A valuable lesson for those conducting public discourse – balance is overrated. Not all opinions are valid.
The most interesting line (1:54 on the video): Science knows it doesn't know everything; otherwise it would stop.
Video link via the always interesting Lindsay Beyerstein.
Clever, insightful, but being humor, reductive. Not only “morons” self-medicate. Desperate people in need do, too.
Yes, science knows it doesn’t know everything, but so often there are individuals speaking as scientists or on behalf of science who behave as if they know everything. And what happens when the gaps in a scientist’s knowledge grow so large that he or she begins to feel outmoded? She or he pursues a course that looks a little like a traditional liberal arts degree (an avenue to a “well rounded” background in humanistic endeavors), but really more like a product re-branding. Does a crash course in management and communication properly “balance” one’s too technical expertise?
LikeLike
Not only “morons” self-medicate. Desperate people in need do, too.
That’s why we need a national health care system.
As for scientists pursuing traditional liberal arts education for the sake of well roundedness, I am all for it. They shouldn’t even wait until there is a “large gap” in their scientific knowledge. But what’s that got anything to do with their opinions on scientific matters being given equal weight against those of non-science hacks?
LikeLike
Judging from the article, I’d say it slightly obscures the clarity of the definition of scientific matter. It isn’t obvious from the article that chemistry Ph.D. Spencer returned to school because he felt outmoded–maybe he just didn’t want to go back to NASA after his photography career lapsed–but that’s its implication. So is Spencer no longer an authority on atmospheric chemistry and climate modeling? Is he now just a little bit “non-science”? No longer a dietitian, now merely a nutritionist? About what sorts of matters are his opinions being given weight in his new career? Scientific? Business? Technological?
Return to the video, around 4:45, the bit about the London Evening Standard story about ten medical symptoms you should not ignore. I enjoy the joke. It’s hard not to enjoy a joke about a newspaper story about rectal bleeding, after all. But if the point is to portray the newspaper as non-science hack, it fails. If you’ve ever taken a prescription NSAID and you’ve read the label, you’ve probably found the punch line less amusing. You’d have been advised to discontinue use if the drug provokes rectal bleeding or a host of other ugly conditions. This is obviously a function of pharmacological CYA, a legal as much as a medical determination, but it isn’t the lunatic raving of a hack.
LikeLike
I don’t get your point, Dean. Spencer’s opinions on atmospheric chemistry and climate modeling are obviously still far more valuable than yours, mine or the nearest astrologer’s. His hands on expertise has not been diminished by his not wanting to return to NASA nor by his photography career and going back to school. Outmoded or not, he still is an authentic scientist, not a hack. The persons who are being labeled as hacks are clearly named (those who need to get in the sack). Ex-scientists like Spencer are not included.
As for rectal bleeding, the comedian is not making fun of the affliction. What he is mocking is that people need to be reminded that it is a condition they should not ignore. Forget drug company small print and warnings. That should be common sense, no?
LikeLike
But the comedian dentist–who is this guy, anyway?–isn’t comparing your climate modeling expertise (nor mine, which I’ll confess is rusty) with Spencer’s, whose expertise, according to the terms of the article, has been diminished. Read the lead paragrah, which describes the story as being about scientists whose careers are likely to become “outsourced, automated or obsolete.” The comedian is comparing the opinions of practicing (not yet obsolete) scientists with those of (by definition) complete bizarro bonkers looney-tunes. Well, what he’s really doing without quite saying as much is taking to task media fora that feature “balanced” discussions about scientific topics between a scientist and a nut case. That’s too easy a target. Seeking a balanced discussion is, in theory, a good thing, not at all overrated. But a discussion about global warming between a climate modeling expert and a circus clown isn’t balanced.
LikeLike
But a discussion about global warming between a climate modeling expert and a circus clown isn’t balanced.
Exactly his point.
LikeLike
Exactly my point…but he doesn’t articulate it. What he attacks is 1) media recourse to circus clowns as legitimate sources of opinion about anything but clowning at the circus, and 2) the superfluity of so-called balance. The implication is that we ought to settle for a single authoritative opinion and move on. We don’t have time to discuss complex issues, there’s no need to balance a credentialed source, and anyway nothing’s all that complex. Very simply, nobody–not even a dentist–should be removing his own teeth. We don’t even need to hear from a real dentist about that one.
Now, this isn’t what good journalism, let alone scientific method, is about. That much is clear, and I’m all for both. What I resist is the skewing of the argument toward what this comedian, whose performance obviously depends on exaggeration and caricature, is representing. Here’s another example of bad science or bad journalism entering the public sphere. Notice how the article emphasizes “A broken heart really does hurt, scientists claim.” Were I the comedian dentist, I’d be poking fun at this as much as at self-medicating morons.
LikeLike
Can I please say “Good Grief!” ?
Dean, whatever else we disagree on, I think you and I can agree on one thing here. All the fun (yes, relying on exaggeration and caricature) in this comic piece has now been squeezed out and neutralized by our back and forth exchange.
LikeLike
A circumstance for which we have YouTube to thank, don’t we?
LikeLike
Accidental Blogger 
Leave a comment