons (Score:3)
Part of the problem is that most scientists are not journalists, and most journalists are not scientists. If a journalist takes enough time to become an expert in the scientific field he is reporting on, it isn't likely that he will ever come to market with his product, the reports, in a timely enough fashion to actually make a living on it.
Part of the problem is that many scientists lack the literary skill to communicate effectively with laypeople, and have to rely too much on journalists who don't have the competence needed to report on the subject material.
Another problem is that the proletariat crave the truth... the conclusions. As a mathematician, I reject the notion that empirical science determines truth. Yes, you can craft an experiment with reproducible results, but your results will still be just empirical observations. If you do a study, and find out that there is approximately a 78% correlation between wearing blue sweaters and getting hives, and that this result was reproduced three times given blah blah , then report that. Don't report that blue sweaters cause hives. Oh wait, the only thing the public cares about is what caused the hives... they have no appreciation for the results being what they are. The public wants to extrapolate conclusions only.
I like mathematics. Assuming a few axioms, prove something. What you then have is truth.
You're asking the question wrong... (Score:2)
Finally! (Score:2)
Well, at least someone with a loud voice has finally said it.
Journalists need(ed) to fill column-space, and have to get readers' attention. But although it is difficult to get a high-end concept through to them — they won't come back with a galley proof for you to check — the more common result is the journalist "spicing up" the words, without really understanding that they are changing the meaning.
That and flying cars. Everyone wants to believe in flying cars.
Science Reporting (Score:4, Insightful)
Short Answer: Obligatory PHD Comics: The Science New Cycle [phdcomics.com]
Longer Answer: Reporters know "Scientists have found that X is weakly correlated with an increase in Y. More studies will clarify whether this is correlation, causation, or whether the first study was incorrect." won't generate views (or sell papers for the old school newspaper folks in the house). Instead "X found to cause Y" is a much better headline for generating more views. Even better is clickbait like "You won't believe the horrible things X has been found to cause!" So reporters go for the most sensational spin on the scientific study in order to get more views.
The side effect of this is a mistrust of scientists who "can't make up their minds." After all, today it's being reported that "X directly leads to Y, scientists 100% sure." Tomorrow, though, the reporting says "X shown to have no effect on Y!" The actual details of the studies don't matter. It doesn't matter that this is how science works (someone tests a theory, proves or disproves it, and then others try to replicate it). It doesn't matter that science "changing its mind" isn't a weakness, but a strength of science. All that matters is that the headlines changed so scientists must not know what they're doing. Luckily, the local creationist/anti-vax proponent/homeopath/etc says they know what's what and they insist that they would never change their story.
Re: (Score:2)
Not just science reporting. (Score:2)
Really all reporting suffers from the same problems. Do you think the reporting on, say, ISIS is any less sensationalist or distorted. The mechanisms and incentives are the same.
The Simple Reason... (Score:5, Insightful)
...is that journalists generally don't know what they are talking about when it comes to science. They live in a world of politics and history, and they often even screw those up. It is generally accepted that, as a journalist, you don't really need to know the details of something, since an expert can explain it to you.
That said, science journalism, as bad as it is now, is still a lot better than in the 1970s. Then, they really didn't know anything. That's why you get stupid articles in Time and Newsweek about "global cooling" and the "coming ice age", even though actual scientists like Carl Sagan are rolling their eyes at the stupidity of journalists.
Simpler reason: no fact checking (Score:3)
Fact checking and editing used to be the core of journalism.
Now editorial staffing is pretty much non-existent in most publications. Even if it does exist, the disproportionate power of the "star" journalist has any rendered editorial oversight limp at best (e.g., Dan Rathers, Jayson Blair).
Journalists used to cut their teeth with fact checking. Fact checkers were the checks-and-balances built into the historical journalism structure. Now with a publication paths that doesn't require them learning how to fa
Science? (Score:2)
Most reporting is wrong.
Reporters often don't care about what they are reporting about, don't do research on the subject, don't do fact checking or anything else that sounds like work.
The only difference with science reporting is you can often tell how bad the reporters got the story.
Everything is wrong (Score:2)
Reporters get science wrong because reporters get everything wrong. You notice it more when the subject is something you know well.
Reporters are biased idiots. (Score:2)
They will report any study no matter how flawed or inapplicable. to justify their position.
Plus they are idiots who can't tell a black hole from the hole in their ass.
Is this story is wrongly reported science? (Score:2)
Lettuce Produces More Greenhouse Gas Emissions Than Bacon Does
Bacon lovers of the world, rejoice! Or at the least take solace that your beloved pork belly may be better for the environment in terms of greenhouse gas emissions than the lettuce that accompanies it on the classic BLT.
This is according to a new study by researchers at Carnegie Mellon University who found that if Americans were to switch their diets to fall in line with the Agriculture Department's 2010 dietary recommendations, it would result i
Re:scientific consensus (Score:5, Insightful)
And if you think scientific consensus is an oxymoron, then you don't understand how science works at all. This idea that science is nothing more than a pack of edifice-building conspirators being toppled by a few brave sacred cow tippers is absurd and demonstrates a complete ignorance of how science works, and how scientists interact. Providing all concerned understand that a well supported and accepted theory still remains a theory, and it's "truth" is provisional, there is absolutely nothing wrong with consensus.
Re: (Score:2)
And if you think scientific consensus is an oxymoron, then you don't understand how science works at all. This idea that science is nothing more than a pack of edifice-building conspirators being toppled by a few brave sacred cow tippers is absurd and demonstrates a complete ignorance of how science works, and how scientists interact. Providing all concerned understand that a well supported and accepted theory still remains a theory, and it's "truth" is provisional, there is absolutely nothing wrong with consensus.
The problem is that, to borrow your imagery, consensus in humans is very prone to go about anointing cows and loathe afterwards to turn them into hamburgers when necessary: the conditional you give is a very good one, but there's every reason to believe that unless we change something fundamental in how we view science, it'll never be safe to trust that the majority do more than think this is what they believe right up until they have to deal with even potentially slaughtering their pet sacred cow. This is
What is scientific consensus (Score:4, Informative)
"consensus" is a summarizing word.
What it means is that science does not actually consist of one scientist doing something and announcing a result.
It's science when that scientist convinces other scientists using evidence and clear, step by step reasoning that their theory is right.
Any nut can announce a theory, and tell the world how groundbreaking it is-- and many do. The hard part of science is filling in the details, so that you can show your work to other scientists and have them understand it and believe it. That's science.
Re:What is scientific consensus (Score:5, Insightful)
It's science when that scientist convinces other scientists using evidence and clear, step by step reasoning that their theory is right.
Well... honestly, no, that's not science. If you look at attempts to formalize the scientific method, you probably won't see a step that is, "convince other people", and there's a reason for that. The process of convincing other people is political, and not really a scientific process.
Now there's a good reason people talk about reaching a scientific consensus, which implies that they're reaching a consensus on a scientific concept by using scientific evidence. The word "scientific" here is a modifier to indicate the subject matter. It's like saying, "I'm going to a scientific lecture at school." It doesn't make lectures part of the scientific method, it just indicates the kind of lecture you're going to.
Science is not a body of canonized knowledge. It's not "the collection of all ideas that you can convince scientists of." Science is a process that aims to develop certainty based on empirical evidence, regardless of whether you can convince a single other person.
Re: (Score:3)
Well... honestly, no, that's not science. If you look at attempts to formalize the scientific method, you probably won't see a step that is, "convince other people",
If you look more carefully, yes, you do see that step. It is sometimes phrased differently, but it's always there.
For example, here's the UK science council listing of the scientific method http://www.sciencecouncil.org/... [sciencecouncil.org] . The final step: "critical exposure to scrutiny, peer review and assessment"
In other words: convince other scientists.
Science is not a body of canonized knowledge. It's not "the collection of all ideas that you can convince scientists of." Science is a process that aims to develop certainty based on empirical evidence, regardless of whether you can convince a single other person.
Correct right up to the final clause. That's a mythologized vision of science. In real-world science, convincing other scientists of the validity of what you did abs
Re: (Score:3)
The final step: "critical exposure to scrutiny, peer review and assessment" In other words: convince other scientists.
So I'm not sure I'm ready to accept that web page as a definitive authority. I can understand if you get annoyed at that and say it's bullshit, but the fact is, it's just a political body making a claim at what they think science is, and I'm more concerned with what science has claimed to be over the past few centuries, as well as a logical view of what it makes sense for science to be. If convincing others is the end-point then the rest of the process is vaguely irrelevant.
I don't know if you'll immedia
Re: (Score:2)
Well, I guess what you want to say, but your logic and argumentation is flawed.
What it means is that science does not actually consist of one scientist doing something and announcing a result.
Sorry, here you are wrog. How I do my science in my cellar an if I or don't I publish it: it is still science.
It's science when that scientist convinces other scientists using evidence and clear, step by step reasoning that their theory is right.
No, that is marketing.
Any nut can announce a theory, and tell the world ho
Re: (Score:2)
hint: Newton, Einstein ...
What in the world are you talking about? Newton was the most famous scientist of his time; lionized for his work throughout Europe. He most certainly did publish his work, which "was received with the greatest admiration, not only by the foremost mathematicians and astronomers in Europe, but also by philosophers like Voltaire and Locke and by members of the educated public." (http://physics.ucsc.edu/~michael/newtonreception6.pdf ) And Einstein, likewise, published his theories, which were analyzed and acce
Re: (Score:2)
Mod parent up. I was going to post the same thing.
And yes, terribly ironic.
[grammar nitpick: you meant "Reported Incorrectly"]
Re: (Score:2)