If someone kept saying the moon was made of green cheese... would you believe it?

[Ram]

Paul Krugman's article is about how the media keeps reporting a new find in a big way, but a retraction is much more muted:

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/04/29/opinion/29KRUG.html

And this just is out:

http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/international/AP-Iraq-Banned-Weapons.html

--Ram

[ZupanGOD]

Why do people overlook the words "suspected" or "alledged" when reading these wire reports?

[Ram]

When I publish a paper or give a talk, people sometimes tend to overinterpret the data generated by us. Sometimes they ignore caveats I'm making since it supports their hypotheses. My first reaction is to correct them.

The point is that a "finding" is given so much attention, and a debunking of that finding is not (science is also vulnerable to this). Thus, overt ime, people are left with the impression something is real when it is not, and no one does anything to disabuse them from believing those findings.

The reason I continually bring up the double standard is because people seem to forget about it. Context is important.

--Ram

[Mike S]

Originally posted by Ram
Paul Krugman's article is about how the media keeps reporting a new find in a big way, but a retraction is much more muted:

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/04/29/opinion/29KRUG.html

And this just is out:

http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/international/AP-Iraq-Banned-Weapons.html

--Ram

Hehehe.. Nice .. on a side note its Ironic that Krugman write an article on retractions consider the new york times is constantly publishing retractions and corrections from his hit pieces.

Good post Ram.

MS