piz

Bad, Bad Science Writing

7 posts in this topic

In this article at The Telegraph, a geneticist writes about cosmology in terms of economics (or about economics in terms of cosmology - it's not clear which). There is no mention of genetics, and both the cosmology and economics are terrible.

Unfortunately, over the past six months or so this has become the typical quality of science articles at The Telegraph. I have been using it as my primary online source for general science reporting, but I now need a new one. Any suggestions?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
In this article at The Telegraph, a geneticist writes about cosmology in terms of economics (or about economics in terms of cosmology - it's not clear which). There is no mention of genetics, and both the cosmology and economics are terrible.

Unfortunately, over the past six months or so this has become the typical quality of science articles at The Telegraph. I have been using it as my primary online source for general science reporting, but I now need a new one. Any suggestions?

Science is currently experiencing a violent death.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Science is currently experiencing a violent death.

Science is not dead or dying. What you see is increasing numbers of people practicing and promoting all kinds of things no better than numerology, alchemy, nature worship and general demagoguery in the name of science (while feeding off government money). As long as honest people continue to engage in science anywhere science will not be dead. The intellectually corrupt will always try to hijack the reputation of science for their own purposes, but only succeed in destroying reputation, not science itself. Only scientists can do that, by no longer practicing it until no one who can is left.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Science is currently experiencing a violent death.

Science is not dead or dying. What you see is increasing numbers of people practicing and promoting all kinds of things no better than numerology, alchemy, nature worship and general demagoguery in the name of science (while feeding off government money). As long as honest people continue to engage in science anywhere science will not be dead. The intellectually corrupt will always try to hijack the reputation of science for their own purposes, but only succeed in destroying reputation, not science itself. Only scientists can do that, by no longer practicing it until no one who can is left.

I would ponder the question of whether science is dying, but I'm too busy relaying wireless encoded signals at the speed of light from my macbook pro to a linux computer station in the basement of a building 3 miles away remotely running computational chemistry calculations using software that can accurately predict the optical, electrical, chemical, magnetic, and physical properties of molecules before they have ever even been synthesized in a laboratory...

When I find the time, I'll think about whether science is dying.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
In this article at The Telegraph, a geneticist writes about cosmology in terms of economics (or about economics in terms of cosmology - it's not clear which). There is no mention of genetics, and both the cosmology and economics are terrible.

Unfortunately, over the past six months or so this has become the typical quality of science articles at The Telegraph. I have been using it as my primary online source for general science reporting, but I now need a new one. Any suggestions?

The elite, hyper-abstract realms of thought in academia have been inundated by bad philosophy, and (no surprise) there's a lot of rationalist garbage coming from some people, whether it be economists or cosmologists or climatologists.

Let the steady progression of (real) science and technology assure that those who matter are still thinking straight and still changing the world, even as they live in it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I would ponder the question of whether science is dying, but I'm too busy relaying wireless encoded signals at the speed of light from my macbook pro to a linux computer station in the basement of a building 3 miles away remotely running computational chemistry calculations using software that can accurately predict the optical, electrical, chemical, magnetic, and physical properties of molecules before they have ever even been synthesized in a laboratory...

When I find the time, I'll think about whether science is dying.

:D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites