http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/29/science/29tier.html?hpw
I am a regular reader of the NYTimes. An article in the Science section caught my eye today and I managed to read it pretty much in its entirety in between writing an email to a friend and checking out trail maps for Sherborn.
The article is entitled, oh wait I forgot, must go back and check....
Oh yes, I was writing this post. The article is entitled Discovering the Virtues of a Wandering Mind.
The author uses a lot of direct sources as I believe it should given that it is a an article about something "scientific".
What I find interesting about it besides the topic was how the writer showed the recent evolution of thought on the wandering mind. I also find it interesting that the author didn't feel compelled to present a "fair and balanced" perspective. He presented a variety of sources that pretty much support the same conclusion.
These researchers findings may be complete hogwash but there is nothing in the article to suggest that other than that their findings contradict earlier beliefs. Otherwise, it is up to the reader to put on her critical thinking cap and decide whether the findings are valid or not and whether the research methods are valid or not.
Unfortunately there is science to support all different kinds of agendas -- global warming is bad/global warming is good, butter is bad for you/margarine once good is now bad. In a world where science is often revered as absolute, I think great care needs to be taken by a reporter in using scientific study to support an argument. The first question I think I will ask is, "Who funded that study and what was their objective in funding it?"
I had to read the article twice to see your point because the first time I was too focus on the author's party trick of words. I suspect most readers from outside the psycho-science would do the same.
ReplyDeleteWhile on the topic of weird and fun science, the article could have given us a case study or too some extreme or compulsive day dreamers, or those who's daydreams have lead to problematic situations. It would have provided a few good images to go with the scientific jargon.