11–20 of 22 posts
Every academic scientist I know says that grant funding favors sensationalized, spectacular sounding results, and journalists know that carefully reported, nuanced stories don’t get clicks or move ad inventory. The current economic incentives of both endeavors feed less than ideal outcomes in both.
[flagged]
this reads like compulsive, preemptively obedient penance for pretty petty reasons. first of all the idea of cmns as a www is not falsified and still holds as a hypothesis. the only problem is that it's not proven and confidence of its existence has been blown a little out of proportion. but what's this fuss about romanticizing and anthropomorphizing nature? i mean so what? this article reads almost like people are d…
That would require the journalists to be able to evaluate a research study. Most journalists aren't equipped to do that, because they're not scientists. I get the impression that a lot of the "Science Editor" writers are often doing a 2-year stint in that position, after previously working as "International Correspondent" or whatever.
This even seems to be the case when the articles are in popular science collections, like SciAm and phys.org.
this reads like compulsive, preemptively obedient penance for pretty petty reasons. first of all the idea of cmns as a www is not falsified and still holds as a hypothesis. the only problem is that it's not proven and confidence of its existence has been blown a little out of proportion. but what's this fuss about romanticizing and anthropomorphizing nature? i mean so what? this article reads almost like people are d…
Anthropomorphizing nature is an easy trap to fall into largely because the electric hams in our skulls is programmed to reach conclusions as quickly as possible for the sake of evaluating our reality, and we tend to put a lot of trust in that. Applying human traits to a non-human entity is just one of the many shortcuts we take to reach said conclusions.
We've made wide reaching human policies on completely debunked outdated research.
I'd be super sympathetic to claims that lack strong evidences but aren't disproven either, nor are reaching for a narrative that is outlandish and heavily politicized.
this reads like compulsive, preemptively obedient penance for pretty petty reasons. first of all the idea of cmns as a www is not falsified and still holds as a hypothesis. the only problem is that it's not proven and confidence of its existence has been blown a little out of proportion. but what's this fuss about romanticizing and anthropomorphizing nature? i mean so what? this article reads almost like people are d…
The obvious part would be wrong calculation of emission-trapping. The article mentions co2 quite often. This could mean wrong claims of health-benefits for living areas, or leading to wrong calculations around climate change.
this reads like compulsive, preemptively obedient penance for pretty petty reasons. first of all the idea of cmns as a www is not falsified and still holds as a hypothesis. the only problem is that it's not proven and confidence of its existence has been blown a little out of proportion. but what's this fuss about romanticizing and anthropomorphizing nature? i mean so what? this article reads almost like people are d…
> this article reads almost like people are dying, arguing "consequences can be far-reaching, affecting policy decisions that impact real people". what are those consequences? The obvious part would be wrong calculation of emission-trapping. The article mentions co2 quite often. This could mean wrong claims of health-benefits for living areas, or leading to wrong calculations around climate change.
excuse me? it doesn't mention it even once ...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> this article reads almost like people are dying, arguing "consequences can be far-reaching, affecting policy decisions that impact real people". what are those consequences? The obvious part would be wrong calculation of emission-trapping. The article mentions co2 quite often. This could mean wrong claims of health-benefits for living areas, or leading to wrong calculations around climate change.
> The article mentions co2 quite often. excuse me? it doesn't mention it even once ...