Slashdot Mirror
How Journalists Distort Science with Balance
The scientist's job is to discover truth about the natural world, and the journalist's is to report the world's events accurately. Why are these two professions so often at odds? Chris Mooney discusses how journalism fails science in this month's Columbia Journalism Review. If you applauded Jon Stewart's plea to "stop hurting America," Mooney's analysis will strike a chord; the he-said-she-said approach to truth fails in all kinds of venues. (via: WorldChanging)
This reminds me of This American Life episode 265, from May of this year, entitled Fake Science, which includes, in Act Four, "Fake science can be fun. Fake science can make people happy," which I think would make an excellent t-shirt iron-on. In Act One of the show, a reporter gets into a delightfully heated exchange with a Bush Administration wonk who defends the appointment of a highly dubious lead industry shill to a prominent position on a federal commission on lead safety, while genuine experts get passed over. You can almost hear the vein throbbing on the guy's forehead when the reporter catches him a flagrant lie about the appointee's ties to the lead industry. Have a listen... it's free.
You are in error. No-one is screaming. Thank you for your cooperation.
The more you realize journalists are wrong. It doesn't matter what the subject is, the vast majority of journalists have no clue what they're talking about. Yes, there are exceptions, but they are few and far between. Once you realize they're wrong about things you know, it leaves everything else they say about subjects you're less familiar with in doubt.
It's a pity most people still consider Fox25 the "most reliable news source". And maybe it is too...as long as you're mostly concerned with the social lives of celebrities and your neighborhood pet accidents.
An Indian-American Hindu committed to non-violent thought/speech/action alarmed by the global explosion of radical Islam
Back in the 60's, Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., said of segregation, "The biggest enemy we have today in America is the public secular news media." They would report the two sides for or against segregation, which was really an argument for the status quo.
In reality its the rise of the stupid contrarian, the individual who is unwilling to accept the obvious but instead clings to the often illogical notion that there is always a deeper answer that only they see, which will eventually lead to acceptance of they themselves as visionaries. Blogs in particular have made life very easy for the Stupid Contrarian, as well as popular media like CSI. Scott Peterson in particular will walk free because jurors are convinced now by popular media that not only is there always DNA evidence for a crime, it is now a necessary precondition for guilt...because heck, they always find it in the last five minutes of CSI.
...is to get you to tune in at 11. You give them way too much credit. They stir the pot, scare the parents, overhype the cancer cure or weight loss drug, or show soldiers with puppy dogs as the need arises.
I beleive that it is against human nature for journalists to NOT put their own spin into a story. They may not even recognize the slant in their own writtings.
It's be a good change if executives at amjor media outlets recognized this and put in check/balances for articles rather than hiring a bunch of people who have the same belief structure.
"Fair and balanced" may have a real meaning. Perhaps public non-profit organizations such as NPR could gain back some of their legitimacy.
...yup...
Journalism is enertainment for profit and sciense is well, SCIENCE!
-- "Life's not fair, but the root password helps."
Balance doesn't mean that if one person speaks the truth for 10 minutes, you have to have another person to lie for 10 minutes.
Pish Posh! What's science ever done for me anyway? Like I have time for this, I need to get back to my web surfing and remember to take my antibiotics, as I'm recovering from surgery in my air conditioned home. Science is for geeks anyway.
The days of the digital watch are numbered.
Truth is often indeed subjective, but the mere existence of a differing opinion doesn't automatically make that opinion valuable or credible.
Bill Maher once said: "Let us not become so tolerant that we tolerate intolerance" (not sure if the phrase is his own). I think it applies very well to this topic. However many journalists are still trying to remain true to a credo of balance, are now plagued with these episodes of hyperbolic need to represent both sides of the story. In essence, they become so balanced that they try and balance issues which are incomparably unbalanced in the first place.
Crossfire itself wasn't hurting America. The idea that all discussions must involve side A and side B and neither can agree is hurting America. Lack of common ground is hurting America.
Stewart's premise was that real debate isn't happening. One side yells at the other side. Whoever can delude the most people wins.
However, I don't think a fair, logical discussion of the issues would work (for long) on network television. People want to see the gladiators fight -- certainly not gentlemen.
FORTUNE FAVORS IRONY
The scientist's job is to discover truth about the natural world, and the journalist's is to report the world's events accurately.
Indiana Jones said it best:
The scientist's job is to discover *FACTS* about the natural world, not truth. There's a difference. Interpreting those facts may give you some insight into an underlying truth, but that requires a human insight, something beyond the application of the scientific method to an investigation.
In short, the way I see it there are six questions you can ask about stuff that happens: Who, what, where, when, how and why. The first five are the domain of science. The last is not, because it requires that there are alternative possibilities, and as we all know, nature doesn't cheat.
"Lawyers are for sucks."
- Doug McKenzie
Truth is often indeed subjective, but the mere existence of a differing opinion doesn't automatically make that opinion valuable or credible.
Yes! Yes! Yes! I carouse about in orgiastic delight! You speak TRUTH, my brother, a truth that those who disdain intellectualism and science itself have used to their advantage for many years now! A balanced report on global warming is not presenting whether or not it is occuring, but the degree and rapidity of it. A balanced report on evolution is not between Richard Dawkins and Mullah James Dobson. It's between Dawkins and Gould.
Siddhartha Buddha, man, I think what you said should be emblazoned upon the forehead of every journalist on the planet.
And then we should have Rupert Murdoch drawn and quartered, set fire to the Fox News building, and then have a BBQ of Rush Limbaugh. But that's just me.
It's very easy to dole out critique to journalists, a lot harder to actually be one. I write for a living, in a newspaper. My chosen field is IT and tech, and I feel like I have very good grip about the stuff. But I can't write an article like "Explorer sux0rs!, Firefox pwns j00", it has to ta in consideration every side of the subject. Not to mention that the MS lawyers would have a defamitation suit field day if I make the slightest mistake.
but consider the number of people that have walked off death row after it was found that the original "evidence" against them was bogus as proved by the new "evidence" (DNA).
Truth is a bitch. I have far less faith in science and scientists than I used to. In the late 70's academics were telling us we'd be out of fossil fuels in 10 years. And what about the continuing nonsense about what's okay and what's not okay to eat? Every damn thing causes cancer apparently.
I'm not ready to tune out the contrarians just yet.
Yeah? Well I think you're overrated too.
...the journalist's is to report the world's events accurately.
The journalist's job is draw more eyes to the paper/tv station that they work for. Why do you think that USA Today has been so successful?...it's because of all the pretty colors & graphics, not because of the content or accuracy. If the statement above were true, than we'd be seeing the corrections on the front page.
Just another day in Paradise
The Right is fond of saying that the media has a liberal bias, and they are right to a small extent. The media and the entertainment industry (funny how similar those two can be) is slightly left of center on certain social issues. Can you imagine an episode of Friends or Boston Public or 60 minutes concluding that abortion is wrong, or that environmental regulations are too strict?
But the conservative Right is more wrong than right. Media is driven by profit first and foremost, not by some "liberal bias". Gilette and Time Warner and Vivendi would rather see their stock go up than seriously investigate the truth. The truth doesn't necessarily translate into profit, especially when it challenges the status quo.
Mooney's article is dead on. In order to appear balanced--that is, in order to keep viewers/readers/listeners happy--that is, in order to make a profit, the news media cannot come down on one side or the other, when the truth is to the side (and not in the middle).
This is why I actually enjoy getting my news from places like Mother Jones (left) and the National Review (right). Media sources that are ideologically oriented, rather than "balanced", are often able to report arguments or issues that the mainstream media would avoid.
I'm a scientist, and there is constant pressure to boil everything down into an "elevator message", the sort of one-sentence thing you tell someone on an elevator when asked what you do or what you're advocating (e.g. "Cigarettes cause cancer."). The problem with this is that real science worth doing can rarely be summarized this way without losing important details!
Unfortunately, the media doesn't want to hear things like "Global climate is very complex, and the impact of industry must be studied in detail because we don't really understand how sensitive a complex system is to big changes in certain parameters." That's boring . What they want to hear is "Global warming is dooming humanity!" or "Global warming is nothing to worry about!". Both of those get more attention and sell more product. Presenting both of these points of view in the same article makes for an exciting "debate", creates controversy deliberately, and again makes everyone's advertisers happy.
The competitive pressure for the sound bite, the quick statement that gets your attention even if it's not remotely accurate or true, is killing real journalism, science, and generally most intelligent public discourse about complicated issues.
Today, scientists can't say anything that appears to agree with the church, because they'll loose their funding, their credibility and possibly their lives.
Stop. Just stop. And learn something about how science really works before you start on the persecution complex, okay?
Scientists can say anything they bloody well want providing they have the evidence to support the statement. That's how science works. That most of science does not agree with the church is entirely because the church's claims are supported by little to no evidence. Even the most respected scientists in the world must support their claims with evidence. And even Steven Hawking can be wrong.
People's desire to believe they are right is much stronger than their desire to be right.
1. Many Americans avoid science like the plague and a newspaper with many science stories sells less than those with sports and entertainment. Additionally science literacy in the US is poor at best. That means that many reporters and editors don't understand what they are reporting and and as a result don't do the subject justice. They may even give junk science equal weight.
2. Some science topics are so politicized (such as abortion, stem cell research, global warming, evolution) that any reporting is criticized with giving one side more weight than the other no matter how careful the reporter is. That leads to editors avoiding in depth analysis of these subjects.
3. Many science topics require a lot of space for in depth analysis and newspapers would rather give space to articles on topics that sell better. Also, they will cut off a story to make space for some fluff story, thereby leaving out the most important parts. Science journalists need to write with these space constraints in mind; put the most salient points up front before readers and editors stop reading. This is unlike in scientific journals where the entire article must be read to understand the point being made.
This happens over and over again. You hear it a lot on the news capsules they do on the radio (and a lot of people hear). Any group with who knows what agenda can issue a press release and the media just parrots it.
Another recent case is the report by The Lancet that US troops have killed 100,000 civilians. This number is being reported everywhere as a recorded facts, as if there's a book somewhere with every name dutifully recorded. The Antibushites use it as if it were an article of faith and an unimpeachable fact, despite that every other estimate made everywhere else is an order or two of magnitude lower.
If you download the actual report, however, you see it's just complete bullshit. It was a statistical analysis, extrapolated from 63 (yes, sixty three, and a biased sample of 63 at that) death certificates, and the 95% confidence interval, even with their data massaging, ranges from 8000 to 192,000.
From the report itself:
"We obtained January, 2003, population estimates for each of Iraq's 18 Governorates from the Ministry of Health. No attempt was made to adjust these numbers for recent displacement or immigration."
Translation: our data has no connection with reality at all! In engineering, we call that a "wild ass guess" or, at other times, a "proposal."
Here's further anaylsis: http://www.chicagoboyz.net/archives/002543.html
So, yeah, it sucks when journalists can't report real science well, but that's a much lesser problem than journalists reporting poor science poorly. I've seen various activists hold press conferences and spout all sorts of fantasy figures, and not a single reporter questions any of them. No one asks "how were these figures obtained". They just scribble it down and regurgitate it later.
This is just one of many reasons I hope for the ELE asteroid. Humanity's capacity for self delusion is depressing.
--- Ban humanity.
Larry Krauss addressed this eight years ago in an excellent editorial for the NYTimes entitled "In Defense of Nonsense," which I reproduce below:
-----
July 29, 1996
In Defense of Nonsense
By Lawrence Krauss
CLEVELAND, Ohio -- Four months ago, when his Presidential campaign still seemed viable, Patrick Buchanan appeared on a national television program and argued in favor of creationism. This, by itself, is not so remarkable, given some of Mr. Buchanan's other views.
What seemed more significant, however, was that the same national media that questioned other Buchanan campaign planks like trade protectionism and limits on immigration did not produce a major article or editorial proclaiming the candidate's views on evolution to be simple nonsense.
Why is this the case? Could it be that the fallacies inherent in a strict creationist viewpoint are so self-evident that they were deemed not to deserve comment? I think not. Indeed, when a serious candidate for the highest office of the most powerful nation on earth holds such views you would think that this commentary would automatically become "newsworthy."
Rather, what seems to have taken hold is a growing hesitancy among both journalists and scholars to state openly that some viewpoints are not subject to debate: they are simply wrong. They might point out flaws, but journalists also feel great pressure to report on both sides of a "debate."
Part of the reason is that few journalists naturally feel comfortable enough on scientific matters to make pronouncements. But there is another good reason for such hesitancy. In a truly democratic society, one might argue, everything is open to debate.
Who has the authority to deem certain ideas incorrect or flawed? Indeed, appeal to authority is as much an anathema to scientists as it is to many on the academic left who worry about the authority of the "scientific establishment."
What is so wonderful about scientific truth, however, is that the authority which determines whether there can be debate or not does not reside in some fraternity of scientists; nor is it divine.
The authority rests with experiment.
It is perhaps the most immutable but most widely misunderstood property of modern science: a proposition can never be proved to be absolutely true. There can always be some experiment lurking around the corner to require alteration of any model of reality.
What is unequivocal, however, is falseness. A theory whose predictions fail the test of experiment is always wrong, period, end of story.
The earth isn't flat, because you can travel around it, period, end of story.
This misunderstanding is at the heart of much scholarly debate in recent months, including the amusing hoax that a New York University physicist, Alan Sokal, played at the expense of the editors of the journal Social Text. The postmodernist journal published a bogus article that Professor Sokal had written as a satire of some social science criticism of the nature of scientific knowledge.
It was aimed at those in the humanities who study the social context of science, but whom he argued could not discern empirically falsifiable models from meaningless nonsense.
The editors, on the other hand, argued that publication was based in part on their notion that the community of scholars depends on the goodwill of the participants -- namely they had assumed Professor Sokal had something to say.
They too have a point.
The great paranormal debunker and magician, the Amazing Randi, has shown time and again that earnest researchers can be duped by those who would have been willing to answer "yes" to the question "are you lying?" but who were never asked.
We must always be skeptical. Being skeptical, however does not get in the way of the search for objective truths.
It merely assists in the uncovering of falsehoods.
Another popular misunderstanding of the nature of truth and falsehood in modern scie
Was it Dilbert who asked, "When did ignorance become a point of view?"
Education is the silver bullet.
There was a dilbert in which Dilbert tells dogbert he's thinking of getting acupuncture. Dogbert says "the theory here is pooking yourself with needles make you feel better."
Dilbert "When you put it like that it sounds stupid"
Dogbert "sometimes sarcasm can make you think more clearly"
Its true of news too
It must be lonely being such a genius.
I am going to learn up hard about the problems that could bring.
I'd rather have reporters than journalists myself.
Free Mac Mini Yeah, it's
AP wire, Nov. 2, 2004: "Minnesota Republicans failed Tuesday in a bid to push the liberal group MoveOn.org away from polling places..."
ABC News, Oct. 18, 2004: "Hlinko is also one of the people behind the liberal group MoveOn.org..."
San Francisco Chronicle, August 20, 2004: "The liberal group MoveOn.org is airing an ad..."
New York Times, August 18, 2004: "Senator John Kerry denounced an advertisement by the liberal group MoveOn.org..."
Washington Post, August 18, 2004: "...the spot being aired by the liberal group MoveOn.org."
New York Daily News, August 17, 2004: "The liberal group MoveOn.org, meanwhile, airs a new ad today..."
USA Today, August 4, 2004: "Members of the group Swift Boat Veterans for Truth accuse Democratic candidate Sen. John Kerry of lying about his Vietnam War record. The ad, called 'any questions' is the toughest political ad since an anti-Bush spot called 'Fire Rumsfeld' (showing a hooded Statue of Liberty to remind voters of how U.S. soldiers had abused prisoners in Iraq) was aired by the liberal group MoveOn.org in late May."
The point being that journalists should use some sort of rational criteria when determining which opinions to include on a given piece. For example, if I were doing a piece on the existence of extra-terrestrials, I would go out and do research on what opinions on the subject existed. Likely, I'd come up with a list that would include: "there are no aliens because God says so," "given probability and what we know of the universe, it is unlikely there are aliens," "given probability and what we know of the universe, it is likely there are aliens," "They could, I guess," and "aliens exist and abducted me last night."
In investigating each of these opinions, it would quickly come out that several of the opinions have little in the way of facts behind them. What evidence is there that aliens abducted some guy from Kansas? Does "because god says so" qualify as evidence for or against the existence of aliens? Further, and opinion like "they could exist, I guess" isn't really worth much, is it? What does that opinion add to the discussion?
Now that the opinions have been filtered a bit, we are left with those opinions which have some backing and credibility. There are still multiple sides to the argument, and there is still debate about facts, evidence and probabilities.
Think this is elitest? Fine. Let's add those filtered opinions back into our story. But do we give those opinions equal time? Do we spend as much time on "because God says" as we do on the guy who has poured years of research into a given subject as we do for the "they could, I guess" opinion? Why?
Others might say, "give the ideas a share of time based on popularity of the ideas." Ick! That seems a pretty lame set of criteria to me. That would mean that we'd probably give the "because God says" crowd more time than the "aliens abducted me!" crowd, even though neither group has any evidence backing them up.
What I'd ask of journalists is to give various ideas time based on the credibility of those ideas. This is obviously subjective and puts a big burden on journalists to do their research and use objective criteria for considering each idea. But then again, isn't that what most people EXPECT journalists to do? The sad fact, is that popularity seems to be the most common set of criteria for reporting on a subject. When has popularity EVER been an indicator of truth?
Given this, if I were doing a program on existence of aliens, I'd focus heavily on the scientific opinions using probability, astronomy, and physics, and make passing mention of the God and abduction ideas.
Taft
Isn't it odd how everyone else is an idiot while you're full of understanding about the world?
Isn't it interesting how all journalists are wrong and that anyone sitting behind a computer has more insight into what's right all the time?
Yes, journalists make mistakes. Probably not as often as you think. On the other hand, perhaps they make mistakes as often as programmers do. Journalists also have incredible restraints, such as time or column inch limitations in which to get the idea across. Yes, it's good to be skeptical and I've seen inaccurate portrayals of things I know about as well, but by and large the reportage of tech issues I've seen in the mainstream has been reasonably on target.
http://www.rootstrikers.org/
After reading the cover teaser "Was Darwin Wrong?", I was absolutely expecting articles of exactly the sort described in this story. One article by a scientist arguing the validity of evolution, and one by some guy apologetically describing creationism and other pseudoscience.
Instead, the article opens with a teaser page asking the same question. Following that is a page with a giant screaming "NO". I laughed my ass off. And nowhere to be found was the sad little counterpoint article -- the magazine actually had the guts to commit to a single point of view.
The best thing now will be reading the letters to the editor in 2 months. The fundamentalists will be calling for blood, and it'll be interesting to see how the editors respond.
In fairness, this depends on what you mean by "the church". These days any reasonable church recognizes that it is their job to inspire, to seek justice and compassion, etc., not, for example, to attempt to determine the exact age of the earth by calculations from biblical family trees.
One of the sources of our current problem is that discussions of religion in the United States are so dominated by the fundamentalist fringe.
While not a Christian myself, I recognize that Christianity has a lot to value in it, and it distresses me to see kids being brought up to believe that the only way to stay true to their principles is to swallow this sort of pseudo-science.
--Bruce Fields
I remember reading this article a while ago.
....
A recent Cincinnati Enquirer headline read, "SMELL OF BAKED BREAD MAY BE HEALTH HAZARD." The article went on to describe the dangers of the smell of baking bread. The main danger, apparently, is that the organic components of this aroma may break down ozone (I'm not making this stuff up).
I was horrified. When are we going to do something about bread-induced global warming? Sure, we attack tobacco companies, but when is the government going to go after Big Bread?
Well, I've done a little research, and what I've discovered should make anyone think twice
1. More than 98 percent of convicted felons are bread eaters.
2. Fully HALF of all children who grow up in bread-consuming households score below average on standardized tests.
3. In the 18th century, when virtually all bread was baked in the home, the average life expectancy was less than 50 years; infant mortality rates were unacceptably high; many women died in childbirth; and diseases such as typhoid, yellow fever and influenza ravaged whole nations.
4. More than 90 percent of violent crimes are committed within 24 hours of eating bread.
5. Bread is made from a substance called "dough." It has been proven that as little as one pound of dough can be used to suffocate a mouse. The average American eats more bread than that in one month!
6. Primitive tribal societies that have no bread exhibit a low occurrence of cancer, Alzheimer's, Parkinson's disease and osteoporosis.
7. Bread has been proven to be addictive. Subjects deprived of bread and given only water to eat, actually begged for bread after only two days.
8. Bread is often a "gateway" food item, leading the user to harder items such as butter, jelly, peanut butter and even cold cuts.
9. Bread has been proven to absorb water. Since the human body is more than 90 percent water, it follows that eating bread could lead to your body being taken over by this absorptive food product, turning you into a soggy, gooey bread-pudding person.
10. Newborn babies can choke on bread.
11. Bread is baked at temperatures as high as 400 degrees Fahrenheit! That kind of heat can kill an adult in less than one minute.
12. Most American bread eaters are utterly unable to distinguish between significant scientific fact and meaningless statistical babbling.
In light of these frightening statistics, we propose the following bread restrictions:
1. No sale of bread to minors.
2. No advertising of bread within 1000 feet of a school.
3. A 300 percent federal tax on all bread to pay for all the societal ills we might associate with bread.
4. No animal or human images, nor any primary colors (which may appeal to children) may be used to promote bread usage.
5. A $4.2 zillion fine on the three biggest bread manufacturers. Please send this e-mail on to everyone you know who cares about this crucial issue.
Remember: Think globally, act idiotically.
2. The North Vietnamese were 'terrorists'? They were a fucking country you dope. Only under Bush are all enemies 'terrorists'.
3. You're posting on Slashdot, you're a Slashdotter too.
You're lack of thinking is living proof of Orwell's thoughts on language.
While I wouldn't disagree that scientists are people and have their own particular biases, and that the game of science is certainly politically (in the general sense) I have to call crap on a lot of this woefully biased rant.
You're basically saying scientists are a bunch of leftist commie pinko fags, or words to that effect, so they are not to be believed. Yeah, everyone should believed that biased statement. At least scientists support their ideas with experiment.
The parent post makes the claim, without direct experience or other support in evidence, that only scientists proposing to advance "popular" notions get funded. That's pure bunk.
First off, what is "popular" in science is often popular because of large amounts of evidence that it is right. Should we spend millions of dollars on a project to show that the Earth is actually flat despite the "popularity" of other ideas? No, of course not. That would be stupid, not political.
Do some scientists perhaps torpedo competing points of view on review panels? Yeah, but not as much as the parent post seems to think. And when it does happen, it's usually a personal issue and not a political one.
The thing about SCIENCE, as opposed to scientists, is that it is apolitical. It's self-correcting. Tobacco companies funded their own pocket scientists at ridiculous levels, and science still managed to conclude that smoking is bad for people. Science also managed to conclude that continental drift happens, even though the idea was very unpopular.
I get upset when non-scientists rant about science in an uninformed way. The linked article was really great, coming from a non-scientist who had done some research. The parent post says "I am an agnostic on the Global Warming question because I know that the science is so screwed up I can't believe ANY of it" -- how does this non-scientist poster "know" this? There has been lots of research, and the majority of scientists in the field are not agnostic about it; they chracterize their uncertainty, quantitatively when possible.
Scientists LOVE to fund "unpopular" ideas when the proposers provide some evidence that they might be right. Overturning popular ideas is how new knowledge is developed. We actually don't like to fund refinements to standard models ad infinitum.
Now going back to my NSF proposal due Monday, especially worrying about how to play up its innovative aspects, which is a large part of the grading criteria.
Professor of Astronomy, Author of Spider Star & Star Dragon (Tor)
I didn't say that scientists aren't frought with human frailties. I cleared stated they are, so why do you claim otherwise? Why lie about what I said just a few lines above?
I claimed that SCIENCE as an establishment is self-correcting and, in the long-term, unbiased. The media hyped up cold fusion, which is one of the things the linked article is all about, and the scientists themselves used a press conference to announce their results rather than a peer-reviewed journal. The vast majority of scientists didn't believe the claims and awaited experimental verification. That's how and why science works.
Over the long-haul, mountains of observational data will crush weak, but politically supported, scientific positions.
Are fradulent claims bad for science? Sure. Are they common? No way. Do they get smacked down when they can't be supported? Yes.
Professor of Astronomy, Author of Spider Star & Star Dragon (Tor)
I tend to agree with "Scientists don't change their minds, they just die." There is a certain percentage of scientists who get locked-on certain ideas and never change them despite new evidence, and later generations don't have a problem. That would seem to set the long-term upper limit at something like 35 years, the typically length of a scientific career. Still, they tend to be brushed aside long before they die and provide some friction, rather than a wall, to advancement.
I'd still claim that science moves a lot faster than politics or philosophy, and certainly some fields of science move lightning fast.
In my specialty, astronomy, we're to a great extent technology limited. Every major new advance in detector or instrument technology can mean dramatic new results. For instance, in the last ten years we've learned of over a hundred extrasolar planets when before we knew of none. We also learned that the universal expansion is accelerating, most likely the result of "dark energy" which we didn't even know existed. We've learned not only how to detect black holes in other galaxies, we've been able to measure their masses. And there are lots of other things as well, perhaps not so important, but that could become important.
How exactly has our understaning of philosophy or politics advanced in the last ten years>
Professor of Astronomy, Author of Spider Star & Star Dragon (Tor)
Thank you for finally speaking the truth. People are so blind today. They get so snowed by all the big words and fancy college degrees that they don't take a step back to see what a bunch of crap science really is.
In addition to global warming, due to how screwed up science is, I also don't believe in microbes, magnetism, or the biggest communist conspiracy of them all: gravity.
"Patriotism is your conviction that this country is superior to all other countries because you were born in it." -- GBS
The estimate a year ago was 15,000 dead Iraqis [may require registration]. At that time there were only 230 US soldiers dead as well, so assuming the Iraqi death toll paces the US death toll, that would imply around 75,000 Iraqis killed. That's not far off from the 100,000 estimate.