"I'm talking about
a specific, extra type of integrity that is not lying, but bending
over backwards to show how you are maybe wrong, that you ought to
have when acting as a scientist. And this is our responsibility as
scientists, certainly to other scientists, and I think to laymen"
He's right, of course, and that's why science is routinely beaten to a pulp in the media by those with an agenda who don't care about the truth.
Or at least when it's lying repeatedly and deliberately. Fox News shouldn't have an audience (this is not a statement about conservatism, it's a statement about Fox News).
But if you're confirming people's biases, particularly regarding some "other" being the enemy (this week it's muslims in NYC), then the truth is going to take a back seat to that warm feeling of self-righteousness.
> Or at least when it's lying repeatedly and deliberately. Fox News shouldn't have an audience (this is not a statement about conservatism, it's a statement about Fox News).
It's curious that you only mentioned Fox.
Many of my progressive friends think that the NYT and ABC, CBS, and NBC shouldn't have audiences either, for pretty much the same reason.
It's the nature of science to reject arguments from authority. It's a sure-footed, but tedious way to progress.
The nature of mass-media is almost the exact opposite. Its incentives are to present a large volume of "fresh" information, even though 99.9% of it will be considered false or irrelevant in five years. From the reporter to the talk show guests, this information springs from a myriad of "authorities", and its veracity is wholly estimated by the reputation and rhetorical abilities of its sources.
Thus, the media understands and interacts much better with other systems based on authority. Even when scientists appear on talk shows, they are brought over as "experts" - and promptly fail in this capacity with the first self-doubt they express.
The good news is that, in the long run, all the authority-driven drivel evaporates as the "authorities" and their intellectual fashions change (even theology, with its scriptural basis, often differs significantly from one generation to the next). The hard scientific truths remain.
The mass-media recipe is either "whatever we think will help republicans" (Fox) or "He said, she said" (everyone else). There's almost nobody who's actually willing to call BS on a lie for it's own sake.
Right, so "he said, she said" is the argument from authority that I referred to. (I'm not sure about Fox's intentions, but even they have to present their stuff in this format.) What this amounts to is that the (inherently lazy) audience picks and matches based on their previous opinions about the speakers, and on how rhetorically convincing the case is made each time. True science is fundamentally incompatible with this cognitive mode.
"He said she said" isn't argument from authority - it's blind dictation.
If one side is telling the truth, and the other is deliberately lying (the health care bill will form death panels), then by reporting a "he said she said", you're telling half of the lie.
I saw an article in the NYT last week on the fact that 25% of the country apparently thinks Obama is a muslim. Not once in the article did they clarify that the man is, in fact, not a muslim. "Teach the controversy".
I disagree. "Authority" in "argument from authority" does not necessarily mean an expert, just that it's an argument whose validity depends on the character/reputation of the person making it. E.g., "he said/ she said" with a police officer, in front of a judge, is a losing proposition.
"Some skeptics asserted Friday that the correspondence revealed an effort to withhold scientific information." [Notably missing: quotes from Phil Jones asking people to delete emails and hide data.]
The pressthink blog discusses this a lot. In short, reporters want to appear objective and savvy, and "he said she said" makes them look that way.
"Some skeptics" is exactly what I'm talking about.
Regarding the whole climate thing -- it's a fact that the earth's temperature is rising. Whether CO2 is the primary driver is debatable, although it seems to make the most sense.
Yet in articles about the thing, you see the idea of whether the earth's temperature is rising treated as a controversy. No. It's a fact. Splitting the difference between a fact and a lie isn't "teaching the controversy", it's enabling lies.
EDIT: You're complaining about something different. They can't report every fact in every story, and they similarly didn't say anything about what various industry shills are contributing to the debate. Omitting very important facts is of course very serious - but it's a different class of screwup.
Agree very much on the "objective and savvy". Hence you'll see some georgetown douchebag who hasn't left the beltway in 20 years lecturing people about what the "heartland" thinks, because it seems to play well in the media.
Concerning your edit, I'm not complaining that they ignored a person ("industry shills" or whoever). I'm complaining they ignored the primary source. I.e., they said "some skeptics asserted" rather than "the hacked emails included requests from Phil Jones asking scientists to delete emails, and saying he would delete emails if he received an FOIA request."
They are following the "he said, she said" model, rather than just quoting the primary source.
John Stewart and Stephen Colbert are two exceptions. It's absolutely riveting television (to me) to watch people being caught in their lies, but somehow those two guys have a millionth of the viewers of major cable news networks.
EDIT: News networks, I might add, which have a tin ear towards hypocrisy. The simplest lie passes without criticism.
If you like this line of reasoning, Thomas Kuhn's "The Structure of Scientific Revolutions" [1] is a great academic approach to the same epistemological questions, applied to the academic community, and with some very bold conclusions about knowledge as a whole.
I went through that book in a Philosophy of Science class, and I too recommend it. I also recommend the class, if you get a chance.
I think it is important for all scientists to understand the history of science and even spend some time thinking about the cultural/societal problems that hamper scientific progress currently.
On a similar note, Robert Krulwich, one of the hosts of RadioLab on NPR gave a commencement speech at California Institute of Technology called “Tell Me a Story.”
It's a great reminder that we all learn through stories, and that stories are really the only way to convey complex ideas to the general public. Not telling these stories, because we think they won't get it, harms everyone and creates a vacuum of truth where more appealing unscientific stories then dominate.
The field of economics has, for quite a while, been suffering from this sort of scientistic behavior, aping the practices of the physical sciences, while dismissing aprioristic economics simply because it doesn't.
The following is a rather long, but quite decent discussion of the topic with a physicist that actually worked with Feynman.
25 comments
[ 3.2 ms ] story [ 48.8 ms ] threadHe's right, of course, and that's why science is routinely beaten to a pulp in the media by those with an agenda who don't care about the truth.
That can be fixed by raising the cost of lying, rather than accepting it as the norm with consequences.
Humans have a tool for this, it's called reputation.
The more we accept, say, that all politicians are liars, the more both the honest and the listener suffer.
We should be outraged when someone has been shown to lie. It should be a resigning matter.
But if you're confirming people's biases, particularly regarding some "other" being the enemy (this week it's muslims in NYC), then the truth is going to take a back seat to that warm feeling of self-righteousness.
It's curious that you only mentioned Fox.
Many of my progressive friends think that the NYT and ABC, CBS, and NBC shouldn't have audiences either, for pretty much the same reason.
I agree with him = he's honest.
I disagree with him = he's lying.
Very few people care about object evidence that goes against what they believe in.
The nature of mass-media is almost the exact opposite. Its incentives are to present a large volume of "fresh" information, even though 99.9% of it will be considered false or irrelevant in five years. From the reporter to the talk show guests, this information springs from a myriad of "authorities", and its veracity is wholly estimated by the reputation and rhetorical abilities of its sources.
Thus, the media understands and interacts much better with other systems based on authority. Even when scientists appear on talk shows, they are brought over as "experts" - and promptly fail in this capacity with the first self-doubt they express.
The good news is that, in the long run, all the authority-driven drivel evaporates as the "authorities" and their intellectual fashions change (even theology, with its scriptural basis, often differs significantly from one generation to the next). The hard scientific truths remain.
If one side is telling the truth, and the other is deliberately lying (the health care bill will form death panels), then by reporting a "he said she said", you're telling half of the lie.
I saw an article in the NYT last week on the fact that 25% of the country apparently thinks Obama is a muslim. Not once in the article did they clarify that the man is, in fact, not a muslim. "Teach the controversy".
"Some skeptics asserted Friday that the correspondence revealed an effort to withhold scientific information." [Notably missing: quotes from Phil Jones asking people to delete emails and hide data.]
The pressthink blog discusses this a lot. In short, reporters want to appear objective and savvy, and "he said she said" makes them look that way.
http://journalism.nyu.edu/pubzone/weblogs/pressthink/
Regarding the whole climate thing -- it's a fact that the earth's temperature is rising. Whether CO2 is the primary driver is debatable, although it seems to make the most sense.
Yet in articles about the thing, you see the idea of whether the earth's temperature is rising treated as a controversy. No. It's a fact. Splitting the difference between a fact and a lie isn't "teaching the controversy", it's enabling lies.
EDIT: You're complaining about something different. They can't report every fact in every story, and they similarly didn't say anything about what various industry shills are contributing to the debate. Omitting very important facts is of course very serious - but it's a different class of screwup.
Agree very much on the "objective and savvy". Hence you'll see some georgetown douchebag who hasn't left the beltway in 20 years lecturing people about what the "heartland" thinks, because it seems to play well in the media.
They are following the "he said, she said" model, rather than just quoting the primary source.
I was pointing to a similar example "on the other side" (of modern political divides) and linking to a fantastic blog on the topic.
EDIT: News networks, I might add, which have a tin ear towards hypocrisy. The simplest lie passes without criticism.
1. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Structure_of_Scientific_Rev...
I think it is important for all scientists to understand the history of science and even spend some time thinking about the cultural/societal problems that hamper scientific progress currently.
It's a great reminder that we all learn through stories, and that stories are really the only way to convey complex ideas to the general public. Not telling these stories, because we think they won't get it, harms everyone and creates a vacuum of truth where more appealing unscientific stories then dominate.
Audio of the talk: http://blogs.wnyc.org/radiolab/2008/07/29/tell-me-a-story/
This is an excerpt from the awesome book "Surely you're joking Mr. Feyman" The whole book is full of short anecdotes like this and is an amazing read.
http://www.amazon.com/Surely-Feynman-Adventures-Curious-Char...
Edit: spelling
The following is a rather long, but quite decent discussion of the topic with a physicist that actually worked with Feynman.
http://commentlog.org/bid/4408/Feynman-Rothbard-and-the-Scie...