|
|
Post by principled on Oct 25, 2011 13:09:12 GMT 1
With more and more people (including students) accessing "science" information on the Internet, how can "we" make sure that they are able to separate the wheat from the chaff?
A couple of examples:
I was searching Autism on the Internet yesterday and still came across sites that state that it is caused by the MMR vaccine. This despite research which shows this is not true and the fact that Wakefield, the doctor concerned, was struck off.
My wife received an email that advised that underarm deodorants can cause breast cancer and that she should forward the email to all her friends. It was only when I pointed her to research carried out by the US FDA which showed no link, did she relent and agree not to send it.
Anyone got an answer?
P
|
|
|
|
Post by abacus9900 on Oct 25, 2011 16:00:01 GMT 1
Well, I think Wikipedia is pretty reliable, at least to the best of my knowledge. The only problem I have with it is that it can be pretty obtuse in some of its presentation but I suppose you can get the key points. It does provide links, however, for additional information. For example, when you look up autism on Wikipedia it provides 181 references! Not bad.
The trouble is anyone is free to spread propaganda that they think is a matter of fact which can totally mislead the unsuspecting. A good example of this is global warming where you can find plenty of bogus sites putting out inaccurate information. You do have to be beware though.
|
|
|
|
Post by mak2 on Oct 27, 2011 13:33:34 GMT 1
The key to getting reliable information from the internet is to look at several different websites and compare them.
Also, look mainly at information from reputable organisations.
For example, if you want medical information, you could look at the NHS, the Mayo Clinic, the BMA, the GMC, the British Heart Foundation, the American Heart Association, the Medical Research Council, the Lancet and other similar organisations. By the time you have read all that lot, you should be able to deduce what is reliable information.
Incidentally, if you want to check on a doctor's qualifications, you can look at the list of registered practitioners on the General Medical Council website.
|
|
|
|
Post by principled on Oct 27, 2011 16:59:06 GMT 1
Mak2
I agree with all you say. Indeed, I have been researching autism for nearly 10 months which is how I came across the woo woo science websites.
My question was really posed for people who don't do what you suggest. They receive something in their inbox, believe it to be true (it's in B&W so must be true) and then send it to everyone they know. Misinformation then spreads virally across the Internet, and eventually becomes fact.
I hope what I describe is just an age-related problem and that those raised during the Internet revolution are far more sceptical about its content than those who have come to the Internet much later in their life.
P
|
|
|
|
Post by mak2 on Oct 27, 2011 19:17:37 GMT 1
Another thing to bear in mind, is that some of the stuff on the internet was put there years ago and may be out of date. Searches tend to produce all the entries that mention a subject, irrespective of when they were written.
Established science does not alter much and material that was written years ago is still valuable but opinions on the more controversial stuff, like autism and MMR, can change completely.
Therefore, check the date of the information.
Nevertheless, the net is a brilliant source of information, if it is used carefully.
|
|
|
|
Post by marchesarosa on Oct 27, 2011 19:45:29 GMT 1
I think we were starved of info in the pre-internet era. More is definitely better!
|
|
|
|
Post by principled on Oct 27, 2011 19:53:29 GMT 1
Marchesa
I certainly agree with you. The hours I used to spend in the library leafing through non-fiction books just to find a single piece of info...
I was also without Internet for nearly 6 weeks recently. It was like I'd lost a friend.
Must go, just off to research the origins of sweet pickle!
P
|
|
|
|
Post by marchesarosa on Oct 30, 2011 10:45:59 GMT 1
Absolutely, principled.
It's just that the powers of discrimination have to be heightened,too, in order to sort the wheat from the chaff. But this CAN be done because of the multiplicity of sources and the wealth of different perspectives being brought to bear.
This is why the IPCC is, in fact, on a hiding to nothing in trying to maintain the concept of "consensus" and "settled science". The days are long gone when "consensus" ruled the print media. And people are not stupid - not all of them, anyway, nor all of the time!
|
|
|
|
Post by adamadamant on Oct 30, 2011 11:36:37 GMT 1
This is why the IPCC is, in fact, on a hiding to nothing in trying to maintain the concept of "consensus" and "settled science". The days are long gone when "consensus" ruled the print media. And people are not stupid - not all of them, anyway, nor all of the time! This is just paranoid rubbish. |
|
|
|
Post by marchesarosa on Oct 30, 2011 13:16:47 GMT 1
I don't know which other boards you frequent, adam, but this sort of retort is not tolerated here - for long. Suggest you mend your manners.
|
|
|
|
Post by nickrr on Oct 30, 2011 16:13:55 GMT 1
Ths IPCC's job is to report on the current state of climate science. They therefore report what the majority of climate scientists are finding. This is of course the consensus of climate science according to scientists. What else are they supposed to report? To do anything else would be to violate their mandate.
Your reference to "settled science" is misleading. AGW is beyond reasonable doubt - that's simply what the science tells us (although I'm aware that you don't want to listen). However climate science in general is far from settled. We need a much better understanding of all the factors that influence the climate in order to understand and predict in more detail the consequences of the human input to GW.
Actually I thought that Adam's comments summarised your statements very succinctly.
|
|
|
|
Post by marchesarosa on Oct 30, 2011 20:56:44 GMT 1
Suggest you drop your petulant personal comments to a fellow boarder, too, nickrr.
This board exists to enable people discuss science not to pursue a one-sided personal feud. You have never posted anything here to enlighten, educate or entertain. Time you changed your tune, pal.
|
|
|
|
Post by skeptic on Feb 5, 2012 20:32:46 GMT 1
Science these days is a slave to the money men. You want a grant, you'd better be on message and you'd better produce results, even if you have to fake them.
Scare tactics are increasingly being used by unscrupulous people and organisations because they know they can get more money if they have a threat to fight against, even if it does not exist.
|
|
