3 ms·
No, we don't need more ugliness in the world to point out ugliness. Let them spend their time and effort by shaming those who mislead, or gently correct bad int
by sriram_malhar 4y ago
No, we don't need more ugliness in the world to point out ugliness. Let them spend their time and effort by shaming those who mislead, or gently correct bad interpretations of science, as the case may be. Those who are lazy or mislead must pay a price in society, through social and financial disincentives. Otherwise we have the Alex Jones and Tucker Carlson and the dictatorial politicians of the world run riot.
- thrown_22 4y agoThat's what they did. If you're a science journalist and you can't tell a science paper like this is bullshit in in less than 15 minutes you should be fired. Of course you never will be because the point of news isn't to inform but to get you to watch adds.
- sriram_malhar 4y agoThen the scientists should spend their time naming and shaming other articles that those very journalists and papers have written, not contribute more bilge that others have to factcheck. This is not equivalent to ethical white hacking. We need more people like Ben Goldacre ("Bad Science").
- dnissley 4y agoBad Science was published in 2008. Whatever strategy it advocated has clearly failed to gain traction, as the problem is even worse than when it was published. Might be time to be open to some other, more bombastic, strategies. You seem to be saying the ends did not justify the means in this case -- I'm not so sure of that. We're living in a world where some of the most educated people among us put signs in their front yard that say "in this house we believe... science is real". Yikes!