Substack science

I love listening to science podcasts. I also love reading blog posts about what science has to say about life, the universe, and everything. 

But then, all of a sudden, the author will offhandedly mention one of the most evil things I've ever heard in my life. 

On the "science of hope", we learn that:

"In the 1950s, the biologist Curt Richter placed rats in buckets of water to see how long they would swim before giving up and dying. Most drowned within 15 minutes. . . . Some rats, however, received a randomized miracle. Richter rescued them just as they were about to slip under the water. He dried them off, cradled them, and placed them BACK IN THE JAR. . . . Buoyed by belief, they swam for an average of 60 hours. " (emphasis mine, sorry)

I looked it up, and:
1) There is no sample size for "rescued" rats (yay science!)
2) All rats did eventually drown, of course. 

The takeaway in the blog post is that hope/prayer/belief/faith is important. But like. . . for the rats, the situation actually WAS hopeless! The rats who, after being briefly rescued, continued swimming for 60 hours. . . they were mistaken. There was never any chance at all. 

How can someone write this, and so casually? How can I take anything they say seriously after that?

It happens all the time. . .