October 31, 2007
How Science Works
I feel a bit weird saying this, but read Dilbert.
October 31, 2007 | Permalink
That's how science journalism works, not science.
Posted by: wisewon | Oct 31, 2007 3:52:10 PM
The same Dilbert written by Scott Adams, the ID proponent?
Posted by: Cain | Oct 31, 2007 4:08:52 PM
A bit OT, more about "How polls work":
Rawstory reports, a Zogby poll found 52% of Americans are for striking Iran:
But this site who gathers polls on this topic doesn't have a single example showing a support anywhere near 52%:
Hmm, anybody here having an explanation for this? What happened in the last two weeks? Or is anything wrong with the last poll?
Posted by: Gray | Oct 31, 2007 4:25:38 PM
shouldn't read "How journalism works..."
Posted by: George | Oct 31, 2007 5:50:28 PM
Wisewon is exactly correct.
As a scientist, I actually found the post title a little offensive, both because of the point Wisewon raises and because Scott Adams is famously anti-science (read Pharyngula on the subject of Scott Adams, for example).
You could find three embittered and unsuccessful anythings and have a fair chance of getting them to betray everything their profession holds dear in return for promises of monetary reward. It's telling that Adams chose to target scientists, who as a community are notably more hostile to dishonesty than, say, business. Or journalism.
Posted by: Warren Terra | Oct 31, 2007 6:29:23 PM
It's how science journamalism works. There actually is good science journalism out there, as well as good science.
The problem really is, most people have only the vaguest idea of the scientific method, one that is usually confounded with some seriously wrong specific perceptions, and it does no one any good when science "journalism" devolves into the horse-race paradigm that so much other "journalism" follows.
Competitive viewpoints are a very useful means in science, but they are very definitely not dispositive.
Posted by: bleh | Oct 31, 2007 6:35:14 PM
There is no science in Evolution. All evolutionist once pressed will ultimately explain macro evolution in intelligent design terms, its inevitable.
Every macro-evolution bold statement that supposedly 'proved' the theory have been proven wrong, from vestigal organs to the Coelacanth.
Sorry. And don't start with the nutso Bible beliving crap. I don't believe the Bible story either.
Posted by: Patton | Nov 1, 2007 4:50:24 AM
Hey, P., we already missed your funny stupidity! Were have you been recently?
Posted by: Gray | Nov 1, 2007 5:07:08 AM
Thank the FSM Patton is here to set all evolutionist straight! I wonder who all those people I know that feel no need to fall back on 'intelligent design' are, now that I've been informed that they can't be evolutionist.
And let's not even get started with the assertion that there is no science of evolution ...
Posted by: Warren Terra | Nov 1, 2007 6:02:51 AM
I thought that cartoon was very funny....although I think the above are right when they point out that it's how a specific sort of political (not science) journalism works, not science itself.
And I say that as one who has been accused of such partisanship before now.....
Posted by: Tim Worstall | Nov 1, 2007 7:54:38 AM
Well, that's how science reporting works anyway.
Posted by: TW Andrews | Nov 1, 2007 9:50:33 AM
I think Ezra's title was meant as snark. I think he knows that this isn't really how science works.
And I'm starting to think Patton is a spoof.
Posted by: Johnny Pez | Nov 1, 2007 6:22:54 PM
The comments to this entry are closed.