The following is my 300-500 word paper for Statistics class. We’re to read the book “It Ain’t Necessarily So” by Murray, Schwartz, and Lichter, and provide feedback on one chapter. The more I looked at it, the more it seemed like something I’d like my crew to be aware of – so, here y’go… It should remind you, just a little, of the “Choose Your Conditioning” lesson we had last year, with the pictures of parrot-dogs and cat-bunnies… There’s a quote I’m too lazy to look up right now, that essentially says “repeat it loudly and they will believe it”.

I do recommend reading the book, and perhaps discussing it – in between all the other things y’all have going on. You’re in the big world now, and making decisions that will affect other people – be properly informed and stand strong together. <3

———————————————————————————————–

In “Much Ado About Little”, the authors point out the tendency to take a small piece of preliminary and/or inconclusive research and broadcast it as important fact with little or no conflicting evidence. Hypotheses & studies that aren’t quite ready to leave the lab yet are touted as late breaking sensational information by many ratings-seeking news outlets & ambitious reporters. In particular, the authors highlight the potential explosion and nuclear meltdown of Yucca Mountain (in 1,000 years, maybe), the allegedly falling sperm count (which is simultaneously shown to be on the rise), mother-infant bonding (which is too variable and subjective to be conclusive), and one species of butterfly that appears to support the Global Warming theory.
In the butterfly research, the scientist herself stated that her findings were insufficient to support the Global Warming theory, and that many other creatures should be tracked before declaring conclusive evidence. She also stated that her findings were the first biological evidence of Global Warming, and it was this assertion that five prominent newspapers focused on. In actuality, there was no natural temperature increase during the timeframe researched, and urban development provided alternate causes for the migration. Once her research and conclusions were found to be faulty on several points, there were no retractions in the news media. A reversal of the story wouldn’t grab the attention of readers, nor would it align with the long held paradigm that humans are destroying the planet.
If the right piece of information is marketed to the right reporter and/or news outlet, it will be enthusiastically covered, whether or not it’s accurate, worthy, or complete. We live in a “sound byte” society that doesn’t have the patience for caveats and conditionals, nor a taste for the mundane. Scientists need to market their research in order to get funding for further research. News outlets need fresh, sensational tales in order to maintain and grow their customer base and profits. As consumers, we need to be aware of these realities and take the time to examine the news with more discernment, avoiding the current tendency of knee-jerk reactions to every story that’s released. For example, I’ve been alive and aware long enough to be warned about everything from apples to wine and back to aspirin. If the reports are to be taken at face value, each product in turn is good for you, then deadly, then necessary. As for Global Warming, I remember the 1970’s when the awful disaster brought on by man’s abuse of Earth was to be the next Ice Age.

The Bible, on the other hand, states that one day the Earth will indeed be destroyed by fire, and rebuilt, in His time. Peter’s recommendation matches the authors’, that we should “…be on [our] guard so that [we] may not be carried away by the error of lawless men…” Our focus should rather be on “…grow[ing] in the grace and knowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.” (II Peter 3:10-18) This is news worth sharing.