Actually,I found the article wandered around, worried about exponential vs,
linear growth, neglected limits,second order considerations  and generally
missed the mark although the last paragraph was to the point.

I think the problem is more with naive writers of articles for popular
publications, 'interpreting' and citing studies and editors' choice of
headlines than the public's reading and misunderstanding of the original
articles.

The public that reads studies is smarter than what is implied and can see
through a lot of the BS that is published, and there is an awful lot of BS
published.

Confirmation bias is as big a problem in those publishing as it is in
threaders IMO.  That's not surprising, though, as it can be assumed that
both are only human.

             ***********************************************
The BEE-L mailing list is powered by L-Soft's renowned
LISTSERV(R) list management software.  For more information, go to:
http://www.lsoft.com/LISTSERV-powered.html