There seems an almost unwritten law in newspapers and magazines where journalists feel compelled to present what they see as “both sides” of the argument.<\/p>\n

Now, at first glance it seems like this is a “reasonable” approach to take but is this always the case? Personally I think not, and it is the warped idea that this has to be done which has allowed real crackpot ideas like ID to get a foothold.<\/p>\n

It is very easy to pass scorn on the “mainstream” press for this fallacy, but science journals (which really should know better) can be just as guilty. In todays New Scientist magazine, in the In Brief section there is an article entitled “Melatonin Myth?” [New Scientist, 18 feb 2006, p 21<\/span>] – which is available online from http:\/\/www.newscientist.com\/channel\/health\/mg18925394.900<\/a> – and in this it explains that Nini Buscemi (et al) from the University of Alberty carried out a review on the use of Melatonin to fight jet lag. Their research implied that there was “no evidence the hormone helps people get to sleep sooner” and “at best it added 10 mins of extra sleep for every 8 hours in bed.”<\/p>\n

In the sprit of presenting both sides, New Scientist helpfully adds in this reply from the “Surrey Sleep Research Centre<\/a>” (Guildford, UK<\/a>) “Dont knock it.” Fantastic. What an excellent refute of the Buscemi study. The reply is from “Jo Arent” (not listed on the SSRC staff list so I cant correctly attribute her scientific credentials) and she says “some studies are negative because subjects were not instructed to take melatonin at the correct time.”<\/p>\n

Now call me old fashioned, and to be honest this is completely without seeing the studies she is talking about so I may well be wrong, but this sounds suspiciously like the argument Homeopaths use to justify thier witchcraft.<\/p>\n

I get the impression, that as western society works hard to undo the enlightenment we suffer from journalists who feel the need to appear balanced (at times, the New Scientist staff are happy to present weak causal links elsewhere without retort) which in turn creates confusion and mistrust within the general public.<\/p>\n

It is this hotbed of chaos which has allowed ID (and homeopathy, “alternative medicine” fools and cranks like Gillian McKeith) to gain a foothold in society. People are confused about science and as more nutjobs get on the news, the more confused people become. It is shocking.<\/p>\n

Partly “science” itself is to blame. What once was fairly simple (basic science and “human scale” physics is straightforward enough for most people) but as we get into the realms of DNA, Quantum Mechanics etc., it seems people are feeling left behind. As this happens we create an environment where the lunatic can seem as reasonable as the next man.<\/p>\n

This is not a Good Thing\u00e2\u201e\u00a2.<\/p>\n