Please turn on javascript in your browser to play chess.
Science Forum

Science Forum

  1. Subscriber AThousandYoung
    Do ya think?
    11 Feb '10 20:07 / 2 edits
    Discuss.








    Yes, I needed that many edits.
  2. 11 Feb '10 20:20
    Agreed.
  3. Standard member wolfgang59
    Infidel
    11 Feb '10 23:02 / 2 edits
    Originally posted by AThousandYoung
    Agreed.
  4. Standard member Bosse de Nage
    Zellulärer Automat
    12 Feb '10 08:33
    Originally posted by AThousandYoung
    Discuss.








    [hidden]Yes, I needed that many edits.[/hidden]
    No, they're journalists.

    Why?
  5. Subscriber AThousandYoung
    Do ya think?
    12 Feb '10 09:27
    Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
    No, they're journalists.

    Why?
    Because wolf keeps referring to a journalist's words as scientists' words. I was also reminded of the "time doesn't exist" discussion we had.
  6. 12 Feb '10 09:32
    Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
    No, they're journalists.

    Why?
    Some journalists pretend that they know what they're writing about, in this case about science, when they infact doesn't know much, and therefore might bring the wrong impression to the public with unforseeable result.
  7. Standard member Bosse de Nage
    Zellulärer Automat
    12 Feb '10 10:33
    Originally posted by AThousandYoung
    Because wolf keeps referring to a journalist's words as scientists' words. I was also reminded of the "time doesn't exist" discussion we had.
    When you put quotation marks around a scientist's words and insert them in an article, you are signposting them as the scientist's words. Yes, I remember that discussion very well. Let's not go there.
  8. Standard member Bosse de Nage
    Zellulärer Automat
    12 Feb '10 10:37
    Originally posted by FabianFnas
    Some journalists pretend that they know what they're writing about, in this case about science, when they infact doesn't know much, and therefore might bring the wrong impression to the public with unforseeable result.
    Or it might not. The public also might be intelligent enough to treat journalism as journalism.
  9. Standard member wolfgang59
    Infidel
    12 Feb '10 11:05
    Originally posted by AThousandYoung
    Because wolf keeps referring to a journalist's words as scientists' words. I was also reminded of the "time doesn't exist" discussion we had.
    ? When?
  10. 12 Feb '10 12:25
    Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
    Or it might not. The public also might be intelligent enough to treat journalism as journalism.
    Depend if we want high quality reporting, or a tabloid one.
  11. Subscriber AThousandYoung
    Do ya think?
    13 Feb '10 03:14 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by wolfgang59
    ? When?
    Your OP in your latest dolphin thread for example. Are you even reading what I write? You're so aggressive toward me but you don't seem to even have read what I've written!
  12. Subscriber AThousandYoung
    Do ya think?
    13 Feb '10 03:14
    Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
    When you put quotation marks around a scientist's words and insert them in an article, you are signposting them as the scientist's words. Yes, I remember that discussion very well. Let's not go there.
    You asked!
  13. 13 Feb '10 07:45 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
    Or it might not. The public also might be intelligent enough to treat journalism as journalism.
    Of course, I don't deny that. But we cannot presume ad hoc that journalists always know what they are writing, and we cannot presume ad hoc that the public always can tell good scientific journalists from lesser good.

    The interesting question is what to do with those hournalists who aren't good in science but have an convincing ability with the pen. They can do much damage when they are read by the part of public that cannot differ them from good journalists who actually know what they are writing about.

    [Edit] I just realized that I answerd the same posting twice. Oh well...
  14. Subscriber AThousandYoung
    Do ya think?
    13 Feb '10 08:36
    Originally posted by FabianFnas
    Of course, I don't deny that. But we cannot presume ad hoc that journalists always know what they are writing, and we cannot presume ad hoc that the public always can tell good scientific journalists from lesser good.

    The interesting question is what to do with those hournalists who aren't good in science but have an convincing ability with the pen. Th ...[text shortened]... are writing about.

    [Edit] I just realized that I answerd the same posting twice. Oh well...
    Lately I've been seeing people quote journalists who are paraphrasing scientists as if the quote came from the scientist herself.