<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
	>

<channel>
	<title>Logomacy &#187; science</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.joshuamacy.com/wordpress/tag/science/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.joshuamacy.com/wordpress</link>
	<description>Between logomachy and logomancy . . .</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Tue, 23 Mar 2010 13:23:15 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.2</generator>
	<language>en</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
			<item>
		<title>In Defense of Objectivity</title>
		<link>http://www.joshuamacy.com/wordpress/2007/11/29/objectivity-ftw/</link>
		<comments>http://www.joshuamacy.com/wordpress/2007/11/29/objectivity-ftw/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 29 Nov 2007 22:43:44 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Joshua</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[General]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[science]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[epistemology]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[objectivity]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[reporting]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.joshuamacy.com/wordpress/2007/11/29/objectivity-ftw/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[
			
				
			
		
Transterrestrial Musings
Thoughts On Objectivity
In both science, and journalism.
The notion that journalists are, or should be, or can be &#8220;objective&#8221; is perhaps the profession&#8217;s most fatal conceit. As Virginia Postrel says, what&#8217;s important is to be fair, something that they often don&#8217;t even attempt, as demonstrated by CNN and its performance in the debates.
I&#8217;m dubious. Even [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.joshuamacy.com/wordpress/2007/11/29/objectivity-ftw/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Marginal Revolution: Why Most Published Research Findings are False</title>
		<link>http://www.joshuamacy.com/wordpress/2007/11/19/marginal-revolution-why-most-published-research-findings-are-false-2/</link>
		<comments>http://www.joshuamacy.com/wordpress/2007/11/19/marginal-revolution-why-most-published-research-findings-are-false-2/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 19 Nov 2007 15:48:19 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Joshua</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[science]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Bayes]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Mathematics]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[research]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.joshuamacy.com/wordpress/?p=150</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[
			
				
			
		
Marginal Revolution: Why Most Published Research Findings are False
 There is increasing concern that in modern research, false findings may be the majority or even the vast majority of published research claims. However, this should not be surprising. It can be proven that most claimed research findings are false. &#8211; John Ioannidis
The argument is from [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.joshuamacy.com/wordpress/2007/11/19/marginal-revolution-why-most-published-research-findings-are-false-2/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
