Thread: Fantasy or fact? Board: Oblivion / Ship of Fools.
To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=70;t=024243
Posted by shamwari (# 15556) on
:
I have been watching a programme on otters produced by the BBC. A genre spawned by David Attenborough.
What annoys me is that a surmise in one sentence is then presented as a fact in the next. And we are duped.
The surmises might be right. But there can be no proof. They might equally well be pure guesswork.
Which seems to me to be in the same category as some Christians when they speak of "answers to prayer". "God" is introduced into the story-line as though what happened is incontrovertibly His action in response to our reque st.
I am cynical and doubtful of both the David Attenborough and the God interpretations when they are presented as indisputable facts.
Any shipmates feel the same?
Posted by Sergius-Melli (# 17462) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by shamwari:
I have been watching a programme on otters produced by the BBC. A genre spawned by David Attenborough.
What annoys me is that a surmise in one sentence is then presented as a fact in the next. And we are duped.
The surmises might be right. But there can be no proof. They might equally well be pure guesswork.
Which seems to me to be in the same category as some Christians when they speak of "answers to prayer". "God" is introduced into the story-line as though what happened is incontrovertibly His action in response to our reque st.
I am cynical and doubtful of both the David Attenborough and the God interpretations when they are presented as indisputable facts.
Any shipmates feel the same?
Whilst I understand the difficulties that must be associated with producing a factual programme to fit into an hour, this is a problem I have all the time where propositions are ten presented as 'facts' without any evidence being presented to support the leap. I'm sorry that I can't provide you with any examples - the moment I hear this kind of thing happening I turn off the programme and forget it since it is shoddy education - although I didn't watch all of hte programme (I was catching up on some old NCIS I recorded earlier in the day) I saw some of the programme you're on about and was wondering which bit you are talking about, look for it on iPlayer later.
Posted by shamwari (# 15556) on
:
An example. The presenter sat with half a dozen test tubes filled with otter dung,
And magisterially pronounced that a smell of this stuff was enough for otters to tell whether the dropee was 8 or 10 years old, sexually active or not and whatever.
Could it be that the dropee just pooped as a function of nature without the elaborate meanings attached to the droppings.
When I go to the loo I would be very surprised if what I dropped was analysed to determine my age or sexual proclivities or whatever.
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by shamwari:
Could it be that the dropee just pooped as a function of nature without the elaborate meanings attached to the droppings.
I assume that the sniffer could tell these things not because the pooper attached meaning to them, but because of chemicals in the pooper's body that came out in the dung?
Posted by Firenze (# 619) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by shamwari:
When I go to the loo I would be very surprised if what I dropped was analysed to determine my age or sexual proclivities or whatever.
No, well I don't suppose anyone is making a wildlife documentary about you.
But the production of
Pheromones by various species has been widely studied. I'm sure if your average otter was capable of putting a small ad in Riverside News saying 'Mature M, GSOH, own holt, seeks fun-loving F, object whelps' he would. But the option is not on the whole available to our fellow-mammals, so, yes, they variously secrete all over the place in order to put the word out.
Frankly, I'm still inclined to trust David Attenborough's (OM, CH, CVO, CBE, FRS, FZS, FSA) knowledge of biology over yours.
Posted by Kwesi (# 10274) on
:
I guess the problem lies in distinguishing scientific "facts" from scientific "theories". In the example given, it may well be the case that a biologist in a laboratory examining otter faeces can tell the age and degree of sexual activity of the animal being considered, what he cannot demonstrate so easily is that another animal of the same species can come to the same conclusion without the benefit of scientific analysis. It may well be that Shamwari's faeces could be scientifically analysed in the same manner as an ottar's, but one doubts that a human female assailed with the aroma could assess his suitability for mating. It was Popper, I think, who held the view that proper scientific theories could only be such as long as they were capable of refutation, and that most (if not all) theories are ultimately refuted as new facts spawned by the theories no longer sustain them. As far as Attenborough is concerned, enjoy the pictures and take the speculation with a huge dose of salt. Remember that TV programmes, even when posing as factual, are all about entertainment.
Posted by SusanDoris (# 12618) on
:
I've listened to many Nature programmes over the years and am constantly amazed at andd deeply respectful of the knowledge that people have of particular creatures. They know every detail of, for example, a particular butterfly or bird and are, whether amateur or professional, real experts. I bet there are people whose observations and notes of otters over the years have produced good, reliable evidence of the behaviour David Attenborough was referring to. And of course people like him would be the first to acknowledge they were wrong about something were better evidence to be produced.
Posted by ken (# 2460) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by shamwari:
An example. The presenter sat with half a dozen test tubes filled with otter dung,
And magisterially pronounced that a smell of this stuff was enough for otters to tell whether the dropee was 8 or 10 years old, sexually active or not and whatever.
That's because people have done the research. And even before we did the research hunters and gamekeepers have known it for a long time. Google "spraints".
And the research is documented and referenced. If you were really intersted you could follow them up and find out exactly why at least some scientists believe those things.
quote:
When I go to the loo I would be very surprised if what I dropped was analysed to determine my age or sexual proclivities or whatever.
You can't tell that by smelling your dung, but if you had a dog they could tell.
Posted by Sergius-Melli (# 17462) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
quote:
And the research is documented and referenced. If you were really intersted you could follow them up and find out exactly why at least some scientists believe those things.
It would be nice of them to make a brief mentionsomewhere of this research, where the evidence comes from... whilst I acknowledged the difficulties of shoving an entertaining and educational programme into an hour, it would be good educational and academic practice to present some of the main sources in the end credits...
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Kwesi:
In the example given, it may well be the case that a biologist in a laboratory examining otter faeces can tell the age and degree of sexual activity of the animal being considered, what he cannot demonstrate so easily is that another animal of the same species can come to the same conclusion without the benefit of scientific analysis.
Why do you think dogs sniff trees before they pee on them? It's to see which other dogs have been peeing there lately.
Posted by Kwesi (# 10274) on
:
Marvin the Martian quote:
Why do you think dogs sniff trees before they pee on them? It's to see which other dogs have been peeing there lately.
How do you know that?
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Kwesi:
Marvin the Martian quote:
Why do you think dogs sniff trees before they pee on them? It's to see which other dogs have been peeing there lately.
How do you know that?
Thanks to the observations of biologists through the years.
It can be tested, you know. Take the urine from a bitch in heat and spray it onto the trees near you, and watch how the dogs react. Cats do it too, which is why you can keep the buggers out of your garden by using another cat's urine to mark it as "your" territory.
Posted by Anselmina (# 3032) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Kwesi:
Marvin the Martian quote:
Why do you think dogs sniff trees before they pee on them? It's to see which other dogs have been peeing there lately.
How do you know that?
Isn't it generally well-known scientifically through long observation and analysis? I can't tell you the laws of physics but I know they're there and can be proved. I've a friend who calls the dog-pee trails 'wee-mails', and our mutts are checking their messages.
Peeing as far up the wall or lamp-post indicates domination; as does peeing over someone else's 'message'. Observation and analysis has made this common knowledge for a long time. Besides any dog-owner'll tell you no dog actually needs to pee at every corner, tuft and post to dispel urine - so the sexual and social 'message' related by a few drops of pee obviously have great significance in other directions.
Dogs are also pretty clued in to human crotch activity because of the sexual information available. They may not intellectually analyze their interest, but their gift of smell ensures they're adept at chemical scents even if they don't know what they mean.
Also, it does rather make sense that animals are acute at figuring out, at least instinctively, what urine and faeces says about others in the area. They're not going to meet and get to know each other in the singles bar; and there's no social network where they can find out who lives where, and what constitutes the pack, and how strong it is.
Lamp-posts and trees are like facebook, I suppose, to our furry friends!
Posted by Sarumriterules (# 16032) on
:
I have a horrible vision of clergy sniffing each others' bottoms...
Posted by The Rhythm Methodist (# 17064) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by shamwari:
What annoys me is that a surmise in one sentence is then presented as a fact in the next. And we are duped.
The surmises might be right. But there can be no proof. They might equally well be pure guesswork.
Yes, there is a lot of it about. One of the great proponents of this methodology, was Hal Lindsay - author of the The Late, Great Planet Earth. He could take a piece of scripture - add a speculative interpretation - and, by the next chapter, this would have become fact. Then would come the next layer of speculation, which would also become fact, and so on....until we could identify the antiChrist, or work out the disposition of Soviet tanks come Armageddon.
Of course, the chances of being wrong multiply with each succesive layer....but it is nonetheless possible to make utter drivel look plausible through this means, as each step is not unreasonable in the light of the one which preceded it.
To my shame, I have done this myself....though only out of my heartfelt commitment to mischief.
I once used this process to completely convince an otherwise intelligent lady that Adolf Hitler spent 18 months playing left-back for Sheffield Wednesday. Ludicrous, perhaps, but here's the process: I just took something she knew, and built upon it. She knew Hitler had been an art student. The story went, that he was determined to pursue this vocation despite initial failure. Unable to gain admittance to a college on the continental mainland, he was eventually accepted by an institution in Yorkshire. While here, he fell in love with the national game, and had a succesful trial with The Wednesday. He played in a defensive role for 18 months, and - but for an unfortunate collision with a Preston North End winger (which resulted in a compound fracture) - he may never have returned to the Fatherland, and the history of the world would have been different.
This lady went round sharing this interesting 'fact' with anyone who would listen. It was only my growing sense of guilt which forced me to put the record straight.
I don't think she was especially dumb. I think this process gets used rather a lot - not just on the TV, but in all manner of situations. It's probably responsible for quite a few of the world's cults, as well!
Posted by Anselmina (# 3032) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Sarumriterules:
I have a horrible vision of clergy sniffing each others' bottoms...
What peculiar visions you have.
I'm glad to say the clergy I know universally resort to speech when it comes to communication. If there's any interest in another clergy bottom, they have the good manners to keep it to themselves ![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
.
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
I saw Chris Packham discuss the various examples of spraints in the studio, and others were looking at them outdoors, (in the programme, 'Springwatch Guide to Otters'). I thought his remarks were a reasonable condensation, and it would be odd to add references to scientific papers in the middle of a programme like that. Generally, I find Packham to be well researched on matters like this, and I doubt that he would simply say something off the top of his head. Of course, it's not impossible that a presenter could be too casual.
There seems to be current research on the scents produced by otters, and the possible information contained therein.
http://chemse.oxfordjournals.org/content/36/6/555.short
[ 21. December 2012, 14:14: Message edited by: quetzalcoatl ]
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
I'm sorry, I've just realized that the whole paper is available online, not just the abstract.
http://chemse.oxfordjournals.org/content/36/6/555.full.pdf+html
Posted by Sergius-Melli (# 17462) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
I saw Chris Packham discuss the various examples of spraints in the studio, and others were looking at them outdoors, (in the programme, 'Springwatch Guide to Otters'). I thought his remarks were a reasonable condensation, and it would be odd to add references to scientific papers in the middle of a programme like that. Generally, I find Packham to be well researched on matters like this, and I doubt that he would simply say something off the top of his head. Of course, it's not impossible that a presenter could be too casual.
There seems to be current research on the scents produced by otters, and the possible information contained therein.
http://chemse.oxfordjournals.org/content/36/6/555.short
Which is why I have suggested above for such refrences to be included in the end credits - although I suppose a refrence to a website where all the refrences are organised and stored for public viewing would be a good solution to the problem as well...
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
It's possible that Chris Packham would be amenable to research papers being referenced online somewhere, on the BBC. One thing I like about him is that he does refer to up to the minute research. I doubt if he would refer to this as 'facts', as he is scientifically trained.
To have them listed at the end of a programme would be a bit of a scramble!
See Kean, Muller and Chadwick, 'Otter Scent signals Age, Sex and Reproductive Status', Chemical Senses, 2011, 36 (6): 555-64.
Gulp.
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
I had a look again at the programme. At about 40 minutes, Packham does say, picking up a tube full of spraint, 'an otter could tell from this if it was male or female, if it was 5, 6, 7, years old, if it was sexually mature, and if sexually active'. Then he does a characteristic jokey thing, 'he could tell if he's had a fish marsala'.
I think this is acceptable in popular science programmes. OK, it is not a phraseology you would get in a research paper, but so what?
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
Have tweeted Packham, to suggest a list of scientific references. He is fairly chatty, so will probably reply.
Posted by Sergius-Melli (# 17462) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Have tweeted Packham, to suggest a list of scientific references. He is fairly chatty, so will probably reply.
Jolly good.
Posted by Pre-cambrian (# 2055) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Then he does a characteristic jokey thing, 'he could tell if he's had a fish marsala'.
I'm sure he could. Given the amount many humans fart after a curry so probably could we, even with our inadequate noses.
Posted by Kwesi (# 10274) on
:
Anselmina quote:
Isn't it generally well-known scientifically through long observation and analysis? I can't tell you the laws of physics but I know they're there and can be proved.
quetzalcoatl quote:
I doubt if he would refer to this as 'facts', as he is scientifically trained.
It was not my intention to be a flat-earther, but rather to raise the standard of scepticism and the cause of systematic doubt in relation to scientific (or other) 'facts'. I'm sure most scientists cringe at the way popularisers present their material, as if it were somehow irrefutable, not subject to caveats and probability, or challenged or questioned by other scientists in their field. Knowledge usually increases when what is "well-known scientifically" is challenged and shown to be less secure in its assumptions and conclusions than had been thought. In relation to the significance of otter faeces I guess I take it on trust that Kean, Muller and Chadwick are researchers of integrity and that their peer reviewers have applied rigorous criteria in assessing their paper(s). The case of Sir Cyril Burt's discredited research on identical twins, and his institutional power in the field psychiatry that enabled him to exercise considerable control in the debate on such matters, however, should ever be kept in mind. The current debate on the causes of global warming is bedevilled by commercial special interests, on the one hand, and the need to sustain public funding on the other. Scientific research and its conclusions is often less disinterested and objective than one would like to think.
As to the assertion: "I can't tell you the laws of physics but I know they're there and can be proved," I think there is a great deal to be said. Not being a scientist, I'm aware of treading on shaky ground, but are not "laws of physics" dependent on a paradigm, coherent system, or theory of understanding, that can only be proved in terms of that perception. Newton may have revealed the laws of nature, but have not his laws been subject to revision? And have not Einstein's theories regarding the speed of light been recently questioned? What do we know? And how do we know it?
Is it not often the case the more one knows about something the more one is uncertain about one's knowledge of it? Should not that be the major object of popular education?
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
Good points. But I still think Chris Packham is entitled to present a popularized version of current research. In fact, I welcome the fact that he does, as his enthusiasm for current research is well known, and often adds to popular programmes, and takes them away from the sentimental, aw, aren't they cute, style of presentation. Well, a bit of that is OK too.
I agree that science is always provisional; in fact, there is the old joke that it is always wrong. But surely a philosophical discussion about scientific method belongs to another programme, not Springwatch!
Posted by ken (# 2460) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Sergius-Melli:
It would be nice of them to make a brief mentionsomewhere of this research, where the evidence comes from...
Ongoing problem with science journalism. Almost all science journalism, in print as well as on TV. It usually starts with people who know what they are talking about anbd why referencs are important, but byt the time it gets into print its passed through the hand sof at least one ignoramus who doesn't understand, and strips out any useful references to save space or to build up "human interest"
Just about the onbly regular exceptions to this in UK papers are the Graunidna and the Economist - and even they get it wrong quite often - and surprisingly, the free paper called "The Metro", which has one or two decent popular science articles every week.
quote:
Originally posted by The Rhythm Methodist:
I once used this process to completely convince an otherwise intelligent lady that Adolf Hitler spent 18 months playing left-back for Sheffield Wednesday.
Its people like you that make it hard to tell people that Vincent van Gogh lived in Brockley for a while (he really did) and drank in one of our local pubs in Lewisham (he almost certainly did). They think we're having them on!
Or the cunical skeptic who wouldn't bel;ive me whne I dai that diesel engines were invented by Rudolf Diesel after I'd told them about Felix Wankel, inventer of the Wankel engine.
Posted by The Rhythm Methodist (# 17064) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Ken:
....after I'd told them about Felix Wankel, inventer of the Wankel engine.
Wasn't he the guy who replaced the conventional up and down stroke, with the smooth rotary action....shortly after he was capped as goalkeeper for Northern Ireland?
Posted by Justinian (# 5357) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by The Rhythm Methodist:
quote:
Originally posted by Ken:
....after I'd told them about Felix Wankel, inventer of the Wankel engine.
Wasn't he the guy who replaced the conventional up and down stroke, with the smooth rotary action....shortly after he was capped as goalkeeper for Northern Ireland?
I thought the fans were meant to be chanting "The referee's a Wankel"...
© Ship of Fools 2016
UBB.classicTM
6.5.0