Science is being obliterated by social networks and dimwitted news channels. This is definitely not an example of the ones who pander science but rather it uses them to illustrate the point: what they're saying through all those media is almost always complete crap.
It's the same thing with atheists on Twitter as they're not scientists so much as just another troupe of Twitter bums repeating something someone else said without fully understanding it. Yes, we know there are big bucks in that and it attracts zillions of followers but there's a problem for us here as Mama didn't raise us to be whores.
Oliver describes with multiple examples how TV journos and many other false journalists have butchered science out of all recognition.
This is the prime reason I don't often use anything other than Science Daily for references to science which is published in credible journals. It doesn't mean I understand every word but I won't tell you what I think; my only purpose is to provide some directions for the interested student and there is no age limit on interested students.
One of my favorite examples of real science came from a friend of mine who led a national study on alcoholism with zillions of samples from people. My friend is a confirmed atheist and he was reviewing whether various fix-the-drunkie groups are the most effective. He discovered through the study something he really didn't want to see: Alcoholics Anonymous with its faith in a higher power was more effective than secular solutions.
The real scientist publishes it just as he found it and that's precisely what he did. It's not to confirm what you know but rather what you did not and you may not like the result. The real scientist goes forward anyway.
Hat tip and respect to my friend.
My ol' Dad was a prof and I've had many connections with PhDs in my life. The single consistent thing to the best of them was every fact offers another question. They never conclude anything until they have contributions from scientists all over the place, the study has been replicated elsewhere by other researchers, and no-one is pitching any idea because it would look cool on Fox News.
It's the same with my friend's study as it's authoritative within that framework but it invites a thousand other questions. The real scientist pursues them whereas Fox News and Facebook present it as Gospel, something my friend never did in the first place. Part of the reason I do not reveal his name is because some Foxite will do exactly that with his results: Christianity is the Answer to Alcoholism and that is specifically not what he said.
He NEVER concluded definitively that faith helps cure alcoholism but rather he presented that's what he observed this time. From that, other scientists think, hmmm, where does this go. That's how science works and that's specifically what you almost never see on television.
It's the same thing with atheists on Twitter as they're not scientists so much as just another troupe of Twitter bums repeating something someone else said without fully understanding it. Yes, we know there are big bucks in that and it attracts zillions of followers but there's a problem for us here as Mama didn't raise us to be whores.
Oliver describes with multiple examples how TV journos and many other false journalists have butchered science out of all recognition.
This is the prime reason I don't often use anything other than Science Daily for references to science which is published in credible journals. It doesn't mean I understand every word but I won't tell you what I think; my only purpose is to provide some directions for the interested student and there is no age limit on interested students.
One of my favorite examples of real science came from a friend of mine who led a national study on alcoholism with zillions of samples from people. My friend is a confirmed atheist and he was reviewing whether various fix-the-drunkie groups are the most effective. He discovered through the study something he really didn't want to see: Alcoholics Anonymous with its faith in a higher power was more effective than secular solutions.
The real scientist publishes it just as he found it and that's precisely what he did. It's not to confirm what you know but rather what you did not and you may not like the result. The real scientist goes forward anyway.
Hat tip and respect to my friend.
My ol' Dad was a prof and I've had many connections with PhDs in my life. The single consistent thing to the best of them was every fact offers another question. They never conclude anything until they have contributions from scientists all over the place, the study has been replicated elsewhere by other researchers, and no-one is pitching any idea because it would look cool on Fox News.
It's the same with my friend's study as it's authoritative within that framework but it invites a thousand other questions. The real scientist pursues them whereas Fox News and Facebook present it as Gospel, something my friend never did in the first place. Part of the reason I do not reveal his name is because some Foxite will do exactly that with his results: Christianity is the Answer to Alcoholism and that is specifically not what he said.
He NEVER concluded definitively that faith helps cure alcoholism but rather he presented that's what he observed this time. From that, other scientists think, hmmm, where does this go. That's how science works and that's specifically what you almost never see on television.
No comments:
Post a Comment