There Must Be a Reason…
Aug 24 at 6:06pm by Aileen
Why do people believe lies after being told the truth?
Sociologists from four major research institutions have published a study in the journal Sociological Inquiry examining how we support our false beliefs. They examined the false belief of many voters during the 2004 general election, which held that Iraq’s Saddam Hussein was responsible for the primarily Saudi-conducted attacks on September 11, 2001.
The researchers concluded that the false beliefs were not caused by lies told repeatedly by the Bush Administration and some cable news channels, but by the individuals’ own personal need to justify a war that was already being waged. They named their study “There Must Be a Reason: Osama, Saddam and Inferred Justification,” and claim that their findings offer serious challenge to democracy – in that the people cannot be trusted to discern truth from falsehood.
Now, while it is a trivial observation that people tend to believe what they want to believe, and that they will seek out information sources that support and/or confirm their already-held beliefs, this blogger is not convinced that these sociologists should have so pointedly ignored the fact that it was the Bush-Cheney administration that invented the lies, started the war, and was backed up in that false propaganda effort by the mainstream broadcast and cable news media establishments. Seems like giving political liars and media propagandists a free pass on misleading the public does serious damage to the conclusions of the supposedly scientific study itself.
Popularity: 46% [?]
ScienceDebate2008 Update
Apr 8 at 3:03pm by Aileen
The team at ScienceDebate2008 reports that this cycle’s Presidential candidates have declined to engage in a debate on science policy issues on April 18th in Philadelphia. While not surprising – these are professional politicians trying to sell themselves to a largely science-illiterate public – the importance of staging such a debate with national media coverage has not diminished in the least.
The next target will focus on the Oregon primary venue in May. For the effort ScienceDebate2008 has forged a working relationship with PBS’s NOVA science series and NOW on PBS weekly news program for cosponsorship. NOW host David Brancaccio will moderate, supported by a panel of internationally recognized scientists everyone can agree upon. Three possible dates have been proposed to the campaigns.
Because science is so important to our society and to the livability of our abused planet, it is hoped that the candidates will agree to debate the science issues on one of the possible dates. Again, due to personal ignorance of many of the issues, each candidate should be allowed to bring their primary on-staff science advisor and be able to consult that advisor about details. Simply reading position statements drafted by their campaigns should not be considered sufficient grasp of the issues for the next leader of the free world.
If you would support the effort you can contact the candidates’ campaigns in favor of the initiative. Letters to the editor of local and regional newspapers can also help drum up public interest. And you can contact the debate team from the initiative’s website at ScienceDebate2008.
Popularity: 11% [?]
Science Press: Confusing the Issues and Frames?
Jan 21 at 3:03pm by Aileen
I have discussed previously some of the issues with science press reporting that often seem designed to confuse the science laity (non-specialists in a given field) as well as the general public (non-scientists). Not that there aren’t many topics under the ‘Science’ header that are difficult to present in an easily understood format, or that there aren’t topics that harbor a good deal of conflicting ideas within science itself.
But since this blog is an attempt to present science news in an understandable way to the general public, now is a good time to revisit the issue of confusing science reporting, because a seriously confusing science news article has hit the reporting sources and engendered some confused arguments on both sides of an in-house controversy about evolution.
Popularity: 4% [?]
A Candidate Debate on Science and Technology?
Dec 18 at 6:06pm by Aileen
They’re calling it Science Debate 2008. It’s a grassroots initiative to petition for a Presidential candidates forum specifically about issues of science and technology. The list of science bloggers in the Blogger Coalition is impressive, and represents almost all of Seed Media Group’s ScienceBlogs stable. The list of initial signers includes Nobel Prize laureates, academics, corporate CEOs, congresscritters, political science policy advisors, journal editors and regulatory agency veterans.
I heard about the initiative from Steven “DarkSyde” Andrew’s front page post announcing it over on Daily Kos on December 10th. He called for bipartisan and independent science bloggers to sign up, so I emailed the group through their form and offered my support. I didn’t get a reply and I’m not listed as a supporter, but I’m going to talk about it anyway.
Popularity: 15% [?]
Who’s Responsible for Irresponsible Science News?
Sep 19 at 7:07pm by Aileen
The New York Times published an article last weekend about how science news is reported, entitled Do We Really Know What Makes Us Healthy? It’s a lengthy examination of the sometimes sensationalist nature of press releases from research labs indicating that this or that supplement or dietary choice or treatment is supposed to cure what ails us, make us live healthier lives, and maybe even prevent the ravages of time and disease.
We’re all too familiar with how that so often turns out. The linkage that author Gary Taubes cites in the article is the infamous Hormone Replacement Therapy [HRT] doctors once recommended to all women of menopausal and post-menopausal age to prevent bone loss and heart disease. It was the magic cure-all against the consequences of getting old, and by 2001 at least 15 million women were filling HRT prescriptions annually.
Popularity: 6% [?]
RECENT COMMENTS