When Celebrities Speak on Science 574
Timberwolf0122 writes to mention that the website Sense About Science is encouraging stars not to comment on scientific issues without at least checking their facts. A somewhat amusing article on the BBC matches up a few comments made by celebrities with the factual reaction from experts in the field of study tackled by their blunder.
Ask a scientist (Score:5, Insightful)
We have minimized the importance of science in our lives and it is now biting us collectively in the ass in terms of environment, medicine, technological progress, and education. Rather than hamstringing scientists, and only allowing them to speak when it serves the political climate of the moment, I would very much like to see a return to using scientists expertise in more areas of society and policy, perhaps even increasing the numbers of consultants for politicians, and the entertainment industry, not just as a reality check, which so many seem to be mis-using scientists for, but also as a means to spur inquiry and progress in both the arts and sciences. The model of using scientists as regulators of policy and such is as old as 1950's Sci-Fi, but it has been no accident that during the most progressive periods in history, we have relied on scientists and others who are trained to think and inquire to make some of our biggest technological advancements. These advancements include great strides in medicine, prolonging life-spans and improving the quality of life as well as ending global wars and in the absence of political influences, ending famine and disease.
The qualifications for 'celebrity' (Score:3, Interesting)
Even TV programs that try to get good technical advisers, like NUMB3RS, frequently get basic science and technology wrong. I don't know anyone who can crack a disk encryption scheme in a few seconds anytime they want.
Re: (Score:2)
so youd rather sit and watch it permutate for hundreds or thousands (or more) hours depending on the algorithm?
Re:The qualifications for 'celebrity' (Score:5, Funny)
Remind everyone of what's going on (what's going on?)
And with every shot you show a little improvement
To show it all would take to long
That's called a montage (montage)
Oh we want montage (montage)
Realistic sci/tech (Score:4, Funny)
Actually, I'd rather that the professor tell his brother the federal agent that he can get the school's computer lab machines to work in parallel, trying to brute-force the encryption, and that given the complexity of the problem, he'll have it cracked anywhere between 0 and x hours. Then the FBI agent brother could go do something else and get a call on his cell phone from the geek brother that they cracked it.
Re: (Score:2)
If the data is needed immediately, I would have the professor run a dictionary attack. If you want to be fancy, have him "run a rainbow lookup". I'd actually like to see the analogy they come up with for time vs space :-).
If more time is needed, have the dictionary attack fail and then he says he needs to brute force it instead.
As for quality of the science in general, I find that Numb3rs is
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re:The qualifications for 'celebrity' (Score:4, Interesting)
This is because a jpg opens front to back while a zip opens back to front. Excellent way to demonstrate the concept of steg, though it is not all that good for real protection.
-nB
Re:The qualifications for 'celebrity' -- But ... (Score:4, Insightful)
... the problem with articles like these is that the criticism is not always fair.
I see nothing wrong with the first two celebrity comments.
"Why should I allow my body or my children to be filled with man-made chemicals, when I don't know what the health effects of these substances will be?"
Melinda Messenger is criticized for this because small amounts of man-made chemicals are present in the body at all times. But Melinda's remark does not deny this or address that issue at all. Her comment is about unspecified "large doses" (i.e. being "filled with") man-made chemicals. The question is perfectly fair. The implication of her remark is that the general population is being exposed to excessive dosages of toxic man-made chemicals. That by itself, is likely to be true in many cases. Yes, she should give specifics. We need to see the context of her remarks. But the above snippet is not self evidentially false, and is a perfectly fair question and concern.
"...he was in serious pain, just below the knee, and I felt the area above had been traumatised. I started feeling and I'd say within 20 minutes, he was walking again. It took away the pain."
Once again, no context is given. Chris De Burgh is singled out for what? Related the facts of what happened? Truthfully? And the scientist critic believes that what he said was true? And gave a plausible explanation of the cause? What falsehoods did Chris De Burgh communicate? I don't see that he made any claim to have healed the underlying injury. Maybe he did in the greater context of his comments, but the comment above as quoted is perfectly OK.
The other criticisms seem correct to me, but this kind of reporting bugs me because it is does not seem to me to be fair or cogent.
Re:Ask a scientist (Score:4, Interesting)
Anyhow about the science curriculum in US schools, they are actually not that bad. Is the students that don't care. Separate issue.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Ask a scientist (Score:5, Interesting)
seconded. (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:seconded. (Score:5, Funny)
Yeah, thats mean. I just couln't help myself.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
When creationism is taught as science, and evolution is merely a theory that can be easily discarded, then yes, I'd say the science curriculum in US schools is lacking.
Re:Ask a scientist (Score:5, Insightful)
It's worth pointing out that those were a tiny fraction of the schools in our country, they got very widespread condemnation for their actions, they lost every important court case and an entire school board was replaced by the voters because of this.
When I see any group with problems, I have less of a tendency to judge the group based on those problems than to judge the group based on how they deal with those problems. In this case, the problem was small (compared to the group as a whole) and it was dealt with swiftly. I know the media coverage made it seem bigger, but that's ok with me. It made the smack-down look bigger and left a big neon warning to anyone who tries again.
TW
Re:Ask a scientist (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Ask a scientist (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Ask a scientist (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Ask a scientist (Score:5, Insightful)
Problem is they're either all too smart to post, or sit at +2 for eternity because they took too long to post, or got ignored to make room for a +5 funny.
Re:Ask a scientist (Score:5, Insightful)
To be fair, though, the scientific disciplines aren't completely insular and unrelated as many people would like to think. Believe it or not, but my Biology classes taught me a lot (even if only tangentially, at times) about law, computer science, politics, and even philosophy.
And in all honesty, the most important aspect of a science education is teaching the method through which one should derive his or her information and opinions. Because while our understanding of the world may change, the logic by which we draw those conclusions--by and large--won't. And, once you've trained yourself to rationally analyze things, you can apply that skill to any intellectual pursuit. The same cannot be said for arts, such as, for example, acting. The skill of acting, may make you be able to act like you have an informed opinion, but it doesn't help you actually say anything of worth.
So, if given the choice, I'd be much more open to listen to what an engineer has to say about global warming than Leonardo DiCaprio. And that is why I come to slashdot, instead of something like Leo's "Eco-site" when I'm in search of an informed opinion and not a good laugh.
-Grym
Re:Ask a scientist (Score:5, Informative)
http://home.ease.lsoft.com/scripts/wa.exe?A2=ind0
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Ask a scientist (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
The downfall of our own democracy may one day happen due to our own ignorance. I think to combat the threat, we should be encouraging celebrities to speak out about science, to help spread knowledge of what is real, and
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I'm not so sure about that; At the risk of sounding like I'm picking on semantics, I think it may be more accurate to say that most don't believe that global warming is caused primarily by mankind. That is a little different. Granted, I'm not a scientist, but I do know of research that has linked [foxnews.com] the sun's [denverpost.com] activity [duke.edu] to global warming in significant ways. Just a thought.
That isn't to say, of course, that so-called 'greenhouse gasses' (like - wait for it - water!) sh
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
One word ... (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
* "Don't act without consulting a scientist!"
* "Science is responsible for all good things!"
* "Only say things approved by science!"
* "Public policy made by scientists is the best policy!"
Did I say religion? Looking at those, I think I meant _theocracy_. And there's not even a vestige of morality to hold check on some of the crazier impulses...
Science is responsible for many, many important things, and it is damned
Re:Ask a scientist (Score:5, Insightful)
You have read all of those things into what I said. I never said "don't act without consulting a scientist" or any of the other things you suggest. What I said was "I would very much like to see a return to using scientists expertise in more areas of society and policy, perhaps even increasing the numbers of consultants for politicians, and the entertainment industry, not just as a reality check, which so many seem to be mis-using scientists for, but also as a means to spur inquiry and progress in both the arts and sciences." which is very far away from anything you inferred. My position is that when we make decisions that can benefit from science and individuals who are trained to think and question, we are better off for it. That does not mean that religion gets pushed away, nor does it mean that science always does "good". What it does mean is that we become more careful about some of the things we do, especially as technology and power become more available. It also means that if we introduce more science into our daily lives, we become less reliant on small groups of powerful people to vet what we think, do and believe and we become less vulnerable to temporal vanities or trends.
Re: (Score:2)
When you're sick, you go to a doctor.
When you want to buy food, you go to the grocery store.
Etc...
There are appropriate places to go and sources to consult for the things we do. Like it or not, we have constructed a highly technological society, with a basis in science. As such, it is increasingly important to consult scientists in order to keep that society properly running and moving forward. That doesn't say that we don't consult non-scientists, when appropriate.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Ask a scientist (Score:5, Insightful)
A culture of fact isn't predicated on the specific individuals involved. The point is to leave behind cults of personality, and focus on the content of what is said. Good scientists* don't want to be celebrities, or rock-stars. They don't want people to follow everything they do. They don't want hoards of groupies or worshipers. They want people to learn about and understand the things they're making decisions about.
[* note i said good scientists. There are plenty of scientists who want to be celebrities or rockstars. But that's for the sake of their own ego, not for the advancement of science]
Re: (Score:2)
These are four straw-men that have been plucked out of their proper context at best even if someone did say them. And science is not a religion.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Science is not religion. It is based on observable (repeatable) fact.
Religion is not observable, provable fact, it is faith. If you observe a god acting to cure disease, end famine and war, etc. then you could call it science. However, if all you can do is hope that god will cure disease, end famine and war, etc. then you call it faith and it is a religion.
Science is not a r
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Thank you,
The Editor
Us PeopleTeen magazine
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Ask a scientist (Score:5, Insightful)
But it helps if the educated scientists give more reliable answers than the celebrities.
In the first example in the article, Melinda Messenger says she doesn't want man-made chemicals in her or her children's bodies. Though this does ignore the fact that most chemicals aren't very harmful in the doses we're likely to encounter, the scientists response actually seems to support her point.
Dr John Hoskins: "Most leave quickly but some stay: asbestos and silica in our lungs, dioxins in our blood. The most important thing is dose: one aspirin cures a headache, a hundred kills."
Sounds to me like he's almost completely supporting her point that putting a lot of chemicals in your body can be bad. His other points, in paragraph 1 and 3 point out that our routine exposure is probably small, but doesn't actually refute what she's saying, that we should be wary of introducing more chemicals unless we know what effect they'll have on us. His entire response is framed as pointing out the flaws in her arguments, but his actual arguments say otherwise.
The worst one was at the end. Joanna Lumley says we shouldn't be putting chemicals and growth stimulants in our cattle. She probably doesn't have any proof that these things can hurt people, and the scientist points that out.
But the scientist, Prof John Toy, uses these words: "It is essential that 'cancer-causing' claims are based only on scientifically proven facts, not scaremongering. There is no definitive evidence that controlled food additives cause cancer.
Replace "cancer" with "global warming" and replace "controlled food additives" with "human activity" and you have almost exactly the argument used by oil companies and many conservatives to claim global warming does not exist. It's not a logical argument, it's an argument that insinuates that any possible error on her part, no matter how small, makes his argument correct. The words "definitive" and "fact" are the nasty ones in this case. The truth is, science is usually somewhat vague and full of additional questions and problems that must be solved, especially in answering new questions, like the kind that are constantly coming up in the rapidly changing field of food additives. He's not claiming he has any proof that she's wrong, he's just claiming that because she's not holding "definitive facts" in her hand, that makes him right.
Professor Toy then goes on to say, "We do know that half of cancers are caused by lifestyle factors such as being overweight." He's using this as an argument that the actress is incorrect. Once again, though it may sound like a refutation, it's just more false logic. Just because his statement may be true says absolutely nothing about the accuracy of her statement. In fact, half the factors being lifestyle related point very strongly to half of them being something else.
My whole long-winded point is that this kind of non-science repudiation of non-scientists may work just fine to convince average Joe that celebrity X is wrong, but it does very little to teach him the type of arguments that are valid. In fact, it cements in Joe's mind that since scientist use arguments based on logical falicies, that those kinds of arguments must be scientifically valid. It's a bad message to be sending.
BTW, the other two actually looked good to me. They're straight forward responses to reasonably straight forward comments.]
TW
Re:Ask a scientist (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Ask a scientist (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Famine typically happens in areas of low education, high poverty and unstable governments and monetary valuation, right? Also, as education levels go up, the number of children people have decreases..... So, the concept is that we invest more time and effort in fewer numbers of children that ultimately have less of an impact on the environment. If we maintain proper stewardship, this is p
why stop at science? (Score:5, Funny)
Re:why stop at science? (Score:5, Funny)
Re:why stop at science? (Score:4, Funny)
If this somehow involves a vacuum chamber, then I'm all for it.
Re: (Score:2)
Ugh (Score:5, Insightful)
Three words...... (Score:5, Insightful)
Stars think that because of the fact that they are famous and are seen by millions of people, they have the right to have an opinion about anything. There are times that that is good (George Clooney on Dafur for example) and I personally have no problem with that as long as the opinion as long as it is an informed opinion. But the fact is that stars are just like end users with computer hardware or software. They are not going to read something to avoid shooting themselves in the foot. They'll just start shooting and hope for the best.
Re:Three words...... (Score:5, Insightful)
Stars think that because of the fact that they are famous and are seen by millions of people, they have the right to have an opinion about anything.
Not quite. Because they live in a "free" society, they have a right to an opinion on everything. The problem is that the mainstream public believes that if someone famous says something, it must be true.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Oddly enough, just like politicians, scientists, and Slashdot posters, the "stars" do have the right to have an opinion about anything, though that right has nothing to do with their fame. The problem is that like many politicians, Slashdot posters, and perhaps fewer scientists, their opinions may be frightfully uninformed.
Even if what informs someone's opinion
Re: (Score:2)
The problem is that there is no consequence for them when they say shit that's flat out wrong. Their careers don't ride on their knowledge
Re:Three words...... (Score:5, Insightful)
No, stars recognize that (like the rest of us) they are entitled to have an opinion about anything. The problem is, if you're believing Tom Cruise's opinions about anti-depressants, you're a flipping idiot, because his opinion is based on junk science and the fact that he's a raving lunatic.
But, stars with opinions are no different than anyone else with an opinion, except for the fact that they are seen by millions of people. But, that doesn't mean they're gonna be any more careful about having them than the rest of us.
Cheers
And in the same spirit... (Score:5, Funny)
Well, it might say that, I haven't read it yet
Re: (Score:2)
Don't pay the ferryman! (Score:3, Funny)
But the real news here is -- Chris de Burgh is a "celebrity"? Does anyone here under 30 know who he was? For that matter, how many people over 30 remember who he was?
Well, you're kind of missing the point here. (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Not to mention that some of those views have credibility. Not the milk and obesity thing so much, although frankly we should NOT be feeding most children milk in school. The gene for proper digestion of uncooked dairy after infancy came only from some white anglo-saxons and most people simply cannot digest
Re: (Score:2)
According to Wikipedia, most people in the United States are not lactose intolerant, due to the European heritage. This differs by ethnic group, with many of Asian, African, and native descent having moderate to high levels of lactose intolerance. These should be dealt with on a smaller case basis.
Othe
Maybe the UK is a bit behind the times? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The Lady in Red (Score:2)
Melinda Messenger (Score:5, Funny)
That would be the same Melinda Messenger that has breast implants.
Try some Cyanide, will ya? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Erm, everything has a benefit tradeoff, and some of these are personal decisions. If she talked with doctors about her augmentation, and decided that she "knew what the health effects" would be (i.e., measurable risk of infection, corruption, or rupture), then she could make that decision. I don't see that as hypocritical at all.
Not quite the same thing as eating unlabeled genetically engineered foods or undergoing treatments involving new nano-particle concepts, while not even scientists can speak con
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Melinda Messenger (Score:4, Funny)
Do politicians count? (Score:2)
I agree most of the time (Score:2)
The basis for what she is saying is true. Who cares if the cyanide you take is barely detectable by science. It will still kill you. That is what she is getting at. Not that we have to control ev
Re:I agree most of the time (Score:4, Informative)
From a textbook on inorganic toxicology I read many years ago, and I'm paraphrasing: almost every inorganic substance that is toxic at one dosage level is needed by the body at another level, or is chemically similar to another substance that is needed by the body. The one exception they listed was arsenic. Iron is needed by humans, yet large amounts of iron is toxic. Iodine is used by the body, but its also a poison in high doses. Stronium is chemically similar to calcium, which is used by the body. This is why its absorbed if there is a deficiency in calcium.
Inorganic toxicology has a triad that determines toxicity for a given species: substance, exposure method, and dosage. Example: drinking a pint of water is generally not harmful. Inhaling a pint of water could be.
Note: I am not a doctor nor a toxicologist, nor do I play one one tv nor the internet. The above information was gathered while investigating what I that was a simple question "what is the most toxic substance in the world?", which turns out to be a far more complicated than I first thought.
Re: (Score:2)
Oh, come on (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
And she did actually say 'man-made chemicals'.
LGNU (Score:2)
While we're at it (Score:5, Insightful)
Convergence! (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Funny Part (Score:2)
It isn't just movie stars, it is Scientists, Philosophers, and Theologians of all kinds overstepping their professional bounds and being taken as fact by the public because they have
Re: (Score:2)
Absolutely Fabulous (Score:2)
See also Brass Eye ... (Score:3, Funny)
Phil Collins:"What am I talking? I'm talking 'Nonce Sense'"
Etc.,
Ask a Scientist Pertinent Questions Instead (Score:2)
"The chemical baggage we carry is very small. It is only because of the great advances in analytical chemistry that we are able to detect it's there at all."
He does not address the central question of whether such small baggage causes health issues - he totally misses the point. Besides, if you drill down far enough,
The bbc cited experts are idiotic aswell... (Score:4, Informative)
Celeb says: expert says: Yes, the body has a certain tolerance against synthetical chemicals, otherwise we wouldn't be here today, but that doesn't mean that certain chemicals you encounter in food, etc. doesn't have a bad effect on the body. In some cases we just don't know yet, and I believe this is what the celeb was saying.
Celeb says: expert says: The Celeb wasn't talking about food additives, but chemicals the animals receive and that is scientifically proven to cause problems. For example the documentary, "The Corporation", has a lengthy segment about harm caused by synthetic chemicals as told by an expert - Samuel Epstein (professor emeritus of environmental medicine, university of Illinois). The relevant example shown is the case with the Monsanto drug posilac. That drug is increasing the milk production of cows, at the expense of immense suffering on behalf of the cows and as it turned out it posed a health hazard to humans aswell. Although this is not an example of 'cancer', the prof specifically mentioned the history of synthetic chemicals. At first warning signs and then data emerged about the unintended consequences of the petrochemical era, that some of the chemicals that permiated through the food chain produce cancer, birth defects and other toxic effects.
Celebrities? (Score:2)
But many people posting here know about as much about science and technology (outside of their narrow fie
What about us? (Score:4, Insightful)
I don't care if Tom Cruise or Donald Trump speak authoritatively. What I do care about is the friends, neighbors, teachers, and other adults that have an overwhelming influence over their peers (children, students, friends, etc.). To the public, Cruise & Trump are fiction. To you, your teacher talking about Evolution is real.
I expect someone will point out the difference between my neighbour and a celebrity is the latter has an audience of thousands and therefore has a larger effect. That would seem to be true, but I highly doubt it. Only the disillusioned will absorb the words of a celebrity. But embracing the information that a friend, neighbor or teacher imparts to you is a natural thing because we typically have trust in those surrounding us. A teacher has so much more authority and leverage to influence you into believing incorrectly, a level of influence that Tom Cruise cannot match.
This isn't to say that television is not influential, only that there should be stronger fears than the celebritity: those people (including ourselves) close to us that impart incorrect knowledge on a daily basis.
Actual site link (Score:5, Informative)
Not sure why this wasn't in the BBC article...
The Cult of Celebrity and Authority (Score:5, Interesting)
Actors should be reminded that, just because they've played a doctor, doesn't make them one.
Other popular people should be pelted with rotten produce and harsh words by the anti-clique popular people whose feet are well grounded as to who they are and what they really know, like Dennis Miller (most of the time).
Shoot the medium, not the messenger (Score:2, Interesting)
Sally Struthers Effect (Score:2)
This explains spam.
Made me think of RouterGod (Score:5, Funny)
http://www.routergod.com/index.php?p=30 [routergod.com]
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
That's nothing, Britney Spears is the queen of semiconductor physics [britneyspears.ac]!
How about... (Score:4, Funny)
Surely a reference to Brass Eye is relevant here, as well:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brass_Eye [wikipedia.org]
Re:sCientology (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You don't know the history of psychiatry. I do.
Re: (Score:3)
That is false, a large and growing impact on nature.
"BS, the favorite line flies in the face of other eco-nuts that say the world would have more animals, and more diversity if man weren't around. Remember, the plains were black with heards of buffalo. Whales were in super abundance, and they produce huge amounts of methane. Wildlife farts and breathe
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
That is my opinion, and I ahve no evidence to back that up.