Is 'science,' as portrayed by the mass media, reflect reality?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Robert_Sock
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
R

Robert_Sock

Guest
After all, it seems that everything the media says is a lie.
 
Science as portrayed by the mass media isn’t always science as portrayed by scientist. It’s edited, clipped, hyped up, confidence qualifiers are commonly removed, and assertions not made by the researcher that inspired the stories are inserted. There have already been distortions introduced in presentation . I think it’s better to look at the science as reported by scientist (not mass media) before evaluating how true that it is.
 
ThinkingSapien said:
Science as portrayed by the mass media isn’t always science as portrayed by scientist. It’s edited, clipped, hyped up, confidence qualifiers are commonly removed, and assertions not made by the researcher that inspired the stories are inserted. There have already been distortions introduced in presentation . I think it’s better to look at the science as reported by scientist (not mass media) before evaluating how true that it is.
Click to expand...
😉
 
Robert_Sock said:
After all, it seems that everything the media says is a lie.
Click to expand...
If you’re referring to the American media, most outlets have the agenda of getting Democrats elected. Their current project is the coronation of Hillary Clinton.

As such, they use the classic liberal technique of picking and choosing what to report on in terms of science. Science often confirms conservative positions.

I don’t really pay much attention at all to them, but to my knowledge they haven’t exactly been going out of their way to report on things such as evidence indicating that gay relationships are less than ideal for parenting or the Benghazi situation.
 
Not necessarily. As ThinkingSapien pointed out, scientific discoveries and theories are totally annihilated and changed by the media for “shock value”. I stick to official scientific websites and try to avoid tabloids.
 
RinoaHeartilly said:
Not necessarily. As ThinkingSapien pointed out, scientific discoveries and theories are totally annihilated and changed by the media for “shock value”. I stick to official scientific websites and try to avoid tabloids.
Click to expand...
They tend to get excited whenever something comes along that they think can hurt Christianity or conservatism.
 
I am looking for the renowned scientist with no ax to grind who stated the following words:
“Virtual particles are popping in and out of existence without any cause.”

I tend to see it as an example of a media hype without any substantial grounding on evidence and logic based science.

Incidentally, atheist scientists are also now into media-hypes instead of speaking from evidence and logic based science; take these words from Hawking and Mlodinow:
“Because there is a law such as gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing. Spontaneous creation is the reason there is something rather than nothing, why the universe exists, why we exist. It is not necessary to invoke God to light the blue touch paper and set the universe going.” * Quoted in Wikipedia, en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Grand_Design_%28book%29 ]*

The authors evidently choose to do without logic by exempting themselves from asking the consequential question, “And who authored the law of gravity which is a part of the universe and therefore has its beginning with the universe as the universe itself has a beginning?”

Media hype speaking is when even socalled physical cosmologists do without logic by insisting that the universe comes forth from nothing. but when you read them, they do explain with so many words which indicate that nothing the word is understood by them not as literally nothing but as something – only they want to indulge in the psychology of fantasizing that nothing can give spontaneous existence to the universe, God is not needed.

KingCoil
 
There is too much ‘science’ picked up by the mass media, that is not science at all, it is material taken from a thesis, an abstract, written by a person in their early twenties trying to get a PhD degree. With that as their basis they are not going to conclude that there is no correlation. And with the emphasis on earning a grade for their work, it would not possibly be within the mind of the student to lie, adjust results accordingly etc.

Just look at the Mozart effect as an example. And for some reason the two favorites of the sensational media are … Chocolate is good, chocolate is bad, chocolate is good, chocolate is bad. Coffee is good, coffee is bad, coffee is good, coffee is bad.
 
Darryl_B said:
Coffee is good, coffee is bad, coffee is good, coffee is bad.
Click to expand...
I would expand this to all of so-called nutritional science. Butter is good. No wait, butter has saturated fat; eat margarine. Wait, margarine has trans fat which is worse than saturated fat - eat butter. Eggs are good for you. Eggs are bad for you. Eggs are good for you again. Carbs are good. Carbs are bad. Carbs are good. Fiber, whole grains, omega threes, you name it and you can find supposed “science” supporting all possible positions.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top