Yesterday, I did my interview with an old friend of mine. He is a paleontology student who is involved in some really great research outside of class. (And yes, he's a real person!)
When I had asked him all of the questions that I had about his life and his work, I decided to ask him about writing. He said some interesting things in regards to science journalism that I thought I would share with all of you...
He stated that science is about absolute truths. It is about facts and what can be proved. Therefore, the amount of debate within scientific communities is small. For instance, of all the paleontologists in the entire world there are only 8 who do not believe that birds are not dinosaurs. And most of them are slowly dying off. It's a small, small percentage that is considered by most in the field to be sort of ridiculous. Nevertheless, he said that when journalists write about birds and paleontology they almost always include quotes from these 8 alongside the others.
The person I interviewed said that he does not understand why writers are so intent on providing multiple angles. There just aren't multiple angles in science, he said. A lot of things are taken as undeniably true by majorities. His example was of intelligent design and evolution. There is little debate at all about the truth of evolution, but journalists will often present the two as BOTH completely reasonable options.
He also said that there should be more science education for writers and writing education for scientists. It seems as though a lot of the problems with science journalism could be solved by a greater understanding of both fields by both parties. In the meantime, he said that he was content to write everything instead of having writers mess it up for him.
I figured I'd comment on your blog post Carson, since we were both delinquent in our blogging duties this past week or so. At any rate, I find that it fascinating and also consistent, with everything else we seem to be learning, that science is mostly a profession built around consensus. And that people like us like to tear that down. We're so deviant! Or are they all sheep, just following and accepting as "fact" what is published in their journals? I suppose the former is more probable, that writers are just looking for a story, an angle on controversy. But it would be interesting to do a story (or even a study) on that. The last thing I analyzed showed that out of 4,000 studies, none of them met what would be considered "good" scientific conclusions. Is that "fact?" I wonder.
ReplyDeleteBut what about the DRAMA!! Nobody wants to read about a bunch of agreement. It is like reading about a picnic. At some point an insane axe murderer has to burst on the scene.
ReplyDelete"He stated that science is about absolute truths. It is about facts and what can be proved. Therefore, the amount of debate within scientific communities is small."
ReplyDeleteI like this, it's a great way to look at science, because it's true science really is all about "truths".
It's interesting to think about what a "truth" is though, "truth" just like "time" is a human creation. So in that light, science is our interpretation of the "true" world around us... food for thought!