“Gay caveman” claim exposed as typical example of the fraudulent science reporting we’ve grown to expect
Kathlene M. writes:
Several scientists, responding to the “gay caveman” story [see VFR’s discussion] , have pointed out that the caveman isn’t even a caveman. The skeleton belongs to the pre-Bronze Age farmers. [LA replies: Yes, and I’m sorry I didn’t make that obvious point yesterday. “Cave-men” would of course refer to a much earlier period of pre-history, not to people living in Europe 5,000 years ago.]
Dawn B. writes:
This type of reporting, more and more frequent, exposes the lie that science is the most reliable way to truth. Of course, there is no such thing as “science” (i.e. a monlithic body of integrated knowledge). What we have are “sciences”—each with their own principles, methodologies, points of view, histories and objectives.LA replies:
Well, first of all I think we need to distinguish between science itself and the way various scientists and science journalists distort science for personal gain or the advancement of an ideology. But once we do that, does science emerge unscathed? Or is there something inherently flawed about science itself? For example, is there something about the hyperspecialization of modern science which leads scientists to make larger claims for a particular discovery than are warranted? What I mean is, the given subject matter of any scientific research covers such a narrow and obscure ground, due to extreme specialization, that in order to make their discoveries seem more meaningful scientists tend to hype them?
Posted by Lawrence Auster at April 08, 2011 02:10 PM | Send