Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

Hello Friends,

Can you please suggest me some christian newspaper that provides information about christian community,christian events,news here in florida.

http://www.doveworld.org/

Originally posted by inimalist
http://www.doveworld.org/ They don't talk like doves....

Originally posted by inimalist
http://www.doveworld.org/

I thought they were going to try to sell me soap.

gimme that old tyme religion

oxymoron

Originally posted by leonheartmm
oxymoron

Christian Newspaper? Why?

Thanks for all your suggestion. But I found one newspaper that provides good information regarding Christian News and Events called The Good News.

Originally posted by inimalist
gimme that old tyme religion

I had to sing that song in bible school when I was a kid. I hated that song.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Christian Newspaper? Why?

christianity has nothing to do with reality or truth while the news has everything to do with reality and truths.

Originally posted by leonheartmm
christianity has nothing to do with reality or truth while the news has everything to do with reality and truths.

Most news is sensationalist, prone to speculation and exagerration (sic), and has nothing to do with those things either.

Good news reporting, sure. I'd say science deals most closely with reality and truths, but I suppose that would be opening an oft-tread can of worms for this forum.

Originally posted by Digi
Most news is sensationalist, prone to speculation and exagerration (sic), and has nothing to do with those things either.

Good news reporting, sure. I'd say science deals most closely with reality and truths, but I suppose that would be opening an oft-tread can of worms for this forum. Science isn't prone to speculation and exaggeration?

Originally posted by Mindset
Science isn't prone to speculation and exaggeration?

People are (which is where your question has some merit), but the methods are not. News publications are by necessity and design prone to such things.

Properly controlled science is devoid of speculation, it deals only with empirical data. Though the results or lack thereof can obviously be slanted or used toward an agenda, which is what I think you're trying to imply with your question. And you have a point, but we're talking about two different things.

So the institution of science, which would include the politics and agendas, isn't devoid of problems, but the actual methods are free of the things I mentioned. News, in contrast, has no standardized rule set, and no objective criteria for measurement or merit.

Originally posted by Mindset
Science isn't prone to speculation and exaggeration?
Scientific Literature: "The statistical methods produced by suggest that the sky is most likely blue (P=, , ). This is consistent with . suggests color to be a subjective value, and disagreement is understandable. Opposing opinions can be found .

Originally posted by Digi
Properly controlled science is devoid of speculation, it deals only with empirical data.

science = bias + a methods section

Originally posted by Digi
People are (which is where your question has some merit), but the methods are not. News publications are by necessity and design prone to such things.

Properly controlled science is devoid of speculation, it deals only with empirical data. Though the results or lack thereof can obviously be slanted or used toward an agenda, which is what I think you're trying to imply with your question. And you have a point, but we're talking about two different things.

So the institution of science, which would include the politics and agendas, isn't devoid of problems, but the actual methods are free of the things I mentioned. News, in contrast, has no standardized rule set, and no objective criteria for measurement or merit. News does have a standardized rule set, even if it isn't written out like the scientific method; it's supposed to be the "factual" relaying of events-seems to have empirical qualities, no? Both news and science are subject to bias and human error, that's the nature of the beasts.Originally posted by Quark_666
Scientific Literature: "The statistical methods produced by suggest that the sky is most likely blue (P=, , ). This is consistent with . suggests color to be a subjective value, and disagreement is understandable. Opposing opinions can be found . What?

Originally posted by Mindset
What? I should be clearer. Science is not prone to speculation and exaggeration. Speculation and exaggeration can be found within scientific literature, but such mistakes are not encouraged and considerable efforts are taken to root them out.

The same could be said for news.

The same would be absolutely true for news.

Originally posted by Mindset
Originally posted by Quark_666
I should be clearer. Science is not prone to speculation and exaggeration. Speculation and exaggeration can be found within scientific literature, but such mistakes are not encouraged and considerable efforts are taken to root them out. The same could be said for news. Fair enough. And to the credit of some news agencies, news articles can be found that reference their sources, draw a defined line between a report of the evidence and an interpretation of the evidence, and open up discussions for peer reviews from competing news agencies. That, by definition, seems "not prone to speculation and exaggeration."

Originally posted by Mindset
Science isn't prone to speculation and exaggeration?

No, it's not. There are example of both in science but it is not prone to either, certainly not in the way or to the level that the news is. The process of peer review weeds out the worst speculation (whereas news editors tend to remove things that don't exaggerate enough, which is one of the reasons scientists hate science journalism).

I don't mean to be such a downer, but science has lots of both speculation and exaggeration.

Sym is right, it is nowhere close to what a news program would have, but the only empirical part of a scientific paper comes in the methods and results section, the remainder of the paper is essentially a narrative where you sell your own speculation on what your results mean, and often exaggerate either the importance of one's own findings or how well previous literature supports your own speculation.

Main reason, scientists have to put food on the table too, and it is publish or perish.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
No, it's not. There are example of both in science but it is not prone to either, certainly not in the way or to the level that the news is. The process of peer review weeds out the worst speculation (whereas news editors tend to remove things that don't exaggerate enough, which is one of the reasons scientists hate science journalism). News also has peer review. News editors can't control information that doesn't come from their publications. If we are to take the entirety of news and the entirety of science, both are prone to speculation and exaggeration. As you mentioned, scientist hate science journalism because of this, well, science journalism would fall under the umbrella of science.

Originally posted by Mindset
well, science journalism would fall under the umbrella of science.

how could that possibly be true?

I can't tell if you're serious or not.

I'll assume you are; they are using scientific studies, to write their science based articles, while talking about science in their science publications.

You could say science journalism is equivalent to tabloids, but they are still part of their respective categories: science and news.

So...a magazine that's about football....is football?

Originally posted by Bardock42
So...a magazine that's about football....is football?
Your analogy doesn't fit.

Is a biology textbook science?

Originally posted by Mindset
I can't tell if you're serious or not.

I'll assume you are; they are using scientific studies, to write their science based articles, while talking about science in their science publications.

You could say science journalism is equivalent to tabloids, but they are still part of their respective categories: science and news.

science isn't a topic or genre, it is a method of investigation

Originally posted by Mindset
Your analogy doesn't fit.

Is a biology textbook science?

no

a good textbook will cite science, but for something to be science, it has to be testing things in a specific experimental method.

Originally posted by Mindset
Your analogy doesn't fit.

Is a biology textbook science?

Is a chemistry textbook chemistry?
Is a history textbook history?
Is a business administration textbook business administration?

I'm sorry, I think my analogies aren't doing their job. The answer is "no, no it is not".

Originally posted by inimalist
science isn't a topic or genre, it is a method of investigation



no

a good textbook will cite science, but for something to be science, it has to be testing things in a specific experimental method. And if that method of investigation is chronicled in writing, that writing isn't science?

Originally posted by Mindset
And if that method of investigation is chronicled in writing, that writing isn't science?

no, I would say not

so, when Kuhn or lakatos are writing about the scientific method, they aren't doing science

No, I mean when an experiment is done, and they chronicle what procedures they underwent and their findings, would that writing not be considered science?

no

EDIT: for instance, there is no IV or DV in the work reporting on science, whereas the science will have both of these

What would it be classified as?

science journalism?

Science journalism is not the same as the example I presented.

Maybe I'm not explaining myself well.

Take a science paper, remove everything except for the data, is that science journalism; that's not what I've seen displayed as science journalism.

are you talking about a researcher writing up the results of their own experiment then?

because that is science, as they have run an experiment and are reporting on it

what makes something science is the fact they are running an experiment of some kind, with certain parameters on how that experiment should be run

Originally posted by inimalist
are you talking about a researcher writing up the results of their own experiment then?

because that is science, as they have run an experiment and are reporting on it

what makes something science is the fact they are running an experiment of some kind, with certain parameters on how that experiment should be run Yes, that's what I'm talking about.

And if that writing were to be put into a magazine would it then cease to be science?

Yes opinion could and probably would be added to it, but that doesn't mean it's no longer science, imo, it's just "bad" science. Just like my example of a tabloid compared to news, it's still news, but it's bastardized.

it depends on how much you would consider a proper "peer-review" as part of science

I can run some subjects in my basement and publish that in a book, but imho, that hardly counts as science, because I'm not allowing my work to be scrutinized by other experts in the field. Depending on what type of editorial policy exists at the magazine, you might have just described the actual process that scientists undergo to get their work published

Originally posted by Mindset
science journalism would fall under the umbrella of science.

In my experience science journalism tends to be as close to real science as Star Trek is.

A scientific journal (where scientists announce their findings in a formal way) could be called science, but that's vastly different from a newspaper or network.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
In my experience science journalism tends to be as close to real science as Star Trek is.

I think that might have been what got me

what mindset is describing is a level of journalism I don't think I've ever seen associated with "scientific journalism" and comes incredibly close to scientists simply writing their own research papers

Originally posted by Mindset
News does have a standardized rule set, even if it isn't written out like the scientific method; it's supposed to be the "factual" relaying of events-seems to have empirical qualities, no? Both news and science are subject to bias and human error, that's the nature of the beasts

Agreed. But news isn't set up in a way to specifically test the validity of facts and reality. Science as it is practiced is not perfect, but it's far better, and the best way we have of understand facts and reality.

I don't think we're in disagreement here, I just dislike that you seem to be putting the two institutions on the same levels in terms of reliability and validity.

Originally posted by Mindset
News does have a standardized rule set, even if it isn't written out like the scientific method; it's supposed to be the "factual" relaying of events-seems to have empirical qualities, no?
Not true at all. Journalism is not about simply telling the facts. Else we could never have anything like "Gonzo Journalism".

Originally posted by Digi
Agreed. But news isn't set up in a way to specifically test the validity of facts and reality. Science as it is practiced is not perfect, but it's far better, and the best way we have of understand facts and reality.

I don't think we're in disagreement here, I just dislike that you seem to be putting the two institutions on the same levels in terms of reliability and validity.

to be fair though, it isn't either practical or realistic to think that journalism could follow the scientific method

by design, journalism is supposed to describe the causes and provide an account of singular events, something which science is often not designed or even in a position to address (science addressed trends and patterns in large amounts of events)

Originally posted by Digi
Agreed. But news isn't set up in a way to specifically test the validity of facts and reality. Science as it is practiced is not perfect, but it's far better, and the best way we have of understand facts and reality.

I don't think we're in disagreement here, I just dislike that you seem to be putting the two institutions on the same levels in terms of reliability and validity. I'm not, nor have I in any of most posts put them on the same level, at least that wasn't my intention; I pointed out that they share similar faults.Originally posted by King Kandy
Not true at all. Journalism is not about simply telling the facts. Else we could never have anything like "Gonzo Journalism". I'm not talking about what it is, I'm talking about what is supposed to be.

That's also just one branch of journalism.

Originally posted by Mindset
I'm not talking about what it is, I'm talking about what is supposed to be.
Supposed to be according to whom?

Originally posted by King Kandy
Supposed to be according to whom? Individuals who hold to the ideals behind responsible news reporting?

You seem to be arguing something aside from my point. News should be factual, which according to you isn't true at all, that doesn't mean it's bereft of opinion. It should answer the 5 W's, but opinion can get muddled in with the why. But then there's the whole point of objectivity which most news organizations try to say they have.

David Simon, creator of The Wire (among others), argues much differently. He says the purpose of journalism is not simply the 5 Ws (which he says smart children could provide), but rather to understand a topic so well that they are able to inform people.

I don't think this is a challenge to anything people have said, but it is a different view of journalism as more than simply a repertoire of factoids

Originally posted by Mindset
Individuals who hold to the ideals behind responsible news reporting?

You seem to be arguing something aside from my point. News should be factual, which according to you isn't true at all, that doesn't mean it's bereft of opinion. It should answer the 5 W's, but opinion can get muddled in with the why. But then there's the whole point of objectivity which most news organizations try to say they have.
But its just your opinion that it "should" be that way. Or the "ideals"; who invented those ideals? I don't recall that being a journalist oath. You are just declaring your own views as some kind of universal principle.

Originally posted by inimalist
David Simon, creator of The Wire (among others), argues much differently. He says the purpose of journalism is not simply the 5 Ws (which he says smart children could provide), but rather to understand a topic so well that they are able to inform people.

I don't think this is a challenge to anything people have said, but it is a different view of journalism as more than simply a repertoire of factoids I think that depends entirely upon what's being reported.

What's his take on objectivity, I wonder?

Originally posted by King Kandy
But its just your opinion that it "should" be that way. Or the "ideals"; who invented those ideals? I don't recall that being a journalist oath. You are just declaring your own views as some kind of universal principle. Who invented them, I don't know, I don't see how it matters.

These aren't my views, these are the supposed views of reporters and news organizations, this is the whole reason why they tout their journalistic objectivity.

Originally posted by Mindset
I think that depends entirely upon what's being reported.

What's his take on objectivity, I wonder?

I can't remember specifically, but I don't think he would suggest that people are simply reporting their opinion

iirc, the comment was made in regard to how few news outlets actually have people as like, real knowledgeable foreign and local correspondents, who can cover more than just the simple facts of a story, but who can provide context and background so people understand why the events are unfolding, rather than just the details about the event itself.

I personally think objectivity in reporting is over-emphasized, if only because I think it is impossible in the first place. I have no issue with people who wear their biases on their sleeve, because it is often fairly easy to tell which part is bias and which isn't. A case like Fox News would be different, as a lot of their "opinion" is either highly deceptive or an outright lie. idk, often it takes some form of an opinion about a topic to be able to understand it.

Originally posted by inimalist
I can't remember specifically, but I don't think he would suggest that people are simply reporting their opinion

iirc, the comment was made in regard to how few news outlets actually have people as like, real knowledgeable foreign and local correspondents, who can cover more than just the simple facts of a story, but who can provide context and background so people understand why the events are unfolding, rather than just the details about the event itself.

I personally think objectivity in reporting is over-emphasized, if only because I think it is impossible in the first place. I have no issue with people who wear their biases on their sleeve, because it is often fairly easy to tell which part is bias and which isn't. A case like Fox News would be different, as a lot of their "opinion" is either highly deceptive or an outright lie. idk, often it takes some form of an opinion about a topic to be able to understand it. Then I can see exactly where he's coming from. I really don't have an issue with bias either, because I have the ability to read from multiple news sources who have differing opinions, which is the great thing about the internet.

@KK look up the Canon of Journalism.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ Journalism_ethics_and_standards#Accuracy_and_stand
ards_for_factual_reporting

I'm not sure why you think I'm passing my views of as what journalism should be. I'm restating what I've read in the journalistic community of what their ethical responsibilities should be.

Originally posted by Mindset
I'm not talking about what it is, I'm talking about what is supposed to be.

In that case, be careful not to make the double standard. When I first mentioned science, I was talking about what is supposed to be, not what is. If we're looking at both, even at their best, journalism falls short in comparison. It's just not a reliable means of obtaining objective facts. Occasionally it is, but not to a degree we could ever trust.

In the post I replied to you were saying what science is supposed to be and that news was pretty much shit.

I said they both have flaws.

I was making the double standard?

Certain news can be very objective..."a person got killed in a car accident" "the food is made out of humans". It's usually international events that are the problem.

Ok, that's cool. Like I said, we're mostly in agreement. In my very first post I gave good journalism credit (I simply called it news there though). I wasn't accusing you of double standards, just warning against it.

I meant to ask you what are you going to call your paper?