When I put in a complaint the other day regarding an extraordinarily biased tv report about cattle in national parks a twitter follower asked if I would have complained if the bias had been the other way. Made me consider the question for a moment.
The answer of course is “no”, but why? Remember Carl Sagan’s comment that “Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proofs”? Which is why there was such interest in the “faster than light neutrinos” the other day. That claim illustrated the Sagan idea – it has to be checked and rechecked, duplicated and reduplicated (and hasn’t yet been, so it is not an extraordinary proof and is probably wrong).
Which brings me back to the question of “balance” in a story in the media. An “ordinary” claim doesn’t require balance. Earth is round, species evolve, there is no imaginary friend, the planet is warming as a result of human activity, Elvis Presley is dead, chocolate and red wine are good for you? Go for it, make your program, I’ll watch it, no problems.
But if your schtick is that vaccination is bad for you, cigarettes good for you, the moon landings were fake, a picture of Jesus has appeared on a piece of toast, there is no global warming, cattle are good for the alpine environment, etc, etc, etc, then you had damn well better present the other side of the argument or at least indicate its existence, or I’ll be down on you before you can say “Media Watch”.
To paraphrase Sagan, extraordinary claims require a balanced tv program. Which brings me to the second part of a modern recipe for accurate television – we need to be told the affiliations of the person making the program, or speaking during a segment, or writing a newspaper column, or a blog.
Affiliations that have no bearing on an argument in hand are irrelevant. Someone who is a member of a football club, and who comments on, say, environmental issues, has no obligation to reveal that they are a Collingwood supporter. Nor would someone who went to a particular church, had a hobby involving antique furniture, or whose place of work was a hospital.
On the other hand if the topic being addressed was poker machines or liquor licences then football club membership would almost certainly be relevant. As would the other interests be if the topics were private school subsidy, import duties, or health funding.
We live in times where people go to great lengths to hide affiliations that are relevant. Hence the rise and rise of right wing think tanks with bland titles and hidden funding sources. Hence the rise of “astro turf” protest groups, apparent movements arising spontaneously as a result of public anger or concern, in reality carefully created by billionaires, or conservative politicians, or media shock jocks. Hence the rise of commentators with, like the think tanks, bland meaningless names like “social commentator”. Hence the rise of political parties with apparently meaningful names “People for the Forest” say, or “Responsible Climate Change Action” which will turn out to be parties started by forestry and coal companies respectively, with a policy of cutting down trees and burning coal.
So I am very careful to look at the affiliations of people I am seeing and hearing these days, want to know if their background is ordinary or extraordinary in some way. But does it matter, won’t their arguments, if valid, stand alone, fail if not? Well, yes, it does.
Physics has to be time and geography independent. That is, whenever and wherever you perform an experiment the results should be potentially the same. This is also true of other sciences, with obvious variations in biological science. What should also be true is that science is ideology independent. That is, if you read, or hear, a paper by a scientist, whatever their background, it will be the results that count (while recognising that interpretations can vary in all kinds of ways).
But outside of science it matters greatly. If I read something by, for the sake of argument, George Pell, I am reading something by someone who is not merely a Catholic but who has so much absorbed and accepted Catholic teachings as to be Cardinal and head of church in Australia. When he pontificates then, on issues such as gay marriage, contraception, abortion, church school funding, religion in the classroom, I don’t read his words as being the result of independent research and analysis to reach a carefully considered position, but as simply a statement of church dogma.
Similarly if I read, hear, material on the economy from a libertarian free market think tank funded by big business, I am quite sure I won’t be reading any Keynesian economics, or support for socialism, or for action on environmental issues. In addition, on more particular issues, where the tank has funding from, say, energy companies or tobacco companies, I know I won’t be reading research supporting climate change action or reduction in cigarette promotion.
I really don’t want to know what clubs think about problem gamblers, foresters about tree felling, pubs about alcohol, evangelicals about evolution, psychics about the supernatural, irrigators about water, nuclear spokespeople about nuclear safety, billionaires about taxation, shooters about gun safety, libertarians about public service, warmongers about war. So when people appear, right there on my tv, making statements about such things, I really do want to know where they are coming from. If someone with no axe to grind has done independent research which shows that more forest can be cut down, fine, I’ll listen to your arguments, examine your data. But if you are an employee of a pulp mill forget it.
A scientist approaches a question in the spirit of the old legal oath – “The truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth” – following the data to see where it leads, what the answer to the question is, however it might conflict with, contradict, the hypothesis the scientist began with. An ideologue (of whatever kind), or someone paid by ideologues or interest groups, does the opposite of this, they start with the answer, the truth as revealed by, say, Hayek or Benedict, and they set about investigating the data in order to obtain that answer. What else could it do, it is the truth, the whole truth, and there is nothing else but that truth? Whether they know it or not, people who start with an answer instead of a question are driven by their ideology.
Look this is not to say there are not scientists with ideology that warps their science. Most notoriously in evolution and climate change. It is usually easy to recognise because of their strong links with religious groups or libertarian think tanks (climate change being the biggest challenge ever posed to the mad-brained libertarian ideology). In some it can be more subtle though, representing political mind-sets more inclined to accept one analysis than another (an example in my own field of research being the role of fire in Australian ecosystems). With so much money around these days for those willing to argue against climate change, or gambling reform, or plain packaging of cigarettes, it is not surprising that a scientist of a certain ideological tendency can be tempted to turn a blind eye to some results, or present other results in the way most favourable to his or her employers. Or even without money, argue strongly for something which forms a fundamental part of their political or religious world view.
Obviously we all approach issues with predispositions influenced in some way by our family background, schooling, personal circumstances and so on. We are all ideological creatures to some extent. Me no less than others. In the ordinary scheme of things this doesn’t matter. I may want some research outcome to match my own belief about, say education strategies, but if it doesn’t I would shrug and say well, isn’t that interesting. My “ideology”, such as it is, doesn’t tell you much about what I write except in a negative sense – I am an atheist, I am vaguely left of political centre with an interest in the environment, I belong to no political party, I am not employed by any think tank, I have no financial vested interest in political outcomes. Judge what I say, the logic of my arguments, the quality of my data. I guess my outlook is coloured by my background, but good luck working out how. And that would be true of a very big proportion of ordinary people writing, blogging, appearing on tv, voting in elections.
But where it is not true I bloody well want to know before I invite you into my living room or on to my computer screen. Okay? That’s not so extraordinary is it?
We all come from somewhere, influenced by our environments and those that shared them. We shouldn’t be ashamed of that and happy to admit it to any interested party. Prejudice comes with the person – nice when they admit it.
Good points David! We agree.
Please consider being so ideological about the “scientist’s oath.” Some of those guys can twist the data no matter what group they’re linked to.
Yes but Eric pardon me if I am guessing you have your black hats and white hats mixed up when it comes to climate change or evolution scientists.
Good post, David. Understanding vested interests and context is indeed important to an informed, participatory, critical democracy. But we must constantly weigh up the real relevance of people’s affiliations – every board and council I’ve served on has forced me to examine my own and declare any that might be perceived to be a conflict of interest.
Think tanks funded by Big Tobacco are easy to identify as in need of transparency (not that you’ll get it, of course). Advocates and activists informed by religious (or atheist) views, history of sexual abuse, or having been raised in a wealthy or disadvantaged household will not only often find it more difficult to identify their own biases, the public must ask itself what our right to know really is. In the case of Pell, of course his Catholicism is relevant as he is a spokesperson for the church. But your Catholic neighbour should have no similar compulsion to declare their affiliation in a discussion about sex before marriage unless they’re making an argument based on biblical teachings, surely? Public advocates I suppose fall somewhere in the middle of this question.
I fully agree with you on the need for more transparency about conflicts of interest and institutional bias. But I would strongly caution against going down the path where our right to privacy, and our right not to be denigrated for our views and affiliations, are forfeited.
Only you, tammois, could find it necessary to caution David as you do in your last sentence.
It is a requirement of the Christian religion that its followers live in accordance with its tenets. Therefore any Christian who claims that their religion doesn’t affect their moral views is denying his or her faith, because the faith demands that everything in the follower’s life is determined by Christian tenets.
First rate post David.
I really like your post, David. I think this bit in particular is really on the money: “I may want some research outcome to match my own belief about, say education strategies, but if it doesn’t I would shrug and say well, isn’t that interesting. I think that good faith and openness to learning you describe is central to a civil society.
@Jennifer, I don’t accept that Christianity is as monolithic as your comment indicates; there has been and continues to be substantial disagreement within groups of Christians about what their religion actually requires of them,that’s why there are schisms and sects and a Rainbow Sash movement within the Catholic Church and a Movement for the Ordination of Women within the Anglican Church, for example.
And if anyone has the slighted interest in my religious views I am a pantheist and was brought up in a family of lapsed Catholics:)
http://blogs.crikey.com.au/purepoison/2012/01/09/elsewhere-what-exactly-is-the-point-of-the-drum-publishing-opinion-from-the-actual-politicians/
In comment #1 Cuppa, a regular commentater at Crikey/Pure Poison, lists some 200 appearances on the ABC’s “The Drum/Unleashed” outlets by propagandists from the extreme right wing Institute for Public Affairs.
I must say I was surprised by that number, being even larger than I expected. The plethora of ultra right wing views that come to us from the mass media, including sadly the once credible ABC, results in an imbalance of input to discussion in Oz to the point where we are being deliberately mis-informed.
We badly need some real balance in our media.
David, Please remember that your sound arguments and reliable data have changed my mind about warming. I’m still learning from you about evolution science. So, while my hats may be somewhat confused, I’m not too stubborn or prideful to put on a hat that fits!
Eric I agree with Fred, it does.
Just to pick up on one point (leaving aside time, 3500 billion years is an enormous stretch when you consider (a) the changes that have occurred in geography over that time and (b) the changes you can get at species level in even a few hundred years) about “transitional species”. This is a common misunderstanding. Every generation of a species is transitional between the previous and the next. Depending on a rate of evolution in a particular case those generations may show more or less difference. But it is all gradual over time, there aren’t individual “transitional species” in the sense you mean. But because we obviously don’t find as fossils every individual of every generation the ones we do find will seem to be steps along a ladder. And there are many many examples of species which represent what are “intermediate” stages between different kinds of animals and plants at higher and lower taxonomic levels. Sorry, that’s hard to explain briefly. Not least because the other part of evolution the creationists conveniently ignore is speciation – the result of geographic separation.
The Mary White book is good. I also like Richard Dawkins “The greatest show on Earth” where he sets out clearly and simply why we know evolution has occurred and the evidence. Whatever you think about Dawkins and atheism, he is a brilliant biology teacher and in ths book he is at his best.
Anything by Stephen Jay Gould is also good – he writes individual stories illustrating particular things rather than Dawkins’ overall narrative.
If you have more questions after that I’m happy to answer them.
Hey Eric, that comment reflects very well on you.
Eric, the journey of life on Earth – from its first tentative steps, as revealed through the snippets remaining via the fossil record together with modern knowledge of the building blocks of microbiology – is well described in the book “Earth Alive”, which gives it a very gentle and illuminating treatment. This is the last (to date, and published 2003) book by Paleobotanist Mary E White.
The book is well worth a read, describing life’s development into its present combinations and multiplicity of forms. Some of the earliest forms are still represented as components of most living organisms, having made partnerships along the way. Some, like the protozoans, currently exist in the form of diseases which the medical fraternity find very difficult to dislodge. The difficulty is due to their close relationship to many of the elements of which our bodies are composed: each of us is a living museum dependent on those old stagers.
There are other sources giving the same information, but Mary’s treatise is eminently readable, and contains diagrams and photos and references for further reading. It is a joy to browse as well as read. It is not pushing a barrow, it simply calls it as it is according to our current scientific knowledge.
Thanks for the tips, I believe I’ll start with Mary White’s “Earth Alive” and see what I can learn.
I am still having trouble with “transitional species.” I don’t get the “every generation” being a transition between the species at all. But, I do understand that it must be difficult to communicate briefly in your post. So, I’ll see what Mary has to contribute and get back afterward.
Eric,
For a quick introduction to the idea of speciation based on geographic separation, this little video is very clear.
http://www.youtube.com/user/potholer54#p/u/22/Pb6Z6NVmLt8
One note of caution. I don’t recommend much of potholer’s evolution v. creationism work to someone just dipping their toes in this water. He’s very, very – let’s be honest, extreeemely – snarky when debunking creationist claims.
Though he does acknowledge this. The “Made Easy” series was specifically produced at the request of schoolteachers to highlight the scientific material and cut down the snark / debunking. You might try some of those.
Eric
It may help understanding the ‘transition’ idea if you check out ‘ring species’ [or it may make understanding even more difficult !!].
Here, from Wiki:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ring_species
“In biology, a ring species is a connected series of neighboring populations, each of which can interbreed with closely sited related populations, but for which there exist at least two “end” populations in the series, which are too distantly related to interbreed, though there is a potential gene flow between each “linked” species. Such non-breeding, though genetically connected, “end” populations may co-exist in the same region thus closing a “ring”.
They show a series of transition species along a continuum of place.
In the case of generational transition the continuum is related to time.
The cool thing, for me, about ring species, is that my property is home to one such [or so it was thought until recently, research is ongoing, science never stops], the Platycercus elegans complex aka Crimson Rosella, and I can see a living example of evolutionary adaption in action.
Good thought Fred. Ring species a nice microcosm.
Eric I’m working on a longer response. Will probably do as a separate post tomorrow.
Having just looked at the video which adelady linked to I note that its about ring species.
So she was a couple of hours ahead of me.
Delayed convergent thinking.
After reading the Wiki link about ring species, which was absolutely fascinating, I came to the conclusion that at the “end of the ring” the gull was still a Larus gull even though there were clear differences between #1 & #7. Am I wrong?
My concern is with a gull becoming something other than a gull.
Talking at cross-purposes Eric. If that circle was broken by some geographic event the two ends would be immediately, unable to breed, two new species.
The ring species situation isn’t that common, it’s just that it shows in a nutshell, how speciation occurs more generally – two populations of a species become separated geographically, adapt in different directions, lose ability to interbreed, two new species.
So that’s geographic variation, I was talking about gradual variation through time – adaptation. Will try to finish extended piece about this today.
Thanks for the video reference Adelady, it really helped supplement what I read in the Wiki link sent by Fred.
It makes perfect sense to me that as the gull or warbler moves around the ring that genetics would become more and more divergent ultimately to the point where they could not produce offspring (that I found surprising!). But (and I’m honestly trying to learn and not “trap” anyone here), is the conclusion of this “ring speciation” that as the warbler diverges from its original “parents” that it would actually become something other than a bird?
Eric you were surprised isolated populations could diverge enough to not be able to interbreed. How did you think new species formed?
And, yes indeed, the two new species are still birds. But in a few million years it might become evident that one of them was the start of some new group. The first “bird species” was just another dinosaur at the time. It arose in exactly the same way – two species of dinosaur being divided by some barrier. One happened to have an adaptation which involved modification of scales, presumably (this is not my area of expertise) for some kind of insulation or protective reasons. But that became something, it turns out in retrospect, from which feathers would develop and become important in all sorts of unpredictable ways. It’s the old chicken and egg question.
When you talk about a “geographic event” David, could that be a mountain pass so high or a body of water so wide that the gulls or warblers would not be able to cross?
Changing sea levels would be a factor for example, on relatively short term. Longer term rising mountains, continental movement. Mobile species require major barriers, for less mobile ones even being stuck in different ponds might be enough.
Yes, I am surprised that species would diverge genetically so much that they ultimately could not reproduce. Has this been documented with any animals other than birds?
Still not sure what question you are asking. There are many millions of plant and animal species in the world. As a generalisation you can say species can’t interbreed with each other [plants are much more flexible than animals, with hybrids between related species being not uncommon. Some closely related animal species can breed, but the offspring are infertile (most famously the mule of course)] – how did you think this happened? I’m really not sure what you are asking. There are many examples of various species, for example in frogs, where two species are so similar in every respect they can only be distinguished by DNA, but where because the male mating calls are subtly different the two never interbreed. Conversely there are cases where obviously different but related species, normally separated geographically, come back together because of changed climate (a recent case in sharks in Indian Ocean) and are sufficiently alike genetically to produce viable hybrids. Ultimately that situation woud recreate a ring species perhaps.
There are all kinds of situations like this in all animal groups where we can retrace the sequence that led to not being able to interbreed. The “ring species” situation just enables us to visualise the process in situ.
Here is a really weird example involving kangaroos.
We have 3 species on our property.
-Common Wallaroo – Macropus robustus. It undergoes embryonic diapause which [loosely] is the practice of the mother being able to delay development and birth of the embryo when conditions are tough. As in a drought. Then when the drought is over she can kick start the development again.
-Red kangaroo – macropus rufus which also undergoes embryonic diapause.
-Western Grey kangaroo – Macropus fulingosus.
Which does not undergo embryonic diapause.
Which is strange for two reasons.
Firstly, because its closely related species, Eastern Grey – M. giganteus – does. And secondly the western generally lives in more arid regions [like our place] than the eastern so you would expect the western to be more likely of the 2 to have embryonic diapause.
The 2 species do not interbreed in areas where they overlap [which are considerable]. But they do in captivity, well sort of. [This gets a bit fuzzy here, I'm resorting to memory of a research paper I read yonks ago]. They produce infertile offspring [mules]. But with perseverance the second generational males of one of the 2 species can produce fertile offspring with second generational females of the other. But only in one direction, I think it was male eastern with female western. And if interbreeding is continued the mothers are capable of embryonic diapause.
So the barriers to breeding are not physical, as in regional, but behavioural and, fairly obviously the 2 species are closely related, and, one suspects, diverging with time.
Thanks Fred. There are interesting cases in some WA frogs where the situation is the reverse of the shark case I gave. It was found that in two closely related species, where populations occurred in same pond their calls were very different, where they occurred separately their calls were much more similar. When eggs and sperm were combined artificially the offpring were sterile or unviable in some way (am testing a 50 year old memory here). So these were examples where the speciation processs was completed when the two diverging populations came back together as a result of changing climate. Any individuals whose calls were similar to other species ran risk of attracting wrong female and therefore not leaving offspring. Those with more distinct calls produced descendants. This is strong selection for diverse calls and diverging calls over time. A very neat little example of natural selection for mating characteristics.
Sorry I wasn’t more clear about my question, but it was if there were other more documented instances where there was an inability for species to breed and produce offspring (thanks Fred for your input). I understand how mating calls might change and prevent breeding but I was more curious how many species had been discovered that we’re unable, as a result of moving around the ring, to produce offspring.
Fred’s example of the kangaroos adapting to drought conditions, and some not, was interesting but they could still breed and reproduce. I was more interested in th inability to reproduce than reproduce “hybrids” or other adaptations.
I guess I’m still having difficulty with the bird developing scales and forearms as you mentioned earlier David. Still haven’t gotten “Earth Alive” and that might help. Thanks for all the VERY interesting examples though!
Eric I think we are still talking at cross purposes. Many, most perhaps, species which are distributed widely but don’t move far as individuals, and which cover a range of climatic zones, habitats, would have populations at either end that couldn’t interbreed with each other but were linked by those who could. Forget about “ring species” that’s just a particular shape of distribution where the populations at each end come against each other and we can see easily don’t interbreed. For most species you’d have to get a male from one end and a female from the other and test. In practical terms it doesn’t mean much most of the time. When it does though is when the intermediate populations get destroyed (fire, flood, disease etc) and then the two ends would become two species instantly. Alternatively if one part of the population gets isolated on an island (sea or land) then it too will become different enough over time to be a separate species that can’t breed with its “parent” species. Do you see?
Got it!
I think I got hung up on the actual geographical/physical distribution as well as the peculiar inability to reproduce.