Wednesday, May 27, 2015

Is Scienceyness better than Nothing?

And I cite.
One of the main counter-arguments I hear from scienceyness advocates is, “Not everyone has the time or expertise to read original journal papers; isn’t it better that we support from the sidelines than not at all?”

I’m not saying you have to read the original journal paper. 
I’m not saying you have to understand all the technical jargon.
I’m saying that you need to take ten goddamn seconds to run a Google search and determine whether the story is legitimate, untrue, or just plain blown out of all proportion to the actual evidence. 

Here’s the litmus test: 
Before you click that “Share” button, ask yourself why you’re sharing the story. Is it because you’re genuinely interested in the project? Or is it because you think the headline and the picture look cool? Or is it — be really honest — because you want your friends to think of you as a smart person who’s plugged into the latest research news? 

There’s nothing inherently wrong with the second two motivations —  as long as they’re backed up by the first one.
Amen to that!
Case in point - to this day, this post gets read and shared by hundreds of people every week!
Or how about the Oxygen Myth!

1 comment:

dr said...

So true!

This "popped up" in my office, couple of days/weeks ago
Nobody really digged into this, just spreading the "news"...
"See, two Snickers a day keeps the doctor away"

And in 10 Years...
How to escape?