Can Science Journalism be Scientific?

About: slashdot | is good scientific journalism possible?

Actually the fundamental question is can any journalism be scientific? Most of this group's purpose could be devoted to this subject. But, at least someone else has noticed the problem in the limited realm of publishing scientific news.

The slashdot article comments are interesting & preserve the breadth of the domain.

So, as a test of your own strength of observation answer the question "Just exactly, what is going on in the picture below?"

Comments

Seth says
I fail to see what interperting a fantasy picture has to do with scientific journalism. A more pertinant inquiry might be correctly interperting the context of a picture of physical reality, like the one below ...

From ecology

Mark de LA says

Change of subject, probably should be deleted under the heading of your "taking your marbles & going somewhere else - I don't like to play your game."

They are both pictures which show up in the real world of my computer. Deal with it!

Seth says

Interperting reality and interperting fantasy are totally different. Of late, i am very much into seeing and interperting physical reality. With physical reality you have something to check against which all participants can share ... not so with fantasy. With fantasy you can believe whatever and there are no consequences ... not so with reality. I'm not tryiing to divert your game ... im just being consistent with where my head is at. I actually tried to interpert your fantasy picture above but it kept comming up with "what has this to do with your subject" ... which i gathered was this. Sorry!

Seth says
Another problem i have with your picture is that it exists here with no context. Me thinks it is impossible to come to a true/false interpertation of a representation sans a context.

Mark de LA says

seth 2007-09-26 12:25:08 8114

Interperting reality and interperting fantasy are totally different. Of late, i am very much into seeing and interperting physical reality. With physical reality you have something to check against which all participants can share ... not so with fantasy. With fantasy you can believe whatever and there are no consequences ... not so with reality. I'm not tryiing to divert your game ... im just being consistent with where my head is at. I actually tried to interpert your fantasy picture above but it kept comming up with "what has this to do with your subject" ... which i gathered was this. Sorry!

Yep that's the problem. BOTH involve interpretation. I dealt with that a bit in 3976. No memory contains all of reality or all of perception. The retina only pays attention to just a small sweet spot in the center of your visual space - the rest is made up to provide the continuity. See New Scientist for a bit of info in the article: Mind Tricks - Six ways to explore your brain. I can send you a pdf if you need. Try the picture below if the fantasy one was too much for you.

Mark de LA says

seth 2007-09-26 12:49:39 8114

Another problem i have with your picture is that it exists here with no context. Me thinks it is impossible to come to a true/false interpertation of a representation sans a context.

Contexts are made up. There is nothing outside of the way you hold something.

Seth says

M 2007-09-26 12:52:17 8114

seth 2007-09-26 12:49:39 8114

Another problem i have with your picture is that it exists here with no context. Me thinks it is impossible to come to a true/false interpertation of a representation sans a context.

Contexts are made up. There is nothing outside of the way you hold something.

If i understand what you are saying here, i will acknowledge that is true ... we make up context by linking (associating) things together. But then that is just why we always need to establish a context in order to come up with an meaning for something. With a context then, the mark takes on a specific meaning that can be agreed upon ... without the context (or with an erronious context) the mark can (and will) be a misrepresentation. Is the picture bleow a case in point?

From Homeland Security

Mark de LA says
Contexts have the same problem as, & in fact are, distinctions. No 2 people are likely, via language, to hold something in the same context in the same way. For example, Mamoud & you have the context homosexual & yet you & he probably hold people who practice homosexuality in a different way. The problem on the face of it is futile.

Seth says
To play your game ... the girl is luring unsuspecting letches to their death by sword and or dragon. But then i just made that up and you there is no way to porve me wrong sans supplying a context.

Mark de LA says

One of the things that continually amazes me is that I can't eliminate everything from my room & get a clean-room for mental exercises. Everything evokes distinctions, contexts & memories. The window, the door & even the walls & ceiling all evoke ideas as if the ideas are embedded in the walls. And if there is nothing left external, then there is always my body & internal feelings. We need to acknowledge all of this before we can clear the deck for action & unhindered, unbiased observation.

Seth says

M 2007-09-26 14:11:31 8114

Contexts have the same problem as, & in fact are, distinctions. No 2 people are likely, via language, to hold something in the same context in the same way. For example, Mamoud & you have the context homosexual & yet you & he probably hold people who practice homosexuality in a different way. The problem on the face of it is futile.

But language does in fact work. What problem is futile?

Mark de LA says

seth 2007-09-26 14:13:47 8114

To play your game ... the girl is luring unsuspecting letches to their death by sword and or dragon. But then i just made that up and you there is no way to porve me wrong sans supplying a context.

Actually, I would have said that M pirated another picture of a dragon and uploaded it to the blog.

Mark de LA says

seth 2007-09-26 14:18:00 8114

M 2007-09-26 14:11:31 8114

But language does in fact work. What problem is futile?

100% error-free journalism with 100% fidelity to the truth; or something like that.

Seth says

M 2007-09-26 14:17:25 8114

Sounds like you are trying to get rid of context ... while i am trying to establish context. If so, then we are going in opposite directions for opposite purposes. Communication works best when the participants volentarily choose the same context and the same purpose. You started out talking about science and journalism (communication) ... that is physical reality ... in that we can select a context,make distinctions, and find ways to make them match. If you want to elimate context and make a "clean-room", then you are not talking about science or communication ... you are talking about internal subjective fantasy ... not a place, me thinks, for "unbiased observation". So what you are trying to get at? I have no idea.

Seth says

M 2007-09-26 14:19:51 8114

seth 2007-09-26 14:18:00 8114

M 2007-09-26 14:11:31 8114

But language does in fact work. What problem is futile?

100% error-free journalism with 100% fidelity to the truth; or something like that.

Agree.

Mark de LA says

I learned long ago in a seminar far, far away that acknowledging everything that is on the table gives a clean slate for real communication & being. This node changes & evolves as all of them will someday. The picture I chose in the beginning was just a picture I liked - nothing more. I like to punctuate the nodes I write with visuals to remember the conversations by - visual contexts or anchors.

Can Science Journalism be Scientific?

About: slashdot | is good scientific journalism possible?

Tags

Comments

See Also