Mod+ University professors laugh at journalist's naivety: "Scientists are only seeking the truth."

http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/der-spiegel-discovers-the-truth-from-science/


Der Spiegel, Germany’s leading news magazine, organized an interview with three university professors last week: Dr. Ernst Peter Fischer, professor for the History of Science at the University of Heidelberg, Dr. Holger Wormer, professor for Journalism at the University of Dortmund (who also studied Chemistry), and Dr. Corinna Lüthje, professor for Communications at the Technical University of Dresden. Though not necessarily intended, the discussion gave a good counter, from scientists, to those people (atheist and otherwise), who have been asserting for years that science, not religion has the truth.
...
Because of increased pressure to justify research, Dr. Wormer noted, we now have scientific advertising. And the media are altogether too credulous. In one particular instance, Dr. Lüthje tells us, one Austrian science journalist said to her, “Please understand me, I just can’t criticize a professor.”
...
“We need more journalists who will pose critical questions to Nobel Prize winners,” he said.
...
Der Spiegel protested all of this discussion with the statement, that what they hear is that “journalists want to earn money, whereas scientists are only seeking the truth.” This brought loud guffaws from all three. “Scientists,” answered Dr. Fischer, “want success; they want a wife, a hotel room, an invitation, or perhaps a car!"
...
Here are people in the scientific world, specializing in communication of science to the public, who are urgently calling for more critical thinking and questioning in their area of endeavor. No one in the interview would say that there is no truth to science. But these people also tell us that truth is not the domain of science
....
http://www.spiegel.de/wissenschaft/...ech-mit-wormer-fischer-luethje-a-1014716.html
 
Last edited:
I think science journalism has become very poor in recent years. We need science journalists who take an investigative approach - looking for loopholes in what they are being told - not just accepting everything at face value.

David
 
I find science journalism in general, appalling. The stories often have no real understanding of the subject they're covering and have misleading click-bait headlines.

Here's the latest bit of crap:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/...d-ice-cream_n_6670264.html?utm_hp_ref=science

"What we saw in the lab -- a crystalline comet crust with organics on top -- matches what has been suggested from observations in space," Gudipati said in the statement. "Deep fried ice cream is really the perfect analogy, because the interior of the comets should still be very cold and contain the more porous, amorphous ice."

There isn't the slightest hint of a suggestion that there might be a controversy around this and of course, buried in the article we find out that they really have no idea. They're just guessing.
 
I think science journalism has become very poor in recent years. We need science journalists who take an investigative approach - looking for loopholes in what they are being told - not just accepting everything at face value.
Yes indeed... there should be a difference between a parrot and a journalist, although these days we get mostly of the former type. In science and elsewhere.
 
Back
Top