This is wrong on so many levels, I don’t even know where to begin…

Posted by on . 2 comments.

Sarah Kavas­salis (the orig­i­nal poster) nails it right there: ” the sub­ject shouldn’t get final say” — Period.

Reshared post from +Sarah Kavas­salis

Here’s the story every­one is talk­ing about today: “Sci­en­tists should be allowed to check sto­ries on their work before publication”

As one might guess, this isn’t being met with the most favor­able of impres­sions. While sci­ence jour­nal­ism is often plagued with prob­lems, I couldn’t pos­si­bly imag­ine this being the best solu­tion. Ask the authors ques­tions while writ­ing your piece on a paper, espe­cially if things are con­fus­ing to you, and then fact check with other sources. Con­tact other experts as well as the sub­ject of your work, but the sub­ject shouldn’t get final say, as a lot of sci­en­tists are… well, not great sci­en­tists and thus could be telling you nonsense.

Embed­ded Link

Sci­en­tists should be allowed to check sto­ries on their work before pub­li­ca­tion
News sto­ries about sci­ence are dif­fer­ent from those about pol­i­tics or busi­ness, because the role of crit­i­cal review has already been performed

Google+: View post on Google+

With a pinch of salt

Posted by on . No comments.

And this is exactly why, when a graph is just too beau­ti­ful to be ignored, the right thing to do is first to ques­tion it and its source.

Or, more sim­ply said: always take these things with a grain of salt.

#cum­gra­nos­alis

Embed­ded Link

Nik Cubrilovic Blog — Lies, Damn Lies and Google+ Sta­tis­tics
Lies, Damn Lies and Google+ Sta­tis­tics. 11th Octo­ber 2011 #. One of the big sto­ries mak­ing the rounds in the tech world today is that traf­fic at Google+ has ‘plum­meted’ a full 60% this week ov…

Google+: View post on Google+