5 ms·

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 journali

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

wumpus 5y ago
Great choice of critic -- who has written many books about scientists commiting fraud because of their lust for grant money. Too bad his criticism comes from fantasy, instead of facts. And of course he's a climate change denier.
- vba616 5y ago
  >Too bad his criticism comes from fantasy, instead of facts. The quoted passage specifically says his area of expertise is show business. Do you know of misinformation that he endorses or spreads on that topic?
  - wumpus 5y ago
    His books all have a scientist doing evil because of their lust for grant money. "State of Fear" is a polemic against climate science. If all you read was the comment I responded to, then it's no surprise that you don't think I provided enough information to criticize his books. Read his books, then read my criticism.
    - neartheplain 5y ago
      >His books all have a scientist doing evil because of their lust for grant money. How unrealistic. Scientists like Peter Daszak and the EcoHealth Alliance would never do anything evil or untoward, such as using grant money to perform dangerous gain-of-function research on coronaviruses, demonstrably lying to the NIH about the scope of this research, and then misleading the public on the COVID-19 lab-origin theory while failing to disclose their financial and professional ties to the lab in question [0][1][2]. [0] https://theintercept.com/2021/09/23/coronavirus-research-grant-darpa/ https://theintercept.com/2021/09/23/coronavirus-research-gra... [1] https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2021/10/25/one-person-who-might-know-what-really-happened-wuhan/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2021/10/25/one-perso... [2] https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2021/09/lab-leak-pandemic-origins-even-messier/620209/ https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2021/09/lab-leak...
    - vba616 5y ago
      >it's no surprise that you don't think I provided enough information to criticize his books I didn't say that. My point is that your comment reinforces the point that is made by the much-quoted quote. He said he knows show business. Calling his writing on climate science crap is consistent with the quote. Can you see how your comment sounds paradoxical?
      - wumpus 5y ago
        No. It makes your comment seem a non-sequitor. Perhaps you could have worded it more clearly.
        vba616 5y ago
        The original comment you made, which was downvoted (but I upvoted it) conveyed to me an emotion of angry refutation. (Which I'm not judging, so don't start about tone policing) You seemed to be saying "don't pay attention to his quote because he's clueless about climate change", but the quote is about people who aren't, say, climate scientists, being gullible about the topic. It's a self-referential quote. If you refuted it, does that mean that non climate scientists can judge climate science? It seemed like an amusing paradox, and I guess I'm curious about your motivation.
        wumpus 5y ago
        My motivation is that I'm a scientist (before and after a long Silicon Valley career) who is annoyed by writers who write a bunch of novels where the villains are scientists corrupted by their lust for grant money. It's a trite complaint that is used in politics to claim 100% of scientists are biased, and plays a big role in the pushback against environmental and climate science. Thanks for the upvote.
  - BongoMcCat 5y ago
    Not op, but I think that the post that you replied to has a valid point. Sure, the quote in itself is great, but the post that you replied to is pointing out that the person who made that quote is himself doing the same thing as those journalists that he is criticizing.
- thetopher 5y ago
  I’ve read State of Fear, and I agree that Crichton isn’t a great source for scientific facts. But this quote isn’t really a criticism of science. It’s a criticism of journalism. I think most people here on HN agree with his premise regarding the quality of science journalism. I’m not so sure about his conclusion that all journalism should be treated with the same suspicion.
  - wumpus 5y ago
    The background of the critic matters, and that was what I was addressing.
    - megapolitics 5y ago
      It doesn’t actually, because the point stands on its own.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
neilwilson 5y ago
The Gell-Mann Amnesia effect.

wumpus 5y ago

Great choice of critic -- who has written many books about scientists commiting fraud because of their lust for grant money. Too bad his criticism comes from fantasy, instead of facts. And of course he's a climate change denier.

vba616 5y ago
>Too bad his criticism comes from fantasy, instead of facts. The quoted passage specifically says his area of expertise is show business. Do you know of misinformation that he endorses or spreads on that topic?
- wumpus 5y ago
  His books all have a scientist doing evil because of their lust for grant money. "State of Fear" is a polemic against climate science. If all you read was the comment I responded to, then it's no surprise that you don't think I provided enough information to criticize his books. Read his books, then read my criticism.
  - neartheplain 5y ago
    >His books all have a scientist doing evil because of their lust for grant money. How unrealistic. Scientists like Peter Daszak and the EcoHealth Alliance would never do anything evil or untoward, such as using grant money to perform dangerous gain-of-function research on coronaviruses, demonstrably lying to the NIH about the scope of this research, and then misleading the public on the COVID-19 lab-origin theory while failing to disclose their financial and professional ties to the lab in question [0][1][2]. [0] https://theintercept.com/2021/09/23/coronavirus-research-grant-darpa/ https://theintercept.com/2021/09/23/coronavirus-research-gra... [1] https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2021/10/25/one-person-who-might-know-what-really-happened-wuhan/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2021/10/25/one-perso... [2] https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2021/09/lab-leak-pandemic-origins-even-messier/620209/ https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2021/09/lab-leak...
  - vba616 5y ago
    >it's no surprise that you don't think I provided enough information to criticize his books I didn't say that. My point is that your comment reinforces the point that is made by the much-quoted quote. He said he knows show business. Calling his writing on climate science crap is consistent with the quote. Can you see how your comment sounds paradoxical?
    - wumpus 5y ago
      No. It makes your comment seem a non-sequitor. Perhaps you could have worded it more clearly.
      - vba616 5y ago
        The original comment you made, which was downvoted (but I upvoted it) conveyed to me an emotion of angry refutation. (Which I'm not judging, so don't start about tone policing) You seemed to be saying "don't pay attention to his quote because he's clueless about climate change", but the quote is about people who aren't, say, climate scientists, being gullible about the topic. It's a self-referential quote. If you refuted it, does that mean that non climate scientists can judge climate science? It seemed like an amusing paradox, and I guess I'm curious about your motivation.
        wumpus 5y ago
        My motivation is that I'm a scientist (before and after a long Silicon Valley career) who is annoyed by writers who write a bunch of novels where the villains are scientists corrupted by their lust for grant money. It's a trite complaint that is used in politics to claim 100% of scientists are biased, and plays a big role in the pushback against environmental and climate science. Thanks for the upvote.
- BongoMcCat 5y ago
  Not op, but I think that the post that you replied to has a valid point. Sure, the quote in itself is great, but the post that you replied to is pointing out that the person who made that quote is himself doing the same thing as those journalists that he is criticizing.
thetopher 5y ago
I’ve read State of Fear, and I agree that Crichton isn’t a great source for scientific facts. But this quote isn’t really a criticism of science. It’s a criticism of journalism. I think most people here on HN agree with his premise regarding the quality of science journalism. I’m not so sure about his conclusion that all journalism should be treated with the same suspicion.
- wumpus 5y ago
  The background of the critic matters, and that was what I was addressing.
  - megapolitics 5y ago
    It doesn’t actually, because the point stands on its own.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]

neilwilson 5y ago

The Gell-Mann Amnesia effect.