Ecolog and Bill Silvert:
I apologize in advance for the length of this post; I didn't have time to
write a shorter one. (I will be incognito for about 30 days beginning in a
couple of days, so some of my responses may be delayed--but I will respond
when able.)
For the record, I do not disagree with Bill's statement; I'm only concerned
with misrepresentations and carelessness--and what Goethe termed "ignorance
in action." Goethe may have been something of a snob, but he also might have
been correct (rather than politically correct, which often boils down to
intellectual conformity). Undoubtedly he was wrong a lot too!
My question has to do with whether or not faking for money rather than
contributing to truth (including art) the best way we can is of concern to
ecologists or not. A bigger concern lies in the grey area of making a
mistake (no one is immune to error), but being unwilling to admit it and
correct it. My question is not limited to film, although I did use Palmer's
book as an example. Perhaps Palmer went too far, perhaps he, too, made
mistakes, but do mistakes invalidate the validity of all the author's
points?
In an earlier post, I asked about a paragraph from a book by David
Attenborough. I did not criticize Attenborough, I only questioned some of
his statements (comments from Ecolog subscribers pointed out that he was
anthropomorphizing, perhaps considered necessary to enlighten the
unenlightened, as some implied). Attenborough and other hard-working people
deserve credit for their accomplishments, and cherry-picking a few mistakes
should never detract from their accomplishments. I am well aware of the
unfortunate habit of "trophy-hunting" among academics and other critics,
picking out errors and magnifying them to inflate their own egos or to pump
up their reputations. But does that mean that specific instances of error or
suspected error should be ignored and the errors perpetuated? Those
suggesting errors should rightfully be corrected if the suggestion is in
error, but not, I insist, from the basis of authority alone, but through
engagement of the actual issues. Fallacy, above all, should be avoided,
particularly by those who represent authority. The ultimate credibility of
ecology and science is at stake, and scientists and academics above all,
should take the lead in intellectual integrity, not be dragged kicking and
screaming to it. Authority, to have credibility, must earn it rather than
demand it.
Until I saw the paragraph in question, I had a high regard for Attenborough,
and that has not changed because of the "errors." Certainly some Ecolog
contributors felt that such anthropomorphizing was necessary to get the
broader message across to "the public." I wonder, however, if this attitude
is a patronizing one, and whether it, and the practices it supports,
smartens-up more than it dumbs-down. Does not science largely and
fundamentally consist of subjecting itself to question?
I am eager to entertain criticism of this point-of-view that refers to
specific statements.
WT
PS: Here is the text of the post referred to above. I am not so concerned
with anthropomorphizing in and of itself, but whether or not the
implications accurately represent what actually happens in nature, whether
or not it leaves an accurate picture or an inaccurate one in the reader's
mind. For example, do plant roots have will, a strategy? Do they actually
compete? Or do roots develop in the presence of available water and grow
through pore spaces at least as large as the diameter of the root tip? How
does a person with little or no background in natural sciences interpret
such statements?
Ecolog:
The following quote has come to my attention:
"To find water, a plant has to position its roots with just as much
precision as it arranges its leaves. If moisture is in very short supply,
then a plant may have to drive a tap root deep into the ground to reach the
water table. Some desert plants have had to develop root systems that are
far deeper than they are tall and extend laterally a very long way beyond
the furthest extent of their foliage. Even if the environment is
well-watered, a plant may still need to compete with others for this
essential commodity, so it positions a network of roots within a few inches
of the soil surface, where it can gather the rain water before others can."
(Attenborough 1995:48-51)
Attenborough, D. 1995. The Private Life of Plants: A Natural History of
Plant Behavior. London: BBC Books. 320 p.
Can anyone attest to the accuracy of, or refute this statement, particularly
with reference to a plant "finding" water, "positioning" its roots with
"precision," "driving" a tap root to "reach" the water table, and
"positions" a network of roots . . . "where it can gather the rain water
before others can?"
WT
----- Original Message -----
From: "William Silvert" <[email protected]>
To: <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, September 28, 2010 7:17 AM
Subject: [ECOLOG-L] Faking: was Naturefaking in media
This morning a friend of mine referred me to a video on FaceBook which was
almost totally faked - it was a video about the dangers of drinking and
driving, very well done, very effective, and very realistic. I cannot
imagine anyone making such a video without faking it, hiring actors, using
computer graphics and so on. Of course one can shoot film of wrecks and
grieving relatives, but how do you get quality shots of the critical
events
leading up to an accident, the drinking, the stumbling out to the car, the
erratic driving, the blurred vision?
Photography is an art, and much art is devoted to telling true stories
with
or without the detailed records that scientists like to use to back up
their
research. Raskolnikov was a totally ficticious character and Dostoyevsky
made him up -- fakery -- but Crime and Punishment is a classic because it
uncovers a corner of human nature that psychologists have had virtually no
success at documenting with hard facts.
Perhaps this discussion has reached a point where no meeting of minds is
possible -- some of you feel that only film which is actually shot in the
wild should be used for nature documentaries, but for me the critical
issue
is whether a real story is accurately told -- how the film-maker gets his
shots does not matter to me (assuming of course no violent or abusive
tricks).
Bill Silvert
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 8.5.445 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/3164 - Release Date: 09/28/10
06:34:00
