Slashdot Mirror
Why Is So Much Reported Science Wrong (berkeley.edu)
An anonymous reader writes: An article from Berkeley's California Magazine explains some of the reasons science reporting is often at odds with actual science. Quoting: "Where journalism favors neat story arcs, science progresses jerkily, with false starts and misdirections in a long, uneven path to the truth—or at least to scientific consensus. The types of stories that reporters choose to pursue can also be a problem, says Peter Aldhous, [lecturer and reporter]. 'As journalists, we tend to gravitate to the counterintuitive, the surprising, the man-bites-dog story,' he explains. 'In science, that can lead us into highlighting stuff that's less likely to be correct.' If a finding is surprising or anomalous, in other words, there's a good chance that it's wrong.
On the flip side, when good findings do get published, they're often not as earth shattering as a writer might hope. ... So journalists and their editors might spice up a study's findings a bit, stick the caveats at the end, and write an eye-catching, snappy headline—not necessarily with the intent to mislead, but making it that much more likely for readers to misinterpret the results." The article also makes suggestions for both journalists and the scientific community to keep science reporting interesting while being more accurate.
On the flip side, when good findings do get published, they're often not as earth shattering as a writer might hope. ... So journalists and their editors might spice up a study's findings a bit, stick the caveats at the end, and write an eye-catching, snappy headline—not necessarily with the intent to mislead, but making it that much more likely for readers to misinterpret the results." The article also makes suggestions for both journalists and the scientific community to keep science reporting interesting while being more accurate.
Also, journalists have become corrupt little trolls, trolls matching exactly the "throw something out there and see if anyone will bite" definition.
Don't waste your vote! Vote for whoever you want, unless you live in a swing state it won't matter anyways
The science of earlier generations was weird as well. I think, that compared with the past, we live in a golden age of science.
Think of the racism theories from the beginning of the 20th century. 200 years ago, a large part of the population couldn't even read properly. Slavery was common, the slaves being mostly used for work, without education of course. 500 years ago scientists fought with the church wanting to control science, refuting heliocentrism. And this is only about elites. Science hasn't reached normal people for a long time. We had quite a progress since then.
When you chase any story for "ratings", you're doing it wrong. Just report the facts and stop trying to write fiction. All we have today are a bunch of short story writers who base their story on some truth but try to sensationalize the story to sell more papers, commercials, etc.
You write entertainment, not news, which is not the way it used to be. Unfortunately the true news journalists are either dead or retired.
And if you think scientific consensus is an oxymoron, then you don't understand how science works at all. This idea that science is nothing more than a pack of edifice-building conspirators being toppled by a few brave sacred cow tippers is absurd and demonstrates a complete ignorance of how science works, and how scientists interact. Providing all concerned understand that a well supported and accepted theory still remains a theory, and it's "truth" is provisional, there is absolutely nothing wrong with consensus.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
It is unfortunate that in this day and age, it is necessary to explain how science works, and why it is different from other belief systems.
First science is a belief system. The fundamental axiom of science is that an objective reality exists, is independent of the observer, and that by investigation, truths about that reality can be discovered.
What makes it work is that progress in science depends critically on getting it wrong. A couple hundred years ago, people were looking at fire (Fire's Cool), and wondering how it works. Deep thinkers thought deeply about it, and came up with a hypothesis: There was this stuff, phlogiston, that escaped into the air and that was why fire burned, and why stuff that burned mostly disappeared. Good theory.
Then some pesky scientists - who were trying to put numbers to how much phlogiston was in different things - discovered that if you sealed up stuff, so air couldn't get in or out, and burned something, the weight was exactly the same. Hmm. The scientists first concluded that they had captured phlogiston. Great, let's figure ot what it is. Except that burning different things, led to different kinds of phlogiston. The science was a little wrong.
New experiments brought new results. Burning magnesium led to a weight gain, not a loss, so maybe it captured phlogiston. If that were true, then the ash (calx) should burn, right? More phlogiston! Except that it would not. More problems.
To shorten what could be a very long story, in 1774 or thereabouts, two scientists separately and independently came up with a more correct explanation, something to do with oxygen. In 200 years, their explanation has not yet been found to be fundamentally wrong.
Science moves forward by being wrong. A theory is presented, scientists test it's limits, and if there are things that are wrong, they are made better. The process repeats. Every time a mistake is found, every time science is wrong, it gets better. It's like a fine wine, it improves with age. Also, like a fine wine, it is not democratic. The fact that a whole lot of people seem to prefer that Thunder-stuff wine, does not make it a fine wine. The fact that a lot of people disagree with a scientific principle does not make it wrong, just unpopular.
Why is so much science wrong? Well, Homer, that's how it works.
Don't take life too seriously; it isn't permanent.
Short Answer: Obligatory PHD Comics: The Science New Cycle
Longer Answer: Reporters know "Scientists have found that X is weakly correlated with an increase in Y. More studies will clarify whether this is correlation, causation, or whether the first study was incorrect." won't generate views (or sell papers for the old school newspaper folks in the house). Instead "X found to cause Y" is a much better headline for generating more views. Even better is clickbait like "You won't believe the horrible things X has been found to cause!" So reporters go for the most sensational spin on the scientific study in order to get more views.
The side effect of this is a mistrust of scientists who "can't make up their minds." After all, today it's being reported that "X directly leads to Y, scientists 100% sure." Tomorrow, though, the reporting says "X shown to have no effect on Y!" The actual details of the studies don't matter. It doesn't matter that this is how science works (someone tests a theory, proves or disproves it, and then others try to replicate it). It doesn't matter that science "changing its mind" isn't a weakness, but a strength of science. All that matters is that the headlines changed so scientists must not know what they're doing. Luckily, the local creationist/anti-vax proponent/homeopath/etc says they know what's what and they insist that they would never change their story.
My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.
The science of earlier generations was weird as well. I think, that compared with the past, we live in a golden age of science.
Any time someone bewails the decline of American intellects, this is usually the correct response. At no point in history has the US or any other nation been populated by a majority of sober, thoughtful, rational individuals. There has always been a large population of idiots, and always will be. We only think it's worse now because mass media makes it much easier for idiots to be heard, and, as this is still a liberal democracy of sorts, even idiots are allowed to speak their mind and vote. (And I wouldn't have it any other way.) Oh, and of course thanks to science-informed advances in medicine and public health, these idiots now have a life expectancy roughly double what it was at the start of the 20th century, so they have more time to complain. At the same time, we (educated Americans) tend to be exposed primarily to domestic idiocy, so we don't have an opportunity to observe how stupid and irrational people in other countries are. I only ever meet exceptionally smart and motivated Indians, for example, but I've read enough about India to know that a large part of the country makes Appalachia look like Marin County.
In addition, in the last 50 years science has actually had a significant impact on public policy - so, naturally, there is a corporate-sponsored backlash against it that would have been unthinkable in less enlightened times. Many aspects of the popular backlash are related; the creationist movement is essentially reactionary and would not have existed before the courts started ruling that you can't use the public schools to teach religion (a use that had previously been relatively uncontroversial, since no one really gave a shit what the Jews thought and they certainly didn't care about the atheists).
Science is in the open, but I pin most of the reporting woes on reporters that really don't understand what they are reporting on. They read a little and think they understand enough to report, but the devil is always in the details. They don't do the research, they can't educate the reader so they try to 'wow' the reader with cool claims. In addition, there is no skepticism when it comes to claims of breakthroughs. And almost never do they take a look at the credentials of those performing the science. Anybody can be a science reporter. Anybody can call them-self a scientist as well.
...is that journalists generally don't know what they are talking about when it comes to science. They live in a world of politics and history, and they often even screw those up. It is generally accepted that, as a journalist, you don't really need to know the details of something, since an expert can explain it to you.
That said, science journalism, as bad as it is now, is still a lot better than in the 1970s. Then, they really didn't know anything. That's why you get stupid articles in Time and Newsweek about "global cooling" and the "coming ice age", even though actual scientists like Carl Sagan are rolling their eyes at the stupidity of journalists.
Similar to the upcoming US election results
Many scientists today refuse to let facts get in the way of their theories.
That is a complete myth and would be irrelevant even if it were true. Regardless on what your hypothesis is, in science you present evidence for or against it. Others can verify your claims. That is why, in science, frauds are eventually exposed, unlike virtually anything else. This is also why science has such a strong reputation.
By the way, you are confusing the difference between a hypothesis, a scientific theory and the layman theory.
Science reporting is bad because reporters are lazy and rewrite press releases.
Science reporting is bad because major news outlets have eliminated their budget for people who can do more than this. Thirty years ago many US daily newspapers had dedicated science reporters who put out a weekly "science" section for the paper and covered big science stories as they arose. These reporters had a high degree of familiarity with science topics because this was their beat. The dedicated science journalist and the weekly science supplement are well on their way to becoming extinct.
This is part of a general shift away from expensive, financially speculative "shoe leather journalism" toward cheap, profitable "opinion journalism". This is why on breaking news stories you'll see broadcast news services filling up time with frank speculation, which is the cheapest to produce kind of "information" there is. The intersection of slashed news-gathering capability and a 7x24 news cycle leaves them in a situation like having a half pat of butter to spread on a whole loaf of bread.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
It's science when that scientist convinces other scientists using evidence and clear, step by step reasoning that their theory is right.
Well... honestly, no, that's not science. If you look at attempts to formalize the scientific method, you probably won't see a step that is, "convince other people", and there's a reason for that. The process of convincing other people is political, and not really a scientific process.
Now there's a good reason people talk about reaching a scientific consensus, which implies that they're reaching a consensus on a scientific concept by using scientific evidence. The word "scientific" here is a modifier to indicate the subject matter. It's like saying, "I'm going to a scientific lecture at school." It doesn't make lectures part of the scientific method, it just indicates the kind of lecture you're going to.
Science is not a body of canonized knowledge. It's not "the collection of all ideas that you can convince scientists of." Science is a process that aims to develop certainty based on empirical evidence, regardless of whether you can convince a single other person.
Every paper who printed the headline "everything is just fine" has gone out of business.
And that's the larger point here: the news distorts EVERTHING, not just science.
Newspapers sell by sensationalizing everything. It's why public fears are so out of whack with reality -- you read the paper today, and there's a plane crash, a drive-by shooting in another city, and a terrorist attack in another country. Thus the public worries about these things when they could prevent orders of magnitude more deaths by encouraging public officials to target actual everyday common issues that kill lots of people, like car crashes for example. A car crash that kills someone barely makes the back part of the local section, but something rare and weird ("shark bites swimmer!!!") gets the front page.
The news distorts everything and causes us to take disproportionate notice of rare and misleading stuff. Its distortion of science is no different, so I think it's a bit weird to single out science here. Reporters commonly don't do research, emphasize the rare or weird, and make common errors while burying nuance that would make the story less interesting. It doesn't matter whether the topic is science or crime or accidents or political issues or whatever... the mundane stuff that actually is the most relevant to our lives often isn't newsworthy.