Can approach article authors with questions
Libraries can help you get access to articles
Open-source journals like PLOS
Sometimes authors post PDFs of their articles on their websites; however, they may not have been subject to peer review
Can always try a Google search too
The headlines may be sensationalized, but many people don’t read beyond the headlines
Newspapers very rarely go back to the scientist with question
Pay attention to your sources
Even big journals sometimes publish controversial articles to drive science forward
Blogs—Not Exactly Rocket Science
Science 2.0
Am I Making Myself Clear, Don’t Be Such a Scientist (these are recommended articles)
NY Times offers quality articles
Some societies train journalists in critical thinking and risk assessment
Small, regional papers may be more likely to sensationalize
Even peer-reviewed journals aren’t perfect
Some types of results are more likely to get published (positive preferred over negative, paradigm shift)
Science writers use analogies to help explain science to the public, but they’re not necessarily accurate
Even speculation may be off-base
The essence of science isn’t facts, but the ability to change our minds when new data comes along
(e.g., Pluto itself hasn’t changed, but the way we view the planet has)
Scientists in Italy are being prosecuted for not warning public about earthquake
Public considers numbers too dry; come up with another way to explain what the numbers mean
Kids are taught to use numbers and facts when writing about science; however, we need to use some of the elements of fiction (like a narrative) to bring science to life
People react differently to different ways of stating the same data
Scientists will critique science programs on their blogs
Labcoats in Hollywood (another recommended book)
Some wiki sources are useful, but there’s always the risk of someone editing it to distort the picture
You can get approval, but still use poor science to support your argument
Which sources are unreliable?
NPR does a lot of good reporting, will admit errors
Look for podcasts like the Naked Scientist
Even tiny misspellings can lead to errors
Wikipedia does have good basic stuff like MSDSs, chemical weights, boiling/melting points, etc.
Be wary of newspapers that don’t have dedicated science sections
AP labels tell you what people are talking about, but doesn’t guarantee quality
Highly focused scientists may not understand the big picture—and they don’t know everything either
Blog: Speakeasy Science
Writer may get the facts right, but editors may change things that they think are wrong (but aren’t)
Articles may be cut in such a way that the explaining paragraphs are lost
Jared Diamond—made some broad generalizations about why particular civilizations collapsed, cherry-picked data, didn’t address the data points that contradicted his thesis
Popular authors still winning, science still trying to catch up
We self-select our own data streams
Scientists in different specialties may have different paradigms
Jennifer Rome—lablit.com (fiction that incorporates science)
No comments:
Post a Comment