Science Under Attack

Amp34

Amp34

Amp34

Caporegime
Joined
25 Jul 2005
Posts
28,851
Location
Canada
Bit of a sensationalist title but actually one of the better Horizons I've seen in a while. Definately worth a watch if you are a scientist of someone interested in science. It does concentrate quite a lot on climate change and "climategate" but it also shows he biggest problems with science today, politics and the media.

The parts where the presenter interviews the creator of "climategate" and the newspaper comparisons are perhaps the best bits in explaining this, showing just why scientists need to start interacting with the public more.

It turns out that (suprise suprise) the original journalist that brought the climategate issue to the fore didn't have a scientific background and announced, quite smugly it seems, that he doesn't have time to read peer reviewed papers and so takes all his information from second hand sources... I particularly loved his reaction to the consensus on cancer treatment, as soon as he said "yup... um..." you knew he was going to avoid the question.:D

The newspaper comparisons just show how the mainstream media add so much spin, politics and misunderstanding to reporting of science, which as an example, leads me to this:

I was reading an volcano blog, as you do, on a tuesday night and came across a perfect example.

The Blog... http://bigthink.com/blogs/eruptions/ discusses a recent paper on Yellowstone uplift by showing recent articles from papers, which hits exactly the same point as the Horizon episode...

Read the Mails article

Is the world's largest super-volcano set to erupt for the first time in 600,000 years, wiping out two-thirds of the U.S.?
Click to expand...

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencet...Yellowstone-National-Park-wipe-thirds-US.html

and then read the blog entry and discussion...

http://bigthink.com/blogs/eruptions/


Sorry for the rambling post but I think, especially on a forum like this, that a lot of people should have a watch and a read. Maybe it will make you think (it has me). :)
 
Amp34 said:
It does concentrate quite a lot on climate change and "climategate" but it also shows he biggest problems with science today, politics and the media.

The parts where the presenter interviews the creator of "climategate" and the newspaper comparisons are perhaps the best bits in explaining this, showing just why scientists need to start interacting with the public more.
Click to expand...

People shouldn't be taking about what they don't know, way too many people form opinions on stuff they do not fully understand. My question to them is what's wrong with not having an opinion?

Politics and media are not fully to blame, people still learn of it, and then because they are absolute nutters come up with some nonsense. Then solidify their viewpoint because it is apparently scientific. This can be seen through "Global warming". Also, global warming is true, but obviously its more complicated and thrown out of proportion tbh. For a geographer several million years is an extremely short period and that kind of time frame is often referred to as short or fast etc...

Then what annoys me also is why people who don't believe in global warming somehow want to waste more fuel/energy/create pollution and why people who do believe in it start preaching hippy nonsense and by that in referring to the extreme opinionated uneducated nutters.

So i agree with you but i think the words jibba jabba and STFU need to be used FAR more often.

Anyway i tend to argue a few points when i am faced with misunderstood people, what tips me off is the feeling that if you try and tell that person they are wrong, immediately, out of nowhere they erect massive defences. "I will not change my mind".. If someone is thinking like that they are wrong even if they are right. So anyway i ask them what they were thinking when they made that decision, where they got the info, if they checked it, why they did it tbh there are way more things id ask just cant remember unless i am in that situation.
 
Last edited:
Ohh i will have to watch this on i-player i did see a bit of it on tv but it was half way through so turned it off.
Ill get back to you when ive watched it lol
 
I am a bit drunk. (Quite a bit really, and haven't really read the OP with a sound mind)

But what I do know, is that Science will win.
 
The problem is that newspapers and the media don't hire 'proper' scientific journalists to report on these stories. Instead they hire someone who thinks they know without any proper background, or they take anyone and make them cover the stories.

Any scientist will tell you that reading information directly from the source will get you the hard facts without the wishy washy nonsense added in by a second party or indeed, the media.
 
platinum87 said:
People shouldn't be taking about what they don't know, way too many people form opinions on stuff they do not fully understand. My question to them is what's wrong with not having an opinion?

Politics and media are not fully to blame, people still learn of it, and then because they are absolute nutters come up with some nonsense. Then solidify their viewpoint because it is apparently scientific. This can be seen through "Global warming". Also, global warming is true, but obviously its more complicated and thrown out of proportion tbh. For a geographer several million years is an extremely short period and that kind of time frame is often referred to as short or fast etc...

Then what annoys me also is why people who don't believe in global warming somehow want to waste more fuel/energy/create pollution and why people who do believe in it start preaching hippy nonsense and by that in referring to the extreme opinionated uneducated nutters.

So i agree with you but i think the words jibba jabba and STFU need to be used FAR more often.

Anyway i tend to argue a few points when i am faced with misunderstood people, what tips me off is the feeling that if you try and tell that person they are wrong, immediately, out of nowhere they erect massive defences. "I will not change my mind".. If someone is thinking like that they are wrong even if they are right. So anyway i ask them what they were thinking when they made that decision, where they got the info, if they checked it, why they did it tbh there are way more things id ask just cant remember unless i am in that situation.
Click to expand...

Actually for a geographer several million years takes them way beyond their remit, you want a Geologist.;)

I agree though, nothing wrong with an opinion, problem is when that opinion becomes "fact". To take the analogy from the program "you wouldn't take the opinion of a random person over a doctor for a medical condition", somehow that logic doesn't seem to be followed when non medical science comes into it.

It actually made me slightly annoyed watching the climategate guy, what a stuck up idiot. He's supposed to be a journalist in one of the better papers too, no wonder the Mail et al. are so bad!:(

int said:
The problem is that newspapers and the media don't hire 'proper' scientific journalists to report on these stories. Instead they hire someone who thinks they know without any proper background, or they take anyone and make them cover the stories.

Any scientist will tell you that reading information directly from the source will get you the hard facts without the wishy washy nonsense added in by a second party or indeed, the media.
Click to expand...

Very true, but you do need stuff disseminated to the general public in a more simple form than scientific papers provide. National geographic and websites like sciencedaily do a reasonable job, but the only people that really read either will be very sciency people in the first place. Even having studied a subject for several years I find a lot of papers hard going, that's before you start thinking about all the mays, possiblys etc. you get in most scientific papers. Scientists know that it's essentially the author covering their backs (we were (only half jokingly) told never write anything definate in a report or paper as it could come back to bite you:p) and that it isn't guessing but an issue with the way science works, would the public?
 
Amp34 said:
Very true, but you do need stuff disseminated to the general public in a more simple form than scientific papers provide. National geographic and websites like sciencedaily do a reasonable job, but the only people that really read either will be very sciency people in the first place. Even having studied a subject for several years I find a lot of papers hard going, that's before you start thinking about all the mays, possiblys etc. you get in most scientific papers. Scientists know that it's essentially the author covering their backs (we were (only half jokingly) told never write anything definate in a report or paper as it could come back to bite you:p) and that it isn't guessing but an issue with the way science works, would the public?
Click to expand...

I've found a lot of the media will come across a paper that has been brought to light which may say something like "Drug X may have efficacy in treating small cell lung carcinomas in patients treated X months after developing carcinomas", and then the headline they get from that is "LUNG CANCER CURED!!!!".

I know the former doesn't sell papers, but someone not educated in scientific article reading won't go off to read the facts for themselves, they'll believe what has been put in front of them which is often sensationalist rubbish.
 
The media isn't the only problem science suffers, there is a massive lack of understanding among laymen of the scientific process, and that applies both to those who rubbish it and those who have seemingly unshakable faith in what scientists tell them.

Furthermore, there is a tendency to treat anything 'scientific' as equally valid, irrespective of the actual flaws or position of that particular branch. Climate change, for example, should only ever be referred to as a hypothesis, not a theory, because there is no predictively accurate model for the behaviour. This doesn't diminish it as such, it's just a case that many people don't understand the terms and restrictions around the scientific method, how the terms work, and how two 'sciences' can be completely different in validity and applicability depending on where they are in the research process.

The real problem stems from poor scientific understanding on one side and scientists and the media exploiting it via misrepresentation on the other to make money/receive more research funding
 
Last edited:
Sherbs said:
I am a bit drunk. (Quite a bit really, and haven't really read the OP with a sound mind)

But what I do know, is that Science will win.
Click to expand...

Whether it is correct and whether it "wins" in a subjective argument about it are two entirely different matters.
 
Amp34 said:
It actually made me slightly annoyed watching the climategate guy, what a stuck up idiot. He's supposed to be a journalist in one of the better papers too, no wonder the Mail et al. are so bad!:(
Click to expand...

That REALLY ****ed me off, basically the presenter Aced him and all he could come back with was.

"lets talk about climategate, i want to talk about climategate, i dont like how your talking to me"

Obviousley its his 15 minutes and he wants to drag it out.

Would have loved him to say "You sir, got trumped, now be quiet."
 
groen said:
Violent Seismic Activity Tearing Africa in Two

http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,740641,00.html

Check the pictures. This goes to further prove the growing earth theory that is completely ignored by mainstream science.
Click to expand...

WTF?! Do you purposely try to find the kookiest ideas to support? And saying it's tearing Africa in two is a little dramatic, sure it's technically correct but it's a fairly small region compared to the overall size of Africa. Also I think plate tectonics is a better explanation behind what's happening.
 
I watched this late last night on iPlayer and I found it extremely biased towards pushing the Man-Made Climate Change/Global Warming Theory, I also found it quite ironic the presenter actually saying how wrong he thought Scientists 'Cherry Picking' the Data they could use to push their own agenda was, when he was guilty of doing the very same thing for the whole programme! Very, very poor show.
 
doofer said:
I watched this late last night on iPlayer and I found it extremely biased towards pushing the Man-Made Climate Change/Global Warming Theory, I also found it quite ironic the presenter actually saying how wrong he thought Scientists 'Cherry Picking' the Data they could use to push their own agenda was, when he was guilty of doing the very same thing for the whole programme! Very, very poor show.
Click to expand...
Not sure he really did, the only thing I'd really fault him for is writing off P2P review entirely, it was understandable to overrule the opinion of the Tele journalist, but he should have included some commentary speaking of it's merits in combination with peer review. Didn't think there was actually much about scientists cherry picking data in there, it was mostly about media misinterpretation, and highlighting the understanding gap between layman and scientist.
 
doofer said:
I watched this late last night on iPlayer and I found it extremely biased towards pushing the Man-Made Climate Change/Global Warming Theory, I also found it quite ironic the presenter actually saying how wrong he thought Scientists 'Cherry Picking' the Data they could use to push their own agenda was, when he was guilty of doing the very same thing for the whole programme! Very, very poor show.
Click to expand...
I think on these grounds we should shun all science. All of it. Because of its subjective nature. All scientists are wrong and fiddle data.
 
I found it quite interesting, and I guess particularly pertinent as I'm studying for a Masters in Environmental Science at the UEA (was also studying here during climategate). In fact, we have a talk from Jon Jones next week (the chap on the programme talking about GM). Tomorrow we have Catherine Brahic coming in, who is a really well respected science journalist. Her topic is "A Hippocratic Oath for Environment Journalists?", so should be very interesting!

I think it's great that more people are interested in Science, and forums / the net in general has massively expanded its interest. I like to hear peoples interpretations, explain what I think, but mostly learning about things that aren't in my field.

It can, however, be very dangerous. Science journalism is sometimes pathetic at best. Why some publishers think it's ok for someone with no knowledge of science to report on it I don't know. You wouldn't expect a Middle East reporter to write the back page on last nights football game.

This is then further compounded when readers of these crap articles take on the opinion of the writer, and spout it as if it seems to have some scientific worth. It often leads to points of view being more important than saying "well, we don't know. So lets test it". And people get on crusades, using data which is probably fourth hand by the time they get it, and utterly illegible from the original report.


Climategate was on the front page of virtually every world newspaper when it broke. Yet the story about the 4 independent enquiries which unequivocally cleared any of the scientists from scientific malpractice goes virtually unnoticed. Unless you count the Daily Fail's attempt at further smearing the scientists as admission. (Just for context, I am neither a AGW supporter or dissenter, I'm not really sure).

Personally I think reporters need to take more responsibility in their writings, as do scientists by being more personable. There is a good reason that the stereotype professor is a social reject.
 
OP look into scientific literacy.. Someone who is scientifically literate has the skills to work out which pieces of media to take with a pinch of salt and those they would should to disregard all together =)
 
Science journalism has always been shockingly bad. The journalists don't even try to understand what's being talked about, they're just listening for a soundbite they can turn into a story.

There was an article recently where some scientist was talking about the star Betelgeuse and the fact that it could go nova any time between now and a million years time. The journalist just heard the word "now" and wrote a story about how we're going to get a second sun like in Star Wars, in 2012. Despite the obvious fact that it won't be anywhere near that bright, and the chances of it happening within our lifetimes is vanishingly small.

Rant rant rant rant rant...
 
groen said:
Violent Seismic Activity Tearing Africa in Two

http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,740641,00.html

Check the pictures. This goes to further prove the growing earth theory that is completely ignored by mainstream science.
Click to expand...

That article isn't too bad actually, a little sensationalist in some places (like the hills disappearing in a matter of days) but seems reasonably ok from a quick glance, much better than the likes of the Mail et al..

Not sure what it has to do with the "growing earth theory" though? I would assume it was a joke but coming from you I can see you thinking it is real. If that's the case have a look at continental rifting and ocean floor spreading, there are plenty of papers and even websites out there about it and it explains almost everything that is happening there. It's a very well studies area, coincidentally there are quite a few people at my university that study it actually, including the taker of a few of those photos (yeah I've seen most of them;)). Don't think they think it's to do with growing earth theory though. :p
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom