Swans on Tea

Speed of Light May Not Be Constant

Two papers, published in the European Physics Journal D in March, attempt to derive the speed of light from the quantum properties of space itself. Both propose somewhat different mechanisms, but the idea is that the speed of light might change as one alters assumptions about how elementary particles interact with radiation. Both treat space as something that isn’t empty, but a great big soup of virtual particles that wink in and out of existence in tiny fractions of a second.

The problem I find with articles like this is that they don’t place enough emphasis on the speculative nature of the work — something is being assumed about nature that hasn’t yet been observed, and the authors are investigating the consequences. From the perspective of science this is fine — that’s one way of going about it: think of some novel way nature might be structured, come up with a model, and test it. That’s valid science. But at this point that last part is missing, and as long as it is, one has to worry about over-selling the idea.

The 10 biggest science-reporting mistakes (and how to avoid them)

The ones that bug me the most are getting it wrong (3) and false balance (9), but this is probably not meant to be in order of importance. Aside from overselling research results, I think most of the others are applicable to any kind of writing. Also, tied in with a few mentions of how to properly use experts, along with “getting it right,” avoid the generalized “scientists say” (or its cousin, “researchers have shown”)

I wasn’t at the Science Online session that, in the Nth retelling, sounded like it might have turned into “the Sharks vs the Jets at the dance” square-off. But Matthew Francis was, and gives his perspective: In defense of jargon and expertise

Carl Zimmer—a writer I greatly respect, even if he does write about parasites, a subject that makes me squirm—began the pile-on by saying that when a Ph.D. scientist wants to explain something, they often start with a question, then drop a textbook on you. (Ironically, Carl is one of the few people I know who actually wrote a textbook.) Some other people evidently took that as permission to speak ill of all professional scientists and experts. One person stated strongly that experts are all bad at science communication, because they use too much jargon.

I do have some strong opinions on this. I’ve posted on this before and I think there’s a danger in asserting some of the extreme positions on the topic. There’s also the problem of properly defining the problem so that the scientists and journalists don’t just talk past each other. Plus the issue of the job of scientists as compared to the job of journalists.

What constitutes jargon? Some is obvious — when acronyms and abbreviations appear, you might just be a redneck using jargon. In my field of atomic physics I will throw around terms like MOT and AOM, or occasionally speak of a BEC. That’s the terminology of the job, and I don’t expect people outside my field to necessarily know what I mean. (in case you are curious, MOT = magneto-optical trap, AOM = Acousto-Optical Modulator and BEC = Bose-Einstein Condensate). I think it’s pretty obvious that not explaining what these terms mean is a barrier to be avoided. I don’t think that’s the problem. If you’re throwing those terms around while attempting to communicate with a lay audience, you’re not winning.

I believe the issue is at a lower level. I think there’s an element of “I know it when I see it” to other terminology, but where to draw the line is a grey area. To use some examples from physics, are momentum or energy jargon? If I speak of the conservation of either, is there a barrier to understanding which is the terminology, or is it a lack of scientific literacy? This is an ongoing debate and I think that the testy exchanges between scientists and journalists will continue of we don’t resolve what we mean. When do basic concepts and their names or descriptions become jargon?

There is also the issue, as I mentioned, of defining what the job is, and I come at this from the perspective of being a scientist. Most scientists are not hired to communicate their work to the public. That’s an acquired skill. If you want to speak to a scientist, you need to learn the language, just as if you want to go to an area that doesn’t communicate in your language, it behooves you to learn that language. That is would be a good idea to train scientists to do a better job of communicating to the public (and I think it is) is a separate issue. But I suspect most scientists would think it a waste of time: We have a Public Information/Affairs Officer for that! coupled with I want to do research. There has to be a general feeling that such effort has value. Scientists have to prioritize their time, so if this is a desired goal, make sure that such communication is valued by the institutions where the scientists work.

If this communication is in the form of a discussion, we get back to the issue of meeting the scientists halfway. When someone with little to no background in a certain subject wants to pop in and be a part of the conversation, it’s a huge waste of time to expect a scientist to fill all of that background in — imagine someone chiming in on a discussion of an atomic physics experiment but has no idea what conservation of angular momentum is, or someone claiming that evolution is wrong because humans don’t have wings. Or this. In situations like that, I feel no hesitation to “drop a textbook” on someone.

To be fair, I don’t know exactly what Carl meant by the phrase, but I also haven’t seen anything that clarifies the issue on his blog. I would love there to be a reasoned discussion on the subject rather than having people reach for their blamethrowers every time this comes up.

8 science journalism clichés

A letter to the TEDx community on TEDx and bad science

Lots of good stuff here, on some warning signs of dubious science, stemming from some suspect talks at TEDx. It’s directed toward medical/life sciences material, but there are many points that apply to science in general. This is related to an ongoing issue in journalism — whether your task is to just offer material, or whether you have a responsibility to vet the material. I’m of the latter opinion — I think that a “let the audience decide” or “I need to present both sides” approach is a cop-out.

There’s also a list of behavior that one might see if one declines to give a platform to someone peddling the dubious science, and to me, this is old hat. The claims of endangering freedom of speech/bias/suppression and the assertion that they hold a special insight (often despite no formal training) are pretty standard crackpot positions.

5 Changes Consumers Want To See In Science News

1. Stop with sensationalist headlines. It was the top complaint, something one commenter described as “the worst offense” (although apparently, something else below requires the death penalty). Quit with the sensationalism already, they say. I know. That’s not gonna happen because headlines pull clicks and clicks drive revenue. So I’ll stick with my standing advice to readers: Skip the headline. You’ll note that my own undoubtedly attractive headline does not communicate that the “consumers” in this article were a self-selecting group nonscientifically polled from within my social media circle.

It should not be difficult to find several of my critiques of articles with headlines that overreach or are simply not supported by the article, so it’s a given that I agree with this sentiment, but also the reality that it won’t change because money.

Did the OPERA affair harm or benefit science?

I think there was a benefit, because the actual process of science was displayed. But your mileage varied, as always, depending on your source. There were a lot of good stories, in which you would find explanations of what was going on. Unfortunately, there were a lot of stories that sensationalized the events, and gave us Einstein Overturned/Relativity is Dead – type headlines and stories, despite the fact that nobody associated with the experiment made such claims (of which I am aware, at least). But that’s par for the course. You have good reporting, you have bad reporting, and you have headline editors. They care about circulation, not whether they are doing harm to physics.

There were also instances of people stepping beyond their expertise in trying to explain the results. People were awfully quick to blame GPS (but not one of the critiques I read came from within the timing community; we know how well you can do time transfer) and with that came some “problem solved” stories. That, too is probably par for the course.

I think the only real damage to any credibility was the discovery that an internal calibration/check of the local timing system hadn’t been done in a couple of years. That seemed sloppy. People at the top resigned. They took responsibility for the oversight.

Overall I’m much happier showing off science, warts and all, than allow a stereotype to perpetuate — the mistaken notion that every announced result is the final word and that scientists see themselves as infallible. We got to have a discussion about uncertainty and statistical significance that wasn’t framed by someone equating uncertainty with failed science. The effect on public perception? I don’t know. I suspect that this just reinforced their biases — if they didn’t trust science before, this is just one more reason not to. But, as the adage goes, there is no bad publicity. If it raised anyone’s interest in science, that’s got to be good.

The Unwritten Rules of Journalism

I don’t blame science reporters for flubbing facts on occasion. Science is difficult to understand, and scientists famously lack communication skills.

But the problem extends beyond simply misunderstanding the science. In fact, science writers appear to obey a collection of unwritten rules when trying to convey science to a mainstream audience.

Cynical, even by my standards. But cynical ≠ wrong.

Bad Physics Reporting In Abundance!

Zapperz has the summary of yet another reporting fail (or in this case, a D-) on the subject of quantum teleportation.

Science, health, medical news freaking you out? Do the Double X Double-Take first

1. Skip the headline. Headlines are often misleading, at best, and can be wildly inaccurate. Forget about the headline. Pretend you never even saw the headline.

Warm spring weather and global warming: If only scientists could be so persuasive

Gah. What an unconvincing piece of tripe, which is too bad, because the message itself has a lot of merit.

It’s true that the recent warm winter weather has softened the American public’s stance on global warming, and that a colder winter has/will make them more reluctant to accept. This shows the lack of scientific literacy, in the form of a basic scientific disconnect between weather and climate, that the average person has. It’s also true that scientists should do more in the form of outreach. It’s too bad the article doesn’t connect how the latter would affect the former.

Generally, those who know the most about climate – and other important scientific fields – are locked up in their university ivory towers and conference rooms, speaking a language only they can understand.

And they speak mostly to each other, not to the general public, policymakers, or business people – not to those who can actually make things happen.

This is dangerous. We live in an age when scientific issues permeate our social, economic, and political culture. People must be educated about science and the scientific process if we are to make rational and informed decisions that affect our future. Indeed, a well functioning democracy requires it.

But instead, the relative absence of academics and academic scholarship in the public discourse creates a vacuum into which uninformed, wrong, and downright destructive viewpoints get voiced and take hold.

There are several scientists who are quite vocal in explaining climate change. And what do they get for their trouble? The get verbally attacked and threatened with violence, they get their emails hacked, and the people who have already decided that global warming is a fraud or hoax go right on believing so. The denialist camp can trot out a few “experts” to counter anything that is said in support of climate change, and the discussion is couched in language that subverts the process of science (such as the implication that having any level of uncertainty is a failure, or that because we don’t know everything that we know nothing) The press is complicit in this when they present a false balance to the story by presenting both sides of the issue, giving the impression that the scientists are split equally.

Scientific literacy through general education is another requirement that scientists can’t directly affect, either. You can lead a horse to water, and all that — if you don’t speak the language, any effort to explain details is wasted, but that’s not to say that the attempts aren’t being made. A big problem here is that the average (scientifically illiterate) person can’t tell if it’s shit or shinola — they see or hear some word salad and they think it’s the real deal. And they aren’t motivated to go and learn anything. That, however, is one avenue where outreach can help — getting people excited about science, and getting them to want to become literate.

Which means that people have to make an effort to meet scientists halfway, and improving that requires a very broad effort. It’s not something you can simply blame on scientists residing in their “ivory towers”. But that’s an uphill battle, because if parents don’t value education and scientific literacy, it probably means their kids won’t get the exposure that they need.

Read more »

Comparing Temperatures

An article claimed — in its headline — that a ~5ºC (~10ºF) increase in temperature was an increase of 18.7 percent, by calculating using the relative temperature scale. Which is wrong, of course; e.g. 2ºC does not represent twice as much thermal energy as 1ºC. The site has since made a correction.

If you really want to do a percentage based comparison, you need to convert to an absolute temperature scale like Kelvin, which shows you that it’s actually a 1.8 percent increase in temperature (306.75 / 301.45). This is middle school science.

Sadly, I don’t think that this is generally taught in middle school. Or possibly even high school, except to a few students.