The future might not be so bright
Professor Sam Wineburg, with the Stanford History Education Group started a study to examine how students (middle school, up to undergraduates) understand real vs. fake news. Although the study began well before fake news became such a big issue during the election, the report is very timely. One positive outcome of this work is that, the researchers hope to produce videos showing the depth of the problem and demonstrating the link between digital literacy and informed citizenship.
You can read another version, summarizing the research here:
November 27, 2016
That’s life growing up talking nonsense with others.
November 27, 2016
I call BS. It’s all fake. There is no “real mainstream news”. Excluding anomalies like Democracy Now! “real news” died when Cronkite retired.
November 27, 2016
They’ve replaced the true/false by the buzzing/not buzzing. Fake buzzes better.
November 27, 2016
I’m wearing sunglasses either way.
November 27, 2016
The other issue not addressed by their research is the insistence by the media for having two sides to everything.
November 27, 2016
Not surprising at all. They are the products of a dumb-down education system where liberal brainwashing is the order of the day, with little or no emphasis on the development of critical thinking in the student.
November 27, 2016
Chad Haney that’s perhaps because it’s easy to manipulate the audience by choosing well the question and have experts of selected horizons compete for audience’s hearts.
November 27, 2016
Pat Bijou, do you have any citations to back up your claim, or are you, yourself, regurgitating false news?
Keep in mind, I’m a scientist. So peer-reviewed citations are preferred.
November 27, 2016
Chad Haney
My citation is that I have been in the system –
working in it.
November 27, 2016
Pat Bijou then it should be trivial for you to come up with a reputable source, unless of course, you’re just trolling. Blueheads often do that.
November 27, 2016
Chad Haney
I’ve worked on curriculum and management and you can’t offer me sh** about it. I know it from first hand experience.
November 27, 2016
My area of expertise is education and medical.
I would never expect Fox news to present the truth, based on the evidence of Murdoch press over the past 20 years.
The acceptance of bullshit medicine (chiropractic, homeopathic, naturopathic) is evidence enough that inability to research “fact” is a long established tradition.
Look to the garbage on GM foods, cancer cures and the like for further evidence, should it be required.
I’d remind Chad Haney that “peer reviewed” was a standard of years ago, now even the “peers” are questionable, the journals of repute few and far between, and the anti-science views are almost the majority.
It’s enough to turn a old scientist into a grumpy old man.
November 27, 2016
Pat Bijou, since you refuse to give any source, I’ll assume you’re just trolling.
November 27, 2016
Michael Ringland, while there are a ton of ‘predatory’ journals now, that doesn’t mean peer-review is broken. It just means it’s confusing for the average person. In my field, I know which journals to trust.
What is your evidence that the “majority” of journals are anti-science?
November 28, 2016
Chad Haney OK, maybe not “the majority” of journals are anti science, just “a hell of a lot of them” – based on links sent to me proving random opinions are in fact truth…
Here’s a link from New Scientist, there are later ones that I can’t find..but I’m sure with a little time will be located. The problem is mostly financial, it costs money to peer review, academics don’t get rewarded for their time, and publishers are intent on moving on..
anyway..https://www.newscientist.com/blogs/bigwideworld/2012/06/time-to-review-peer-review.html is one, here’s another..
http://www.vox.com/2016/7/14/12016710/science-challeges-research-funding-peer-review-process.
Like your good self, I know the journals of repute in my area of expertise – but I’ve recently taken to hobby farming, and agricultural “science” is questionable (IMHO).
Viana de León It’s a case of who watches the watchers…and as for “educating himself”, as any scientist knows, that’s a life long quest.
November 28, 2016
Michael Ringland, I agree that peer-review has its limitations. I’ve written before about OpenAccess and Impact Factors (a totally separate issue).
https://plus.google.com/u/0/+ChadHaney/posts/XMTVpbPfPer
Going back to your claim that “a hell of a lot” of journals are anti-science and the claim that peer-review is to blame, doesn’t seem to stand up with the two examples you gave. I think what you mean is that more junk science gets published with ‘predatory’ journals. I would agree with that.
November 28, 2016
Oh Jebus. New Scientist. Not really that reliable at all. At all.
And let’s talk about how our person experience proves the rule, why don’t we Pat Bijou? Is this an attempt to see how many errors in thinking can we cram into one comment section? 😀
November 28, 2016
Deryck Lewis way to go from zero to dickhead in 2 seconds. If you understand context, being a scientist is relevant to gauging peer reviewed journals, which was part of the discussion.
November 28, 2016
My first degree was Teaching, (children aged 5 -12). You lot would be separated, and told to write on “how to hold a discussion without reverting to foul language” (which does nothing to advance a rational argument).
November 28, 2016
Michael Ringland, you’re obviously new to the Internet. I deal with trolls and jerks all the time. You wouldn’t last 5 minutes with likes of 4chan. It’s my post, my rules. If you want to be a lecturing prude, than leave.
November 28, 2016
Chad, the new anti-science movement has taken over the USA, with the consent of a majority of electoral college votes. My point was that antagonism serves no purpose, however your post, your rules, your country.
Like the new intellectual class driving SUV’s with the bumper sticker..”Merika love it or leave it” and “I own a gun and I vote”, you’re welcome to them.
I’ve personally always enjoyed flying back to Sydney, standing for Donald is a bridge too far. (is that lecturing ? )
November 28, 2016
Michael Ringland, you really have a hard time debating. You need to follow along more closely.
You said:
..now even the “peers” are questionable, the journals of repute few and far between, and the anti-science views are almost the majority.
I followed up with:
What is your evidence that the “majority” of journals are anti-science?
Then you switched your argument to peer review costs money, which isn’t in the two links you provided.
OK, maybe not “the majority” of journals are anti science, just “a hell of a lot of them” – based on links sent to me proving random opinions are in fact truth…
Here’s a link from New Scientist, there are later ones that I can’t find..but I’m sure with a little time will be located. The problem is mostly financial, it costs money to peer review, academics don’t get rewarded for their time, and publishers are intent on moving on..
I mentioned that you probably were thinking of predatory journals and not peer-review as the problem with junk science. Here’s an example.
Predatory journals: Ban predators from the scientific record
nature.com – Predatory journals: Ban predators from the scientific record : Nature : Nature Research
Finally, you added this gem in response to me dealing with Deryck:
My first degree was Teaching, (children aged 5 -12). You lot would be separated, and told to write on “how to hold a discussion without reverting to foul language” (which does nothing to advance a rational argument).
Deryck wasn’t contributing to a rational argument. He was being a dickhead. That’s you being a lecturing prude. BTW, you’ve probably been dealint with 5-12 year olds and not adults because you aren’t going to separate two adults when one comes into another person’s space being a dickhead from the first sentence. Think of a public post as being someone’s porch. It’s there space, yet it’s accessible by the public. You don’t go to someone’s porch and curse at them. And you don’t go to someone’s porch and tell them how to deal with someone who does go to their porch to curse at them. What you said later about the electoral college and SUV’s is irrelevant. Again, demonstrating that you have a hard time following a discussion.
November 28, 2016
Peer review doesn’t cost money. Most review is uncompensated.
November 28, 2016
Bob Calder , thanks for the detailed reply and link. Yes indeed I do have a mind that wanders off into tangents – it’s served me well to date, but that’s another tangent.
I wish no one ill will, and find some wonderful folk here on the G+ porch.
For the science community generally, including the ‘organic’ gardener scientist out there, I fear President Trump is extraordinarily relevant. When differentiating fact from fiction – he sets the new bar.
Is that rock and roll I hear from the porch down the road ?
November 29, 2016
He does set the bar low but let’s stay on topic, which is the Stanford study examining students difficulty with fake news.
November 29, 2016
Students take every search return as valid, usually pick only one and run with it. Their reliance on Google’s ranking is at fault. I can see how I could use social network analysis to demonstrate the logic of what happens on an Amazon book review of a book on evolution. Then move over to using Google to look at the vaccine-autism battle.
November 29, 2016
Cool
December 4, 2016
No sense
December 13, 2016
Braveoooo
March 27, 2017
Jonathan Thomason, fascinating stuff. As a physiotherapist I used ultrasound 1 and 3 MHZ quite frequently. It heats deep tissue. The other claims you make are all fake news, though.
Generally when you make claims like that, you require a source, quote a study which can be located in a peer reviewed, journal of repute.
The claims for laser removing all cancers are equally false. (IMFAO).
March 27, 2017
Michael Ringland, it’s considered spam when one posts links to their blog when it’s way off topic.
April 18, 2018
fivestuniversal.blogspot.in – TOP FIVE BEST MBBS UNIVERSITIES IN THE WORLD