Isn't there, though? What happens when it comes out later on that it's not asparagus after all, it's a microbe that lives on unwashed asparagus? "Oh, looks like the scientists were wrong after all!" Even though the original paper merely correlates consumption of asparagus with increased level of cancer and was factual in every respect. Sloppy reportage then causes people to equate good science with hokum. "Nobody knows. It's all guesswork anyway!"
That's the core of the problem we're talking about here. How do you communicate complexity when your audience only cares about The Answer? How do you communicate, for example, an estimated age range of the planet based on multiple pieces of evidence to someone who thinks the earth was created on Sunday, October 23, 4004 BC at 6PM? Any range of variation is characterized as: "well you don't really know, do you?"
Unless I'm mistaken, we seem to be basically agreeing here.
« Older We all live in an aging self-destructing nuclear... | "The Bells isn't merely Lou Reed's best solo LP... Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments