Lab scientists versus internet scientists - SCI-ART LAB2024-03-28T10:49:16Zhttps://kkartlab.in/forum/topics/lab-scientists-versus-internet-scientists?groupUrl=some-science&commentId=2816864%3AComment%3A127456&groupId=2816864%3AGroup%3A80038&feed=yes&xn_auth=noOrdinary brains crave pattern…tag:kkartlab.in,2015-03-25:2816864:Comment:1274562015-03-25T04:12:25.640ZDr. Krishna Kumari Challahttps://kkartlab.in/profile/DrKrishnaKumariChalla
<p>Ordinary brains crave patterns and meanings, and accept only that tally with their biases. Real science and rationalism goes for a toss in all this.</p>
<p>--</p>
<p><a href="https://phys.org/news/2021-05-overconfidence-news-judgement.html?utm_source=nwletter&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=daily-nwletter" rel="noopener" target="_blank">https://phys.org/news/2021-05-overconfidence-news-judgement.html?ut...</a></p>
<p><span>A new study published in </span><i>Proceedings of the National…</i></p>
<p>Ordinary brains crave patterns and meanings, and accept only that tally with their biases. Real science and rationalism goes for a toss in all this.</p>
<p>--</p>
<p><a href="https://phys.org/news/2021-05-overconfidence-news-judgement.html?utm_source=nwletter&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=daily-nwletter" target="_blank" rel="noopener">https://phys.org/news/2021-05-overconfidence-news-judgement.html?ut...</a></p>
<p><span>A new study published in </span><i>Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences</i><span> finds that individuals who falsely believe they are able to identify false news are more likely to fall victim to it. In the article published today, Ben Lyons, assistant professor of communication at the University of Utah, and his colleagues examine the concern about the public's susceptibility to false news due to their inability to recognize their own limitations in identifying such information.</span></p>
<p><span>If people incorrectly see themselves as highly skilled at identifying false news, they may unwittingly be more likely to consume, believe and share it, especially if it conforms to their worldview.</span></p>
<p><span>Benjamin A. Lyons el al., "Overconfidence in news judgments is associated with false news susceptibility," <i>PNAS</i> (2021). <a href="https://www.pnas.org/cgi/doi/10.1073/pnas.2019527118" target="_blank" rel="noopener">www.pnas.org/cgi/doi/10.1073/pnas.2019527118</a></span></p>
<p>1186</p>
<p>--</p>
<div class="q-box qu-mb--small"><div class="q-text qu-dynamicFontSize--regular qu-bold qu-color--gray_dark_dim qu-passColorToLinks qu-lineHeight--regular qu-wordBreak--break-word"><div class="q-click-wrapper qu-display--block qu-tapHighlight--white qu-cursor--pointer qu-hover--textDecoration--underline ClickWrapper___StyledClickWrapperBox-zoqi4f-0 daLTSH"><div class="q-flex qu-flexDirection--row"><div class="q-inline qu-flexWrap--wrap"><div class="q-text puppeteer_test_question_title"><span class="q-box qu-userSelect--text"><span>Why do some oncologists tell their cancer patients to not do Internet research?</span></span></div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<div class="q-text qu-dynamicFontSize--small qu-mb--tiny spacing_log_originally_answered_banner qu-color--gray_light qu-passColorToLinks">Originally Answered:<span> </span>Why do some oncologists tell their cancer patients to not do Internet research? ?</div>
<div class="q-text"><p class="q-text qu-display--block qu-wordBreak--break-word qu-textAlign--start"><span>Getting information on the internet requires separating fact from crap. There is a whole lot of crap when it comes to cancer "cures" on the internet.</span></p>
<p class="q-text qu-display--block qu-wordBreak--break-word qu-textAlign--start"><span>If it's a matter of learning about the cancer diagnosis, reading about treatment options and side effects, I don't have a problem with that and I'm impressed at how prepared many patients are for their consultation with their question list.</span></p>
<p class="q-text qu-display--block qu-wordBreak--break-word qu-textAlign--start"><span>But I don't consider any of that "doing research" because it's more or less reading up about the subject.</span></p>
<p class="q-text qu-display--block qu-wordBreak--break-word qu-textAlign--start"><span>What passes for very ineffective and harmful internet research is the endless search for the </span><span>hidden-by-big-and-greedy-pharmaceutical-company's-alternative-under-our-noses-cancer-cure</span><span> that is just after the 15,034th Google list on the internet and known only for the persistent and inquisitive few who can find it; the natural treatment, the alkaline water, the dose of vitamin C, the no sugar diet, the no carb diet, the no anything not organic diet, the Gerson diet, the megadose anti-oxidant supplement, mushroom extract, the seaweed extract, the chelation therapy, the custom vaccine made from one's own urine, etc.</span></p>
<p class="q-text qu-display--block qu-wordBreak--break-word qu-textAlign--start"><span>And then bringing in that list and spending visit after visit arguing with the oncologist about why something so intuitively simple and yet so elegant isn't a so much better way to go instead of that stupid recommendation for surgery, chemotherapy or radiation.</span></p>
<p class="q-text qu-display--block qu-wordBreak--break-word qu-textAlign--start"><span>It takes 4 years of medical school, 3 years of residency, and 3 years of specialty fellowship training and also more than several years of practical experience to really know the intricacies of how to treat cancer.</span></p>
<p class="q-text qu-display--block qu-wordBreak--break-word qu-textAlign--start"><span>This isn't something that can be accomplished within several weeks or months of being self taught any more than someone reading science fiction books can go online and read information that will allow him to apply to SpaceX and then help design the next spaceship to Mars. The human body and cancer are much more complicated and less well understood than putting a rocket into space which is a very very hard thing to do.</span></p>
</div> Yes, came across a few, mysel…tag:kkartlab.in,2013-10-20:2816864:Comment:1111442013-10-20T05:42:19.743ZAnand G.V.https://kkartlab.in/profile/AnandGV
<p>Yes, came across a few, myself!</p>
<p>Yes, came across a few, myself!</p> 1062
Contentious science topi…tag:kkartlab.in,2013-08-16:2816864:Comment:1064382013-08-16T02:54:45.449ZDr. Krishna Kumari Challahttps://kkartlab.in/profile/DrKrishnaKumariChalla
<p>1062</p>
<h1 class="node-title">Contentious science topics on Wikipedia subject to editing mischief</h1>
<p></p>
<p></p>
<p></p>
<div class="field field-name-field-sn-subtitle"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-items-even"><h2>Politically charged issues such as global warming are prime targets for online sabotage…</h2>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<div class="field field-name-field-op-author field-type-node-reference field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"></div>
</div>
<p>1062</p>
<h1 class="node-title">Contentious science topics on Wikipedia subject to editing mischief</h1>
<p></p>
<p></p>
<p></p>
<div class="field field-name-field-sn-subtitle"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-items-even"><h2>Politically charged issues such as global warming are prime targets for online sabotage</h2>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<div class="field field-name-field-op-author field-type-node-reference field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><div class="view view-article-related-content view-id-article_related_content view-display-id-block_1 view-dom-id-15b30121fbbbb0ef7c8596ae961f2f9a"></div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<div class="field field-name-field-op-main-image field-type-image field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><img src="https://www.sciencenews.org/sites/default/files/main/articles/081915_mr_wikistat_free.jpg" alt="Wikipedia page" title="READER BEWARE  Wikipedia articles on politically contentious issues, such as acid rain (shown), are subject to editing sabotage. Users add nonsensical, obscene or incorrect text, researchers have found. ~~ Wikipedia" height="460" width="860"/></div>
</div>
</div>
<div class="field field-name-field-op-caption field-type-text-long field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><p><strong>READER BEWARE</strong> Wikipedia articles on politically contentious issues, such as acid rain (shown), are subject to editing sabotage. Users add nonsensical, obscene or incorrect text, researchers have found.</p>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<div class="field field-name-field-sn-copyright field-type-text-long field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><p src="https://www.sciencenews.org/profiles/sn/modules/sn_features/sk_print/mail.png">Wikipedia</p>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<div class="field field-name-body field-type-text-with-summary field-label-hidden clearfix"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><p>Acid rain is a popular term referring to the deposition of wet poo and cats.</p>
<p>No, not really. But that's what people looking at Wikipedia's article on acid rain could have read on December 1, 2011. </p>
<p>An anonymous editor had tinkered with the text. Over the next few minutes, the silly sentence winked in and out of the article as editors wrangled over the wording.</p>
<p>The incident is just one example of the "edit wars" that rage on Wikipedia, the user-edited online encyclopedia. Articles on politically charged scientific topics, such as global warming, evolution and acid rain, are <a target="_blank" href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0134454" rel="noopener">prime targets for sabotage</a>, ecologists report August 14 in <em>PLOS ONE</em>.</p>
<div class="inline-image-wrapper"><img style="width: 530px;" alt="" class="caption caption-processed" src="https://www.sciencenews.org/sites/default/files/sn-2015/081915_mr_wikistat_inline_free.png" title="<b>EDIT WARS</b> Wikipedia science articles on politically charged topics get edited more frequently and more extensively than articles on less partisan subjects."/></div>
<span style="display: block;" class="image-caption"><b>EDIT WARS</b> Wikipedia science articles on politically charged topics get edited more frequently and more extensively than articles on less partisan subjects.</span><br/>
<p>These articles are edited more often and more extensively than articles on less polarizing scientific topics, such as continental drift and general relativity, the researchers found after analyzing revision histories.</p>
<p>When browsing Wikipedia, users should beware, the researchers conclude: The content is vulnerable to vandalism.</p>
<p><a href="https://www.sciencenews.org/article/contentious-science-topics-wikipedia-subject-editing-mischief" target="_blank" rel="noopener">https://www.sciencenews.org/article/contentious-science-topics-wiki...</a></p>
</div>
</div>
</div> Michio Kaku who said that "ex…tag:kkartlab.in,2013-07-11:2816864:Comment:1035922013-07-11T05:20:01.523ZDr. Krishna Kumari Challahttps://kkartlab.in/profile/DrKrishnaKumariChalla
<p>Michio Kaku who said that "extraordinary scientific claims need extraordinary support" ( Carl Sagon).</p>
<p>--</p>
<br />
<h1 class="node-title">On Twitter, the lure of fake news is stronger than the truth</h1>
<br />
<div class="content clearfix"><div class="field field-name-field-sn-subtitle"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-items-even"><h2>An analysis of 4.5 million tweets shows falsehoods are 70 percent more likely to get shared</h2>
<p>There’s been a lot of talk about fake news running…</p>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<p>Michio Kaku who said that "extraordinary scientific claims need extraordinary support" ( Carl Sagon).</p>
<p>--</p>
<br />
<h1 class="node-title">On Twitter, the lure of fake news is stronger than the truth</h1>
<br />
<div class="content clearfix"><div class="field field-name-field-sn-subtitle"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-items-even"><h2>An analysis of 4.5 million tweets shows falsehoods are 70 percent more likely to get shared</h2>
<p>There’s been a lot of talk about fake news running rampant online, but now there’s data to back up the discussion.</p>
<p>An analysis of more than 4.5 million tweets and retweets posted from 2006 to 2017 indicates that inaccurate news stories spread faster and further on the social media platform than true stories. The research also suggests that<span> </span><a href="http://science.sciencemag.org/cgi/doi/10.1126/science.aap9559" target="_blank" rel="noopener">people play a bigger role in sharing falsehoods</a><span> </span>than bots.</p>
<p>These findings, reported in the March 9<span> </span><em>Science</em>, could guide strategies for curbing misinformation on social media.<span> </span></p>
<p><span>S. Vosoughi, D. Roy and S. Aral. <a href="http://science.sciencemag.org/cgi/doi/10.1126/science.aap9559" target="_blank" rel="noopener">The spread of true and false news online</a>.<em> Science</em>. Vol. 359, March 9, 2018, p. 1146. doi:10.1126/science.aap9559.</span></p>
<p><span>E. Engelhaupt. <a href="https://www.sciencenews.org/blog/science-public/youve-probably-been-tricked-fake-news-and-dont-know-it">You’ve probably been tricked by fake news and don’t know it</a>. Science News Online, December 4, 2016.</span></p>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>