Fact from fiction?

MrPudding

Not sure if this is the right forum for this, but I know a few of the regulars will find this interesting. Feel free to move it if you can think of a better one....

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/7613201.stm

I will be most interested to see how the various creationist websites get rated.

MrP

pH

MrPudding wrote: »

Not sure if this is the right forum for this, but I know a few of the regulars will find this interesting. Feel free to move it if you can think of a better one....

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/7613201.stm

I will be most interested to see how the various creationist websites get rated.

MrP

I read it earlier and laughed.

Given the current state of science reporting in say the mainstream UK newspapers (and on their websites) the idea of that the internet is responsible (and by extension that fixing "the internet would make matters better) for much of the nonsense that people currently subscribe to seems hilarious.

I suggest we should start rating newspapers, radio and TV first.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IMX0t3gFnW8

Dades

TBH I see the whole idea of rating websites as completely unworkable. The internet is a far to dynamic to allow something as static as a rating. Sure, sites like AIG could be labelled, but there's a 100 more like them that appear and disappear every day. And who's going to police the police!

Great link pH. Was just reading about that MMR thing this morning...

Galvasean

The internet must be destroyed, and we shall start from scratch again with web designers being forced to do a series of examinations before being deemed worthy to publish...

or something.

Zillah

I found the article on rising British Creationism rather disturbing.

Galvasean

Zillah wrote: »

I found the article on rising British Creationism rather disturbing.

Do yourself a favour. Don't read the comments below the article.

Zillah

*cries*

I already did. Remarkably infuriating. I am every day having less respect for the average human being.

AtomicHorror

I Ben Goldacre. His blog is great, though I think he understates the role of us scientists in the mess we're now in. Interestingly he recently beat down a huge lawsuit by some big pharma tool who tried to sue him for criticizing said tool for printing misleading ads about AIDS in south africa. Score one for rationality.

Getting his book as soon as I can find a copy in my rather crap local store.

MrPudding

Dades wrote: »

TBH I see the whole idea of rating websites as completely unworkable. The internet is a far to dynamic to allow something as static as a rating. Sure, sites like AIG could be labelled, but there's a 100 more like them that appear and disappear every day. And who's going to police the police!

Great link pH. Was just reading about that MMR thing this morning...

I am not sure how they would or could do it myself, but I find the idea admirable.

MrP

MrPudding

Zillah wrote: »

I found the article on rising British Creationism rather disturbing.

Which article?

MrP

Zillah

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/magazine/7613403.stm

The comments are the worst.

robindch

Zillah wrote: »

The comments are the worst.

Can't help but think that James Spalding's missed the point -- if our creationists are anything to go by, I'd imagine they'd have a hard time finding their arse with both hands.

Tomk1

Everyone knows not to believe all you see on the web, but when you know that you cannot believe what you see in the media and have become accustomed to media disinformation sensationalism and lies, really it makes the internet look like an innocent priest, the internet becomes the only place you can find some thruth.

The Media is more to blame for non-factually reporting, when a reporter on sky can say "we don't know what's happening but I/we presume that ......(make something up)"

The media should be held accountable and set the standard; "freedom of speech" does not mean "freedom of lies"

Scofflaw

Dades wrote: »

TBH I see the whole idea of rating websites as completely unworkable. The internet is a far to dynamic to allow something as static as a rating. Sure, sites like AIG could be labelled, but there's a 100 more like them that appear and disappear every day. And who's going to police the police!

Start by getting the various existing scientific bodies involved. Rating is done by request of the website to be rated, and constitutes a review, with, say, a "Royal Society Seal of Approval" approved for that domain name. One could of course get the peer-reviewed journals involved too.

The scientific bodies can also approve other rating bodies - or indeed individuals, much as per the current peer-review system - and the process continues.

The technology involved in making the "seal" something that links back to the reviewing body as well as the domain name is well-worn at this stage - same system as the security certs for e-commerce.

A small fee could be payable, which would make the business viable.

The Creationists et al will, of course, set up their own competing certification bodies - which will conveniently help one to instantly distinguish the loony tune sites.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Dades

Scofflaw wrote: »

The Creationists et al will, of course, set up their own competing certification bodies - which will conveniently help one to instantly distinguish the loony tune sites...

With distinguishing stamp, of course...

Galvasean

Dades wrote: »

With distinguishing stamp, of course...

Ooh, a labyrinthodont...