Science journalism's funeral

In an article from 2016 called On Detecting Gravitational Waves, Landmark Science and the Media, physicist Matthew Bailes discussed the incredible confirmation of gravitational waves by LIGO. This story was heralded as a watershed moment in the history of physics. Despite corroborating general relativity, however, LIGO’s results may seem underwhelming to the layperson. This apathy which concerns both Professor Bailes and I is at least partially caused by the incompetency of the media, both new and old, in reporting science. Rather than hiring qualified science journalists who can vet the releases and explain the nuances of the sciences and discovery, many news organizations uncritically copy and paste press releases from science journals. 

In the section entitled The Death of Science Journalism, Dr. Bailes laments this fact that many newspapers no longer take their responsibility to disseminate science seriously. "Long ago, newspapers could afford to have science journalists on their staff," he writes, "but nowadays many just cut and paste press releases. The downside of this is that there is next to no scrutiny of science stories, and press officers in universities and research labs end up effectively writing their own propaganda." As this PHD comic about the science news cycle shows, this then snowballs down into clickbait like the classic "science says x" story and ends up with the tinfoil hat community quoting an even further exaggerated version. 

The science news cycle in a nutshell.

It unfortunately gets even worse than the tinfoil hat crowds talking about pedophiles using extra dimensions to access our kids. "For the trusting public," the doctor warns, "this makes it appear as though every few days some amazing scientific discovery has just been made." This point is very important and worth dwelling on. Many science and futurism blogs across the internet do exactly what he is describing. The individuals who run blogs (which will not be mentioned by their Fucking name) seem to have made a career regurgitating over-hyped press releases that are not first vetted by capable STEM journalists.

These clickbait headlines cause the layperson to think that our best paradigms throughout the sciences are always about to undergo a revolution. Engineers and medical professionals, from this viewpoint, are always on the verge of creating miracle machines and curing all diseases. Reporting in this manner is dangerous because it creates cynicism towards epistemic progress. This creates what Dr. Bailes calls "science breakthrough fatigue." 

 Eventually, this leads to science agnosticism, then cynicism. When landmark discoveries like this appear, they’re lost in the fluff. This destruction of journalism is not only happening in science, but all throughout the media. Everyone is now suspicious of the motives behind any story, and with good reason. This has a number of unfortunate consequences. When scientists tell us that the world is getting hotter they’re ignored. People can choose to believe in whatever they want, whether it is a 7,000-year old Earth, the world’s immunity to rising CO₂ levels, and even Donald Trump.

"If everything is about to be overturned due to this incredible discovery," the public thinks, "then what is the point in trying to learn something about the sciences and engineering?"

My own area of interest suffers from similar deficiencies. The history of science is almost always written from a Whiggish point of view. All the great fore bearers of science are judged in accordance with how much their views resemble those which are presently accepted. The big names, like Galileo, Kepler, and Newton, are all viewed as great banishers of superstition. Science, according to Whiggish historians, is a linear march towards the enlightened present. The problem with this, besides the fact that it suffers from being outright propaganda, is that it gives a far less interesting than the complicated and messy real history of science. 

It also gives cannon fodder to science deniers who can easily point to what are now viewed as dead ends, confusions, and odd ideas that litter the history of science. Alchemy, numerology, astrology, and magic were ever present during the Scientific Revolution. Galileo performed horoscopes. Kepler believed in numerology. Newton wrote more about theology than he did science. Bacon thought that magic was the practical payoff for learning about nature. Without putting all of this into a legitimate historical framework, one gives the people who believe that "science is just a new religion that will eventually get replaced" a lot more ammo than they had before. 

To avoid falling into the pit of misreporting the past or the present of science and causing cynicism, I tend to share articles written only by quality science journalists like the biology writer Carl Zimmer or the popular historian Dava Sobel. When I share knowledge about how science works, I am also quite picky about the pop sci books that I recommend and stick to handing out tour-de-forces like Richard Dawkins’ The Blind Watchmaker, Sean Carrol’s From Eternity to Here, or Ethan Siegel’s wonderful blog. While this may not be as sexy as talking about overhyped headlines, it celebrates the core of science and does not add to the overall confusion in the universe.