Scary headlines about the increased risk of cancer always garner a lot of hits on news sites. This is especially so when that cancer could result from everyday foods, activities, or devices, and social media is a more than willing accomplice in furthering the dissemination of this nonsense.
Flying cars, hoverboards, jetpacks, time travel – these are just a few of the outlandish predictions of sci-fi authors that are entertaining as thought experiments, but which have no real chance of ever actually being feasibly deployed in society on a large scale, let alone mass-produced and dominating our lives, as in the dystopian visions of the near future that this genre churns out by the thousands claims.
Health fads are a fascinating thing, not unlike shooting stars in many respects. They appear all of a sudden seemingly out of nowhere, burn brightly for only a short moment, then disappear just as quickly as they came.
Animal rights and conservation would seem to be two issues that go hand-in-hand, but that all depends on what your definition of conservation is, and whether or not you actually value animal rights more than just in name.
What’s in a name? Quite a lot apparently, as it defines the very meaning given to concepts that we need to represent, interact with and think about the world. Is it fair then, that big industries and companies can determine how words are used, claiming exclusive rights over their usage and even owning them?
No, plastic is not fantastic, and if you haven’t woken up to this fact yet, you are in for a rude shock. Despite the fashionable trend towards banning single-use plastics in some cities around the world, and the somewhat Quixotic efforts at recycling, the reality is that all these amount to just a tiny drop in the ocean, because we are generating a tsunami of plastic every day.
Could English (the language) and the leaving of the English (the people) unite the rest of Europe under a common tongue? This is the somewhat radical, and perhaps only slightly tongue-in-cheek, implication suggested by The Economist in this article.
Out of respect for the dead, it is worth sparing a thought for the dreadful fate suffered by so many poor students and normal citizens peacefully protesting for their rights and for freedom and democracy 30 years ago when they were shot and run over by tanks of their own government’s army.
How is it even possible to be an antivaxxer in the 21st Century? This is a question you will not be able to answer simply, or even in a way that consistently covers all of the reasons for all of the members of this misinformed group. Instead, take the steps outlined in the articles below, and you might be able to talk some sense into people that appear to believe in nonsense.
As a response to the series of articles where we looked at the need for healthy, rational scepticism when it comes to the motivations of researchers, their funding, and the implications of research results that we read about in the news, it is now time to take a look at the complete opposite end of the spectrum, and what happens when scepticism becomes ignorance.