Ben Goldacre's "Don't Dumb Me Down"

Very sorry for the poor audio quality. I think the gain was a bit too high/distance a bit too close on my cheap headset mic.

First published in the Guardian newspaper, Sept 8th, 2005.

"Don't dumb me down" here:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2005/sep/08/badscience.research

Ben Goldacre has a blog, and it's worth reading:
http://www.badscience.net/

He's also written a very readable book:
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Bad-Science-Ben-Goldacre/dp/000728487X/?tag=bs0b-21

Category:

Education

Tags:

• Ben
• Goldacre
• Don't
• Dumb
• Me
• Down
• Guardian
• science
• journalism
• wakefield
• c0nc0rdance

[Girls4RonPaul]

I disagree. wow vaccinations are not OK and never were. I'm sure you've read the studies and done the research. Why lie?

[C0nc0rdance]

@Girls4RonPaul

I've read a lot of scientific papers, but perhaps not the same ones you have. Which ones would you say are most persuasive? Could you cite them properly, please, I hate having to hunt?

Proper citation, minimal:

First author, "Title", Journal (year of publication).

[Jools86]

@C0nc0rdance Great video. However as someone who works in PR and is a journalism grad, your description of how press releases get sent out at 12:50 is incorrect. At no point would a member of a PR team send out a press release until it has been approved by an expert. It would never EVER be sent out with just the approval of the non scientist boss. No pr firm worth their salt would make that mistake.

[C0nc0rdance]

@Jools86

Of course, this is written by science journalist and physician Ben Goldacre, so I can't speak to his experiences. I work in industry, and the kind of statements I see written by our marketing people in promotional material or on the annual report are usually pretty poorly phrased, inaccurate, or completely out of date. I don't think it's stupidity. I rather suspect it's fear of error. Whole sections are removed in editing because they might be misconstrued.

[C0nc0rdance]

It is much easier for an editor to use general statements, but cut controversial or unclear content. It is usually the first to go.

Imagine 1000 words on some new trend in physics. The editor only has room for 600. The general gist can't be cut, the human angle is too valuable to generating interest... so they cut the technical details. It neuters the science out of a science article.

I suspect it happens at each level of the process, like Chinese Whispers.

[klutterkicker]

@FullCircleStories I don't know if you realize, you're arguing with the words of Ben Goldacre, and C0nc0rdance made a note at one point in the video he doesn't mirror every word.

For my own response, you must know that linguistics is a "social science" and, like psychology, I wouldn't call that a humanities study (even though college coursebooks might differ). I have no clue if what he says about humanities is on the mark, but his criticisms more speak to me against radical political stances.

[mphello]

"Bad Man Die" LOL!

[Helsinkisillest]

Excellent video.

[sonotfastfood]

As someone who (should) be graduating with a Humanities degree this summer and wants to go into journalism, I will be staying well away from writing science news. I wouldn't want to incur the ire of Ben Goldacre, who I very much admire!

[salerio61]

@C0nc0rdance lol as if :) Does Jenny McCarthy count?

[roidroid]

You (or is it Ben?) rail repeatedly against the humanities here, implying it's full of gullible idiots with no understanding of science.

Is that really true? Or is it just fickle "my major is better than your major" tribalism.

This is bothering me more and more because i'm a soon to be mature-age-student currently trying to decide what to study. I'm encountering the typical anti-humanities/arts flack of from those studying STEM majors, it's childish bullshit and i wish it'd stop.

[brandtproduction]

nice work!



[thedeeliciousplum]

Thank you for sharing this vid and of Ben's article.