[BCNnet] Birds and science from Steve Bailey
Antlitz@aol.com
Antlitz@aol.com
Mon, 27 Jan 2003 20:57:01 EST
--part1_74.29d97cf1.2b673d6d_boundary
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Dr. Bailey, you raise some very good points, and all the depth that a good
scientist will delve into. These thoughts are the sorts of things that good
science programs impress on their students to consider. A good part of any
science curricula deals, whether directly or as an on-going atmosphere, with
instilling this kind of discipline to adhere to sound statistics and
reasoning and the scientific principle.
It is unfortunate that there is much pseudoscience out there. It is also sad
that so much of the news media and the political structure and the general
public do not have this type of scientific training. The difference in
thought patterns can sometimes really jar the scientifically minded persons.
Often the public (and the media, and the political structure) is more sophist
than socratic. They take fragments of complex thoughts and twist them out of
context, listen intently and nod and agree with a rebuttal of some view
point, and then three minutes layer rattle back with the same unaltered view
point, and sometimes outright insult and belittle science in their rush to
push their own truth. I am not speaking of particular persons here, just a
general condition that has been prevalent in humans since well before the
snake-poison-peddler stories of Mark Twain.
The best we can do is take solace in that this same sloppiness of thought
will also ameliorate the particular desecration of science. They will forget
their own errors. All the general public got out of it, on a massive level,
is that "viruses can kill birds, and it may affect what I see." Maybe a few
more of the general public now know and remember what a chickadee looks like,
and a few may be able to tell them apart from sparrows next year. If a truly
scientific result is reported next week, the media will report that just as
readily, forgetting the inconsistencies. Perhaps the impact on the birding
community may be more long-standing. But I have seen a number of posts
throughout the lists citing the serious shortcomings of this research. Your
own input is also an important part of the birding community, and one that
should be well heeded.
We would all hope for better scientific education (in terms of scientific
thought and not just rote facts) in the public, and less statistiphobia than
seems all too prevalent even among academic institutions. Personally, I have
found it somewhat helpful to start to think of the public on an ecological
basis -- not so much rational people with rational thoughts but rather like
an ant hive with various mental twitches and subtle shifts and swings in
behavior that at some point may achieve critical mass. In some ways, the
science mind and the media mind and the political mind and the sociological
mind could well be considered different species.
You can also take solace in the fact that I saw 10 crows flap over my house
the other day, which represents an infinite increase in crow populations.
--part1_74.29d97cf1.2b673d6d_boundary
Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
<HTML><FONT FACE=arial,helvetica><FONT SIZE=2 FAMILY="SANSSERIF" FACE="Arial" LANG="0">Dr. Bailey, you raise some very good points, and all the depth that a good scientist will delve into. These thoughts are the sorts of things that good science programs impress on their students to consider. A good part of any science curricula deals, whether directly or as an on-going atmosphere, with instilling this kind of discipline to adhere to sound statistics and reasoning and the scientific principle. <BR>
<BR>
It is unfortunate that there is much pseudoscience out there. It is also sad that so much of the news media and the political structure and the general public do not have this type of scientific training. The difference in thought patterns can sometimes really jar the scientifically minded persons. Often the public (and the media, and the political structure) is more sophist than socratic. They take fragments of complex thoughts and twist them out of context, listen intently and nod and agree with a rebuttal of some view point, and then three minutes layer rattle back with the same unaltered view point, and sometimes outright insult and belittle science in their rush to push their own truth. I am not speaking of particular persons here, just a general condition that has been prevalent in humans since well before the snake-poison-peddler stories of Mark Twain.<BR>
<BR>
The best we can do is take solace in that this same sloppiness of thought will also ameliorate the particular desecration of science. They will forget their own errors. All the general public got out of it, on a massive level, is that "viruses can kill birds, and it may affect what I see." Maybe a few more of the general public now know and remember what a chickadee looks like, and a few may be able to tell them apart from sparrows next year. If a truly scientific result is reported next week, the media will report that just as readily, forgetting the inconsistencies. Perhaps the impact on the birding community may be more long-standing. But I have seen a number of posts throughout the lists citing the serious shortcomings of this research. Your own input is also an important part of the birding community, and one that should be well heeded. <BR>
<BR>
We would all hope for better scientific education (in terms of scientific thought and not just rote facts) in the public, and less statistiphobia than seems all too prevalent even among academic institutions. Personally, I have found it somewhat helpful to start to think of the public on an ecological basis -- not so much rational people with rational thoughts but rather like an ant hive with various mental twitches and subtle shifts and swings in behavior that at some point may achieve critical mass. In some ways, the science mind and the media mind and the political mind and the sociological mind could well be considered different species. <BR>
<BR>
You can also take solace in the fact that I saw 10 crows flap over my house the other day, which represents an infinite increase in crow populations. <BR>
<BR>
</FONT></HTML>
--part1_74.29d97cf1.2b673d6d_boundary--