A Reader Comments on Scientific Expertise

I chuckled at the 'B.S. detector' comment. So true! I don't think the onus is on science writers to provide advice regarding which research holds up or not. Heck, it could be downright dangerous as well. I agree to some extent that those who have in-depth knowledge in the area are much better equipped to provide that kind of response. Still, it's occasionally interesting and useful when a journalist does offer an opinion (rather than always providing an objective piece), because this can provide a new spin on the topic, which gets the public thinking. A thinking public is one that can sway research interests. The larger the audience, the greater the critique although the quality and relevance of the critique can then be debated, no?

Perhaps those opinionated pieces are best reserved for a blog?

In terms of Corey's comments: If this is true, then gosh I feel daft. I've done much more than a 'little bit of reading' and I'm far from feeling qualified to provide any kind of firm evaluation on most theories. Mind you, I occasionally do it on my blog after I've thrown in both sides. Still, professional pieces are generally void of that sort of evaluation, so I guess it goes back to my question regarding the blog format.

Sidenote to M.L.: This will sound like such a blatant suck-up, but I don't know how else to say it. Your blog and David Bradley's sciencebase are my two favorites. As a young science/medical writer, I actually look up to you both and have a real appreciation for your writing.

(I'm probably going to be banned for making you feel old now though..hehe.)

--Oh, don't worry. I refuse to feel old, even when evidence to the contrary is presented to me. So thank you, and I'll have to look up David Bradley now, to see what the competition is like. But...wait a second...I just looked up YOUR blog, and realized I read it often and like it very much.

As for opinions, I think it's perfectly OK to come to conclusions based on interviews with experts and reading of expert analysis, and to express those conclusions. But you're not daft at all; Corey is badly misguided in thinking that science writers should be evaluating research, except in very rare cases.

I didn't invent the BS detector line, though--I think it might have been Carl Sagan.
M.L.

Aww...I'm flattered that you responded. I need to point out a few things to you too.

1: I never claimed you end up being able to evaluate research for all the subfields of science. At best, you'll be able to do 2-3 subfields. Moreover, there are review articles in every field of science...and I don't mean by popular magazine...I mean in the journals. If you really want to gain a sense of a specific line of research, you can look those up.

2: I never claimed you couldn't get away with not learning the field--please reread the part about a whole bunch of graduate level courses--but that is just what I did.

3: Nor did I argue that science writers should evaluate research. My argument is that you could if you put the work in.

What I primarily responded to is an impression I received that you (as a science writer) never could evaluate a theory. What I'm arguing is exactly what you stated in your post. You need expertise but it's obtainable with work and time.

Although in retrospect, I under-emphasize the amount of reading required. I looked at my research article binder and I've easily got 500-600 pages of articles for each of my research interests.

--After reading this, it's clear to me that we're not really in disagreement at all. I didn't mean to suggest that a journalist couldn't in principle gain the knowledge to evaluate a theory; only that it's nearly impossible in practice. Which is why, when people come to me and say "Everyone else is wrong about X and I'm right, just read my paper/book/website--it's your obligation as a journalist who cares about the truth," I don't generally go for it. And I don't feel guilty, either.
M.L.

Heh...you should check out the Crackpot Theory list ;)

You listed hallmark number one. ;)

Unless of course the paper is published in a respected and refereed journal in the field.

"Trust me, you don't want science writers embracing or rejecting scientific research based on their own expertise."

Why not? Doesn't one's expertise qualify one to give a thumbs up or thumbs down to research? If someone proposes an absolutely ridiculous theory, it would be a waste of time to do research to prove this person wrong. The person could be proven wrong with simple information that is readily available. Science writers have to use their own judgement when writing about scientific research. No writer can be absolutely impartial.

"Still, it's occasionally interesting and useful when a journalist does offer an opinion (rather than always providing an objective piece), because this can provide a new spin on the topic, which gets the public thinking. A thinking public is one that can sway research interests."

How is this a bad thing? Don't we all want the public to become aware of research interests? This is what inspires others to study science.

Being objective is not always a good thing. Science definitely needs more journalists that are knowlegdeable on a subject and have the ability to provide biased and opinionated writing pieces. Science does not have to be so dull. Those who become interested will make their own conclusions once they become proficient at scientific methods. But by being completely objective, science is robbed of its beauty and practicality. Science journalists need to slant stories in order to gain interest in the subject. They owe it to the reading public.

Slanting stories to make them more interesting is a terrible idea. Dishonesty in reporting science would only increase distrust of science when people inevitably found out about the dishonesty.

Science is interesting in and of itself, and science writers can make it interesting without "slanting" it.

--Right. But feeling the need to get "an opposing view" in the interest of appearing to be objective is itself a form of slanting when the only opposing view to be had is from the fringe.

Yadgyu: Because it's misleading. Science writers - whether we like it or not - are in a position whereby the public is more likely to take what is written as truth. Do they still question? Yes, of course. But I'm generalizing in that a certain amount of integrity, honesty -and- fact is expected and assumed. If M.L. did indeed endorse Dan's theory in an article, you can BET that a lot of folk would be galloping off to get the so-called benefits of the idea.

That is dangerous.

'No writer can be absolutely impartial.'

I disagree. The fact that I'm occasionally right in the middle of the fence on certain issues means that I'm naturally impartial because I don't swing either way. Your statement still totally has merit though in that yes, science writers are human (the horror!) and of course we have opinions, which never disappear. Awareness, however, helps to keep me presenting both sides, where applicable. Upon investigation of another side in one particular instance, I'll even admit to (gulp) switching to the other point of view.

'How is that a bad thing?'

It isn't. I said it was useful and interesting. o_O

'Science definitely needs more journalists that are knowledgeable on a subject and have the ability to provide biased and opinionated writing pieces.'

So you've said it yourself. Knowledgeable. Science writers do have specific interests and usually have slightly more in-depth knowledge for certain areas, but it's not even -remotely- equivalent to someone who has consistently studied the topic for decades and perhaps devoted his or her career to it. I say we need more SCIENTISTS who are coming into the field, staying in it and working for decent pay and hours; they can provide the most educated input on new theories. Leave the journalists to do what they do best - writing. (Please note use of the word 'best' before someone razors in with comments saying that journalists do many other things. Yes, they do.) I think a journalist's primary responsibility is to provide an engaging and cohesive article on a topic - not endorse it. A minimally to moderately knowledgeable journalist who has superior investigation skills and is an amazing writer will fare much better than one who has the brain of Einstein and the writing skills of Britney Spears.

Barton: The most eloquent response I had to your comments was: W3rd. Well said. ;)

Why do scientists try to disprove other scientists' theories or research?

They do this because scientists are very competitive. The fact that people do multiple studies on the same thing shows that scientists are not impartial and do not really trust one another.

Some scientists purposely perform studies in order to discredit or negate other scientists' research. There is no such thing as being totally impartial. Sometimes scientists have their own motives for doing research. It is not always about finding the truth or gaining more knowledge on a subject.

Science writers are not much different in this regard.

--Yadgyu, you're often wrong, but never in doubt.
M.L.

"Some scientists purposely perform studies in order to discredit or negate other scientists' research. There is no such thing as being totally impartial. "

Huh? What about gravity, entropy, enthalpy, etc? These were all once mere studies and are kinda hard to disagree with, therefore they became laws over time. Any crackpot can perform a study to disprove a colleague. But lo and behold if the original study was based on scientific principles and is repeatable all the detractor does is support their colleague. That is assuming the crackpot has good lab/study practices.

"Yadgyu, you're often wrong, but never in doubt."

This is true. Being doubtful is much worse than being wrong. Certainty can only produce a right answer or a wrong answer. Doubt can produce a right answer or an infinite amount of wrong answers. It is better to be proven wrong by someone else than to be proven wrong by one's own insecurities.

It is the righteous man who concedes when the boldest man claims success.

Mina wrote, "So you've said it yourself. Knowledgeable. Science writers do have specific interests and usually have slightly more in-depth knowledge for certain areas, but it's not even -remotely- equivalent to someone who has consistently studied the topic for decades and perhaps devoted his or her career to it. I say we need more SCIENTISTS who are coming into the field, staying in it and working for decent pay and hours; they can provide the most educated input on new theories. Leave the journalists to do what they do best - writing."

I'd argue we also need more scientists writing.

Yadgyu wrote, "Being doubtful is much worse than being wrong."

You're wrong in ways so deep it's incomprehensible. Doubt requires investigation; investigation reveals knowledge; knowledge leads to certitude. Ergo, doubt is useful.

Being boldly wrong is just foolish--look at GWB.

--In his case it's much worse than merely foolish.
M.L.

"Doubt requires investigation; investigation reveals knowledge; knowledge leads to certitude."

But why go through all of that hard work? If someone else doubts me, they can work hard to prove me wrong. It is not up to me to have an irrefutable defense against my works.

My whole point is that science is a game in which one scientist works hard to prove something only to have another scientist discredit the original study. Science is becoming a cutthroat competition, not a ways to improve the lives of others. That is why being bold and assertive wins the race in many instances.

If a scientific work is wrong, it will eventually be proven wrong. But there is no reason for scientists to doubt themselves just because every plausible situation has not been tested.

An incorrect theory backed by confidence and arrogance often wins out over a correct theory backed by timidity and doubtfulness. The righteous man may win in the end but the confident man will have claimed all of the spoils and glory to be gained.

If you still think that I am crazy, please read “Do Diet Foods Lead to Weight Gain?”

http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1650860,00.html

The part that proves I am right about bold claims temporarily trumping extensive research goes as follows:

“All of this emerging work could make the food and beverage industry, which has invested billions in diet and low-calorie versions of almost every food imaginable, a bit uneasy. "This study simply defies common sense," wrote Dr. Richard Adamson, scientific consultant to the American Beverage Association, in a prepared statement responding to the study. "To suggest that foods and beverages with zero calories contribute to weight gain contradicts the overwhelming body of scientific evidence that supports that they can help you reduce calories and maintain a healthy weight."”

Modern science is mostly about proving others wrong, not discovering things to enhance scientific knowledge and advance humanity.

Be bold first, be right last.

--Your last statement is bold and wrong, and will continue to be the latter. Get yourself a clue, please.

How about Meave Leakey's find on Homo habilis living at the same time as erectus? They did not interact!
I read all your blogs, I'm just pointing it out.

WOW! This good! To solve the problem or answer the question of "who is a scientist? Or what makes one a scientist?" Is real simple, too simple for most of the "college educated scientists" to even see. The way I see it is: Science is nothing but the art of question and answer, the "experiment" is the question and the answer (an unknown) comes in the results of the said experiment. The "what if factor" is applied.
To be a true scientist or to practice at the art of exploration one doesn't have to have a degree, just be curious and ask a lot of questions, one might need a current guide or reference to say what the results were of what experiments or ideas have already been tried in your area of interest.
It's not "true science" if the answer has been found already and is written in (stone) a book. Unless, yes there is a "but" here too. Unless there is no constant or set-in-stone result for each question or experiment. Is not an experiment nothing but the attempt of something that has not done before?
Are the variables always going to remain the same, or is there always going to be change or evolution? It's like water. Water has been around for billions of years, is it the same as it was 50 million years ago? How do know this? By taking core samples of the arctic ice is one way to answer that question.
Is the arctic ice just "old water" ?
What about it's old bacteria that was around before humans were? Could it be that all these "new germs or viruses" are not so new, but really just old ones that were trapped in the ice, only just released due to the ice melting due to the deliberate actions of man? Such as the burning of all the fossil fuels that mother nature tried so hard to hide from us. She hide all the bad germs in the ice and all the carbon pollution she hide in the oil and coal and buried it deep in the earth so we would leave it alone. Remember "It's not nice to fool with Mother Nature", she will get even.

Michael Lemonick is a journalist first and a science writer last.

This is clearly demonstrated by Mr. Lemonick's reaction to Cory stating Mr. Lemonick is not really anyone special.

Only a journalist would be so vain as to feel compelled to defend oneself regarding a scientific statement of fact such as the one Corey laid out.

--Jack hath spoken.
M.L.

I think that Yadgyu has a point. I'm a doctoral student and have found over the last five years that one can always design an experiment that will support one's hypothesis. It then becomes a game of who is the bigger name. Perhaps the National Acad. member is not correct, but he or she will win out over the associate prof in a relatively unknown department. I'll end up getting my Ph.D., but I've decided that selling Hyundais will be more gratifying, and more honest, than continuing on in science

What about if all these skulls and bones found were of human anomalities. Let's say for some odd reason a human born 15 million years ago had an enlarged head due to a genetical problem. Today, we still have the same problems. Don't we? That would explain why Homo-habilis and homo-erectus bone tests seem to indicate they were living at approximately the same time. I believe we all adapt to the environment we are in. This happens in a reasonable fashion. Fish will loose their pigmentation without sunlight but, they will never grow legs so they can walk into the sun. This is the law of survivalism. Believing that we came from the ocean through an ape makes no sense because Earth then was mostly water and odds of survival were in favor of staying there.

I believe everything was created at once and some species died off because they could not adapt to changes.

--Your belief ignores an overwhelming amount of scientific evidence and relies on the most absurd theory I've heard in years. Not that I'm suggesting you change your belief, of course.
M.L.

I agree with Corey,
I would prefer to have 5 or 10 doctorates in various science fields, but I don't!
In thinking about this I have concluded that if a scientist was to have the doctorate but it was collecting dust for years and they didn't keep up with the latest breakthroughs and theories, I would rather be someone without the degree who was fortunate enough to be able to keep up and be a part of this space and time of history.
Dave Briggs

Great point made by one of the commenters above. Scientists discover one odd specimen and decide that it represents a specific species or development - maybe its simply a one-off, not representative of anything!

يوتيوب
صور
العب
العاب
لعب
بث مباشر
موقع يوتيوب
فيديو يوتيوب
فيديو
YouTube
موقع YouTube
تحميل YouTube
مركز تحميل
مركز تحميل الصور
تحميل صور
تحميل الصور
مركز تحميل الصور
تحميل
تحميل كتب
تحميل فلاش
تحميل
صور رومنسيه
صور رمانسيه
صور جميلات العرب
تفسير الاحلام
بلوتوث
مكياج
طبخ
افلام
مسلسلات
دليل مواقع
خلفيات
صور حلوه
العاب بنات
العاب توم جيري
العاب سيارت
العاب اطفال
افلام عربية