Too Quick, especially through the tunnel....

| | Comments (2) | TrackBacks (0)

"a scientific jury of peers, only human; it can have biases of its own, and it can fail to weigh all the evidence impartially" (149) IANS

Exactly. How do we know that the reviewers may have the exact opposite views we do? Moreso, does it even matter all that much? It is not fair to assume that people's preferences and opinions will automatically enter into their research. The Inquirer acted too quickly in judging Brind's research. So what is he is pro-life? He is also a scientist, and scientists are not supposed to draw conclusions before the research was completed. Since the pewspaper was focues too much on Brind's views, they completely missed the point of the meat-analysis, which was to discover if there was a pattern formed by all the previous studies. "If" is the key word. No pattern was found, but so what? he did research to find out if there was one.

We are journalists, but we are also humans. All of us have preferences and opinions about things. This does not necessarily mean that our personal convictions will enter our writing. I have written in The Setonian about many things I personally felt were boring. Does that necessarily mean my articles were boring?


"it is easy to be misled once you stop looking for alternative explanations" (164)


Microbes are becoming more deadly: this is why there is a rise in death rates. Seems plausible, right? Is there a reason to doubt the validity of this statement? Yes.

The reporters and reseachers failed to consider another possibliity: the United States is ageing. The baby boomers (they are called this because a lot of people were born in a short period of time, thus representing a large portion of our population). are reaching social security age. As people age, their immune systems weaken greatly, making them more suseptable to diseases. But people were too blinded by the explanation that seemed feasible, the microbes.And who is to say ageing is the only reason that the death rate has increased? We must alwasy keep an open mind, for there is always room for a better expalanation. Scientists never stop researching: they always strive for an answer better than the one they already have.



0 TrackBacks

Listed below are links to blogs that reference this entry: Too Quick, especially through the tunnel.....

TrackBack URL for this entry:


Jeremy Barrick said:

I think the opinions of others are entered into research. Do you not think that one group of people that sponsor a reseasrch tend to want the outcome to respect their views? I do. The research can make or break the company if all turns out negative.

Maddie Gillespie said:

I hate to say it, but I agree with Jeremy on the reason why major companies back scientific research. It makes sense that the sponsor will want to see an outcome in their favor, afterall, it is their money that's keeping the scientist out of the poor house. However, Daniella also stated that scientists are only human, just like the rest of us. She made a good point when she stressed the word "IF." IF can cover a lot of things from if it will stay sunny one day or if we will have destroyed the earth the next time. I guess that you simply have to have faith that someone will be impartial or try to keep an open mind when reviewing other's works.

Leave a comment

Type the characters you see in the picture above.