Good for the cause though. And the bloke who writes it used to comment here. I hope it, er, gets better.
If you like what I do, and you want me to do more, you can: buy my books Bad Science and Bad Pharma, give them to your friends, put them on your reading list, employ me to do a talk, or tweet this article to your friends. Thanks!
Bad Martial Arts
(Good Math), Bad Math
And those I just the ones I recall.
To be fair, warhelmet, “Women/Life & Style” strikes me as section that’s louse with bad stats (and chemistry and psychology and sociology and whathaveyou). I think it’s admirable if someone tries to fight the good fight against the vacuous columnists of that persuasion.
Ooh, good point Sili – there’s Bad Archaeology too. Couldn’t find a blog called Bad Statistics though. My weak google-fu may not have been powerful enough this time. I should really dilute and succuss it…
I hope it gets better too but take heart from the fact that it is there in the first place (or rather second place since BadScience was first). Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery. The more there is of this kind of thing the better.
@The Biologista – are you completely mad? Putting a badsciencesque column in a women’s magazine would scare the advertisers. Especially the woo ones that you find at the back amongst the cosmetic surgery ads. And the scratch cards with premium rate claim numbers. It can’t be done… Well, I’d love it if someone could prove me wrong. And Sili – “good fight” – the article doesn’t really challenge anything of any import. It’s a silly article.
BadEducation. That’s the column I want to see. With particular concentration on mathematics and science. And maybe a bit of logic and rhetoric.
And critical reasoning. And proper “media studies” in the sense that one is taught how to parse a newspaper article, etc…
It’s certainly not the case that more coverage of these issues is a good thing. I, for one, would prefer that it wasn’t necessary.
I am sick to the back teeth of newspapers being filled with non-news content. Look at the sunday editions.
I emailed Bad Statistics the other day about a Theos poll. The press release was titled ‘1 in 3 Britons believe in virgin birth’, but the poll question didn’t quite match it, asking the level of agreement with the statement that “Jesus was born to a virgin called Mary” was historically accurate. (I see the problem as being that many will instead see the statement as ‘Jesus was born to Mary’ and leave out the virgin bit.) They found that two-thirds did.
Tom Whipple seemed quite interested in this mismatch, so it may appear in a future column!
Talking of Theos, they did another poll about the nation’s awareness of Charles Dawrin’s 200th anniversary and 150th anniversary of the Origin of Species. Not surprisingly, it found that 80% did not know about it – hopefully that will change in the coming months. However, there is hope for future generations: 25% of those ‘up to four years old’, were aware! (See campaigndirector.moodia.com/Client/Theos/Files/DarwinpollNov08.pdf)