Miracles Are Real Says Scientist

A leading scientist says that miracles are real. Professor Bruce Hood from the University of Bristol published a report today that proves that the impossible is possible. In his research, Hood found newspapers often print stories that misrepresent ideas. He says he has discovered a new species, sub-editorious that lives off attention grabbing headlines. Today he revealed that he had received an apology in an email from the Sunday Times and an offer to correct inaccuracies in the online version, thus proving that not all journalists are unscrupulous. However, Hood says his theory is based on data from one journalist and so it remains an anecdote. Still that will not stop him claiming that his research proves Richard Dawkins is wrong about the existence of God.

Hmm. maybe I could begin another career.

Thanks to Jonathan Leake for setting the record straight.

UPDATE: The Times is fast becoming my favoured paper as it reported that Prof Hood wore snazzy clothes and was a star at this week’s British Science Festival. Journalists aren’t so bad after all.


Filed under book publicity, In the News

7 responses to “Miracles Are Real Says Scientist

  1. Leigh

    My heart goes out to you Bruce.
    Do you have a Plan B?
    Before you become a crazed misanthropic loner who cuts the eyes out of journalists mugshots only emerging at night to howl at the moon, might I suggest some sage advice given to Charles Darwin by his publisher…
    “Why don’t you write a book about pigeons?
    Everybody loves pigeons!”

  2. Leigh

    Alternatively Bruce, your ideas might benefit from a mathematical formulation of sorts. I say this in all seriousness, though lamentably I am not the man for the job as you will soon see. I am quite sure that the good men and women of the Department of Mathematics at Bristol would devise something far less ridiculous than the following:

    Un/St = able

    Where Un = Uncertainty
    ST = Stress
    A = Acceleration
    B = Belief/Behavior (Ritualistic)
    L = Leading to
    E = (Perceived) Improved OutcomE

    So, to summarize:
    Uncertainty multiplied by stress leads to an acceleration in ritualistic beliefs and/or behaviors which will tend to reinforce said beliefs and/or behaviors as causally related if a favorable outcome ensues, thereby reducing the appearance of disparity between uncertainty and control.

    ….Wow that’s convoluted! It’s a start though…
    *Many apologies if indeed you have already done something like this. I am working only from your appearance on the Point of Inquiry podcast and from your Youtube Lecture as Amazon books have seen fit to ensure that my copy of Supersense comes to me first by way of Alpha Centauri with a short stopover at the Mariana Trench. (So-called Standard Shipping).

  3. Tessa K

    If it’s any consolation, it will blow over. You will soon be yesterday’s news. Real scientists and smart people will bother to find out the truth. Religious people will grasp at any straw, twist the facts and lie through their teeth to defend their beliefs. I see it all the time at work. Lying for Jesus apparently is OK.

    I know several people who have been heinously misrepresented by the press. I even got stitched up by a journalist myself when I was a radio producer and had to deal with a lot of flak. (It must have been a slow news week.)

    It’s kind of the price you pay for putting your head above the parapet. Put a positive spin on it and tell yourself you’re now in the big league. If you let them wind you up about it and get obsessed, then the fuckers have won.

    Go smell some roses.

  4. Sorry, Bruce, I can’t find an e-mail for you so I am writing here:
    Thought you’d like to see a conversation I had with the American Atheist Philosopher John Loftus about your book. The conversations prompted a friend of him to give him an e-version of your book. Maybe he will write a review.

  5. Bruce,

    I think Kittens would be a better seller than pigeons.

  6. Tom

    “In his research, Hood found newspapers often print stories that misrepresent ideas.”

    Let them print that in their newspapers if the dare.

    Really, instead of these pitiful apologies and corrections that journalists have to make, they should really go for the admittance of their own failings. Something along the lines of “Normally, we’d apologise for completely misrepresenting Bruce Hood [or whoever], but we’re not going to, because we know we’ll keep lying and smearing and generally being shameless. So readers you should know: you cannot trust a single article written by us. When our articles aren’t serving our own ideological, usually conservative, needs, they’re busy creating controversy in science where there is none, providing “balance” when all the views point one way, quoting scary numbers when their effect on our readers according to science isn’t worth worrying about…….” etc etc.

What do you think?

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s