-
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
-
CF has always been a site that welcomes people from different backgrounds and beliefs to participate in discussion and even debate. That is the nature of its ministry. In view of recent events emotions are running very high. We need to remind people of some basic principles in debating on this site. We need to be civil when we express differences in opinion. No personal attacks. Avoid you, your statements. Don't characterize an entire political party with comparisons to Fascism or Communism or other extreme movements that committed atrocities. CF is not the place for broad brush or blanket statements about groups and political parties. Put the broad brushes and blankets away when you come to CF, better yet, put them in the incinerator. Debate had no place for them. We need to remember that people that commit acts of violence represent themselves or a small extreme faction.
Reporting on science
- Thread starter Belk
- Start date
Split Rock
Conflation of Blathers
Sadly, this descibes the usual science article quite accurately... I really like the pic of Triceratops, btw.
Upvote
0
Sadly, this descibes the usual science article quite accurately... I really like the pic of Triceratops, btw.
Yes, the one eyed Triceratops in space. I think someone should turn it into a TV show.
Upvote
0
G
Galactica
Guest
This is why it's better simply to read scientific journals. 75% of what a person needs to know is right there in the abstract. If the general public were smarter, news reports on a scientific study would consist of the abstract, the study authors, the publishing journal, and funding agencies where relevant.
Upvote
0
Cabal
Well-Known Member
- Jul 22, 2007
- 11,592
- 476
- 40
- Faith
- Atheist
- Marital Status
- Engaged
- Politics
- UK-Liberal-Democrats
To be fair, the guardian is moving towards that - it already provides data (data!) on some of its reports (although there's still the problem that the bluk of readers will not have a clue what to do with it
). BBC News online is also starting to link to the journal abstracts.
Upvote
0
sandwiches
Mas sabe el diablo por viejo que por diablo.
The title of that article should have read:
Sensationalist title vaguely related to a scientific paper from which journalist extrapolates a cure, miraculous discovery, end of the world, and/or reversal of all known physics.
Upvote
0
Funny article and so true. One of the things that annoys me most is when journalists provide 'false balance'. So for example, you have a science where over 95% of all scientists practising in that field (e.g. global warming) accept one view, while the other 5% accept another view (of which many are cranks or deliberately biased, but in some rare cases are actually worth listening to). What do many journalists do in this instance? That's right, they spent 95% of their time talking about what the minority group believes and why this is 'casting doubt' upon the claims of the majority. If it was a one off I could maybe understand, but when you have news stations like Fox doing it all the time, that's just bad journalism. 
Upvote
0
Similar threads
