9 ms·

That sucks. If someone has an opinion, it should be free to be debated. The only way we can fight ignorance in science is with public debate. If someone wants

by pling 12y ago

That sucks. If someone has an opinion, it should be free to be debated. The only way we can fight ignorance in science is with public debate. If someone wants to deny it, fine (otherwise it's not science) but put the hypothesis on the table and let people actually test it and debate it publicly. The proves only that the BBC has various political opinions and agendas and is not an unbiased source (as many people surely quote). For ref, not a denier. I hold no opinion (a perpetual state of 'mu') because I haven't read any papers on the subject. I refuse to confuse media and science. Edit: the down votes proving that rationality doesn't come anywhere near this discussion...

lemming 12y ago
People have tested it and debated it publicly, and 97% of those professionally qualified to test it and debate it are of the same opinion.
- pling 12y ago
  That doesn't mean they're right or proposing different hypothesis' is suddenly forbidden. That's not science. Aristotelian physics was superseded by Newtonian Physics. That's science. I'm not suggesting that anyone will come up with a different conclusion but there's no excuse for this stupid dogma and religion getting in the way of rationality. Feynman is doing 500rpm in his grave...
  - icebraining 12y ago
    It's not forbidden - it just won't be given equal airtime on BBC.
  - scott_s 12y ago
    The BBC reports on science. It does not do science. The BBC is not holding science back by making a policy to not give equal airtime to crackpots.
  - rbanffy 12y ago
    > That doesn't mean they're right or proposing different hypothesis' is suddenly forbidden. That's not science. While I agree with you on principle, it would be awkward to give precisely 99.93% of the airtime to scientists who agree we have an impact in global climate change and dividing the rest among all the possible explanations (from the "it's a natural phenomenon" to "God is doing it" and even the "we are not sure the climate is actually changing").
    - pling 12y ago
      Ok I agree with the precision argument but through rounding that could be construed as 100%. Perhaps a fair option would be: 1. Discuss the issue at hand. 2. Provide a 30 second to 1 minute summary of other hypothesises and how they have or haven't been tested. 3. Visit our web site (which contains a more rational summary of opinions, wikipedia style). There is very rarely one true answer. Look at medicine. Superseded theories all over the place.
- rstupek 12y ago
  Well if 97% of those professionally qualified to test it have one opinion, wouldn't it be prudent to hear the opinions and data for the 3% who don't? Sometimes the 97% can be wrong. A classic example of this is the scientist who determined that ulcers within the stomach are caused by bacteria and not stomach acid. His opinions were beaten down by everyone doing research into how to curb stomach acid. As to the climate issue, I have no opinion as I haven't looked at the evidence myself.
Steko 12y ago
"it should be free to be debated." Right but it shouldn't be subsidized and given an artificial equal weight with a vast scientific consensus of experts. That's misleading which is the opposite of what journalists are supposed to do.
- smsm42 12y ago
  That's the problem with media like BBC - airing the view point becomes "subsidizing", and which opinion gets discussed and which is not becomes matter of centralized public policy instead of matter of private preference and market of ideas. Yes, this is the opposite of what journalists are supposed to do - instead of being free agents in the market of ideas, they become essentially a part of executive branch in enforcing public policy. Not a good development.
  - Steko 12y ago
    "which opinion gets discussed and which is not becomes matter of centralized public policy" Not really. Should they stop and give equal time to the Flat Earth Society every time they show a picture of a spherical earth? If climate deniers want to continue to get anything like equal time they should earn it, not be granted it. They were granted equal time for a long time, longer than they deserved. Now, after several decades of firing blanks while the evidence supporting anthropogenic global warming and climate change has continued to snowball, deniers have been demoted. Expect to see more and more such demotions unless they start backing up their astroturf and propaganda efforts with real science.
    - smsm42 12y ago
      >>> Should they stop and give equal time to the Flat Earth Society You seem to miss the point. The point is not who deserves and who does not deserve access to the market. The point is the whole questions stated like this is a problem. Everybody should have access to the market, that's the point. If FES wants to be on idea market, let them be there. If nobody would buy their goods - their imaginary idea store would wither and fall into disuse. That's how it should be done, not by some committee that decides who gets equal share of centralized resource and who does not. You talking about "being demoted", that assumes centralized external control of who is promoted and who is demoted. Right now you laud this model because you sympathize to the point being promoted and despise the point being demoted. But this model is inherently not healthy, as it has control of what is discussed and what is not in the hands of the central power and not in the hands of the people. I was thinking people on HN would get why such centralized system is problematic, but looks like the cheerleading for their team obscures their vision.
stephencanon 12y ago
If someone holds the opinion that onions are actually evil aliens sent from the planet Zorlax to colonize the earth, should we also given them equal airtime? You need to draw a line somewhere, otherwise the airwaves will be full of nothing but crazies and their pet theories.
- pling 12y ago
  What's Songs of Praise then? Worship thy sky daddy to prevent evil demons sent from hell to colonise the earth!
  - stephencanon 12y ago
    I’ve never actually seen Songs of Praise, but I would hope that it at least features some good music from time to time. At least that’s enjoyable to listen to.
    - pling 12y ago
      Oh it certainly does. You cannot beat a good choir. That doesn't necessarily mean you need to subscribe to the content. The same can be said for hip hop :)
tharax 12y ago
I think this in the same vein as "We don't interview a psychic every time there is a murder". If you want the BBC to be unbiased, then you could make the argument they have previously being biased towards climate change denial, given that a 50/50 interview on TV is not representative of the ratio of scientists who believe/don't believe in climate change.
mdanger007 12y ago
Not the point. When there is limited air time, it is unfair to give 50% of the time to those whose opinion is supported by <2% of experts in the field.
scott_s 12y ago
Two things. First, if a vanishingly small number of people hold a particular opinion, reporting on that opinion in mainstream journalism distorts the perception of how marginal that view is. Standard journalistic practice is to get "both sides" of a story. So, if there is a story on climate change, the standard practice would be to find someone to say "it's not a problem". The problem with that is the reader gets the impression that there is more disagreement in the scientific community than there actually is. This practice makes the article inaccurate. That's what they're trying to fix. Second, the data shows that non-experts in a subject are not that rational about their views in the subject: http://www.nytimes.com/2014/07/06/upshot/when-beliefs-and-facts-collide.html?ref=science&_r=0 http://www.nytimes.com/2014/07/06/upshot/when-beliefs-and-fa...

by pling 12y ago

lemming 12y ago

People have tested it and debated it publicly, and 97% of those professionally qualified to test it and debate it are of the same opinion.

pling 12y ago
That doesn't mean they're right or proposing different hypothesis' is suddenly forbidden. That's not science. Aristotelian physics was superseded by Newtonian Physics. That's science. I'm not suggesting that anyone will come up with a different conclusion but there's no excuse for this stupid dogma and religion getting in the way of rationality. Feynman is doing 500rpm in his grave...
- icebraining 12y ago
  It's not forbidden - it just won't be given equal airtime on BBC.
- scott_s 12y ago
  The BBC reports on science. It does not do science. The BBC is not holding science back by making a policy to not give equal airtime to crackpots.
- rbanffy 12y ago
  > That doesn't mean they're right or proposing different hypothesis' is suddenly forbidden. That's not science. While I agree with you on principle, it would be awkward to give precisely 99.93% of the airtime to scientists who agree we have an impact in global climate change and dividing the rest among all the possible explanations (from the "it's a natural phenomenon" to "God is doing it" and even the "we are not sure the climate is actually changing").
  - pling 12y ago
    Ok I agree with the precision argument but through rounding that could be construed as 100%. Perhaps a fair option would be: 1. Discuss the issue at hand. 2. Provide a 30 second to 1 minute summary of other hypothesises and how they have or haven't been tested. 3. Visit our web site (which contains a more rational summary of opinions, wikipedia style). There is very rarely one true answer. Look at medicine. Superseded theories all over the place.
rstupek 12y ago
Well if 97% of those professionally qualified to test it have one opinion, wouldn't it be prudent to hear the opinions and data for the 3% who don't? Sometimes the 97% can be wrong. A classic example of this is the scientist who determined that ulcers within the stomach are caused by bacteria and not stomach acid. His opinions were beaten down by everyone doing research into how to curb stomach acid. As to the climate issue, I have no opinion as I haven't looked at the evidence myself.

Steko 12y ago

"it should be free to be debated." Right but it shouldn't be subsidized and given an artificial equal weight with a vast scientific consensus of experts. That's misleading which is the opposite of what journalists are supposed to do.

smsm42 12y ago
That's the problem with media like BBC - airing the view point becomes "subsidizing", and which opinion gets discussed and which is not becomes matter of centralized public policy instead of matter of private preference and market of ideas. Yes, this is the opposite of what journalists are supposed to do - instead of being free agents in the market of ideas, they become essentially a part of executive branch in enforcing public policy. Not a good development.
- Steko 12y ago
  "which opinion gets discussed and which is not becomes matter of centralized public policy" Not really. Should they stop and give equal time to the Flat Earth Society every time they show a picture of a spherical earth? If climate deniers want to continue to get anything like equal time they should earn it, not be granted it. They were granted equal time for a long time, longer than they deserved. Now, after several decades of firing blanks while the evidence supporting anthropogenic global warming and climate change has continued to snowball, deniers have been demoted. Expect to see more and more such demotions unless they start backing up their astroturf and propaganda efforts with real science.
  - smsm42 12y ago
    >>> Should they stop and give equal time to the Flat Earth Society You seem to miss the point. The point is not who deserves and who does not deserve access to the market. The point is the whole questions stated like this is a problem. Everybody should have access to the market, that's the point. If FES wants to be on idea market, let them be there. If nobody would buy their goods - their imaginary idea store would wither and fall into disuse. That's how it should be done, not by some committee that decides who gets equal share of centralized resource and who does not. You talking about "being demoted", that assumes centralized external control of who is promoted and who is demoted. Right now you laud this model because you sympathize to the point being promoted and despise the point being demoted. But this model is inherently not healthy, as it has control of what is discussed and what is not in the hands of the central power and not in the hands of the people. I was thinking people on HN would get why such centralized system is problematic, but looks like the cheerleading for their team obscures their vision.

stephencanon 12y ago

If someone holds the opinion that onions are actually evil aliens sent from the planet Zorlax to colonize the earth, should we also given them equal airtime? You need to draw a line somewhere, otherwise the airwaves will be full of nothing but crazies and their pet theories.

pling 12y ago
What's Songs of Praise then? Worship thy sky daddy to prevent evil demons sent from hell to colonise the earth!
- stephencanon 12y ago
  I’ve never actually seen Songs of Praise, but I would hope that it at least features some good music from time to time. At least that’s enjoyable to listen to.
  - pling 12y ago
    Oh it certainly does. You cannot beat a good choir. That doesn't necessarily mean you need to subscribe to the content. The same can be said for hip hop :)

tharax 12y ago

I think this in the same vein as "We don't interview a psychic every time there is a murder". If you want the BBC to be unbiased, then you could make the argument they have previously being biased towards climate change denial, given that a 50/50 interview on TV is not representative of the ratio of scientists who believe/don't believe in climate change.

mdanger007 12y ago

Not the point. When there is limited air time, it is unfair to give 50% of the time to those whose opinion is supported by <2% of experts in the field.

scott_s 12y ago

Two things. First, if a vanishingly small number of people hold a particular opinion, reporting on that opinion in mainstream journalism distorts the perception of how marginal that view is. Standard journalistic practice is to get "both sides" of a story. So, if there is a story on climate change, the standard practice would be to find someone to say "it's not a problem". The problem with that is the reader gets the impression that there is more disagreement in the scientific community than there actually is. This practice makes the article inaccurate. That's what they're trying to fix. Second, the data shows that non-experts in a subject are not that rational about their views in the subject: http://www.nytimes.com/2014/07/06/upshot/when-beliefs-and-facts-collide.html?ref=science&_r=0 http://www.nytimes.com/2014/07/06/upshot/when-beliefs-and-fa...