- Messages
- 724
- Location
- Yorkshire, England
Inspired by a quote from @alex3619
Would it be possible to create a list of definitions with sources that could be sent to the media to accompany further announcements from the BPS school?
It could help us if the journalists care at all about the power of words, and may get their interest more quickly than a long list of published papers.
Well, here is the thing. They create technical definitions of words. Under their definition these patients are indeed recovered, its just that recovery means something totally different and can include severe disability. However they then do not use caveats in their general discussion, and allow others to misinterpret what they say. I wonder sometimes if they even fool themselves.
Here is how I think it works. They create a technical definition. They apply it. The conclude a highly technical result using the terminology that is usually taken to mean something different. If questioned, its your fault for misunderstanding. They said what it was. They use this aberrant terminology in press releases and interviews. If not questioned they do not correct anyone, allowing that person to draw the wrong conclusion. This is not what I expect from either doctors or scientists. They have failed my expectations. Now that mainstream scientists are aware of this, they have made their displeasure plain.
Would it be possible to create a list of definitions with sources that could be sent to the media to accompany further announcements from the BPS school?
It could help us if the journalists care at all about the power of words, and may get their interest more quickly than a long list of published papers.