Two concurrent stories about the seeming misuse of science by unqualified folk. The first concerns the FBI's repeated claim to US juries over many years (and well before DNA testing) that they could definitively identify an individual by the appearance of a single hair left at a crime scene (http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/apr/21/fbi-jail-hair-mass-disaster-false-conviction). They now admit that this is not at all true and are having to look into hundreds of cases where individuals have sent to prison or even executed on the basis of this pseudoscience. The other story reiterates the claims of a mixed bag of food-focused and anti-vaccination bloggers who attempt to convince their 'readership' about issues such as a) curing terminal cancer by cutting out sugar and gluten (now admitted to be untrue) and b) a link between vaccination and autism that can be corrected by dietary changes (http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/apr/22/wellness-gurus-belle-gibson-pseudoscience ). These both seem to be cases where people are convinced by appearances (e.g. an alleged 'expert' in a trial or a strawberry-eating attractive woman). In actual science, we generally consider the qualifications of the authors of published material as well as their track record (I accept that this is not 100% reliable). It's good that science information is now freely accessible on the web but people may have to learn not to believe all they read and to accept that not all scientists are in hock to big business. People who claim to be telling you as it is because others won't (I know this could apply to this post) can be sometimes on an ego trip and sometimes just confused.
No comments:
Post a Comment