a couple of Allen Dick snips followed by my > comments
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.

> one need to distiquish between what is written by science folks and what is then written by journalist about they think the scientist have said. I think??? as you suggest above often time journalist extrapolate widely on the basic message to make the read capture the attention of a mass audience.  quite often an emotional hook is part of the game plan.  it is imho just what writers do.  the language of science is sometimes confusing since each branch of academia do not necessarily use the same dictionary. how this plays out is some word with an exact meaning to one branch does not have the same exact meaning to another.

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.

>again if the basic definition of a given word is not understood (in it entirety) how could you expect some laymen to really understand what has been written?  is the public smart enough probable yes, are they fully informed likely not. there is a lot of professional publications out there (I think my wife said something like 30000) so probabilities would suggest that yes there is a lot of BS. Beyond this a good number of publication seem to be more about cronyism than anything academically valuable.

Confirmation bias is as big a problem in those publishing as it is in threaders IMO.

>I would suggest it is also a problem in those doing the reading.  education can dilute this problem since this tend to encourage folks to always question what they think they know and to always be skeptical of authority. it is imho one of the largest problem that we face both individually and collectively.  it is reinforced if you rely on one one source of information or one authority for information.

>I am not certain what 'threaders' means?

Gene in Central Texas...

             ***********************************************
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