Bad Dog Science Reporting

Whoa Nelly...am I trying to decipher too much before too little coffee, or am I just bitter or is this really just bad reporting. I'd like to say that I would spank this reporter like I would a "bad dog", but I don't think I would ever do that, mmm, I dunno, anyways...The other day I read something about how bad science reporting is and why/how we should do a better job. Well, I think I found one that could be filed under "better job."

Scientists tinker with mind reading is either totally awesome or I haven't had enuff coffee yet, or I'm a bitter stinky stink-o-stein. First of all that is not what the scientists were doing. To say "mind reading" implies that old fashioned notion of crystal ball shit, or sitting across from someone and telling them what they are thinking. This is hooking stuff up to yer head and reading brain signals and hopefully that will be translated into words.

There is a great diagram and I just looked for it in the paper, but no go Houston. It is so good, a "microphone" is attached to ones head, it "reads" the signal and sends it to a computer, then that can be turned into a voice that reads it back. Soooo good, except it doesn't explain any of the mechanisms that would explain this. It's kinda like the answer of "God" in that it doesn't explain anything. OK, skeptic meter....First thing I thought was how is this program going to filter out daydreaming & meaningless thoughts. Just sayin'.

Dig this, it gets better. The journal PLoS Biology did the science thing and did a study. That's cool right, we like that stuff. Ohhhh, the only thing is that it had a sample size of 15 (that's what it says in the article, I didn't read the actual report, here). This is where the bad reporting comes in.

Besides the obvious problem with sample siz* the author implies, or at least doesn't explain very well, that the study's conclusion means that a mind reading device attached to the head is right around the corner. We see stuff like this all the time like when there is that one report that a gianormous asteroid will hit the erffs...like tomorrow, because one scientist said in one part of one report that it is statistically possible that this particular situation could remotely possibly happen (does that make sense or did I just babble....).

"Bad dog! Bad dog. Put daddies dildo away."

Another example could be when those preliminary trials of something have a positive result, for let's say, the cure for cancer and claim that it is right around the corner (when obviously more studies and trials halfta happen).

And don't forget about the conspiracy wackos. When rogue, fringe (many times not accredited) scientists self publish super crazy work, then you get some reporter fueling the fire to something like...the erffs magnetic poles are gonna shift, on Friday and we are all gonna die. It's kinda extreme, but that is what bad science reporting is.

Look man, I would think it the coolest of coolest things to have a mind reading device. I just think that implying that it is right around the corner, well, it gets my nerdy hopes up high and I don't like disappointment. I dunno maybe it can happen, technology advances in exponential leaps, right (help, I forgot what that is called), but I won't hold my breadth.