(source)
Recent Comments
- Mahousniper: I was going to watch it, but then I noticed it was 30 minutes long. 30 minutes of... on Still Earth
- Mahousniper: …Batman! on Still Earth
- Custador: Why do you get to pull a No True Scotsman in such... on Homosexual marriage: a ruse to persecute Christians?
- Custador: So you accept that gay marriage should be legal? on Homosexual marriage: a ruse to persecute Christians?
- John Monett: I have gay friends, but none of them are... on Homosexual marriage: a ruse to persecute Christians?
- TrickQuestion: Then i feel sorry for you, being saddled with... on Homosexual marriage: a ruse to persecute Christians?
Funny $&#!@ From 9 Laughs
I'm one of the contributors to 9 Laughs:
Subscribe by Email
Archives
LOL! Exactly. Science reporting often does nothing good for scientists. In fact, I think it may contribute largely to the population at general not trusting science.
I think it definitely contributes to a mis-trust of science for two main reasons. Firstly science reporting is generally other simplified and I fail to understand why it’s considered perfectly acceptable for someone who doesn’t “do science” to write news stories about science. Would it be acceptable for the fashion writer to report on the current nuclear treaties being thrashed out between the USA and Russia? Secondly, the stories that make the front pages are often represented as facts when actually they are the current beliefs of a very small number of scientists. When it later transpires that they were wrong it’s no wonder that there is a mis-trust of science.
Science reporting in action can be seen by the current reporting on the end of the swine flu “panic”. The story now is that the UK wasted millions and million of pounds on vaccines that are no longer required. Of course what the media was happy to report at the time was anyone who could state, or more strictly seem to state, that we’re all going to die. If the government had said “well it’s a risk but we think we’ll take the chance as we don’t want to spend the money” the same media would have been up in arms about how the government wasn’t doing enough to protect us. I think we like to believe that the media is there to present the news and easily forget that the media is there to make money out of selling the news. Yes there are journalists with integrity but they seem few and far between and reducing all the time. Flat Earth News by Nick Davies exposes what the media (in the UK) is really like.
Jabster I heard a few reports here in the USA about how much money was wasted on vaccines that ended up being destroyed. I can’t say it got much traction here because I don’t remember it being a national story on the sites I visit. At least it seems some reporters know that had they not made the vaccines and something happened all hell would have let loose. The part of your comment about integrity is probably true since integrity doesn’t pay the bills. If reporters were paid based on integrity and accuracy it would be important then.
Why I’m at it … if bad science reporting was just one of those things and had very little real effect I wouldn’t be that bothered but the reporting of MMR in the UK has lead to serious consequences yet no paper has seen fit to say sorry or even seem to acknowledge the role they had to play.
Like this one: http://www.phdcomics.com/comics.php?f=1174
:)
You know, I posted that exact comic on Facebook, and one of my friends said this after reading it:
“Sadly somewhat true. (But always recall correlation does not imply causation!!!!!)
/end soapbox.”
To which I replied, ” No, but it can.”
My friend decided to be adamant about it and then said, “No, it can’t. A correlation is simply a correlation.”
To which I just agreed because I didn’t want to fight. But it started bothering me and I hoped I could double check with you guys on here (as many of you seem pretty smart).
So am I wrong? I thought a correlation between two things meant that there was a possibility that there MIGHT be a related cause.
One cannot usually demonstrate causation without a mechanism explaining that causation. Such a study would be a separate deal. Thus, correlative study does, in fact, only demonstrate a correlation.
It’s not that I’m saying a correlative study demonstrates causation, I was saying that it could imply a connection/relationship under certain circumstances. Which is what I was replying to them.
So just to be clear (for me): Yes a correlation between two things is just a correlation unless you find out why it is occurring (which would be a separate study), but such a correlation alone could imply causation, couldn’t it?
Sure.
If A and B are correlated it means they have some common connection, C.
If B influences A directly I suppose you could also say A and B are correlated, though I think it would be more correct to say that A is a function of B.
If you use the first definition ( A B ), your friend is correct, because B does not cause A or vice versa. They’re instead connected through C.
If you use the second definition ( B –> A ), you are correct, in that B can cause A.
I’m guessing your disagreement stems from those different uses of the word “correlation”.
I should’ve guessed my use of angular brackets would mess up the html rendering. Let me try again.
First definition:
A B
Second definition:
B – - > A
The arrows imply causation.
Ok, this getting annoying.
First definition:
A B
Second definition:
B ==> A
Fuck it, I give up drawing it.
The first defintion is supposed to be C pointing left to A and pointing right to B.
The second defintion is supposed to be B pointing to A. At least that one came out right.
I get what you are saying, but demonstrating causation is harder than demonstrating correlation, therefore more studies would be required to establish that a correlative relationship is, in fact, a causal one. Even so, one has to be careful and not give causation that is not there, thus the requirement for a mechanism. Therefore, a correlative study is just a correlative study.
That still means they’re correlated though, right?
If the guy said correlation does not imply causation and Jasowah said, but it can, and his friend said, no it can’t, help me out here – I think if you see a correlation you can infer hypothetical causation and test for it, and be correct. You just can’t jump to the conclusion. How else would people figure out causations if they didn’t run with correlations to see if they pan out?
I think this is closest to what I meant. Thanks guys.
We observe A and B to behave as if there’s some conncetion between them. IOW they’re correlated – at least as evidenced by the data points. The challenge is then to identify the actual mechanism behind this correlation.
If you manage to prove that A influences B directly (even if only partially) I would say you have proven causation. If you cannot manage to prove this direct influence between A and B you have failed to prove causation.
What makes it confusing is when you identify a third factor, C, as the common influence. Some might then say that you’ve shown causation between C and A, and between C and B. However, I think the argument “correlation does not imply causation” is understood to apply to only the initial observed factors, A and B.
IOW, correlation does imply causation, but neither does it exclude it. The correlation we observed may turn out to happen because A influences B (or vice versa), which is of course causation.
Man, the semantics is tricky. Or maybe I just create the problems myself. I attended several semesters of advanced statistics, but I’m definitely not a statistician (thank god), so anyone is free to correct me.
As my Philosophy of Science professor put it: “Correlation may not directly imply causation, but usually it’s a pretty big clue.”
Second to last paragraph should read “IOW, correlation does not imply causation…”
Yes to all the above. Specifically, correlation is a necessary but insufficient condition for causation. This is because causation is a special case of correlation.
The fallacy of assuming that correlation does imply causation (the word “imply” being in the logical sense of, “always entailing”), is sometimes called the cum hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy.
“With this, therefore because of this”, for those who found Latin too painful.
Yeap, that’s how it is. And it leads the common folk to treat science, especially in medicine, like the ultimate panacea, and skeptics like me to not trust it at all.
But it isn’t only the reporting. It is mostly the marketing campaigns by pharmaceutical manufacturers.
Is this about science reporting, or reporting in general? There is no longer an ethical standard in news reporting. At least not in the USA. Main stream news media makes stuff up, releases it to the news stream, and then reports on it as if it were news. A large segment of our population accepts as fact what they know is factually inaccurate. Anyone in the USA can determine what is factually true. No one is held accountable for their news reporting so long as they are main stream and call themselves a news organization. Thank you Ronald Regan.
I get the complaint (and it has a great deal of merit, even if the reporting of yesteryear was not nearly as great as we like to remember it) but fail to see how all that is Ronald Reagan’s fault.
Ronalds’ fault is not hard to see. We live it every day. His agenda was to to dismantle the function of government. The all government is bad government sentiment. I am not a big fan of anarchy even if I own a gun. You can not grow government by strangling its revenue while growing its size. That is the consistent Republican ideology since Regan. It is a factual failure.
Is it Rons’ fault? No. It is his legacy.
I get all that, and even agree with much of it. What I’m not getting is how any of that connects to:
There is no longer an ethical standard in news reporting. At least not in the USA. Main stream news media makes stuff up, releases it to the news stream, and then reports on it as if it were news. A large segment of our population accepts as fact what they know is factually inaccurate. Anyone in the USA can determine what is factually true. No one is held accountable for their news reporting so long as they are main stream and call themselves a news organization.
The political ethos of “No government is good government” seems to have little if any causative relationship with the reporting ethos of “Good reporting is making shit up”. Except perhaps that some of the same people happened to agree with and help promulgate both in the current era. In any case, both strands of thought and practice stretch back long past Reagan-era American politics, not always (in fact, not even usually) by the same people.
I failed to arrive at my point. There was once the “Fairness Doctrine”. I will not do the fact checking just now. I think it was established in the 40ties. The nations news services were subverting the public interest and national security. It was mandated that they had to be fair and balanced. It was the law. The Regan administration revoked the doctrine. We now have Fox News who actually make stuff up, release it to the news stream, and report on it as if it were news. The rest of the news media fall in line and many people accept it as legitimate. I am sure this was not the intention but it is the result. There is no accountability. News is biased enough without responsible regulation. Do you think capitalist institutions are unbiased when they present something to make a profit? Certainly oversight must corrupt does corrupt the integrity of capitalism. I am certain the CEO receiving several millions of dollars to leave the company, after ruining it , has my best interest in mind.
While the Fairness Doctrine may have had some salutary effect on journalistic even-handedness, its general effects on freedom of expression and press were pretty horrific. State analogues to the doctrine were struck down by a unanimous court in 1974, on the general grounds that such requirements when policed by the government have a decided chilling effect on speech.
In 1987, at the moment that the Fairness Doctrine was repealed, repeal was a powerful disadvantage to conservatives, who by-and-large benefited from being afforded mandated equal coverage (and Reagan’s advisers said as much when Fowler proposed repeal). Reagan supported it anyway, which I think actually speaks to a rare moment of character for the man, quite the opposite of what you portray. It should also be noted that the FCC ruling to scrap the doctrine was also unanimous.
I did not do the fact checking. You apparently have. Thanks. The Fairness Doctrine is not likely to return as there is not enough support for it politically. I have not honestly researched it and don’t even know that I would want it back.
I do think it would be helpful if there was some means that held news organizations accountable. There seems to be an ethical void in news reporting that is far greater today, then it has been at any other time in my lifetime.
The industry is reinventing itself. It will be interesting to see what emerges.
The Daily Show and the Colbert Report are interesting in that they are primarily meta-news/news criticism focused. Something of that nature I think would be more effective in policing the news than actual state action.
I hope you are right. I am sure for the majority watching those guys it works that way. It is the folks who only hear what they want to hear who concern me. Those people and the ones who tell them what they want to hear.