by jgnat 8 Replies latest social current
My new discovery, a non-profit dedicated to equipping people to make sense of science and evidence. Some of their activities include:
Nice find. I just bookmarked it.
Thanks Jgnat, for a long time the Guardian newspaper here in the U.K published a column by Dr. Ben Goldacre entitled "Bad Science" in which he brought to light these bad practices, especially of "Big Pharma".
He also highlighted the very poor reporting of Science done by the Media, who are more interested in a sensational headline than in facts. I think he has published a book of the same title, Bad Science.
It seems that this org. you have directed us to is trying to do a similar job, more power to their elbow !
Like a smart non-profit, however, they've turned their attention to the positive (not to detract from the good work by Ben Goldacre). How to make the results of good science more readily accessible to the broader public? How to help the public better evaluate the information out there?
Good stuff!
Interesting. It seems that the website is still a work in progress, but it's really a great idea.
I wish they had a page or two devoted to explaining clearly what does and what does not constitute evidence.
There is this page: Understanding Evidence - http://www.senseaboutscience.org/pages/understanding-evidence.html
But it only had a one-sentence blurb, no real content.
Ok, I found that many of the pages have links to pdf files of additional information.
For example, there is this one Making Sense of Statistics, sort of a primer on statistics: http://www.senseaboutscience.org/data/files/resources/1/MSofStatistics.pdf
You have to hunt for these pages.
I agree, the content is thin and the site difficult to navigate.
Controlling the internet is an oxymoron. I had an instructor who had, what I thought, was a genius solution to silo the porn content. He suggested the suffix, "*.xxx". That way, the porn surfers know where to go and everyone else can block it.
The question, "What Constitutes Evidence?" is a vital piece in the development of Critical Thinking skills.
True, what is evidence for a criminal trial is not the same as what an anthropologist, a biologist or a chemist might need in their respective fields, but the basic components of what is and what is not is an important subject for consideration.
As JWs, we were persuaded to accept simple assertions when accompanied by a word such as "evidently" as acceptable evidence or proof of a matter. Just imagine how different it would be if all JWs knew the difference between an unfounded assertion and real evidence?
That would be the end of faith in the "Faithful & Discreet Slave" aka the Governing Body!
This could be powerful stuff.
Learn to think like a scientist!!!
