4 ms·

I get that it's hard. Often, I'll read a science article in a blog, or local newspaper, or general-interest magazine. I'll see something obviously incorrect, a

I get that it's hard. Often, I'll read a science article in a blog, or local newspaper, or general-interest magazine. I'll see something obviously incorrect, and say "well, it's not a science outlet, they can't be expected to know the science that well, and they're just explaining it to lay people anyway, so it's good enough. I'll double check this with a reliable science news source." But you'd think if anyone could get it right, and trust their readers to care about them getting it right, it would be Nature! If Nature is going to start going to lower their standards to go after clicks, I dunno what reliable source I'm supposed to double check things with.

all2 5y ago
There's a quote about this that I rather like > “Briefly stated, the Gell-Mann Amnesia effect is as follows. You open the newspaper to an article on some subject you know well. In Murray’s case, physics. In mine, show business. You read the article and see the journalist has absolutely no understanding of either the facts or the issues. Often, the article is so wrong it actually presents the story backward—reversing cause and effect. I call these the “wet streets cause rain” stories. Paper’s full of them. > In any case, you read with exasperation or amusement the multiple errors in a story, and then turn the page to national or international affairs, and read as if the rest of the newspaper was somehow more accurate about Palestine than the baloney you just read. You turn the page, and forget what you know.” – Michael Crichton (1942-2008) Pulled from https://www.epsilontheory.com/gell-mann-amnesia/ https://www.epsilontheory.com/gell-mann-amnesia/
TeMPOraL 5y ago
> If Nature is going to start going to lower their standards to go after clicks, I dunno what reliable source I'm supposed to double check things with. Reddit. I'm serious. If you search for the discussion about the news article on a right subreddit, or HN, or spelunk Twitter enough, there's a good chance you'll find a domain expert - sometimes even the paper's author themselves, or someone who works with them - explaining the science correctly and/or pointing out the bullshit in the press report. (I wonder if it wouldn't be more efficient if scientists were writing press releases themselves, and the journalists/PR people would be chasing grants for them instead. It seems like a better match for their individual skills anyway.)
- xnyan 5y ago
  >Reddit >I wonder if it wouldn't be more efficient if scientists were writing press releases themselves Agree, and I think everyone here has experienced the phenomenon where someone on reddit/HN/twitter has explained something far better than a media outlet. The thing to keep in mind when trying to understand this is that absolutely __everyone__ responds to incentives. With a news organization, no matter what that organization is or their goals, the chief incentive is readership, not accuracy or anything else. Not saying that the writers are anything other than well intentioned and honest or that they don't care deeply about the truth, but the reality of mortal existence is to maximize behaviors that you believe benefit you. A news org is benefited by people reading what they say, not by being right. Reddit/twitter/HN often is a better source of truth because people often post because they have a desire to be heard, be understood, share information, tell the truth or some other reason that does not involve selling ads against you reading what they say.
  - ceejayoz 5y ago
    > Agree, and I think everyone here has experienced the phenomenon where someone on reddit/HN/twitter has explained something far better than a media outlet. I've experienced the opposite, though, too. Posts with thousands upon thousands of upvotes and a little comment with a dozen saying "this is entirely wrong, and here's a bunch of proof, and here's an expert explaining it properly".
    - prox 5y ago
      r/Askscience is pretty good though more often than not. It depends a lot on which sub you are in.
    - TeMPOraL 5y ago
      That's not really the opposite. That comment with the correction is a part of the submission that's being upvoted. I do this myself, too: if the discussion underneath a HN submission rescues an otherwise bad article, or even develops into a completely unrelated but interesting tangent, I'll happily upvote it. Sometimes the only value of the submitted article is in the discussion it starts - but that still makes the particular submission valuable.
SilasX 5y ago
To borrow from Bojack Horseman: “See, we can’t be expected to convey complex stuff like this accurately. We’re just not that good at parsing the subtleties of advanced science…” ‘Aren’t y’all the premiere science journal?’
crazydoggers 5y ago
Nature did get it right. The grandparent comment is incorrect. See my other comment.

all2 5y ago

There's a quote about this that I rather like > “Briefly stated, the Gell-Mann Amnesia effect is as follows. You open the newspaper to an article on some subject you know well. In Murray’s case, physics. In mine, show business. You read the article and see the journalist has absolutely no understanding of either the facts or the issues. Often, the article is so wrong it actually presents the story backward—reversing cause and effect. I call these the “wet streets cause rain” stories. Paper’s full of them. > In any case, you read with exasperation or amusement the multiple errors in a story, and then turn the page to national or international affairs, and read as if the rest of the newspaper was somehow more accurate about Palestine than the baloney you just read. You turn the page, and forget what you know.” – Michael Crichton (1942-2008) Pulled from https://www.epsilontheory.com/gell-mann-amnesia/ https://www.epsilontheory.com/gell-mann-amnesia/

TeMPOraL 5y ago

> If Nature is going to start going to lower their standards to go after clicks, I dunno what reliable source I'm supposed to double check things with. Reddit. I'm serious. If you search for the discussion about the news article on a right subreddit, or HN, or spelunk Twitter enough, there's a good chance you'll find a domain expert - sometimes even the paper's author themselves, or someone who works with them - explaining the science correctly and/or pointing out the bullshit in the press report. (I wonder if it wouldn't be more efficient if scientists were writing press releases themselves, and the journalists/PR people would be chasing grants for them instead. It seems like a better match for their individual skills anyway.)

xnyan 5y ago
>Reddit >I wonder if it wouldn't be more efficient if scientists were writing press releases themselves Agree, and I think everyone here has experienced the phenomenon where someone on reddit/HN/twitter has explained something far better than a media outlet. The thing to keep in mind when trying to understand this is that absolutely __everyone__ responds to incentives. With a news organization, no matter what that organization is or their goals, the chief incentive is readership, not accuracy or anything else. Not saying that the writers are anything other than well intentioned and honest or that they don't care deeply about the truth, but the reality of mortal existence is to maximize behaviors that you believe benefit you. A news org is benefited by people reading what they say, not by being right. Reddit/twitter/HN often is a better source of truth because people often post because they have a desire to be heard, be understood, share information, tell the truth or some other reason that does not involve selling ads against you reading what they say.
- ceejayoz 5y ago
  > Agree, and I think everyone here has experienced the phenomenon where someone on reddit/HN/twitter has explained something far better than a media outlet. I've experienced the opposite, though, too. Posts with thousands upon thousands of upvotes and a little comment with a dozen saying "this is entirely wrong, and here's a bunch of proof, and here's an expert explaining it properly".
  - prox 5y ago
    r/Askscience is pretty good though more often than not. It depends a lot on which sub you are in.
  - TeMPOraL 5y ago
    That's not really the opposite. That comment with the correction is a part of the submission that's being upvoted. I do this myself, too: if the discussion underneath a HN submission rescues an otherwise bad article, or even develops into a completely unrelated but interesting tangent, I'll happily upvote it. Sometimes the only value of the submitted article is in the discussion it starts - but that still makes the particular submission valuable.

SilasX 5y ago

To borrow from Bojack Horseman: “See, we can’t be expected to convey complex stuff like this accurately. We’re just not that good at parsing the subtleties of advanced science…” ‘Aren’t y’all the premiere science journal?’

crazydoggers 5y ago

Nature did get it right. The grandparent comment is incorrect. See my other comment.