SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
from the even-smart-people-can-perpetuate-stupid dept.
False beliefs and wishful thinking about the human experience are common. They are hurting people — and holding back science.
[...] These myths often blossom from a seed of a fact — early detection does save lives for some cancers — and thrive on human desires or anxieties, such as a fear of death. But they can do harm by, for instance, driving people to pursue unnecessary treatment or spend money on unproven products. They can also derail or forestall promising research by distracting scientists or monopolizing funding. And dispelling them is tricky.
Scientists should work to discredit myths, but they also have a responsibility to try to prevent new ones from arising, says Paul Howard-Jones, who studies neuroscience and education at the University of Bristol, UK. "We need to look deeper to understand how they come about in the first place and why they're so prevalent and persistent."
Some dangerous myths get plenty of air time: vaccines cause autism, HIV doesn't cause AIDS. But many others swirl about, too, harming people, sucking up money, muddying the scientific enterprise — or simply getting on scientists' nerves. Here, Nature looks at the origins and repercussions of five myths that refuse to die.
These are some of the science myths that will not die.
(Score: 1) by anubi on Sunday December 20 2015, @07:21AM
Agreed. I have seen way too much science practiced like a religion. Driven by money. Easy money.
Money paid in exchange for the persuasion of the word of a respected entity.
Scientists have long enjoyed credibility, as the science was based on the revealing of a repeatable phenomenon.
Now, a lot of science is based on "studies" whose results read like businesstalk. Funnytalk involving statistics. Said in such a manner its hard to interpret.
I trust most of these "studies", underwritten by interests who have much to win or lose based on the findings of that study, about as much as I hold preachermen trying to "convert" me when its kinda obvious they are after the tithes.
Get the money incentive out of the damned thing, use a personal passion for the truth, and I will respect it.
"Prove all things; hold fast that which is good." [KJV: I Thessalonians 5:21]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday December 20 2015, @10:05AM
Research is funded by grants, which are basically business proposals sent to the govt or business who want research done on their niche interest. You can't take the money out of science because then there would be no grants. It's colossal waste of time that awards the best grant writers the money, not the best scientists. You would hope there is a correlation but there isn't necessarily.
(Score: 2) by rob_on_earth on Monday December 21 2015, @10:32AM
I have just been reading about this in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bad_Science_(book). [wikipedia.org] Andrew Wakefield was being paid to promote his own single vaccine to to price of £50k and by the end of it was paid over £400k in legal fees.
His original results were from just 12 children, not a random sample and the random samples done later with 1000s of children clearly show no link.
At every step of the way scientists and experts did the right thing said the right thing, this is a problem with the media. They did not publish the scientists reports and stirred this for as long as they could.
the book lists a number of other salient events that fanned the flames and the chapter on the MRSA scare is even more media led.