Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 64 (9163 total)
8 online now:
Newest Member: ChatGPT
Post Volume: Total: 916,417 Year: 3,674/9,624 Month: 545/974 Week: 158/276 Day: 32/23 Hour: 2/3


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   most scientific papers are wrong?
Nighttrain
Member (Idle past 4015 days)
Posts: 1512
From: brisbane,australia
Joined: 06-08-2004


Message 21 of 113 (252620)
10-18-2005 5:29 AM


Green Onions
One point not covered in discussion of that article is the role modern media plays in dramatising studies for best effect (from the media POV). A sample:
GREEN ONIONS PREVENT HEART ATTACK
A survey today of seven people shows a diet of basil, alfalfa, rocket, green onions and sassafras juice may go some distance towards blocking the pre-conditions of heart disease.One, participant, Fred Nurk explained 'I feel so much better now'.Blah, blah, blah.
The average person, deluged with a flood of information from a range of sources, skims the article, but retains the summary contained in the headline. Word-meisters know how to push the buttons for response, and they get it. No matter that careful examination of both the article and any similar statements might give the man on the street a different picture. He hasn`t the time before the rest of the media avalanche The damage is done. Any refutation of claims for the initial study will probably never make it to mainline sources and only appear in a professional journal at best. It was a study, it appeared with a scientific aroma (or the makings of one), and it never got denied by news at 11.
Scientists themselves contribute to this mindset. When we have a major study thrown at us as authoritative, and fellow-travellers insist it is correct,the populace falls in line to conform. Then we have a contra-study a few years on that contradicts the former and we are told once again that the new conclusions are correct.E.G. the butter-->margarine-->butter-->? Or Vitamin C mega-doses. Essential, or no?
While those in the know might say initial studies are hypotheses, or semi-theories, I wish those chasing funding grants, or whatever drives their boat, would stress the findings are tentative so that Joe Public knows where he stands.
Maybe this is happening now as most explosive new developments seem to carry the rider 'This will not be available to the public until we do extensive testing taking up to ten years to complete'.
Edited for spacing.
This message has been edited by Nighttrain, 10-18-2005 05:30 AM

Replies to this message:
 Message 23 by nator, posted 10-18-2005 8:29 AM Nighttrain has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024