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

[AV1611VET]

Can anyone answer my question as to how the information that two Pb[sup]+[/sup] happened to finally meet head-on in a particle acclerator at CERN got transmitted to journalists?

I'm trying to get an audit trail establish between the white coats inside this laboratory and the journalists, but all of a sudden, you guys are clamming up.

You're not half the scientists you want us to think you are, are you?

You're like my mother-in-law.

Telling us something really interesting then, when we ask specific questions, get "I don't know".

 

[LordTimothytheWise]

I will concede that if it's at all to be blamed on the science-minded people, it'd be on a lack of patience. I'm guilty of it myself sometimes, but to us, it's a matter of "why the heck can't you just understand that it's not a religious thing".

To me, I can't understand why the religious insist on seeing science as a religious thing when it's really just a method for understanding the universe they live in.

Please feel free to speak up if anyone has a different perspective.

I am probably going to get verbally eviscerated for responding, but I can understand the perspective you would term 'anti-science.' Keep in mind, I am not arguing how I see things necessarily, but the way one might.

1. It's legal to teach that Intelligent Design is wrong, but not that it is right, or really anything about it in terms of information. (that gets really politicized, but I have not really heard their side of the argument in the media only Faith vs Science, God vs Darwin, etc. while faith is portrayed as another fancy term for stupidity which as a Christian I find annoying.)

2. There are all these people like Dawkins making a profession out of calling Religious people idiots, deluded, stupid, and all forms of derogatory names, while holding offices like "Public understanding of Science" which speaks volumes as to how much his celebrity is more important to those in positions than actual Public understanding of science.

3. Certain evangelical atheists seem to be in love with their scientism at a very unhealthy level, I had a 14 year old atheist on myspace try to lecture me about 'what science is' after pointing out to him that if he was able to criticize someone's perspective they should be able to defend it. But honestly, with atheists being aggressively anti-theistic and trying to use science as their proverbial hammer against religion...

4. A lot of the times when people call the positions or activities of official scientific institutions into question, the reaction seems to be, "don't question us, this is what 'science says'" as if a method of discovering information about our world also makes our decisions for us too. Anti-Global warming advocacy for example seems to be one of those things that has become the underdog conservative rebel position because the response to a small amount of scientists questioning it was to circle the wagons and make every institution offer a statement supporting global warming, or basically argue from authority. Then let hackers expose some dishonest dealings rather than being honest because you have enough confidence in the data and your own conclusions... that's a good way to seem publicly discredited.

5. This really goes along with 4, but the pharmaceutical industry proverbially spitting upon Health and Wellness has a lot of health and wellness advocates up in arms trying to be rebels fighting "Big Pharma", while health and wellness also has a tendency to focus on a 'whole person' including one's 'spiritual fulfillment' and all that.

I could probably go on and on, but its like people live in two different worlds, one side has government support, the other has capitalist advantage. Everybody thinks they're 'fighting the power.' I kind of feel caught in the middle.

 

[Naraoia]

Sure -- where in the world did the press get this story from in the first place?

AV, I told you - scientists submit what they want to see in the press, and the press often mangles and abuses it.

Did a shrewdness of scientists suddenly jump on the telephone to avoid becoming victims of the publish-or-perish principle, or were journalists crawling all around inside CERN, waiting for two Pb ions (Pb[sup]+[/sup] ?) to collide head-on?

Wait, that wasn't your original point, was it?

Quoting you from earlier in this thread:

I think the general public is getting tired of science's yellow journalism, and is starting to wake up.

A little late, I might add.

Cryptic as that remark was, it sounded like it was criticising the quality of science articles, and it sure didn't sound like you were blaming it on the journalists.

I had to look up "yellow journalism", so that may be where our misunderstanding is, but what I found seemed to indicate that I got your meaning right. The public, according to you, has had enough of the sensationalism and fact-mangling of science journalism. And you seemed to imply that scientists themselves are to blame(??)

I'm not so sure about the sensationalism - it's true that you have to sell your work to remain funded -, but I would bet you that in most cases, the fact-mangling is mostly the journalist's fault. (Notorious cases like John Ruben's this-isn't-even-touched-on-in-the-paper-but-I'm-gonna-assert-it-anyway tactics aside)

Regardless, your current argument seems to be that discoveries get rushed into the news because of the need to sell your work. That's a different point than the one you seemed to be making earlier. What goes into the news and how it's presented are different issues, and the blame for any resulting rubbish probably lies in different places as well.

The fact that you keep talking in metaphors probably doesn't help... (Is it just me, or does anyone else have to work really hard to decipher AV's meaning?)

 

[Naraoia]

Sphinx: awesome caption is awesome. Not that the image isn't, of course.

 

[AV1611VET]

The fact that you keep talking in metaphors probably doesn't help... (Is it just me, or does anyone else have to work really hard to decipher AV's meaning?)

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

I am now wondering why scientists even talk to journalists, knowing that they have a penchant for misrepresenting the facts (assuming they are).

Knowing these journalists' track record does not seem to deter scientists from making sure they get their results in print -- even if said results are skewered.

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.

 

[Cabal]

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

I am now wondering why scientists even talk to journalists, knowing that they have a penchant for misrepresenting the facts (assuming they are).

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

Not what we say, etc....

(That said, there are some good science journalists out there - The Guardian's coverage is pretty good despite its flaws.)

 

[AV1611VET]

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

And if you don't talk to them, how do they know when to whine?

Or do they lie at your doors whining all the time?

If I worked at CERN, and there were journalists crawling around everywhere, saying, "C'mon, haven't you found anything yet?" -- I'd stick him inside the accelerator and let him see for himself.

ON THE OTHER HAND, if -- (as I suspect) -- there's one or two camped way out in the parking lot, working in shifts, and they look up and see a shrewdness of scientists running at them waiving their clipboards saying, "Hurry! Get this in print!" ...

 

[AV1611VET]

(That said, there are some good science journalists out there - The Guardian's coverage is pretty good despite its flaws.)

I don't care if they're good, bad, or ugly as my sister.

I want to know why and how these snoop-hounds are getting their noses satisfied.

And franky, you guys' evasiveness is talking louder than your rhetoric.

 

[AV1611VET]

Just out of curiosity -- and I don't mean to open up another line of questioning -- but it's a simple YES or NO question, so it'll only go to about eight pages before I give up; but just out of curiosity, is this CERN building a RESTRICTED (or SECRET or TOP SECRET) installation?

I don't want your opinion -- I'm asking if it is or isn't.

 

[Psudopod]

I don't care if they're good, bad, or ugly as my sister.

I want to know why and how these snoop-hounds are getting their noses satisfied.

And franky, you guys' evasiveness is talking louder than your rhetoric.
__________________

They get them from press releases, which come from the insitution, rather than the individual scientists. Often these are written by someone in a marketing department, rather than a science one. Insitutions, both public and private, want to announce their achievements because it makes them look good. For a university this might mean encouraging high quality students or researchs, for a private business this might mean investment.

The problem arises because a) there is a chain from the scientist to the person reading the newspaper which might be several people long and you can end up with the chinese whispers effect; b) different peoiple are writing at different levels of understanding: a scientist writing papers is writing to his/her peers, who have the same level of understanding; the marketing person putting out the press release will have a lower level of understanding and it's likely the journalist will know less than him. In re-writing each time a more general and less technical manner must be used or the piece will not be understood by the audience. Finally, issue c) is that sensationlism sells papers, so journalists will often twist stories to get the most dramatic issue across, often missing the point completely or even getting things completely wrong. To be fair, this is something some press reports are guilty of too.

 

[Cabal]

And if you don't talk to them, how do they know when to whine?

Or do they lie at your doors whining all the time?

I didn't say who would whine - but I'm pretty sure those manufacturing reasons to have a go at scientists when they DO attempt to communicate their work would be among them (hint hint).

If I worked at CERN, and there were journalists crawling around everywhere, saying, "C'mon, haven't you found anything yet?" -- I'd stick him inside the accelerator and let him see for himself.

Just because you think inflicting harm on people is an acceptable solution doesn't mean we have to.

ON THE OTHER HAND, if -- (as I suspect) -- there's one or two camped way out in the parking lot, working in shifts, and they look up and see a shrewdness of scientists running at them waiving their clipboards saying, "Hurry! Get this in print!" ...

Not even close. Lose the imagination, and listen to what people who ACTUALLY HAVE BEEN THROUGH THE PROCESS ARE TELLING YOU.

 

[Cabal]

Just out of curiosity -- and I don't mean to open up another line of questioning -- but it's a simple YES or NO question, so it'll only go to about eight pages before I give up; but just out of curiosity, is this CERN building a RESTRICTED (or SECRET or TOP SECRET) installation?

I don't want your opinion -- I'm asking if it is or isn't.

It's likely restricted for safety reasons rather than because it's classified or whatever.

 

[Cabal]

I don't care if they're good, bad, or ugly as my sister.

Well, given that you seem to think we should be telling all journalists to naff off because they don't do an adequate job, it is quite relevant to point out that they aren't all like that and some are worth speaking to.

I want to know why and how these snoop-hounds are getting their noses satisfied.

You've been told, several times now. Press releases, of varying quality depending on the institution issuing them and the write-up is variable depending on which science journalist is doing the write-up. Sometimes they may also have access to the abstract of published papers, or the papers themselves.

And franky, you guys' evasiveness is talking louder than your rhetoric.

Kinda hard to respond adequately to the ravings of a paranoiac.

 

[AV1611VET]

Well, given that you seem to think we should be telling all journalists to naff off because they don't do an adequate job, it is quite relevant to point out that they aren't all like that and some are worth speaking to.

It's the common people who suffer from these guys' love/hate relationship with the press, though.

That's one of the reasons why I don't read Scientific Samaritan anymore.

 

[Cabal]

It's the common people who suffer from these guys' love/hate relationship with the press, though.

Which could be said about practically any profession (and as much as the common people really could be said to "suffer" seeing as they could just, y'know, seek out more reliable sources instead of expect to be spoon-fed information), not just scientists. Why blame every other profession BUT journalism when the problem is journalism.

And seeing as you seem to be so offended by this situation, what's your solution? How should scientists communicate their results without reinventing the wheel?

That's one of the reasons why I don't read Scientific Samaritan anymore.

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

 

[AV1611VET]

Why blame every other profession BUT journalism when the problem is journalism.

Aren't you guys the ones that whine because we're in -- something like -- 40th place on the totem pole of scientific epistemology?

Don't you guys blame us Christians for 'keeping you in the Dark Ages'?

Yet you let yellow journalists hang around your cisterns of experimentation and report everything but the facts.

 

[knowledgeIsPower]

Why blame every other profession BUT journalism when the problem is journalism.

me! me! pick me!

because journalism doesn't provide physical evidence that pokes massive holes in cherished beliefs?

 

[Cabal]

Aren't you guys the ones that whine because we're in -- something like -- 40th place on the totem pole of scientific epistemology?

Don't you guys blame us Christians for 'keeping you in the Dark Ages'?

Yet you let yellow journalists hang around your cisterns of experimentation and report everything but the facts.

Creationists can be a source of ignorance, just like some science journalists can be. I have little tolerance for either. But like I said - you seem to have an all or nothing view of science engaging with the public via popular journalism only. 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.

(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.)

 

[Cabal]

me! me! pick me!

because journalism doesn't provide physical evidence that pokes massive holes in cherished beliefs?

As I said - at least with journalism SOME knowledge breaks out in the public arena. There are other methods. But if we weren't doing this, then *ahem* certain people would doubtless be complaining that we weren't being open enough, and probably coming up with an equally daft conspiracy theory that we were up to no good instead of clamouring for attention.

It's not what we say, it's who we are - and I suspect you're right on the money as to why.

 

[knowledgeIsPower]

As I said - at least with journalism SOME knowledge breaks out in the public arena. There are other methods. But if we weren't doing this, then *ahem* certain people would doubtless be complaining that we weren't being open enough, and probably coming up with an equally daft conspiracy theory that we were up to no good instead of clamouring for attention.

It's not what we say, it's who we are - and I suspect you're right on the money as to why.

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.