Don’t Trust Wikipedia or Newspaper Accounts for Reliable Information on Science. Instead, Look for a Consensus, if There is One, in Peer-Reviewed Science Journals
Kevin R. Henke
November 3, 2022
In Henke (2022bi), I made the following statements:
“Previously, I discussed the alchemy stories associated with Theophrastus Paracelsus in Henke (2022b) and Henke (2022bg). Lundahl (2022k) then makes some additional comments about Paracelsus and the Enlightenment:
“I do not need to believe Paracelsus had an actual contract with the devil, since that could be a misunderstanding on the part of his contemporaries, just as Gerbert (Pope Sylvester II, if I recall correctly) was considered as having made such a contract, because he was exceptionally using some not commonly used mathematical algorithms, probably no more diabolic than long division.
That there is in the Enlightenment era a story about his changing a copper penny into gold doesn't break this, since the Enlightenment era was (like Henke) obnoxiously negligent of distinctions about historicity and generally started to believe legends were a sort of fiction, to which one could obviously add.
However, it could be that the Küssdenpfennig legend should actually be classified as fake history (rather than entertaining fiction) : the owners of that house wanting to obliterate a memory of stingy rich people who "kissed each penny" like Uncle Scrooge, by claiming (falsely) it came from a "near miracle" by Paracelsus, done to sympathetic poor people.”
In this case, I at least agree with Lundahl (2022k) that there is no rational reason to believe any of these stories about Paracelsus or others having contracts with the devil. However, I’m the skeptic in this debate. It’s Mr. Lundahl that cannot separate cartoonish delusions (e.g., Genesis 3) from reality (e.g., an ancient Earth). I also do not automatically believe any story coming out of the Enlightenment. All stories must be verified with evidence, no matter if they are in today’s New York Times, recorded in the Enlightenment or found in the Bible. As I state in Henke (2022b), Henke (2022dv) and Henke (2022eu), the first reaction to any claim should be skepticism. Skepticism is the default position. This is why good evidence should always accompany a new claim. If the purveyors of a claim simply promise to provide evidence later or if they claim that large numbers of people already accept it as fact or that the “earliest known audience” believed it, it’s wise not to accept the claim until reliable evidence comes forward.”
Lundahl (2022v) then comments on my individual statements from Henke (2022bi) :
“Henke (2022bi): ‘I also do not automatically believe any story coming out of the Enlightenment.’
Lundahl (2022v): ‘He'll actually show off believing one ... here it is, with me answering after it:
Henke (2022bi): ‘All stories must be verified with evidence, no matter if they are in today’s New York Times, recorded in the Enlightenment or found in the Bible.”
Lundahl (2022v): ‘And a New York Times journalist believing a story to be true doesn't strike Henke as evidence? Is it a kind of disingenious forgetfulness of what news source he habitually trusts, or is it just a snide remark on how low he rates the journalists of NYT?
More presumably, he does actually consider, if a NYT journalist has found evidence, he presents a story, and if he hasn't, he doesn't. Unless it's for the issue of April 1st.’
Mr. Lundahl has additional comments in Lundahl (2022v), which are discussed in my next essay, Henke (2022jp).
Actually, I don’t rely on unverified claims and the science articles in the New York Times and other newspapers. So, I guess it’s a snide remark. While Mr. Lundahl trusts questionable and unreliable sources for information on “science”, like Wikipedia (Henke 2022fq) and Kent Hovind (Henke 2022bc), I evaluate a variety of peer-reviewed articles in scientific journals and look for a consensus on an issue, if there is one. I’m sure that the journalists and their editors at the New York Times believe their stories. They are presenting evidence. However, how reliable is their evidence in a given article? How good is it? Mr. Lundahl is failing to realize that too many newspaper journalists and editors are not trained scientists. They don’t have the necessary expertise in science. So, we should not just trust the scientific claims in newspaper articles, especially if the claims are only in one article and have not been confirmed by other scientists. We should all remember the cold fusion fiasco and learn lessons about skepticism and the importance of confirming claims.
Sometimes, the newspaper articles are summaries of peer-reviewed articles in scientific journals. In such cases, the original peer-reviewed articles and their references should be reviewed. They’re probably more reliable in presenting the evidence than a summary in a newspaper that may have been written and reviewed by individuals that have no appropriate training in the scientific topic.
For daily news, I use a variety of conservative and liberal sources. By using a variety of news sources, I’m more likely to get a better and less biased view of what is going on.