Mod+ Why you, me, and our neighbors have a distrust of science and New York Times science journalists

Discussion in 'Skeptiko Shows' started by Alex, Sep 8, 2015.

  1. Alex

    Alex New

    Joined:
    Oct 25, 2013
    Messages:
    2,615
    Why you, me, and our neighbors have a distrust of science and New York Times science journalists
    by Alex Tsakiris | Sep 8 | Skepticism

    George Johnson’s recent piece in the New York Times demonstrates what’s wrong with status quo science and lazy science journalism.
    [​IMG]Photo by Scott Beale
    New York Times science writer George Johnson just published an article bemoaning science’s loss of credibility among folks like you and me. Near the top of George’s laments is that the “hard-won consensus of science” seems to be melting away. Before reminding George science’s purpose is to dissolve consensuses and follow the data wherever it leads, I’d suggest we take a look at some of the issues George worries about:

    “On one front after another, the hard-won consensus of science is also expected to accommodate personal beliefs, religious or oth
     
    Last edited: Sep 8, 2015
    Johnny and Jim_Smith like this.
  2. I have a distrust of all journalists but especially those who write for the NYT. Science journalism is not more or less accurate than any other subject. At least with science journalism you can often find the original research on-line. The difference between the NYT and the National Enquirer is merely a matter of subtlety.

    The article mentions everything except the most important reason people don't trust science ... because the scientists themselves say that science is not reliable:

    http://ncu9nc.blogspot.com/p/62014-...erlife.html#articles_by_subject_bogus_science

    From the article:
    I agree with those sentiments. The arrogance of scientists leads them to ignore the practical knowledge that ordinary people have and use in daily life.
    http://www.skeptiko-forum.com/threa...next-will-surprise-you.2489/page-3#post-76292

    This is just rhetoric intended to obscure the fact that there can be legitimate differences about what the truth really is. Every scientific controversy shows that even scientists themselves don't agree on what the best interpretation of the evidence is.

    For example, Nobel Prize winners Max Planck, Erwin Schrödinger, Brian Josephson, Sir John Eccles, Eugene Wigner, George Wald and other great scientists and philosophers such as John von Neumann, Kurt Gödel, Wernher von Braun, Karl Popper, and Carl Jung believed consciousness is non-physical because of the evidence:
    http://sites.google.com/site/chs4o8pt/eminent_researchers


    Creationists don't believe in intelligent design. Creationists believe in a young earth and the literal truth of the Bible. Scientists who study intelligent design don't dispute the age of the universe, the age of the earth, the age of the human species, or that the species living on the earth changed over time. Intelligent design is the science of how to identify artifacts of design ... like the difference between a stone arrow head and a chip of stone produced naturally. These artifacts include irreducible complexity, specified complexity, fine tuning of the universe to support life, etc. Intelligent design also involves theoretical work in information theory such as the no free lunch theorm and the law of conservation of information. Confusing creationism and intelligent design is a rhetorical tactic used by materialists to hide the failures of Darwinism and materialism by equating criticism with religious faith.


    http://www.evolutionnews.org/2012/08/noted_atheist_p063451.html
    https://www.commentarymagazine.com/article/the-closing-of-the-scientific-mind/
    Many scientists believed the evidence that the universe was designed. These scientists include Nobel prize winners such as Albert Einstein, Werner Heisenberg, Guglielmo Marconi, Brian Josephson, William Phillips, Richard Smalley, Arno Penzias, Charles Townes Arthur Compton, Antony Hewish, Christian Anfinsen, Walter Kohn, Arthur Schawlow, and other scientists, Charles Darwin, Sir Fred Hoyle, John von Neumann, Wernher von Braun, and Louis Pasteur.
    http://sites.google.com/site/chs4o8pt/eminent_researchers
     
    Last edited: Sep 8, 2015
  3. It only took me 30 minutes before I found an illustration just by chance:

    http://scottgrannis.blogspot.com/2015/09/de-sensationalizing-chinas-reserve.html

    UPDATE: more illustrations...
    https://www.commentarymagazine.com/article/the-timothy-hunt-witch-hunt/
    Katrina Takes a Toll on Truth, News Accuracy
    http://articles.latimes.com/2005/sep/27/nation/na-rumors27

    http://pjmedia.com/blog/no-first-amendment-here-french-court-finds-me-guilty-in-al-dura-affair/
    New York Magazine Apologizes for Article That Was a Hoax
    http://www.nytimes.com/2014/12/17/b...logizes-for-article-that-was-a-hoax.html?_r=0

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jayson_Blair
     
    Last edited: Sep 8, 2015
  4. malf

    malf Member

    Joined:
    Oct 30, 2013
    Messages:
    4,048
    No number, so this is non-podcast content?
     
  5. Alex

    Alex New

    Joined:
    Oct 25, 2013
    Messages:
    2,615
    great stuff... it's overwhelming... of course, in a way, that works in their favor... it's hard for most to really come to gripes with extent of the shell game.
     
    Jim_Smith likes this.
  6. Alex

    Alex New

    Joined:
    Oct 25, 2013
    Messages:
    2,615
    no audio
     
  7. Alex

    Alex New

    Joined:
    Oct 25, 2013
    Messages:
    2,615
    there is no audio for this post... hence no #
     
  8. north

    north Member

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2013
    Messages:
    306
    Sciborg_S_Patel and Alex like this.
  9. David Bailey

    David Bailey Administrator

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2013
    Messages:
    4,465
    I think this misses the point. Science has become so involved with money and politics that it can't respond to mistakes, and it discourages those who want to rock the boat be exposing mistakes - the very opposite of what science should be about.

    Let's take one example - the knee jerk dismissal of the idea that nuclear fusion could be produced by electrochemical processes - so called "Cold Fusion".

    Go to this site, and choose any of the talks by people in reputable research posts. Some are given by an MIT professor, who prefixes his talk by a statement that taking an interest in "Cold Fusion" can seriously damage your career!

    http://coldfusionnow.org/interviews/

    Alternatively you can read about what is happening in medical research:

    http://www.amazon.co.uk/Doctoring-Data-medical-advice-nonsense-ebook/dp/B00TCG3X4S

    (The author is a practising GP in the UK).

    One example of people losing faith in medical science, is in relation to statins (the drugs that lower cholesterol). For years people have been told that these drugs only have rare side effects, and yet after I had nasty problems with Simvastatin I discovered that numbers of my friends of about the same age, had had similar experiences! The above book goes further and challenges the very idea that moderately raised cholesterol is even bad for you.

    There are many more examples of science gone bad, some of which have been discussed at length on this site.

    I think modern science has become frighteningly divorced from its roots based on a fearless enquiry into the truth about nature.

    Gradually institutionalised science has found a way to silence its critics. They are kept from speaking at conferences, and often described as "science deniers", even when they were formerly senior scientists.

    David
     
  10. http://ncu9nc.blogspot.com/2013/08/what-kind-of-people-are-pseudoskeptics_12.html

    "It has come to my attention that one of your principal research interests is the paranormal ... in my view, it would not be appropriate for someone with such research interests to attend a scientific conference."
     
  11. Vortex

    Vortex Member

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2013
    Messages:
    637
    I have some hopeful news about the possibility of "mainstreaming" the data about the dangerous side-effects of some vaccines (and systemic corruption in medical industry and medical regulation which stand in the way of any honest attempts to inform the population about them): a congressman asked for hearings of autism-vaccine link (VAL) whistleblower, Dr. William Thompson from the CDC.

    Maybe this is the genuine chance for Thompson to be heard, to present the CDC documents which he revealed - because until now, his message was supressed by the mainstream media:



    And "skeptical" (read: mainstreamist) movement, of course, are trying their worst to malign and vilify Thompson, and stop his work of exposure.

    The ugliest fact here is blatant censorship of evidence pointing to VAL by Google. If you start a search on this topic (for example, try putting "vaccine autism" in the search bar), you won't get any links to VAL proponent websites. I mean exactly that - no links at all, not even on some obscure n-th page which won't be looked at by most searchers anyway. Only the mainsteam sources and a plently of skeptical slander-sites attacking the issue.

    To be precise, one can find VAL proponent sites like VaxTruth via Google if one directly puts their name in the search bar. So, one should know about these sites in advance; otherwise, Google will be of no help in your inquiry. Such concealment of vital data from the general public is inexcusable.
     
    Last edited: Sep 9, 2015
    Reece and Michael Larkin like this.
  12. Vortex

    Vortex Member

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2013
    Messages:
    637
    And, BTW, about the search engine censorship... Some bold Internet rebels created a new search engine, GoodGopher, which is specially designed to unravel the sites which are supressed by Google - say, independent, contrarian, dissident and alternative information sources.
     
  13. E.Flowers

    E.Flowers New

    Joined:
    May 20, 2015
    Messages:
    1,052

  14.  
    Sciborg_S_Patel likes this.
  15. Reece

    Reece Member

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2013
    Messages:
    1,261
    Home Page:
    Cool. Thanks for this.
     
  16. lighter_than_air

    lighter_than_air New

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2015
    Messages:
    85
  17. https://reason.com/blog/2015/10/27/new-york-times-nail-salon-unvarnished

    The New York Times’ Nail Salons Series Was Filled with Misquotes and Factual Errors. Here’s Why That Matters.

    Reporter Sarah Maslin Nir's investigative series violated the standards of responsible journalism.

    Jim Epstein|Oct. 27, 2015 12:01 am

    A two-part series in The New York Times on nail salons has brought sweeping changes to an industry dominated by Korean and Chinese immigrants.
    ...
    Not only did Nir's coverage broadly mischaracterize the nail salon industry, several of the men and women she spoke with say she misquoted or misrepresented them. In some cases, she interviewed sources without translators despite their poor English skills. When her sources' testimonies ran counter to her narrative, she omitted them altogether.
    ...
    The second article lent the Times' imprimatur to unproven theories, while committing science journalism's cardinal sin of highlighting alarmist anecdotes that aren't representative of systematic research.
    ...
    The rush to legislate based solely on the Times' shoddy reporting has hurt the industry.
    ...
    Bernstein charged that Nir's story focused on a small segment of the industry while ignoring the vast majority of nail salons, which pay above the minimum wage and hire only licensed manicurists.
    ...


     
    Trancestate likes this.
  18. Jeroen

    Jeroen Member

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2016
    Messages:
    12
    Home Page:
    I know this is a reply to an older post but it caught my eye. I looked at the current google results, the goodgopher and bing results. Indeed, with my setup google shows mainly pro vaccine results, goodgopher is very diverse but surprisingly bing brought up an interesting article about a study I had not seen yet:
    http://www.cbsnews.com/news/vaccines-and-autism-a-new-scientific-review/

    All mainstream stuff imho

    I do not say whether I am pro or con vaccines or anything, just relaying the information :)
     
    Reece and Alex like this.
  19. Alex

    Alex New

    Joined:
    Oct 25, 2013
    Messages:
    2,615
    thx. nice to know this managed to slip thru the machine. now back to the talking points -- "vaccines are really really safe and the best protection for the heard."
     
    Jeroen likes this.

Share This Page