4 ms·
This article managed to hit two classic science journalism cliches in just the first few paragraphs. (1) “Someone hypothesizing a very dramatic theory with wea
by jessriedel 2y ago
This article managed to hit two classic science journalism cliches in just the first few paragraphs.
(1) “Someone hypothesizing a very dramatic theory with weak evidence was considered wrong by most colleagues but later vindicated when strong evidence emerged”. (No mention of thousands of other dramatic hypotheses that turned out wrong.)
(2) “You may have heard in unsophisticated popularization that [philosophical claim ultimately hinging on semantic distinction] was false, but really it’s true [assuming my preferred semantics]”.
Aren't we all tired of this yet? Aren’t science journalists embarrassed by this stuff?
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- asveikau 2y agoFor #1, I disagree with how you assess this. Firstly, the one who makes the logical fallacy inference that this implies all or most dramatic hypotheses are true is ... You. Not the author of the article. The author of the article is only talking about one specific theory. If I tell you a story about a chicken crossing the road, I'm not obligated to tell you about all the chickens who don't cross any roads. Second, there are plenty of examples of established theories that started this way, and so it is important that scientists consider controversial hypotheses with an open mind. Speaking in any context, it's very easy to dismiss evidence that contradicts your views prematurely. It's sort of a defense mechanism we all do. It's important to recognize such a bias and be willing to acknowledge where your own theory could fall short when you see it.
- jessriedel 2y agoMy point isn’t that these can’t be interpreted correctly, it’s that these framings teach us nothing new because they have been repeated a thousand million times and this article does not attempt to go beyond the superficial cliche.
- liyamchitayat 2y agoHi! for point 2# I had many debates about this with Prof. that are cell biologists, and if you google "Are mitochondria alive," the answer Gemini will give you is no. This is very controversial in my academic circles, but I appreciate your thoughts!
- jessriedel 2y agoMy point is that it’s largely a semantics dispute, not a scientific one.
- andai 2y ago>No mention of thousands of other dramatic hypotheses that turned out wrong. In other news, Local Man Didn't Win Lottery
- Mali- 2y agoPerfectly put