My response to the “junk science” blog was of surprise. I might have expected such a slant discussion like this from a small, independent paper trying to gain attention but not from The Chicago Tribune. In today’s society, where every small issue seems to have a bias, pleasing both sides of an audience seems to be the ideal option. Trying to provide balance in a discussion of global warming, though, just sounds ridiculous.
What struck me the most was the list of signatures from “scientists.” Not only was this an act of deception on the paper’s part, but it is clearly out of line for those who signed to pretend like they are a source of credibility.
Reading the actual article (10/12/2007), I thought that the viewpoints jumped back and forth far too much. First, the article reports that “it is 90 percent certain that global warming is caused by human activity and that it could cause catastrophic results in the 21st Century.” The article then goes on to describe the film as a work of exaggeration, not recommended for students. However, it soon reverts back to describing the praise of the democrats for Gore’s continued work. Of course, the political aspect is tossed in here and there as well.
I would be interested to see what responses the paper received from its viewers. While many probably accepted the debate as it came from a reputable newspaper, I’m sure others showed opposition for distorting the truth and diminishing the urgency of the situation.
I’m sure that I am not always aware when I come in contact with “junk science.” One area where I have been suspicious is the increasing amount of advertising for medications, whether for headaches or weight loss, that appear in magazines, on the radio, and especially on television. I have seen countless commercials where the cure-all medication is endorsed by cheerful, everyday people. Often, there is an authority figure, perhaps someone in a lab coat or with a name tag and clipboard, who describes the medication as completely safe. However, in those last ten seconds, you can usually catch a deep voice speaking in undertone about the “minor health risks,” which often include heart attacks, seizure, or death. Reassuring, right?
People tend to believe a person in uniform. A famous example (which I remember studying in moral theology last year) can be seen with the experiments of Stanley Milgram. (“The Milgram Experiment”) A professor at Yale, Milgram told participants they would be completely blameless for their actions in the experiment. He then had them play the role of “teacher,” sending shocks to another participant on the other side of a wall whenever he/she answered a question wrong. The “participant,” which was heard to be screaming in agony from the pain, was just a tape recorder. Milgram found that some participants (ordinary people who volunteered themselves) became anxious and wanted to check on the other person. Some asked what would happen or if there would be consequences. However, with the professional man in the white coat reassuring them that nothing was wrong, the overwhelming majority was willing to keep putting the other person in pain.
These examples show that normal, intelligent people often find themselves deceived when they accept true facts from a “reliable source.” I think some people believe that if something is in print, then it has been edited to be completely correct.
(http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/chi-0710112nobel,1,6739939.story)
