Comments on: Punch and Judy Science Coverage http://asymptotia.com/2006/07/30/punch-and-judy-science-coverage/ Sun, 12 Oct 2008 09:16:54 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.5.1 By: grace http://asymptotia.com/2006/07/30/punch-and-judy-science-coverage/#comment-78216 grace Tue, 11 Sep 2007 13:50:48 +0000 http://asymptotia.com/2006/07/30/punch-and-judy-science-coverage/#comment-78216 what is the history behind punch an judy and how did the writer come up with the story? what is the history behind punch an judy and how did the writer come up with the story?

]]> By: More Scenes From the Storm in a Teacup, VII - Asymptotia http://asymptotia.com/2006/07/30/punch-and-judy-science-coverage/#comment-33061 More Scenes From the Storm in a Teacup, VII - Asymptotia Tue, 13 Mar 2007 16:56:24 +0000 http://asymptotia.com/2006/07/30/punch-and-judy-science-coverage/#comment-33061 [...] The other major problem is that in many cases where there is a public debate in the media, in the presence of someone who would like to put the case in favour of string theory research, the case they present is nothing like as accusatory as when they have the platform to themselves, or on blog debates. What you get from them in those public live debates has mostly been a very reasonable set of obvious statements that nobody can disagree with: There should be diversity in research, freedom to pursue alternative ideas, better support structures for young people working on harder problems that may not be part of the mainstream, and so forth. So the listener is left with the impression that if there is a big debate or controversy, it must be that the string theorists are somehow against this, which is of course ridiculous. So the string theorist present says that they agree with the sentiments expressed, and there’s nothing left to talk about. (See an example here.) [...] [...] The other major problem is that in many cases where there is a public debate in the media, in the presence of someone who would like to put the case in favour of string theory research, the case they present is nothing like as accusatory as when they have the platform to themselves, or on blog debates. What you get from them in those public live debates has mostly been a very reasonable set of obvious statements that nobody can disagree with: There should be diversity in research, freedom to pursue alternative ideas, better support structures for young people working on harder problems that may not be part of the mainstream, and so forth. So the listener is left with the impression that if there is a big debate or controversy, it must be that the string theorists are somehow against this, which is of course ridiculous. So the string theorist present says that they agree with the sentiments expressed, and there’s nothing left to talk about. (See an example here.) [...]

]]> By: More Scenes From the Storm in a Teacup, II - Asymptotia http://asymptotia.com/2006/07/30/punch-and-judy-science-coverage/#comment-1637 More Scenes From the Storm in a Teacup, II - Asymptotia Fri, 06 Oct 2006 01:25:49 +0000 http://asymptotia.com/2006/07/30/punch-and-judy-science-coverage/#comment-1637 [...] Overall, this storm in a teacup -which will continue, because the media only wants to hear an “underdog” story right now, whether or not it reflects what is going on in the research itself- is simply poisoning the well for everyone, whether they do string theory or not. See here. [...] [...] Overall, this storm in a teacup -which will continue, because the media only wants to hear an “underdog” story right now, whether or not it reflects what is going on in the research itself- is simply poisoning the well for everyone, whether they do string theory or not. See here. [...]

]]> By: The Blurb - Asymptotia http://asymptotia.com/2006/07/30/punch-and-judy-science-coverage/#comment-300 The Blurb - Asymptotia Tue, 15 Aug 2006 00:27:20 +0000 http://asymptotia.com/2006/07/30/punch-and-judy-science-coverage/#comment-300 [...] The second, which to my mind is a storm in a teacup, is the issue of strings showing up all over the press, and increasingly (because the press -editors, some writers, and publishers- love a controversy and a David-vs-Goliath fairlytale, sadly sometimes at the expense of painting an accurate picture; see e.g., here) in a negative light as being some useless juggernaut-come-cult. I’ll talk about that a bit too… [...] [...] The second, which to my mind is a storm in a teacup, is the issue of strings showing up all over the press, and increasingly (because the press -editors, some writers, and publishers- love a controversy and a David-vs-Goliath fairlytale, sadly sometimes at the expense of painting an accurate picture; see e.g., here) in a negative light as being some useless juggernaut-come-cult. I’ll talk about that a bit too… [...]

]]> By: Clifford http://asymptotia.com/2006/07/30/punch-and-judy-science-coverage/#comment-171 Clifford Tue, 08 Aug 2006 14:44:09 +0000 http://asymptotia.com/2006/07/30/punch-and-judy-science-coverage/#comment-171 robert:- Thanks. Two corrections. (1) It is not well known in the UK. Far from it. (2) It is not true either. You're thinking of the different ranks of professor from Assistant when you begin, up to full. That is not the case here. I mentioned it because it was misleading, either deliberately on the part of the BBC for the reasons I pointed out in the post (adds weight to the spectacle they wanted to create) or by accident. I don't believe the latter since any researcher half awake would have found the correct designation with Google in a few seconds. If I were Peter, I would have corrected them on air, confident that the strength of my argument, and not my presumed academic rank, could carry the day. But it is easy for me to say.... being aware that one is speaking to a radio audience of several millions does things to one's brain. You're supposed to try to imagine that you're just talking to one person. Even so, it is all you can do to focus on keeping your primary message straight in your head, and so focusing on correcting the reporter might not be a priority. Cheers, -cvj robert:- Thanks. Two corrections.

(1) It is not well known in the UK. Far from it.
(2) It is not true either. You’re thinking of the different ranks of professor from Assistant when you begin, up to full. That is not the case here.

I mentioned it because it was misleading, either deliberately on the part of the BBC for the reasons I pointed out in the post (adds weight to the spectacle they wanted to create) or by accident. I don’t believe the latter since any researcher half awake would have found the correct designation with Google in a few seconds. If I were Peter, I would have corrected them on air, confident that the strength of my argument, and not my presumed academic rank, could carry the day. But it is easy for me to say…. being aware that one is speaking to a radio audience of several millions does things to one’s brain. You’re supposed to try to imagine that you’re just talking to one person. Even so, it is all you can do to focus on keeping your primary message straight in your head, and so focusing on correcting the reporter might not be a priority.

Cheers,

-cvj

]]> By: robert http://asymptotia.com/2006/07/30/punch-and-judy-science-coverage/#comment-168 robert Tue, 08 Aug 2006 11:16:32 +0000 http://asymptotia.com/2006/07/30/punch-and-judy-science-coverage/#comment-168 re Peter Woit's "field promotion" (miaou or what): in the UK it is well known that all american academics are professors of some sort. That Woit, by inclination and as a consequence of his financial independence, is something of an outsider and less subject to the usual strictures of academe, should have been mentioned to provide context. Sub-Lubos sniggering about discipline might also have injected an element of slap-stick that was, as you rightly say, absent from a very civilised exchange. re Peter Woit’s “field promotion” (miaou or what): in the UK it is well known that all american academics are professors of some sort. That Woit, by inclination and as a consequence of his financial independence, is something of an outsider and less subject to the usual strictures of academe, should have been mentioned to provide context. Sub-Lubos sniggering about discipline might also have injected an element of slap-stick that was, as you rightly say, absent from a very civilised exchange.

]]>