3 ms·

A journalist conducting a review on a consumer product is a scientist. And a scientist is supposed to set out to test theories, not prove them. Any journalist

A journalist conducting a review on a consumer product is a scientist. And a scientist is supposed to set out to test theories, not prove them. Any journalist that falls short of this standard, even if it's because of honest mistakes, should not be allowed to conduct reviews.

lutusp 14y ago
> A journalist conducting a review on a consumer product is a scientist. I think what you're trying to say is that a journalist is supposed to be objective. > And a scientist is supposed to set out to test theories, not prove them. A scientist cannot prove a theory true, but he might prove one false. Remember philosopher David Hume's famous remark about this: "No amount of observations of white swans can allow the inference that all swans are white, but the observation of a single black swan is sufficient to refute that conclusion." So even a completely objective journalist, with no axe to grind, might discover that a claim is false. > Any journalist that falls short of this standard, even if it's because of honest mistakes, should not be allowed to conduct reviews. Perhaps in an ideal world. It turns out that Broder has a long history of bias in his reporting, and a rather favorable view of the oil industry and of conventional vehicles over electric ones. Notwithstanding those facts and this episode, I doubt his career is over.
- loup-vaillant 14y ago
  We broadly agree. Science is more than "being objective". My "test" vs "prove" business was about devising tests that you expect would be most informative, not just accepting the results. For instance, I could test if an apple really falls when I drop it. But I'm know it will, and I'm quite certain I will learn nothing from such a test. Therefore, I won't perform it in the first place. I reckon objectivity is a good start, though. Also, I did say that a biased journalist should not be allowed to conduct reviews. That indeed prove we don't live in an ideal world. Unless you made a deeper point, and asserted that such journalists actually should be able to operate precisely because of non-ideal aspects of our world?

lutusp 14y ago

> A journalist conducting a review on a consumer product is a scientist. I think what you're trying to say is that a journalist is supposed to be objective. > And a scientist is supposed to set out to test theories, not prove them. A scientist cannot prove a theory true, but he might prove one false. Remember philosopher David Hume's famous remark about this: "No amount of observations of white swans can allow the inference that all swans are white, but the observation of a single black swan is sufficient to refute that conclusion." So even a completely objective journalist, with no axe to grind, might discover that a claim is false. > Any journalist that falls short of this standard, even if it's because of honest mistakes, should not be allowed to conduct reviews. Perhaps in an ideal world. It turns out that Broder has a long history of bias in his reporting, and a rather favorable view of the oil industry and of conventional vehicles over electric ones. Notwithstanding those facts and this episode, I doubt his career is over.

loup-vaillant 14y ago
We broadly agree. Science is more than "being objective". My "test" vs "prove" business was about devising tests that you expect would be most informative, not just accepting the results. For instance, I could test if an apple really falls when I drop it. But I'm know it will, and I'm quite certain I will learn nothing from such a test. Therefore, I won't perform it in the first place. I reckon objectivity is a good start, though. Also, I did say that a biased journalist should not be allowed to conduct reviews. That indeed prove we don't live in an ideal world. Unless you made a deeper point, and asserted that such journalists actually should be able to operate precisely because of non-ideal aspects of our world?