Comments on: Lisa Randall on scientific communication

By: Now That’s What I’m Talking About! | Cosmic Variance

Now That’s What I’m Talking About! | Cosmic Variance — Mon, 26 Sep 2005 22:10:38 +0000

[...] Yes! Yes! My daily mantra I whisper reverently at my bedside every morning! To quote Sean and Risa: Someone’s been reading cosmicvariance! (I’m not serious of course, there surely must be others out there with my dream, right?) [...]

By: Larvatus Prodeo

Larvatus Prodeo — Fri, 23 Sep 2005 04:46:02 +0000

A Physicist Dabbles in Mediating Science

We love Enlightenment here at Larvatus Prodeo. And I feel that it’s my duty, as a friendly sociologist to reach across the 46 year old divide to the ‘other culture’ and extend a smile and nod every now and then.
I stumbled across this terrific …

By: Mark

Mark — Wed, 21 Sep 2005 12:38:06 +0000

Agreed Samuel. And well put. All of us who understand and value rational thought are in this together. We’re facing a well-orchestrated political campaign, not a mass confusion

By: Plato

Plato — Wed, 21 Sep 2005 12:33:09 +0000

These blog entries force the mind to consider what they are saying and wonder.

I just wanted to link my blog entry with a response not only to Sean ’s issues with theory facts etc. and Lisa Randall’s article, to say, that observation of facts can be taken to a whole new lengths

By: Samuel Crane

Samuel Crane — Wed, 21 Sep 2005 05:12:14 +0000

Calling the intelligent design advocates “skeptics” is a gross overstatement of their position in the scientific community and gives them much undo gravity.

She seems to imply that the current “controversy” is embarassing because biologists haven’t been able to communicate with the public. This is unfair.

We have natural history museums all over this and other countries. We’ve been in and out of court for 80+ years. All the major professional societies are on record as supporting the teaching of evolution. The list of popular books can fill several bookcases.

The fault doesn’t lie with the biologists.

If a well financed group like the Discover Institute can have such an influence in this society, it’s not because biologists haven’t identitfied the “limitations” of evolutionary theory (which we have, BTW and thank you very much). She is being grossly unfair to biologists. It is not our responibility alone to imbue all of soceity with a respect and broad understanding of science. And that’s what the controversy is really about.

By: robert

robert — Tue, 20 Sep 2005 15:52:45 +0000

A fine example of scientists and artists speaking two languages that employ the same words was provided by Lisa Randall’s recent spot on ‘Start the Week’ on BBC Radio4. Professor Randall used ‘theory’ in the sense discussed here and elsewhere; the good and the great from the world of art seemed to think it meant – ‘anything you might like to think of’. Things came to a juddering halt when LR said ‘I understood everything you said, until you used the word culture’

By: Alejandro Rivero

Alejandro Rivero — Mon, 19 Sep 2005 17:38:51 +0000

As far as I know, this kind of accident is commonplace.

In fact it is a cornerstone of the Theory of Evolution: if there were no accidents, then a theory of inteligent design could be even scientific. It is very very wrong to try to wipe accidents out, one can easily be driven into believing on a Plan.

By: Redshift

Redshift — Mon, 19 Sep 2005 17:37:47 +0000

Maybe we could come up with an official symbol on the order of ™ or © to distinguish the use of a term in the official scientific sense; perhaps sci or ST for “scientific term”. This could be used in publications for the layman to make the distinction clear, and administered and enforced by a national and international scientific bodies, just as ™ is now. So we’d have the TheoryST of Evolution vs. the theory of Intelligent Design, and when a creationist says “well, evolution is just a theory,” we’d say “no, it’s a TheoryST! (Okay, that only really works in writing; verbally you’d maybe have to use a 50s sci-fi movie scientist voice instead.)

I’m only half joking, I think…

By: Doug

Doug — Mon, 19 Sep 2005 16:58:40 +0000

Wasn’t Gregor Mendel a Christian priest / monk who was able to understand the difference between his faith / belief and the science he was doing? Mendel may be a great example for minister mentioned in the comment by Lee.

Hasn’t evolution moved from theory to applied science especially with the genome projects? Yet for intelligent design this would likely make no difference, for it is also about history. Many supporters, who link this speculative idea to creation science, limit their history to a literal interpretation of the Bible. These supporters make use of ‘lack of evidence’ but provide no ‘extraordinary evidence’ and also tend to rely upon quoting of scripture.

By: e pur si muove » Blog Archive » New York Times Op/Ed On Modern Physics

e pur si muove » Blog Archive » New York Times Op/Ed On Modern Physics — Mon, 19 Sep 2005 06:02:33 +0000

[...] Sean Carroll, Cosmic Variance, Lisa Randall on scientific communication: “[T]he unintentional confusion caused when a scientist is trying to be perfectly precise, yet creates an entirely incorrect impression in the mind of a listener. Words like “energy” or “work” or “uncertainty” can mean different things to experts and non-experts./And the stakes are high” [...]