> This, of course, is the reason why certain media outlets are able to make lots of money with bi-weekly, likely untrue claims that <insert thing here> "causes cancer".
No, that's simply not true. What actually happens is that media outlets write whatever the hell they feel like will sell, rather than what was in the scientific report. This is far more accurate than your description: http://www.phdcomics.com/comics.php?n=1174
My point is that it's important to through out the telephone game that reports science, rather than the science itself. One shouldn't trust somebody else's summary of a scientific article, it's important to go look for oneself. Since this is a tech website, Peter Norvig should be a familiar name, and he has an excellent example of that here:
No, that's simply not true. What actually happens is that media outlets write whatever the hell they feel like will sell, rather than what was in the scientific report. This is far more accurate than your description: http://www.phdcomics.com/comics.php?n=1174
My point is that it's important to through out the telephone game that reports science, rather than the science itself. One shouldn't trust somebody else's summary of a scientific article, it's important to go look for oneself. Since this is a tech website, Peter Norvig should be a familiar name, and he has an excellent example of that here:
http://www.norvig.com/oreskes.html