PF'ers Against Bad Science In Journalism

  • Thread starter Thread starter Rach3
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Science
Click For Summary
The discussion centers on the theme of lazy journalism, particularly how reputable news sources misrepresent scientific concepts, leading to public misinformation and fear. Participants share examples of articles that fail to accurately convey scientific facts, such as conflating radioactive materials with nuclear weapons capabilities, which can create unnecessary panic among readers. There is criticism of the lack of rigorous research and fact-checking by journalists, as well as the tendency to use ambiguous metaphors and sensational language that misleads the audience. The conversation also touches on broader issues of journalistic integrity, the challenges of reporting on science without a strong background in the field, and the implications of such reporting on public understanding of critical issues like climate change and health risks. Overall, the thread highlights the importance of accurate science communication and the detrimental effects of sensationalism in the media.
  • #31
Hey! I just spent $75 on my last tube of nanotech toothpaste and $155 on my nanoengineered shampoo. Don't go about knocking nanoscience like that! I might take it personally.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #32
Rach3 said:
Wow, a billion tons! What an unimaginably large astrophysical number... comparable to our annual production of iron ore.
We used to refer to astronomically huge numbers as "sagans", in honor of Carl Sagan's Cosmos TV series. I haven't heard the term used that way in more than a decade, though.

(The Hubble radius expressed in angstroms is a super-saganal. We had to draw the line somewhere.)
 
  • #33
Rach3 said:
And it's hard for people with strong science backgrounds to give up a life of research to type articles and write essays. Besides, it's not like anyone bothers reading these things.

Then why have you dedicated an entire thread to complaining about it?
 
  • #34
Rach3 said:
Let me emphasize that again - the "INSECTicide, FUNGIcide, and "RODENTicide" act is being applied to washing machines. Which as everyone knows are machines used to wash the voles out of t-shirts.

:smile: Hey, I have a major problem with voles getting in my shirts. :rolleyes: Oh, wait, that's holes. :biggrin:

Though, a washing machine probably does count as a pesticide too. They do a good job of killing the insects and rodents...by drowning them! :smile:
 
Last edited:
  • #35
The only articles that bug me are the ones that don't compare risks to more common things you see every day. The point of the article is to cause fear rather than put things into perspective.

For example, articles sometimes pop up with things about how bad benzene is and why kids should not be exposed to anything aromatic in a chemistry lab. What people don't realize is that you'll probably inhale more benzene in your life simply by pumping gas than you will by using it in some lab. Of course minimizing exposure is a good idea, but let's not freak out and see a doctor after we accidentally spill some benzene on the counter top. Naphthalene is another aromatic that people are exposed to; mothballs are basically pure naphthalene.

The cancer craze seems a bit strange too. Everybody tries to relate everything to cancer, but it doesn't seem accurate when so many things contribute to cancer. If you do a study and find that TV causes a 5% higher risk of cancer, that's probably still within the margins of error because everything contributes to cancer. Are all the subjects the same age, weight, height, gender, race, and do they all have the same job? Do they eat the same amount of food?
 
  • #36
This stuff is sad also:

DNA's simple and elegant structure - the "twisted ladder," with sugar-phosphate chains making up the "rails" and oxygen- and nitrogen-containing chemical "rungs" tenuously uniting the two halves - seems to be the work of an accomplished sculptor.

Yet the graceful, sinuous profile of the DNA double helix is the result of random chemical reactions in a simmering, primordial stew. Just how nature arrived at this molecule and its sister molecule, RNA, remains one of the greatest - and potentially unsolvable - scientific mysteries.
http://www.physorg.com/news79110174.html
 
  • #37
DNA sounds delicious and sturdy enough to get me on my roof :biggrin:
 
  • #38
ShawnD said:
DNA sounds delicious and sturdy enough to get me on my roof :biggrin:

If you were a musician and could find a couple other musicians, preferably whose names started with 'N' and 'A', you could start a new band called Twisted Ladder.
 
  • #39
  • #41
Another one!

Ex-KGB Spy Contact Arrested Amid Nuke Probe
http://www.foxnews.com/ (front page, linking to the article http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,238629,00.html )

Hehe, there's the word "Nuke". As we know, Litvinenko died in the hands of nuclear weapons.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #42
So, the arrest didn't happen in a neutron diffraction or NMR lab?
 
  • #43
Gokul43201 said:
So, the arrest didn't happen in a neutron diffraction or NMR lab?

:smile: :smile: :smile: :smile: :smile:

"amid nuke probe"
 
  • #44
Ex-KGB Spy Contact Arrested Amid Nuke Probe

He was smuggling microwave ovens.
 
  • #45
This one caught my eye today

Manned mission to moon in 8 yrs: Govt
http://www.ibnlive.com/news/manned-mission-to-moon-in-8-yrs-govt/40086-11.html

Really? An Indian moon mission in the next eight years? That sounds unbelievable

Minister of State in the Prime Minister's Office Prithviraj Chavan on Wednesday informed the Lok Sabha that India will send the first man to space in the next eight years, if all goes well.

Oh, wait a minute, you mean space. There's a lot more in space than the moon, you know :rolleyes:
 
  • #46
This one isn't funny, but I'm pretty sure it is wrong. This is one the Discovery Channel's website:
"The fundamental forces of nature emerged in that first second, the strongest of which was gravity. "
I was under the impression that gravity is the weakest of the fundamental forces by quite a bit.
 
  • #47
The dog is back. All hail the mighty dog. :biggrin:

Where the heck have you been?
 
  • #48
Hey trib, welcome back - again!

And yeah - where ya' been?

All hail the mighty dog.
Let's not get carried away now. :biggrin:
 
  • #49
I've been stuck with dial up internet for the past couple months and just didn't bother getting online much. Now I'm back to high speed and will probably be here more often.
 
  • #50
We used to refer to astronomically huge numbers as "sagans", in honor of Carl Sagan's Cosmos TV series. I haven't heard the term used that way in more than a decade, though.

Indeed, there are 100 billion stars in the galaxy...that's less than the national deficit! We should stop calling them astronomical numbers, and start calling the economical numbers. (R.P. Feynman)
 
  • #51
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19094136/?GT1=10056

Not too egregious, but "prism of light"?

Followed hard upon by this over-condensation:
Because light is "redshifted" to longer wavelengths as an
object moves away from an observer, the higher the redshift,
the further away the object is.
 
  • #52
BTW, in case people haven't notice this, Bob Crease has been collecting all of these "Science Bloopers" in the media and various entertainment sources. His Part II of Science Bloopers has just appeared.

http://physicsweb.org/articles/world/20/6/3/1

Zz.
 

Similar threads

Why do so many people hate science?
  • · Replies 28 ·
Replies
28
Views
11K
Intro Physics Bad pop science books ("Galileo's Finger") vs. good?
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
3K