{"id":2552,"date":"2011-03-07T11:11:09","date_gmt":"2011-03-07T16:11:09","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.scifisaturdaynight.com\/?p=2552"},"modified":"2011-03-07T11:11:09","modified_gmt":"2011-03-07T16:11:09","slug":"science-fiction","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"http:\/\/scifisaturdaynight.com\/?p=2552","title":{"rendered":"Science “Fiction”"},"content":{"rendered":"
\"\"

And now we go live to Chicken Little with "Science" News<\/p><\/div>\n

Everyone has pet peeves, and I’ll admit to having more than one myself.\u00a0 One at the top of my list is the\u00a0way that “facts” have become transient and separable when arguing a point or position;\u00a0to borrow\u00a0from the courtroom, what used to be “the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth” has\u00a0become “what you claim to be the truth, only those bits of the truth that support your position, and anything that sounds like it could be truthful.”\u00a0 Or to stay within the literary realm, “factual reporting”\u00a0is becoming downright Orwellian.<\/p>\n

In particular, for the SFSN audience, it galls me when bits of\u00a0science are taken completely out of context and used to “support” otherwise questionable claims–and associated science that argues against the interpretation is ignored or downplayed.\u00a0\u00a0I recently (within the last couple of days) came across two such instances–they are by no means\u00a0isolated, but they formed the basis for this rant, so they’re the ones I’ll point out.<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

In one case there\u00a0have been a number of alarmist articles related to the earthquake swarm that Arkansas is currently experiencing, all pointing the finger at natural gas horizontal drilling (hydraulic fracturing, or “fracking”) or the injection wells used to store the\u00a0waste water that the process uses (read more: Earthquakes in Arkansas May Be Man-Made, Experts Warn<\/a>).\u00a0 The evidence?\u00a0 Proximity of the drilling to the earthquake epicenters (ignoring the fact that drilling\u00a0takes place in many other parts of the state without any location-correlated earthquake activity)\u00a0and the scientific “fact” (having occurred once in the last 50 years) that injection wells could trigger\u00a0seismic activity.\u00a0 Injection wells are used by a wide range of industries and government, so one\u00a0instance in 50 years hardly constitutes a definitive causal relationship.\u00a0 And oh, let’s also ignore\u00a0the fact that there was a similar (but much larger in size) swarm of earthquakes in the same area (15 miles south) in\u00a01982–long before there was any natural gas drilling in the area. While I’m not discounting\u00a0the possibility the drilling activity contributes to what’s happening, the immediate jump to judgment\u00a0that there is<\/em> a causal relationship without any hard scientific proof is disturbing.<\/p>\n

\"The<\/p>\n

The second case happened as I was channel flipping and came across a program called Brad Meltzer’s Decoded<\/em> on The History Channel.\u00a0 While investigating the\u00a0Georgia Guidestones (read more: American Stonehenge: Monumental Instructions for the Post-Apocalypse<\/a>) the team visits an astronomer to talk about a “theory” they’d heard during their investigation that a huge solar flare would cause the end of the world in 2012.\u00a0 In the lead-in to this segment Meltzer himself says, in an ominous tone of voice, “On top of that NASA\u00a0recently predicted that the earth would see an increase in solar flare activity–in 2012.\u00a0 Tic toc, tic\u00a0toc.”\u00a0 In the discussion with the astronomer they talk about the flares and ask “So what’s the\u00a0concern, I read briefly about some kind of report by NASA there’s some worry about these?”, trying to tie it back to the earlier NASA report reference in the minds of viewers. In reality they referenced a different\u00a0report about Coronal Mass Ejections (based on the answer the astronomer gave; read more: Understanding coronal mass ejections<\/a>).\u00a0\u00a0When the\u00a0astronomer told them we were heading toward a normal solar maximum in 2012\/2013, the\u00a0investigator looked amazed, made a noise, and said “I’ve heard that number a lot”–making it\u00a0seem like 2012 was something “special”.\u00a0 No tie back to the first NASA report reference simply\u00a0being a report that a normal solar max would likely occur in 2012\/2013; no follow-up on solar\u00a0cycles and the fact these maxima happen periodically; nothing about the predictions that this\u00a0sunspot cycle will be one of the mildest in recent history\u00a0(read more: New Solar Cycle Prediction<\/a>).\u00a0 Just an\u00a0overall impression that a solar maximum the likes of which had never been seen before was\u00a0coming in 2012.<\/p>\n

The damage the selective use of science “fact” in both these cases causes is exacerbated by\u00a0the fact that science education in the US (in my opinion, anyway) has been severely watered\u00a0down (a rant for another time).\u00a0 In other than in isolated pockets, there is a population that is increasingly credulous when\u00a0they hear these arguments. People are willing to grant the patina of “supporting scientific evidence” to claims because they are unable to differentiate science from pseudo-science or science out of\u00a0context.\u00a0 Twisting the truth is bad enough, but using bits of science incorrectly to add “credibility”\u00a0to what are, at best, weak claims truly is worse. And when “bad science” is picked over “good science” to make a point that results in harm to society (e.g., the uproar over vaccinations and autism: see Study Linking Vaccines to Autism Is “Fraudulent”<\/a>), that’s just plain criminal.<\/p>\n

Share this:<\/h3>