This makes me sad. Now whenever some article with ambitious claims pops up into view, my first reaction is "what's the catch?"; i.e. what elemts of the research are overstated for the sake of virality.
It's even more frustrating when done by what are considered "mature" if not "reputable" publications. "Who am I supposed to trust now?" is a question I never wanted to answer when it comes to scientific research.
> "Who am I supposed to trust now?" is a question I never wanted to answer when it comes to scientific research.
Nullius in verba (Latin for "no one's words" or "take nobody's word for it") is the motto of the Royal Society. John Evelyn and other fellows of the Royal Society chose the motto soon after the Society's founding in 1660.
So nullius in verba has bizarre grammar because it is an ungrammatical selection of a few words from a longer original Latin sentence with correct grammar. Nullius addictus iurare in verba magistri means "To swear [oneself] slave of no master", where in verba attaches grammatically to the verb, iurare, not to the master.
This interpretation isn't possible in the clipping because the only attachment point for nullius is verba. But in the original poetry, nullius is bound to magistri, which is then bound to addictus, not to verba.
It’s really not new. People have been hyping up things for centuries. Old newspapers are full of breathless coverage of the snake oil du jour or the next big thing that turns out to be nothing. Scientists have been at it for a really long time as well.
Maybe you pay more attention to it (or are more sensitive to it) now because you’re not as much of an idealist as when you were younger? More experience and having been fooled a couple of times tend to do that.
I any case, a healthy dose of skepticism is good. You just need to be prepared to change your mind when it turns out that something was actually important after all.
You always needed to do that. It’s why the scientific method even exists. One can only trust what one has tested. And when someone else makes a claim? Verify, test, evaluate, and only then trust.
It’s also why critical thinking is historically such an important part of education.
It's even more frustrating when done by what are considered "mature" if not "reputable" publications. "Who am I supposed to trust now?" is a question I never wanted to answer when it comes to scientific research.