Hi Bill,
Not enough time to comment in depth. I've been reminded already how far OT
this is.
You make many good points. I agree with virtually all of them. You are
correct, it is the sensationalism I am objecting to... when a member of the
scientific community is quoted however, I also reserve the right to decide
(in my mind) whether they are speculating Vs. speaking science.
My comments seem to have implied to many that I may have doubted the
existence of extra-solar planets, or the evidence thereof. That is not the
case. It is more the tone in which the announcements are made. The media
as you say, may be to blame for that. OTOH, the scientific community uses
the media as their mouthpiece, do they not?
Tom C.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Peifer, William [OCDUS]" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Tuesday, April 03, 2001 12:50 PM
Subject: RE: State of Science -- more interesting but OT stuff...
> Tom C. wrote:
> >I remember in the 70's (maybe before that) when the star Aldeberan
> >was one of the first stars suspected if having planets because of it's
> >wobble effect across the sky.
> [Snip....]
> >It is this wobble method of detection that I was referring to, that 20
> >years ago was only strong enough to be considered possible
> >evidence, but today is headlined as proof.
>
> Then Bob Blakely wrote:
> [A clear and concise reply on the underlying physics, snipped here
> for brevity....]
>
> Then Tom C. replied:
> >My point still is... Today the trend in the scientific community
> >seems to be increasingly towards stating theory or opinion as
> >proven scientific fact. It is a case of draw a conclusion, look for
> >evidence to support it, ignore evidence to the contrary. Essentially
> >the reverse of the true scientific method. Witness the Martian
> >meteorite ALH 84001.
> [Snip -- comments on ALH84001, Mars missions, etc....]
> >I would like to read more "we think", "mights" and "maybes", as
> >opposed to "scientific dogma".
>
> Hi Tom,
>
> Even though we're way off-topic, I can't help but respond to your comments
> on the state of science, just to offer the perspective of a formerly
active
> academic researcher in the physical sciences.
>
> But first some even further-off-topic comments on the search for
extra-solar
> planets, because this is a really cool research area. Just for the
record,
> that "wobbling" you're talking about (term probably coined by a
journalist,
> not an astonomer, I'd suspect) is not a wobble that anyone has detected in
> the *physical* position of any star, but rather a wobble in the
> *spectroscopic* position of particular absorption or emission lines in its
> spectrum. Huh??? You're familiar with the Doppler effect, where an
> approaching vehicle's siren has a slightly higher pitch than the same
siren
> on the same vehicle as it's speeding away from you, right? Same thing
> happens with light. Imagine a dim, distant object that is emitting a very
> pure color of light, of a very narrow distribution of wavelengths. Now
> imagine that you have a very high-resolution spectrograph -- an instrument
> that measures the wavelength of incoming light, as well as the width of
the
> very narrow distribution of wavelengths. You'd find that the wavelength
> would get a very tiny bit shorter when the object was moving toward you,
and
> would conversely get a very tiny bit longer when the object was moving
away
> from you. This is essentially how these extra-solar planets have been
> discovered to this point -- watch the positions of narrow spectral lines
> change over the time period of a presumed planetary rotation about the
star.
> The problem in doing this experiment is that you need a high-resolution
> instrument, and as you improve your resolution, you also decrease your
> signal. The practical details for performing this experiment have
improved
> greatly over the last twenty years, as Bob implies. Biggest advance has
> probably been in the development of highly sensitive CCD detectors. In
> fact, CCD cameras now available at moderate cost to amateurs provide the
> kind of performance from suburban backyards that was only attainable
twenty
> years ago at the most exclusive research observatories in the world's
> darkest sites.
>
> Now back to the off-topic subject of the state of science. I'd have to
take
> issue with you here. I think what you're seeing is the state of science,
> *as portrayed in the popular press*. I'd agree that this paints a pretty
> pathetic picture. There is a lot of glossed over crap in the popular
press,
> and I'd maintain that the level of scientific literacy in the US is pretty
> poor. Thus, you see things in the popular press like all the hyperbole
> surrounding ALH84001. (This isn't even the most extreme example. Do you
> remember all the hoopla in the popular press surrounding so-called "cold
> fusion" back in 1989? Aarrrgh!! And of course, the latest findings from
> the obscure-clinical-journal-du-jour, presented for your reading pleasure
as
> foregone conclusions? Baaah!!) However, in the primary peer-reviewed
> journals (the "real" academic literature) in the physical sciences anyway,
> it's quite difficult to define a conclusion, then be selective about what
> evidence you do or don't choose to present. That's not science of any
sort
> -- it's demagoguery. Not that it *never* happens, but within the confines
> of the publicly-funded scientific enterprise, it's rare. Your comments
> about NASA are interesting, and there are many who share your point of
view.
> None other than the Astronomer Royal of Britain, Martin Rees (how would
you
> like to have his job title??!!) has commented that NASA spends an awful
lot
> of money unnecessarily -- for instance, sending a manned shuttle crew to
fix
> the primary mirror problem on the Hubble Space Telescope, when a
replacement
> Hubble could have actually been built and launched for less money than
this
> repair mission cost. Don't get me wrong -- I like NASA, I think there is
a
> lot of value in many of NASA's missions, and I think many (but not all) of
> the dollars have been well-spent. However, many of NASA's missions are
> engineering missions, not science missions, and the public -- and Congress
> -- often does not understand the distinction.
>
> The real shame in academic research today is the drying up of public
> funding, and the increasing reliance on alternative funding sources.
> Academic researchers have had to hone their skills in grantsmanship,
> sometimes to the point of shameless huckstering. The slickness of the
> PowerPoint presentation now becomes as important as the underlying
science.
> Research results are sometimes published too soon by eager assistant
> professors anxious to get tenure, get more grant funding, or prevent
someone
> from beating them to a patent. Worst of all -- in my opinion at least --
> are university research programs that are now funded by private
> pharmaceutical companies. The company now owns the scientific research
and
> can control when -- and if -- research results see the light of day in the
> pages of scientific journals. And the safeguards of scientific peer
review
> are weakened when the Ph.D./M.D.'s who review the clinical research
> manuscripts are also stockholders in the companies paying for the
research.
>
> What can the public do? It's difficult, since science has become
> increasingly specialized and increasingly inaccessible. I suppose the
best
> one can do is to try to keep abreast, maintain a healthy sense of
> skepticism, and be particular about what you read. You're more likely to
> find scientific "we think", "mights", and "maybes" in the scientific
> literature than in the Sunday newspaper. I enjoy books from
> scientist-authors like John Gribbin, Martin Rees, Leon Lederman, the late
> Carl Sagan, the late Richard Feynman, and a few others. The books about
how
> academic science is practiced, or about the history and development of a
> particular field, are often as interesting as the underlying science
itself.
>
> Well, enough rambling. Perhaps we can get the perspective of an active
> researcher in the medicine? John Cohen, what do you think?
>
> Bill Peifer
> Rochester, NY
>
> -
> This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe,
> go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to
> visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
>
-
This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe,
go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to
visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
