Is some of the anti science movement to be blamed on scientists?

[AV1611VET]

There are other ways, and in many cases better ways of gaining access to that information. And this is a two-way process - the layman can actively seek this information out, not just expect to have it hand-delivered.

Then why is it you guys keep coming up with these threads written by yellow journalists?

How many times have I exposed the article, by showing it does not match the headline?

(And really - drop the "let journalists hang around" routine". It's not like that at all - this is as stupid as your "your computer tells you that" meme.)

You were there?

And if you recall, I asked if they hang around, or do the scientists call them up on the phone -- and didn't get a reply -- (that I can remember, anyway); so don't complain if I pick one (i.e. they hang around) now.

 

[AV1611VET]

I must admit I am grateful for the journalism when it reports on things that aren't in my field. I, for example, don't stay abreast of the latest developments in physics and am glad that journalists report on these things because while I know the article itself isn't accurate (and indeed I very seldom read the entire newspaper/website article itself) it at least lets me know that this event has happened so that I can start looking for the journal article and keep Google handy so I can look up and concepts I don't understand.

So in that way for me journalism is a good thing because it creates awareness.

You're one-of-a-kind here then.

These guys automatically accepted the Pluto vote without question.

I'm still holding out on Pluto coming back with full planetary rights; but the fact of the matter was, there was a lot more to the story that merited some investigation -- rather than just automatically accepting it.

 

[knowledgeIsPower]

You're one-of-a-kind here then.

These guys automatically accepted the Pluto vote without question.

I'm still holding out on Pluto coming back with full planetary rights; but the fact of the matter was, there was a lot more to the story that merited some investigation -- rather than just automatically accepting it.

Well it is important to at least read the abstracts of the journal articles to get an appreciation for what has been achieved. Heck you get the abstracts for free you don't even have to subscribe so there really is no excuse.

The Pluto thing is just a definition change. It doesn't really affect my life or indeed anyone's life in any serious way. You're foaming at the mouth over nothing there. Definitions change relatively frequently in many fields. You're just whiny because you don't want to have to remember there are now only 8 planets in the solar system. I don't even want to know how badly you would whine if the States finally abandoned that ridiculous imperial measuring system.

 

[Nabobalis]

You're one-of-a-kind here then.

These guys automatically accepted the Pluto vote without question.

I'm still holding out on Pluto coming back with full planetary rights; but the fact of the matter was, there was a lot more to the story that merited some investigation -- rather than just automatically accepting it.

Not Pluto again. Once again, start a thread and let us discuss the definition, until then, sssssssssssh.

 

[AV1611VET]

The Pluto thing is just a definition change. It doesn't really affect my life or indeed anyone's life in any serious way.

Really?

No books to update? No models to rebuild? No programs to rewrite? No...

Not Pluto again. Once again, start a thread and let us discuss the definition, until then, sssssssssssh.

... nevermind.

 

[knowledgeIsPower]

Really?

No books to update? No models to rebuild? No programs to rewrite? No...

No need to update the books. Just have the teacher or lecturer inform the students that the definitions have been updated and Pluto is no longer considered as a planet. Problem solved no need to reprint anything.

Programs to rebuild? Oh my goodness!! You mean we have to spend 5 whole minutes creating a new object of type "DwarfPlanet"? OH NO THE WORLD WILL SURELY END RIGHT NOW AS THIS IS A HURDLE WE CANNOT POSSIBLY OVERCOME!!!!

No models to rebuild? Not really no. Just remove Pluto with a hacksaw for physical models and a black marker for posters. Problem solved.

Like I said if you whine CONSTANTLY over something this insignificant I can't imagine what you're going to be like when the States finally abandons the imperial measuring system and you really have to change the way you function in daily life.

 

[AV1611VET]

Like I said if you whine CONSTANTLY over something this insignificant...

Have you ever shelled out $150.00 for a science book?

Knowledge is expensive, eh?

And if it was so insignificant, why did they have to rig the vote?

32

Makes you wonder what else was rigged, doesn't it?

 

[knowledgeIsPower]

Have you ever shelled out $150.00 for a science book?

I'm going to have to say "no" because we don't use dollars in my country. I have bought my fair share of science textbooks before though. Most of the time I buy the older editions because they're cheaper. If all that changes is the limited references to Pluto I'll just look that information up in a separate source it isn't a monumental task unless you're mentally deficient in some way.

Knowledge is expensive, eh?

No it isn't.

And if it was so insignificant, why did they have to rig the vote?

32

Makes you wonder what else was rigged, doesn't it?

Not really no. Boohoo. Who cares? Nobody.

 

[AV1611VET]

And if it was so insignificant, why did they have to rig the vote?

32

Makes you wonder what else was rigged, doesn't it?

Not really no. Boohoo. Who cares? Nobody.

I'd say that about sums it up.

And if you think nobody cares, qv:

Reception to the IAU decision was mixed. While some accepted the reclassification, others seek to overturn the decision with online petitions urging the IAU to consider reinstatement. A resolution introduced by some members of the California state assembly light-heartedly denounces the IAU for "scientific heresy," among other crimes. The U.S. state of New Mexico's House of Representatives passed a resolution in honor of Tombaugh, a longtime resident of that state, which declared that Pluto will always be considered a planet while in New Mexican skies and that March 13, 2007 was Pluto Planet Day. The Illinois State Senate passed a similar resolution in 2009, on the basis that Clyde Tombaugh, the discoverer of Pluto, was born in Illinois. The resolution asserted that Pluto was "unfairly downgraded to a 'dwarf' planet" by the IAU.

Some members of the public have also rejected the change, citing the disagreement within the scientific community on the issue, or for sentimental reasons, maintaining that they have always known Pluto as a planet and will continue to do so regardless of the IAU decision.

 

[Naraoia]

You haven't been following this thread, have you?

And wherever did you draw that conclusion from?

This to me, sounds like the perish-or-publish principle being enacted.

You can water it down by calling it 'selling your work to stay funded' if you want to make it look like they're martyrs of some kind, but the fact remains that somehow, somewhere, some way these journalists are getting this information.

And, um, having to publish stuff to get funded is scientists' fault how?

Because if we didn't talk to them, then we'd be being whined at for not telling anyone anything.

QFT. Thanks.

Actually, that's probably among the better things you could read as opposed to a daily.

I was gonna say that, but I think I get a pretty skewed view of SciAm content, seeing as I only read a few things from the website every now and then.

(Though Bering in Mind alone seems like a good reason AV's kind wouldn't want to go near SciAm )

I must admit I am grateful for the journalism when it reports on things that aren't in my field. I, for example, don't stay abreast of the latest developments in physics and am glad that journalists report on these things because while I know the article itself isn't accurate (and indeed I very seldom read the entire newspaper/website article itself) it at least lets me know that this event has happened so that I can start looking for the journal article and keep Google handy so I can look up and concepts I don't understand.

So in that way for me journalism is a good thing because it creates awareness.

I think it's a bit different with people who have the skill and willingness to read primary literature. Then you can grump about the crap that fills the press reports while being equipped to filter through it. When all you see is this "groundbreaking discovery" and that "revolutionary finding" and the ground is not breaking any time soon, it's probably easier to just get jaded.

Then again, getting something out of primary literature doesn't always require specialist knowledge.

 

[Cabal]

Then why is it you guys keep coming up with these threads written by yellow journalists?

Because we can filter out the dross? You seem to be mistaking us for some kind of literalist.

Come on, it's not like your objections to science's reaction to journalism are in any way reasonable - they're fuelled by your paranoid prejudice, as per usual.

How many times have I exposed the article, by showing it does not match the headline?

You do realise that most journalists don't get to pick what goes into their headline? That's definitely out of the hands of scientists.

You were there?

I've actually worked in SEVERAL science labs, including one which was constructing part of the LHC - you haven't been near one, and your memes about what scientists actually do are so far off the mark it's laughable.

And if you recall, I asked if they hang around, or do the scientists call them up on the phone -- and didn't get a reply -- (that I can remember, anyway); so don't complain if I pick one (i.e. they hang around) now.

Regardless - you've been told several times since then what the process actually involves.

 

[Cabal]

You're one-of-a-kind here then.

These guys automatically accepted the Pluto vote without question.

I'm still holding out on Pluto coming back with full planetary rights; but the fact of the matter was, there was a lot more to the story that merited some investigation -- rather than just automatically accepting it.

Still misrepresenting what happened, as usual. Don't mistake total compliance for not really giving a hoot.

Additionally, this is a continued misrepresentation of how many people on this board approach a topic - implying that we don't research into it. Newsflash - many of us do investigate stuff like KiP does - but just because we don't buy into your paranoia doesn't mean we refuse to question anything.

 

[AV1611VET]

Additionally, this is a continued misrepresentation of how many people on this board approach a topic - implying that we don't research into it.

Right -- is that why I'm the one that has to come on here and show a discrepancy between the article and its headline?

In fact, you guys are the ones who post the articles in the first place.

So, not only do you not police your own propaganda -- you spread it.

QV this example: 6

 

[knowledgeIsPower]

Newsflash - many of us do investigate stuff like KiP does

LOL just to clarify I'm not some sort of article reading super-being. I only read up on the stuff that interests me. It is impossible for everyone to read everything being published . I didn't, for example, read up on the whole definition of Pluto thing because honestly I just don't care. 8 planets, 9 planets, it makes no difference.

 

[Cabal]

Right -- is that why I'm the one that has to come on here and show a discrepancy between the article and its headline?

Aaand....what does that have to do with not researching something properly?

Answer - nothing.

In fact, you guys are the ones who post the articles in the first place.

So, not only do you not police your own propaganda -- you spread it.

Actually, to be honest, I figured that most people would just put the discrepancy down to something reasonable, like an editor being a bit fast and loose with the headlines, and upon reading the main body of the text realise what the claims actually are instead of holding steadfast to the headline.

But then again, you're a creationist, so reasonable isn't your strong point. Maybe in future I'll treat you and all other creationists like idiots and point out these incredibly obvious things? Shall I point out typos as well? A headline and article mismatch is "propaganda", I'd hate to see what smear you come up with for a spelling mistake.

Sorry, AV, I'm not buying this for a second - the common people allegedly "suffer" because they can't reconcile a minor discrepancy between a headline and an article? They might suffer in general if they lack the basic mental faculties to do so, but quite frankly the only people who will actually make a meal out of this are dishonest creationists with an axe to grind like you. EVERY profession gets treated like this by the press, but somehow you're singling out scientists as being wholly guilty for it happening to them?

I've said it before, and I'll say it again - if we WEREN'T attempting to put our results out there, by whatever means, people like YOU would be accusing us of having something to hide. It's not what we say, it's who we are.

Now /thread off, you utterly pathetic hypocrite.

 

[Cabal]

QV this example: 6

Hark at the great palaeontological genius that is AV.

Or maybe, just maybe, it's easier to draw that way? Or maybe it's so the teeth can be seen clearly? Sorry, but there could be several reasons why the fossil is drawn in a particular way - but no, presume the worst, your prejudice rears its entertaining head again...

Anyway, this is not a discrepancy like you were whining about. Run along now.

 

[Cabal]

LOL just to clarify I'm not some sort of article reading super-being. I only read up on the stuff that interests me. It is impossible for everyone to read everything being published . I didn't, for example, read up on the whole definition of Pluto thing because honestly I just don't care. 8 planets, 9 planets, it makes no difference.

No, I figured - sounds about the same as any of us sciency types on this board. But of course because we refuse to play along with AV's Pluto conspiracy theory, that means we never question anything......

 

[pgp_protector]

Popular science, sometimes called literature of science, is interpretation of science intended for a general audience. While science journalism focuses on recent scientific developments, popular science is broad-ranging, often written by scientists as well as journalists, and is presented in many formats, which can include books, television documentaries, magazine articles and web pages.

​

Had to find the original for that image (nice image)
found it and other lovely images.

MRS Website : MRS "Science As Art" Images

 

[Naraoia]

No, I figured - sounds about the same as any of us sciency types on this board. But of course because we refuse to play along with AV's Pluto conspiracy theory, that means we never question anything......

AV should come along to our journal clubs. Unquestioning acceptance my...

 

[Naraoia]

Had to find the original for that image (nice image)
found it and other lovely images.

MRS Website : MRS "Science As Art" Images

Awesome.

Also, the PacMan totally cracked me up.