Sorry, but I've had to bin a few comments lately.
Comments are a difficult issue. On the one hand, I think that an absence of mechanism for feedback is one of the besetting and egregious features that distinguishes propaganda from open rational discourse (and purporting to have such a mechanism, but only publishing friendly comments, is even worse). Therefore I have comments enabled.
On the other hand, I'm not letting that stance be misused to game the system: I'll reject posts containing personal insults, libel, copyright breaches and links to sites that breach copyright, comments used vehicles for linkspam, etc.
- Ray
Monday, 1 December 2008
Tuesday, 3 June 2008
Swamp gas from a weather balloon
"All right, Beatrice, there was no alien. The flash of light you saw in the sky was not a UFO. Swamp gas from a weather balloon was trapped in a thermal pocket and reflected the light from Venus." - Men in Black.An odd story came my way today, repeated with permission. Felix Grant tells me of unusual goings-on in Weston-super-Mare: a relative's child had phoned Felix at work to say that his younger sibling had been sent home from school, and the school closed, because a UFO had landed in the school field. "Black bugs had come out and were laying eggs and stuff; there were men in white suits everywhere." The children's mother had phoned the school, and took an hour to get through. When she eventually reached the head, he said the lines had been jammed by newspapers, TV stations, et al, calling the school for the story.
This was as far as Felix knew it. No signs in the local press. But I checked a little later and found in the Weston & Somerset Mercury this account: UFO sighting in Rowle:
A UFO was spotted high above Worle at the weekend.
Aliens were spotted running the grounds of Castle Batch Primary School in Rawlings Avenue.
Police, scientists in white protective suits and the press turned up to the site on Monday morning to see the area where a flying saucer had 'crash landed'.
The mock-up was all part of an exercise, organised by teacher Kate Gill, to get the youngsters at the school enthusiastic about writing.
Pupils were shown computer-generated images in assembly of a flying saucer above the school and a silver alien running through the grounds. The 450 youngsters then had to write about their experiences.
To a conspiracy theorist, this would be wonderful fodder: "a writing exercise" seems such a lame explanation that it sounds like a cover story. However, more likely, this has the look of accidental meme creation: an exercise in fiction that managed to escape from its intended confines.
The newspaper report is rather inexplicit about which bits were mock-up. Involving police, press and people in white suits sounds an implausibly elaborate and expensive way to float a topic for a primary school essay. Were these people part of the mock-up, or were they real-world services that turned up in response to children propagating a story that had become too effective a meme?
As I said, very odd. More later, if possible.
Tuesday, 11 March 2008
Strawberry meth myth
This has been widely reported, but deserves repetition: the BBC and others (see Police duped over fictional drug) have been caught out for repeating a hoax story about "strawberry meth", an alleged drug being distributed to schoolchildren. Some headteachers who received it even held special assemblies to pass it on. This has quite a strong resemblance to the old Blue Star Tattoos urban myth.
I'm sorry to say that that the accounts of this story repeatedly excuse the propagation as being "in good faith" (see here and other sources). I have run into this no end of times on calling bullshit on paranoid garbage being forwarded to me via e-mails whose senders failed to put brain into gear, and the senders invariably go into some defensive whine about it being in good faith.
"Good faith" is no excuse for being a total fuckwit and copying some scary story without engaging critical faculties. The policeperson and headteachers who passed this on deserve strong censure for failing to provide accurate information to those whom they are supposed to be protecting.
I'm sorry to say that that the accounts of this story repeatedly excuse the propagation as being "in good faith" (see here and other sources). I have run into this no end of times on calling bullshit on paranoid garbage being forwarded to me via e-mails whose senders failed to put brain into gear, and the senders invariably go into some defensive whine about it being in good faith.
"Good faith" is no excuse for being a total fuckwit and copying some scary story without engaging critical faculties. The policeperson and headteachers who passed this on deserve strong censure for failing to provide accurate information to those whom they are supposed to be protecting.
Wednesday, 13 February 2008
Cod equations again
From the BBC: How to make better decisions by Garth Sundem. This is presumably to hype yesterday's accompanying Horizon program (and Sundem's Geek Logik book - he has a couple of blogs too, here and here. If Sundem's BBC article is anything to go by, there's nothing to see , folks.
At your local pub, you have many beers to choose from. Which is best? If you are like most human beings, the answer is "the most expensive one."
Bollocks. Here's a sample beer tariff from a menu I did a while back: Carling £2.30 / 4X £2.10 / Guinness £2.60 / Stella £2.60 / Boddingtons £2.30 / Otter £2.40 / London Pride £2.40 / Abbot £2.40. By Sundem's theory, I should think Guiness or Stella to be best. No. I don't like stout, and generally think London Pride or Otter to be best because of the flavour, but I sometimes drink the least expensive, Carling, on hot summer days. It's simplifying to the point of nonsense to reduce a complex decision of taste, expense, time of year, and abv (e.g. one might like a strong beer for a single pint, or prefer a weaker and less expensive "session beer" if out for an evening) to "most expensive".
As described by the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle, by introducing tools to measure a situation
Nooo. This is a classic handwaving misapplication of the Uncertainty Principle, which is a precise mathematical relation between specific measurements at subatomic level. It is not a generic rule for macroscopic phenomena.
To add a layer of mathematics, if one factor on the list is more important than the others, we might multiply it by two. If it is very important, we could even square or cube it.
Again, handwaving. Even if an equation can be constructed, it is meaningless as an accurate description of the phenomenon modelled unless the dependence on different variables is actually measured and the precise power law investigated. Flinging an ad hoc multiple or power at a variable won't do that. This is even assuming that subjective variables such as R = amount of current relationship are meaningful quantities.
Unlike most of the PR and news story creators of cod equations, Gareth Sundem has sufficient mathematical nous to make equations that are mathematically well-formed and create plausible output. But they are still oversimplifications with no real justification for the variables chosen or the coefficients/powers applied to them. For example:
is supposed to describe a man's chances of success with approaching a woman. On what basis are the variables chosen? (W=Wittiness, G= Aggression, A = attractiveness, R = "amount" of relationship). Why the different coefficients 2 and 3 on male and female attractiveness? Why square R and divide it by 20? Not to mention the appallingly sexist assumption that unattractive women will be "easy".
In short, it's a bit of psychological candyfloss framed as mathematics. No harm in that; but the BBC shouldn't be presenting it as a serious scientific approach to decision-making.
At your local pub, you have many beers to choose from. Which is best? If you are like most human beings, the answer is "the most expensive one."
Bollocks. Here's a sample beer tariff from a menu I did a while back: Carling £2.30 / 4X £2.10 / Guinness £2.60 / Stella £2.60 / Boddingtons £2.30 / Otter £2.40 / London Pride £2.40 / Abbot £2.40. By Sundem's theory, I should think Guiness or Stella to be best. No. I don't like stout, and generally think London Pride or Otter to be best because of the flavour, but I sometimes drink the least expensive, Carling, on hot summer days. It's simplifying to the point of nonsense to reduce a complex decision of taste, expense, time of year, and abv (e.g. one might like a strong beer for a single pint, or prefer a weaker and less expensive "session beer" if out for an evening) to "most expensive".
As described by the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle, by introducing tools to measure a situation
Nooo. This is a classic handwaving misapplication of the Uncertainty Principle, which is a precise mathematical relation between specific measurements at subatomic level. It is not a generic rule for macroscopic phenomena.
To add a layer of mathematics, if one factor on the list is more important than the others, we might multiply it by two. If it is very important, we could even square or cube it.
Again, handwaving. Even if an equation can be constructed, it is meaningless as an accurate description of the phenomenon modelled unless the dependence on different variables is actually measured and the precise power law investigated. Flinging an ad hoc multiple or power at a variable won't do that. This is even assuming that subjective variables such as R = amount of current relationship are meaningful quantities.
Unlike most of the PR and news story creators of cod equations, Gareth Sundem has sufficient mathematical nous to make equations that are mathematically well-formed and create plausible output. But they are still oversimplifications with no real justification for the variables chosen or the coefficients/powers applied to them. For example:
is supposed to describe a man's chances of success with approaching a woman. On what basis are the variables chosen? (W=Wittiness, G= Aggression, A = attractiveness, R = "amount" of relationship). Why the different coefficients 2 and 3 on male and female attractiveness? Why square R and divide it by 20? Not to mention the appallingly sexist assumption that unattractive women will be "easy".
In short, it's a bit of psychological candyfloss framed as mathematics. No harm in that; but the BBC shouldn't be presenting it as a serious scientific approach to decision-making.
Thursday, 20 December 2007
Racehorse success in genes ... or not
Interesting how different news outlets interpret a story. The Telegraph's High price may not make champion horse reports an interesting result of a study by Alastair Wilson and Andrew Rambaut at the University of Edinburgh finding that stud fees are a poor marker for genetic quality of racehorses. The Guardian concludes And now the racing results ... 1st: Nurture, 2nd: Nature. The Times focuses on the small genetic component as crucial: 10% factor that makes a champion. Go figure.
None of the coverage mentions a further source of confusion: that the breeders themselves are unlikely to select stock optimally, due to working by outdated folk theories of horse genetics. This Pedigree Dynamics article, Conception and Misconceptions - A light hearted look at breeding theories of the past, look at some of them, mentioning how theories such as telegony and "mental impression" survived in the thoroughbred horse breeding industry well into the 20th century.
Even now, racehorse breeding is governed by many semi-empirical racehorse breeding theories that don't bear much relation to real-world genetics. For instance, some breeders place store in the "X factor" (possession of a Large Heart gene). Others rate the horse's heritage according to its place in the Bruce Lowe Family Numbers classification. Yet others go by Dosage (closeness of relationship to chefs-de-race, the relatively rare consistently winning stallions) or "nicking patterns" (the belief, debunked here, that particular pairs of bloodlines may be statistically identified as producing winners when mated); or even rules-of-thumb that smack of outright numerology ("a mare’s third foal, if born when the mare is seven years old, is the most likely to be a successful racehorse").
Given such a muddle of beliefs, it's unsurprising that nurture should turn out to be the dominant factor in racehorse success.
None of the coverage mentions a further source of confusion: that the breeders themselves are unlikely to select stock optimally, due to working by outdated folk theories of horse genetics. This Pedigree Dynamics article, Conception and Misconceptions - A light hearted look at breeding theories of the past, look at some of them, mentioning how theories such as telegony and "mental impression" survived in the thoroughbred horse breeding industry well into the 20th century.
Even now, racehorse breeding is governed by many semi-empirical racehorse breeding theories that don't bear much relation to real-world genetics. For instance, some breeders place store in the "X factor" (possession of a Large Heart gene). Others rate the horse's heritage according to its place in the Bruce Lowe Family Numbers classification. Yet others go by Dosage (closeness of relationship to chefs-de-race, the relatively rare consistently winning stallions) or "nicking patterns" (the belief, debunked here, that particular pairs of bloodlines may be statistically identified as producing winners when mated); or even rules-of-thumb that smack of outright numerology ("a mare’s third foal, if born when the mare is seven years old, is the most likely to be a successful racehorse").
Given such a muddle of beliefs, it's unsurprising that nurture should turn out to be the dominant factor in racehorse success.
Wednesday, 19 December 2007
BBC diet stories: more failure to investigate agendas
From the BBC recently: Medieval diets 'far more healthy', which links to an older item, Americans look to Jesus for diet. Spot the connection. They're both stories about diets attributed to doctors: the first, "Dr Roger Henderson ... a Shropshire GP"; the second, "Don Colbert, a Florida doctor". The problem is that this completely fails to explain to the reader where these sources are coming from.
Dr Roger Henderson is not just any old GP, but a media newspaper columnist and PR consultant, and as the ''Telegraph'' version of this story reports and you can read in the press release, Romans and Tudors were healthier than modern Britons, the research was commissioned by Lloydspharmacy. The thrust appears to be scare readers about cholesterol in the modern diet and, handily, Andy Murdock, Pharmacy Director for Lloydspharmacy has the remedy: "...it’s vital that people take whatever steps they can to reduce their chances of suffering modern conditions such as high cholesterol. To help people identify their level of risk we’ve launched a heart and cholesterol check at Lloydspharmacy".
Don Colbert is likewise not just any Florida doctor but a celebrity TV doctor/evangelist (see drcolbert.com) whose products include What Would Jesus Eat? The Ultimate Program for Eating Well, Feeling Great and Living Longer, the What Would Jesus Eat Cookbook and various associated supplements.
This was findable with trivial Googling, and in any case would be in the press releases behind the stories. Why does the BBC not report this? Perhaps it's policy and they think it makes the stories non-commercial. But it doesn't; omitting the commercial back-story makes those interests effectively covert, and hides from readers that they're being sold something.
Dr Roger Henderson is not just any old GP, but a media newspaper columnist and PR consultant, and as the ''Telegraph'' version of this story reports and you can read in the press release, Romans and Tudors were healthier than modern Britons, the research was commissioned by Lloydspharmacy. The thrust appears to be scare readers about cholesterol in the modern diet and, handily, Andy Murdock, Pharmacy Director for Lloydspharmacy has the remedy: "...it’s vital that people take whatever steps they can to reduce their chances of suffering modern conditions such as high cholesterol. To help people identify their level of risk we’ve launched a heart and cholesterol check at Lloydspharmacy".
Don Colbert is likewise not just any Florida doctor but a celebrity TV doctor/evangelist (see drcolbert.com) whose products include What Would Jesus Eat? The Ultimate Program for Eating Well, Feeling Great and Living Longer, the What Would Jesus Eat Cookbook and various associated supplements.
This was findable with trivial Googling, and in any case would be in the press releases behind the stories. Why does the BBC not report this? Perhaps it's policy and they think it makes the stories non-commercial. But it doesn't; omitting the commercial back-story makes those interests effectively covert, and hides from readers that they're being sold something.
Friday, 14 December 2007
Cod formula alert: perfect Christmas
From the Western Morning News (and I'm sure we'll see more of it elsewhere): Scientist sums up perfect Christmas: "A university mathematician has calculated a formula for the perfect Christmas - and it includes plenty of food and drink. Professor Rudi Dallos, from the University of Plymouth, has analysed what makes Christmas swing and produced the above equation".
You can see the formula at the original press release from the Cake Group. It's in aid of promoting a booklet from the Children's Society, Batteries Not Included, giving hints and tips for celebrating Christmas economically. It's in a good cause and can be defended as being lighthearted in intent.
Even so, this is a standard news story format - Google scientists formula perfect and see Formula for the perfect formula - based on the discovery, usually in some promotional context, of a claimed formula (often, as in this case, mathematically malformed) for some commonplace situation. It trivialises mathematics in the popular eye, and academics really ought to consider its effect on the reputation of their field before they sell out to this kind of fluff.
It's usually enlightening, when you see these formula stories in the press, to check out of the background and see who is trying to sell you what. This story is at least open about its agenda, but this is not always the case. For example, for the much-publicised "perfect bacon butty" story that appeared earlier this year, it's easy to find that this isn't some kind of blue-sky food science research at the University of Liverpool (as you might naively expect from the BBC's Scientists' 'perfect' bacon butty). The bacon research was conducted at the Food Chain Centre of Industrial Collaboration ("delivering the power of science to food and drink companies since 2004") and unsurprisingly commissioned by Danish Bacon.
Such checks are general good advice with "scientific discovery" stories. They can be genuine academic interest stories, but often they hide situations where even the researchers turn out to be selling the product the story reports. News reportage is lax if it fails to identify such a conflict of interest.
You can see the formula at the original press release from the Cake Group. It's in aid of promoting a booklet from the Children's Society, Batteries Not Included, giving hints and tips for celebrating Christmas economically. It's in a good cause and can be defended as being lighthearted in intent.
Even so, this is a standard news story format - Google scientists formula perfect and see Formula for the perfect formula - based on the discovery, usually in some promotional context, of a claimed formula (often, as in this case, mathematically malformed) for some commonplace situation. It trivialises mathematics in the popular eye, and academics really ought to consider its effect on the reputation of their field before they sell out to this kind of fluff.
It's usually enlightening, when you see these formula stories in the press, to check out of the background and see who is trying to sell you what. This story is at least open about its agenda, but this is not always the case. For example, for the much-publicised "perfect bacon butty" story that appeared earlier this year, it's easy to find that this isn't some kind of blue-sky food science research at the University of Liverpool (as you might naively expect from the BBC's Scientists' 'perfect' bacon butty). The bacon research was conducted at the Food Chain Centre of Industrial Collaboration ("delivering the power of science to food and drink companies since 2004") and unsurprisingly commissioned by Danish Bacon.
Such checks are general good advice with "scientific discovery" stories. They can be genuine academic interest stories, but often they hide situations where even the researchers turn out to be selling the product the story reports. News reportage is lax if it fails to identify such a conflict of interest.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
