Exploring the Problem of Fake News and Science Reporting
During and even after the recent US election campaign, there were numerous reports of fake news, made-up news, and other kinds of news that were deemed either outright fabrication or inaccurate or incomplete reporting of something to skewer it into one point of view or another. While the outright-fabricated news can easily be spotted eventually, there are other kinds of news reporting that were not as easily spotted, and worse still, continue to be cited by numerous news organizations, websites, and even political figures.
Most of this news involves inaccurate or misleading reporting of either data or facts. One such example is the recent report of the unemployment rate in the US that had been used in the recent political campaign. One can see why it isn’t really wrong, technically, to indicate that the US unemployment rate can be anywhere from 4.6% all the way to, get this, 40.3%! Anyone can take one or the other extreme number and claim to be “correct”. But what about the public listening to such claims? Are they aware of the two extreme numbers, and are they aware of why they are so different? Can they understand the context where those two numbers were derived?
So that was the setup for what I’m about to tell you here. This is a continuation, or maybe a reinforcement of the point that I had tried to make in my earlier article on The Most Important Thing You Can Learn From PhysicsForums. You see, in that article, one of the important points that I tried to emphasize is the constant “nagging” of senior members of this forum for members to clearly pay attention to their sources of information, and to CITE those sources clearly:
We try to enforce many things here on PF, and some of them to the dislike of many members. I’ve mentioned our insistence that members who wish to understand about stuff they read, heard, etc. must cite their sources clearly. This is a normal practice in science and engineering. We includes tons of citations in our papers, our funding proposals, our reports, etc. It is part of our standard operating procedure, making sure whoever reads it knows where the source of such-and-such information comes from. This is not a common practice for the general public. Newspapers very seldom provide such exact citations. Politicians are even worse – they seem to claim A causes B without even providing any justification, something we can’t do in science. Maybe, just maybe, if you learn how we arrive at our ideas in science, then you might set your acceptance level of what is valid to be higher, where you demand to know what is the evidence to support that A causes B? What is the nature of the source that support this? There is no reason to not demand valid supporting evidence even in dealing with political and social issues. Otherwise, it becomes just a matter of opinion or tastes without any rational justification. This is what science set as a standard, and this is why HOW we arrive at the conclusion we have is something important that you can learn from this forum.
I hope that you can already see the connection between where I’m going and the issue of “fake news” that I reported at the beginning of this article. If you care that much about knowing the unemployment rate in the US (for whatever reason), then you simply should not rely on the news reports, and certainly not from the mouths of politicians, for those numbers. What this means is that you have to go dig out the source, read how these numbers were arrived at, and maybe even try to understand how they were obtained, and then understand why there were such variations and ranges in the numbers reported. You have to go back to the source, rather than rely on news media reporting or 2nd, even 3rd-hand news! The source of your information requires to be scrutinized!
So how does this relate to physics or science in general? The impetus for my writing this article happened very recently, but this type of “fake news” has happened numerous times before. This is not outright fabricated news, but rather misleading news. But what is even worse is that this misleading information, once it has appeared online, gets propagated by other news media, and thus, giving an unsuspecting general public the wrong impression of what actually was going on.
The story in question is the recent publication on the verification of the magnetic field topology for a fusion reactor or Stellarator known as Wendelstein 7-X. This is a significant milestone in the process of commissioning the stellarator because the geometry of the magnetic field inside this reactor is extremely complex and with tight tolerances. In fact, you can read the actual publication of this paper since it is open to the public.
So then, what’s the problem? Now, remember what they are reporting here, i.e. the accuracy of the magnetic field topology that they had designed. This is important if they want to continue on and possibly generate a fusion process when this beast is finally running.
But along comes the various sites reporting this work and this is where things become misleading very quickly.
From Popular Mechanics website:
Germany’s Wildly Complex Fusion Reactor Is Actually Working
However, the stellerator design is still relatively untested, so a group of researchers spent the past year studying the W7-X reactor to ensure that it was working the way it was supposed to. They found an incredibly small error rate, less than 1 in 100,000, which the researchers characterized as “unprecedented accuracy.”
Here’s something from Space.com:
“Star-In-A-Jar” Fusion Reactor Works and Promises Infinite Energy
In a study published in the latest edition of the journal Nature Communications, researchers confirmed that Germany’s Wendelstein 7-X (W7-X) fusion energy device is on track and working as planned. The space-age system, known as a stellerator, generated its first batch of hydrogen plasma when it was first fired up earlier this year. The new tests basically give scientists the green light to proceed to the next stage of the process.
The unsuspecting public (remember them?) might read either of these articles and (i) pay huge attention to the title and (ii) will get the message that I highlighted above from each of these articles. The result? People will think that the stellarator is now working and they’re moving on to the next phase. This is completely wrong! They have not reported such a thing, even though this is an important step towards making the device work. What these two news articles focused on was the “sexy” side to the story, i.e. a fusion reactor and the promise of “infinite energy”. Reporting that the group confirmed the shape and strength of the magnetic field is boring (other than the neat picture that accompanied the paper). So they stretched the truth a bit and went for the non-existent jugular. This is “fake news”.
Now I will be fair to both of them. Unlike regular news articles, these two at least provided links to the source. So anyone with any keen interest can pursue this further and read the actual paper. But how many of the members of the general public will (i) do that and (ii) be able to understand the technical details of the paper? They rely on news summaries such as these to give them the gist, and presumably, ACCURATE information. Otherwise, if they have to actually dig the source each time, what’s the point in such a news summary in the first place?
It is disheartening to see “established” websites reporting and/or propagating misleading news such as this. We on PF have often seen members coming in and citing many such sources. These members can become frustrated, usually with us, when we tell them that they either didn’t understand what the real thing was or that the news they read is incorrect or inaccurate. Worse yet, we get crackpots who rely on this inaccurate news to propagate their ignorance.
The moral of this story is caveat emptor!
Unless you are ready to dig a bit deeper into what you read and get your hands on the source, you have to be aware that you are relying on someone’s interpretation, motive, agenda, etc. in whatever you are reading. It is why we insist that you pay attention to the quality of your source of information and that you cite the source you are using to back your claims. Otherwise, there is no way for us to know if you misinterpret/misunderstand what you read, or if you read another “fake news”.
PhD Physics
Accelerator physics, photocathodes, field-enhancement. tunneling spectroscopy, superconductivity
Are you saying that a repulsive gravitational force would not violate Newton's universal law of gravitation, because the same equation would still work with negative mass?
I would disagree with that, because Newton's universal law of gravitation includes the idea that all gravitational forces are attractive.How would such a situation differ from, for example, not knowing about repulsion in magnetism and later discovering it?
Yes, the equation is still valid. But I've always taught physics and preferred a public understanding of physics as physical meaning beyond the equations.Well isn't that one of the core purposes of a scientific theory? To expand knowledge by making predictions beyond what current experiments show? It's fine to assume mass always must be positive based on a lot of experiments. But it is even better to challenge that assumption by following the math wherever it leads. In that way, some scientists turn over a rock that others just assumed had nothing under it.
Your disagreement is with many physics textbooks, not with the news article or with me. The news article and I are consistent with Newton's second law as it is commonly articulated in textbooks, and the new finding of negative mass DOES CONTRADICT the common textbook explanation. Quoting Wilson, Buffa, and Lou:
The acceleration of an object is directly proportional to the net force acting on it and inversely proportional to its mass. The direction of the acceleration is in the direction of the applied net force.
So, is the "Fake News" wrong, or are all the textbooks wrong that say "The direction of the acceleration is in the direction of the applied net force"?
Physics is always more than just the equations. Retaining the equations but changing the understanding of how they apply to reality IS a change in understanding of the underlying physical laws. That is REAL NEWS.In these textbooks, the mass is automatically assumed to be positive. I see nothing wrong with that, the same way I see nothing wrong with these books continuing to claim that no matter how intense a light source is, no photoelectrons will be emitted if the energy is below the work function. I personally have done experiments to show that this is wrong. But yet, I would not change these textbooks because they are restricted to within the context that these are still correct.
But the 2nd law itself, without such restriction, still WORKS, and I've show why. Thus, claiming that when you relax that restriction that this equation is "ignored" is patently false.
Zz.
The news article over-reached and stated something incorrect, especially when considering that the 2nd law with negative mass stated exactly what described, not different. This is the definition of an accurate description. It is not the definition of "ignoring".
Zz.Your disagreement is with many physics textbooks, not with the news article or with me. The news article and I are consistent with Newton's second law as it is commonly articulated in textbooks, and the new finding of negative mass DOES CONTRADICT the common textbook explanation. Quoting Wilson, Buffa, and Lou:
The acceleration of an object is directly proportional to the net force acting on it and inversely proportional to its mass. The direction of the acceleration is in the direction of the applied net force.
So, is the "Fake News" wrong, or are all the textbooks wrong that say "The direction of the acceleration is in the direction of the applied net force"?
Physics is always more than just the equations. Retaining the equations but changing the understanding of how they apply to reality IS a change in understanding of the underlying physical laws. That is REAL NEWS.
Yes, the equation is still valid. But I've always taught physics and preferred a public understanding of physics as physical meaning beyond the equations.
Are you saying that a repulsive gravitational force would not violate Newton's universal law of gravitation, because the same equation would still work with negative mass?
I would disagree with that, because Newton's universal law of gravitation includes the idea that all gravitational forces are attractive. Reporting a repulsive gravitational force as a violation of Newton's universal law of gravitation would not be "Fake News." At worst, it might be represent a different opinion on a question of semantics. "Fake News" in regard to science reporting is not a different opinion on semantics, it is a skewed view (bad science) that is fundamentally wrong from any perspective.No, that is YOUR definition of what "fake news" is. That was never my definition of it within the context of this thread, and one can clearly see that in the Insight article that I wrote.
Newton's law of gravitation puts no limitation on the sign of the mass, the same way the BCS theory puts no limitation on whether the coupling must always be attractive. The mathematics doesn't care.
The news article over-reached and stated something incorrect, especially when considering that the 2nd law with negative mass stated exactly what described, not different. This is the definition of an accurate description. It is not the definition of "ignoring".
Zz.
The 2nd law equation is still valid even for negative mass. Nothing that has been discussed so far has pointed to that. It is not being "ignored" as claimed by the news article.
Zz.Yes, the equation is still valid. But I've always taught physics and preferred a public understanding of physics as physical meaning beyond the equations.
Are you saying that a repulsive gravitational force would not violate Newton's universal law of gravitation, because the same equation would still work with negative mass?
I would disagree with that, because Newton's universal law of gravitation includes the idea that all gravitational forces are attractive. Reporting a repulsive gravitational force as a violation of Newton's universal law of gravitation would not be "Fake News." At worst, it might be represent a different opinion on a question of semantics. "Fake News" in regard to science reporting is not a different opinion on semantics, it is a skewed view (bad science) that is fundamentally wrong from any perspective.
I'm not trying to make the case that we should. But allowing for negative masses seems like a generalization that contradicts the original understanding:
The new understanding IS new physics, just as generalizing Newton's universal law of gravitation to allow for repulsive gravitational forces would be new physics and a contradiction of our current understanding of Newton's universal law of gravitation, even though the math could all be accounted for by reckoning one of the masses as negative.But this isn't a "generalization" of anything Newton's laws. It is a generalization of the concept of "mass".
The 2nd Law never specified that "m" must always be positive for it to be used in the equation. It is just that at the time of its "conception", there was no other way to think of what the mass could be. So if m is positive, then the old description of the equation that we know and love is valid.
However, now that we can come up with scenario that the mass can be negative (or, to put it more accurately for this context, it is the effective mass), then the description of the equation (i.e. the interpretation) needs to be generalized. The formalism, i.e. the equation itself, needs no modification and it is still applicable.
This is no different than rethinking of the second law as being F=dp/dt, allowing for the possibility of a constant velocity situation with changing mass. The fact that F = v dm/dt is also a valid form of the 2nd law, and that it looks different than the old F=ma, does not mean that it is no longer the 2nd law.
The 2nd law equation is still valid even for negative mass. Nothing that has been discussed so far has pointed to that. It is not being "ignored" as claimed by the news article.
Zz.
Objects with negative mass do resist acceleration. You have to apply a force to accelerate them, and acceleration will be proportional to the force. It just goes in the opposite direction.
F=ma, Newton's second law, is valid.Written that way, it is wrong in special relativity and we found a counterexample decades ago – while F=ma has a natural equivalent with 4-vectors.
Why should we restrict a general formula like F=ma, that does work with negative masses, to positive masses, and then claim the more general formula would have been violated just because the artificial restriction does not work any more?I'm not trying to make the case that we should. But allowing for negative masses seems like a generalization that contradicts the original understanding:
The new understanding IS new physics, just as generalizing Newton's universal law of gravitation to allow for repulsive gravitational forces would be new physics and a contradiction of our current understanding of Newton's universal law of gravitation, even though the math could all be accounted for by reckoning one of the masses as negative.
Objects with negative mass do resist acceleration. You have to apply a force to accelerate them, and acceleration will be proportional to the force. It just goes in the opposite direction.
F=ma, Newton's second law, is valid.
The acceleration of an object as produced by a net force is directly proportional to the magnitude of the net force, in the same direction as the net force, and inversely proportional to the mass of the object.Written that way, it is wrong in special relativity and we found a counterexample decades ago – while F=ma has a natural equivalent with 4-vectors.
Why should we restrict a general formula like F=ma, that does work with negative masses, to positive masses, and then claim the more general formula would have been violated just because the artificial restriction does not work any more?
I will call this out as another example of "Fake News". Here, the report on the UPI website went further than what the press release stated, and in the process, made a critical error.
This news article is reporting an interesting experimental result that created objects with "negative effective mass" in a superfluid. From what I can tell, the writer is basing the report not on the original paper, but rather from the press release out of Washington State University.
The error comes in at the very beginning of the news article:
I took a look at the WSU press release and in the paper itself. Nowhere in there was any claim made that this phenomenon "… ignores Isaac Newton's Second Law of Motion…" In fact, it HAS to obey the second law for it to have such a direction of acceleration.
The 2nd Law is basically F = ma.
1. For a positive mass, it means that F and a are in the same direction.
2. For a negative mass, then the 2nd law is F = -|m|a. It means that F and a are colinear, but in the opposite direction. In other words, it is the 2nd law that actually tells you that for a negative mass, if you push on it away from you, it will accelerates towards you. This is exactly OBEYING the 2nd law, not ignoring it! In fact, if the negative mass actually moves away from you the way we normally think ordinary mass should, it is only then that this mass is ignoring the 2nd Law!
The claim that this experiment "ignores the 2nd Law" is Fake Science Reporting. It is introduced to possibly make the story sexier and in the process, made a very amateurish mistake.
BTW, negative effective mass isn't new. This is common in condensed matter/solid state physics, because we have positive holes in solids, and on how we define effective mass (the curvature of the dispersion).
Zz.I always understood that it was an inherent property of inertial mass to resist acceleration – therefore, only positive masses make sense.
I take Newton's second to be more than an equation – it is the definition of inertial mass. With this understanding, negative masses DO violate the Newton's 2nd.
Fake news? No.
I will call this out as another example of "Fake News". Here, the report on the UPI website went further than what the press release stated, and in the process, made a critical error.
This news article is reporting an interesting experimental result that created objects with "negative effective mass" in a superfluid. From what I can tell, the writer is basing the report not on the original paper, but rather from the press release out of Washington State University.
The error comes in at the very beginning of the news article:
A team of physicists at Washington State University have created a fluid that ignores Isaac Newton's Second Law of Motion. The fluid has "negative mass." When it's pushed it accelerates backwards.I took a look at the WSU press release and in the paper itself. Nowhere in there was any claim made that this phenomenon "… ignores Isaac Newton's Second Law of Motion…" In fact, it HAS to obey the second law for it to have such a direction of acceleration.
The 2nd Law is basically F = ma.
1. For a positive mass, it means that F and a are in the same direction.
2. For a negative mass, then the 2nd law is F = -|m|a. It means that F and a are colinear, but in the opposite direction. In other words, it is the 2nd law that actually tells you that for a negative mass, if you push on it away from you, it will accelerates towards you. This is exactly OBEYING the 2nd law, not ignoring it! In fact, if the negative mass actually moves away from you the way we normally think ordinary mass should, it is only then that this mass is ignoring the 2nd Law!
The claim that this experiment "ignores the 2nd Law" is Fake Science Reporting. It is introduced to possibly make the story sexier and in the process, made a very amateurish mistake.
BTW, negative effective mass isn't new. This is common in condensed matter/solid state physics, because we have positive holes in solids, and on how we define effective mass (the curvature of the dispersion).
Zz.
Recently I've heard a lot about temperatures 20C above normal in the arctic… that sounds a little fishy.. was it for a day or a whole month? I know that in Alaska this winter they had some insanely cold temperatures of -50C… I was looking at the weather near Khabarovsk, Russia and it didn't look like it was warmer this winter than the last few winters.More detailed information is available, for example:
https://sites.google.com/site/arcticseaicegraphs/
There was a branch of the National Weather Service at BNL when I was there (it might still be there), and I have chatted with a couple of the scientists there. They will provide the raw data for research because that is part of the requirement for all public-funded work. This is no different than any other public-funded work. In fact, *I* am required to keep and store all experimental data as part of my DOE and NSF grants, and will have to provide them when requested.
I will also state that raw data without context are meaningless numbers. This is especially true in climate science, because certain measurements have more caveats than others. But one has to be well-versed in this field to know that.
Zz.Dunno about the National Weather Service, but their parent agency, NOAA, definitely does not share all their data. We've been able to get all the weather, climate, and satellite data we've wanted, but they have not and apparently will not grant access to us for the vast majority of their fisheries data. They seem to share with other public agencies, but NOT with private researchers.
Likewise, we've also been refused fisheries data regularly by several states. Under Republican Governor Bobby Jindal, we had a great relationship with the Louisiana Department of Wildlife and Fisheries (LDWF) and for several years, all we needed to do was ask nicely and explain the nature of the research project. Within a couple of weeks we were granted access to the state fisheries data we wanted. As a courtesy, we provided the reports or preprints of papers back to the agency when they were available. After Democrat John Bel Edwards took office, our data requests began to be denied. Even though a lot of their data is acquired with federal funds, I would not be optimistic we would prevail in court. In Louisiana, the better approach is to play nice, be patient, and try and figure out whose back you need to scratch. Colorado has gladly and quickly shared all the fisheries data we requested. One mid-western state politely declined. Preliminary indications suggest formal requests to Texas and Florida would not be honored.
I should also mention that there has never been ANY requirement to share our data from DoD-funded work. In fact, many times, we cannot even publish our results until the paper is "approved for public release" through one DoD research office or another. Likewise, if a work was partially supported by a private company it is usually locked down pretty tightly even if partial support was public. Recently, I had to decline a request from the Naval Surface Warfare Center (Crane, IN) to share data from a project because of a non-disclosure agreement with a private company. Essentially, this required NSWC to repeat most of an experiment that we had already done. This is very common in the DoD world. We were able to help them on the project, but it was an odd dance: we couldn't share the data, and they couldn't tell us exactly why they needed it.
When it comes to sharing data over which we exercise discretion (no legal prohibition or requirement to share), our practice is to have a discussion among the stakeholders and decide what data the requesting party has that we would like and work out a trade. We've never denied a request for our data (unless we had to), but we do like to get something of value in return.
I wasn't sure exactly where to put this one (also fits into the "March for Science" thread a bit), but it has been bugging me for a week:
http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/storie…ME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2017-03-14-17-17-34
For the un-initiated, a "Nor'easter" is a storm system unique to the northeastern US, where a cold front comes in from the north west and collides with warm, moist air coming up the coast. The collision of the air masses produces a severe and rapidly intensifying storm. In the summer they rival hurricanes and in the winter, they produce massive blizzards along the Washington-Boston corridor.
Because they involve a cold and a warm air mass, there is a potentially wide variation in impacts across the storm from east to west. In the east, you might get all rain and in the west it is all snow. There will be a gradient of each, with the center generally producing the most snow, along a swath 10-50 miles wide and up to several hundred miled long.
Last week's nor'easter was late for a snowstorm, which produced a forecasting problem. Early indications were that it would be a classinc winter nor'easter, almost entirely snow, and cutting straight through the population centers from Philly to Boston. But hours before the snow started (Monday morning), the models started showing the warm air from the east would win and produce mostly rain along the coasts and a snow/sleet mix further inland, only producing all snow much further inland. These models were correct. The National Weather Service held a meeting on Monday afternoon and decided against updating the forecasts, "out of extreme caution" (quote) and "…they didn't want to confuse the public." (AP paraphrase).
Wait, what? A coherent message is more important than the quest for accuracy? I suspect your post would be much "too political" for certain parties policing the "March for Science" thread. Good choice to put it here.
But you wisely point out that the "coherent message" that leads to inaccurate predictions undermines public trust in the agencies involved (and in science more broadly).
Scientists need to call out this foolishness and dishonesty for what it is if we hope to regain much of the public trust that is rapidly eroding.
Ok…that's all fine, but I don't see how it relates to what we were discussing/what you quoted.It is relevant because you said "…. In neither case are we provided all the details and models and in both cases we are provided the predictions to work from…."
It somehow implied that these are purposely hidden and cannot be made available. This is false. You can get the raw data, and the model being used are often known. In fact, in weather forecasting, there are several different models that are used, and we can often see that very clearly in the prediction of the path of a hurricane.
These are not provided when weather prediction is made to the public because this is not something the public cares about, the same way the public never demanded to see the economic model used to do the federal budget, or the model used in actuarial analysis of your insurance rates. I do not see why this has be singled out here, especially when one CAN obtain those information if needed from NOAA or the NWS.
Zz.
There was a branch of the National Weather Service at BNL when I was there (it might still be there), and I have chatted with a couple of the scientists there. They will provide the raw data for research because that is part of the requirement for all public-funded work. This is no different than any other public-funded work. In fact, *I* am required to keep and store all experimental data as part of my DOE and NSF grants, and will have to provide them when requested.
I will also state that raw data without context are meaningless numbers. This is especially true in climate science, because certain measurements have more caveats than others. But one has to be well-versed in this field to know that.Ok…that's all fine, but I don't see how it relates to what we were discussing/what you quoted.
In any case,
I wrote my description of NOAA's purpose without looking at their mission statement, but in paraphrasing it, I wouldn't change a thing:
http://www.noaa.gov/about-our-agency
Of note/relevance:
1. The importance of dissemination of the information to the public and planners.
2. The general mandate for climate and weather is exactly the same based on the fact that the two are listed next to each other in the opening sentence of the mission.
None of that is completely true/relevant. There exists, in both cases, a necessary connection between the scientists/data and the rest of the government/public. The government collects, analyses, makes predictions from and disseminates weather and climate data not because they are randomly curious about them, but because it has been deemed in the public interest for the public to know and for the government and public to use the information to make policy/action decisions.There was a branch of the National Weather Service at BNL when I was there (it might still be there), and I have chatted with a couple of the scientists there. They will provide the raw data for research because that is part of the requirement for all public-funded work. This is no different than any other public-funded work. In fact, *I* am required to keep and store all experimental data as part of my DOE and NSF grants, and will have to provide them when requested.
I will also state that raw data without context are meaningless numbers. This is especially true in climate science, because certain measurements have more caveats than others. But one has to be well-versed in this field to know that.
Zz.
The weather forecast was intended to the general public. It is a forecast/prediction based on the data, and can often change in the last minute.
Climate data are meant for professionals and scientists….None of that is completely true/relevant. There exists, in both cases, a necessary connection between the scientists/data and the rest of the government/public. The government collects, analyses, makes predictions from and disseminates weather and climate data not because they are randomly curious about them, but because it has been deemed in the public interest for the public to know and for the government and public to use the information to make policy/action decisions. In neither case are we provided all the details and models and in both cases we are provided the predictions to work from.
Regarding the middle part, the time frames are different (years vs days), but otherwise the signal to noise ratio problems and "last minute changes" are almost exactly the same. The main difference being that GW data should improve over time whereas weather is always resetting.
This is from a division of the same government agency responsible for collecting, interpreting and disseminating climate data. Which begs the question: is the climate data/warming predictions we get filtered with the same bias?The weather forecast was intended to the general public. It is a forecast/prediction based on the data, and can often change in the last minute.
Climate data are meant for professionals and scientists, and are also collected by not only other scientists not working with the agency, but also by other countries that have their own weather collection protocol. These are also collected over time, and the raw data are what these scientists deal with.
Zz.
I wasn't sure exactly where to put this one (also fits into the "March for Science" thread a bit), but it has been bugging me for a week:
http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/storie…ME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2017-03-14-17-17-34
For the un-initiated, a "Nor'easter" is a storm system unique to the northeastern US, where a cold front comes in from the north west and collides with warm, moist air coming up the coast. The collision of the air masses produces a severe and rapidly intensifying storm. In the summer they rival hurricanes and in the winter, they produce massive blizzards along the Washington-Boston corridor.
Because they involve a cold and a warm air mass, there is a potentially wide variation in impacts across the storm from east to west. In the east, you might get all rain and in the west it is all snow. There will be a gradient of each, with the center generally producing the most snow, along a swath 10-50 miles wide and up to several hundred miled long.
Last week's nor'easter was late for a snowstorm, which produced a forecasting problem. Early indications were that it would be a classinc winter nor'easter, almost entirely snow, and cutting straight through the population centers from Philly to Boston. But hours before the snow started (Monday morning), the models started showing the warm air from the east would win and produce mostly rain along the coasts and a snow/sleet mix further inland, only producing all snow much further inland. These models were correct. The National Weather Service held a meeting on Monday afternoon and decided against updating the forecasts, "out of extreme caution" (quote) and "…they didn't want to confuse the public." (AP paraphrase).
Wait, what? A coherent message is more important than the quest for accuracy?
So along the east coast, we went to bed last Monday night expecting to wake up to a foot+ of snow and actually finding totals less than half of the low-end of the forecast (NYC predicted: 18-24", actual: 7"). Scientists can claim somewhat of a win in that the mass of precipitation was actually accurate, it was just denser than predicted, but that difference matters a lot in how you respond to the storm. Particularly when eastern Delaware and NJ saw mostly rain instead of a foot of snow! You can't un-cancel school if it doesn't snow. As for me, I did notice something was off when I woke up, but I was sicklazy and stayed home from work on Tuesday though many of my colleagues ended up going in.
This is from a division of the same government agency responsible for collecting, interpreting and disseminating climate data. Which begs the question: is the climate data/warming predictions we get filtered with the same bias?
BTW, when it comes to medical stuff, i find that I'm able to develop an opinion by reading a few studies about effectiveness, despite the fact that I don't have a medical background. Again, a small amount of quantitative literacy comes into play here. Was it tested? Was there a control group? Peer reviewed? Double blind? How big was the sample? I don't need to know the mechanics of the drug.. just "is there some probability this will work, and does it outweigh the potential complications?"It's amazing how many studies are misrepresented by the media. Many misunderstandings could be avoided by simply reading the abstract/discussion. Many times the claims being made about the study are not supported by the authors in the conclusion/discussion. Understanding the hierarchy of evidence is also important; placing a case study involving a handful of subjects on the same level as systematic reviews and meta-analyses of "RCTs with definitive results" can lead to mistaking a mere association (which requires further study) with a causative effect/mechanism.
Well some good news here in Belgium. A well-known comic (Lieven Scheire) that studied (but didn't finish) physics in college started a monthly podcast that looks at science and technology news. He did similar things in a TV show although they often focused on unbelievable facts much like QI.
It is discussed with the help of active scientists. They address problems with popular accounts in an attempt to counteract ill-written articles.
I checked out the February edition and it seems quite good. They joke about a little which could help with coverage.
I'm not faulting statistics when they're used correctly, because yes it is just a tool.. it's when they're deliberately misused, misquoted and misinterpreted the problems come up.. Just like using a baseball bat to break kneecaps is a misuse of the tool. Look at the last election when one side was saying unemployment was ~5% while the other was saying 45%, and they were both right.. depending on which statistic you used.
I am pointing out other scientific opinions.. I don't have the expertise to analyze the data, or even know if everyone is working from the same dataset… Recently I've heard a lot about temperatures 20C above normal in the arctic… that sounds a little fishy.. was it for a day or a whole month? I know that in Alaska this winter they had some insanely cold temperatures of -50C… I was looking at the weather near Khabarovsk, Russia and it didn't look like it was warmer this winter than the last few winters.I don't want to get into a debate about the evidence for this so-called global warming, but you need to understand that "weather" is not the same as "climate".
Statistics will be used/abused and will continued to be used and abused by everyone. But we need to differentiate between the conclusion of a scientific study versus the study being used by others in their own "special" ways. The former should be studied, discussed, challenged, etc. intellectually, i.e. as part of the process of verification. The latter must be dealt with by pointing out how they are wrong or misplaced or misguided. This, unfortunately, is not something a lot of people seem able to distinguish and separate, and so they tend to throw the baby out with the bath water.
Zz.
I don't have the expertise to analyze the data,Then don't try it.
And don't mix weather and climate please.
I'm not faulting statistics when they're used correctly, because yes it is just a tool.. it's when they're deliberately misused, misquoted and misinterpreted the problems come up.. Just like using a baseball bat to break kneecaps is a misuse of the tool. Look at the last election when one side was saying unemployment was ~5% while the other was saying 45%, and they were both right.. depending on which statistic you used.
I am pointing out other scientific opinions.. I don't have the expertise to analyze the data, or even know if everyone is working from the same dataset… Recently I've heard a lot about temperatures 20C above normal in the arctic… that sounds a little fishy.. was it for a day or a whole month? I know that in Alaska this winter they had some insanely cold temperatures of -50C… I was looking at the weather near Khabarovsk, Russia and it didn't look like it was warmer this winter than the last few winters.
There is nothing as manipulable than a statistic… On Canada's east coast in the 90's I believe it was, they were doing studies on fish populations and looking at different 'fishing holes'.. well, when a place had no fish anymore, it wasn't considered a fishing hole anymore and thus excluded from the data, completely skewing the results…
Then there are the unemployment statistics, where people who've been out of work for a year or are on welfare are no longer considered "Unemployed"…
And the same goes for climate change, For one I think it's such a complex phenomenon that we just CAN'T model it accurately and not impart personal opinion into it somewhere along the way.. Russia's scientists are apparently calling for a mini ice age over the next 50 years based on sunspot activityBut here's the thing about statistics, though. We have no other means to analyze many of these problems without them. This is especially true when we try to study social dynamics, correlations, and cause-and-effect.
For example, someone can claim that children who are constantly playing with video game A will tend to be more violent. Why? Because supposedly, that teenage shooter killed a bunch of people in a shopping mall.
Now, is this a claim that is backed by any defensible and valid evidence?
So what social scientists have to do is do a study to find all teenagers who play this game at various length of time, and compare that with teenagers who live in roughly the same area with the same demographics and socio-economic standings, and then do a comparison, for example. In fact, there could be MANY different ways to study the validity of this connection. Then you try to figure out first if there is any correlation with violent behavior, and if there is, establish a cause-and-effect, because correlation does not imply causation.
This is not easy, and it is not infallible. No one is claiming it is. But we lack any other means to study this type of phenomenon. The best we can do is to let the experts hash it out and let it go through its gestation period. People will examine the validity of (i) the data that were collected (ii) the way those data were collected (iii) the way they were analyzed (iv) the assumptions that were made (v) the strength of the conclusion, etc… etc. In fact, another group may conduct a similar study, and might even come up with an opposite conclusion. This is not unheard of. So unless one is an expert in that particular field, there is no way that I can see how one can simply dismiss a particular result. You cannot simply dismiss such a result simply based on taste, or personal opinion, or the phase of the moon. Either point out the flaw in the statistics, the flaw in the analysis, the flaw in the conclusion, or do your own study to counter the first one. Otherwise, it is an objection without merit.
Sure, statistics can be manipulated. But it doesn't mean that all statistics should be dismissed off-hand. The specific flaw in it should be pointed out, rather than simply making a board dismissal. Otherwise, there is no way for us to know if any kind of social, economic, political etc. policies and ideas are actually working or effective as claimed.
Zz.
There is nothing as manipulable than a statistic… On Canada's east coast in the 90's I believe it was, they were doing studies on fish populations and looking at different 'fishing holes'.. well, when a place had no fish anymore, it wasn't considered a fishing hole anymore and thus excluded from the data, completely skewing the results…
Then there are the unemployment statistics, where people who've been out of work for a year or are on welfare are no longer considered "Unemployed"…
And the same goes for climate change, For one I think it's such a complex phenomenon that we just CAN'T model it accurately and not impart personal opinion into it somewhere along the way.. Russia's scientists are apparently calling for a mini ice age over the next 50 years based on sunspot activity
10 years ago there was Science Fridays on NPR, but then it became so political there was no science left.
50 years ago there was science is Scientific American Magazine, but by 10 years ago it was so political there was no science left.
This is what happens when politics becomes a religion, a belief system based on faith.
[QUOTE="Vanadium 50, post: 5696270, member: 110252"]Where does it say Fox News?[/QUOTE]Nowhere in that article that I can see. I wrote "fake Fox news" not "fake Fox News."
Sorry, I just noticed I made a mistake. The Swedes posted an article listing everything that happened that fateful night.http://www.aftonbladet.se/nyheter/a/Vn17J/in-english-this-happened-in-sweden-friday-night-mr-presidentApparently not much happens in Sweden.
[QUOTE="David Reeves, post: 5696109, member: 608525"]Here is fake Fox news[/QUOTE]Where does it say Fox News?
Here is fake Fox news which was admitted by the fakers themselves. I suppose some people will excuse it as just a clever sales ploy.http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/fox-apologizes-planting-fake-news-promote-a-cure-wellness-976979
[QUOTE="David Reeves, post: 5694065, member: 608525"]I think it is biased to keep broadcasting fringe opinions on a scientific question[/QUOTE]But you didn't give an example of that (at least not for climate science–your example about evolution seems fine to me as an example of fringe opinions). Saying that the models diverge from actual temperatures is not a "fringe opinion"; it is an opinion held by some climate scientists, and they can back it up with data, as the link I gave shows. If you had found a report of someone claiming that the climate hasn't changed at all, or that CO2 isn't a greenhouse gas, that would be a "fringe opinion".[QUOTE="David Reeves, post: 5694065, member: 608525"]People should point out specifically what is "fake" about a news story.[/QUOTE]I agree 100% with this.
[QUOTE="PeterDonis, post: 5692997, member: 197831"] Please note, first, that this thread is not about climate change (and I was not making an argument either way about climate change as a policy issue), and second, PF has a policy specifically about that subject because of how easy it is for discussions of it to go off the rails. My point was simply about carefully distinguishing what is and is not "fake news", which is the topic of this thread. Claims that you happen to disagree with can still be valid news and not "fake news".[/QUOTE] I see your point. I think my point, which I did not express clearly enough, is that I think it is biased to keep broadcasting fringe opinions on a scientific question, while attributing the mainstream scientific view to some kind of globalist conspiracy, if it is even mentioned. One of Dr. Powell's videos addresses the conspiracy theory. So I was trying to emphasize the viewpoint of mainstream science, which I believe is underreported by Fox News TV and also by many right-wing talk shows. But I would call it biased news, not fake news. Regarding"fake news" I am already getting very tired of hearing that term. People now call any news story they disagree with "fake news." I don't watch TV any more, but when I turn on radio I hear this term several times a day. It's not helpful. People should point out specifically what is "fake" about a news story. Thanks for the reply. I'm done with this topic now!
[QUOTE="Donald J. Trump"]The leaks are real. You’re the one that wrote about them and reported them. I mean the leaks are real. You know what they said. You saw it, and the leaks are absolutely real. The news is fake because so much of the news is fake.[/QUOTE]https://www.yahoo.com/news/real-leaks-bring-fake-news-trump-says-as-he-blasts-media-214217042.htmlWell apparently even if you agree with the truth of a particular fact reporting of that fact is "FAKE NEWS!!!" if you don't like the implications of that fact.Can someone please explain this for me?BoB
[QUOTE="David Reeves, post: 5692320, member: 608525"]as far as being reported "extensively,' I wonder how many people read it[/QUOTE]I don't know, and I don't know that there's any way to find out. But that is not the same as knowing that a negligible number of people read it. If we don't know, the proper thing to say is just that we don't know–and then to refrain from speculating without any basis for it.(Also, by "reported extensively" I just meant that many, many news sites reported it, not that lots of people necessarily read it.)[QUOTE="David Reeves, post: 5692320, member: 608525"]I recommend these links.[/QUOTE]Please note, first, that this thread is not about climate change (and I was not making an argument either way about climate change as a policy issue), and second, PF has a policy specifically about that subject because of how easy it is for discussions of it to go off the rails. My point was simply about carefully distinguishing what is and is not "fake news", which is the topic of this thread. Claims that you happen to disagree with can still be valid news and not "fake news".
[QUOTE="PeterDonis, post: 5692257, member: 197831"]They might not have (I agree the media is not always good at citing sources, although I don't think this is limited to the "right-wing corporate media"), but the claim that the models are divergent from reality is not itself an "alternative fact". See, for example, here:https://judithcurry.com/2015/12/17/climate-models-versus-climate-reality/This was reported extensively in the media, including Fox News:http://www.foxnews.com/weather/2017/01/18/2016-declared-hottest-year-on-record-for-globe/[/QUOTE]Thanks for the links.The Fox News Weather Center article is all right. But as far as being reported "extensively,' I wonder how many people read it, compared to those who watch or listen to reports which describe man-made global warming as a hoax? In any case, I recommend these links. They represent the overwhelming consensus of world scientists who specialize in study of the climate. [MEDIA=youtube]aCONEqcvoHI[/MEDIA]http://jamespowell.org/http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/GlobalWarming/page2.phphttp://www.kings.cam.ac.uk/global-warming/bibliography/overview.htmlhttp://www.fu-berlin.de/en/presse/informationen/fup/2016/fup_16_283-klimawandel-begann-vor-180-jahren/index.htmlhttp://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/
[QUOTE="David Reeves, post: 5667111, member: 608525"]I think this sort of antiscientific disinformation campaign is extremely dangerous.[/QUOTE]I think it's worth observing in this connection that scientists themselves should bear a part of the responsibility for this. As any PF staff member can tell you, we spend a lot of time correcting misconceptions that come from, um, less than careful statements from scientists in pop science venues–books, articles, TV specials, etc. I think a key factor contributing to this is that scientists in these pop science venues, and more generally in their communication with non-scientists, too often give in to the temptation to present Science as an authority. They make flat statements without any attempt to give the reader or listener a sense of the generative models that actually make up the scientific theories they are describing. Those statements are often ambiguous, and often do not distinguish between theories or hypotheses with greatly varying levels of confidence and experimental support.What happens here on PF is that the small minority of readers or listeners who are actually curious about the science come here, and after some discussion they realize (hopefully) that what they thought they heard or read was in fact very misleading, and start to learn the actual underlying theories and models. But most people don't do that. They just think they've received a statement from Science the authority, when in fact they've gotten a distorted and misleading view of the science. Plus, when Science eventually makes a statement that ends up being plain false–which will happen sooner or later–those who took it as authoritative draw the incorrect conclusion that Science can't be trusted at all (instead of the correct conclusion that Science the authority is not actually the same as science the body of valid, experimentally tested theories), and go looking for some other authority to tell them what to believe.
[QUOTE="David Reeves, post: 5667111, member: 608525"]They say things like "the climatologists hide the fact that their models have been wrong in recent years." Which models? Have they said which models?[/QUOTE]They might not have (I agree the media is not always good at citing sources, although I don't think this is limited to the "right-wing corporate media"), but the claim that the models are divergent from reality is not itself an "alternative fact". See, for example, here:https://judithcurry.com/2015/12/17/climate-models-versus-climate-reality/[QUOTE="David Reeves, post: 5667111, member: 608525"]People hear lots of rubbish, but they do not hear that, according to NASA, 2016 was the hottest year on record.[/QUOTE]This was reported extensively in the media, including Fox News:http://www.foxnews.com/weather/2017/01/18/2016-declared-hottest-year-on-record-for-globe/
I definitely think such education is necessary as part of a critical thinking course — among the many things people don't learn in school but should. The California law mandates it for 7-12, which is where I think it should be….perhaps even parallel to the early Physical Science courses where kids learn about the scientific method, difference between precision and accuracy, etc. I do have concerns about both the effectiveness and the slant, but I don't know that that can be helped. And in my opinion having the skills is better than not having them, even if they are taught only to apply them to FoxNews and never to CNN.
It seems like courses on how to deal or spot fake news are popping up.https://www.yahoo.com/news/civics-course-schools-avoid-fake-news-060627594.htmlHow effective this is remains to be seen.Zz.
Some quotes from Propaganda (1928) by Edward Bernays:"Universal literacy was supposed to educate the common man to control his environment … But instead of a mind, universal literacy has given him rubber stamps, rubber stamps inked with advertising slogans, with editorials, with published scientific data, with the trivialities of the tabloids and the platitudes of history, but quite innocent of original thought.""Ours must be a leadership democracy administered by the intelligent minority who know how to regiment and guide the masses.""If you influence the leaders, either with or without their conscious cooperation, you automatically influence the group which they sway.""Political campaigns today are all sideshows, all honors, all bombast, glitter, and speeches."
Folks, it appears that "Fake News" is now passe and old news. It is now "Alternative Facts".Zz.
We have a huge problem with fake science news, and I think much of it is due to a corporate and political movement to keep the Americans ignorant.For example, we have fake news every day from the corporate media on the global warming issue. Just last week I heard a popular right-wing talk show host say that some heavy snowfall in parts of the country is yet more evidence that global warming is some kind of globalist hoax. They say things like "the climatologists hide the fact that their models have been wrong in recent years." Which models? Of course they never say. People hear lots of rubbish, but they do not hear that, according to NASA, 2016 was the hottest year on record.Another good example is that evolution is still controversial in American education. Here is a link to what has been going on in Texas. The problem is that Texas has a major influence on what textbooks become widely used in the USA as a whole. This is a part of the country where many people still want equal time in science class for evolution and creationism. Actually many religious people would prefer to teach only creationism.http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/science/2014/01/creationism_in_texas_public_schools_undermining_the_charter_movement.htmlI think this sort of antiscientific disinformation campaign is extremely dangerous. I care about this much more than about the latest fake news story about this or that candidate.
A recent news article that talks about the same topicQ&A: David Helfand on combating misinformation
Carl pretty well "nailed" the whole problem years ago in "The demon Haunted world". Lately as I peruse news I have done some serious revision on acceptable sources. Thanks for the Insights Zz, good show. :thumbup:
Davek, Yes, it is hard to believe for the very reasons you state.. Now depending on your political lean, you may want or not want to believe it, and that will (or should) be at odds with your desire to base your opinions on fact… Sadly, these days thought and fact are no longer required to form an opinion, whatever pulls on your heartstrings is good enough.For that, I appreciate PF.. I'm on a very rural, right wing forum and the last year was insufferable on there, despite the rules of "No politics"I am not a news junkie… I come across more than I need by accident.. most of the time I'm less than a week behind the times, and it really doesn't matter to me in the grand scheme of things…
[QUOTE="Greg Bernhardt, post: 5643039, member: 1"]How do you stay informed?[/QUOTE]Greg, I'm a news junkie, so I can appreciate what John101 said. I read all the news sites, CNN, Vox, HuffPo, Brietbart, Drudge, Fox, Townhall, American Thinker, etc. They all pretty much stink with regard to unbias (i.e. very good at bias). As I get older, I'm finding myself in John's camp. Staying informed only elevates the blood pressure, because of the foolishness on both sides. I have no inclination to become an activist for change Much of the foolishness doesn't affect me personally, so why get all out of sorts over it? I can only control how I react to it. In the large scheme of things, I can't say I see any value in "staying informed."Regards, Kevin
[QUOTE="Rx7man, post: 5649188, member: 583059"]#1 google hit for "False wikileaks claims" is this http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2016/oct/23/are-clinton-wikileaks-emails-doctored-or-are-they-/So yep, Tim Kaine questions it…Result #5.. though I don't think Heavy.com is an authoritative source, it seems well writtenhttp://heavy.com/news/2016/10/is-wikileaks-reliable-legal-illegal-biased-dnc-hacks-the-podesta-emails-russian-hackers-trump-putin/[/QUOTE]Wikileaks is a tough one for me. It seems to influence a lot of opinions, but it is at the same time is a kind of "inadmissible evidence." It's also a secondhand source of information, so it begs the question whether the original source is even valid. -Dave K
[QUOTE="Vanadium 50, post: 5649059, member: 110252"]Has anyone even claimed what has been posted about them is untrue?[/QUOTE]#1 google hit for "False wikileaks claims" is this http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2016/oct/23/are-clinton-wikileaks-emails-doctored-or-are-they-/So yep, Tim Kaine questions it…Result #5.. though I don't think Heavy.com is an authoritative source, it seems well writtenhttp://heavy.com/news/2016/10/is-wikileaks-reliable-legal-illegal-biased-dnc-hacks-the-podesta-emails-russian-hackers-trump-putin/
[QUOTE="Rx7man, post: 5648882, member: 583059"]On a different level, How do you verify what Wikileaks posts?[/QUOTE]Has anyone even claimed what has been posted about them is untrue?