Bad Science Journalism Gets Schooled

TaeKwonDood writes "Biology post-doc Dr. Michael White takes a look at the '2007 Best American Science and Nature Writing' and doesn't like what he finds in an article called Bad Science Journalism and the Myth of the Oppressed Underdog. Turns out it's not just political writers who pick a position they want to advocate and then write stories to confirm it. Science journalism gets a scolding and it's been a long time coming."

Of course ...

[Anonymous Coward]

This NEVER comes into play with controversial subjects like evolution or global warmimg. (cough)

Rather obvious

[The Ancients]

This is quite logical, as it's human nature to do so, and not a direct result of one's career field.

Even simple background research on the authors of articles in many different fields reveal that yes, the majority of writers are biased, either consciously, or otherwise.

obvious != right

[More_Cowbell]

Science journalism would perhaps be the one area where you would expect the author to concisely go out of their way to be unbiased.

Re:Rather obvious

[ChameleonDave]

yes, the majority of writers are biased, either consciously, or otherwise.

More than the majority. I'd say that everyone is necessarily biased about everything, because we can never avoid the fact that we approach every issue with some sort of background or perspective.

However, there are those who are biased, and those who are biased and also throw all logic to the wind.

Re:Rather obvious

[CheshireCatCO]

This is quite logical, as it's human nature to do so, and not a direct result of one's career field.

You're absolutely correct. Think of all the stories of some technological innovation you've heard that follow this same pattern. ("Everyone believed that building a kerbudle with transducing fleebs was impossible, but one lonely inventor decided to try it. [Story continues, ignoring that the inventor was paid to do the investigation, however long a shot it was deemed, by some well-known company, etc.]") Or even business: "Everyone said that Microsoft's/Apple's/Intel's/etc's hold on X market was unassailable, but this plucky [they're always plucky] little start-up set out to fight the Goliath." It's human nature and it's good story-telling, which is what sells science articles.

Question is, is there another way to tell the stories that isn't so formulaic and that doesn't give such an incorrect impression?

what do you expect?

[l2718]

1. The people who have the qualifications to understand scientific papers (the ones with science education) can usually get better-paying jobs in science, rather than science journalism.
2. Worse, our society as a whole is anti-intellectual and specifically anti-scientific. This does not only apply to the readers: many people who study journalism have a weak science background. As long as society can accept someone as "educated" who cannot explain how a refrigerator works, or accept some definitions and follow a mathematical proof based on them, it is hardly surprising that science writers and readers can't understand a scientific argument.
3. Today's readers are trying to be entertained, not be informed. A piece that reinforces the reader's prejudices will make the reader feel good, and hence buy more copies of the publication.

For an example for the second point, remember the "gravity-powered lamp [vt.edu]" concept that was advertized last month? I saw several independent write-ups in newspapers all repeating the canard of "this will work if only we have better LED technology" when an elementary calculation shows that even with 100% efficient lighting elements the lamp will need to weigh about a ton.

Re:Science has always been biased

[eli pabst]

To an extent that's true, but science is science and sooner or later the facts will win out over dogma. Eventually someone is going to do the experiment that incontrovertibly proves that said underdog theory is true. Look at the prion guy. He took all kinds of shit for years, because *nobody* believed you could have an infectious protein, but eventually he won out. He can now send the haters a picture of his Noble prize.

Re:Science has always been biased

[CheshireCatCO]

If you're a Phd who has spent your whole life researching and proving something then you're likely to opposed someone proving eactly the opposite.

This is true to some extent, but it glosses over another even more important point: most newly proposed theories are wrong. (It's a lot like mutations in evolutionary biology.) Many of the theories are still-born, never making it past someone's blackboard before they're shot down, but quite a few get floated. Some get floated quite adamantly by their adherents. A few are better than the older models. After even a little while in science, you see the ratio and it's natural to want to stick to the tested theory until the new guy has been able to provide some strong evidence for itself.

That's sort of the rub, though, isn't it? Only a few new theories which suplant the old model do so with a really compelling single test. We can think of a few of the exceptions: General Relativity and the 1919 eclipse, the Big Bang (which was already pretty widely accepted, but never mind) and the discovery of the CMB, the giant impact theory of the origin of the Moon and the numerical simulations of the 1980s, etc. But these *are* the exceptions. Most theories which will eventually take over do so by slow accumulation of evidence in their favor, not with any slam dunk. As a result, convincing scientists to abondon the older model is difficult and there's no magic cut-off where you can say, "Now the new theory is better than the old one." So are the scientists being bad at science? Sure, it's easy to spin the narrative that way, but I'd say no. They're at worst being conservative and not wanting to leap onto a new model until they see that it's really better.

Anyone expecting unbiassed science to come out of that lot is just a misguided idealist.

Now I feel like you're being insulting. Individual scientists are human, we have our flaws and our blind-spots. Some of us have real agendas and a few are even downright dishonest. But as a group, we're contradictory, curious, and anti-authority. As a result, science is pretty good at self-correcting. A single scientist can lie to himself or even lie to others. But that always gets caught eventually because someone starts asking questions and we collectively have no vested interest in covering up lies.

(Any time you hear about scientists being involved in a massive conspiracy, like some anti-global warming fanatics will try to tell you, you can bet it's wrong. Any person who could prove evolution or GW conclusively incorrect would have just made a career and world-wide fame for herself.)

Re:Science has always been biased

[MidnightBrewer]

If you're a Phd who has spent your whole life researching and proving something then you're likely to opposed someone proving eactly the opposite. That's just human nature and has been the downfall of many scientists including Einstein and many other greats.

More than just human nature, it makes sense. If I believe strongly that something is the truth, then it seems only logical that I'd oppose somebody who says that my theory is completely wrong. Also, I think that Max Planck might have been being just a bit facetious in the quote you mentioned; while powerful, wrong-headed opponents may be the bane of every great endeavor, simply waiting for them to die still doesn't make you right. If you die first, it doesn't make you wrong, either. Scientific truths win out because they continue to be true. The scientific method may not serve the personal ambitions of fame-seeking individuals very well, but it does tend to work out pretty well for the advancement of science, even if the undeserving-yet-better-funded end up getting all the credit.

"experiment" with Global Warming?

[mi]

To an extent that's true, but science is science and sooner or later the facts will win out over dogma. Eventually someone is going to do the experiment that incontrovertibly proves that said underdog theory is true.

Certain things, although treated as science, are not really open to an experiment... And while disagreements over, say, some aspect of Cosmogony can be discussed in a friendly manner, issues like Global Warming tend to polarize people along their political persuasions...

Since academics' income depends greatly on the taxpayers' money, they tend to be Statist [wikipedia.org] and/or rather Illiberal. Hence the dominant "scientific" opinions about Global Warming predicting gloomy scenarios and demanding drastic actions — mostly from "the rich" (citizens and nations), of course. Anybody disagreeing (or even questioning) is "anti-science" (even if burning at a stake is no longer practiced) — even though no experiment could possibly be conducted on a planetary scale.

Watch angry responses to this posting for more :-)

Re:Complaints about writing

[Metasquares]

The nonsense that is a Ph. D. also turns a lot of people off from a scientific career. It's sort of difficult to explain why unless you're already going (or have gone) through it, but let's just say it's nothing like anyone expects it to be. A lot of what I (and probably most others) thought was a bastion of pure innovation and discovery turns out to be a rather bureaucratic and dishonest system at work - and it wants to use you.

But that's just something that discourages those who are already considering becoming professors or scientists because they like doing research. The bigger challenge is probably encouraging people to choose a scientific career in the first place, as you mentioned.

Re:scientists aren't good at communicating

[going_the_2Rpi_way]

I'm not so sure this is valid any more (and maybe it never was). Generations of scientist are trained to communicate from the earliest parts of their training -- believe it or not, lots of emphasis is placed on this. What scientists are not good at are sound-bites that fit nicely in on shows like Crossfire or Lou Dobbs where the 'we were attacked!' or 'we're losing jobs' or 'NAFTA!' 10 second catchphrases that feel awfully good but don't stand up to scrutiny generally prevail. But that's ok, science isn't meant to be good at that. It's meant to be able to say 'we're not sure', 'this is our best available knowledge' and, oh yeah, 'our previous best theory was wrong in several respects'. The public isn't good at listening to tempered, well-balanced arguments. And when 'luminous minds' DO speak up -- say, a bunch of nobel laureates put together a one page ad against economic folly (remember that one?) or Jared Diamond writes a book titled 'Collapse' -- who listens? And more importantly, who listens enough to suffer short term financial hardship because those minds tell them they'll lose more in the long run.

Re:Par for the course

[Belial6]

I would say that a lot of comes from the fact that people who are supposed to be experts are routinely caught lying, and actual, real live conspiracies are regularly exposed with not even an apology. A perfect example is the whole Al Gore Fiasco. He flat out says that you can reduce your carbon output to 0. That would require you to stop breathing, and either complete the decomposition process, or die in a place where you will be permanently frozen. His entire movie was full of errors and contradictions. Yet, he won a Nobel Peace Prize for it, and it is held up as an authority on the subject. People who point out these errors are often called names, ridiculed, and in essence shouted down.

When people are lied to... badly by someone being held up as an 'expert', and then are shouted down for pointing out the obvious lie (error?), they are very quickly going to start questioning everyone that is held up as an 'expert'. I know that I hear 'experts' saying things that are clearly wrong on a regular basis.

You then have to add this tendency for 'experts' to be wrong/lie, with the fact that most people are raised to believe in the supernatural. Whether it is Santa Clause, the Easter Bunny, Jesus, Allah, or any other supernatural figure. Heck, their are entire countries that are ruled by the belief in the supernatural, and even in questionably secular countries like the US, there are more facilities for the study of the supernatural than their are schools.

So, to sum up... The reason you see what you are complaining about is because we are a nation of people who have been trained to believe in magic, and are regularly shown that being an 'expert' in no way indicates that what you are saying is true. What else could you expect?

Re:obvious != right

[kongit]

It would why? Grants don't just come on trees.

Pity so few will see this.

[Bo'Bob'O]

It's a pity so few will see this article. It reminds me of something I saw briefly on the discovery channel about discovering Atlantis or something. The point was brought up to the effect "We don't have a lot in the way of resources because the scientists are too afraid what we will find will shatter everything they believe." Now, I know that you can't take too much on TV seriously, even the so called educational channels, but this was downright absurd. Wouldn't any scientist with the slightest bit of passion about his work be -thrilled- to take part, or help a peer with work that would have that sort of impact? It's just sad to see the Discovery Channel airing these sorts of things that completly misrepresent what science is. It's not even the MythBusters sorts of shows that bother me, it's exactly these sort of underdog stories the author is talking about that I think does a huge amount of harm to the education of people watching. It's those sorts of shows that lead people so far astray on what science is that lets the "Intelligent Design" nonsense take
root.

Someone else summed it up much better, though:

But the fact that some geniuses were laughed at does not imply that all who are laughed at are geniuses. They laughed at Columbus, they laughed at Fulton, they laughed at the Wright brothers. But they also laughed at Bozo the Clown.
    - Carl Sagan "

Re:scientists aren't good at communicating

[Bowling Moses]

"the monklike state of existence of many scientists, to investigate and research in silence, and then the looking down disdainfully upon the common man and his mispercetions: this is part of the problem. this anti-populist attitude of many scientists is part of the problem. an arrogance, a classism, an us-versus-them way of looking at the world. it is the lack of communication efforts of scientists themselves that leads to the dangerous and stupid ideas many common people swallow in the first place"

That's quite the caricature. I've been employed as a scientist for going on a decade now, and your depiction of John/Jane Q. Scientist works for only a tiny minority of the people I've worked with. I've worked with a hippies, hipsters, single moms, Norman Rockwell-esque family types, religious people, nonreligious people, sports fanatics, geeks, barflies, rednecks, people of all different races, colors, creeds, nationalities, and in general a wide, wide slice of humanity. Maybe you ought to not paint a group of people with a wide brush until you've at least met one or two of them first.

Actually, there is way

[Moraelin]

"Question is, is there another way to tell the stories that isn't so formulaic and that doesn't give such an incorrect impression?"

Actually, there is a way: just stick to reporting, don't turn it into an entertaining story. We're talking science, FFS, not the Hero's Journey archetype. It's not about the everyman who discovers his calling and ends up single-handedly fighting the super-villain, it's about a more mundane process where basically they're all on the same side.

But science is boring for most people. There's really two kinds of stories that you can make out of it, that anyone outside that profession will read. (And those inside that profession already have the relevant peer-reviewed journals instead.)

A) It's a BREAKTHROUGH!!!

B) The Hero's Journey in disguise. The lone maverick who slays the dragon. (Except sometimes the climactic confrontation hasn't happened yet, so you're left to infer it.)

And unfortunately both end up used by the journos as ammo against the real science. TFA already thrashes B, so let's just say that bogus A is what PR carpet-bombs the media with.

So other than banning science completely from the non-peer-reviewed media, I can't see how that's solvable.

Or if you were merely asking if it's possible to make it entertaining without being a case of lone heroes versus tyrannical super-villains... well, maybe. But consider this: the current generation of storytellers can't even tell any story except the Hero's Journey. We could live without it very well until, IIRC, the 60's, but then all of a sudden everyone had to obey the monomyth to the letter. And if two movies are the same length, they have to have their first turning point in exactly the same minute.

So incidentally for whole classes of movies, once you figured out who's protagonist, who's antagonist, etc, you can know in advance what will happen... and in exactly what minute of the movie.

Unfortunately, ever since, that structure has been hammered into the heads of every single story teller or screenplay writer. There are course, workshops, and the knowledge that Hollywood will chuck your manuscript in the garbage bin if it doesn't fit the mold to the letter. Not many people still know how to write any other kinds of stories any more.

People will always be biased.

[rice_burners_suck]

I know this isn't specifically about scientific journalism, but I think it must be said. People will always be biased, no matter how much they claim to provide a balanced view. In the end, the writer has an opinion, and this will appear in the writing.

In some cases, the bias is deliberate. The news reporting that you receive on television and in the papers is the best example of materials that are biased. This is done in a rather sophisticated manner. Information isn't necessarily modified to favor one viewpoint over another; rather information is selectively omitted and other information is selectively made more prominent. Anybody who is involved in writing on a regular basis should be well aware that you can state exactly the same thing in different ways, each way favoring one viewpoint over another. This is precisely what takes place in the news reporting, and since its distribution is so widespread, it actually affects the thing upon which it reports. In this manner, the media actually has control over the outcome.

Why misrepresent the facts? For a simple reason that will become apparent very quickly: Take the so-called Mid East Peace Process for example. What peace process? Things blow up everywhere, and have been for decades, and there's a peace process going on? That's news to me! Stop and ask yourself why the problems of the middle east will never get solved, and why so much misinformation circulates about the problem. The answer is obvious: An endless middle east peace problem makes for an endless supply of news, bad news specifically, and good ratings. People tune in to hear about the latest thing that exploded, and watch the commercials in between.

The same logic applies to any sort of reporting, whether the issue is war, social security, illegal immigration, the legality of abortion, or any other issue that seems to perpetuate itself forever with no solution in sight. Once again, the outcome of the reporting causes the problem to perpetuate itself, which makes for job security and good future ratings.

Re:Biased journalism may lead to biased science

[Btarlinian]

I'm not a biologist, but it's painfully obvious why so much reporting is done about biology.
Specifically, one element of biology. Evolution.

I don't really think this is the case. The people who don't believe in evolution are unlikely to be reading science articles in their local newspaper to begin with. Besides, controversy about evolution usually isn't covered as part of scientific journalism. I still think that it has more to do with the fact that findings in biology are far easier to sensationalize because they have more to do with us. Whether its gay monkeys==gay people or "A new study shows that large does of vitamin L makes toucans thinner"=>people should eat vitamin L supplements, it's much easier to make biology sensational.

You can blame that on the press too

[Moraelin]

Well, ironically, a large part of that can be blamed on the press too. There's this whole bombardment of stories telling Joe Sixpack that science is a clique of self-appointed arse clowns. In no particular order:

1. The lone researcher vs the evil establisment stories, like in TFA. Invariably the establishment is evil, you know. Well, these stories are just ammo then for the quacks, who are invariably all too eager to present themselves as that oppressed underdog.

2. PR-sponsored and -wrote "breakthrough" stories, the sillier and more contradictory the better. "Chocolate is good for you! Cocoa beans have valuable enzymes!" (Yes, but they're no longer present in chocolate.) "Wine is even better!" "No it's not!" "Scientists prove: Beer is better than both!!!" Etc. If you can't distinguish those from real science, and Joe Sixpack can't, it looks like "science" is just a bunch of guys saying contradictory things and telling you one day that X is good, and the next that Y is bad. That what passes for bulletproof science one day, is disproved the next day, so you might as well ignore the whole clown posse.

3. Probably the most damaging: the fucked-up idea of journalistic impartiality. See, the idea is that impartiality means presenting two conflicting views as equals, without taking sides. So if you run a story about, say, why vaccines are good, you have to also find a quack or two to go, "no they're not!!! They cause autism!!! They kill your immune system!!! Buy our 100% natural and hollistic snake oil instead!!!" And present the two as equal. It's not that one of them is bogus, it's that it's a "controversy", see. Taking sides and telling people which one is backed by solid evidence, well, that would violate that impartiality.

This creates a false image of, well, everything being equal and equally unproved and dubious. Everything is a controversy. The Nobel prize winner in that corner of the ring is just about as likely to be right or wrong, as the quack with the fake diploma bought on the internet in the other corner. So you can take your own pick. If you want to believe the earth is flat, go ahead, even that is probably a controversy.

Worship of Ignorance

[hyades1]

A significant percentage of Americans have a deep, fundamental mistrust of intelligent people. Scientists learn early not to trust the media, who almost infallibly have to dumb down a complex subject to the point where even an idiot can grasp the bare essentials.

Inevitably, a line is crossed and the real science is distorted to the point of inaccuracy. And the idiot whose attention is being sought inevitably just asks his pastor what he should believe in any case. Where else in the world except the United States is the Theory of Relativity accepted without question, but evolution is "just a theory"?

As long as cracker barrel philosophers with a gift of gab and a few good one-liners are given more credibility than a terminally shy genius with a stutter, science journalism will remain a place where a few stars shine brightly over a vast sea of mediocrity and sensationalism.

By the way...I've worked as a science writer, so I'm not entirely ignorant on this subject.

Re:Actually, there is way

[Jens Egon]

So other than banning science completely from the non-peer-reviewed media, I can't see how that's solvable.

It would help if (more of) the peer reviewed media was accessible to the public.

Somebody has to pay, though.

Re:Rather obvious

[vux984]

However, there are those who are biased, and those who are biased and also throw all logic to the wind.

AND there are those who are biased, know they are biased, and do their best to present the other side of the story and choose neutral words...to help mitigate their bias and be as balanced as humanly possibly.

Re:Pity so few will see this.

[NewbieProgrammerMan]

Now looking at your example of Atlantis, just consider if an archaeologist actually found Atlantis, and it demonstrated that an incredibly advanced civilization existed 10,000 years ago.

Do you actually think any archaeologist wants to find something like that which would destroy all that the archaeological community knows about the beginnings of human civilization?

For starters, that's really amazing that you know so much about what goes on in the archaeological community, and even more about the private thoughts and motivations of archaeologists. You must know a whole lot of them, huh?

Anyway, on to my main point: OMFG are you high? Any archaeologist finding real evidence of something like that would see gigantic dollar signs and a chance at amazing fame. Even if they were the small-minded and self-centered idiots you paint them to be, I bet the money and fame that would come from such a discovery would still weigh more than the disruption of their precious communi-tah.

(Please forgive me for feeding the troll)

Re:scientists aren't good at communicating

[blahplusplus]

"Generations of scientist are trained to communicate from the earliest parts of their training - "

I would disagree. They are trained to communicate with other scientists, not to just anyone. So "communication" in this context is a vague term, what really needs to be done are studies on how to break down complex topics into vocabulary that people can understand to get the main principles and points across without alienating them. I find it quite curious that scientists have yet to learn from marketing and politics in making 'marketable' people and messages. There are scientists who study this to be sure, but there aren't that many actually communicating that way despite being part of the discpline.

Re:Science has always been biased

[Registered Coward v2]

Now I feel like you're being insulting. Individual scientists are human, we have our flaws and our blind-spots. Some of us have real agendas and a few are even downright dishonest. But as a group, we're contradictory, curious, and anti-authority. As a result, science is pretty good at self-correcting. A single scientist can lie to himself or even lie to others. But that always gets caught eventually because someone starts asking questions and we collectively have no vested interest in covering up lies.

I think one of the problems is few people ever meet, let alone work around, world class scientists. If they did they'd discover they are like world class athletes - the revel in competition, the battle of ideas in their case, and the give and take to prove that they are the best. Surprisingly, even those with diametrically opposed positions can remain close friends; just as professional athletes can compete fiercely in a game and still be great friends.

In the end, the best ideas win; even if it takes time.

(Any time you hear about scientists being involved in a massive conspiracy, like some anti-global warming fanatics will try to tell you, you can bet it's wrong. Any person who could prove evolution or GW conclusively incorrect would have just made a career and world-wide fame for herself.)


That's the problem with conspiracy theories - people want to believe them and so refuse to accept that those involved have a greater gain by revealing it and so would do so if the theory were true. Or, as one person put it, two people can keep a secret if one is dead.

Re:Rather obvious

[professionalfurryele]

Understanding the science within a publication is not the same as understanding the entire subject. Nor is the understanding a journalist needs the same as the understanding a specialist needs. However, with access to suitable experts, yes I think I could understand a single short paper in microbiology within a week. I doubt that I would be able to use that research to make an original contribution. I doubt I would know anything outside of the narrow confines of the very specific subfield in which that paper was published. I said putting together a good article would take about a month. I said understanding the material of the publication would take a trained scientist not within that field about a week. I didn't say how long understanding the wider impact of a study would require. At a guess, thats the bulk of the next two weeks right there, interviewing experts, reading more of the reference material, and getting more of the big picture (I've assumed that a 'science correspondant' at least knows about what the current big questions are in the major disciplines of science). To back up these claims I'm a physical scientist who does quite a bit of reading outside his own discipline.

Your next point reveals that you stopped reading after the paragraph you quoted, or that you didn't understand what you read. You make the exact point I do, except you call dumbing down and lowering to the common denominator "ensuring that a science article isn't as exciting as dry toast". You then suggest that editorial bias and compromising journalistic integrity are just a guy looking to get promoted.

I didn't say doing a science article properly would get lots of readers. I said it would take time, and that if it was done properly you would have less readers. Journalism is about more than just how many readers you can get.

Re:"experiment" with Global Warming?

[UbuntuDupe]

Perhaps you haven't heard of cosmology and WIMPs vs MACHOs? Seriously, though, people who tend to quickly polarize over Global Warming tend to do so because of the seemingly obvious ramifications of admitting whether Global Warming exists.

Actually, I think the problem is that the ramifications are not so obvious, anywhere beyond "we must do something". Here's what I mean:

Take the most adamant well-informed activist who believes: the globe is warming, humans are causing primarily via CO2 emissions, and this will lead to bad things.

Then, have him explain the problem (just the problem, not any proposed solutions) to a mainstream economist. Then, ask the economist what would be the most efficient solution would be that solves the problem. (And yes, economists are the most qualified to propose this, GIVEN a global utility curve and a well-supported scientific climatological model.)

If the activist favors implementing that solution, and only that solution, you would be right. In reality, that activist will want to do a bunch of things in addition to that solution, which all amount to micromanaging people's lives and otherwise pursuing social goals well beyond the implications of climate change.

This is why I don't take such activists seriously: "global warming" is simply the latest rationalization for implementing a range of social policies that they can't otherwise convince people to endorse.

Re:Rather obvious

[professionalfurryele]

Your short term thinking is highly detrimental. Sure, you might get one piece of information out to more readers with fear moungering, by distorting the facts and by sexing everything up, but in the end all you breed is distrust. Distrust in the media, distrust in politics, distrust in science, distrust in everything. While there is something to be said for the wisdom of enlightened cynicism, ignorant cynicism is completely undersirable.

Just look at what poor reporting has done to the medical sciences. If you look at the media now it seems everything causes cancer, everything is a panacea of health, doctors cant be trusted, drug companies are populated by demon spawn bent on the annihilation of mankind, holistic medicine will save us from asteriod impacts and faith healing can be scientifically proven to work.

If you are the means to an end sort and aren't bothered by bad journalism for bad journalisms sake ask yourself, is getting a little more information out right now that might help people is worth utterly distorting peoples view of the world?

Moreover, fewer readers doesn't mean no readers. You act as though it is totally necessary to completely distort the truth just to sell two copies of a magazine. Some journalists and publications, however few, manage to publish decent science (I grant you not excelent, not good enough, but better than most) and have a decent size readership. This is not an either or situation. It is about greed, not information dissemination.

In the end bad journalism breed distrust and social ill. All that it achieves is sales.

Re:obvious != right

[Pollardito]

i had always assumed they were made out of ivory soap. given the expected lifetime of a building made out of ivory soap in a climate that sees any sort of rainfall, i was never that worried about the phenomenon

Re:Of course ...

[Dan Ost]

There are relevant experts on both sides of the global warming debate.
As far as I can tell, there are only relevant experts on one side of the evolution debate.

Re:People will always be biased.

[dwye]

The answer is obvious: An endless middle east peace problem makes for an endless supply of news, bad news specifically, and good ratings.

So the Mid East conflict was invented and made difficult to solve to give reporters a job? Ord Wingate, maybe, but reporters? No chance that wars, social security, illegal immigration, etc might be difficult because they are difficult, given two groups that are convinced that they are right not because one group is deluded but because neither group accepts the other side's postulates in the argument?

not a good thinker

[epine]

I call it the 'oppressed underdog' narrative, and it would be great except for the fact that it's usually wrong.

With his keen eye for misleading narrative devices, you'd think he would have spotted the old canard "undefined denominator". Just how wide does one need to cast this net to obtain "usually"? Every crackpot later recruited by scientology? Every anti-establishment survivalist publishing in "Bullets and Butter"? Every #1 cure-for-everything they-won't-tell-you-about dietary infomercialist? Cast the net only into the fish ponds I was likely to believe in the first place, would the rhetoric still be "usually"? Nice little bit of evasive "dial a denominator" there. The rest of the paper continues to demonstrate his point from the basis step 1/1 (one out of one). Did you miss his induction step? It was that word "usually" in the lede paragraph.

This raises a question: being gay has obvious evolutionary fitness consequences - without modern medicine, you have to have heterosexual sex to have offspring.

This has never been obvious, though many people seem to wish it were. To begin with, for any population is it far from obvious how to define "optimal fertility". Less that the carrying capacity of their niche in the ecosystem? Less than the historic carrying capacity? Less than the projected carrying capacity? If homosexuality could be shown to lead to sustained population fertility below the "optimal" fertility rate for that population (if such a definition is even possible) you would also have to show that the basis for homosexual behaviour did not confer on the population any form of immunity to black swan events, under any hypothetical future condition.

We've all seen this definition of "obvious" play out with road ragers on busy highways. From the road rage perspective isn't it "obvious" that if I cut past that car ahead of me, I'll get there just a little bit sooner? Why is it I can still many of the cars that dangerously cut me off ten miles later, still struggling to gain every foot with the valiant effectiveness of trench combatants in WWI? When you actually study traffic flow on a highway, what you discover is that this kind of aggressively self-serving behaviour produces standing waves which reduce the net capacity of the highway as a whole. But still, somehow, it seems obvious to many that this driving strategy constitutes a good way to gain personal advantage.

Third, he's using *Darwin* here in an anecdote about over-reaching scientific orthodoxy undermined. Unbelievable. No, don't use Freud, Chomsky, Pauling, Schottky, or the Leaky family as an example of a scientist possibly prone to overreaching. No, use Darwin, Marie Curie, or Michael Farrady.