Monday, September 18, 2006
science vs. inaccurate coverage of science
[I wrote this as an editorial for a class called "Electronic Arts Theory", sometimes known as "Media Watch." It could've been an editorial on any topic, but I chose one that was related to my major]:
The majority of contemporary scientific ideas are very difficult to truly understand. This is why- in many fields- one must earn a PhD and conduct years of research in order to really understand the latest developments in that field.
Yet most science writers do not have these credentials; they write about science because there is a popular demand for stories about astronomy, evolution, criticisms of evolution, and many other topics. Unfortunately, many of these stories have little to do with science itself. In fact, some of them are nothing more than diatribes. With the increasing popularity of physics blogs, the subject of string theory- the most popular candidate for a grand unified theory of physics- has also become a target of some science journalists.
An article in the August 21st issue of Time Magazine, “The Unraveling of String Theory” (http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1226142-1,00.html), is extraordinarily biased. It mentions that “Any university that doesn't have at least one string theorist on the payroll is considered a scientific backwater”, even though most universities do not have active researchers in string theory. RPI, for example, is far from being a scientific backwater. The article states little about string theory itself; it merely asserts that the theory is enormously flawed and too complex to be effective.
A more hostile article appeared in the September 14th edition of the online magazine Slate. “The Trouble with String Theory” (http://www.slate.com/id/2149598/) is an attack not only on string theory, but on all of physics. Its extremely informal style and anti-intellectual stance sensationalized the controversies in physics and most likely appealed to those who dislike science, but it was very hotly received by physicists. Both string theorists, such as Harvard physicist Lubos Motl, and critics of string theory, such as Columbia physicist Peter Woit, agreed that it was a poorly-written and misleading article. Dr. Woit wrote in his blog, “I started to remember who [Gregg] Easterbrook is, and how stupid some of his previous writings on physics were.” (http://www.math.columbia.edu/%7Ewoit/wordpress/?p=61) Easterbrook had even become involved in a scandal when he wrote in The New Republic that the majority of executives in Hollywood who promoted excessive violence in films were Jewish. (http://www.tnr.com/easterbrook.mhtml?week=2003-10-07)
Dr. Woit’s blog, “Not Even Wrong”, provides links to many articles and reviews either in favor of or against string theory. It is generally critical of string theory, but it acknowledges that journalistic coverage of physics can be quite embarrassing. His September 15th entry mentions that, “One sometimes depressing aspect of being on this side of the string theory controversy is seeing who some of one’s allies are.” (http://www.math.columbia.edu/~woit/wordpress/?p=459) It also states that some journalists specifically criticize him for using “technical jargon.” (Ibid) Yet such jargon must be used to give more than a superficial explanation of why string theory is or is not a truly scientific, or worthwhile, idea to pursue. While scientific articles would be accessible to more people if they were more qualitative, they would all be very similar and would not explain scientific principles well. Thus, the reader would most likely feel unsatisfied and would not have gained much knowledge.
One physicist decided to write a deliberately fake paper that was filled with equations and physics jargon, and submitted it to the humanities journal Social Text. Alan Sokal, a physics professor at NYU, wrote “Transgressing the Boundaries: Toward a Transformative Hermeneutics of Quantum Gravity” (http://physics.nyu.edu/faculty/sokal/transgress_v2/transgress_v2_singlefile.html), which looked serious due to the number of technical words it used. Social Text had no reviewers, so it was published without immediate opposition. Once it was exposed- by physicists- that this paper was a hoax, Sokal stated, “I confess to amusement that one Social Text editor still doesn't believe my piece was a parody.” (http://www.physics.nyu.edu/faculty/sokal/reply.html) Surprisingly, the media overlooked this incident until two physicists, Igor and Grichka Bogdanov, published several papers in scientific journals that were just as nonsensical. The media took notice of the Bogdanovs immediately; The Chronicle of Higher Education reported that their papers “exposed potentially wide cracks in how theoretical physicists judge one another's work.” (http://chronicle.com/free/2002/11/2002110501n.htm) Standards in peer review were thus exposed, and many physicists felt that following these incidents, it would be difficult to determine the legitimacy of any scientific paper.
The media generally focuses on scientific controversies, but it does not explain why theories or incidents are controversial very well. Since many science journalists lack scientific knowledge themselves, they often convey biases rather than honest, objective coverage of contemporary issues. ¶ 7:14 PM
The majority of contemporary scientific ideas are very difficult to truly understand. This is why- in many fields- one must earn a PhD and conduct years of research in order to really understand the latest developments in that field.
Yet most science writers do not have these credentials; they write about science because there is a popular demand for stories about astronomy, evolution, criticisms of evolution, and many other topics. Unfortunately, many of these stories have little to do with science itself. In fact, some of them are nothing more than diatribes. With the increasing popularity of physics blogs, the subject of string theory- the most popular candidate for a grand unified theory of physics- has also become a target of some science journalists.
An article in the August 21st issue of Time Magazine, “The Unraveling of String Theory” (http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1226142-1,00.html), is extraordinarily biased. It mentions that “Any university that doesn't have at least one string theorist on the payroll is considered a scientific backwater”, even though most universities do not have active researchers in string theory. RPI, for example, is far from being a scientific backwater. The article states little about string theory itself; it merely asserts that the theory is enormously flawed and too complex to be effective.
A more hostile article appeared in the September 14th edition of the online magazine Slate. “The Trouble with String Theory” (http://www.slate.com/id/2149598/) is an attack not only on string theory, but on all of physics. Its extremely informal style and anti-intellectual stance sensationalized the controversies in physics and most likely appealed to those who dislike science, but it was very hotly received by physicists. Both string theorists, such as Harvard physicist Lubos Motl, and critics of string theory, such as Columbia physicist Peter Woit, agreed that it was a poorly-written and misleading article. Dr. Woit wrote in his blog, “I started to remember who [Gregg] Easterbrook is, and how stupid some of his previous writings on physics were.” (http://www.math.columbia.edu/%7Ewoit/wordpress/?p=61) Easterbrook had even become involved in a scandal when he wrote in The New Republic that the majority of executives in Hollywood who promoted excessive violence in films were Jewish. (http://www.tnr.com/easterbrook.mhtml?week=2003-10-07)
Dr. Woit’s blog, “Not Even Wrong”, provides links to many articles and reviews either in favor of or against string theory. It is generally critical of string theory, but it acknowledges that journalistic coverage of physics can be quite embarrassing. His September 15th entry mentions that, “One sometimes depressing aspect of being on this side of the string theory controversy is seeing who some of one’s allies are.” (http://www.math.columbia.edu/~woit/wordpress/?p=459) It also states that some journalists specifically criticize him for using “technical jargon.” (Ibid) Yet such jargon must be used to give more than a superficial explanation of why string theory is or is not a truly scientific, or worthwhile, idea to pursue. While scientific articles would be accessible to more people if they were more qualitative, they would all be very similar and would not explain scientific principles well. Thus, the reader would most likely feel unsatisfied and would not have gained much knowledge.
One physicist decided to write a deliberately fake paper that was filled with equations and physics jargon, and submitted it to the humanities journal Social Text. Alan Sokal, a physics professor at NYU, wrote “Transgressing the Boundaries: Toward a Transformative Hermeneutics of Quantum Gravity” (http://physics.nyu.edu/faculty/sokal/transgress_v2/transgress_v2_singlefile.html), which looked serious due to the number of technical words it used. Social Text had no reviewers, so it was published without immediate opposition. Once it was exposed- by physicists- that this paper was a hoax, Sokal stated, “I confess to amusement that one Social Text editor still doesn't believe my piece was a parody.” (http://www.physics.nyu.edu/faculty/sokal/reply.html) Surprisingly, the media overlooked this incident until two physicists, Igor and Grichka Bogdanov, published several papers in scientific journals that were just as nonsensical. The media took notice of the Bogdanovs immediately; The Chronicle of Higher Education reported that their papers “exposed potentially wide cracks in how theoretical physicists judge one another's work.” (http://chronicle.com/free/2002/11/2002110501n.htm) Standards in peer review were thus exposed, and many physicists felt that following these incidents, it would be difficult to determine the legitimacy of any scientific paper.
The media generally focuses on scientific controversies, but it does not explain why theories or incidents are controversial very well. Since many science journalists lack scientific knowledge themselves, they often convey biases rather than honest, objective coverage of contemporary issues. ¶ 7:14 PM
