Dodgy Journalism
Posted by daydreamer at 21:30, 04 May 2009It isn't at all difficult to find terrible examples of science journalism at the moment. Take the piece about a group of dinosaurs surviving past the major extinction event.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/scienceandtec...
This is written by Richard Alleyne the Science Correspondent for the Telegraph. This is a responsible position that you would expect to require some sort of standard.
Quotes from his article include:
'It also brings Hollywood's 'Lost World' – Steven Spielberg's sequel to Jurassic Park – and Sir Arthur Conan Doyle's 1912 novel of the same name, a step closer to reality.'
In what way could evidence that a group survived some 500k years later bring the above fiction any closer? This is still 64.5 million years.
David Polly, editor of Palaeontologia Electronica, said the scenario of humans and dinosaurs existing together still belongs in the "realms of fantasy".
Given this is a quote from the editor of the journal we can surmise that it is not included in the article in question. This suggests that the Telegraphs science correspondent has written to the editor asking whether this improved the chances of man and dinosaur co-existing. Firstly what sort of authoritative position is the editor of a journal in to say, but more importantly what on earth is someone who is supposed to be in that job position doing writing exceptionally stupid questions like that. What does this reveal about the Telegraph and of the 'science' correspondent.
Perhaps this might help us understand
Meanwhile experts from the University of Plymouth have uncovered new evidence about the Earth's first major catastrophe. Geologists say the planet was hit by "runaway" global warming 250 million years ago, which wiped out between 80 and 95 per cent of its species.
250 million years is the date of the Permian-Triassic mass extinction. This was a large mass extinction for sure, but the 'Earth's first major catastrophe'? Definitely not. Firstly i am sure he meant to write Earth's first major extinction event, but there were many before the Permian-Triassic event, not to mention the Cambrian-Ordovician event around 488 million years ago.
So here we have two nonsense statements and a completely incorrect statement in one small article by the science correspondent of a major newspaper.
Many of the criticisms of science are completely fair, but one thing that i think is true is that science should be made to work at its best and we can start by complaining more vociferously when the media try and pull this sort of standard on us as if we are idiots.
Bookmark/Search this post with
- daydreamer's blog
- Login or register to post comments
Comments
12 April 2007
50 min 46 sec
The article may have gone beyond the level of healthy speculation.
Although, I admit I would have loved it if this journalist had contacted our good friend Loren Coleman, the world's most famoust Cryptozoologist.
And a few mentions of Mokele Mbembe would have been nice, too ;-)
-----
It's not the depth of the rabbit hole that bugs me...
It's all the rabbit SH*T you stumble over on your way down!!!
Red Pill Junkie
21 February 2009
1 day 2 hours
He could have done that and maybe made it a bit more interesting in some ways though it would still have been out of the scope of the paper that the article was about, but im becoming quite cautious about elevating authority in science over good evidence.
Speculation is natural, probably especially in the media- as a presentation type interested in market forces and sales.
I'm becoming interested in the effect of the use of science by journalists and its role in defining science culturally as the nerdish, ever changing, authoritative stereotype common in western culture and the affect this has on the humanities student current training to be journalists, a feedback cycle or ever poorer science understanding and journalism.
On the crypto-zoology front i find this quite an interesting subject in its philosophy. I'm not sure how seriously it can be taken as a higher level scientific subject. Then what do i know hay! It is a valid research avenue of course, i dont mean that it isnt. Once evidence comes in though it is no longer a part of that field. This confines it to observational experimentation without good evidence and speculation and means that real taxonomics can never be done. In relation to this article cryptozoology might go something along the lines of 'good morning and thank you for commenting on this new evidence. Do you think there could be large lizards out there still to find?', 'Why yes of course there might be', but actually commenting on dinosaurs out there is not really possible because dinosaurs were defined by specific adaptional features.
To understand this properly would require a course in dinosaur evolution, but it isnt complex. To comment on dinosaurs existing against some sort of large modern reptile would require actually getting hold of a lizard and having a look inside (nice thought) to see whether it was part of the same lineage and whether it was still evolutionary close enough to still be called a dinosaur. Common myths that cause confusion are those like sharks and crocodiles remaining unchanged for tens of millions of years.
It would be quite cool to find a reptile that could still be assigned to the same family as the dinosaurs and be related enough to classify as a modern dinosaur. Obviously there are modern animals that link to the dinosaur line, but we dont call them dinosaurs as they are too different. I'm just not sure that cryptozoology will ever be philosophically able to define anything above mere observational evidence. Once a footprint is found or a bone then it falls into the classical sciences. What do you think?
12 April 2007
50 min 46 sec
When I was a kid I was certain that Nessie was a plesiosaur that had survived the Ice Age, and that Mokele Mbembe's myth was a folklore proof that dinosaurs still survived in Africa.
As I grew older and learned more about dinosaurs —because no self-respecting male nerd can live without learning everything he can about dinos ;-)— I began to understand how improbable was the possibility of dinos surviving in the modern world —nevermind that plesiosaurs are not actually dinosaurs, just like pterosaurs.
The renderings of Mokele Mbembe, with its upright head and its dangling tail, would seem awfully dated to any child exposed to modern CGI documentaries about dinosaurs; and yes, even though those are also 'best guesses', the Science behind them is more solid that the 'best guesses' of early paleonthologists.
Today, I still think that Nessie and Mokele deserve further study, although I'm no longer sure what would Nessie or Mokie could really be. Some people think that the best candidate for Nessie is a giant sturgeon; I think that the giant eel or seal theory are pretty interesting. Loren Coleman is of the idea that the best candidate for Mokie is an undiscovered amphibious rhino —that's right: he doesn't think living dinos are probable, but he's open to the possibility of giant crocs, monitor lizards and serpents.
And of course, there's also your more Fortean radical 'theories': that Nessie, Bigfoot & Mokele are of a more "paranormal" nature —understanding that to mean they are not really flesh & blood creatures the same way your dog is flesh and blood. Nick Redfern is absolutely convinced that we will never find a sasquatch skeleton; and he's also investigated accounts of hairy wild men in Britain —I mean, that an unclassified higher primate can still live undetected in the Pacific Northwest is one thing, but in a tiny island like the UK??
Cryptozoology is pretty much like Ufology (IMO): These can never become serious avenues of study, because the moment some irrefutable evidence falls on the hands of these enthusiasts —and there are some in both fields whose efforts are to be commended, whereas there's also your typical con artists and loonies— they will be taken away by real scientists —even thought there are plenty of those who ascribe to the merits of Cryptozoology, like Jane Goodall— and for the amateurs there will be nothing left but the much awaited "WE TOLD YOU SO!"... for most of them that will be enough.
But... then some of the techniques used in Cryptozoology and UFOloy will be vindicated, such as using folklore descriptions of unknown animals as a point of reference, instead of completely dismissing them as nothing but myths and fairy tales.
-----
It's not the depth of the rabbit hole that bugs me...
It's all the rabbit SH*T you stumble over on your way down!!!
Red Pill Junkie
22 November 2004
2 weeks 11 hours
There are many people with an interest in science. Professionals and amateurs, as in any field.
Science journalists are often the sort who are not good enough to be grade school science teachers.
Not completely unrelated, I saw and heard something on CNN this morning. Some British guy was selected to take care of Hamilton Island, which is somewhere along the Great Barrier Reef. This is an Oz promotional thing, which is fine with me. He will be all alone, except for the camera crew I guess.
The CNN anchor woman told us that Hamilton Island is part of the Great Barrier Reef, just off the coast of California.
----
It is not how fast you go
it is when you get there.
10 August 2004
4 hours 14 min
The UK guy who won the position of 'caretaker' (whatever that exactly means) at Hamilton Island most certainly won't be alone except for a camera crew.
Hamilton is a very up-market resort in the Whitsunday Islands between the Queensland coast and the Great Barrier Reef (definitely not off California!), and is a popular holiday destination for a great many people. He's going to have lots of company.
Regards, Kathrinn
12 April 2007
50 min 46 sec
He'll be there with his girlfriend... lucky bastard (twice as bastard, because he has a girlfriend).
-----
It's not the depth of the rabbit hole that bugs me...
It's all the rabbit SH*T you stumble over on your way down!!!
Red Pill Junkie
22 November 2004
2 weeks 11 hours
I checked it on Google Earth. If it is the same Hamilton Island, it's not in the Reef, but it does seem to have an airport and some nice hotels.
There is another Hamilton Island in Canada, in the Arctic. Perhaps he should spend the southern summer there, to avoid sunburn?
----
It is not how fast you go
it is when you get there.
10 August 2004
4 hours 14 min
There are very few islands actually *in* the Barrier Reef itself. This natural structure stretches for nearly 2000 miles down the Queensland coast, is composed of many, many isolated reefs and covers in area some 80,000 square miles. It's not a sort-of continuous wall of coral but more like reef islands of varying sizes with channels between.
There is a passage navigable by moderate sized ships on the coast side of the Reef, although all ships have to carry a special pilot to assist with navigation as traversing the passage is dangerous.
Some of the reefs have, over time, built up atolls of dead coral on which trees have taken root from seeds carried by birds, but most of the Reef is underwater at high tide. I have sailed from one end to the other in a fairly small yacht - an experience I am very grateful to have had as it is like being in another world.
Inshore of this immense living edifice there are islands. At times they are few and far between, but Hamilton is part of a fairly close group of 74 islands which lie off the central Queensland coast. 8 of these have resorts on them, the remainder are National Parks. Some of these resorts are accessible only by boat, a few have helipads and yes, Hamilton has an airstrip that can land large planes, although that is a rather controversial issue!
There is a huge tourist industry amongst the islands, not only with the resorts themselves, but in charter boats for day or overnight trips, and also out to the Reef itself, which is a further 40 miles offshore from these islands. I now live in a town at the northernmost end of this area, but for 11 years was involved in the charter boat world amongst the islands.
It's very beautiful - you should take a trip there one day.
Regards, Kathrinn
22 November 2004
2 weeks 11 hours
It sounds like that is something like the Caribbean, with similar climate, reefs and stuff. Nice weather, colorful fish, lots of sun, really bad storms :)
I would love to visit, but it is far away. If I run out of money, how do I get back home?
If I visit Europe, I can fit in. Dig out the old records, they think I am still German. In North America, if I somehow get stuck in Mexico (not my plan), I can walk to Canada. We are not supposed to do that at the borders, but realistically, they can't stop you.
But sure, if and when I have the resources, I would love to visit.
PS:
I forgot, Australia really is just off the coast of California. 6500 nautical miles or so.
----
It is not how fast you go
it is when you get there.
12 April 2007
50 min 46 sec
Daydreamer is gonna be pissed that you hijacked his thread with this discussion about that island ;-)
-----
It's not the depth of the rabbit hole that bugs me...
It's all the rabbit SH*T you stumble over on your way down!!!
Red Pill Junkie
10 August 2004
4 hours 14 min
Sorry Daydreamer - one thing kind of led to another and seemed to require an explanation. I didn't mean to offend you.
Red - you're just jealous because Hamilton and the Barrier Reef aren't off the coast of Mexico!!
Apologies all round.
Regards, Kathrinn
21 February 2009
1 day 2 hours
No problem at all, absolutely no offense taken- as if any could be ;), else i'd be in trouble every time i changed the subject.
I dont know about being a caretaker, i could do with a holiday though. My 2nd child is now 4 days overdue so we are busy and my partner is getting very fed up.
10 August 2004
4 hours 14 min
Best wishes for the new arrival, I hope your wife doesn't have to wait much longer - it's not a nice thing to have to do.
Regards, Kathrinn
12 April 2007
50 min 46 sec
Hope everything turns out all right and the bun finally leaves the oven :-P
-----
It's not the depth of the rabbit hole that bugs me...
It's all the rabbit SH*T you stumble over on your way down!!!
Red Pill Junkie