• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Creationism in Private Eye

Matabiri

Graduate Poster
Matabiri
Joined
Oct 1, 2003
Messages
1,732
For the usual suspects...

Private Eye published a letter (in response to a review of Dawkin's latest book) denouncing evolution and pushing Denton and Behe's Intelligent Design books... I wrote in, and I encourage anyone else who has a copy lying around (or reads it in the library etc.) to do the same.
 
I wrote in after the review of Dawkin's book - but didn't get published*.

Private Eye is funny and good but science is not its strong point, they very much always seem to take a stance of "science is just another faith".


(* But then I didn't go to Oxford or Cambridge. ;) )
 
Darat said:
Private Eye is funny and good but science is not its strong point, they very much always seem to take a stance of "science is just another faith".
Click to expand...

I always had slightly higher expectations of Hislop...

My hope is that he's well aware of the response the letter might get, and will publish many rebuttals next week. Although it's quite likely that I'm wrong. On the other hand, I have a .cam.ac.uk e-mail address...
 
Matabiri said:
I always had slightly higher expectations of Hislop...

My hope is that he's well aware of the response the letter might get, and will publish many rebuttals next week. Although it's quite likely that I'm wrong. On the other hand, I have a .cam.ac.uk e-mail address...
Click to expand...

Well surely you know "good time Charlie" who fagged for Ian, so just drop him a line :D

But seriously look at how they handled the MMR scandal. As always Private Eye started against the mainstream position so "supported" the "concerns" but where was their investigative journalism uncovering the patents and so on? They are normally superb at unearthing those types of embarrassing facts yet in the recent stories surrounding both the Foot and Mouth outbreak and MMR there is no evidence of anyone doing that type of investigation. (Or that any one with even just an “O” level in biology even reading the majority of the articles before publication.)

As much as I've always liked Private Eye "science stories” never seems to be handled well.
 
I read it on Sunday morning and set off to write a stiff response. By the time I'd switched my PC on and made myself a cup of tea, I really couldn't be bothered anymore.

Sorry.
 
In the same issue there is also an article having a go at the Dispatches program that ripped Wakefield apart. Ends with the usual claim that they are not anti-vaccine. :(
 
Is Private Eye still in print? I thought it died years ago.

Are you sure they are not being hyper sarcastic?
 
Private Eye is still going, and, no, I don't think they're being sarcastic. The anti-MMR articles are always in the "factual" parts of the magazine (i.e. before the letters page or after the literary review section - the satirical stuff is in between these sections).

They recently (1st Oct) featured a letter from one "Mark Lewinsky BA (Hons)" attacking controlled testing of drugs (proponents of which he described as a "benighted tribe of schoolboys"), and then praising pharmaceutical companies for using a "try it and if it works keep using it" approach. I can't imagine what he thinks controlled testing actually does! I'm ashamed to say that I didn't get around to sending them a reply, and it seems a bit late in the day now.

The only scientific project I can remember seeing them praise recently was Beagle 2 (before the event, obviously).

Edited for inaccurate typing
 
Mojo said:
The only scientific project I can remember seeing them praise recently was Beagle 2 (before the event, obviously).
Click to expand...
After the loss and with the benefit of hindsight, they then laid into Beagle 2 somewhat heavy-handedly. I can recall articles in praise of Hot Dry Rock geothermal and Severn Barrage power projects.
 
Private Eye is excellent on politics, but I agree it has the typical journalistic failing on science, particularly an inability to distinguish between good science and bad science and, it seems to me, a desire to push a certain position (e.g. MMR is bad) rather than looking sensibly at all the evidence.
 
I love Private Eye for its satirical humour. I recently (a month or two ago) wrote in a rather nasty letter about phage therapy trials- P.E. took the stand that the the NHS wasnt interested becuase it wasnt patentable and therefore Big Pharma blagh blagh..snooooore.... whereas the NHS wasnt interested because the trials didnt even have a control.

P.E's position on a lot of things is disapointingly populist and ignorant... just like any other news rag, they dont let the facts get in the way of a good story.
 
Mojo said:
They recently (1st Oct) featured a letter from one "Mark Lewinsky BA (Hons)" attacking controlled testing of drugs (proponents of which he described as a "benighted tribe of schoolboys"), and then praising pharmaceutical companies for using a "try it and if it works keep using it" approach. I can't imagine what he thinks controlled testing actually does! I'm ashamed to say that I didn't get around to sending them a reply, and it seems a bit late in the day now.
[/SIZE]
Click to expand...

Ha! 'twas my letter Mr. Lewinsky replied to!

I couldnt be arsed to send in a response.....

edit- the reason he said "benighted tribe of schoolboys" was because I said that "even in this dumbed-down age, even a schoolboy would be able to tell you that an experiment done without a control is utterly worthless"

I also said "if you want to publish articles about science, hire a f£$king scientist!" - but they didnt print that bit! :P
 
OK- seems that there are quite a few P.E readers on this forum. What say we make a pact to write in and point out the error of their ways?

The most recent one has another anti-MMR column.....
 
Heres my latest:

Its rather sad to see your venerable but rather flaccid organ dry-humping the dead horse that is the MMR debate.

You recently state that “We are not anti-vaccine” but “We have merely maintained that his (Dr Wakefield's) work deserves proper investigation”. This leads me to wonder if your correspondents have ever even read Dr Wakefield's paper. If they have, they will know that the only "evidence" contained therein that MMR causes autism are the anecdotes of parents who were and are trying to sue Pharmaceutical companies on just such grounds.

Now if you hired a scientist as a science correspondent, he or she would be able to explain to you why anecdotal evidence is no evidence at all.

As it is I will leave you to figure that one out for yourselves.

Slight Regards,

---------------------------.
 
You should have threatened to cancel your subscription. They always seem to publish those letters.
 
Yes. A more balanced letter letter page this time...but wait and see what they put in next time...
 
Filippo Lippi said:
Judging by this issues letters' page, they have seen the error of their ways
Click to expand...

I took my copy home yesterday and FORGOT TO CHECK.

Dah! Will look this evening.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom