Comment by flave
2 days ago
Better to link the actual study rather than what a know-nothing hack has to say about it: https://mmd.iammonline.com/index.php/musmed/article/view/111...
Nothing against the BBC but the most thoughtful journalist has all the scientific knowledge of Tarot Reader’s cat.
Anyway, n=56 which is fine I guess but leaves loads of margin for error.
Personally, I had a cystoscope and at the time had fancy health insurance so went to a bling London hospital and the surgeon insisted I listened to music - saying exactly what this article said. It lowers cortisol after, makes you less restless during and improves patient reported outcomes.
You can look up what a cystoscope is, I elected to do it with a blocker rather than with a general anaesthetic. All I will say is that track Shadowboxin’ by GLA is now completely unlistenable for me!
That is so incredibly rude of you. Science communication to the general public is valuable.
Let’s not forget that the author is a person too, just cause you don’t like it doesn’t mean you’ve got any place to talk down on them.
I’m sure the individual writer is smart educated and thoughtful, but the system of science journalism (science communication is different but equally flawed) is so bent-out-of-shape as to be effectively worthless.
Like, take this exact article as a great example. I’m sure Mr Biswas is genuinely very intelligent and thoughtful and a great journalist but having him write a science article is unfair on him and on readers.
Doesn’t even have an undergraduate in a science subject, has never worked as a scientist, and his job is as a national correspondent.
Perhaps my wording prioritised humour over fairness - I’ll take the criticism on that. But I don’t think my core point was wrong. How can you “communicate” something you yourself don’t understand?
Finally, I want to stress again - it’s not his fault. The system is broken.
Can you point out the issues with the article?
3 replies →
Good points - that's why I follow & support https://theconversation.com/ for news since it's Science Journalism is done by actual scientists working in the field.
> How can you “communicate” something you yourself don’t understand?
This goes both ways: how can you (as a scientist) communicate something when you don’t understand communication?
The answer to both is to let the person who understands it and the person who is good at communication collaborate.
I kind of understand where they come from: science vulgarization in pop news has been riddled with misinterpretation or lack of depth which can mislead the general public.
Can't that be communicated without calling anyone a know-nothing hack?
3 replies →
[dead]
I don't understand why anyone would think that this kind of snark and condescension is furthering the discussion in any way.
A good thing for us all to keep in mind: we don't /have to/ share all our thoughts.
1 reply →
n=56 doesn't give you much information regarding the margin of error, unless you practice Tarot Reader's cat science. The standard deviation of outcomes and the difference between both outcomes matter just as much.
If I flip a coin 56 times and it always falls on head, I can be pretty much certain that it's not a fair coin. I wouldn't need to flip it 1000 times. We are all someone else's "know-nothing hack"...
also, “this is study is flawed because n=56, here’s my n=1” is hilarious
I also had cystoscope and the nurses suggested music - in addition to the pain killer. So yeah, I would say peaceful music helped me, but not as a replacement to a painkiller.