Isn't the traditional scientific paradigm, simply stated, to first objectively observe, then formulate a hypothesis based on those observations, then collect data to test that hypothesis?
Journalists, documentarians, revisionist historians and maybe even some scientists tend to come up with a hypothesis or concept first, then look for information that supports that hypothesis or concept, resulting in a somewhat biased product or predetermined finding. There is probably nothing very wrong with the media doing a little staging if it's based on sound scientific findings, but too much of the naturefaking I've seen is based on an overly dramatic, Bambi-derived view of nature. It may entertain, but it doesn't educate and it does misinform. And I admit knowing very little about fuzzy logic (educate me, Bill), but it would seem particularly important that gainful applications of fuzzy logic would need to start out with objectivity as a prime guiding principle. Yes, subjectivity is always present, but science needs to recognize this and take measures to minimize its influence. Warren W. Aney Tigard, Oregon -----Original Message----- From: Ecological Society of America: grants, jobs, news [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of William Silvert Sent: Sunday, 26 September, 2010 13:30 To: [email protected] Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] Naturefaking in media I thank Dave for his posting, which addresses the controversial topic of subjectivity in science. Many scientists condemn any hint of subjectivity even though it is always present. I have run into this a lot because I have been advocating the use of fuzzy logic, which is often rejected out of hand because of the overtones of subjectivity. It is intersting that reference to paradigms does not generate the same hostility, even though the concept implies that the whole field is prone to subjective bias! Bill Silvert ----- Original Message ----- From: "David M. Lawrence" <[email protected]> To: <[email protected]> Sent: domingo, 26 de Setembro de 2010 17:02 Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] Naturefaking in media > Scientists do "story selection" all the time, though they may be > reluctant to admit it. They (we) select the hypotheses to be tested, then > select the subjects, data to be collected, field and analytical methods, > presentation methods, etc. It's not much different than what documentary > filmmakers or journalists do. All are choices driven by the need to make > the best use of the medium you are communicating in. > > Scientists shouldn't be so blind to the "subjectivity" that goes into > their work. Such blindness, as we have seen in the scientific controversy > over the past few years, has helped feed the erosion of credibility that > many institutions in our society have felt. > > Dave
