Hard News: The First Draft
262 Responses
First ←Older Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 … 11 Newer→ Last
-
It appears he's not entirely alone.
Our planetary system is a huge complex system and it sounds unbelievable that the constellations of the big celestial bodies shall even have an influence on the triggering of earthquakes.
Can we get used to such an idea at all? I think we should do! -
Bit late, but on the sign language thing, can we have it back in Parliament too please? Why they ever stopped that , beyond sense and I want the translation back for Te Reo while they should be at it.
-
Carol - If you want to change people's minds you first have to acknowledge that they have a right to their views. Telling anybody that what they believe is rubbish and that something else is 'right' is not much different from any fundamentalist approach. It is harder but more useful to listen to them and then work out what form of challenge would be most effective in getting them to move. John Campbell's interview with ken Ring was an example of how not to do it.
Just imagine the reaction now if someone said that there is no god so we don't need to rebuild any churches.
-
Russell Brown, in reply to
Carol – If you want to change people’s minds you first have to acknowledge that they have a right to their views. Telling anybody that what they believe is rubbish and that something else is ‘right’ is not much different from any fundamentalist approach. It is harder but more useful to listen to them and then work out what form of challenge would be most effective in getting them to move. John Campbell’s interview with ken Ring was an example of how not to do it.
Which would be fine if Ring was selling his stuff as religious belief, but he's not. He's selling it as science, to vulnerable people -- and that is wrong.
-
Russell Brown, in reply to
Hilary, he didn’t shout at people who believed in Ken Ring, either.
No. They were treated very gently.
-
Matthew Poole, in reply to
Telling anybody that what they believe is rubbish and that something else is ‘right’ is not much different from any fundamentalist approach
A la Dawkins, who's at least as offensive as many of the fundamentalist Christians of whom he is so dismissive, and considerably more offensive than pretty much every Christian I know (a not-inconsiderable number) because he's so in-your-face about the absolute superiority and truthiness of his position.
-
Carol Stewart, in reply to
Hilary, I don't think it was a great interview either. Peter Griffin, here, has an astute commentary on the interview and how it could have, well, gone a bit better.
OTOH, I see no reason to apologise for calling bullshit. Like that example of Ken's views on ozone depletion that I mentioned. It's just plain wrong and it would be dangerously wrong if more people had believed it. -
Sacha, in reply to
only out for themselves
noice #tofo
-
But whatever is right or wrong, people still believe what Ken Ring says, and Andrew Wakefield for that matter. I find it fascinating how people use the 'rhetoric of science' to support beliefs. In my own research I have studied the damage that the 'refrigerator mother' meme and the immunisation/MMR link have done, but however wrong in fact they are still widely believed..
My interest is in how to tackle false beliefs and telling people they are wrong does not appear to be an effective way.
-
Russell Brown, in reply to
Hilary, I don’t think it was a great interview either. Peter Griffin, here, has an astute commentary on the interview and how it could have, well, gone a bit better.
It wasn’t an affective interview, for sure. IMHO, it should never have been done.
But having watched it again, taking notes, my initial impression that Ring dodged one direct question after another was confirmed. He also interrupted Campbell’s questions at least twice to try and steer away from them. I do not even remotely agree that Ring is due an apology.
Had Campbell done the same thing with a politician or businessman – confronted him with his own published words – I suspect the response would have been quite different.
But sadly, half the country seems incapable of distinguishing Ken Ring from Santa Claus.
-
Craig Ranapia, in reply to
Carol – If you want to change people’s minds you first have to acknowledge that they have a right to their views.
That’s fine, Hilly, but you know something I keep bringing up Wakefield for one very simple reason. As Ben Goldacre has said more eloquently than I could, his “right to his view” came to a screaming halt when it was based on scientific fraud. When it was being uncritically repeated by the media to already anxious parents whose decision could have literally been a matter of life and death for their children. When we’re never going to know for sure how many children needlessly suffered or died as a direct result of Wakefield’s fraud, and the media’s utter dereliction of it’s most basic duty – to tell the truth.
One little factoid that didn’t come out is that Ring is currently pimpin’ a new book. I guess the unspeakable human misery that’s been on parade this last week is one hell of a hook.
Sorry, Hillary, this man is a parasite on human fear and misery. Seeing his fan club in action, I've no reason to moderate my utter contempt for this worm,
-
Hilary: I don't have a link to hand, but recently I've been doing a lot of reading about the psychology of persuasion. There's some terribly frustrating aspects: eg, people confronted with evidence that directly contradicts their beliefs often end up strengthened in those beliefs. People given texts that debunk myths often remember the myth over the debunking when tested later.
The only thing I've read in this area that's at all encouraging is that you have better success persuading people to change their minds if you have reinforced their self-esteem first. So in the context of a broadcast whose purpose was to challenge an incorrect belief, I'd be preparing the ground by encouraging viewers to identify with the challenger first, and reassure them that they're smart, clever, good people, before moving into presenting the evidence, and I'd try to do it in a way that allowed people who previously believed to excuse their mistakes as natural and human.
-
Sacha, in reply to
people confronted with evidence that directly contradicts their beliefs often end up strengthened in those beliefs
I've tried to point this out to colleagues who insist that 'disability awareness' training will change the world. Funnily enough, they resist hearing it.
-
I’d try to do it in a way that allowed people who previously believed to excuse their mistakes as natural and human.
How generous. The sanctity of absolute knowledge must be a comfortable couch to lie on.
This is probably as close to trolling as I get. I don't think Ken Ring has a leg to stand on, or that his views should have been aired on CL, or anywhere else, but the degree to which everyone is certain of the superiority of their belief system and its scientific underpinning is getting me a little uppity.
Science is evolutionary, and we do not know all there is to know. Well, at least I don't. But then I suspect you knew that.
<endtroll>
-
Russell Brown, in reply to
So in the context of a broadcast whose purpose was to challenge an incorrect belief, I’d be preparing the ground by encouraging viewers to identify with the challenger first, and reassure them that they’re smart, clever, good people, before moving into presenting the evidence, and I’d try to do it in a way that allowed people who previously believed to excuse their mistakes as natural and human.
That's very interesting. And the fact that that didn't happen might go some way to explaining the extraordinary reaction: people who were prepared to believe just a little felt they were being called stupid and didn't like it.
-
Russell Brown, in reply to
Science is evolutionary, and we do not know all there is to know. Well, at least I don’t. But then I suspect you knew that.
Yeah, but ... there's tons of material demonstrating the failures, obfuscations and outright falsehoods in Ring's "work".
You don't have to believe the present state of knowledge is infallible (which would be crazy anyway) to appreciate that.
-
I wrote into Campbell Live praising the interview and I think more people should do the same. Not because the interview was particularly good, but because John Campbell did what I can't remember seeing on NZ television for ages – he challenged someone on their lies. First they showed some nice, normal ChCh people who believed in Ring's theories, then they briefly mentioned the scientists didn't agree, then they had Ring on and confronted him with his own words. I could quite easily see the same exact item on Close Up, except without the confronting Ring part.
Too often this type of pseudoscience is given equal weight or an uncritical airing and news organistations need to know it's appreciated when they challenge this type of belief, even if it's unpopular with some of their viewers.
(It's worth noting that a few weeks back Campbell Live did a story on free food stores appearing and then reported most of their feedback complained the starving people looked overweight and were smoking. I felt sorry for a show trying to challenge misconceptions only to have them reinforced by their viewers.)
-
Why was Ken Ring even given airtime?
I realise that the media is not usually all that brilliant at self-policing who does or does not get airtime, but it seems reasonably self-evident that he would have been better off left on some street corner shouting about how the aliens were controlling our thoughts via lasers in our brains, or similar.
-
SteveH, in reply to
It appears he’s not entirely alone.
No, and there is also this guy who is at least attempting to measure his accuracy (though I suspect his predictions are too close to normal rates of activity to be meaningful).
I think it's fairly well accepted that the gravitational influence of the moon can trigger earthquakes. But for that to happen there has to be the potential for an earthquake to occur in the first place: the necessary stress must have built up. So to predict a specific earthquake it's not enough to just look at the moon, you've got to also know that a particular area is primed for a quake. I.e. you've got to have already predicted the likelihood of a quake in order for the moon's position to be useful as a predictor of the quake.
But Ken Ring doesn't actually predict specific quakes - his predictions are extremely vague in terms of location. Look at what his prediction (or as he prefers to style it, "opinion") actually was:
The window of 15-25 February should be potent for all types of tidal action, not only kingtides but cyclone development and ground movement. The 18th may be especially prone. The possible earthquake risk areas are N/S faults until after 16 February, then E/W faults until 23rd.
He's made no prediction of location more specific than the whole country and he's made no prediction of magnitude. He said in the JC interview that he means significant quakes. Let's say Mw 5+. Geonet states that on average NZ experiences a quake of that size or large about 28 times a year: i.e. once every 13 days. So with his 10 day window Ken was very likely to be "right" purely by chance.
Later on in the same article he says:
Over the next 10 days a 7+ earthquake somewhere is very likely. ... The 7+ is sure to be somewhere in the "Ring of Fire", where 80% of all major earthquakes seem to occur, and NZ is at the lower left of this Ring. The range of risk may be within 500kms of the Alpine Fault.
So he predicted a 7+ Mw somewhere in the Pacific Ring of Fire, maybe within 500kms of the Alpine Fault. He was wrong. No such quake occurred.
He also flat out lies to support his theory. E.g.
We have seen the 4 September 7.1 event (new moon+second closest perigee) of 648 kilotons, followed by 7 October (new moon+perigee#6) which brought (8th) the next biggest event, two 4+ jolts around 6.30am totalling 96 metric tons.
This is simply false. There was a 5.1 on the 4th of October and 7 quakes between the 15 of September and the 1st of October that were larger than his "next biggest event" on the 8th of October.
The following month, on 4-6 November, new moon in perigee brought on 7th at just before 3am, the next biggest aftershock of 118 tonnes.
Again, this is bullshit. The quake on the 7th was Mw 4.6. There were 4.7s on the 15th and 24th of October and 5.1 on the 18th.
The next month? Perigee was 26-27 December, as perigeal new moon changed to perigeal full moon. On 26 December came the next biggest jolt since the last, a month ago; a 4.9mag king-hit of 346 tons. With 20 January's full moon+perigee, came the next biggest earthquake to hit Christchurch, a 5.1mag event.
These 2 months he's right (2 out of 4), though he neglects to mention the big quakes that don't fit his "pattern", e.g. the 4.8s on the 13th and 14th of November.
And, no, I don't have any idea what he's going on about with "tons" and "kilotons".
-
You don’t have to believe the present state of knowledge is infallible (which would be crazy anyway) to appreciate that.
Didn't I say he didn't have a leg to stand on? It's not the debate, it's how we're debating. Perhaps it's something I get a bit sensitive on. There are many instances through history where the widely held belief has proved to be both scientifically wrong, and life-threatening.
I also question the harm he has done in this case, prior to the unfortunate wider airing his views have got. A few families took extra precautions and were better prepared for the Earthquake, and may leave town on the 20th of March. If he is cynically doing this to sell his book, then screw 'im, but otherwise, what's the big deal?
Do you want to stand outside churches on Sunday and tell people their God is a delusion?
-
Do you want to stand outside churches on Sunday and tell people their God is a delusion?
No, this is like someone telling the very frightened and stressed people of Christchurch that God says there's going to be an earthquake on a particular day and they'd better bug out of town. I'd be furious at that as well.
-
Stephen Judd, in reply to
How generous. The sanctity of absolute knowledge must be a comfortable couch to lie on.
It's got nice upholstery too, except for the bit the cat of skepticism keeps scratching...
Seriously dude, what I said about persuasion techniques could be deployed in the service of any belief, whether we thought it was true or not. But I don't pretend permission to sit on the comfy couch of certainty any more than you do.
I still feel it's ok to discuss things that are very probable given the evidence we have without constantly qualifying them with notes about provisions and doubts though.
-
giovanni tiso, in reply to
Why was Ken Ring even given airtime?
That seems to me to be the key issue. Kim Hill did a good job (not a great job; a good job) in her interview with 9/11 charlatan Richard Gage, but I still think that on balance she should have not had him on. It gave him a media presence that carries in itself an undue amount of credibility.
(Which may explain in part why the event at Te Papa the next day was the most highly attended in his worldwide tours - the institutional credibiilty of Te Papa being another possible reason. Or maybe New Zealanders are just more easily duped, but I don't think that's it.)
-
B Jones, in reply to
This was the equivalent of shouting at Andrew Wakefield, and who wouldn't like to do that?
There's an appropriately harsh interview with Wakefield by CNN's Anderson Cooper linked to here.
I liked the interview at first watching, enjoying watching JC unleash his grump on an appropriate target, but in hindsight think Rachel Maddow's lovely way of letting a subject hang himself might have been more effective. All this science vs everyone else narrative that's developed is enormously frustrating.
-
recordari, in reply to
I’d be furious at that as well.
Sorry, I think I'm not providing the balance I might have hoped to. My point is in there somewhere. I'll go sit on the not so comfortable couch of contrition.
I still feel it’s ok to discuss things that are very probable given the evidence we have without constantly qualifying them with notes about provisions and doubts though.
That's fine. Again with trying to make my point. Ring wrong does not mean all believers in extraterrestrial influences on Earthquakes are wrong, or that given time, we might not be better able to predict Earthquakes through understanding this, or another, scientific point. That would be a good thing, no?
Post your response…
This topic is closed.