Why the media screw up science

[mooeypoo]

This was shared on twitter, and it's an absolutely awesome explanation about how the media (and some random 'fancy looking' sites) totally misleads the public, either intentionally out of some agenda or by incompetence (by not asking for proper resources).

 

GREAT resource for everyone, but I think it's even doubly relevant to this forum.

 

 

There are other parts to it, too.

[StringJunky]

Very illuminating for me Mooey...worth watching.

[pwagen]

I very much like potholer54's videos in general, and this is no exception. A very enlightening watch.

[Hal.]

Relying on information because the source has a 'good' education can be a source of errors also . People have a tendency not to question a source just because they think that source knows better . It is treated as being an intellectual insult to question some of the ' educated ' whereas to question others is exactly what they want you to do .

 

What are my sources for the things I have just said . I don't have any !

 

 

[mooeypoo]

Relying on information because the source has a 'good' education can be a source of errors also . People have a tendency not to question a source just because they think that source knows better . It is treated as being an intellectual insult to question some of the ' educated ' whereas to question others is exactly what they want you to do .

 

What are my sources for the things I have just said . I don't have any !

 

 

 

Did you watch the video? It speaks about that and says to check out the sources...

 

Also, if you click on it and go to the YouTube page, you'll have a list of ITS sources. No one is saying that a "source knows" anything; a source isn't an "entity". You should RESEARCH the sources of a claim.

 

Just like you should watch a clip before you criticize it.

 

~mooey

[Moontanman]

I am familiar with potholer54's stuff he is awesome, I often watch his stuff just for entertainment, He is on my play lists.

[Hal.]

I did watch the video and I thought it was a good viewpoint . I think it would be interesting to read the minutes ( exact wording ) of the report . But I also thought that the reporter , even though he did declare that he had a previous interest in a scientific journal / magazine which was mentioned , was relying in part on the fact that he thought his use of said journal had legitimacy as a reliable source because he knew of the qualifications of the people concerned . They may have great knowledge and I am not specifically referring to them when I then say that just because a person has a high educational qualification doesn't necessarily mean they are a reliable source of information . Question those who ascert they know better and the two categories they will fall into will be those who are intellectually insulted and those who want you to do exactly what you are doing .

 

Edit , slight spelling alteration .

Edited June 28, 2011 by Hal.

[mooeypoo]

I did watch the video and I thought it was a good viewpoint . I think it would be interesting to read the minutes ( exact wording ) of the report . But I also thought that the reporter , even though he did declare that he had a previous interest in a scientific journal / magazine which was mentioned , was relying in part on the fact that he thought his use of said journal had legitimacy as a reliable source because he knew of the qualifications of the people concerned . They may have great knowledge and I am not specifically referring to them when I then say that just because a person has a high educational qualification doesn't necessarily mean they are a reliable source of information . Question those who ascert they know better and the two categories they will fall into will be those who are intellectually insulted and those who want you to do exactly what you are doing .

 

Edit , slight spelling alteration .

 

I think you misunderstood.

The reason he said that he considers the journal reliable isn't just because it's a scientific journal, it's because he *knows* how the reviewing/source-checking process *works* in that journal. As in, he *knows* that in this particular journal, the articles are fact-checked.

 

In other words, he isn't trusting a source blindly at all, he's trusting a source that verifies sources of its own and does so well and consistently. He mentions, also, that people shouldn't do so blindly and *should* go back to verify sources themselves, specially when reporting an article further down the internet chain.

[Hal.]

Moriel , I'll watch that video again !

 

 

 

....................Later ....................... ,

 

So , an ex-employee ( supposed ) of the New Scientist is saying he thinks they are a good source as they are great at what they do , which he can personally vouch for because of inside knowledge ! Is it because they are great at what they do or because he , for whatever reason unimaginable , is saying so ?

 

If they are a good source , it will of course be because they have a good process and intelligent people working for them , not forgetting readers who can also have an input in faultfinding .

 

I am also saying that a source is not necessarily a good source just because they have good qualifications . I could ask twenty people to make me a cup of tea and a person with a degree in engineering is just as likely as a person without to put one sugar in it instead of the two I confirmed less than 5 seconds earlier . Everybody makes mistakes !

Edited June 28, 2011 by Hal.

[thinker_jeff]

In other words, he isn't trusting a source blindly at all, he's trusting a source that verifies sources of its own and does so well and consistently. He mentions, also, that people shouldn't do so blindly and *should* go back to verify sources themselves, specially when reporting an article further down the internet chain.

I agree with this point 100%.

On the Science Forums you can find many posters who trusted and cited the sources they googled. Sometimes they cited them only because the keywords matched. One of the poster even told me that he had not read the articls, however, he used the articles to argue with me. I was so surprised!

To well verify a source is not easy job at least to me.

[Hal.]

There is also an issue of the validity of information from a particular time that may be long gone or not , as the case may be . When the information you are relying on was valid , is as important as who you are getting it from . This person knew how the journal operated at a particular time and again I will say that it could of course be a great journal , with great practices . I am sure the journal has changed since he left . How much ? What has changed ? Who are the new employees ? What is the new operating system on their computers ? Who are the old dogs trying to learn new tricks ? Do all fonts view correctly in Windows 7 ? Previous employees are always surprised at what they think the situation is in their former workplace , when it has actually slowly changed , like a snail who looks like it isn't going anywhere and you look around after fifteen minutes and it's gone !

[mooeypoo]

There is also an issue of the validity of information from a particular time that may be long gone or not , as the case may be . When the information you are relying on was valid , is as important as who you are getting it from . This person knew how the journal operated at a particular time and again I will say that it could of course be a great journal , with great practices . I am sure the journal has changed since he left . How much ? What has changed ? Who are the new employees ? What is the new operating system on their computers ?

 

Which is why he says that the point is to check where the resources come from, and explain that the reason he thought that magazine is more reliable is BECAUSE of these practices. That's also why he states quite clearly that people should verify SOURCES by themselves and not rely on media.

[Hal.]

Some people have a habit of declaring their conflict of interest , afterwards assuming the conflict of interest then disappears , because they have shown honesty in declaring their interest and they then are politically correct . It is possible to view this piece as a disguised advertisement and the attack on print media could be viewed as an attempt to sway the market towards the journal .

 

 

[mooeypoo]

I guess I will just have to agree to disagree on this one. He makes quite a strong and clear point about testing and checking one's sources for oneself before passing on a story. The fact he uses a brief disclaimer that he *usually* trusts Magazine A because of the practices is merely used to emphasize his point that sources should be verified.

 

If you choose to take one tniy mention of less than half a minute of a Magazine within a 13~ minute video as "the point", it's up to you. I found the video to make quite a strong and fairly clear point on the subject.

[StringJunky]

Mooey

 

That video is, imo, an object lesson and explanation in verifying sources. With or without his 'conflict of interest' (which is trivial by the way) everything he says holds true...it is nothing different to what is uttered here from time but just encapsulated and delivered in an excellent manner. Nice one.

Edited June 29, 2011 by StringJunky

[Hal.]

Don't forget , to speculate or not to speculate ? , that is the question . Does everything he says hold true ? Cliff's conversation at the bar in which he talks about persia is edited and a laugh of the audience is heard , so , must cliff be discredited to us with a trick like this ? Also , Cliff at the end says that recent studies have shown a correllation between jetlag and baldness , in effect . Jet lag causes stress which a lot of people would think contributes to baldness . Again , is Cliff being discredited with a well placed laughing audience , thus reinforcing wrongly again that Cliff is unreliable ?

 

Edit , a word omitted .

Edited June 29, 2011 by Hal.