quote:

---

Blinded By Science
How ‘Balanced’ Coverage Lets the Scientific Fringe Hijack Reality

By Chris Mooney

On May 22, 2003, the Los Angeles Times printed a front-page story by Scott Gold, its respected Houston bureau chief, about the passage of a law in Texas requiring abortion doctors to warn women that the procedure might cause breast cancer. Virtually no mainstream scientist believes that the so-called ABC link actually exists — only anti-abortion activists do. Accordingly, Gold’s article noted right off the bat that the American Cancer Society discounts the “alleged link” and that anti-abortionists have pushed for “so-called counseling” laws only after failing in their attempts to have abortion banned. Gold also reported that the National Cancer Institute had convened “more than a hundred of the world’s experts” to assess the ABC theory, which they rejected. In comparison to these scientists, Gold noted, the author of the Texas counseling bill — who called the ABC issue “still disputed” — had “a professional background in property management.”

Gold’s piece was hard-hitting but accurate. The scientific consensus is quite firm that abortion does not cause breast cancer. If reporters want to take science and its conclusions seriously, their reporting should reflect this reality — no matter what anti-abortionists say.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cougyr:
I feel like we're headed back to the middle ages with religious dogma taking priority over science.

---

[ 11 November 2004: Message edited by: Andy Social ]

Is the nose....ahhh.... original?

*crowd shuffles*

quote:

---

Originally posted by Hailey:
There is no credible link between breast cancer and abortion. Women should not be told this information because it's not true.

---

I sometimes dispair that we on the left are not as scientific as we ought to be.

[ 12 November 2004: Message edited by: Tommy_Paine ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tommy_Paine:
In fairness, how many NDP policies have run the gaunlet of skeptical analysis? How many feminist or trade union thinkers are well schooled in what is reasonable to believe and what isn't?

I sometimes dispair that we on the left are not as scientific as we ought to be.

---

Scientific socialism???

Can you explain this:

quote:

---

How many feminist or trade union thinkers are well schooled in what is reasonable to believe and what isn't?

---

quote:

---

Innumeracy: Mathematical Illiteracy and its Consequences

---

quote:

---

a little more clearly, please? I'm not sure what you mean.

---

Well, I could invite a debate where philosophers parachute in to tell me I can't possibly know what the "truth" is, so to avoid such pedantry, I simply assert that science and skepticism can clearly indicate what is reasonable to believe and what isn't.

For example, I wasn't here six thousand years ago to see if the account of creation in Genisis is correct or not. But I can wiegh the evidence, and I can say that it isn't reasonable to believe.

I think political policy can be scientific. Clearly, we can view social policy as "experiments." We can look at results from other juristictions. We can examine evidence: we can craft reasoned policy.