Poll--Science Journalism & Responsibility?

[John Jaksich]

Hello Folks,

After reading and watching the latest reports of so-called Alien life forms at Mono Lake CA (I use those terms very loosely)--it seems that much of the fanfare has died down. And, some feel somewhat encouraged by the findings --while there seems to much derision toward those who guessed, speculated, and fanned the flames of tabloid journalism.


I basically address this question to all here --no matter where your opinion may lie---how should the media report such findings to the public--and still attempt to keep their dignity intact.

I will attempt to address this in the form of poll and please feel free to ask any questions if you feel that you don't understand the nature of my questions or poll?

[kleindoofy]

Your poll left out the option "report verbatim and burst out laughing."

[John Jaksich]

I always took myself too seriously--science journalism has to eventually attain some maturity--with or without me!:think:

[Gillianren]

Frankly, I think science journalism has exactly the same responsibility as regular journalism. "Report verbatim" is not, to me, the right answer in any way. That's press release journalism, which is irresponsible. A media outlet which is going to report on science ought to have at least one person working there who either understands it or can find someone to explain it in a way which will let them explain it so the average consumer of that media outlet will understand it. Necessary warnings should be stated when findings aren't conclusive, but I have to tell you, there's a limit to how much I think things based on a single study should be reported in the mainstream media at all.

[AndreasJ]

Don't report verbatim but give the scientists in question a chance to see the article and point out mistakes before publication.

[Ken G]

The argument for reporting verbatim is that scientific language tends to be much more precise than the everyday language journalists use in other areas. If a journalist learns that the President of some country says something, they can safely report that the "leader" of that country said something, especially if they understand the basic political setup in that country. But if a scientist reports they detected an up quark, or some such thing, you really don't want the journalist to report that they detected a quark that points upward, or some such thing. You want the journalist to ask the scientist what would be a good way for people of normal education to distinguish the up quark from other quarks, especially since even if the journalist is pretty science savvy, they still might not know a good way to explain that difference.

[John Jaksich]

The argument for reporting verbatim is that scientific language tends to be much more precise than the everyday language journalists use in other areas. If a journalist learns that the President of some country says something, they can safely report that the "leader" of that country said something, especially if they understand the basic political setup in that country. But if a scientist reports they detected an up quark, or some such thing, you really don't want the journalist to report that they detected a quark that points upward, or some such thing. You want the journalist to ask the scientist what would be a good way for people of normal education to distinguish the up quark from other quarks, especially since even if the journalist is pretty science savvy, they still might not know a good way to explain that difference.

Thanks, Ken !

[Trakar]

Report "verbatim" from what? the problem with the most recent episode (mono lake bacteria) was that the NASA press release itself was designed to create misunderstandings and sensationalism. I don't object to all the secondary reporting, as you can't expect them to be more reasonable than the initial, official press release from NASA!

[John Jaksich]

Report "verbatim" from what? the problem with the most recent episode (mono lake bacteria) was that the NASA press release itself was designed to create misunderstandings and sensationalism. I don't object to all the secondary reporting, as you can't expect them to be more reasonable than the initial, official press release from NASA!

My aim by citing the recent NASA press conference---was that if a "science journalist" is report from press release of NASA verbatim and follow-up by peppering the scientists with questions that may be designed to elicit expoistory responses--if possible. It may--in some--instances prove to be desirable to the public who may not know the difference between an extremophile and the E-Coli. . . . for instance.

[Trakar]

My aim by citing the recent NASA press conference---was that if a "science journalist" is report from press release of NASA verbatim and follow-up by peppering the scientists with questions that may be designed to elicit expoistory responses--if possible. It may--in some--instances prove to be desirable to the public who may not know the difference between an extremophile and the E-Coli. . . . for instance.

And my point was that as long as official press releases are the source of most of the problems encountered, making less official reporting stick to verbatim repeats of that information isn't going to make the issue any better. Actually many of the second hand reportages got the science and facts a lot clearer and more in line with the science than the NASA PR was!

[Gillianren]

I don't understand. Are people really suggesting that the scientists basically get to write their own news articles?

[Ken G]

No-- but that the journalists take the explanations they are given literally. Basically, resisting the temptation to make it sound "cooler", or more "common sense", than the scientist did. They should try to understand what is explained to them, and if they don't, ask for clarification. The journalist is like a student trying to learn something, but they should stick to the lesson-- without putting their own spin on it. Basically, they should say things like "what I understand you as saying is....", and if the scientist says "yes, that's pretty much correct", then they can go ahead and put it in the article. But if the scientist says "that might be overinterpreting the result a bit", or "that's just kind of an analogy that might not be very reliable", or even "that sounds like an effort to sensationalize these conclusions," the journalist should back off from putting it in the article. It's hard to explain something you don't really understand yourself, but why should this lead to poor reporting?

As for NASA being intentionally sensational, that's another matter, with a different solution.

[Gillianren]

Yes, but suggesting they should write what the scientist tells them verbatim is letting the scientist dictate what the article says. This is why, to me, there's still a place in this world for the dedicated science reporter. Someone who, as I said, actually understands the relevant science or knows how to make someone disinterested explain it to them.

[Ken G]

I agree, we want science reporters, and we want them to understand the science as well as possible, and they should want to own their own work-- they are interpreters and translators, but if they are interpreting or translating a poem, we don't want their concept of how the poem should turn out, we just want a faithful rendition. Same with science. Ideally, we'd have Nobel laureates writing the journalism too, but there aren't enough to go around. I think the problem the OP is alluding to is that reporters (and even press releases by scientists) sometimes have a different agenda than the science itself does. The agenda of the science is simply to discover something true, whatever it is, whether it is boring, or exciting, or controversial, or expected. But journalism is a kind of quest for the sensational, and the emphasis can be put on why this result is worth selling a newspaper or magazine over. Sometimes that leads to distortions, that at some level just have to be tolerated, but a line can be drawn all the same-- when in doubt, use the scientist's words verbatim, or at least get clarification that the author is taking the correct meaning. That's kind of like choice #1 in the poll, or maybe choice #5, there can be gray area in there that has to be navigated.

[Gillianren]

Science doesn't deal in truth.

[Jens]

In response to the original question, what type of journalism and what type of audience? Is this for a general audience or a scientific audience. In general, I would have to agree with Gillianren that "report verbatim" is a silly option, but I think this would depend somewhat on the nature of the publication. If you are writing for scientists in the same field, often very little elaboration is necessary, but on the 8 o'clock news there are a lot of people without any specific knowledge of any given scientific field, so in many cases the "verbatim" can't be used at all, really, because people wouldn't understand the terminology. This is not to say that people are stupid. I might understand some things about certain fields that others would not, but in other fields I would be incapable.

[Van Rijn]

Yes, but suggesting they should write what the scientist tells them verbatim is letting the scientist dictate what the article says. This is why, to me, there's still a place in this world for the dedicated science reporter. Someone who, as I said, actually understands the relevant science or knows how to make someone disinterested explain it to them.

Certainly, and what I want is a reporter that knows enough about the subject to avoid most of the pseudoscience and report the science properly. Unfortunately, it's pretty common to find articles that make little sense and have little in common with what the scientist actually said.

[Van Rijn]

Hello Folks,

After reading and watching the latest reports of so-called Alien life forms at Mono Lake CA (I use those terms very loosely)--it seems that much of the fanfare has died down. And, some feel somewhat encouraged by the findings --while there seems to much derision toward those who guessed, speculated, and fanned the flames of tabloid journalism.


I would say that a responsible reporter should have some knowledge of the subject he's reporting, they should always be skeptical of sensational new claims and show that in their reports, and if and when new science comes out that shows the sensational claim to be incorrect, they should be ready to report that. The news agencies should properly support this as well: If the original sensational claim gets top billing, then if it is later shown to be wrong, that should also get top billing. It shouldn't be a little article shuffled away where almost no one will see it.

Unfortunately, that isn't usually the way things work.

[Ken G]

Science doesn't deal in truth.Sure it does. It merely has its own definition for the term-- like everything else in science. That's the point-- applying everyday meanings to scientific terms generates a gulf of misunderstanding.

[NEOWatcher]

I'm not really comfortable with any of the options.
Questions should be asked, and third party input should also be important so the article is realistic. This is why press releases often have press conferences that follow.

Unfortunately, that's an ideal world of responsible journalism. In the real world, they use the press conferences to lure them into making a spectacular statments, and third party input to create controversy.

[Gillianren]

Sure it does. It merely has its own definition for the term-- like everything else in science. That's the point-- applying everyday meanings to scientific terms generates a gulf of misunderstanding.

Yes, science's definition of truth is "something to be left to philosophers." Science deals in fact, which is different.

[John Jaksich]

Possibly it is those who have the most difficulty in attempting to address the public---that they may want to understand the philosophical underpinnings of the overall meaning of their work--

IMO-- there may be times when someone is unable to explain their work to a "proverbial person on the street" ----that type of science loses touch with its foundation---




As I have seen it in this forum: "'If you can't explain your work to the barmaid--at the local tavern--maybe one should re-think their approach.'"

[Ken G]

Yes, science's definition of truth is "something to be left to philosophers." Science deals in fact, which is different.Science does not shy away from the term truth, it just defines "scientific truth." Surrendering the term completely is unnecessary. Take, for example, Feynman's approach: "The principle of science, the definition, almost, is the following: The test of all knowledge is experiment. Experiment is the sole judge of scientific 'truth'." So Feynman has no fear of the word, just a more careful meaning than in popular language.

[Gillianren]

The use of it in quotation marks means he's not using it as a term that science uses. It means he's using it as a layman's term that he has no interest in applying to science itself. This is grammatically correct, and Feynman was a good enough writer that he would use quotation marks correctly.

[danscope]

Feynman had it right. He had a gift for plain truth . Journalists would do well to emulate his approach in shining light on science .
A good journalists is more about bringing out the science news in an interesting fashion without being a clown or seizing on some unimportant tidbit , diffusing the central interest with ' comic relief' , fearing that the viewer can't handle the truth.
The scientists is clothed with the knowledge base and direct experience to do the job. A good journalists brings out that focus and steps out of the light to illuminate the guest . We need more like that.
At least on PBS , you have the luxury of time , and the courtesy of an informed journalist . It always makes the difference .
In print, we need space , and defined acronyms so as to bring along the interested reader , not familiar with these annoying runes .
Clarity is king.

[Ken G]

The use of it in quotation marks means he's not using it as a term that science uses.Feynman was not one to mince words. I interpret his use of quotation marks as simply a reference to the fact that science defines the word in its own way, and the standard commonplace meaning is not to be taken for that word.
It means he's using it as a layman's term that he has no interest in applying to science itself.
Just the opposite. Here is a more complete rendition of that quote, found on Wikiquotes:
"Each piece, or part, of the whole nature is always an approximation to the complete truth, or the complete truth so far as we know it. In fact, everything we know is only some kind of approximation, because we know that we do not know all the laws as yet. Therefore, things must be learned only to be unlearned again or, more likely, to be corrected.......The test of all knowledge is experiment. Experiment is the sole judge of scientific “truth”. "
I interpret that as meaning that Feynman does think there is a "complete truth", but science is only interested in a part of that-- the part "as far as we know." He recognizes that scientific truth is more akin to making approximations than to hitting the nail on the head, and is reliant on experiment rather than logical necessity. Thus he sees scientific truth as different enough from the term "truth" used in common language that it rated a special set of quotes to make that distinction. I think his views on the topic are similar to what I expressed above, but unfortunately for us all we cannot ask him.

[Gillianren]

No, we can't, but that doesn't matter; Feynman is not the be-all and end-all of scientific thought. How often have you heard scientists assure you that science doesn't deal in truth?

[Ken G]

No, we can't, but that doesn't matter; Feynman is not the be-all and end-all of scientific thought. How often have you heard scientists assure you that science doesn't deal in truth?
That is certainly one way to go, but it is basically surrendering to the common meaning of that term, which science is unable to give meaning to. So we have two choices-- say that "truth" is inherently an unscientific idea, and be left with no other word to use ("fact" doesn't really cut it, because facts have their own connotations as being relatively isolated and uncontroversial-- science is certainly something more than a "search for facts", it is a search for understanding, a search for unifying principles that make sense of and link together all those "facts"), or else keep the word "truth", but give it a scientifically meaningful definition. Both are valid ways to go, it really just depends on how much time you have to get your audience to understand the distinctions-- it takes a lot more work to get people to understand what "truth" means in science, and it's certainly a lot different from the dictionary definition.

[Gillianren]

Using the word "truth" presupposes we have found it, a concept anathema to science as it leaves out the necessary possibility that we could be wrong.

[danscope]

Our scientific knowledge in any area will never be absolute, although with experiment we will enjoy a level of certainty, sufficient to our needs within the application of that knowledge. It is the repercussions of the discovery of that knowledge and the repair of the damages occuring as a result of it's applications by those with less vision , beyond immediate goals that truly illuminates the totality of scientific knowledge.
There will always be more than meets the eye. We should proceed carefully in that endeavour. Always.
Like the physician , we should remember to " Do no harm " .

[Ken G]

Using the word "truth" presupposes we have found it, a concept anathema to science as it leaves out the necessary possibility that we could be wrong.No, scientific truth is not a final destination, that's the whole reason science has its own version of "truth." This is a very important point about "scientific truth," the point most often misunderstood by nonscientists (and even some scientists!). Science does not need to abandon the concept of truth, it merely has to stop thinking of it as a final destination. Instead, truth is provisional, contingent on certain choices, assumptions, and limitations, all of which can change in the future. Kind of like truth in real life also-- oops, did I say that out loud?


It is the repercussions of the discovery of that knowledge and the repair of the damages occuring as a result of it's applications by those with less vision , beyond immediate goals that truly illuminates the totality of scientific knowledge. That sounds a bit to me like "in science, truth is as truth does", which I would agree with.

[Gillianren]

Science does not need to abandon the concept of truth, it merely has to stop thinking of it as a final destination. Instead, truth is provisional, contingent on certain choices, assumptions, and limitations, all of which can change in the future. Kind of like truth in real life also-- oops, did I say that out loud?

So you've just redefined truth for philosophy as well. Well done.

[Ken G]

It's probably our best current idea of what truth is. Currently, that is.

[danscope]

Thanks Ken . Best regards,
Dan

[lomiller1]

Sure it does. It merely has its own definition for the term-- like everything else in science. That's the point-- applying everyday meanings to scientific terms generates a gulf of misunderstanding.

I get what you are trying to say, but redefining terms so we get the result we want isn’t the way to go. Truth already has a meaning and you need to alter that meaning to any scientifically derived knowledge fits that definition.

It may be easier to speak of “scientific truth” when discussing something with a layman, but ultimately I think it’s better to teach them the provisional nature of everything science concludes then changing the meaning of “truth” so it fits what science does.

[lomiller1]

It's probably our best current idea of what truth is. Currently, that is.

Science has certainly been more productive then any philosophical searched for truth, but this is why it’s best not to try and turn science into a search for truth. Searches for truth don’t work searches for the best answer available do.

Borrowing the term truth and giving it some related but different meaning is more likely to promote the idea that science is black and white producing objective truths which IMO is a serious disservice because it becomes very easy to say “see there is some other possibility, so the theory isn’t proven and therefore isn’t true and isn’t really science”

IMO a common thread that permeates almost all anti-science is that if it’s not true in the philosophical sense, which no science is, then it’s still an open discussion. By using a modified version of the term truth it become very easy to conflate the terms in the promotion of crackpot theories.

[Ken G]

I get what you are trying to say, but redefining terms so we get the result we want isn’t the way to go. Truth already has a meaning and you need to alter that meaning to any scientifically derived knowledge fits that definition. Actually, I would argue that truth does not already have a meaning. It has a definition-- that's quite a bit different. That definition might not mean anything at all-- finding meaning is a much different process than looking up a definition. The processes used are really what give "truth" its meaning, not the definition. (Definitions never proffer meaning to a word, they only form associations with other words.)


It may be easier to speak of “scientific truth” when discussing something with a layman, but ultimately I think it’s better to teach them the provisional nature of everything science concludes then changing the meaning of “truth” so it fits what science does.The point is, you will need some word. You can surrender the word "truth" to applications that have a very different prescription for assigning it meaning than does science, but you are still only giving it meaning within a particular application. It makes more sense just to recognize the prescriptions science uses to give meaning to the word truth. If you don't want to use that word, you still need another word. What one will you use?
Searches for truth don’t work searches for the best answer available do. That's tantamount to abandoning the word "truth" altogether. May as well strike it from the dictionary! Or, make it work for you, and above all, recognize that all concepts of truth have an appropriate context.
IMO a common thread that permeates almost all anti-science is that if it’s not true in the philosophical sense, which no science is, then it’s still an open discussion. By using a modified version of the term truth it become very easy to conflate the terms in the promotion of crackpot theories.There are many philosophical senses of the term "truth", I've discussed one of them above. You are focusing on a particular one, perhaps the most naive version (that of, shall we say, "absolute" truth). But even if we require that truth be absolute, it is still perfectly all right to notice that science is always an open discussion. That's not the problem with pseudoscience, the problem is that they do not test their conclusions. So we have "tested" truth, which is never absolute (because it is reliant on the testing procedure), and "untested" truth, which we can imagine is absolute if we so choose, but it's not clear that it resides anywhere but our imagination (because it is not tested). I'm not saying it's wrong to believe something that is untested, I think it's great to believe something that is untested-- I just think the word "truth" is ill-positioned for that situation. Instead of surrendering the word, science is one of the few places where the word can be given a fairly concrete meaning.

[danscope]

Well.... shall we say " Confirmed truth by scientific examination and experiment " ?

Dan

[Bearded One]

I picked #1 and #3. I really wish a combined option was available for those two. I think they should report verbatim and ask the scientist to elaborate at a minimum. I see nothing wrong with adding further elaboration but preferable it will be done with the scientist present and being consulted for verification. Something along the lines of "I see, so does that mean..." and then referring to the scientist for verification.

I also considered the option to tell the journalist to shut up and just report verbatim and let the scientist elaborate. The main reason I considered that was because there are many biased journalist out there. They have an agenda and they lead the scientist astray and next thing you know the scientist concurs that up equals down but only on Tuesdays.