1. Sign our petition calling on Cochrane to withdraw their review of Exercise Therapy for CFS here.
    Dismiss Notice
  2. Guest, the 'News in Brief' for the week beginning 15th April 2024 is here.
    Dismiss Notice
  3. Welcome! To read the Core Purpose and Values of our forum, click here.
    Dismiss Notice

BMJ Opinion: Peter Brindley and Matt Morgan: It’s time to be super heroes for scientific truth

Discussion in 'Other health news and research' started by Andy, Feb 10, 2020.

Tags:
  1. Andy

    Andy Committee Member

    Messages:
    21,947
    Location:
    Hampshire, UK
    https://blogs.bmj.com/bmj/2020/02/0...time-to-be-super-heroes-for-scientific-truth/
     
    Andy, Feb 10, 2020
    #1
    Woolie, Gigi300, DokaGirl and 5 others like this.
  2. Jonathan Edwards

    Jonathan Edwards Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    13,497
    Location:
    London, UK
    I am tempted to rephrase the old (unjustified as it was ) adage:

    Those who can understand science, do science.
    Those who can't become professors of the public understanding of science.
     
    Jonathan Edwards, Feb 10, 2020
    #2
    Barry, Frankie, TrixieStix and 4 others like this.
  3. Sly Saint

    Sly Saint Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    9,584
    Location:
    UK
    what's that saying about people in glass houses shouldn't throw stones(?)

    time that the good biomedical scientists took a good look at what their psych peers have been churning out as 'evidence'.
     
    Sly Saint, Feb 10, 2020
    #3
    Sean, Webdog, JemPD and 6 others like this.
  4. rvallee

    rvallee Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    12,454
    Location:
    Canada
    The BMJ is a major cheerleader of the BPS model, which is an alternative medicine model based on pseudoscience. You can't criticize pseudoscience you don't believe in while pushing for pseudoscience you believe in. If you criticize pseudoscience you have to criticize all pseudoscience, otherwise this will end up spectacularly blowing up in your faces.

    If your message is "trust us, we're experts" and you promote blatant pseudoscience, you will do far more to damage the credibility of expertise than even the worst pseudoscience out there.
     
    rvallee, Feb 10, 2020
    #4
    alktipping, Mithriel, Frankie and 7 others like this.
  5. Snow Leopard

    Snow Leopard Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    3,827
    Location:
    Australia
    The problem I have with this and the practise of "science communication" in general is that it seems to be unidirectional, namely focused on whether the public believes the one true gospel of contemporary scientific thought. So it seems to be more concerned with "science promotion" and measuring public opinion on scientific phenomena, rather than communication in the broad sense. Science is often promoted as something that smart experts think, something the rest of us just have to believe. I think this alienates many people as they see scientists as "other".

    Calling it communication invokes ideas of bidirectionality, namely allowing the general public participate in shaping what is investigated scientifically and performing experiments.
     
    Snow Leopard, Feb 11, 2020
    #5
    Arnie Pye, alktipping, large donner and 6 others like this.
  6. Andy

    Andy Committee Member

    Messages:
    21,947
    Location:
    Hampshire, UK
    Andy, Feb 17, 2020
    #6
    Arnie Pye, Sean, Barry and 3 others like this.
  7. chrisb

    chrisb Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    4,602
    It can at least be said for Sharpe that he appears to be a stage further advanced than the BMJ.

    He is apparently concerned with "truth" rather than "the truth".
     
    chrisb, Feb 17, 2020
    #7
    Sean, Barry, Snow Leopard and 2 others like this.
  8. Sean

    Sean Moderator Staff Member

    Messages:
    7,198
    Location:
    Australia
    The emetic that never ends.
     
    Sean, Feb 18, 2020
    #8
    rvallee and Andy like this.

Share This Page