DISCOVER Magazine. Science, Technology and The Future
Current Issue
Subscribe Today »
  • Renew
  • Give a Gift
  • Archives
  • Customer Service
  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Newsletter
  • Health & Medicine
  • Mind & Brain
  • Technology
  • Space
  • Human Origins
  • Living World
  • Environment
  • Physics & Math
  • Video
  • Photos
  • Podcast
  • RSS
The Intersection
« Is Anyone Else Extremely Concerned About Yesterday’s Supreme Court Decision?
The Kiss In History »

Dear News Media…

by Sheril Kirshenbaum

phd012010s

Share

January 23rd, 2010 8:05 PM Tags: jorge cham, news media, phd comics
in Media and Science, Politics and Science, Unscientific America | 10 comments | RSS feed | Trackback >

10 Responses to “Dear News Media…”

  1. 1.   nathan Says:
    January 24th, 2010 at 3:52 am

    Thank you thank you thank you. I support this message wholeheartedly. This is a major pet peeve of mine.

  2. 2.   Adeist Says:
    January 24th, 2010 at 5:48 am

    Not bad. But there are lots more.

    5. Find out how the sample was selected. If the subset chosen is linked to the quantity under study, the results will be biased.
    6. The quoted errors are usually calculated assuming an independent sample selection, the true errors may be bigger.
    7. How many people refused to take part? Could the balance of results be different among them?
    8. Ask what post-survey adjustments were made. Professionals sometimes knowingly take selection-biased samples and then try to correct for them mathematically.
    9. Did everyone tell the truth? Some things people are embarrassed to admit. Did everyone understand the question?
    10. People will often give the answer they think the surveyor wants or expects. Are the questions worded to hide that? Are any of the questions loaded? Many issues are in shades of grey – do the tick-box categories cover all cases?

    I could go on.

    Incidentally, your point number 1 might not be true if the errors are positively correlated.

    And on point number 2, scientific facts are not established by *any* sort of opinion poll, (unless you’re studying opinions).

  3. 3.   Ian Says:
    January 25th, 2010 at 3:16 am

    Panel no 2 is historically inaccurate.

  4. 4.   Ian Says:
    January 25th, 2010 at 3:21 am

    I would also day that in respect of point no 2, the example given is historically inaccurate. Very few people in Galileo’s time believed the earth was flat.

    http://www.bede.org.uk/flatearth.htm

  5. 5.   moptop Says:
    January 25th, 2010 at 6:33 am

    The importance of polls on global warming is not to show which side is “right”, and which side is “wrong”; in that regard they are dispositive of nothing. Polls tell you whether your rhetoric is working or, as in the case of global warming alarmism, no so much.

    What they tell you is that mockery of your opponents, instead of answering their objections, eventually devolves into mockery of the majority. You can say that you are tired of answering objections, then people conclude that you must think the issues in not nearly as important as you claim.

    If you are losing in the polls, the message is not do more of the same only louder.

  6. 6.   moptop Says:
    January 25th, 2010 at 6:36 am

    P.S. It seems to me that many of the posters here are more interested in feeling like a member of a “smarter” minority than creating a political majority that might result in concrete accomplishment.

  7. 7.   Georg Says:
    January 25th, 2010 at 6:50 am

    The necessity of this plea is obvious,
    as is its vanity.
    Georg

  8. 8.   twisminion Says:
    January 26th, 2010 at 2:17 pm

    “It seems to me that many of the posters here are more interested in feeling like a member of a “smarter” minority than creating a political majority that might result in concrete accomplishment.” -moptop

    If being part of the majority didn’t require a science lobotomy i’d be all for it…
    What we need is a science-y philosopher king state in which the science educated elite rule over the ignorant masses…

    national physics care plan to include pre-emptive as well as emergency and in class round the clock coverage of all critical thinking needs…

  9. 9.   Brian Too Says:
    January 27th, 2010 at 7:23 pm

    Is the lady news anchor wearing a ‘stache? How European!

  10. 10.   How Many Ways To Interpret “No”? Just One | The Intersection | Discover Magazine Says:
    February 15th, 2010 at 12:28 pm

    [...] said, I’m skeptical the results of this so-called survey reflect [...]





    • Your Blogger


      Headshot-Jan-2010

      Chris Mooney is host of the Point of Inquiry podcast and the author of three books, The Republican War on Science, Storm World, and Unscientific America. He was recently seen on MSNBC's "The Last Word" discussing "The Science of Why We Don't Believe Science," and recently wrote for The American Prospect magazine about how the reality-based community is moving to the left.

      For more info see Chris's bio and events. You can friend Chris on Facebook, and follow him on Twitter. You can also stream Point of Inquiry, or subscribe via iTunes.

      RSS feed for The IntersectionRSS

    • My Books


      Watch Chris on MSNBC's "Morning Joe"! (Twice!)

      Excerpt; Book Website; Facebook Group; Twitter; YouTube Lecture; CSPAN Book TV Talk; Bloggingheads; Amazon; Barnes & Noble; Firedoglake

      Policy Fellowships For Scientists & Engineers

      Science Debate; in Science



      Picture 4

    • Comments Policy

    • Archives by Date

    • Archives by Category



  • Kalmbach Publishing Co.

    Copyright © 2012, Kalmbach Publishing Co.

    Privacy - Terms - Reader Services - Subscribe Today - Advertise - About Us