If any website wants to post news and be considered credible, it falls upon them to have the wisdom to determine what news is and what an editorial is. To know the difference, it requires those in charge to know the basics about a subject like that of science. You need to know what science is and is not at the very basic level. If a website such as Yahoo cannot do so, then they deserve to be the whipping post.
Science is attempting to understand the world around us. We observe something, postulate a reason for it, test if the postulate is correct through applicable experimentation, and submit your results for not only peer review but duplication of the experiment to verify the results. If you fail the process, you go back to the start and try, try again. We use the scientific method to have a baseline of rules to follow to keep opinions on the sideline as much as possible to get to the information and keep it factual and honest. It is a “checks and balance” system if you will. Science is about following the evidence to where the evidence leads us.
Unfortunately, those with agendas have opted to turn the field of Science backwards. Instead of following the evidence, far too many “professionals” have decided to try and take the neutral evidence and conform it to their opinions and world views as opposed to following the evidence like true science dictates. Yahoo has chosen to fully support those who have in no uncertain terms bastardized science.
How so? Their primary source for “science” articles is the website LiveScience.com which is described as “scientific inquiry with an original, provocative point of view. LiveScience reports amazing, real world breakthroughs, made simple and stimulating for people on the go.” You can change some of that wording around. “Original, provocative point of view” easily translates into opinion not science. Science is ignored and an agenda is pushed instead. LiveScience is little more than an overzealous blog masking as science. Why would a company such as Yahoo use such a sad source for “Science News”?
If you watch and read closely, real scientists and historians are not given airtime. Who do they quote? Who writes the articles? Anthropologists do. Nice title but anthropology has little to do with science or history. They take the tidbits that are known or confirmed and insert a heavy amount of opinion based on their world view to fill the void of unknown. That isn’t science or history. That’s science fiction writing which often completely ignores the basics of genetics and microbiology in order to mislead and flat out lie to those reading the material.
Here is one of the articles Yahoo thought worthwhile to post as “provocative science news”. The location on the LiveScience website is here. The title of “Sarcasm Seen as Evolutionary Survival Skill” says it all. The word “seen” indicates opinion not provable fact. It goes on to blather about “claim” and other words that indicate opinion. It also assumes there was enough time for “evolution” to have happened. Which I have already shown doesn’t exist in Time Demand Crunch III. But the standard argument used for evolution ignores the basics of genetics and microbiology. and
The environment does not dictate to your DNA what you will become. Your DNA dictates how you can interact with the environment. If I can’t reach the top shelf, my offspring of my wife and I (5’ and 6’2” respectively) will not be taller than me just so he / she can reach the top shelf. To assert the opposite is just ridiculous and doing an incredible disservice to those attempting to learn real science. Observational data supported by experimental data produces evidence you follow to the eventual conclusion. But if no one was there to observe it and it can’t be tested then it is not science. Yahoo should try supporting real science not this published junk science or sci-fi writing.
Makes a person wonder why Microsoft would want to bother buying Yahoo out.
0 comments
Post a Comment