MEDIA
SCIENCE,
ADVOCACY SCIENCE,
&
REAL SCIENCE
SYNOPSIS:
MEDIA SCIENCE
The mass media cover scientific questions
by asking for the opinions of a few 'scientists'.
And which experts
journalists decide to consult will shape the answers.
The people who create stories for the mass media
—newspapers,
magazine, radio, television, & the Internet—
are usually graduates of journalism schools
—if
they have any special media training at all.
They might have received a smattering of science in college,
but the self-critical scientific method seldom informs their
reporting.
And making dramatic claims is always more newsworthy
than the subtle corrections that are often needed later.
ADVOCACY SCIENCE
The other major way the general public learns
about the natural world
might best to called "advocacy science".
This consists of using
scientific data to support a certain point of
view.
Whatever product or process one wants to promote and support,
there will be some genuine scientific data supporting that claim.
Advocacy science does a good job of collecting the data
that supports the pre-existing belief system.
But advocacy science does
not present any contrary evidence.
REAL SCIENCE
Real science is self-critical and self-correcting.
Real scientists are always looking for contrary evidence
—data
that does not support
the hypothesis they are examining.
And when the facts do not fit the hypothesis,
real scientists are happy
to change their hypothesis
to take account of the newly-discovered facts.
Real science seeks an ever-more accurate description of reality.
But the discoveries of science are not always dramatic and newsworthy.
And real science does not always support the prevailing prior beliefs.
OUTLINE:
1. LIFE ON OTHER PLANETS
2.
COLD
FUSION
3.
GLOBAL
WARMING
4.
ADVERTISING
CLAIMS
5. INTERNET HEALTH CLAIMS
MEDIA
SCIENCE,
ADVOCACY
SCIENCE,
&
REAL
SCIENCE
by James Leonard Park
1. LIFE ON OTHER PLANETS
Media science believes that where you find water,
you will find
life.
Whenever the mass media report on the search for life beyond
Earth,
they associate the search for life with the search for liquid water.
If there ever was liquid water on Mars, for example,
then this might be reason to believe that there was once life there.
(This belief is not held only by journalists and the general public,
but there are some scientists in other fields besides biology
who also leap to this false conclusion
that where water is found life will also be found.)
Here are the facts that should easily separate
the discovery of water
from the discovery of life:
The planet Earth has been ideal for sustaining life for 3.5 billion
years.
Earth has had the right temperatures for liquid water for all these
years.
And, in fact, life has been present on the Earth for
that many years.
The Earth might have been able to sustain life for a longer period
—that
is, life might have begun earlier—
but we have no easy way to prove that.
During this very long period of time—3.5
billion years—
how many times has life
emerged from non-life?
Once.
If life were a common emergent from chemicals mixed in water,
then life would be emerging all the time, over and over again.
However, real science tells us that all life on Earth
has evolved from a single beginning of life,
3.5 billion years ago.
If life were likely wherever we find
liquid water,
especially if there are other chemicals present and a good temperature
range,
then we would expect life to emerge from non-living chemicals
all the time.
But this has not happened.
And each year that passes without new life emerging on the Earth
means that the emergence of life from non-life was that less probable.
Thus, instead of looking on Mars for signs of life,
we should look on the Earth
to see if any new life is emerging from non-life here and now.
And having discovered that life does not easily emerge from non-life,
even when the materials and
environment are ideal,
we should conclude that wherever there is liquid water,
life is NOT likely to be found.
If life had not
emerged on Earth 3.5 billion years ago,
the climate would be much the same,
but the waters of the Earth would have no life in them.
And there would be no animals on the land and no birds in the air.
And, of course, human beings would not exist.
Has any journalist ever mentioned anything even
close to this?
Has media science ever reported this well-established
scientific fact?
But
in the spirit of real investigation,
this Internet essay remains open to any new information
that would show that media science has ever mentioned
the conclusion of real science that life is NOT likely
when liquid water is discovered somewhere else in the universe.
Real science does continue to discover other planets
in the universe,
some of which do have liquid water.
There might be as many as one million such planets in our own galaxy
—the
Milky Way Galaxy.
Real science will eventually investigate other planets with liquid
water.
And biological science tells us that the emergence of life from
non-life
is so unlikely that
there is probably no other life in the universe.
Only the planet Earth has any life on it.
Is there one biologist
who studies the origin of life who believes
otherwise?
Where has this conclusion ever been reported in the mass media?
2. COLD FUSION
The media was quite interested in the possibility
of fusing hydrogen atoms at room temperature.
This would have been a break-thru for the generation
of energy.
But real science knew that this was not possible.
Media journalists for the most part fell for this story.
Only later was the news corrected.
This is because most journalists do not know basic
science.
I hope that those journalists who knew about nuclear fusion
were not taken in by the cold-fusion hoax.
The mass media did eventually report that cold
fusion is impossible.
But what percentage of people exposed to the the original claims
have heard the correction?
3. GLOBAL WARMING
Beginning in the early 21st century,
the mass media fell in love with the notion of global warming.
And the journalists who promoted the idea
always had reputable scientists to quote in support of the theory.
And because scientists who did not directly deal
with climate matters
generally agreed with others scientists who were suppose to know that
field,
the media was able to find thousands
of scientists
who agree that the Earth is getting warmer
and that this change is caused by human beings.
But most of these scientists had been informed by the mass media
rather than taking their scientific conclusions from the climate data.
In retrospect, it will have taken much longer
to
overcome the exaggerations of global warming
than it took to overcome the mistake of cold fusion.
This is because 'climate change' has become a political position.
The general public has become so committed to the theory
that they attacked anyone who raised doubts as agents of industry.
The climate change controversy
illustrates well the
phenomenon of advocacy
science.
In 2009 e-mails were leaked that showed back-room controversy
between science that supported
the theory of global warming
and science that did not
support the exaggerated claims of the
advocates.
Those scientists who passionately believed in global warming
wanted to prevent data
contrary to their belief from ever being
published.
They sought to discredit the data and the scientists who had collected
it.
In this case, media science and advocacy science
were on the same side.
Both the media and the advocates reported only data
that support the basic hypothesis of global warming.
Al Gore's book, An Inconvenient Truth,
is the most prominent example of advocacy science.
Advocates of a certain 'scientific' point-of-view
present only the evidence that supports their case.
Herein the word "advocate" is especially appropriate.
In our legal system, lawyers are hired to advocate
pre-determined
positions.
It is a sign of legal weakness-of-mind for a lawyer to admit
that there might be some truth in what the other side is claiming.
Everything the other
side might say must be dismissed and discredited.
And now that some of the most exaggerated claims in
Al Gore's book
have been undercut by real science,
Al Gore has refused to change the text for new editions.
In a lawyer, that would be a sign of weakness:
Never admit that your client's position has any flaws.
An
Inconvenient Truth presents only one side
of the climate change
controversy.
Scientific findings and projections are assembled to support only one
belief.
In the mind of the author, no doubt remains:
Global warming is a 'scientific fact'.
But real science is self-correcting.
Ultimately, the data collected by real climate scientists
(who are not advocates of global warming
but who are willing to follow the data wherever it leads)
will probably show that there is little warming of the
climate
of the
Earth.
And in the long run, we should expect a general cooling of the climate,
as the next ice age approaches in a few thousand years.
It might be some years before media science
gives up
its love affair with 'global warming'.
Which elements of the mass media will first break with the
general trend?
Non-dramatic real temperature readings will not be as news-worthy
as the projections of global catastrophe
made by some advocacy
'scientists'.
After the global warming controversy has cooled down,
we will ask where we went wrong.
And the answer will be
that we were misled by media science and
advocacy science.
For
more discussion of global warming, see:
"Global
Warming
Fundamentalism"
4. ADVERTISING CLAIMS
Many common examples of advocacy science are
found in advertising.
Whatever product or service is being sold
will be supported by any relevant 'scientific' data.
A new pill has been created to achieve miraculous
health effects.
And 'clinical data' has been assembled to support the claims.
But this form of advocacy science never mentions
other clinical data
that does not support the product or procedure.
Real science must check such advertising claims.
And sometimes the Federal Trade Commission
forces advertisers to revise their promotional materials
when false or baseless claims are exposed.
We consumers should be suspicious of any
'scientific' claims
that support only one conclusion.
The simple fact that nothing is said on the other side
shows that we are dealing with advocacy science, not with real science.
It is never in the interest of anyone promoting a
new product or service
to allow any doubts to slip into the public mind.
Any contrary evidence is only presented
when government agencies forces the advertiser to include
disclaimers.
And the data that will not help to sell the product or service
is offered in the smallest possible print
or in a soft, fast-talking voice at the end of the commercial.
5. INTERNET HEALTH CLAIMS
When we check the Internet as our first source for
health information,
we should be especially wary of sites that present only one side of the
'science'.
Very often sites have been established specifically to promote a
certain belief.
These would be further examples of advocacy science.
For example, there are several Internet sites that
promote the belief
that childhood immunization
causes autism.
And they assemble 'convincing proof' by showing that all children who
suffer autism
received immunizations before they developed their interpersonal
problems.
But real science knows that the fact of historical order
does not demonstrate causation.
The fact that the groundhog saw his shadow on February 2
does not cause the
winter to last 6 weeks more.
The fact that most abusers of hard drugs started with more acceptable
drugs
does not prove that the earlier behavior led to the later behavior.
Real science has discovered no connection between immunization and
autism,
no correlation between sunshine on February 2 and the length of the
winter,
and no proof that using soft drugs inevitably leads to using hard
drugs.
New health claims appear on the Internet every day.
And all of them are able to point to 'clinical studies'
that supports the new drugs or treatment that they are selling.
But we can quickly determine that we are reading advocacy science
when we note that there is no
evidence on the other side.
The new medical treatment or device is supported by many testimonials
from people who believe they were cured by this medical break-thru.
But double-blind tests are missing.
Real science uses double-blind tests to see
how much of a new treatment is due to the placebo effect
and how much is due to the actual therapy offered.
"Double-blind" means that both the researcher
offering the new
pill or treatment
and the subject who
is receiving the method of healing being tested
do not know which
subjects are receiving the real treatment
and which are receiving some useless
or pretend treatment.
If sufferers are helped even when there is no real
treatment,
perhaps they benefited from mobilizing their own system of hope
and belief.
Such placebo benefits are
real and genuine,
but they were not due to the exotic treatment being sold.
The Federal Trade Commission has more difficulty
controlling
unsupported health claims on the Internet
because these forms of advertising are not quite as obvious and public
as advertising that appears in the better-known mass media.
However, the Internet does have sites
devoted to exposing hoaxes.
These are usually not as easy to find.
And because they do not have the financial motives
of the people selling a new healing product or service,
they are not as well funded.
On the Internet, advocacy science will always be stronger than real
science.
CONCLUSION
Both media science and advocacy science
need to be
checked by the real scientific method.
Has the claim been confirmed or undercut by independent investigators?
AUTHOR:
James Park is an independent thinker,
living and writing in Minneapolis, Minnesota, USA.
He began his college career in the natural sciences
but later switched to philosophy.
He receives no economic benefit from essays such as this one.
He thus has no vested interests in any of the issues discussed here.
More information about him will be found on his personal website:James
Leonard Park—Free
Library
Some of his essays have been organized into free
books.
Created
1-4-2008; Revised 10-3-2008; 1-13-2010; 1-16-2010; 1-21-2010;
1-29-2010;
6-19-2011; 12-14-2012; 4-8-2015; 4-3-2020;