Although this [the name God Particle for the Higgs Boson] has helped coverage of particle physics in the media, many physicists have criticized it for exaggerating the importance of that particle.
The above is regarding Higgs Boson, the so-called God particle, statement taken from an unimpeachable source.
So, media exaggerates. What’s new? Exaggeration of something truly exciting, like the Higgs Boson that supposedly imbues all the particles in the universe with mass, is understandable. Let me excuse the media in this instance. But, what about other instances?
Like what, you ask? Hopefully you have heard what happened to the scientists who discounted the possibility of an earthquake at L’ Aquila, Italy a few years ago, only to be hit by a big one. They have been dragged to the court. Why? Because the media (unfortunately aided by the official spokesperson) did not understand the science the scientists were explaining and put words into their mouth while reporting. And, it is the scientists who are being taken to task. Even that instance is remote.
What about the more recent – as recent as the earthquake off the coast of Indonesia and the blog SHORTCUTS (Philip Hoare) in The Guardian – report? The title of the post is, “Can whales predict tsunami?” To understand how media swim like a school of fish, let me point out that the report was picked up by The Hindu of April 17, under the same title. Reputation-wise The Guardian and The Hindu supposedly stand for sober reporting, and more relevantly, sympathetic to real science. Then, for me to read the blog post, first as picked up by The Hindu and later from The Guardian was most disturbing. I am in no mood to excuse the two newspapers.
I read the report repeatedly to find even a semblance of science in it. I failed. It was speculation, through and through. The whales “disappeared”, not prior to Atlas shrugging but after he did. One “fin whale accelerated away from the site of an underwater earthquake,” perhaps near Mexico, another sentence read. OK, but was it before or after the earthquake? Haven’t a clue. But, now, I want to speculate (if others can speculate, so can I) that had the fin whale sped away prior to the event, the news would have shaken the earth. It didn’t and therefore, it didn’t. Further therefore, there was no “prediction”. Isolated anecdotes, probably unreliable, don’t add up to much in the world of evidence-based science, or even in a statistical sense.
So, “Whence the title?” I asked The Hindu via a submission to its “Letters” space. A friend of mine told me that this would not see the light of day in the intended space and his prediction came true, better than the whale’s!
There is another sentence in the post that caught my eye: “Both the Japan and New Zealand earthquakes of last year were preceded by mass cetacean strandings on beaches in these respective islands.” That may vaguely resemble a prediction. But, it does not. I will explain why.
It is not an unusual occurrence, at least in New Zealand, that whales get beached during their migratory ocean voyages. Setting this aside, even if the quoted instances of cetacean beaching were to be taken to be a prediction, then every instance (at least statistically significant proportion) of mass beaching should be followed by an earthquake in the vicinity of the beaching. This is obviously not the case. Next, why only cetaceans? For the suggested “prediction” to gain credibility, something has to be explained: how are non-cetaceans handicapped in “predicting” earthquakes? Prediction cuts both ways – the happenings and the non-happenings.
The post goes on to imply a connection between canaries in coal mines and cetaceans in the ocean. This is most inappropriate. Canaries operate in a constrained location and their “predictions”, dying by asphyxiation in a cage, have become predictions. But cetaceans, in open seas or by beaching themselves, cannot validate their “predictions”. They will stay within quotes forever.
I come to the end of this post. Compare the Higgsian exaggeration, given at the beginning, with the cetaceans’ ones. In the former the cognoscenti do not approve of these. They think such exaggerations cloud the core issues, like the other particles carry equal importance in the Standard Model of particle physics. On the other hand, in the latter, the ill-informed, or more appropriately the manipulative media feeds into the mass hysteria, matched only by the occurrence of mass beaching, deliberately to cloud the issue in its own interest.
What is ironic is the science correspondent of the same paper, The Guardian, held a re-naming competition for the Higgs and adjudged the following as the best: “The champagne bottle boson”. This title obviously has near-zero resonance with everyone except the cognoscenti. It would not help sell newspapers. No wonder it never came alive and had no chance to be beached.
Raghuram Ekambaram
The above is regarding Higgs Boson, the so-called God particle, statement taken from an unimpeachable source.
So, media exaggerates. What’s new? Exaggeration of something truly exciting, like the Higgs Boson that supposedly imbues all the particles in the universe with mass, is understandable. Let me excuse the media in this instance. But, what about other instances?
Like what, you ask? Hopefully you have heard what happened to the scientists who discounted the possibility of an earthquake at L’ Aquila, Italy a few years ago, only to be hit by a big one. They have been dragged to the court. Why? Because the media (unfortunately aided by the official spokesperson) did not understand the science the scientists were explaining and put words into their mouth while reporting. And, it is the scientists who are being taken to task. Even that instance is remote.
What about the more recent – as recent as the earthquake off the coast of Indonesia and the blog SHORTCUTS (Philip Hoare) in The Guardian – report? The title of the post is, “Can whales predict tsunami?” To understand how media swim like a school of fish, let me point out that the report was picked up by The Hindu of April 17, under the same title. Reputation-wise The Guardian and The Hindu supposedly stand for sober reporting, and more relevantly, sympathetic to real science. Then, for me to read the blog post, first as picked up by The Hindu and later from The Guardian was most disturbing. I am in no mood to excuse the two newspapers.
I read the report repeatedly to find even a semblance of science in it. I failed. It was speculation, through and through. The whales “disappeared”, not prior to Atlas shrugging but after he did. One “fin whale accelerated away from the site of an underwater earthquake,” perhaps near Mexico, another sentence read. OK, but was it before or after the earthquake? Haven’t a clue. But, now, I want to speculate (if others can speculate, so can I) that had the fin whale sped away prior to the event, the news would have shaken the earth. It didn’t and therefore, it didn’t. Further therefore, there was no “prediction”. Isolated anecdotes, probably unreliable, don’t add up to much in the world of evidence-based science, or even in a statistical sense.
So, “Whence the title?” I asked The Hindu via a submission to its “Letters” space. A friend of mine told me that this would not see the light of day in the intended space and his prediction came true, better than the whale’s!
There is another sentence in the post that caught my eye: “Both the Japan and New Zealand earthquakes of last year were preceded by mass cetacean strandings on beaches in these respective islands.” That may vaguely resemble a prediction. But, it does not. I will explain why.
It is not an unusual occurrence, at least in New Zealand, that whales get beached during their migratory ocean voyages. Setting this aside, even if the quoted instances of cetacean beaching were to be taken to be a prediction, then every instance (at least statistically significant proportion) of mass beaching should be followed by an earthquake in the vicinity of the beaching. This is obviously not the case. Next, why only cetaceans? For the suggested “prediction” to gain credibility, something has to be explained: how are non-cetaceans handicapped in “predicting” earthquakes? Prediction cuts both ways – the happenings and the non-happenings.
The post goes on to imply a connection between canaries in coal mines and cetaceans in the ocean. This is most inappropriate. Canaries operate in a constrained location and their “predictions”, dying by asphyxiation in a cage, have become predictions. But cetaceans, in open seas or by beaching themselves, cannot validate their “predictions”. They will stay within quotes forever.
I come to the end of this post. Compare the Higgsian exaggeration, given at the beginning, with the cetaceans’ ones. In the former the cognoscenti do not approve of these. They think such exaggerations cloud the core issues, like the other particles carry equal importance in the Standard Model of particle physics. On the other hand, in the latter, the ill-informed, or more appropriately the manipulative media feeds into the mass hysteria, matched only by the occurrence of mass beaching, deliberately to cloud the issue in its own interest.
What is ironic is the science correspondent of the same paper, The Guardian, held a re-naming competition for the Higgs and adjudged the following as the best: “The champagne bottle boson”. This title obviously has near-zero resonance with everyone except the cognoscenti. It would not help sell newspapers. No wonder it never came alive and had no chance to be beached.
Raghuram Ekambaram
4 comments:
you are right
media serves the cause of science by discrediting it.LOL
You mean DS sir that science should take this stupidity of the media to heart and work against it? :) :)
Thanks.
RE
Raghuram, I read your blog three times. I don't know how much I've understood. But I'd like to see the media, particularly the Guardian and the Hindu, to promote science in a manner that a layperson can understand it and as a layperson SHOULD understand it.
I really don't like science meddling with god-particles. Can there be a god at all? If science gives even the faintest attention to that concept called god, I think science is demeaning itself.
Matheikal, I had been NET incommunicado for the past three days; hence the delayed response (not that this adds anything to what you have said). When a disbelieving scientist uses the word "God" it is typically in the sense of saying "To hell with you," in anger. The God particle, it is speculated, was the first instance of differentiation in the EARLIEST moments of the universe (which itself is a source of much disputes). The difference is the ground state of Higgs field is not the lowest level. When the field is perturbed it reaches a level lower that is stable and this when Higgs Boson emerges. This initial kick may be taken as the beginning of the universe (all of these in pure, unadulterated layman terms). This is why the best alternative to "God Particle" was taken as "Champagne bottle boson". The bottom of the bottle has a convex upwards curvature, something to imagine the Higgs field at the first instance.
Now, about science being made more intelligible to non-scientists. This is not an easy matter, particularly if one does not want to pollute the message beyond repair. Many people are at it and are successful, beyond the usual suspects. But, the response from the society to put in the initial effort is lacking. Popularizing science cannot start at the level of 1+1 = 2. While your criticism is valid, you may also want to look at the other side. Indeed, you are the best to bring a sense of balance because you have read this post many times and have put in the effort. This is pretty much what I do with the literary stuff. That made me feel good about myself!
Thanks.
RE
Post a Comment