Comments on: Why the media screws up science

By: Nicholas

Nicholas — Thu, 23 Jun 2011 08:35:13 +0000

Lol you let me off with that one, here goes number 2. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9SI3A3qICGU&feature=player_embedded#at=265 But maybe blindly ignorant as my teeth are good.

By: Nicholas

Nicholas — Tue, 21 Jun 2011 21:36:43 +0000

Wow reminds me of creating my dissertation . Don’t worry I’m not moving into academia. But sometimes even with peer reviewed article, especially in psychology it is more than worth following the paper trail. And then forget all the words and keep the data. Then brush up on your maths. And you might actually help the subject out a bit. But yes this behaviour is much greater in the media, and fortunately much rarer in science… Except maybe when it concerns securing patent rights for cures, funny game.

By: Daniel

Daniel — Tue, 21 Jun 2011 15:34:04 +0000

It still gets the point across.
The point being, “criticize that shit”.

Which is more than enough in my opinion.

By: The Dude

The Dude — Tue, 21 Jun 2011 08:10:50 +0000

linzi catt:

Isn’t that the real point of this story? No-one alive has ever seen God, Talked to God, know anyone who has. There is no way we can verify it yet so many mug’s believe it.

There is just one source – the bible – written by man 100′s of years after Jesus was supposed to be around (New Testament)

By: alan

alan — Tue, 21 Jun 2011 08:06:53 +0000

You use the phrase “Hitting The Books”, like drawing a gun. As if a book could ever be a guaranteed source of infallible information. (See religion, for further details on where that approach can lead). If I deliberately introduce an error into a scientific work, would those who read it automatically detect it? Have there never been unintentional errors in scientific works? Do two scientists encountering the same data in such tomes, ever disagree on its meaning? How could that possibly be? Since facts is facts, n’est par? If you do not appreciate the implications of the above, and much much more besides, then I hope you won’t mind me calling you Cliff. After that precipice you seem intent on stepping off. For being a skeptic is one thing. Being a selective skeptic is something different.

By: Marc

Marc — Mon, 20 Jun 2011 14:17:20 +0000

Just one observation: at 3:27 the article is displayed. The date it is published is 1st April 2011. April Fool’s Day. Could this be the explanation for this very dramatic hypothesis?

By: Bramkaandorp

Bramkaandorp — Mon, 20 Jun 2011 12:33:44 +0000

A great video from a great video maker. I especially like his “Golden Crocoduck Award”.

Many programs on TV would be infinitely more interesting if people would just look at the facts, in sread of spreading the same old tired ” fun facts”, which are usually neither fun nor particular fact.

By: linzi catt

linzi catt — Mon, 20 Jun 2011 12:17:18 +0000

Hi Derren.Thoroughly interesting piece, i really enjoyed it. Although i’m compelled to write the following…Is this not how the Bible came about…??? The only obvious problem is there is no way of checking…………….

By: EmC_98

EmC_98 — Mon, 20 Jun 2011 12:11:33 +0000

People really fail at this kind of thing.