Posts by Russell Brown
-
Hard News: The First Draft, in reply to Bart Janssen,
What makes me, as a scientist, annoyed is when people like Ken Ring present an idea that has already been tested scientifically, as thoroughly as possible and rejected by the best analysis possible, and still insist that their idea is as valid and reasonable as any other idea.
Do not read the comments on Brian's blog. You will blow the fuck up.
-
Can I just say that trying to get a viable budget out of half the original plan -- with a bunch of sunk costs, plus some new ones -- has been hard? I think we've sorted it out now.
And I've just had a phone call that should lead to being able to help the people in Christchurch that I wanted to help in the first place. Bit of work to do yet, but I think we're on the right track.
And -- oh look! -- it's wine time.
-
Okay, bear with me here: my response to Brian Edwards got eaten by his server but I have to get this out.
Brian seems to believe that Ring is some kindly old man unused to the media who was startled by a "hysterical" interviewer.
Hardly.
Ring has been using the media, broadcast especially, to promote his crank business for about 15 years. He emails Radio NZ all the time trying to get on air. At the moment, he gets regular (more than weekly at the moment) slots with Marcus Lush and talks to regional stations up and down the country. They are invariably soft interviews. One hostile interview isn't going to kill him.
Was it a good interview? No, if only because it has triggered a flood of undeserved sympathy.
But "hysterical", "closed-minded", a "disgrace" and all the other words Brian has been flinging around? No. Just ... no.
-
Hard News: The First Draft, in reply to giovanni tiso,
That kind of overlooks the fact that things like the ‘refrigerator mother’ theory were in fact dogma amongst practicing doctors. And it wasn’t that long ago. Science has its fair share of untested beliefs, which is I think what irritates some people when generic appeals to Science (as opposed to rational empirical scepticism) are used to shout down fringe beliefs and theories.
Yes. Definitely get that. The eugenics fad of the early 20th century is another bleak, black mark on "science" that should never be forgotten.
-
Hard News: The First Draft, in reply to Steve Barnes,
In other words the moon may well have an effect, a great effect? not so much.
Which is pretty much what those scientist chappies are saying.
-
Hard News: The First Draft, in reply to recordari,
Didn’t I say he didn’t have a leg to stand on? It’s not the debate, it’s how we’re debating. Perhaps it’s something I get a bit sensitive on. There are many instances through history where the widely held belief has proved to be both scientifically wrong, and life-threatening.
Plate tectonics, the basis of the science behind understanding earthquakes, is a good example. That was seen as crazy shit for decades, but was eventually shown to be valid -- and thereafter revolutionised earth sciences. That happens in science.
I'm just not sure what you're saying: that we should be kind to ideas that are demonstrably wrong and deceptive?
-
Hard News: Mind Blending, in reply to Isabel Hitchings,
When do we have to RSVP by? I really, really want to come up but it’s going to take a while to figure out if it’s feasible. I’m expecting my partner to be back at work but my kids may be still off school at that stage so childcare may be an issue.
Let's put it this way: there's no way you wouldn't be getting in.
-
Oh well. The tone can surely only go up from here ...
-
Hard News: The First Draft, in reply to recordari,
Science is evolutionary, and we do not know all there is to know. Well, at least I don’t. But then I suspect you knew that.
Yeah, but ... there's tons of material demonstrating the failures, obfuscations and outright falsehoods in Ring's "work".
You don't have to believe the present state of knowledge is infallible (which would be crazy anyway) to appreciate that.
-
Hard News: The First Draft, in reply to Stephen Judd,
So in the context of a broadcast whose purpose was to challenge an incorrect belief, I’d be preparing the ground by encouraging viewers to identify with the challenger first, and reassure them that they’re smart, clever, good people, before moving into presenting the evidence, and I’d try to do it in a way that allowed people who previously believed to excuse their mistakes as natural and human.
That's very interesting. And the fact that that didn't happen might go some way to explaining the extraordinary reaction: people who were prepared to believe just a little felt they were being called stupid and didn't like it.