Hard News: The First Draft
262 Responses
First ←Older Page 1 … 3 4 5 6 7 … 11 Newer→ Last
-
I'd rather they give the crackpots airtime so someone can then debunk them. Otherwise we end up with Sensing Murder being the number one rated show.
-
Matthew Poole, in reply to
And, no, I don’t have any idea what he’s going on about with “tons” and “kilotons”.
I assume he's referring to energy-equivalent release in tonnes of TNT (as opposed to joules).
-
giovanni tiso, in reply to
I'd rather they give the crackpots airtime so someone can then debunk them. Otherwise we end up with Sensing Murder being the number one rated show.
It seems a very faulty correlation to me. How about we don't air Sensing Murder?
-
andin, in reply to
Campbell Live did a story on free food stores appearing and then reported most of their feedback complained the starving people looked overweight and were smoking
Thats hilaarious.... Its like the ghosts of Archie Bunkerism and Alf Garnetists took to watching Campbell Live that night.
-
Carol Stewart, in reply to
I tend to agree, B. Ken Ring has had a scandalously free ride in the media in general, as Peter Griffin mentions, and I think this kind of showdown was overdue. Not that it was necessarily the showdown needed.
There are many instances through history where the widely held belief has proved to be both scientifically wrong, and life-threatening.
Recordari, there are also instances where, er, fringe beliefs may be scientifically wrong and life-threatening. Like, say, refusing conventional cancer treatment. Or using homeopathic remedies for malaria prevention.
the degree to which everyone is certain of the superiority of their belief system and its scientific underpinning is getting me a little uppity.
But, seismologists are not dogmatic at all. They are well aware of the limits of their approach and honest about their predictions which are couched in probabilities rather than certainties. On the other hand, Ken Ring, behind his affable facade, is all dogma. The moon causes earthquakes and that is that.
-
giovanni tiso, in reply to
Thats hilaarious.... Its like the ghosts of Archie Bunkerism and Alf Garnetists took to watching Campbell Live that night.
It should be pointed out that the feedback was on the website. I think it falls under angry lonely men with keyboards.
-
Stephen Judd, in reply to
Again with trying to make my point. Ring wrong does not mean all believers in extraterrestrial influences on Earthquakes are wrong,
No. But I have to insist they should pony up with some sort of evidence and a coherent case for those beliefs, same as Ring.
given time, we might not be better able to predict Earthquakes through understanding this, or another, scientific point. That would be a good thing, no?
That would be a good thing indeed. Who would not want new methods of earthquake prediction?
I'm really struggling here to understand what your problem is with people poo-pooing Ring for being bogus.
There are many instances through history where the widely held belief has proved to be both scientifically wrong, and life-threatening.
They laughed at Columbus, they laughed at Fulton, they laughed at the Wright Brothers. But they also laughed at Bozo the Clown.
Attributed to Carl Sagan.
*ahem* Sometimes we are mistaken. It's all about what's likely, given the evidence. This is no reason to pander to out and out charlatans.
-
andin, in reply to
And televisions?
-
(It’s worth noting that a few weeks back Campbell Live did a story on free food stores appearing and then reported most of their feedback complained the starving people looked overweight and were smoking. I felt sorry for a show trying to challenge misconceptions only to have them reinforced by their viewers.)
The next night JC did mention that they decided to check the complaints against the footage they aired and pointed out that they only saw 2 smokers in all the footage, which I appreciated also.
-
recordari, in reply to
So in spite of repeatedly saying I think Ring is wrong, and should not have been given an airing, or taken seriously, you still think I'm defending him? Oh well, such is life. Should have stuck to the meths problem.
-
recordari: no, I don't think you're defending him. I *think* you might be criticising an aggressive rationality on my part, but I'm not sure. Obviously we both seem to be having trouble connecting today.
-
recordari, in reply to
Obviously we both seem to be having trouble connecting today.
I think I can honestly say, it's not you, it's me. And lets leave it at that.
-
David Ritchie, in reply to
Then all David has to do is sit back and watch the carnage.
If, by "carnage", you actually mean "ad views", then I agree with you.
-
giovanni tiso, in reply to
If, by "carnage", you actually mean "ad views", then I agree with you.
Well put. And I must say that when the Edwards rant was linked to yesterday my first thought was, "look who's found yet another way of driving traffic through meaningless diatribe". The services of his media company must be worth every single penny.
-
-
This is probably as close to trolling as I get.
Point of order, Your Honour.
I'm not sure what trolling means these days. To me it means (or used to mean) a deliberately provocative statement reflecting a view not sincerely held. Today it appears to apply to any provocative statement whether the view is sincerely held or not.
To me, that site(not linking), which some people linked to in outrage the other day, about the earthquake, was a classic example of trolling. Again, assuming that the statements on that site were not honestly held opinions, which I don't believe they were. They were trawling for outrage. Thus - trolling. YMMV.
-
So then I was just gnoming? It's a meme I've been working on since about November 2009, so I'm hoping it will take at some stage.
-
Russell Brown, in reply to
Didn’t I say he didn’t have a leg to stand on? It’s not the debate, it’s how we’re debating. Perhaps it’s something I get a bit sensitive on. There are many instances through history where the widely held belief has proved to be both scientifically wrong, and life-threatening.
Plate tectonics, the basis of the science behind understanding earthquakes, is a good example. That was seen as crazy shit for decades, but was eventually shown to be valid -- and thereafter revolutionised earth sciences. That happens in science.
I'm just not sure what you're saying: that we should be kind to ideas that are demonstrably wrong and deceptive?
-
recordari, in reply to
I’m just not sure what you’re saying: that we should be kind to ideas that are demonstrably wrong and deceptive?
Still no. Just don't throw the baby out with the bath water, which I gather nobody is. So we can move on now, right?
-
Greg Dawson, in reply to
So then I was just gnoming?
That's a bridge too far, the trolls will gather.
-
Martin Lindberg, in reply to
So then I was just gnoming?
Heh, no, my point was not directed at you specifically. I've just noticed that the term seems to mean something different now than what I thought it meant. Well, either that or I've always been wrong.
-
giovanni tiso, in reply to
They laughed at Columbus, they laughed at Fulton, they laughed at the Wright Brothers. But they also laughed at Bozo the Clown.
Can I just say that Columbus actually deserved to be laughed at? He was wrong about most things and really if he hadn't bumped into America he would have died of starvation long before reaching India.
-
There are many instances through history where the widely held belief has proved to be both scientifically wrong, and life-threatening.
While that's true, it's also not helpful. Science isn't a body of widely-held beliefs - it's the body of beliefs that have been subjected to testing and checking against evidence. Any candidate for acceptance into that body has to pass the same standards.
If I'd been in Campbell's shoes, I might have asked how committed Ken Ring was to making sure he gave the best predictions to his readers, and whether he reviewed his past predictions to see how many were right, and whether he improved his prediction techniques based on what he found. Then I might have hit him with the actual accuracy figures: Mr Ring, last year you predicted x earthquakes and x of those predictions came true. Do you think you can do a better job this year, because that's no more accurate than chance? That's what a scientist would have done.
-
giovanni tiso, in reply to
While that's true, it's also not helpful. Science isn't a body of widely-held beliefs - it's the body of beliefs that have been subjected to testing and checking against evidence. Any candidate for acceptance into that body has to pass the same standards.
That kind of overlooks the fact that things like the 'refrigerator mother' theory were in fact dogma amongst practicing doctors. And it wasn't that long ago. Science has its fair share of untested beliefs, which is I think what irritates some people when generic appeals to Science (as opposed to rational empirical scepticism) are used to shout down fringe beliefs and theories.
-
andin, in reply to
Yeah, those fringe beliefs...
Post your response…
This topic is closed.