I'm a bit of a fish out of water here, since my background is physics, not
ecology, and physicists do not follow "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". The
group of "some scientists [who] tend to come up with a hypothesis or concept
first, then look for information that supports that hypothesis or concept"
includes some of the more admired physicists such as Albert Einstein
(relativity) and Murray Gell-Mann (quarks) and many others.
Although some physcists turn to philosphical issues as they age, notably
Hans Reichenbach, most seem to just worry about finding out how things work
without following the textbook patterns of how science should be done.
Probably the worst offenders are the cosmologists! Einstein once said
"Nature is subtle but not malicious" and I think that ths implies that in
order to ferret out her secrets we need to be subtle ourselves and not
simply follow straightforward paradigms (and please, no more quibbles about
my translation of Herr Gott!).
As for the "Bambi-derived view of nature", that is often the easy part. To
get into the gritty details can involve a lot more work, and that can lead
to fakery. It is easy to film impala calmly grazing, getting a good shot of
one being taken by a big cat is not so easy. It is easy to film penguins
marching along on a calm sunny day, but getting a video of them guarding
eggs in a terrible antarctic storm with white-out is another matter.
Bill Silvert
----- Original Message -----
From: "Warren W. Aney" <[email protected]>
To: "'William Silvert'" <[email protected]>; <[email protected]>
Sent: segunda-feira, 27 de Setembro de 2010 5:24
Subject: RE: [ECOLOG-L] Naturefaking in media
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
