| Main Board • cheap air jordans Store - CheapJordansStock |
| 05.03.2017, 12:31 - nieeshoes - Rank 6 - 1159 Posts
if you’re reporting on a scientific study, cheap jordans for sale , you need to actually look at the paper. You need to talk to a source who has real scientific expertise, cheap real jordans ,” Bohannon told?the Washington Post. This point that journalists should take care when covering health and statistics has been made over and over again. This was not an instance of last resort that required undercover tactics. There are numerous resources for journalists to help them interpret statistics: At its annual meeting, the National Association of Science Writers, cheap jordan shoes , for example, has hosted many sessions dedicated to this topic. (Speakers?at last year’s session included Science News managing editor Tom Siegfried, who has written?extensively on this topic, cheap jordans free shipping , and statistician/reporter Regina Nuzzo, the author of the piece on statistical errors that Bohannon links to in his write-up). Another way to highlight bogus science is to call it out by exposing quacks?and telling readers how to be skeptical. Bohannon and his colleagues decided to create a wrong to prove that wrongs exist. They lied to the public to make their point. Granted, cheap jordans , it’s unlikely that anyone will be harmed by eating more dark chocolate. But not only does the caper do a disservice to people who are desperate for meaningful information about health and nutrition, it also undermines all of science and all of journalism. There’s real wrongdoing in both science?and journalism (most infamously, cheap retro jordans , see Stephen Glass, Jayson Blair, http://cheapjordansstock.com , Janet Cooke, cheap jordans online , Jonah Lehrer, Brian Williams). But intentionally creating wrong to make a point is both bizarre and http://www.midwestartfairs.com/node/add/article http://novus-exordium....hread.php?thread_id=18312 http://www.efti.org/es/search/node/ |