Fairy tales masquerading as evidence

Science bible stories, take 27 by Mark Liberman is a useful discussion (including in the comments) about the tendency of media to take up a topical research paper without regard to the methodological robustness of the study or whether the results are meaningfully true.

As I observed a few years ago, "scientific studies" have taken over the place that bible stories used to occupy. It's only fundamentalists like me who worry about whether they're true. For most people, it's enough that they can be interpreted to be morally instructive.

[snip]

I'd add a third important factor: by and large, the "wise men" (and now the "wise women") don't really care about whether the empirical and theoretical foundations of their opinions are sound . They care about readers, ratings, and reputation — and in some cases about political outcomes or cultural values — with truth relevant only insofar as it affects those goals.

I think Liberman is correct. People rarely consider what evidence they need in order to make an argument, instead they go after information that is convenient to get. At the same time, the market structure for ideas and information is such that there are incentives to produce affirming information to a range of prejudices, regardless of the truth of the matter. Elsewhere I refer to this as cognitive pollution as it constitutes dirt in the system that tends to occlude rather than clarify.

RELATED: The culturomic psychology of urbanization by Mark Liberman

Journalistic train wreck

S. Dakota Indian Foster Care 1: Investigative Storytelling Gone Awry by Edward Schumacher-Matos

A year long investigation led to a three part radio series with serious allegations of moral, financial and legal malfeasance. The ombudsman of the news organization, NPR, then spent a year and a half investigating allegations that the substantial majority of the news report was misleading and factually incorrect. As with any major dust-up there are points and counter-points. It appears though that, on balance, the ombudsman is right, that the report departed from the organization's own journalistic standards and ethics in material ways.

It is worth reading to reinforce 1) that there are always two perspectives (or more), 2) that even reporting from organizations with resources and a reputation for integrity can be dramatically wrong, 3) that misplaced and unquestioned assumptions were likely a material contributor to a journalistic train wreck, 4) that a compelling narrative arc is no substitute for factual accuracy, 5) that context is critical, and 6) journalistic accolades and awards can go to reports that are materially wrong.