Media

John Paul Pagano, geek on Twitter, asks, Can someone finally take conservatorship of Richard Dawkin’s Internet access? Please? in relation to Dawkins’ tweet: A pleasure to be invited to @JulianAssange_’s birthday party in the Ecuadorian Embassy where he is confined. Julian Assange? WikiLeaks founder. I (O’Leary for News) would like to know what is so wrong with WikiLeaks? Why shouldn’t there be more transparency in government? I await the day someone starts shovelling through the steaming pile here in Ontario (province, Canada). Maybe our modest investment here in getting Dawkins set up with a Twitter account is paying off.  Like, for actual results, it beats the elevator shoo! story. 😉 Thoughts? Follow UD News at Twitter!

Sure. For the same reasons as if some claim appears in the supermarket checkout counter tabloids it must be true. The tabs are probably stocked by the checkout because typical readers wouldn’t have visited the magazine section, where one could buy Scientific American or National Geographic. Okay, seriously, a friend writes to complain about the usual garbage at Wikipedia about design in nature. He cites the site’s support for consensus science as an apparent justification for the clown car. The last two times I heard the term, “consensus science,” were 1) the executive director of a do-nothing organization of Christians in science (which takes a back seat on design in nature) and 2) a top science writer denouncing consensus science Read More ›

From NPR: Don’t Believe In Evolution? Try Thinking Harder … The theory of evolution by natural selection is among the best established in science, yet also among the most controversial for subsets of the American public. It’s appalling that this pysch prof can get away with misinforming the public about the fact that evolution by natural selection (= Darwinism) is increasingly regarded as a millstone around the necks of evolutionary biologists, so few are its demonstrated effects. By contrast with the many common, little-publicized modes of evolution, such as horizontal gene transfer and genome doubling, to say nothing of genetic drift. For decades we’ve known that beliefs about evolution are well-predicted by demographic factors, such as religious upbringing and political Read More ›

Because we just haven’t found the dark matter that the theory seems to require. Further to Human languages must be irreducibly complex (Can someone help us understand what this translation from German means?)—maybe it was something about how cosmology needs to change, which Neil Turok of the Perimeter Institute in Canada said plainly earlier this year. Something like: Hi, Nonsense, meet Budget: From PBS: Do We Need to Rewrite General Relativity? Astronomical observations show that there isn’t enough ordinary matter to account for the behavior of galaxies and other objects. The fix is dark matter, particles invisible to light but endowed with gravity. However, none of our detectors or experiments have ever seen a dark matter particle directly, leading some Read More ›

We can’t hear you, and we need to. In 2008, Suzan Mazur published The Altenberg 16: An Exposé of the Evolution Industry That is, “Will the real theory of evolution please stand up?” The book revealed what we all sensed, that many evolutionary biologists and colleagues in allied disciplines doubted that Darwinism (natural selection acting on random mutation) is the chief source of variation in life forms. In so doubting, they demonstrated a commitment to reason and evidence. But they  didn’t thrill the many plods and timeservers who shove Darwinism at the public as “”evolution.” Science journalism today usually means waving pom poms at “scienceyness.” So we naturally wondered who is actually providing a venue for a serious look at the Read More ›

O’Leary for News ‘s night job: Pope Francis on new media’s positive side: New media do not force us to live in Selfie World; they only make it possible. Pope Francis vs. new media’s fake world: We can build it, but we can’t live there This girl has one smart dad… He didn’t just get out his check book Social media created the flash mob: Social media enable a large group of people to co-ordinate a criminal event. Best apps for busy moms: Just choose the app that best suits you. Ready for download? The death of the online ad agency? Thanks to increasingly sophisticated adblockers? Follow UD News at Twitter!

Further to Barry Arrington, asking: Why Does NBC News Continue to Employ a Known Liar?, Here’s an analysis of the Brian Williams story that makes sense to me (O’Leary for News): Williams will lose his lofty NBC position and face a reduction of salary from $15 million to $10 million per year. On MSNBC, Williams will handle special reports and anchor breaking news coverage. While it is astonishing that he still has any journalistic position and will be earning such a salary after his downfall, the reality is that Williams will be working for MSNBC, a network watched mainly by liberal zealots. Williams survived because he is also a liberal. Unquestionably, a conservative in a similar position would have been Read More ›

O’Leary for News’ new media blog Russia’s amazing troll farm Welcome to the Russian troll house. Now flee! Will there still be science in 2020? Is truth mechanical? Or does it point to a larger reality? The internet is like the movies except that it talks back The question isn’t, as science fiction faddists ask, can a robot do your job? How much of the Internet is teen fiction? And how damaging is that? Would teens be helped by courses in Internet studies? The Internet can create holograms but not people New media do not help reduce social inequality. They may even increase it. Follow UD News at Twitter!

“ … reportage that is mostly aimed at insulting Republicans and Christians.” But isn’t that what a pop science page would typically understand science reporting to be?  Oh yes, there are also a-crock-alypses to cover. Sorry, forgot. Here: Now, for some reason, Slate’s science page has partially abandoned its strong tradition of in-depth analysis to promote an angry, opinion-driven reportage that is mostly aimed at insulting Republicans and Christians. … This is counterproductive. Science journalism that forsakes its primary mission of science communication to engage in partisan culture wars does a grotesque disservice to the scientific endeavor and is doomed to fail. Just ask ScienceBlogs, which has become a shell of its former self … Yuh. I often send ScienceBlogs Read More ›

O’Leary for News’ blog on new media Yes, we need to crack down on cyberbullying But victims must help! STOP being victims! Will your hologram replace you? At home and at work? How the Internet become a haven for tyranny: Disinfect our right to be angry about the loss of the civil liberty to complain about aggression. Helping teens stay real in the age of virtual: Do teens learn about “click farms” in school? Should they? Would it make a difference? Does the Internet contribute to childhood obesity? New tech devices like smartphones, iPads, and iPods mainly exercise fingers and eyes. Coping with the shamestorms of social media: First, grow an alligator hide. Follow UD News at Twitter!

From John Cook, climate communications guy at the University of Queensland at The Conversation: Ironically, the practice of throwing more science at science denial ignores the social science research into denial. You can’t adequately address this issue without considering the root cause: personal beliefs and ideology driving the rejection of scientific evidence. Attempts at science communication that ignore the potent influence effect of worldview can be futile or even counterproductive. Actually, the first thing one should do is look at the personal beliefs and ideology of those presenting the evidence. Then compare them with those who reject the evidence. About fifty years ago, I was in a hospital, on the bookshelf of whose coffee room was an encyclopedia from about Read More ›

From Physics Today: Brace yourself for the possibility that you will not like how the science writers depict you or your science. Unflattering portrayals and missing the real point of the science are among the top complaints we hear from researchers, and most senior scientists we know have felt burned at one time or another by a story in the mainstream press that discussed their work. Science reporters may focus on elements you deem unimportant, even trivial. They may quote an outside expert who challenges your work—or an activist or politician who questions why we are spending money on your research in the first place. You have no control over where they take the story, and you probably won’t have Read More ›

Digital afterlife: how the Internet has changed mourning and bereavement Users can post computer-composed messages after death. (This is one of the differences between material entities and informational entities. When Grandma dies, who is to get the Royal Doulton china? Her lacework? If she left no instructions, this must be decided between daughters and granddaughters. Only one of them can get each thing. But a theoretically infinite number of copies of her digitized photos and journal entries could be on line for everyone to see and use – for better or worse.) Canadian Christian writers’ conference big success after the bookstore closes (because obsolescent systems underrepresent demand). But writers may face more serious attempts at censorship now. New media: Information Read More ›

From New Scientist: Do neonicotinoid pesticides kill bumblebees? We still don’t know, but the latest research is alarming – and casts doubt on the integrity of science. … “This is a scandal,” said Matt Shardlow of the charity Buglife, which has campaigned on the issue. “The scientific process appears to have been deliberately manipulated to agree with the environment secretary’s views.” A novel development, to be sure. 😉 What is “science” anyway, as opposed to what people choose to do with certain methods of enquiry? Follow UD News at Twitter!

Spread the news. From News’ compatriot Mark Steyn: Free speech shouldn’t need “defending”. It’s the shut-uppers who should be on the defensive, who should be made to explain why only their side of the argument can be heard. Before Mann launched his suit, I was broadly familiar with the corruption of the scientific process that Climategate et al had revealed. But I was still shocked to discover just how deep it goes. Over the last three years, I’ve had the opportunity to meet with scientists who occupy different positions on the climate spectrum: Some are out-and-out “skeptics”; some broadly agree with the so-called “consensus” but dislike its intolerance; others define themselves as “lukewarmers” or have only relatively modest disagreements with Read More ›