walking with dinosaurs etc.

[Skepticus Rex]

i'm sure pretty much everyone on here will have watched, or at least heard of, 'the walking with...' tv programmes (including 'walking with dinosaurs', 'sea monsters', 'walking with beasts', 'walking with monsters', and one-off spin offs)

these programmes are documentary-type programmes about life in prehistoric times. they include all the information you'd find in a wildlife documentary about life as it is now.
the difference, of course, being that the only actual evidence of prehistoric life is in the form of fossils. things such as the shape/size of teeth, the positioning of the fossils, the general anatomy and occasionally (i think) stomach contents of fossilised animals give clues as to the nature and habits of creatures that lived before any recorded history.
however, these are only clues and rely on interpretation.

teeth are pretty good guides to what a dinosaur (for example) may have eaten (stomach contents are even better when available), when compared to the teeth of modern animals and what they eat now.

the positioning of a fossil only indicates it's position at death, or later, since a corpse could easily be moved before being buried (as in, under something, like silt or whatever) and, eventually, fossilised.

the shape can be seen from the skeleton (assuming it's all there), and the size and shape of limbs etc. may show how the animal stood, and moved, when compared to modern skeletons and how those animals stand and move (if possible).

however, the walking with dinosaurs program included stuff like: hunting/foraging habits (an extreme extrapolation from the evidence available, especially when involving multiple animals), migratory habits (i don't see how any evidence can suggest this, except that fossils were found in several places), social interactions (no evidence other than that a group of fossils may be found together, which just means their corpses were in the same place at fossilisation, and wouldn't explain mating habits, or how young were raised, both of which were included in the program)

i don't object to those interpretations that are implied by the evidence, but i definately object to paleontologists (some of whom helped make the program, so presumably they agree with it's content) commenting on the mating habits and hunting techniques etc. of an extinct creature that has never (and never will be) observed in action, and calling it scientific fact.

i think it is very misleading to tell the general public that scientists can do everything and anything, including the impossible, and against everything that scientists should stand for. almost every single scientific documentary i've seen has mentioned scientific opinion as scientific fact, and it is appalling.
i'm assuming that the scientists who condone (and help produce) these documentaries can tell the difference between their own opinion and fact, but it is extremely patronising to the laypeople to not let them know the limits of science, and to grossly misrepresent the reliability of scientific consensus.

if a theory that has been displayed in this way is proved false, and the new theory is shown to the laypeople like this as well, then it will not only show that science isn't infallible (which is true and should never be concealed), but that scientists lie about it. thus, the scientific community will never be trusted again, especially when attempting to refute things such as pseudoscience and alternative medicine.

[tkingdoll]

I don't have time to reply at length, although I would like to, but I will say that I broadly agree with your sentiment regarding such programmes (which aren't documentaries as such), in that they often present speculation as fact.

However, that is, I would say, entirely the fault of the media, of the TV company responsible. They write the script, and will often present speculation as fact simply because it makes for better TV. They can't (or won't) add a little caveat before every sentence "scientists know this bit for a fact but are guessing about the colour of the dinosaur's skin based on logical assumption).

Television has a huge amount to answer for when it comes to misinformation.

You make a basic mistake here:


paleontologists...some of whom helped make the program, so presumably they agree with it's content

I can pretty much guarantee that the consultants on those programmes have zero control or say over the final edit or the script. If they are asked for their opinion on it (to fact check), and disagree with a part of the show, the producers and can and may well ignore them in favour of more exciting TV. Scientists do not 'help produce' such shows at all, at least in the TV sense of the word produce. They will be consultants, at best.

Here's the problem you are seeing: television companies care about ratings (and advertisers revenues in the case of a commercial channel). That is it. Are they willing to sacrifice some scientific integrity to achieve those ratings? Yes. Do their consultant scientists like it? Probably not. Can they do anything about it? No.

OK, a question. Can you give me specific examples of when/where this has been said, and by whom:


i think it is very misleading to tell the general public that scientists can do everything and anything, including the impossible

I think one of the issues here is that you appear to think science and scientists act and think as one body. That is not the case. For example, take the MMR vaccine scare. The media took the findings of one doctor and published them - it became a nationwide scare, or panic. Lots of other people in the medical community looked at that doctor's work, found it to be flawed, and informed the media. The media did not splash the good news across the front of its pages because "MMR is safe, we were wrong" does not sell papers.

'Science' cannot communicate directly with the public. Only the media does that, and the media is more flawed and biased than you can possibly imagine. That goes for newspapers, magazines, radio, TV, you name it. A TV producer will almost always sacrifice what is right for what is popular or interesting. They dress up fact with speculation precisely because the general public do not understand the difference - and that makes for better TV.


if a theory that has been displayed in this way is proved false, and the new theory is shown to the laypeople like this as well, then it will not only show that science isn't infallible (which is true and should never be concealed), but that scientists lie about it. thus, the scientific community will never be trusted again, especially when attempting to refute things such as pseudoscience and alternative medicine.

I think that's a tad melodramatic. If the two theories are given equal publicity, then the public don't turn against science en masse - the problem is that the new theory is rarely given equal air time, as in the MMR example, unless it serves the cause of the media. And that cause is profit.

[Skepticus Rex]

according to http://palaeo.gly.bris.ac.uk/dinosaur/walking.html
some paleontologists were happy to be involved, apparantly closely. they mention that other scientists were critical of the programme in similar ways to my first post, about which i'm relieved.


I think one of the issues here is that you appear to think science and scientists act and think as one body.

in this case i meant the media telling people that, with support from scientists.


I think that's a tad melodramatic. If the two theories are given equal publicity, then the public don't turn against science en masse - the problem is that the new theory is rarely given equal air time, as in the MMR example, unless it serves the cause of the media. And that cause is profit.

i meant in the case of a theory that literally replaces an old one, for example if new evidence proved a prediction about, say, the situation on europa, wrong. such predictions are often portrayed as fact in documantaries like walking with dinosaurs. so if people trust those documentaries as showing them what has been proven, not what is theorised, and one of them is shown to be wrong, then they will percieve 'science' to have been wrong despite it's supposed claims of truth (that is, the public supposes). this will make them overly sceptical about other claims of truth that may actually be true, with no way of assessing claims other than what the media reports.
i think you misunderstood me as meaning two opposing theories, one of which is proven/disproven.

[Admin]

I was under the impression that these programmes' publicity did not claim that they were factual; rather that they were a representation of what scientists thought would be a likely scenario based on what the evidence (and with reference to the ethology of modern animals) supports.

In fact I've got Walking with Dinosaurs on tape somewhere as I kept it for my nephew. I'll listen to the intro.

[median]

i don't object to those interpretations that are implied by the evidence, but i definately object to paleontologists (some of whom helped make the program, so presumably they agree with it's content) commenting on the mating habits and hunting techniques etc. of an extinct creature that has never (and never will be) observed in action, and calling it scientific fact.


Skep, agreed and a good point made. I think when scientific conjecture is offered then it should be noted as such. I think that quite a lot of dinosaur theory possibly uses a type of retro-fitting of ideas. The argument, of course, is this valid? Looking at what is observable in terms of species behaviour, in terms of camouflage, mating habits one must decide whether regularities of types of behaviour have always happened and as such it is valid to apply to times of prehistory, in terms of evidence of course.

Median

[Jocky]

if a theory that has been displayed in this way is proved false, and the new theory is shown to the laypeople like this as well, then it will not only show that science isn't infallible (which is true and should never be concealed), but that scientists lie about it. thus, the scientific community will never be trusted again, especially when attempting to refute things such as pseudoscience and alternative medicine.
I think that's a tad melodramatic. If the two theories are given equal publicity, then the public don't turn against science en masse - the problem is that the new theory is rarely given equal air time, as in the MMR example, unless it serves the cause of the media. And that cause is profit.
I meant in the case of a theory that literally replaces an old one, for example if new evidence proved a prediction about, say, the situation on europa, wrong.
My experience of debating the pros and cons of science with woos tells me that Skepticus' theory is sadly very often true. Anything which can be siezed upon to discredit science, is - even when it is something which actually ought to reflect credit on the scientific method (like being able to recognise when an old theory is no longer tenable in the light of evidence, and replacing it with a better one).

As Teek says, this wouldn't happen if both sides were put equally. But it just doesn't make make exciting enough telly or sexy enough copy, so the media won't do it.

You can see their point, in a way. Look at how boring and repetitive political coverage (where legislation forces the media to keep up an appearance of even-handedness) often becomes - you just get the same old talking heads trading the same predictable points, and everybody (except the political junkies) switches off.

Maybe the problem is that scientists are too easily tempted to get involved with media projects. The temptation to see one's own personal pet project (which no doubt desperately wants and needs both cash and kudos) must be overwhelming, and the price of not having editorial control may seem like a small one to pay. However, the long term consequences for science can be unpredictable :(

Let's be grateful that there isn't a requirement to air both sides of the argument in scientific coverage though - it might have lessened the impact of the MMMR/autism debacle, but imagine if young earth creationists had a right to reply to Walking with Dinosaurs ... :D

[tkingdoll]

Maybe the problem is that scientists are too easily tempted to get involved with media projects. The temptation to see one's own personal pet project (which no doubt desperately wants and needs both cash and kudos) must be overwhelming, and the price of not having editorial control may seem like a small one to pay. However, the long term consequences for science can be unpredictable :(



I suspect there might be a lot of truth to that - it's certainly glamorous (ha!) and pays well, but in anything destined for the media, there is likely to be a trade-off.

I wonder if some media-bound scientists feel that a little fact in a lot of frill is better than no facts at all? Just speculating, but that would make sense.