Bad Science in the Press

An anonymous reader writes " An editorial in The Guardian presents a good run down of what is wrong with science reporting today and tries to point out why this is. From the article: 'Why is science in the media so often pointless, simplistic, boring, or just plain wrong? Like a proper little Darwin, I've been collecting specimens, making careful observations, and now I'm ready to present my theory.'"

Comments

Re:Science is complex.

[dtdns]

BEDEVERE: And that, my liege, is how we know the Earth to be banana-shaped.

ARTHUR: This new learning amazes me, Sir Bedevere. Explain again how sheeps' bladders may be employed to prevent earthquakes.

But I read...

[curteck]

...a scientific article stating that 73.3% of all scientific studies and statistics are wrong...

Re:Irony.

[zippthorne]

I thought we agreed not to worry so much about the difference between "hypothesis" and "theory" so we wouldn't have to use the "hypothesis of evolution" to destroy the "opiate of the people" and create our socialist paradise.

I get the distinct impression

[JChung2006]

that the article's author just got dumped by his "humanity graduate student" significant other.

Re:Bad Science? More like bad politics!

[MightyMartian]

Translation: "All that other stuff is crapola, except my favorite pseudo-science!"

Ah my, that was good for a laugh.

Re:Science is complex.

[Rei]

As a journalist, I resent that remark. We're very good at spotting pseudoscientific mumbo jumbo. Now if you'll excuse me, I have an appointment to make for my next piece; a scientist operating out of an annex of Grace Baptist Church is going to give a presentation on his electronium hat which harnesses the power of sunspots to produce cognitive radiation.