BAUT bashing stupid reporters.

[Bill_Thompson]

Idiot Bashing? Is that good science? Katie Couric is a might be your Saturn but Plait is making themself out to be Uranus.

[Bill_Thompson]

Alright, let me spell it out for you.


American talking head anchorperson Katie Curic who doesn't know anything about NASA is an easy target to bash. Dr. Plait, who enjoys slamming people who know less then he, (the only way he seems to increase his 15 minutes of fame is on others expense) did exactly this on his website, badastronomy.com. On this website, he mysteriously photoshops Katie's image inside the image of Saturn.

http://www.badastronomy.com/bablog/2006 ... -bonehead/


Your Saturn


Uranis

[Lance]

While I disagree with your opinion of Dr. Plait, perhaps the public would have been better served by him approaching Ms. Couric in a professional manner and trying to educate her on the issues she appears to be so unfamiliar with.

[Bill_Thompson]

Lance, I am stunned that we agree on something.

Do you know of any other professional educators who take this sort of hard line approach? You cannot teach people by alienating them or pissing them off. Unfortunately we are an emotional species. Getting Couric to do a retraction or even get Plait to come on her show would be the best approach. It would have done a lot of good. There isn't a snow ball's chance on Mercury of that happening now. Instead Plait gets a following of Nascar and Studio Wrestling fans who are willing to back him up blindly even when he makes a mistake and his followers jump on anyone who will disagree with him.

And that really is Bad Science.

[Мастер]

Lance, I am stunned that we agree on something.

Do you know of any other professional educators who take this sort of hard line approach? You cannot teach people by alienating them or pissing them off. Unfortunately we are an emotional species. Getting Couric to do a retraction or even get Plait to come on her show would be the best approach. It would have done a lot of good. There isn't a snow ball's chance on Mercury of that happening now. Instead Plait gets a following of Nascar and Studio Wrestling fans who are willing to back him up blindly even when he makes a mistake and his followers jump on anyone who will disagree with him.

And that really is Bad Science.

I am in full agreement. Raising questions about the effectiveness of government spending is, in my opinion, perfectly legitimate territory for journalists. If there are good answers to the questions, they can be given. If someone responds to questions about effectiveness of spending with an emoitonal name-calling diatribe, it makes me wonder if perhaps that person doesn't have good answers to the questions that are being asked. . .

[Dragon Star]

Lance, I am stunned that we agree on something.

Do you know of any other professional educators who take this sort of hard line approach? You cannot teach people by alienating them or pissing them off. Unfortunately we are an emotional species. Getting Couric to do a retraction or even get Plait to come on her show would be the best approach. It would have done a lot of good. There isn't a snow ball's chance on Mercury of that happening now. Instead Plait gets a following of Nascar and Studio Wrestling fans who are willing to back him up blindly even when he makes a mistake and his followers jump on anyone who will disagree with him.

And that really is Bad Science.

Touche'.

[Lance]

Lance, I am stunned that we agree on something.

Why? You had a good, rational, intelligent point.

[Lonewulf]

Am I the only person that doesn't see anything wrong with expressing a personal opinion on a Blog made to express your personal opinion? No matter how scathing that personal opinion may be?

I don't see him trying to convince her that she's wrong; they're not talking face to face. I don't even see him making the assumption that she (or her fans) will even read his Blog. And it *is* his blog, not his actual official website... it's something designed for your personal opinion. Like a public journal. Yes, he insulted her, but sometimes people are pissed off about other people. It's part of human nature; while you may not like that part of human nature, I think we should at the least be honest about it.

I mean, if I don't like Ann Coulter, and I write that she's an ignorant poopyhead in my Livejournal, I would just roll my eyes if someone tried to convince me that I have to give a rational argument to show that she's an ignorant poopyhead. It's like convincing Penn and Teller that they shouldn't call their show "Bullshit!", but instead "Rational Discourse" or something like that, and then remove all the opinion from their show. And that's a show that's specifically designed to convince others. Here, we're just talking about a public journal.

I just don't see the problem here.

Also: About "good science" -- first of all, economics may be somewhat of a science, but commenting on another person's opinion is not exactly a scientific endeavor, but is by it's nature a subjective (opinionated) analysis.

[Lance]

And it *is* his blog, not his actual official website... it's something designed for your personal opinion.

Haven't been there for a while, have you? Yes, it is exactly his main website. Go ahead and visit http://www.badastronomy.com/ and you will find yourself right smack dab on the main page of his blog. The Katie Couric story has now fallen to Page 2, but on the 18th it would have been front and center.

[Bandit]

As a banned member of BAUT it would be very easy for me to rip into Plait here for the hypocracy of posting something like this on his site (nice example to set for the kids who read it) but sometimes people don't think before they compose something .. or don't care. I think the BA would have been better served with making an attempt to address Couric on a more mature level or not at all instead of what went down.

Having said that, I think Thompson's bashing of the BA on this board is just more of the same old sour grapes for being banned over there.

[Мастер]

Also: About "good science" -- first of all, economics may be somewhat of a science,

Why not? After all, I have even met people who think physics is a science.

A student entering a doctoral program in economics needs a level of mathematical and technical training not too much behind what people entering, let's say, a mathematics program need. Economics journals are filled with rigorously defined quantitative models, analytic derivations of the predictions of these models, and testing of those predictions against real-world data. Probably the biggest difference is in many areas of economics, it isn't really practical to conduct laboratory experiements, although there is something called experimental economics, for which Vernon Smith shared the Nobel prize a few years ago. (Come to think of it, though, laboratory experiments aren't really very practical in lots of areas of astronomy, either.) Of course, many BAUTers do not allow total lack of knowledge of any of this to keep them from waxing eloquent on the topic. . .

but commenting on another person's opinion is not exactly a scientific endeavor, but is by it's nature a subjective (opinionated) analysis.

Good. Then I have an opinion as well about the following statement:

Sigh. Another clueless talking head opens her mouth and jabbers on a topic about which she has no idea.

Go look in the mirror, Dr. Phil. . .

[Мастер]

As a banned member of BAUT

I'm not banned yet, but it's probably just a matter of time.

it would be very easy for me to rip into Plait here for the hypocracy of posting something like this on his site (nice example to set for the kids who read it) but sometimes people don't think before they compose something .. or don't care. I think the BA would have been better served with making an attempt to address Couric on a more mature level or not at all instead of what went down.

Well, if he retracts or modifies his statement, I'll revise the opinion I have formed. As of this moment, that article did a great deal more damage to my respect for Phil Plait than my respect for Katie Couric.

[Lonewulf]

Also: About "good science" -- first of all, economics may be somewhat of a science,

Why not? After all, I have even met people who think physics is a science.

A student entering a doctoral program in economics needs a level of mathematical and technical training not too much behind what people entering, let's say, a mathematics program need. Economics journals are filled with rigorously defined quantitative models, analytic derivations of the predictions of these models, and testing of those predictions against real-world data. Probably the biggest difference is in many areas of economics, it isn't really practical to conduct laboratory experiements, although there is something called experimental economics, for which Vernon Smith shared the Nobel prize a few years ago. (Come to think of it, though, laboratory experiments aren't really very practical in lots of areas of astronomy, either.) Of course, many BAUTers do not allow total lack of knowledge of any of this to keep them from waxing eloquent on the topic. . .

Y'know, I wasn't really questioning economics. I know you have no respect for me, but I'm not really ditching (or trying to ditch) economics, and I don't have a problem with the reporter in question (I don't have much of an opinion one way or another).

I'm just commenting on the claim that what Phil is doing is "not good science". It wasn't science. It was an opinion. Blogs are places where people put up their opinions on matters. I don't see anyone claim that it's "good" or "bad" science.

[Dragon Star]

I'm just commenting on the claim that what Phil is doing is "not good science". It wasn't science. It was an opinion.

True.

[Lance]

Blogs are places where people put up their opinions on matters.

Can be, but that is not the case here, per my message above.

[Мастер]

Blogs are places where people put up their opinions on matters.

Can be, but that is not the case here, per my message above.

Even if it is an appropriate place for opinion, let's see what we've got here:

a) the opinion that a journalist is a bonehead for expressing her opinion (or possibly expressing it, it looks to me like all she really did was speculate)

b) presents something of an economic argument that is not really complete, but which rather hints at the standard the-space-program-is-good-for-the-economy-because-it-creates-jobs argument, an argument whose fallacious nature ought to be a homework assignment in macroeconomics 101 (I like to ask the people making this argument why the taxes levied to support the space program don't destroy jobs, or why spending the money on something else would not also create jobs - that gets them really upset)

c) a description of some benefits that have accrued at least partially from government-sponsored space exploration, without any quantification or comparison to the benefits that would have come from spending the money on something else, or leaving it in the hands of the taxpayers who provided it in the first place

Well, certainly Phil Plait can have his opinion, but why should he expect people to be any more respectful of his opinion than he is of Katie Couric's? Well, one reason might be that he could offer good, solid evidence of the correctness of his statements and the falsity of hers. If he can't do that, then I don't see why he should have immunity from criticism of his opinions anymore than Katie Couric should.

[Bill_Thompson]

Well said.

By playing to the lowest common denominator I think Plait has gained popularity.

And I find that sad that such a popular scientific website is such.

[Lance]

Well said.

By playing to the lowest common denominator I think Plait has gained popularity.

And I find that sad that such a popular scientific website is such.

Carolyn Kepcher was a good business woman as an executive in the Trump Organization until she gained popular recognition on the TV show "The Apprentice". Then she became more fond of celebrity than actually doing her job and was ultimately fired by Trump.

Is Dr. Plait too fond of his growing popularity?

[Мастер]

By playing to the lowest common denominator I think Plait has gained popularity.

Well, judging from the responses here, it's not so obvious to me that he has gained popularity with this one :P

[Bill_Thompson]

Well said.

By playing to the lowest common denominator I think Plait has gained popularity.

And I find that sad that such a popular scientific website is such.

Carolyn Kepcher was a good business woman as an executive in the Trump Organization until she gained popular recognition on the TV show "The Apprentice". Then she became more fond of celebrity than actually doing her job and was ultimately fired by Trump.

Is Dr. Plait too fond of his growing popularity?

I can only guess by what I interpret.

I get the feeling that after debunking the Apollo Hoax he does not know what to do with himself.

He loves to bash faith because he wants to be just like James Randi. Yet this behavior counters his comments about SETI when he says that "you just have to have faith in it".

Also he made some dramatic claims about biology that were not supported at the convention for the American Association for the Advancement of Science.

Carl Sagan was a guy who knew a little bit about a lot of different things and had a talent for putting them together in an entertaining package. Maybe he is trying to be like Sagan.

I will stop now.

[Мастер]

Is Dr. Plait too fond of his growing popularity?

Well, I think that rather suggests a conscious choice to write the article in the style in which it was written, whereas I think bandit is probably right, it was a rather emotional piece written in response to someone who is possibly questioning much of the basis of Dr. Plait's livelihood (conjectural - I don't really know if that is the case). But I do see quite similar things said by people that, as nearly as I can tell, have no stake in the kingdom at all, other than that they are interested in space exploration. I get the impression the argument is often, I think this is cool, so obviously it must be good for the economy, because if it weren't, it should be cut, and I wouldn't like that.

The media question the wisdom of government policy on welfare spending, education spending, military spending, highway spending, taxes, environmental spending, medical and old-age pension spending, etc. And I'm sure many advocates of various programs falling into these categories fly into a rage when anyone has the audacity to question their programs, and many of them probably can't imagine how someone could be so big an idiot as to want to waste money on the space program, it being obvious that the money would produce greater benefits when spent on whatever they think is cool. And I am also sure that many of them can produce about the same quality of case for the economic value of their projects as people at BAUT do, the latter case usually falling, in my experience, into one of four categories:

a) the space program creates jobs - sorry, I took macro 101 (a long time ago, in fact)

b) the space program produces every bit of wonderous technology that exists, none of which would ever have been developed without government-sponsored space research, so that all economic growth would have stopped in 1950 without space research, and we would all be living in caves and hunting woolly mammoths for food, the way people did back in 1950

c) the government is spending much more money on other things, including some that I think are really idiotic, therefore the relatively small amount of money spent on space exploration must be a good idea because there exists at least one other government program which is more wasteful (hmm, did Dr. Plait use this one?)

d) I can't think of the benefits, but there are always unanticipated benefits, just like there were when Columbus set sail, although I do rather suspect that when Columbus (Colon, if anyone prefers that name) sought funding, he didn't say "I can't think of any benefits to this voyage, but there will be some, damn it, I'm just sure of it!"

The way I see it, most people at BAUT realize that "space exploration is just so cool, the US government should spend money to entertain me" only gets you so far, so they often latch onto the good-for-the-economy argument. But I haven't seen any of them present an argument that doesn't sound to anyone trained in economics about as laughable as Planet X does to Phil Plait. Whether this is because there is no good economic argument, or because there is one, but they simply lack the skills to find it, each of us can judge as s/he sees fit.

[Bill_Thompson]

At the same time, addressing this with maturity and tact while still stressing how important it is to him would have had a more fruitful return.

[Lance]

At the same time, addressing this with maturity and tact while still stressing how important it is to him would have had a more fruitful return.

Yes, exactly.

Which sounds better?

1) You're a bonehead and have no clue.

2) Let's consider some of your interesting ideas from a different perspective.

One of them actually has a chance of working while the other will only spawn threads like this. I thought the number of "ditto-head" responses on Phil's blog was interesting. Were there any comments that even mentioned he might be being a bit hypocritical?

[Dragon Star]

I thought the number of "ditto-head" responses on Phil's blog was interesting.

Yea, suck-asses are annoying...

Oh, wait, I'm one of them. :P

[Lance]

But not the annoying kind.