What if we treated the rest of science like climate science?
September 13, 2011 9:27 AM Subscribe
Sure, the diamond planet is real....if you believe the liberal media.
One of the scientists involved in making this discovery (actual abstract here) discusses how his experience would have been different if he was a climate scientist.
Of course the diamond planet is hoax! Just follow the money like Rick Perry.
Of course the diamond planet is hoax! Just follow the money like Rick Perry.
Soon people will believe The Diamond Planet is a myth and it will be mine for the taking and not even Superman can stop me! BUWAHAHAHA!
c'mon like you weren't thinking it
posted by The Whelk at 9:31 AM on September 13, 2011 [9 favorites]
c'mon like you weren't thinking it
posted by The Whelk at 9:31 AM on September 13, 2011 [9 favorites]
*attempts landing there*
posted by DU at 9:32 AM on September 13, 2011 [10 favorites]
posted by DU at 9:32 AM on September 13, 2011 [10 favorites]
But Perry went one step further than most in the mainstream climate change denier community on the presidential campaign trail in New Hampshire Wednesday, stating flatly that scientists drum up phony climate change data to make a buck.
Being a scientist has always been a popular get-rich-quick scheme, seconded only by sending chain letters.
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 9:33 AM on September 13, 2011 [48 favorites]
Being a scientist has always been a popular get-rich-quick scheme, seconded only by sending chain letters.
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 9:33 AM on September 13, 2011 [48 favorites]
Not a planet.
A stellar remnant.
Fair enough, but I'd totally go see Diamond Planet play, whereas Crystalline Stellar Remnant would probably be to mathy for my tastes.
posted by lumpenprole at 9:36 AM on September 13, 2011 [13 favorites]
A stellar remnant.
Fair enough, but I'd totally go see Diamond Planet play, whereas Crystalline Stellar Remnant would probably be to mathy for my tastes.
posted by lumpenprole at 9:36 AM on September 13, 2011 [13 favorites]
stating flatly that scientists drum up phony climate change data to make a buck.
Perry fiddles while Texas burns.
posted by elizardbits at 9:36 AM on September 13, 2011 [3 favorites]
Perry fiddles while Texas burns.
posted by elizardbits at 9:36 AM on September 13, 2011 [3 favorites]
Texas Gov. Rick Perry is a conservative RepublicanUS politician, and as such he does not believe that climate change is caused by human activitywants to keep the corporate and oil dollars flowing in.
posted by DU at 9:37 AM on September 13, 2011 [1 favorite]
posted by DU at 9:37 AM on September 13, 2011 [1 favorite]
Perry will make such an absolutely fucking idiotic president
posted by edgeways at 9:37 AM on September 13, 2011 [4 favorites]
posted by edgeways at 9:37 AM on September 13, 2011 [4 favorites]
....Google unit conversion feature totally choked when...asked...for the mass of Jupiter in carats.
mass of Jupiter = 9.4935 × 1030 carats
posted by DU at 9:38 AM on September 13, 2011 [1 favorite]
mass of Jupiter = 9.4935 × 1030 carats
posted by DU at 9:38 AM on September 13, 2011 [1 favorite]
Link-through from the main article to another interesting article by Ove Hoegh-Guldberg: Who's your expert? The difference between peer review and rethoric.
Worth bringing to the front page...
posted by Hairy Lobster at 9:39 AM on September 13, 2011 [2 favorites]
Worth bringing to the front page...
posted by Hairy Lobster at 9:39 AM on September 13, 2011 [2 favorites]
I got that you were failing to make the joke, but once the issue is raised someone needs to actually post the number.
posted by DU at 9:42 AM on September 13, 2011 [1 favorite]
posted by DU at 9:42 AM on September 13, 2011 [1 favorite]
Goddamn scientists and their lily-livered pantywaist phraseology. "The scientific method is universal. If we selectively ignore it in certain disciplines, we do so at our peril." is passive, impersonal, vague and spineless. How the hell are they going to get anyone RILED UP about their topic with this shit?
WE NEED RHETORIC! FIRE! TRASH-TALKING!
"The scientific method doesn't give a shit, mother fucker, it works whether you believe in it or not -- kind of like some religion's GODs. If you fucking pretend, like a puling brat, that some established theorems -- like ALL WHITE SUVs hurtling down the road -- are just actually bullshit made-up phantoms only there to scare the weak -- you're not only a fucking fool, but you're JUST AS FUCKING DEAD when one hits you as any other colour of SUV. Science! IT WORKS, BITCHES!"
posted by seanmpuckett at 9:43 AM on September 13, 2011 [31 favorites]
WE NEED RHETORIC! FIRE! TRASH-TALKING!
"The scientific method doesn't give a shit, mother fucker, it works whether you believe in it or not -- kind of like some religion's GODs. If you fucking pretend, like a puling brat, that some established theorems -- like ALL WHITE SUVs hurtling down the road -- are just actually bullshit made-up phantoms only there to scare the weak -- you're not only a fucking fool, but you're JUST AS FUCKING DEAD when one hits you as any other colour of SUV. Science! IT WORKS, BITCHES!"
posted by seanmpuckett at 9:43 AM on September 13, 2011 [31 favorites]
Something that consistently frustrates me about science policy debates is that people will reject ideas supported by dozens of lines of evidence across thousands of studies as "just a theory" while embracing speculative concepts that may or may not be overturned by future research. When conservatives contrast evolution or climate change with the "Law of Gravity," as far as I can tell, they have things exactly backwards.
posted by KirkJobSluder at 9:43 AM on September 13, 2011
posted by KirkJobSluder at 9:43 AM on September 13, 2011
It take balls to execute an innocent man
posted by JPD at 9:44 AM on September 13, 2011 [5 favorites]
posted by JPD at 9:44 AM on September 13, 2011 [5 favorites]
"The scientific method is universal. If we selectively ignore it in certain disciplines, we do so at our peril."
This.
posted by clvrmnky at 9:45 AM on September 13, 2011 [3 favorites]
This.
posted by clvrmnky at 9:45 AM on September 13, 2011 [3 favorites]
Explain to me, then, how if diamonds can turn into planets, why are there still monkeys?
posted by Legomancer at 9:47 AM on September 13, 2011 [20 favorites]
posted by Legomancer at 9:47 AM on September 13, 2011 [20 favorites]
Explain to me, then, how if diamonds can turn into planets, why are there still monkeys?
Someone has to mine the diamonds.
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 9:48 AM on September 13, 2011 [2 favorites]
Someone has to mine the diamonds.
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 9:48 AM on September 13, 2011 [2 favorites]
Explain to me, then, how if diamonds can turn into planets, why are there still monkeys?
a wizard did it
posted by elizardbits at 9:48 AM on September 13, 2011 [4 favorites]
a wizard did it
posted by elizardbits at 9:48 AM on September 13, 2011 [4 favorites]
*attempts landing there*
*slides off*
posted by TheWhiteSkull at 9:49 AM on September 13, 2011 [3 favorites]
*slides off*
posted by TheWhiteSkull at 9:49 AM on September 13, 2011 [3 favorites]
OMG you guys what if the diamond planet is the pulsar's wedding ring and its totally like gaymarried to another pulsar
posted by robocop is bleeding at 9:51 AM on September 13, 2011 [33 favorites]
posted by robocop is bleeding at 9:51 AM on September 13, 2011 [33 favorites]
In their June 24, 1974 issue, Time presented an article titled Another Ice Age? that noted "the atmosphere has been growing gradually cooler for the past three decades" but noted that "Some scientists... think that the cooling trend may be only temporary"
Friggin' fringe scientists.
An April 28, 1975 article in Newsweek magazine was titled [25] "The Cooling World", it pointed to "ominous signs that the Earth's weather patterns have begun to change" and pointed to "a drop of half a degree [Fahrenheit] in average ground temperatures in the Northern Hemisphere between 1945 and 1968." The article claimed "The evidence in support of these predictions [of global cooling] has now begun to accumulate so massively that meteorologists are hard-pressed to keep up with it."
Not that this excuses global warming deniers, but if you lived through the 1970's you could see where people might be cynical about the whole thing.
As for the article, global climate science actually matters to people as opposed to astrophysics. It's no surprise that its getting a lot more attention.
posted by Tell Me No Lies at 9:58 AM on September 13, 2011
Friggin' fringe scientists.
An April 28, 1975 article in Newsweek magazine was titled [25] "The Cooling World", it pointed to "ominous signs that the Earth's weather patterns have begun to change" and pointed to "a drop of half a degree [Fahrenheit] in average ground temperatures in the Northern Hemisphere between 1945 and 1968." The article claimed "The evidence in support of these predictions [of global cooling] has now begun to accumulate so massively that meteorologists are hard-pressed to keep up with it."
Not that this excuses global warming deniers, but if you lived through the 1970's you could see where people might be cynical about the whole thing.
As for the article, global climate science actually matters to people as opposed to astrophysics. It's no surprise that its getting a lot more attention.
posted by Tell Me No Lies at 9:58 AM on September 13, 2011
Perry will make such an absolutely fucking idiotic president
For some reason my wife was watching a Republican debate last night and I swear to god that a physician who took the hippocratic oath actually said that he would let someone die if they made the choice not to get adequate health insurance. That if a patient can't pay the bills it's their own choice and they're fucked. And he got cheers from the audience. I'm sorry to say it but you guys have got bigger problems than Rick Perry's take on science.
posted by Hoopo at 9:59 AM on September 13, 2011 [34 favorites]
For some reason my wife was watching a Republican debate last night and I swear to god that a physician who took the hippocratic oath actually said that he would let someone die if they made the choice not to get adequate health insurance. That if a patient can't pay the bills it's their own choice and they're fucked. And he got cheers from the audience. I'm sorry to say it but you guys have got bigger problems than Rick Perry's take on science.
posted by Hoopo at 9:59 AM on September 13, 2011 [34 favorites]
So as I understand this it's not a diamond planet orbiting a star every two hours, but rather a binary star system and they orbit around their center of mass. Cool.
This is not going to stop me from telling engaged ladies who brag about the size of their diamond that there's a diamond planet. And it's canary yellow and flawless.
posted by longsleeves at 10:02 AM on September 13, 2011
This is not going to stop me from telling engaged ladies who brag about the size of their diamond that there's a diamond planet. And it's canary yellow and flawless.
posted by longsleeves at 10:02 AM on September 13, 2011
Good article.
But this guy needs to know.
That paragraphs are allowed to be longer than a line.
Or two.
posted by gurple at 10:03 AM on September 13, 2011 [1 favorite]
But this guy needs to know.
That paragraphs are allowed to be longer than a line.
Or two.
posted by gurple at 10:03 AM on September 13, 2011 [1 favorite]
How far is this away, because this one is 50 light years away.
Also, orbital period of 2 hours? How fast is the thing going?
posted by marienbad at 10:06 AM on September 13, 2011
Also, orbital period of 2 hours? How fast is the thing going?
posted by marienbad at 10:06 AM on September 13, 2011
You're my diamond girl
And I'm a millisecond pulsar
You're my diamond girl
You were a helium rich dwarf star
(but now)
You're my diamond girl
You're the one I put the rock on
You're my diamond girl
You're the reason I quit the game for
posted by Debaser626 at 10:08 AM on September 13, 2011
And I'm a millisecond pulsar
You're my diamond girl
You were a helium rich dwarf star
(but now)
You're my diamond girl
You're the one I put the rock on
You're my diamond girl
You're the reason I quit the game for
posted by Debaser626 at 10:08 AM on September 13, 2011
Is this diamond the size of Jupiter or the mass of Jupiter? The article says both and I'm thinking one must be wrong...
posted by rikschell at 10:11 AM on September 13, 2011 [1 favorite]
posted by rikschell at 10:11 AM on September 13, 2011 [1 favorite]
1,884,955 km/hr by my estimate.
posted by KirkJobSluder at 10:12 AM on September 13, 2011
posted by KirkJobSluder at 10:12 AM on September 13, 2011
At least now we can count on a DeBeers entry into the private space race. Just need to find oil on Mars and maybe I'll get offplanet before I die after all.
posted by Edogy at 10:14 AM on September 13, 2011
posted by Edogy at 10:14 AM on September 13, 2011
WE NEED RHETORIC! FIRE! TRASH-TALKING!
"The scientific method doesn't give a shit, mother fucker, it works whether you believe in it or not -- kind of like some religion's GODs. If you fucking pretend, like a puling brat, that some established theorems -- like ALL WHITE SUVs hurtling down the road -- are just actually bullshit made-up phantoms only there to scare the weak -- you're not only a fucking fool, but you're JUST AS FUCKING DEAD when one hits you as any other colour of SUV. Science! IT WORKS, BITCHES!"
Heh, you should give lessons in this. It definitely seems to be true that people really want emotionally satisfying narratives, the comfort of certainty and reassurance that their world view is the correct one. But these urges are the antithesis of science, and scientists are trained right from the start to eliminate these sorts of patterns from our thinking and from our communication styles. By convention and by habit, every statement is qualified, hedged and given error bars, which makes us more correct but also much less effective communicators to a non-nerdy audience.
It's something that I think the best -- or at least most popular -- science communicators are very aware of and are careful to control. Brian Cox, for example, tends to speak in absolutes and provides emotional context for the things he's talking about. For example, when interviewed about the LHC's switch-on creating black holes and destroying the world, he didn't get into the technical detail or start discussing probabilities. Instead, his response was something very close to "Nah, that's bollocks [interviewer starts to interject]... Nope, total bollocks. Can't happen." It's a less information-rich answer, but rhetorically it's a vast improvement, with the audience much more likely to remember and take to heart what was said. Confidence really does get interpreted as competence, and the emotional kick of hearing a Professor talk like that* really helps to sell the message.
That's an extreme example, but in the battle to get important messages across about how the world actually works, we need to decide what's more important: conveying all the information, properly qualified, or conveying a crude summary of the information that people will actually remember and be more likely to believe. The former is more honest and comes much more naturally to me and most scientists that I've encountered, but there's no question that the latter, which feels like a politician's dirty habit, is much more effective.
*For context, only a very small subset of academics in the UK are referred to as Professor -- it's not a title that all lecturers seem to acquire by default, as it seems to be in the US -- so the title has a little more associated stuffiness and seniority here.
posted by metaBugs at 10:17 AM on September 13, 2011 [4 favorites]
"The scientific method doesn't give a shit, mother fucker, it works whether you believe in it or not -- kind of like some religion's GODs. If you fucking pretend, like a puling brat, that some established theorems -- like ALL WHITE SUVs hurtling down the road -- are just actually bullshit made-up phantoms only there to scare the weak -- you're not only a fucking fool, but you're JUST AS FUCKING DEAD when one hits you as any other colour of SUV. Science! IT WORKS, BITCHES!"
Heh, you should give lessons in this. It definitely seems to be true that people really want emotionally satisfying narratives, the comfort of certainty and reassurance that their world view is the correct one. But these urges are the antithesis of science, and scientists are trained right from the start to eliminate these sorts of patterns from our thinking and from our communication styles. By convention and by habit, every statement is qualified, hedged and given error bars, which makes us more correct but also much less effective communicators to a non-nerdy audience.
It's something that I think the best -- or at least most popular -- science communicators are very aware of and are careful to control. Brian Cox, for example, tends to speak in absolutes and provides emotional context for the things he's talking about. For example, when interviewed about the LHC's switch-on creating black holes and destroying the world, he didn't get into the technical detail or start discussing probabilities. Instead, his response was something very close to "Nah, that's bollocks [interviewer starts to interject]... Nope, total bollocks. Can't happen." It's a less information-rich answer, but rhetorically it's a vast improvement, with the audience much more likely to remember and take to heart what was said. Confidence really does get interpreted as competence, and the emotional kick of hearing a Professor talk like that* really helps to sell the message.
That's an extreme example, but in the battle to get important messages across about how the world actually works, we need to decide what's more important: conveying all the information, properly qualified, or conveying a crude summary of the information that people will actually remember and be more likely to believe. The former is more honest and comes much more naturally to me and most scientists that I've encountered, but there's no question that the latter, which feels like a politician's dirty habit, is much more effective.
*For context, only a very small subset of academics in the UK are referred to as Professor -- it's not a title that all lecturers seem to acquire by default, as it seems to be in the US -- so the title has a little more associated stuffiness and seniority here.
posted by metaBugs at 10:17 AM on September 13, 2011 [4 favorites]
Science! IT WORKS, BITCHES!
Totally want this on a T-shirt.
posted by never used baby shoes at 10:30 AM on September 13, 2011 [1 favorite]
Totally want this on a T-shirt.
posted by never used baby shoes at 10:30 AM on September 13, 2011 [1 favorite]
It's an XKCD tshirt. Been around for a while.
posted by lumpenprole at 10:37 AM on September 13, 2011
posted by lumpenprole at 10:37 AM on September 13, 2011
Explain to me, then, how if diamonds can turn into planets, why are there still monkeys?
They call them the diamond dogs.
posted by Gelatin at 10:38 AM on September 13, 2011
They call them the diamond dogs.
posted by Gelatin at 10:38 AM on September 13, 2011
I came in to make a DeBeers joke but found this:
OMG you guys what if the diamond planet is the pulsar's wedding ring and its totally like gaymarried to another pulsar
Marriage is between a boy stellar remnant and a girl stellar remnant; anything else is an affront to the blind idiot god at the center of the universe!
posted by Mister_A at 10:41 AM on September 13, 2011 [1 favorite]
OMG you guys what if the diamond planet is the pulsar's wedding ring and its totally like gaymarried to another pulsar
Marriage is between a boy stellar remnant and a girl stellar remnant; anything else is an affront to the blind idiot god at the center of the universe!
posted by Mister_A at 10:41 AM on September 13, 2011 [1 favorite]
Happy Anniversary, Mrs. Galactus!
posted by brain_drain at 10:43 AM on September 13, 2011
posted by brain_drain at 10:43 AM on September 13, 2011
Some other astroscientists discovered a zircon the size of Uranus, to universal titters.
posted by Mister_A at 10:46 AM on September 13, 2011
posted by Mister_A at 10:46 AM on September 13, 2011
I'd be satisfied to get some politicians to recite the Litany of Tarski on live TV
posted by LogicalDash at 10:46 AM on September 13, 2011
posted by LogicalDash at 10:46 AM on September 13, 2011
Thanks lumpenprole!
posted by never used baby shoes at 10:55 AM on September 13, 2011
posted by never used baby shoes at 10:55 AM on September 13, 2011
Photograph by NASA? On the Ars Technica article? Really?
posted by Wolfdog at 10:56 AM on September 13, 2011
posted by Wolfdog at 10:56 AM on September 13, 2011
WE NEED RHETORIC! FIRE! TRASH-TALKING!
"The scientific method doesn't give a shit, mother fucker, it works whether you believe in it or not -- kind of like some religion's GODs. If you fucking pretend, like a puling brat, that some established theorems -- like ALL WHITE SUVs hurtling down the road -- are just actually bullshit made-up phantoms only there to scare the weak -- you're not only a fucking fool, but you're JUST AS FUCKING DEAD when one hits you as any other colour of SUV. Science! IT WORKS, BITCHES!"
Reminds me of Jon Jon Mackey Action Weatherman.
posted by bionic.junkie at 11:23 AM on September 13, 2011
"The scientific method doesn't give a shit, mother fucker, it works whether you believe in it or not -- kind of like some religion's GODs. If you fucking pretend, like a puling brat, that some established theorems -- like ALL WHITE SUVs hurtling down the road -- are just actually bullshit made-up phantoms only there to scare the weak -- you're not only a fucking fool, but you're JUST AS FUCKING DEAD when one hits you as any other colour of SUV. Science! IT WORKS, BITCHES!"
Reminds me of Jon Jon Mackey Action Weatherman.
posted by bionic.junkie at 11:23 AM on September 13, 2011
1,884,955 km/hr by my estimate.
So, the Nordschleife in 0.040 seconds then.
posted by LordSludge at 11:23 AM on September 13, 2011
So, the Nordschleife in 0.040 seconds then.
posted by LordSludge at 11:23 AM on September 13, 2011
So did Futurama borrow this finding for their 'Diamondium comet', or is this another case of pulsars imitating art?
posted by pwnguin at 11:24 AM on September 13, 2011
posted by pwnguin at 11:24 AM on September 13, 2011
seanmpuckett: The scientific method doesn't give a shit, mother fucker
So, you're saying the scientific method is like a honey badger?
posted by filthy light thief at 11:30 AM on September 13, 2011 [2 favorites]
So, you're saying the scientific method is like a honey badger?
posted by filthy light thief at 11:30 AM on September 13, 2011 [2 favorites]
But Perry went one step further than most in the mainstream climate change denier community on the presidential campaign trail in New Hampshire Wednesday, stating flatly that scientists drum up phony climate change data to make a buck.
What's funny about this is that there is, in fact, a group of high profile people trying to convince us of their dire predictions about the direction the world is taking, who are in fact using phony data to make a profit for themselves.
The only problem is that they've misidentified scientists as being the culprit here, when all the evidence points elsewhere:
Outspokenly Christian Politicians.
posted by quin at 11:38 AM on September 13, 2011
What's funny about this is that there is, in fact, a group of high profile people trying to convince us of their dire predictions about the direction the world is taking, who are in fact using phony data to make a profit for themselves.
The only problem is that they've misidentified scientists as being the culprit here, when all the evidence points elsewhere:
Outspokenly Christian Politicians.
posted by quin at 11:38 AM on September 13, 2011
So, you're saying the scientific method is like a honey badger?
Now that's a t-shirt....
posted by lumpenprole at 11:43 AM on September 13, 2011 [2 favorites]
Now that's a t-shirt....
posted by lumpenprole at 11:43 AM on September 13, 2011 [2 favorites]
Republican candidates, global warming, evolution, and reality
posted by homunculus at 11:58 AM on September 13, 2011
posted by homunculus at 11:58 AM on September 13, 2011
> Fair enough, but I'd totally go see Diamond Planet play
Don't they do Bowie covers?
posted by mmrtnt at 11:58 AM on September 13, 2011
Don't they do Bowie covers?
posted by mmrtnt at 11:58 AM on September 13, 2011
This seems pretty disingenuous.
If his announcement had been, "We just discovered a planet made of diamond and therefore we need to make huge, sweeping, costly changes to the majority of our industry and transportation," he would have been met with a lot more skeptical questions.
It doesn't help the case of scientists for them to ignore the context here. If you're going to demand that people make lots of changes and spend lots of money, the bar for making your case and demonstrating that you've got the science right is going to be lots and lots higher than usual.
I've tried looking for myself at some of the data demonstrating climate change, and it's pretty complex. I feel like I basically have to decide who I going to trust, because I sure couldn't demonstrate this to myself. As it happens, I trust the scientists who say the evidence is conclusive more than the people who claim they can debunk it. But it's certainly not because the scientists were wearing idiotic "SCIENCE: IT WORKS BITCHES" t-shirts.
posted by straight at 12:01 PM on September 13, 2011 [1 favorite]
If his announcement had been, "We just discovered a planet made of diamond and therefore we need to make huge, sweeping, costly changes to the majority of our industry and transportation," he would have been met with a lot more skeptical questions.
It doesn't help the case of scientists for them to ignore the context here. If you're going to demand that people make lots of changes and spend lots of money, the bar for making your case and demonstrating that you've got the science right is going to be lots and lots higher than usual.
I've tried looking for myself at some of the data demonstrating climate change, and it's pretty complex. I feel like I basically have to decide who I going to trust, because I sure couldn't demonstrate this to myself. As it happens, I trust the scientists who say the evidence is conclusive more than the people who claim they can debunk it. But it's certainly not because the scientists were wearing idiotic "SCIENCE: IT WORKS BITCHES" t-shirts.
posted by straight at 12:01 PM on September 13, 2011 [1 favorite]
But Perry went one step further than most in the mainstream climate change denier community on the presidential campaign trail in New Hampshire Wednesday, stating flatly that scientists drum up phony climate change data to make a buck.
Because the first thing I think of when I hear someone goes into the sciences is the swimming pools of money they're going to be making in their field....
posted by barc0001 at 12:13 PM on September 13, 2011
Because the first thing I think of when I hear someone goes into the sciences is the swimming pools of money they're going to be making in their field....
posted by barc0001 at 12:13 PM on September 13, 2011
@straight
How much a theory may cost the public or demand social change has nothing to do with how well-supported it is. If a diamond planet has as much (or less) evidence supporting it as climate change, then it should receive equal or greater skepticism. Journalists should concern themselves with reporting facts and making sure those facts are well-researched. It's not their job to post opposing viewpoints from pseudoscientists.
The thrust of the post is about how the media and the public, not just the policy-makers, are responding to this, which are the people who should really only concern themselves with the method.
posted by Peevish at 12:17 PM on September 13, 2011 [2 favorites]
How much a theory may cost the public or demand social change has nothing to do with how well-supported it is. If a diamond planet has as much (or less) evidence supporting it as climate change, then it should receive equal or greater skepticism. Journalists should concern themselves with reporting facts and making sure those facts are well-researched. It's not their job to post opposing viewpoints from pseudoscientists.
The thrust of the post is about how the media and the public, not just the policy-makers, are responding to this, which are the people who should really only concern themselves with the method.
posted by Peevish at 12:17 PM on September 13, 2011 [2 favorites]
In other campaign politics vs science news: Bachmann claims HPV vaccine might cause ‘mental retardation’
And now Perry is defending vaccinations in general: Rick Perry pushes back on Michele Bachmann HPV vaccine talk
This campaign is making me dizzy.
posted by homunculus at 12:22 PM on September 13, 2011 [4 favorites]
And now Perry is defending vaccinations in general: Rick Perry pushes back on Michele Bachmann HPV vaccine talk
This campaign is making me dizzy.
posted by homunculus at 12:22 PM on September 13, 2011 [4 favorites]
If his announcement had been, "We just discovered a planet made of diamond and therefore we need to make huge, sweeping, costly changes to the majority of our industry and transportation," he would have been met with a lot more skeptical questions.
It doesn't help the case of scientists for them to ignore the context here
What are you suggesting here? That when a climate scientist finds evidence for global warming that they not report it because of the ramifications? The argument being made here is not disingenuous at all. What he's saying is that there is a large segment of the population that chooses not to believe climate science because they don't like the answer. These are the people being disingenuous.
posted by mach at 12:22 PM on September 13, 2011 [1 favorite]
It doesn't help the case of scientists for them to ignore the context here
What are you suggesting here? That when a climate scientist finds evidence for global warming that they not report it because of the ramifications? The argument being made here is not disingenuous at all. What he's saying is that there is a large segment of the population that chooses not to believe climate science because they don't like the answer. These are the people being disingenuous.
posted by mach at 12:22 PM on September 13, 2011 [1 favorite]
Because the first thing I think of when I hear someone goes into the sciences is the swimming pools of money they're going to be making in their field....
Perry gets away with making such a dumb-ass statement because most American's image of scientists is limited to the power-mad evil scientist character in his elaborate techno-lair, from any number of stupid movies. And a mad scientist's got to fudge a lot of data to get enough grant money to support that kind of operation.
posted by aught at 12:33 PM on September 13, 2011 [2 favorites]
Perry gets away with making such a dumb-ass statement because most American's image of scientists is limited to the power-mad evil scientist character in his elaborate techno-lair, from any number of stupid movies. And a mad scientist's got to fudge a lot of data to get enough grant money to support that kind of operation.
posted by aught at 12:33 PM on September 13, 2011 [2 favorites]
This is what global warming looks like
posted by homunculus at 12:36 PM on September 13, 2011 [1 favorite]
posted by homunculus at 12:36 PM on September 13, 2011 [1 favorite]
What are you suggesting here? That when a climate scientist finds evidence for global warming that they not report it because of the ramifications?
I think straight is just arguing that no one should be surprised to meet resistance from the public when the implications of their research are societally significant. This has nothing to do with the scientific method; it's simply human nature.
It's harder to articulate what the implications of this are for scientists. I think one element is that if you're working in a field that has significant policy implications, you need to be super-fastidious about avoiding even the appearance of research irregularities. You should be cognizant of the fact that the implications of your research touch on politics, and you should realize that the political arena is very different from the scientific community.
posted by mr_roboto at 12:40 PM on September 13, 2011
I think straight is just arguing that no one should be surprised to meet resistance from the public when the implications of their research are societally significant. This has nothing to do with the scientific method; it's simply human nature.
It's harder to articulate what the implications of this are for scientists. I think one element is that if you're working in a field that has significant policy implications, you need to be super-fastidious about avoiding even the appearance of research irregularities. You should be cognizant of the fact that the implications of your research touch on politics, and you should realize that the political arena is very different from the scientific community.
posted by mr_roboto at 12:40 PM on September 13, 2011
The argument being made here is not disingenuous at all. What he's saying is that there is a large segment of the population that chooses not to believe climate science because they don't like the answer.
The disingenuous part is pretending that there's some sort of hypocrisy or inconsistency in the difference between the way his research has been received and the way climate change research is received.
The reason he hasn't gotten any hostile questions about the diamond planet is that no one really cares whether it's true or not.
Maybe scientists believe that the public respects and believes them most of the time and that climate change and evolution are some weird anomalies. The truth is that the public ignores scientists most of the time. Saying, "Look the evidence for climate change is way better than the evidence for the diamond planet" assumes incorrectly that the pubic had some knowledge of and respect for the process that told them about the diamond planet. This just isn't true.
The diamond planet story was entertainment. Climate change is public policy. To loudly protest, "But! But! They're both SCIENCE!" is to completely misunderstand what's going on.
posted by straight at 12:54 PM on September 13, 2011 [1 favorite]
The disingenuous part is pretending that there's some sort of hypocrisy or inconsistency in the difference between the way his research has been received and the way climate change research is received.
The reason he hasn't gotten any hostile questions about the diamond planet is that no one really cares whether it's true or not.
Maybe scientists believe that the public respects and believes them most of the time and that climate change and evolution are some weird anomalies. The truth is that the public ignores scientists most of the time. Saying, "Look the evidence for climate change is way better than the evidence for the diamond planet" assumes incorrectly that the pubic had some knowledge of and respect for the process that told them about the diamond planet. This just isn't true.
The diamond planet story was entertainment. Climate change is public policy. To loudly protest, "But! But! They're both SCIENCE!" is to completely misunderstand what's going on.
posted by straight at 12:54 PM on September 13, 2011 [1 favorite]
If his announcement had been, "We just discovered a planet made of diamond and therefore we need to make huge, sweeping, costly changes to the majority of our industry and transportation," he would have been met with a lot more skeptical questions.
Well, in most cases, that's not the claim that scientists are making. Usually their professional claims are much more petite, like, "measured CO2 levels in this sample covering this geologic time period are consistent with that hypothesis," or "this indirect estimate of historic temperatures at ___ is consistent with that hypothesis."
When you have a big enough stack of papers consistent with the hypothesis, then it's reasonable to say that the hypothesis is, to the limits of our knowledge, likely to be a good model for reality and therefore reasonable grounds on which to base policy.
posted by KirkJobSluder at 12:54 PM on September 13, 2011
Well, in most cases, that's not the claim that scientists are making. Usually their professional claims are much more petite, like, "measured CO2 levels in this sample covering this geologic time period are consistent with that hypothesis," or "this indirect estimate of historic temperatures at ___ is consistent with that hypothesis."
When you have a big enough stack of papers consistent with the hypothesis, then it's reasonable to say that the hypothesis is, to the limits of our knowledge, likely to be a good model for reality and therefore reasonable grounds on which to base policy.
posted by KirkJobSluder at 12:54 PM on September 13, 2011
When you have a big enough stack of papers consistent with the hypothesis, then it's reasonable to say that the hypothesis is, to the limits of our knowledge, likely to be a good model for reality and therefore reasonable grounds on which to base policy.
That's a good summary of how science works and a bad summary of how actually policymaking works.
posted by mr_roboto at 12:58 PM on September 13, 2011
That's a good summary of how science works and a bad summary of how actually policymaking works.
posted by mr_roboto at 12:58 PM on September 13, 2011
And now Perry is defending vaccinations in general
It's like we're back in the 1700s, trying to justify the idea of vaccination to a bunch of superstitious locals — just on a wholly different scale of stupidity.
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 1:24 PM on September 13, 2011
It's like we're back in the 1700s, trying to justify the idea of vaccination to a bunch of superstitious locals — just on a wholly different scale of stupidity.
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 1:24 PM on September 13, 2011
MetaFilter: totally like gaymarried to another pulsar
posted by Wyatt at 1:33 PM on September 13, 2011
posted by Wyatt at 1:33 PM on September 13, 2011
One of the scientists involved in making this discovery (actual abstract here) discusses how his experience would have been different if he was a climate scientist.
Another difference can be legal fees, like the $10,000 Michael Mann is facing. So now some people are setting up a fund: A Legal Defense Fund for Climate Scientists
posted by homunculus at 2:06 PM on September 13, 2011
Another difference can be legal fees, like the $10,000 Michael Mann is facing. So now some people are setting up a fund: A Legal Defense Fund for Climate Scientists
posted by homunculus at 2:06 PM on September 13, 2011
"Soon people will believe The Diamond Planet is a myth and it will be mine for the taking and not even Superman can stop me! BUWAHAHAHA!"
posted by The Whelk at 3:31 AM on September 14
New or old Superman? C'mon, this is important!
posted by Effigy2000 at 3:09 PM on September 13, 2011
posted by The Whelk at 3:31 AM on September 14
New or old Superman? C'mon, this is important!
posted by Effigy2000 at 3:09 PM on September 13, 2011
One of the scientists involved in making this discovery [...] discusses how his experience would have been different if he was a climate scientist.
You mean he discusses how his discovery would have been treated differently if it were consequential? Yes, this is because we should apply a high degree of scrutiny to suggestions that implicitly require massive expenditure and the disruption of billions of lives.
I suppose it's arguable that there ought to be a better method of applying that scrutiny than the chaos of a free press and political debate - but this a-scientific system has actually worked pretty well in the past. We'd have been better off if things like eugenics and Lysenkoism had been treated more critically, rather than being adopted and imposed at the highest levels of government.
posted by Joe in Australia at 4:18 PM on September 13, 2011 [1 favorite]
You mean he discusses how his discovery would have been treated differently if it were consequential? Yes, this is because we should apply a high degree of scrutiny to suggestions that implicitly require massive expenditure and the disruption of billions of lives.
I suppose it's arguable that there ought to be a better method of applying that scrutiny than the chaos of a free press and political debate - but this a-scientific system has actually worked pretty well in the past. We'd have been better off if things like eugenics and Lysenkoism had been treated more critically, rather than being adopted and imposed at the highest levels of government.
posted by Joe in Australia at 4:18 PM on September 13, 2011 [1 favorite]
Yes, this is because we should apply a high degree of scrutiny to suggestions that implicitly require massive expenditure and the disruption of billions of lives.
If you think the death threats, slander, harrassment, career interference and mockery that climate scientists are copping at the moment equates "a high degree of scrutiny", you are crazy. What happened to East Anglia and James Hansen was not scrutiny in any sense of the word.
The fact the majority of it wouldn't exist but for vested interests bankrolling literally millions of dollars worth of astroturfing only compounds the issue.
Also, comparing eugenics and Lysenkoism to climate change discourse is not really appropriate: they were both government-driven and sponsored initiatives, much of the opposition came from the scientific community, and further there were very few corporate interests promoting them.
posted by smoke at 5:26 PM on September 13, 2011 [3 favorites]
If you think the death threats, slander, harrassment, career interference and mockery that climate scientists are copping at the moment equates "a high degree of scrutiny", you are crazy. What happened to East Anglia and James Hansen was not scrutiny in any sense of the word.
The fact the majority of it wouldn't exist but for vested interests bankrolling literally millions of dollars worth of astroturfing only compounds the issue.
Also, comparing eugenics and Lysenkoism to climate change discourse is not really appropriate: they were both government-driven and sponsored initiatives, much of the opposition came from the scientific community, and further there were very few corporate interests promoting them.
posted by smoke at 5:26 PM on September 13, 2011 [3 favorites]
In other campaign politics vs science news: Bachmann claims HPV vaccine might cause ‘mental retardation’
That's not even the craziest thing in that article! She blames Perry's support for vaccination on CRONY CAPITALISM! So does Palin!
CRONY CAPITALISM?
DON'T YOU TELL ME ABOUT CRONY CAPITALISM! YOU ARE CRONY CAPITALISM! DOESN'T ANYONE ELSE SEE THIS? I FEEL LIKE I'M TAKING CRAZY PILLS HERE!
*froths at mouth, falls over*
posted by TheWhiteSkull at 5:27 PM on September 13, 2011
That's not even the craziest thing in that article! She blames Perry's support for vaccination on CRONY CAPITALISM! So does Palin!
CRONY CAPITALISM?
DON'T YOU TELL ME ABOUT CRONY CAPITALISM! YOU ARE CRONY CAPITALISM! DOESN'T ANYONE ELSE SEE THIS? I FEEL LIKE I'M TAKING CRAZY PILLS HERE!
*froths at mouth, falls over*
posted by TheWhiteSkull at 5:27 PM on September 13, 2011
Climate change is public policy. To loudly protest, "But! But! They're both SCIENCE!" is to completely misunderstand what's going on.
Part of "Climate Change" is science:
- Is the the Earth warming and why?
- What are the effects of this going to be?
- When will we see these effects?
The other part is public policy:
- What are we going to do about it?
The larger the impact is in the public policy side of things, then the more scrutiny should be applied to the science side of things. I'd say everybody agrees on that.
However, that's not what's happening. One side here doesn't like what the answers are likely to be on the public policy side of things so they're just denying what the scientific community is saying about the basic questions of what's happening. Mind you, they're not applying greater scrutiny; they're not learning about the methods used to reach these conclusions and questioning the process. They're embarking on ad hominen attacks and propping up scientists that are telling them what they want to hear. Now that is disingenuous.
posted by mach at 5:37 PM on September 13, 2011 [4 favorites]
Part of "Climate Change" is science:
- Is the the Earth warming and why?
- What are the effects of this going to be?
- When will we see these effects?
The other part is public policy:
- What are we going to do about it?
The larger the impact is in the public policy side of things, then the more scrutiny should be applied to the science side of things. I'd say everybody agrees on that.
However, that's not what's happening. One side here doesn't like what the answers are likely to be on the public policy side of things so they're just denying what the scientific community is saying about the basic questions of what's happening. Mind you, they're not applying greater scrutiny; they're not learning about the methods used to reach these conclusions and questioning the process. They're embarking on ad hominen attacks and propping up scientists that are telling them what they want to hear. Now that is disingenuous.
posted by mach at 5:37 PM on September 13, 2011 [4 favorites]
WE NEED RHETORIC! FIRE! TRASH-TALKING!
"The scientific method doesn't give a shit, mother fucker, it works whether you believe in it or not -- kind of like some religion's GODs. If you fucking pretend, like a puling brat, that some established theorems -- like ALL WHITE SUVs hurtling down the road -- are just actually bullshit made-up phantoms only there to scare the weak -- you're not only a fucking fool, but you're JUST AS FUCKING DEAD when one hits you as any other colour of SUV. Science! IT WORKS, BITCHES!"
Here's something in that vein for you.
posted by wilful at 6:01 PM on September 13, 2011 [1 favorite]
"The scientific method doesn't give a shit, mother fucker, it works whether you believe in it or not -- kind of like some religion's GODs. If you fucking pretend, like a puling brat, that some established theorems -- like ALL WHITE SUVs hurtling down the road -- are just actually bullshit made-up phantoms only there to scare the weak -- you're not only a fucking fool, but you're JUST AS FUCKING DEAD when one hits you as any other colour of SUV. Science! IT WORKS, BITCHES!"
Here's something in that vein for you.
posted by wilful at 6:01 PM on September 13, 2011 [1 favorite]
mach: "They're embarking on ad hominen attacks and propping up scientists that are telling them what they want to hear."
Not to mention spending tens, if not hundreds, of millions of dollars to make sure their message gets heard over the scientists actually doing the work. A message that is not only cynical and destructive in its own right, but undermines the value of science itself.
posted by sneebler at 6:21 PM on September 13, 2011
Not to mention spending tens, if not hundreds, of millions of dollars to make sure their message gets heard over the scientists actually doing the work. A message that is not only cynical and destructive in its own right, but undermines the value of science itself.
posted by sneebler at 6:21 PM on September 13, 2011
Here's something in that vein for you.
For a second I thought this was a reference to heroin rather then the more common reference (to mining, I guess?)
posted by delmoi at 6:43 PM on September 13, 2011
For a second I thought this was a reference to heroin rather then the more common reference (to mining, I guess?)
posted by delmoi at 6:43 PM on September 13, 2011
For a second I thought this was a reference to heroin rather then the more common reference (to mining, I guess?)
Huh? common idiom.
posted by wilful at 7:24 PM on September 13, 2011
Huh? common idiom.
posted by wilful at 7:24 PM on September 13, 2011
WE NEED RHETORIC! FIRE! TRASH-TALKING!
"The scientific method doesn't give a shit, mother fucker, it works whether you believe in it or not -- kind of like some religion's GODs. If you fucking pretend, like a puling brat, that some established theorems -- like ALL WHITE SUVs hurtling down the road -- are just actually bullshit made-up phantoms only there to scare the weak -- you're not only a fucking fool, but you're JUST AS FUCKING DEAD when one hits you as any other colour of SUV. Science! IT WORKS, BITCHES!"
This is the Left/Democrat's problem on pretty much every issue. They need more FIRE.
posted by Lovecraft In Brooklyn at 7:25 PM on September 13, 2011 [1 favorite]
but my understanding was that FIRE BAD
posted by Hoopo at 8:38 PM on September 13, 2011 [1 favorite]
posted by Hoopo at 8:38 PM on September 13, 2011 [1 favorite]
If you're going to demand that people make lots of changes and spend lots of money, the bar for making your case and demonstrating that you've got the science right is going to be lots and lots higher than usual.
Unless it involves terrorists, then we can spend trillions, change massive amounts of our legal system and transportation set up, with no evidence that our new methods are actually any better than the old ones, then it'll be no questions asked.
I have the feeling it's less a problem of infrastructure and more a problem of profit motive.
posted by yeloson at 10:55 PM on September 13, 2011 [1 favorite]
Unless it involves terrorists, then we can spend trillions, change massive amounts of our legal system and transportation set up, with no evidence that our new methods are actually any better than the old ones, then it'll be no questions asked.
I have the feeling it's less a problem of infrastructure and more a problem of profit motive.
posted by yeloson at 10:55 PM on September 13, 2011 [1 favorite]
The scientific method doesn't give a shit, mother fucker, it works whether you believe in it or not -- kind of like some HNNNNGGG HNNNNGGG HNNNNGGG HNNNNGGG HNNNNGGG HNNNNGGG HNNNNGGG HNNNNGGG HNNNNGGG
posted by hattifattener at 11:10 PM on September 13, 2011
posted by hattifattener at 11:10 PM on September 13, 2011
Bachmann claims HPV vaccine might cause ‘mental retardation’
Personal experience talking there, I take it.
posted by Twang at 1:41 AM on September 14, 2011
Personal experience talking there, I take it.
posted by Twang at 1:41 AM on September 14, 2011
So, you're saying the scientific method is like a honey badger?
Lies, damned lies, and honey badgers
posted by homunculus at 1:54 PM on September 19, 2011
Lies, damned lies, and honey badgers
posted by homunculus at 1:54 PM on September 19, 2011
Wow, Dems and GOP finally agree. Rick Perry sucked last night.
posted by Ironmouth at 8:19 AM on September 23, 2011
posted by Ironmouth at 8:19 AM on September 23, 2011
« Older An invitation to rebellion, and your window to... | The bottom of the pyramid Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
A stellar remnant.
posted by Ironmouth at 9:31 AM on September 13, 2011 [1 favorite]