Monday, January 09, 2006
When Science And Political Correctness Meet...
...you get gobbelty-gook. The lead:
The likely explanation lies in the paragrpah immediately preceding the caveat that the statistics may not be accurate:
It's a good thing science is completly objective, isn't it?
Down syndrome in the United States is more common than previously thought,Paragrpah 7:
But because the new statistics were not collected in the same way as the old, it is not clear whether Down syndrome has really increased, Armstrong and others said.Did some editor somewhere not pick up on the fact that these statements are completely contradictory, or did the reporter decide the statistics were definitive and could lead that way even though quoting the expert to the contrary? (I hope not - I could not stand the thought of a reporter trumping an expert.)
The likely explanation lies in the paragrpah immediately preceding the caveat that the statistics may not be accurate:
The risk of Down syndrome increases with the age of the mother, from an estimated 1 in 2,000 among 20-year-old women to 1 in 100 for women age 40. Many women are having babies later in life, which might explain the higher rate in the new study.God forbid we'd want all those older women having babies to actually face up to the facts of what they are doing. Note the "might" in the paragraph itself - would that the far less reliable statistics used to prove global warming were so carefully conditioned.
It's a good thing science is completly objective, isn't it?
