NationStates Jolt Archive

All too often I see some article in the local papers that say "research by <university/laboratory> shows that doing this is bad."

How do I know that this "research" is credible? Is there a network of scientists who peer-review the work done? What authority do they have in approving/disproving a certain research? Is this published in some scientific journal first, which is then brought to our laymen media attention?

Another question: how often does the (local) media stir up statistics? Is it common practice to "forget" to include margin of error, or is it just an ethical thing that's common to all journalism?

Just curious, thanks.

All too often I see some article in the local papers that say "research by <university/laboratory> shows that doing this is bad."

How do I know that this "research" is credible? Is there a network of scientists who peer-review the work done? What authority do they have in approving/disproving a certain research? Is this published in some scientific journal first, which is then brought to our laymen media attention?

Another question: how often does the (local) media stir up statistics? Is it common practice to "forget" to include margin of error, or is it just an ethical thing that's common to all journalism?

Just curious, thanks.

I'm fortunate, because I have access through my university to quite a lot of scientific studies that have been peer-reviewed. You can see how often they have been peer-reviewed and how often they have been quoted. This gives you a fair idea of when a study becomes more and more reliable.

Unfortunately, journalists always seem to forget some important detail or another. This is the nature of anyone who doesn't understand the stuff they work with, myself included.

Also, unfortunately, I have no idea how to get scientific journals outside of science magazines or my university.

All too often I see some article in the local papers that say "research by <university/laboratory> shows that doing this is bad."

How do I know that this "research" is credible? Is there a network of scientists who peer-review the work done? What authority do they have in approving/disproving a certain research? Is this published in some scientific journal first, which is then brought to our laymen media attention?

Another question: how often does the (local) media stir up statistics? Is it common practice to "forget" to include margin of error, or is it just an ethical thing that's common to all journalism?

Just curious, thanks.

If it is published in a peer reviewed journal and if its results are replicated by other studies (like if there is no contradicting studies), then it's credible...

If it is published in a peer reviewed journal and if its results are replicated by other studies (like if there is no contradicting studies), then it's credible...

But not necessarily right.

But not necessarily right.

But as right as it can get at that point in time...

Since the journalists always prefer to write about incredible discoveries, I don't think credibility is supposed to be a requirement.

All too often I see some article in the local papers that say "research by <university/laboratory> shows that doing this is bad."

How do I know that this "research" is credible? Is there a network of scientists who peer-review the work done? What authority do they have in approving/disproving a certain research? Is this published in some scientific journal first, which is then brought to our laymen media attention?

Another question: how often does the (local) media stir up statistics? Is it common practice to "forget" to include margin of error, or is it just an ethical thing that's common to all journalism?

Just curious, thanks.

Depends. Often if research is reported in the newspaper, it has either a) been published or b) presented at a conference. In the case of b things are more iffy, because conference presentations are not peer reviewed. It's worth checking it out though, you can usually get hold of an abstract for free, and that will tell you if and where it's been published.

I wouldn't say journalists necessarily stir things up (though often they do), but there is a fundamental discord between science and journalism. Journalists and newspapers like simple facts, it's what sells. Ie x causes y. Unfortuantely things are rarely that simple in science where often x is one of the causes of y as long as z. This doesn't usually get reported well.

But as right as it can get at that point in time...

No.

if you know stuff about science or if you know someone who does, you take a look at the research yourself and see if it really does say what the press says it says.

If it is published in a peer reviewed journal and if its results are replicated by other studies (like if there is no contradicting studies), then it's credible...

Yeah, but the media is a sensationalist group who will blow the least important thing out of proportion if it'll get them the numbers.

I'm surprised anybody finds the media credible about anything anymore, given their history of misquoting, quoting out of context and attributing quotes to people who never made them.

If scientists are certain of their findings, they will announce them, not through sensationalist media, but through credible outlets. Chances are, if you hear it on the 11:00 news, it's a hodge-podge of half-truths, panicy sensationalism and outright lies. Your best bet - if it seems like something that will affect you, is to do your own research, otherwise, ignore it.

if you know stuff about science or if you know someone who does, you take a look at the research yourself and see if it really does say what the press says it says.

The problem is that the internet/newspaper articles rarely give a hard reference to the actual report, just quotations and convenient statistics from the scientists. Maybe it's unconventional to publish the actual report?

Yeah, but the media is a sensationalist group who will blow the least important thing out of proportion if it'll get them the numbers.

I'm surprised anybody finds the media credible about anything anymore, given their history of misquoting, quoting out of context and attributing quotes to people who never made them.

If scientists are certain of their findings, they will announce them, not through sensationalist media, but through credible outlets. Chances are, if you hear it on the 11:00 news, it's a hodge-podge of half-truths, panicy sensationalism and outright lies. Your best bet - if it seems like something that will affect you, is to do your own research, otherwise, ignore it.

Depends. Often if research is reported in the newspaper, it has either a) been published or b) presented at a conference. In the case of b things are more iffy, because conference presentations are not peer reviewed. It's worth checking it out though, you can usually get hold of an abstract for free, and that will tell you if and where it's been published.

I wouldn't say journalists necessarily stir things up (though often they do), but there is a fundamental discord between science and journalism. Journalists and newspapers like simple facts, it's what sells. Ie x causes y. Unfortuantely things are rarely that simple in science where often x is one of the causes of y as long as z. This doesn't usually get reported well.

Is there a good "global journal" that collects these sorts of reports and research that isn't CNN? Magazines help too.


One of the reasons I asked this question is that many people (mostly students who take some 100 level course and assume they know everything) complain about global warming, the financial crisis, but cannot come up with any solid reference to back-up their position, and fail to understand things such as "does correlation imply causation," "cost/benefit of implementing environmental measures that will for sure affect your disposable income," or "if communism/brute socialism is a good idea, why is Cuba importing so much food while half the island is wasted arable land?"

They'd just read an article on how terrible something (corporations) is, and rant on about "let's have a music festival to increase awareness on corporate exploitation, but we're going to use corporate manufactured speakers and guitars and imported clothing." No, I'm not biased against left leaning liberalists, because there are also those people who take ECON 101 and go on about "omg stupiz bureaucrats what we need is deregulation in wall st becuz we all noe that tax = recession and Ayn Rand laissez faire = sheer productivity + everybdy happy happy, down w/ washington dc"

I'm wondering if they have ever looked at any reports on global warming that's not conducted by the UN, if any. Or something about the financial crisis that's not about <stock market> went down several hundred points, and key banks in EU nationalized = liquidity."

If scientists are certain of their findings, they will announce them, not through sensationalist media, but through credible outlets. Chances are, if you hear it on the 11:00 news, it's a hodge-podge of half-truths, panicy sensationalism and outright lies. Your best bet - if it seems like something that will affect you, is to do your own research, otherwise, ignore it.

"Tonight! Why your favorite beverage may kill you! Full details at 11".