Slashdot Mirror
Twitter Considered Harmful To Swine-Flu Panic
judgecorp writes "Twitter is being criticized for spreading panic about swine flu. This is not just knee-jerk Luddism 2.0: it's argued that Twitter's structure encourages ill-informed repetition, with little room for context, while older Web media use their power for good — for instance Google's Flu Trends page (which we discussed last winter), and the introduction of a Google swine flu map." On a related note, reader NewtonsLaw suggests that it might be a good idea, epidemiologically speaking, to catch the flu now vs. later.
one of the victims saying how awful it was to vomit for hours on end.
Maybe just a strange coincidence, but Twitter itself seems to me like a place where people are vomiting continuously.
[we]pick wire stories based on what people are interested in and what folks need to stay informed.
The first part of that sentence is certainly true, whilst I can't speak for your newspaper the second part doesn't necessarily follow. People tend to be interested in the latest celebrity gossip, so papers print celebrity gossip because it sells newspapers. I don't call that keeping people informed (note: I'm from the UK that's how it works here if the USA is different then I apologise).
If I have nothing to hide, you have no reason to search me
Well, it's not a hard prediction. I mean, whole threads of uninformed and stupid people spewing stupidities... on the internet? Who would have guessed? ;) In related news, bears do poop in the woods, the pope is indeed a catholic, and the ocean is indeed wet.
On the other hand, to be fair, the internet only made it easy to run into such conversations which otherwise would have happened at the pub or at a street corner, with equally uninformed people nodding through and offering their own stupid advice. Just think of all the cabbies who can't manage their own finances, but are ready to discourse at length about how the government should fix the economy. Or of all the people who can't be diplomatic enough to their neighbour, but apparently know exactly what the president should tell France or Russia. Etc.
And occasionally whole "theories" have been formed out of such stupid-preaching-to-the-stupid situations.
E.g., historically "animal magnetism" was born out of weaker correlations than the "lick an autistic kid" in the comic. And some people still buy magnets and crystals as cures... although they were known to be scams at least as early as 1841 when Charles Mackay published his "Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds."
E.g., homeopathy was born out of the observation that, basically, small doses of quinine cure malaria, but high doses of quinine cause the same kind of shivers as malaria. In the meantime we know why both happen, and it has nothing to do with "like cures like". But some people _still_ insist on believing in a cure that's intellectually on par with "lick an autistic kid" and born out of a correlation that was every bit as stupid and superficial. (In fact, just watch, I'm going to rub my crystal ball and predict that someone will promptly post a reply as to how wrong I am, and how homeopathy works and is proven and cures everything from hypochondria to cancer;)
A polar bear is a cartesian bear after a coordinate transform.
um......Bill O'Reilly
nuff said
Randi's as bad as the hoaxers. No objectivity at all. I'd like to see an objective study using MRI scanning at the time a "psychic" makes a prediction, see if there's anything odd happening.
I'd like to see a "psychic" make a correct prediction before I start giving a shit whether anything odd is happening in their brain, unless it's to try to distinguish whether it's the "lie" center of the brain that's firing, or the "self delusion" center. Trying to figure out the cause before you've confirmed there is an effect is the definition of wild goose chase.
How you get that a mere lack of objectivity and a predisposition to disbelieve in psychic phenomenon, makes Randi as bad as people lying in order to scam innocent but gullible people out of their money is beyond me.
You do realize that many of the greatest experiments in history were performed by people who were not anything close to objective? Michelson and Morely were not objective in the slightest, they were absolutely convinced that the Luminiferous Ether existed and their experiment would prove it, and they re-ran it all over the world and with every modification they could think of to explain why they continued to get null results. They continued even after much of the scientific community had started to take their result to mean that the Ether wasn't real. Eventually they had to admit defeat and accept reality, reluctant though they were to do so. Yet at no point did their lack of objectivity actually effect the reality that the Ether doesn't exist.
So let me know when there's a douser who can identify water 9/10 of the time consistently, and Randi still denies that there's anything to it even after the guy passes every test he throws at him, and then I'll agree that a lack of objectivity is in some way relevant. Unless it's your theory that his lack of belief somehow interferes with the sprits' communications or the quantum-prediction-power or whatever nonsense you think is powering these "powers". Which I'm sure the shysters themselves will say. "Ooh your skepticism is putting the spirits off. I can only talk to them in front of completely credulous gullible idiots."
We've already seen how plants exploit quantum effects for their benefit, and I've heard theories (just theories mark you) of how an evolved response in humans where they'd use a quantum effect to ascertain probability, or even influence probability. And that's just pre-cognisance, one of the harder telepathic skills to explain. Telepathy, empathy, all of them are scientifically possible.
LOL. Yeah, QM interpretations based on puns on the Schroedinger's Cat thought experiment, and ordinary chemistry that incorporates QM effects (which happens all the time), totally explain how pre-cognizance is possible. Psychic Invisible Pink Unicorns are scientifically possible, since we haven't proven that they aren't, we just have no reason to think they exist and all semi-plausible mechanisms by which they could exist show nothing, and none of the people who claim to be able to find them with ease can demonstrate this ability to anyone who doesn't already believe in them.
hence why some of them may exhibit the skill at home when they're not really caring, but might not work in a stressful environment when they *want* something to happen to get their grubby mitts on the $1 million.
Some? You mean all. You can use the same reason to explain why some people can't answer easy questions on Who Wants to Be a Millionaire, but at the end of the day some people win. But there's not one person with paranormal powers out there who is confident enough in their ability to make it work for a million bucks?
Fine. Then send them my way and I'll give them some practice. I'll give them $20 and a six pack if they can demonstrate their ability, and I promise not to record it so they won't be embarrassed in front of anyone but me when they fail. Oh wait, that lacked objectivity -- I meant if they fail. I hope that slip-up didn't nullify their powers!
The enemies of Democracy are