Abstract
A man with no credentials in seismology forecast an earthquake in the United States. His prediction was wrong, but triggered off 68 different reports in five of the country's major newspapers. Eighteen months earlier the same papers had published only eight stories following an authoritative prediction by the United States Geological Survey. This earthquake did occur—and caused six billion dollars-worth of damage. The two cases, analysed by Conrad Smith in Public Understanding of Science (1996,5:205), will appeal to all who enjoy deriding the media. Here are several key ingredients for a robust bout of hack bashing. Journalists want pseudoscience rather than genuine science. They prefer the maverick to the …
Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
