science news sources

[griz]

Listening to the radio this morning there were two reports back to back, one about the just released global warming report, and the next about the groundhog who is supposed to predict the coming of spring.  It struck me that they would put a story about what should be science next to a superstition about the weather.  That got me to wondering about how people get their factual information about science related questions.

Is our instant access to facts on the internet resulting in more informed people, or is it so much info that we rely on TV sound bites and other unverified media?

And one last thing, this isnt a global warming thread, we dont need another.  Just a question about sources.

[Manedwolf]

If you want science news that's not dumbed down for the masses, it's best to directly read academic papers and follow their citations to read those as well. National Laboratory sites and non-political laboratories are good as well. Any study sponsored by a private corporation or trade group will invariably have results skewed to make the comissioner of the study look better, likewise, any study funded by a partisan group. (Just look up the old Smoking is Good for You "studies" of the past.) Caveat emptor.

The PBS show Nova USED to be an excellent source of un-dumbed science, but lately, they've shifted to the lowest common denominator as well, with grating metal-guitar soundtracks, WWF-style hosts, and completely dumbed-down subjects.

Oh, and always read what the SCIENTISTS themselves wrote, not the release that's been chopped, edited, and taken out of context by editors and marketing departments.

[richyoung]

...of course, there is no political or peer pressure on the part of teh 'true beleivers" to keep the grant money coming, either, right?

 

[Perd Hapley]

Superstition, eh?  You defame the Groundhog?   

[griz]

If he were a peer reviewed groundhog...........

[Art Eatman]

The Christian Science Monitor is probably the least biased news source out there.  The least amount of built-in editorializing in the articles.

Even for the TV news, they're pretty good at telling that some event occurred.  My gripe is the issue of "What does it mean?" and, most of the time, my disagreement with the conclusions.  And, of course, the slanted viewpoint in the original reporting.  But slant does not mean that some event did NOT occur.

Best to not be in a hurry about events.  That is, wait until you've read/seen various reports and fuller information is available.  You can see what happens when only the first report of an event is discussed; just go to the L&P at THR or TFL.  Speculation from insufficient information is nothing more than mental masturbation.  Some of the members there have been beating off so much that they got calluses on their brains and new ideas can't penetrate.

I like what's available on the Internet.  Still, reserve judgement.  Wikipedia is a good source, but it's not the only source--but it is close enough on a lot of stuff that it's generally acceptable.  I like the counter-culture money stuff, like whiskeyandgunpowder.com as an example.  The free daily emails from the Agora group have been profitable for me.

Taking part in discussions in the General and in the L&P forums is a waste of time, if you care about learning anything about the world around us.  Depends on how much time you have, of course.  I'm retired, so in bad weather or in weather where I don't care to go out and actually do something, it's fine.  Beats daytime TV, for sure.  Or Prime Time.  Hard to be interested in anything that's admittedly aimed at an eighth grade-education.

I dunno.  Browse and skim and don't be in a hurry, is about all I can recommend...

Art

[Parker Dean]

Superstition, eh?  You defame the Groundhog?   

Who said he was talking about the groundhog?

[Perd Hapley]

That's a very good question. 

[Matthew Carberry]

Speculation from insufficient information is nothing more than mental masturbation.  Some of the members there have been beating off so much that they got calluses on their brains and new ideas can't penetrate.

[clapping]That's mighty fine analogizing right there.[/clapping]

(I will pointedly refrain from examining if I ever fall into that group  )

[Matthew Carberry]

All my science (natural and sociological) instructors emphasized what manedwolf said. 

Check who's paying for the study and then look at the actual article and its citations.  Make sure it's been peer-reviewed, actively search for criticism and examine those sources as well.

Follow up on any "amazing" discoverys over time to see if various factors have been called into question and by whom.

Make sure the conclusions drawn actually relate to the initial thesis, if not, make sure the methodology still works for the conclusion arrived at.