One way I keep track of who’s saying what about what and whom is through Google Alerts. You can enter a phrase, and whenever that phrase pops up on a website, blog, or whatever, Google sends you an email. I have a few set up, but one is keyed on my name, so I can find out when people link to my blog.
I got an Alert recently that was weird. It linked to this news article about the Mars Phoenix lander. That’s interesting, I thought. I started reading, and I was caught by surprise by this:
The view of Phoenix descending beneath its parachute, the resolution so fine that even the parachute’s tethers are visible against the Martian backdrop, “is hands-down my favorite picture of all time,” says astronomer Phil Plait, who runs the explanatory “Bad Astronomy” Web site, on a video posted on YouTube.
Even Plait admits that’s saying something, given the other magnificent images now widely available of multicolored Martian plains and swirling crescendos of galaxies and supernovas.
“This is what we do,” explains Plait on his video. “This is what science does, but this is what people do, when we try.”
I’m really happy that video is getting some press, of course! Still, it’s kinda funny to be quoted in an article using stuff I said in my YouTube video about Phoenix. It seems weird. Ironic, even, since as a writer I do this too: quoting people who have made statements in other venues. It’s perfectly fine (as long as context is provided and not quote-mined), but it sounds funny now that I’m on the other side of it.
It’s odd how our feelings (I was quoted from something else! OH NOES!) can be in conflict with our intellect (it’s a quote and it’s fine) sometimes. This sort of cognitive dissonance can lead to all sorts of revealing information, though. In my case, I hope my intellect has won out. Emotions are great warning signs of something going on, but we do have to apply a little rational thought to make sure we don’t let our non-rational thoughts take over.
So I’m glad the reporter liked the video, and I’m glad she helped spread the word. And I have to admit to a final irony: the video I made was all about the emotion I felt by watching a scientific triumph. Heh.
June 17th, 2008 at 1:39 pm
BA: web mashup tools such as Yahoo! Pipes make it possible to easily create similar online media coverage monitoring tools. As an example, this pipe collects online references to ESA astronaut Paolo Nespoli by aggregating news, photos and videos: http://pipes.yahoo.com/amoroso/nespoliscope
June 17th, 2008 at 1:40 pm
If it makes you feel good, I quote you all the time and in a different language! <a href=”http://sinpensarla.blogspot.com/2008/06/la-pureza-de-las-ciencias.html”<Last time was about you and PZ posting about the Purity of Science comic from xkcd.com and each of you defending your science.
Sorry, is in spanish.
June 17th, 2008 at 1:42 pm
Sorry about the broken link.
Should have been this
June 17th, 2008 at 1:45 pm
Argh… I messed up again. Ban me already…
June 17th, 2008 at 2:04 pm
Juan:
That’s why I like some other blogs that have a “preview” button, to let you see that you’ve done it properly.
Phil:
And the quote wasn’t taken out of context, either.
June 17th, 2008 at 2:20 pm
Phil -
I know you try to do this already for the most part, but were I in the same situation, I might find myself feeling a little more pressured… like maybe you now need to be extra viginlant for accuracy and less prone to hyperbole in your “casual” astronomy chats and YouTube videos.
If you become “mainstream”, you also become subject to intense scrutiny… and that might make me somewhat uncomfortable, even if I strongly feel what I am saying is accurate, truthful, and right…
But that’s just me.
June 17th, 2008 at 2:22 pm
That word is, of course, vigilant. *sigh*. I’m not even gonna say it.
June 17th, 2008 at 2:24 pm
Well, that can happen when you show your opinions to the world! But it’s quite a good quote that she even linked to the video, so that everybody can look it up - so you should be happy about it
!
The fun thing is: Science is all about quoting. As more you get quoted the better “you” are! But of course: That is about quoting the “scientific right way”, quote in context and with the proper source at hand.
June 17th, 2008 at 2:27 pm
Aw man! I never get quoted!
*Throws tantrum*
June 17th, 2008 at 2:47 pm
The article goes on to say:
“Yet to Plait and others, it is the simple sight of tiny Phoenix unfurled that speaks so affirmatively and eloquently of scientists reaching out as far as they are able, and then yet farther.
“There’s a lot of things to worry about right now,” Plait says on his video. “There always is going to be something to worry about. But every now and again, it’s nice to know that there is something bigger, something more. And if we try, and we really, really want to do it, we will.”
A link to the youtube video or your website would have been nice.
June 17th, 2008 at 3:04 pm
I remember the first time I was doing some research and googled something and the top hit was something I wrote…flattering, but really not very useful since I was looking for information I didn’t already know!
June 17th, 2008 at 3:37 pm
I just noticed that you’re given credit for one of the graphics on this MSNBC article today. You’re quite famous, you know.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/25212851/
June 17th, 2008 at 3:45 pm
I think it is quite cool that you’ve been quoted, further that someone actively searched for a quote (perhaps something from you specifically) and used yours. As I watched the youtube video, I could help but feel your enthusiasm and passion for science and discovery. That may have been the key to getting quoted, not to mention that the journalist may actually view you as a credible source. As they say, stranger things have been known to happen.
June 17th, 2008 at 4:15 pm
That’s still not what “ironic” means. Really, just look it up. There is simply nothing even slightly ironic about somebody quoting you, no matter how much you quote other people, or who, or anything.
Now, maybe you’re trying to use the word itself ironically (”I said it was ironic, even though it really wasn’t!”), to make fun of Alanis Morissette fans, or in solidarity with them, or to abase yourself for Alanis personally, or something. Sorry, that doesn’t work either (and she wouldn’t “get it” anyway). Seriously, just stop using the word. Every time you use it you just make us suspect that you didn’t really earn that PhD honestly, and that all your railing about pseudoscience is really just meant to call undeserved attention to yourself.
Thank you for your compliance.
June 17th, 2008 at 4:21 pm
I just got done reading your entry and slid on over to www.space.com and clicked this link… http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/080617-moon-illusion.html
“Graphic by Phil Plait”
What a small rocky sphere it is…
June 17th, 2008 at 5:35 pm
Nathan Meyers:
I don’t think there is anything wrong with Phil’s use of “ironic”. Re-read the passage in context:
The “ironic” part is not that he was quoted, but that he felt “funny” about being quoted, when he does the same thing.
June 17th, 2008 at 7:11 pm
Ken B: Feeling funny has nothing to do with irony, regardless of why (unless, of course, it’s because something really was ironic). Go ahead, look it up, the dictionary is *right there*. You don’t need to guess, just read what it says.
No, the earth really isn’t as flat as it looks, and no, people really weren’t always here, and no, ironic really doesn’t mean the same thing as odd. (Oh, and no, interplanetary space really isn’t infinitely conductive.)
June 17th, 2008 at 7:36 pm
As a physics teacher, I get quoted quite often…”There’s more string here if anyone’s hungry” or “k is for constant, of course”.
June 17th, 2008 at 7:49 pm
A former “writer” for a women’s tabloid magazine here in Oz once spoke about how they create an “exclusive” interview for their magazine with, say, Kylie Minogue without anyone from the magazine ever having spoken to Kylie ever. They essentially quote mine any source they can find. Newspapers, TV, internet, whatever. They then come up with a bunch of questions that appear to fit with the quotes they have, they write it up and voila an “exclusive” like “Kylie speaks for the first time about blah blah blah”.
June 17th, 2008 at 8:50 pm
Travis, that’s cool! I looked at the graphic and for a sec was confused; I never created such a thing. But then I realized that space.com created it based on my description in my book, where I wrote on the Moon Illusion. Cool.
June 17th, 2008 at 11:58 pm
Uh, Nathan, American Heritage College Dictionary, 4th Edition:
ironic 1. Characterized by or constituting irony. 2. Given to the use of irony [not the sense intended here] . 3. Poignantly contrary to what was expected or intended.
irony 2a. Incongruity between what might be expected and what actually occurs.
BA quotes people all the time, it’s a perfectly normal part of writing his books and blogs. He expects the people he quotes to be perfectly fine with it. He’s quoting them accurately, as best he can, and trying to represent their true views on the subject. He expects they’ll be intellectually satisfied that their views are being made known to a wider audience, or I suppose he would expect them to be intellectually defensive if he was quoting someone to argue against their views.
Then BA gets quoted by someone else. The quote is accurate, and not taken out of context, and not argumentative. BA feels weird about being quoted. The irony lies in the contrast between BA’s emotional response to being quoted juxtaposed the intellectual response he would expect others to feel when he quotes them.
June 18th, 2008 at 12:44 am
I swear, it’s like a bunch of people simultaneously decided to pretend that the “incongruous” meaning of “ironic” never existed, just so they could rag on Alanis Morissette some more. (Not that I much like her stuff, either, but the word still has more than one shade of meaning.)
June 18th, 2008 at 2:37 am
Buzz: American Heritage is a descriptive dictionary. That means it’s meant to help puzzle out the meaning of writings even by idiots incapable of nuance or careful vocabulary. But even by the idiot definitions, the usage above doesn’t qualify. There’s nothing incongruous about somebody who’s tried for years to make a public figure of himself finding himself a public figure within the small circle where he’s promoted himself. It’s not ironic by the meaningful definition, it’s not incongruous, it’s not poignantly contrary, it’s not even particularly unexpected, it just feels odd to him. So, say “odd”.
It feels odd to me, too. Who is this “we” Phil refers to? It was engineers and technicians who got Phoenix safely to Mars, not astronomers, and not Phil. I know it’s traditional for scientists to claim credit for what engineers and technicians achieve, after the fact, and then bad-mouth them in the next breath, but that doesn’t make it right. When Phoenix produces incomprehensible results, I know who Phil will blame; trust me, it won’t be astronomers.
June 18th, 2008 at 6:01 am
Setting aside the scientific arguments against manned space flight, and of course the excessive costs for very little gain over robotic unmanned space flight, how would you feel if that were a manned ship with real live humans on board landing on Mars for the very first time?
Kind of a “WOW” moment, doncha think? I’m still pretty enamoured by the Apollo flights I remember from my childhood, I wish my daughter had something like that to define her childhood, instead of a war or the Disastercrat National Convention zoo in her hometown!
Robert
June 18th, 2008 at 8:06 am
And you’re not the least bit concerned about your website being called the ‘bad astronomy’ website? I wouldn’t click such a link. Bad Astronomer though, that’s another thing altogether. After all, it’s not your astronomy that’s bad, it’s _you_ that’s bad, and that is a Good Thing (TM).
June 18th, 2008 at 8:09 am
Nevermind, my bad. For some reason, I always refer to your website as ‘Bad Astronomer’, not ‘Bad Astronomy’.
June 18th, 2008 at 8:25 am
Nathan: Language evolves, and how people really use words matters. Therefore, a dictionary that is descriptive rather than prescriptive provides a good service. Just note how the word “gender” has evolved and has become a synonym for “sex.” (I bet you cry over that one, eh?)
Also, when Phil said “we” in regards to the Phoenix, I thought he meant we HUMANS.
June 18th, 2008 at 8:39 am
Nathan Meyers:
Please re-read the original quote in context, as well as Buzz’s reply to you. Nowhere does Phil say it was ironic that he was quoted. Rather, he said it was ironic that he felt “funny” about being quoted, when he quotes others all the time.
Perhaps you should tell us why “ironic” is incorrectly used. What dictionary did you “look it up” in, and what definition is given there that makes Phil’s use “wrong”?
And, by “we”, I’m sure Phil means “people”. While you and I in particular did not “do this”, we, as a species, are capable of doing such things, as shown by members of this species who actually did “do this”.
(Phil should probably jump in here to make clarify, in case Buzz and I are wrong.)
June 18th, 2008 at 11:34 am
Cathy: “Sex” vs “gender” never made any interesting or useful distinction, and mixing them up just tells us about the prudery of the speaker. “They” used for “he/she” fills in for an awkward gap in English vocabulary. I’m perfectly happy when newspapers assert that pterosaurs and plesiosaurs are dinosaurs, because who cares? “Dinosaur” meaning “saurischian, ornithischian, or one of a few allied genera but not any of the sister clades” makes no useful distinction.
When somebody insists they’re “literally beating my head against the wall” while just standing there, I know they’re an idiot. When somebody says their rent is going up exponentially, I know it’s not, and that they’re an idiot. When somebody says something is ironic and it’s manifestly not, it tells me the same thing. “Literally” has an interesting and useful meaning. “Exponentially” has an interesting and mathematically precise meaning. “Ironic” has an interesting and useful meaning. People who use them for random emphasis damage English, and are fundamentally no different from people who insist that evolution and whether the sun goes around the earth are just matters of opinion.
What will Phil say when something happens that actually *is* ironic? “Literally ironic”? Sorry, that doesn’t work either.
June 18th, 2008 at 2:36 pm
Regarding irony, see the controversy section here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irony
I don’t know why people focus on Alanis Morrissette’s use of “ironic”. I mean, she can’t even say “figures” correctly. (”It figgers.”)
June 18th, 2008 at 6:43 pm
I don’t understand what the fuss is about. Even if Phil is misusing a word and even if he does it all the time. Nathan if you feel THAT bad about the use of a word on a website like this one then you may have more important issues to deal with first.
June 18th, 2008 at 7:19 pm
Nathan reminds me of someone else I read the other day complaining that the word decimated had been used when the actual loss was 60 or 70% and not 10%. I had no problem with how the word was used but the first thought I had about the complainer was “idiot”. Is that ironic?
Language evolves and changes. Some changes are annoying but that is part and parcel of using a living language. Oh crap, I’m an idiot. Language isn’t a alive in a literal sense of course…
Look up the etymology of the word “nice”. 700 years ago it meant stupid, foolish & senseless. While you’re at it look up hyperbole and metaphor and for that matter litotes. Sorry, by “look up” I meant open a dictionary and search for the words I mentioned.
June 18th, 2008 at 7:56 pm
> Is that ironic?
No.
June 24th, 2008 at 6:05 pm
Phil knows that he should be flattered to be quoted on another’s website. Phil feels emotionally hesitant that his quote is being used by someone else. (I would call these opposite emotions, so his emotional response seems ironic to me.)
I won’t discuss the cosmic irony usage at the end of the post.