Invisible wrote:
> I stumbled on this today:
> 
> http://www.senseaboutscience.org.uk/
> 
> For some reason, it seemed to me like something Phil would agree with...

Also,

http://www.badscience.net/

I particularly liked this article:

http://www.badscience.net/2008/12/transparent-excuse-for-printing-a-nice-pair-of-hooters/

The final paragraph sums it up so well:

"These stories tell us nothing about science. They are what PR companies 

paper without paying, and onto editorial pages. They are copied and 
pasted onto the page by hurried journalists with a hangover and other 
deadlines to deal with, exactly as I have copied and pasted this work 

self-effacing moment of rhetorical symmetry. But most crucially of all, 
these companies know that the way to get a non-story into a national 
broadsheet newspaper is to make it about science, the one subject which 
is regarded by editors and senior executives with universal derision and 
incomprenhension. Merry christmas."

Anybody else find the final pair of sentences worrying?

Post a reply to this message