A Helpful Article…
Here is a good article by Answers In Genesis kind of referring to the concepts I’ve been trying to explain in some of my earlier posts. It addresses interpreting science related news. You can check it out here.
.: Subscribe For Email Updates :.
.: Blogroll :.
.: Recommended Sites :.
-
.: Recent Posts :.
-
.: Recent Comments :.
- John on A Helpful Article…
- PhiJ on A Helpful Article…
- Sarah on Why I Believe the Bible…
- PhiJ on A Helpful Article…
- KattyBlackyard on Why I Believe the Bible…
.: Recommended Links :.
-
.: Pages :.
.: Archives :.
.: Categories :.
.: Tags :.
Add new tag age assumptions axioms beauty belief Bias Bible creation Creationism creationist decay evidence Evolution Faith fossils foundation genetic mutation information interpretation logic Montana natural laws natural selection present presuppositions religion river rocks scenery science scientist seekers truth Unbiased.: Meta :.
.: Hosting By :.
.: Friend Feed :.
Oh, but apart from that, it looks like a good article!
Grr, it looks like you’re catching my original post (to which the above post refers) in a spam filter. Here’s an edited version. (It’s not as good without the plethora of links, which make my point really well!)
To quibble about a very minor point, “The degree of subjectivity will likely be much higher in a blog entry … or a press release”. Likely not.
For blogs, of course, it depends. But very many blogs are written by people who work or have worked in the relevant field and are generally rather good at reporting on science. Also, if a blog is popular, allows comments and has a reasonable commenting policy, you can see if the post is controversial, wrong, etc by just looking at the comments. This makes blogs, in my opinion, a far more accurate source of science information than newspapers (specially due to the rubbish I’ve seen in some of our UK papers). Of course you have to remember to think about anything you read, and to look out for the bad blogs, but you could say the same about newspapers (or, for that matter, anything).
I get the impression that science stories, when reported badly, are often just sensationalised versions of the universities press releases, which often appear to be good. When the reporting is done well I’m sure the papers are better though, so maybe I’m just wrong. PhD comics parodies bad reporting quite well, making the point better than I can.
I apologize for the inconvenience of the spam filter – that is what was happening. I had to do something to deal with the plethora of spam that was starting to over run my inbox. Maybe if I found a good captcha tool for Wordpress I could take the filter off. I’m learning as I go on some of this stuff so hopefully the blog will continue to improve as I learn and adjust.