Innovations & Tech Social media and scientific reporting - uses and misuses

[Watchyourwaite]

How about scientific institutions using social media fraudulently to garner support from an apathetic public to retain or obtain further funding,possibly at the expense of other scientific institutions?

What do you mean goes boom? It's a science thread not a conspiracy thread.
So you have no issues with science just putting any old claims out over social media?

That's a lie. And its been explained pretty extensively to you.
I'll quote it so that you can try to read it again.

There have been two observations of gravitational waves.

The first was on 14 September 2015. Lawrence Krauss' first tweet was on 25th September. Announced officially on 11 February 2016.


followed by


Note the use of the words "rumor" and "may".

Looks like Krauss' source was accurate.

Krauss' article in the New York Times the same day as the announcement is here.

The second observation of gravitational waves was on December 26th 2015 and announced on 15th June 2016.



The findings weren't announced by LIGO scientists until the dates above.

Researchers on a large collaboration like LIGO will have any such paper internally vetted before sending it for publication and calling a press conference.

Gabriela Gonzalez, professor of physics and astronomy at Louisiana State University, and the spokesperson for the LIGO collaboration, said on 12th January 2016, four weeks before the actual announcement.

"The LIGO instruments are still taking data today, and it takes us time to analyse, interpret and review results, so we don’t have any results to share yet.

"We take pride in reviewing our results carefully before submitting them for publication - and for important results, we plan to ask for our papers to be peer-reviewed before we announce the results - that takes time too."

Speaking about the LIGO team, Krauss said. “They will be extremely cautious. There’s no reason for them to make a claim they are not certain of.”

 

[darthbards]

That's a lie. And its been explained pretty extensively to you.
I'll quote it so that you can try to read it again.

Yes,that's how you rumour monger,by circulating rumours,that are then reported by news agencies and in this case even prime ministers and heads of state. The rumours are then taken in by the wider community and the word rumour is often lost in translation,or at a minimum attention drawn to one institution ahead of another.
So you have no issue with aocial media being used to circulate invalid scientific findings by scientists themselves.

 

[Watchyourwaite]

Yes,that's how you rumour monger,by circulating rumours,that are then reported by news agencies and in this case even prime ministers and heads of state. The rumours are then taken in by the wider community and the word rumour is often lost in translation,or at a minimum attention drawn to one institution ahead of another.
So you have no issue with aocial media being used to circulate invalid scientific findings by scientists themselves.

"Amazing if true. Will post details if it survives". You have a problem with that statement. While also claiming that gravity doesn't exist?

And why plural "scientists"? It was a single person on twitter.
I literally quoted you saying that it was tweeted to "garner support from an apathetic public to retain or obtain further funding". Which is a lie.

You counter with more lies. This isn't the conspiracy board, it's the science board. You're already given enough leeway on the conspiracy board to post your bullshit.

 

[darthbards]

"Amazing if true. Will post details if it survives". You have a problem with that statement. While also claiming that gravity doesn't exist?

And why plural "scientists"? It was a single person on twitter.
I literally quoted you saying that it was tweeted to "garner support from an apathetic public to retain or obtain further funding". Which is a lie.

You counter with more lies. This isn't the conspiracy board, it's the science board. You're already given enough leeway on the conspiracy board to post your bullshit.

So you support rumour mongering by scientists via social media. That was all that was asked so thanks for your contribution.
It's not a conspiracy as it is known what happened and includes Gabrielle Gonzales expressing her disappointment on the issue.
It's not really about this issue specifically anyway,it's about where scientific research and social media sit together moving into the future.

 

[Watchyourwaite]

So you support rumour mongering by scientists via social media.

That didn't happen. You can't just keep stating that when there is evidence that opposes you. You can't just ignore evidence and continue to make the same statement.

How is this on the science board?
As soon as cannot is no longer able to make threads here, suddenly darthbards starts making the exact same type of thread.

This forum is for scientific rigor. Not conspiracies and bullshit.

 

[darthbards]

That didn't happen. You can't just keep stating that when there is evidence that opposes you. You can't just ignore evidence and continue to make the same statement.

How is this on the science board?
As soon as cannot is no longer able to make threads here, suddenly darthbards starts making the exact same type of thread.

This forum is for scientific rigor. Not conspiracies and bullshit.

You seem cross. You've made your point you don't have an issue with scientists putting unfounded findings on social media and I thank you for your input.
Again not sure it's a conspiracy when management at LIGO have come out publicly and expressed their disappointment. Where Krauss obtained his information would be of an interest to me,but that would be verging on conspiracy.

 

[Watchyourwaite]

scientists putting unfounded findings on social media

You just keep repeating the same lie. Regardless of evidence supplied against it.

OK. So, you keep saying scientists. Krauss tweeted one thing who was the second or third etc?
You keep using the plural, so you must have evidence of more than just your non evidence of Krauss posting a tweet that said it wasn't confirmed.

So, what other scientist are you talking about?

 

[darthbards]

You just keep repeating the same lie. Regardless of evidence supplied against it.

OK. So, you keep saying scientists. Krauss tweeted one thing who was the second or third etc?
You keep using the plural, so you must have evidence of more than just your non evidence of Krauss posting a tweet that said it wasn't confirmed.

So, what other scientist are you talking about?

The issue as I see it is with science moving forward. Moving forward would involve scientists (plural). The Krauss thing has happened,not much we can do about it now,but we can consider if we'd like to not see it happen again.
Note how I have used the word consider,if your happy with social media being used for rumour mongering,that's fine.

 

[M Malice]

Watchyourwaite you have more patience than i do, well done.

 

[cannot]

That didn't happen. You can't just keep stating that when there is evidence that opposes you. You can't just ignore evidence and continue to make the same statement.

How is this on the science board?
As soon as cannot is no longer able to make threads here, suddenly darthbards starts making the exact same type of thread.

This forum is for scientific rigor. Not conspiracies and bullshit.

ah the ironing

 

[CD Xbow]

Given that my point in Post 13 was, according to you, supposedly "long winded", it appears that I provided a little too much information for you to adequately comprehend.

I thought it very appropriate that I posted Krauss' actual tweets that clearly used the words "if" "rumor" and "may". Gabriela Gonzalez also gave a succinct explanation of the scientific process undertaken before any actual announcement was made. That was definitely worth mentioning as well for any doubters out there as to the veracity of these new observations.

I look forward to posting more "long-winded" posts for you in the future, if and when I have the time and/or inclination.

I liked your posts and I thought you explained things very clearly, in fact exceptionally clearly for a BF post. I'm not quite sure what darthbards is getting at, some dumb science conspiracy thing. Science like all cultural activities, will be impacted for better or worse by social media & the internet. No surprise that science rumours get posted before a peer review article appears.

 

[darthbards]

I liked your posts and I thought you explained things very clearly, in fact exceptionally clearly for a BF post. I'm not quite sure what darthbards is getting at, some dumb science conspiracy thing. Science like all cultural activities, will be impacted for better or worse by social media & the internet. No surprise that science rumours get posted before a peer review article appears.

And your happy with that? You think there might not be some consequences if everyone starts doing it before findings are even confirmed.
Yes social media has an impact on many things in society,that was the point of the question. There's no conspiracy angle. Yes rumours might get out,but I'm not sure scientists should be starting them by posting unproven findings themselves.
It seems unethical.

 

[Long Live HFC]

lol. science and scientists have taken a pretty savage beating in the past few decades (for example) re AGW, yet this is what's unethical or worth worrying about? what a joke.

 

[Chief]

Yes,that's how you rumour monger,by circulating rumours,that are then reported by news agencies and in this case even prime ministers and heads of state. The rumours are then taken in by the wider community and the word rumour is often lost in translation,or at a minimum attention drawn to one institution ahead of another.
So you have no issue with aocial media being used to circulate invalid scientific findings by scientists themselves.

A "rumour" would leave out the caveats.

"I have it from a reliable source that they definitely discovered this fact."
vs
"Encouraging results - they may have discovered this thing, but we are still waiting for confirmation."

Please mate, don't post if you cannot tell the difference.

Now, if you have other examples of scientists using social media to spread rumours for personal gain, please post them and lets talk about them.

If this is your only example then you are barking up the wrong tree.

 

[cannot]

A "rumour" would leave out the caveats.

"I have it from a reliable source that they definitely discovered this fact."
vs
"Encouraging results - they may have discovered this thing, but we are still waiting for confirmation."

Please mate, don't post if you cannot tell the difference.

Now, if you have other examples of scientists using social media to spread rumours for personal gain, please post them and lets talk about them.

If this is your only example then you are barking up the wrong tree.

which thread is ideal for such matters ?

 

[darthbards]

which thread is ideal for such matters ?

i think the thread is probably best off somewhere else. People seem to be concentrating on the now when the idea was to discuss social media and scientific findings going into the future.

Maybe on anther board people would also care to discuss why Kruass posted false findings as rumour mongering or where he obtained his information. It's not like the findings were proven and it's been admitted by management that results are injected into the detector to test the research team. Those discussions obviously wouldn't be appropriate here.

 

[Dannnnnnnnnn]

i think the thread is probably best off somewhere else. People seem to be concentrating on the now when the idea was to discuss social media and scientific findings going into the future.
Maybe on anther board people would also care to discuss why Struass posted false findings as rumour or where he obtained his information. It's not like the findings were proven and it's been admitted by management that results are injected into the detector to test the research team. Those discussions obviously wouldn't be appropriate here.

I think the ethical responsibilities of scientists when it comes to social media is a useful point to discuss, and one that can certainly be had on this board.

To be perfectly honest though I think your LIGO example has fallen flat for reasons that have been explained a couple of times now. Your persistence with it is coming across as agenda-pushing and the reason why it has garnered the response it has.

In my opinion this thread would be better served to take a philosophical turn: detach itself from the LIGO example and instead focus on the hypothetical proper - or improper - use of social media in science, and the correct - or incorrect - ways to unofficially report findings.

I'll change the title and see if we can get a more positive discussion going, but I do strongly feel that the Krauss example has run its course.

 

[darthbards]

I think the ethical responsibilities of scientists when it comes to social media is a useful point to discuss, and one that can certainly be had on this board.

To be perfectly honest though I think your LIGO example has fallen flat for reasons that have been explained a couple of times now. Your persistence with it is coming across as agenda-pushing and the reason why it has garnered the response it has.

In my opinion this thread would be better served to take a philosophical turn: detach itself from the LIGO example and instead focus on the hypothetical proper - or improper - use of social media in science, and the correct - or incorrect - ways to unofficially report findings.

I'll change the title and see if we can get a more positive discussion going, but I do strongly feel that the Krauss example has run its course.

Cheers,I did mention LIGO because I probably do have an 'agenda' in some regards to that specific issue as I was slightly angered that it occurred and it did get widespread coverage,not just from the broader media but also government heads of state. I also felt the rumour part was certainly somewhat lost in translation in my view..
I agree it should be a broader discussion and thought others might take it in that direction,which I was wrong.
A new title would be good,cheers Danx10

 

[Dannnnnnnnnn]

This is an interesting piece on the patterns of use of social media by scientists, and does touch on some of the points you've made here, darthbards:
http://scimep.wisc.edu/wp-content/u...ntists-and-social-media-report-2016_09_21.pdf

Of particular interest are the questions on the peer review process and its relevance on social media:
New scientific findings of public interest should be communicated to the public, even before peer review.
8.9% agreed while 75.5% disagreed.

After scientific findings are published, scientists should comment on their validity on social media.
25.6% agreed and 20.2% disagreed. Surprisingly a majority didn't feel strongly one way or the other on this, but it's a very important question for mine.

I do actually find this issue quite interesting so I'll see what else I can find a bit later.

 

[darthbards]

This is an interesting piece on the patterns of use of social media by scientists, and does touch on some of the points you've made here, darthbards:
http://scimep.wisc.edu/wp-content/u...ntists-and-social-media-report-2016_09_21.pdf

Of particular interest are the questions on the peer review process and its relevance on social media:
New scientific findings of public interest should be communicated to the public, even before peer review.
8.9% agreed while 75.5% disagreed.

After scientific findings are published, scientists should comment on their validity on social media.
25.6% agreed and 20.2% disagreed. Surprisingly a majority didn't feel strongly one way or the other on this, but it's a very important question for mine.

I do actually find this issue quite interesting so I'll see what else I can find a bit later.

Well I'd be a big disagree to the first question,which it appears the majority are.
The second I'm not so fussed about,which again appears the popular consensus,although I'd slightly lean on the disagree if pushed.
Social media certainly is something that's newish and becoming bigger,and something businesses addressed long ago.

 

[Dannnnnnnnnn]

Well I'd be a big disagree to the first question,which it appears the majority are.
The second I'm not so fussed about,which again appears the popular consensus,although I'd slightly lean on the disagree if pushed.
Social media certainly is something that's newish and becoming bigger,and something businesses addressed long ago.

I'm definitely in the strongly disagree camp for the first question. There are many reasons for it, but above all, it has to be remembered that social media isn't just a platform for scientists to discuss potential findings amongst themselves - it reaches the wider public who, with all due respect, don't always understand scientific rigour. Tweeting a finding before it is peer reviewed or published is dangerous as it is a good chance to get picked up by the media or somebody who takes it as immediate gospel, and I don't think that's appropriate given how easily such things spread. Scientists have the responsibility to see the standard process from analysis to release through, and that includes peer review. Social media's rise has made it much easier to shortcut that process but that doesn't make it right.

As for the second, I'm not really sure that that is appropriate either. There are many other, more "official" ways to dispute or discuss another group's findings and I'd suggest that those avenues are far better for science.

I do think social media has a part to play in scientific reporting/discussion, but I also think there are boundaries to its utility.

 

[Chief]

As for the second, I'm not really sure that that is appropriate either. There are many other, more "official" ways to dispute or discuss another group's findings and I'd suggest that those avenues are far better for science.

I do think social media has a part to play in scientific reporting/discussion, but I also think there are boundaries to its utility.

Maybe not Twitter where characters are limited, but Facebook allows long-form writing so it is just as valid as any other public forum.

 

[grumbleguts]

I think the tweets were entirely appropriate, they were laced with the caveats necessary to warn the reader of the preliminary nature of the findings, and the guy was simply excited because as he says, if true this finding was going to be huge.

Even the higgs boson announcement was mitigated with the caveat that the signal was 5 sigma, which means there was a one in 7 or so million that it was simply noise.

 

[darthbards]

I think the tweets were entirely appropriate, they were laced with the caveats necessary to warn the reader of the preliminary nature of the findings, and the guy was simply excited because as he says, if true this finding was going to be huge.

Even the higgs boson announcement was mitigated with the caveat that the signal was 5 sigma, which means there was a one in 7 or so million that it was simply noise.

Let's look though that even if tweets do attach caution what other words could be used to accompany them and what Joe public might think. Words like "very confident though" or "only a matter of time now",the public might seize on these words and place greater emphasis than any of the cautious words that proceed them.
News agencies obviously could take tweets and discount or sell short any part that may make the story less attractive to their audience,as could government spokespeople if they can gain political mileage.
Is there a place in science for excitement to be placed ahead of the correct and more traditional processes?

 

[grumbleguts]

Is there a place in science for excitement to be placed ahead of the correct and more traditional processes?

Of course they can. They were people before they went to uni and became scientists.

You are overthinking this, or in fact underthinking it.

At no point did this man in any way give the impression that gravity waves had definitively been found, I suggestyou find another hobby horse, this one isn't moving.

This was elegantly and eloquently explained to you by Roylion earlier. He made it patently clear was the situation was. Gravity waves exist, if it is this that is causing you to take umbrage I suggest you complain about something less scientifically provable such as human auras and intelligent design.

While I agree scientists using facebook and twitter to make baseless claims in wrong, this is not what happened in the example you cited.