Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,806 Year: 3,063/9,624 Month: 908/1,588 Week: 91/223 Day: 2/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Scientists unveil fossil of 47 million-year-old primate, Darwinius masillae
Taz
Member (Idle past 3291 days)
Posts: 5069
From: Zerus
Joined: 07-18-2006


Message 16 of 45 (509314)
05-20-2009 11:46 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Stile
05-20-2009 7:18 AM


I for one think the publicity campaign isn't over the top at all. It's a good thing that people are as excited as they are of new scientific discoveries. I can't believe you guys aren't tired of science always getting a small section of the back page while Briteny Spear's 55 hour just for fun wedding got the front page for a week. If anything, we need more publicity campaigns just like this one for science.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Stile, posted 05-20-2009 7:18 AM Stile has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 17 by Stile, posted 05-20-2009 12:25 PM Taz has replied

  
Stile
Member
Posts: 4295
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004


Message 17 of 45 (509320)
05-20-2009 12:25 PM
Reply to: Message 16 by Taz
05-20-2009 11:46 AM


Sittin' on the fence all day
Taz writes:
I can't believe you guys aren't tired of science always getting a small section of the back page while Briteny Spear's 55 hour just for fun wedding got the front page for a week.
I'm very tired of such things.
It's a good thing that people are as excited as they are of new scientific discoveries.
I agree. My problem is that I agree with both sides of this issue.
I agree scientific findings should get promoted alongside pop-culture issues since the science findings actually are important and interesting rather than just seemingly, short-sightedly so.
But I also agree with the other side that "creating hype for the sake of hype" can hurt science's professionalism, and therefore start to eat away at it's credibility.
I don't have an answer for this.
If science remains professional, it will get lost amongst all the not-really-important-but-people-love-it-any crap that gets tossed out on the news every day.
If science starts farting their message into the faces of the world's population, just like all the pop-culture promotions of today, they'll end up losing credibility and have trouble being seen as "equal" to these same pop-culture poop-factories.
Where's the middle ground?
Perhaps science should take a dramatic dump all over the media for a while... then pull back a bit. Get that shock factor of "see, this is cool and interesting..." in, and then pull back to a more professional level of world-wide, general populace promotion.
Perhaps this specific advertising was too much, and even though science definitely should do more than what they're doing now... maybe this is a bit too far.
Personally, I'm currently flip-flopping faster than a baseball card hitting a bike's spokes. I'm not sure if I need to digest, or see how things develop, or just need more information before seeing which actions should be taken. Right now, I'm sympathetic to both sides.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by Taz, posted 05-20-2009 11:46 AM Taz has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 18 by Perdition, posted 05-20-2009 12:29 PM Stile has seen this message but not replied
 Message 19 by Taz, posted 05-20-2009 12:35 PM Stile has replied
 Message 20 by onifre, posted 05-20-2009 12:50 PM Stile has replied

  
Perdition
Member (Idle past 3237 days)
Posts: 1593
From: Wisconsin
Joined: 05-15-2003


Message 18 of 45 (509322)
05-20-2009 12:29 PM
Reply to: Message 17 by Stile
05-20-2009 12:25 PM


Re: Sittin' on the fence all day
I agree. I think the only way we can make a real determination is to wait and see how it plays out.
Edited by Perdition, : Spelling.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by Stile, posted 05-20-2009 12:25 PM Stile has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 29 by Blue Jay, posted 05-21-2009 2:08 PM Perdition has seen this message but not replied

  
Taz
Member (Idle past 3291 days)
Posts: 5069
From: Zerus
Joined: 07-18-2006


Message 19 of 45 (509324)
05-20-2009 12:35 PM
Reply to: Message 17 by Stile
05-20-2009 12:25 PM


Re: Sittin' on the fence all day
Stile writes:
But I also agree with the other side that "creating hype for the sake of hype" can hurt science's professionalism, and therefore start to eat away at it's credibility.
But it really doesn't seem to me like the kind of hype you guys are talking about.
This fossil really is the find of the century.
I remember back in 2000 they came out with a list of the 100 most important people in the last thousand years. Einstein, Patton, Roosevelt, Darnwin, and Lincoln were on there. But so were Arnold Swatzeneger (ok, so I can't spell the guy's name), Micheal Jackson, and Mcdanna... can't spell her name either. They left out Guttenberg, which was probably the most important person in my humble opinion. They left out Yamamoto.
Again, this fossil is a really important find. I'd say it's the find of the century. I don't see what's wrong with actually getting people to know it. I don't want it to be viewed as just another fossil. I want people to realize how important a find this is.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by Stile, posted 05-20-2009 12:25 PM Stile has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 21 by Stile, posted 05-20-2009 1:51 PM Taz has not replied
 Message 23 by Dr Jack, posted 05-20-2009 2:37 PM Taz has not replied

  
onifre
Member (Idle past 2950 days)
Posts: 4854
From: Dark Side of the Moon
Joined: 02-20-2008


Message 20 of 45 (509327)
05-20-2009 12:50 PM
Reply to: Message 17 by Stile
05-20-2009 12:25 PM


Re: Sittin' on the fence all day
Hi Stile,
As always there's a bigger picture to one specific media hyped story.
Why are we beginning to put science in the media?
The answer in my opinion can be found in this article:
Real science comes to Washington
A few quotes:
quote:
Jan. 26, 2009 | The greatest task of the Obama administration -- and the next 10 presidents -- is to avoid catastrophic global warming. The latest science warns that the unstable West Antarctic ice sheet has been warming significantly since the 1950s, the rate of Greenland summer ice loss tripled last year, and the planet as a whole lost 2 trillion tons of ice in the last five years. The best mid-range estimate for sea level rise by the year 2100 is 5 feet, much higher than U.N. scientists projected just two years ago.
But the path toward a carbon-reduced future will not be an easy one. President Obama will be challenged by a lack of awareness by the media and major opinion makers, who still don't grasp the scope of the problem, and by the majority of GOP politicians who refuse to accept the dire facts of climate science. If Obama is going to lead this country and the world in the fight to preserve a livable climate, he will be forced to do so in a partisan fashion. That task can't be underestimated. But it's a huge relief to see the energy team that Obama has assembled for the battle.
In a society that is lead in their opinions by the media, is it any wonder why people care more about Britney than science? Of course not.
How do you now shift peoples opinions about science, well, the same as you do with any product, media hype of course.
What is being proposed is huge and tax payers must stand behind it. They must stand behind science. Science needs to be in the media now and this particular fossil finding begins to hype up science and perhaps get people interested in it, instead of Britney.
quote:
Achieving the Obama target would require replacing the country's entire multitrillion-dollar energy infrastructure -- including the vast majority of power plants and cars -- in four decades. I would call this policy "radical," but in fact it is pragmatic. Failing to act quickly will most likely result, by century's end, in 5C to 7C global warming, sea levels rising 10 inches a decade or more, widespread desertification, the loss of the inland glaciers that provide water to a billion people and an ocean that is one large, hot, acidic dead zone.
While Obama understands the paramount nature of the climate issue, the media still does not. In the Washington Post, David Ignatius writes, "Obama continued this political reformation in recruiting his cabinet, which is so centrist it almost resembles a government of national unity." A recent front-page Post headline read, "For Obama Cabinet, A Team of Moderates: In Picks, Few Hints About Policy Plans." The story states:
- Oni

"I smoke pot. If this bothers anyone, I suggest you look around at the world in which we live and shut your mouth."--Bill Hicks
"I never knew there was another option other than to question everything"--Noam Chomsky

This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by Stile, posted 05-20-2009 12:25 PM Stile has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 22 by Stile, posted 05-20-2009 2:00 PM onifre has replied

  
Stile
Member
Posts: 4295
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004


Message 21 of 45 (509330)
05-20-2009 1:51 PM
Reply to: Message 19 by Taz
05-20-2009 12:35 PM


Re: Sittin' on the fence all day
Taz writes:
Again, this fossil is a really important find. I'd say it's the find of the century. I don't see what's wrong with actually getting people to know it. I don't want it to be viewed as just another fossil. I want people to realize how important a find this is.
I completely, 100% agree.
That is, assuming that all the actual, real science behind this is legit (and right now, I don't find that to be a difficult assumption to make).
But it really doesn't seem to me like the kind of hype you guys are talking about.
This is what I'm talking about:
Percy says the media writes:
It's really a kind of Rosetta Stone because it ties together parts that we have been unable to associate before.
Is this really required? I mean, c'mon... "unable to associate before"?? That seems to be overstating the case a bit. Perhaps unable to specifically, deterministically give the 'ol "aha!!" But I think the word choice of "associate" isn't quite required.
Percy says the media writes:
This fossil is probably the one that will be pictured in all textbooks for the next hundred years.
I don't have a problem with this. This is the kind of drama I think should be included. But the previous is over-the-top.
Percy says the media writes:
This will be just like an asteroid hitting the Earth.
I would say this is over-the-top and not required, because it doesn't really say anything and therefore doesn't really mean anything. But I'm guessing this is the one Percy made up, so my distaste for it may very well be irrelevent.
Percy says the media writes:
Ida will supplant Lucy on the world stage.
I have no problem with this either.
My problem isn't with "any hype at all", my problem is with the little bits that are "over-hype." If we removed the one where I have issue, and the one I think is from Percy... isn't it still hype, and a good amount of it?
But, I certainly think science may even deserve a bit of over-hype for a bit just to even things off from it's recent hype-drought anyway.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by Taz, posted 05-20-2009 12:35 PM Taz has not replied

  
Stile
Member
Posts: 4295
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004


Message 22 of 45 (509332)
05-20-2009 2:00 PM
Reply to: Message 20 by onifre
05-20-2009 12:50 PM


Re: Sittin' on the fence all day
Thanks for the background info. It certainly makes more sense given such a motivation.
onifre writes:
How do you now shift peoples opinions about science, well, the same as you do with any product, media hype of course.
I agree.
I'm just not sold on where exactly the level of "enough drama" to "too much drama" is. But, well, perhaps that's just a nit-picky personally subjective thing that won't ever be comfortable for all people anyway. Perhaps I should just suck-it-up and see where this goes

This message is a reply to:
 Message 20 by onifre, posted 05-20-2009 12:50 PM onifre has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 24 by onifre, posted 05-20-2009 2:50 PM Stile has seen this message but not replied
 Message 25 by RAZD, posted 05-20-2009 9:50 PM Stile has seen this message but not replied
 Message 30 by onifre, posted 05-21-2009 6:29 PM Stile has seen this message but not replied

  
Dr Jack
Member
Posts: 3514
From: Immigrant in the land of Deutsch
Joined: 07-14-2003
Member Rating: 8.7


Message 23 of 45 (509334)
05-20-2009 2:37 PM
Reply to: Message 19 by Taz
05-20-2009 12:35 PM


Re: Sittin' on the fence all day
But it really doesn't seem to me like the kind of hype you guys are talking about.
My problem with it is that it's exactly the kind of early, ill-considered hype I dislike in science reporting. Science reporting tends to consist of two things: false balance and early other-enthusiasm. I'd want to see more science reporting of things that have been properly investigated by multiple parties and on which a decent spread of research has been done. I dislike the selling of this as "like an asteroid", "the rosetta stone", "the missing link" or "changes everything" - this is bollocks, it doesn't.
Again, this fossil is a really important find. I'd say it's the find of the century. I don't see what's wrong with actually getting people to know it. I don't want it to be viewed as just another fossil. I want people to realize how important a find this is.
It's an important find, I'll agree. It's a stunningly well preserved fossil but I don't believe it's the most important find of the century; I'd say Tiktaalik roseae and Puijila darwini are both more significant, just off the top of my head. What's more there is already considerable disagreement over whether the fossil shows what the paper's authors claim it does (that the Adapids are basal to the anthropoid primates) not helped by the fact that the paper doesn't include a decent cladistic analysis. Now, the authors may be right, but it seems awfully like they're found a really neat fossil and then jumped straight to claiming it supports their existing view on primate evolution without properly establishing their case. That's disappointing in a paper on an exciting discovery anyway but when they've coupled that with a massive co-ordinated media assault, well, colour me unimpressed.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by Taz, posted 05-20-2009 12:35 PM Taz has not replied

  
onifre
Member (Idle past 2950 days)
Posts: 4854
From: Dark Side of the Moon
Joined: 02-20-2008


Message 24 of 45 (509335)
05-20-2009 2:50 PM
Reply to: Message 22 by Stile
05-20-2009 2:00 PM


Re: Sittin' on the fence all day
I'm just not sold on where exactly the level of "enough drama" to "too much drama" is.
It will be dictated by public reaction, I'm assuming. There is of course the fact that certain media outlets are just prone to hyping up stories more than others. I think it's on us, the viewers, to limit and regulate ourselves as to what we buy into and what hype we get behind. The media is going to do what it's gotta do for those ratings. You can't blame them, it pays the bills.
...But I think it's still a long ways away from science being a desired news story. Here are todays top searches on Yahoo:
(1)American Idol
(2)Tori Amos
(3)Angelina Jolie
(4)Dancing With the St
(5)Dolla
(6)Dane Cook
(7)Quit Smoking
(8)Palm Pre
(9)Fitness Programs
(10)Fuel-Efficient Cars
Still no ape girl - but people wanna know about Doll(a), though.
Perhaps I should just suck-it-up and see where this goes
I think we'll see more hyped up science related stories in the coming years.
Blue Planet, Planet Earth (both the series and the new movie), Inconvinient Truth, etc. I think they serve as an example that there is a current media push for these types of shows, movies, news stories, these days for reasons that I suspect have a bigger agenda behind them.
- Oni

"I smoke pot. If this bothers anyone, I suggest you look around at the world in which we live and shut your mouth."--Bill Hicks
"I never knew there was another option other than to question everything"--Noam Chomsky

This message is a reply to:
 Message 22 by Stile, posted 05-20-2009 2:00 PM Stile has seen this message but not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1404 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 25 of 45 (509367)
05-20-2009 9:50 PM
Reply to: Message 22 by Stile
05-20-2009 2:00 PM


Re: Sittin' on the fence all day
Hi Stile
(cognitive dissonance: stile sitting on a fence ...)
Here's a video of a computer version\reconstruction
BBC NEWS | Science & Environment | Primate fossil in virtual reality
Very large forward facing eyes.
Enjoy.

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 22 by Stile, posted 05-20-2009 2:00 PM Stile has seen this message but not replied

  
Adminnemooseus
Administrator
Posts: 3974
Joined: 09-26-2002


Message 26 of 45 (509386)
05-20-2009 11:59 PM


Topic title changed / also another link on the matter
I've changed the topic title to include the genus/species name (stole title from article linked to in message 1).
Here is a link to what seems to be the "official" Darwinius masillae website:
Revealing the Link - Welcome
Adminnemooseus

  
Rahvin
Member
Posts: 4032
Joined: 07-01-2005
Member Rating: 9.2


Message 27 of 45 (509389)
05-21-2009 12:38 AM
Reply to: Message 9 by Percy
05-20-2009 9:44 AM


It's really a kind of Rosetta Stone because it ties together parts that we have been unable to associate before.
This one's the fake, because it's the most accurate.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by Percy, posted 05-20-2009 9:44 AM Percy has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 28 by Blue Jay, posted 05-21-2009 2:05 PM Rahvin has not replied

  
Blue Jay
Member (Idle past 2697 days)
Posts: 2843
From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts
Joined: 02-04-2008


Message 28 of 45 (509427)
05-21-2009 2:05 PM
Reply to: Message 27 by Rahvin
05-21-2009 12:38 AM


Hi, Rahvin.
Actually, I saw the commercial on the History Channel last night, and somebody in that commercial actually did say the one about the Rosetta Stone.

-Bluejay (a.k.a. Mantis, Thylacosmilus)
Darwin loves you.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 27 by Rahvin, posted 05-21-2009 12:38 AM Rahvin has not replied

  
Blue Jay
Member (Idle past 2697 days)
Posts: 2843
From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts
Joined: 02-04-2008


Message 29 of 45 (509428)
05-21-2009 2:08 PM
Reply to: Message 18 by Perdition
05-20-2009 12:29 PM


Re: Sittin' on the fence all day
Hi, Perdition.
Perdition writes:
I think the only way we can make a real determination is to wait and see how it plays out.
Spoken like a true scientist!
I agree too: there's a reason you don't get the Nobel Prize the year your groundbreaking study comes out, after all. The scientific community needs time to look over claims before it makes up its mind, and, if it turns out the Ida is not the incredible find it is being claimed to be, there's going to be more than enough embarrassment to go around, and science won't be helped by this media hype at all.

-Bluejay (a.k.a. Mantis, Thylacosmilus)
Darwin loves you.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 18 by Perdition, posted 05-20-2009 12:29 PM Perdition has seen this message but not replied

  
onifre
Member (Idle past 2950 days)
Posts: 4854
From: Dark Side of the Moon
Joined: 02-20-2008


Message 30 of 45 (509436)
05-21-2009 6:29 PM
Reply to: Message 22 by Stile
05-20-2009 2:00 PM


Re: Sittin' on the fence all day
Just thought I should update.
Here's todays top 10 Yahoo searches:
(1)Kris Allen
(2)Moon Bloodgood
(3)Sarah Jessica Parke
(4)American Idol
(5)Michael Vick
(6)Missing Link
(7)Sherlock Holmes Tra
(8)Guantanamo Bay
(9)Airfare Deals
(10)Autism
There she is, she made the cut. One day publicity does wonders, eh?
- Oni

"I smoke pot. If this bothers anyone, I suggest you look around at the world in which we live and shut your mouth."--Bill Hicks
"I never knew there was another option other than to question everything"--Noam Chomsky

This message is a reply to:
 Message 22 by Stile, posted 05-20-2009 2:00 PM Stile has seen this message but not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024