Home » Genetics, Mind, Neuroscience, News » New York Times piece: “There’s not a grain of real science in it that’s worth putting on the front page”

New York Times piece: “There’s not a grain of real science in it that’s worth putting on the front page”

Flagellum

Remember how “Jilted fruit flies drown their sorrows in drink”? At The Best Schools, philosopher James Barham writes about the New York Times’ response to this minor discovery,

When looked at properly, the whole article is nothing but a sleazy piece of sensationalism. There’s not a grain of real science in it that’s worth putting on the front page.

Like most articles reporting on the latest scientific findings that are alleged to throw light on human nature, this one is written in that irritating combination of sophomoric facetiousness and pious credulity that is unique to science journalism.

Yes, that’s right. And many of us never get that kind of thing in religion any more. It’s all service, sacrifice, prayers, study now.

We miss the excitement of nonsense. So we turn to the science pages of venerable news organs to get the pure, unadulterated nonsense that Barham is skewering.

Barham, save some for us.

  • Delicious
  • Facebook
  • Reddit
  • StumbleUpon
  • Twitter
  • RSS Feed

Leave a Reply