---In [email protected], <turquoiseb@...> wrote :

 As much as I may agree with you about the trustworthiness of "TM science," my 
science-writing gig the last couple of years has given me a similar distrust. 
Not of science per se, but certainly of "science journalism," how science is 
reported in the general press.

 

 I've been grinding my teeth all day about this subject, there is a vote in 
Parliament today about "3 parent babies" this is a misleading term invented and 
used solely by the press that distracts and confuses an important issue for any 
casual observers.
 

 The vote is about permitting a new type of IVF procedure that replaces the 
mitochondrial DNA in cells so that people don't have children with highly 
unpleasant and fatal genetic conditions - and those diseases are removed from 
that families gene line forever. If it gets approved the UK will be the first 
country to permit it. The way people talk about it anyone would think they were 
creating Frankenstein babies with three parents but the germ line DNA from 
mother and father remains remains untouched. Mitochondria simply provides the 
energy for the actual embryonic and replacement processes to take place. 
 

 The media could easily explain it better, but as it is they stick with emotive 
language instead of clarifying it. You have to delve inside the broadsheets for 
that. I hope Parliament are being better informed than the average newspaper 
reader. Amongst the many debates, one objection you hear all the time is that 
scientists are playing god. I reckon that if god had done a decent job in the 
first place they wouldn't have to. But no one has used that line on the BBC 
news yet...
 

 

 It's caused me to realize that the speed with which one clicks on the science 
article headline is probably related to the article's veracity. The more that 
the headline is "click-bait" and you just couldn't wait to read it, the less 
likely it is that the "science" is true.  :-)

 From: "anartaxius@... [FairfieldLife]" <[email protected]>

   While you can never fully trust science, you can pretty much distrust TMO 
promoted science as a matter of course. TMO promoted science is about 1% 
reliable based on various reviews of study size, controls, and experimental 
design. It's the dumbing down effect of religious memes that prevent 
researchers from thinking more clearly along scientific lines. It is difficult 
enough to do science properly without also having to get approval from people 
whose minds work along the lines of metaphysical fantasy.
 

 I don't have to do recreational drugs any more, as the doctors have been 
loading me up on additional pills and injections as I get older and more 
decrepit (the latter, according to TMO science is a sign my age is reversing)
 


 

---In [email protected], <turquoiseb@...> wrote :

 You can never fully trust science. Take this study, for example. If Fairfield, 
IA's claimed reputation as an early-to-bed, fairly drug-free, and fairly 
non-promiscuous small town is true, all that really means is that its 
population isn't very intelligent.  :-) 

 

 Research Shows Intelligent People Stay Up Late, Do More Drugs, And Have More 
Sex 
http://www.spiritscienceandmetaphysics.com/research-shows-intelligent-people-stay-up-late-do-more-drugs-and-have-more-sex/
 

  
  
 
http://www.spiritscienceandmetaphysics.com/research-shows-intelligent-people-stay-up-late-do-more-drugs-and-have-more-sex/
  
  
  
  
  
 Research Shows Intelligent People Stay Up Late, Do More ... 
http://www.spiritscienceandmetaphysics.com/research-shows-intelligent-people-stay-up-late-do-more-drugs-and-have-more-sex/
 By Steven Bancarz|  What is the mark of an intelligent mind in our day and 
age?  When we think of intelligent people, we may have been conditioned to 
envision them ...


 
 View on www.spiritscience... 
http://www.spiritscienceandmetaphysics.com/research-shows-intelligent-people-stay-up-late-do-more-drugs-and-have-more-sex/
 Preview by Yahoo
 
  

 







 


 











Reply via email to