Would that I were well trained in a traditional scientific paradigm (I mean had some concrete steps learned by rote upon which I could base my work.) As it is, I have a passing knowledge and it is just as tiresome to observe and work straight from those as it is to try to formulate hypotheses and methods then analyze the conclusions. I never got to repeat things over and over to really become one with them. Established methods are really helpful. They provide a foundation, a rock, something solid to turn to, when you are wracking your brain and getting really nervous that you have to come up with something by a deadline. I know haphazard adult modeling in my upbringing led to poor acquirement of such skills. Hence, I value them highly. It is possible to think within a rigid system (I want to say Shostakovich, but am not sure I know enough to securely bring this up).
Regarding the initial post on naturefaking: I think an element of accuracy and good metaphorical ties to human life help to sell what is not completely accurate. This could be disturbing or just how things are. I am not sure it could be taken positively. Sincerely, Jennifer Jones ...and having looked a bit at the wikipedia Shostakovich article and the link below, I say that I am not advocating dictatorship. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yfuh9F029UA&list=QL&feature=BF On Mon, Sep 27, 2010 at 3:56 AM, William Silvert <[email protected]> wrote: > 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 Structures strictures, though they bind, strangely liberate the mind.
