Here's A More Thorough Debunking....
Dean
...of Randell Mills.
Here's my suggestion for reporters: never believe a story in science of amazing breakthroughs unless you've got a full-on demonstration of a working product, or, credentialed and experienced scientists with direct expertise and known credibility who are endorsing it. Or, better yet, both. And do some background work in Google for God's sake, it's almost 2006 and last I checked it was still free.
Otherwise you may wind up giving a twit like Troy Hurtubise attention and making yourself look dumb. Or worse, you might wind up helping a con artist bilk people out of their money.
Related Posts (on one page):
- Here's A More Thorough Debunking....
- Turning Quantum Mechanics On Its Head: The Hydrino?
- Speaking Of Simple Solutions: Ashok Gadgil
- "Incredible" Technological Breakthrough
Most reporters can’t even get the simple stuff right. Katrina, Iraq, fake memos, etc.
Whether the problem is ignorance, arrogance, delusion, bias, or agendas, I don’t know.
But I have no hope they’ll ever get the science and technology stuff right.
Virtually everybody I've talked to in any particular field of expertise seems to think the press does a pretty good job, except in reporting on their own area of expertise. Then they can almost invariably give you a litany of distortions, inaccuracies, and flat-out bass-ackwards mistakes they've seen the press make countless times.
It may be that the problem is that reporters have to cover so many different types of story they can't be counted on to understand everything. And, they do work under tight deadlines. Yet I rather think it suggests they're teaching everything wrong in journalism school. Rigorous critical thinking should be stressed more, avoiding the phoniness of "balance," and the even greater phoniness of "objectivity" would probably serve the profession better.