It demeans the scientific process to call this fake news. If you want fake news to stop, probably don’t do that.
But it is true that it is a difficult battle to fight.
But it is true that it is a difficult battle to fight.
Just read the news on any political topic to see they have been getting away with reporting rumors from "unnamed officials" as news for decades, with no one even recording the track record of these anonymous sources. So we have no way to figure out if they are reliable or not.
It reminds me of when wikipedia became a thing and no one trusted it since "anyone could edit it". I was like "you should be skeptical of the regular encyclopedia too."
One can't account for everyone, but there's no conversation to be had ever, about *anything, if you automatically presume that the other person is not at least somewhat serious about the subject matter and does not care about it at least a little bit.
I'm sure grown men and women will not lose their capacity for critical thinking after a laugh. If anything, the humor's role is to relieve tension. Maybe it would enhance the conversation.
Not that there is any, at the moment. The paper got retracted, and we know why, and we know the reason wasn't a matter of falsification, but in the following of the ethics of science. The way I see it, there are other subjects around the news that are worth considering – for example, as someone in the comments has already mentioned, how come the bug hasn't been noticed before.
I am, of course, guilty of this all the time. The nuanced difference is when the individual no longer cares about correcting that vice (I know because, well, they've said so).
You're right, I am exaggerating the danger. I will assert, however, that the danger is nonzero and deserves more than dismissal. Mostly I urge thought about how the weight of these sorts of jokes can subtly affect the perceptions of people rather than insisting on the triviality of a single event.