Weird Science and Bad Science Reporting

There are a few factors that should be included in every science article in the media to reinforce the fact that science is not just a bunch of differing opinions that scientists vote on which one they like best. The scientific method works in four steps: observe, hypothesize, experiment, reproduce results. Without following these steps, theories in science are just interesting ideas, unexplained results, or metaphysics. Where most research gets hung up these days is the last step: reproduce results. This is why research papers published in peer-reviewed journals should be reported on as a science story, anything else is a human interest story, like this story: Weird science annoys boffins.

The story sets up the "science establishment" as the oppressors trying to keep the "truth" of paranormal research away from interested eyes. What is not mentioned is that these "research papers" were not published in peer-reviewed journals, any psychological or neurological journal would do, and that there have been no reproduceable results on these anecdotal studies on telepathy and life after death. The last line of the story gives away all the bias you need to know about the reporter: "Others said the panel's lack of balance was like inviting creationists to address the prestigious meeting without an opposing view from evolutionary biologists." So, you see, the science establishment lacks balance, a diversity of viewpoints, because they prefer their science to be based on objective reality instead of subjective opinion. Also, these mysterious "others" have no name, no direct quotes, or even a "did not wish to be identified." I prefer to think these "others" are the political correct voices in the reporter's head. Of course, I can't prove anything, but I'm sure The Australian's editorial staff would welcome my opinion as a show of balance.