[meteorite-list] Re: New Asteroid Threat Seen (Asteroid 2003 QQ47)
From: Pekka Savolainen <pekka.savolainen_at_meteoritecentral.com>
Date: Thu Apr 22 10:29:50 2004 Message-ID: <3F5816B4.5000109_at_dlc.fi> --------------040301020004020207080806 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Hello, Bob, Yes, I sure know, the truth in the science is the best quess or the best opinion the community can aggree, and this truth corrects itself all the time. Better this way, if the absolute truth was found in middle-ages, I suppose, our world should be a bit different than now...;- When I wrote "crystal-clear information", I didnīt mean the absolute truth, just the information formated so, that the media and my 88-years granpa can underrestand that, and this means, the information has to be translated from the science-language to the "clear lanquage". As I mentioned, the problem in fact is not in astronomers, not in press, but just between them. Anyway, if the media takes the material from the web and is too lazy or busy to consult an astronomer, the media should take the responce, but as we have noticed, this is just a dream. When the astronomer finds a target classified as Torino 1, thatīs nothing. When the press founds the same data, itīs a sensation. NEO-community is trying to find NEOs, media is trying to find news, and itīs even better, if they can find a sensation. And if some journalists donīt find a news, they will make a news. In the science, if somebody wants the community to accept his / her opinion as the current "truth", he / she has to prove it. If the media wants a news, itīs enough, if they can pick the juicy parts from the totality, suitable to build a news. I have arqued with the finnish press, and thatīs a total waste of time. Much better way is to try to find journalists, who honestly are interrested in the theme and try to get them to underrestand "the crystal-clear information", there is not the absolut truth in these cases, but this means correspondence between the science and the media, and I really hope, this discussion starts and goes on. The first step could be to tell to the media, it may be wise to check from the serious astronomer, does the Torino 1 -classification really mean the end of the world...;- NEOs are the most "media-sexy" topic in the astronomics for a long time, and I belive, this is the main reason for the overreacting of the media. The press doesnīt sell, if the reporter tells, you can get killed in a car-accident or you can burn you and your family, if you smoke in the bed, and these are the everyday risks, everyone can limit. Iīm not shooting the astronomers and neither the media, because both of them are trying to do their job. If we talk about the moral of these jobs, the situation is a bit different...;- But I suppose, we have to live with the media, so the old "keep your friends closer and your enemies even closier" suits also in this situation. Anyway, itīs true, the science needs the media and the media needs the science. I aggree with you, itīs a wise question, why didnīt the media wait a day or two. But they want their news anyway, and thatīs why somebody have to tell to the media, why to wait and publish a good news is better than to hurry and make themself as clowns. The Spacequard Symposium and forums like that could be a way to do that. Specially in the NEO-case I see the good relationships between the community and the media important. The risk is real, and the NEO-community makes what they can to find and limit or eliminate the risks. The community can calculate the risks, the media can tell them to the public, but the way to do that, should be something other than now. Belive, there is lot of work to do with this, but also belive, this could be done, at least I hope so. So, I think we can aggree, there are not the corrcet answers or not the absolute truth, so perhaps we can talk about the relative truth in this case. With this I mean, we should find the way to proportion the NEOs to the everyday life with the media in a reasonable way... best regards, pekka s Bob Martino wrote: >Pekka, > >Perhaps I wasn't really clear. > >What you are asking for is "crystal-clear information." This DOES NOT EXIST >IN SCIENCE!! > >EVERY measurement has error associated with it. Every one. You cannot tell >me that the size of your computer screen is "exactly 17 inches" (or >whatever) and have me believe you. As a scientist I know that there is no >such thing as a perfectly precise measurement. > >What science does is measure the best it can, get preliminary results, and >then try to measure better. With better measurements the results are better >but there is STILL SOME ERROR. So you measure again with more precise >measurements or you use additional data and you get even better results. And >these results STILL SHOW ERROR. So you do it again and have even better >results, but there will STILL be some error. Error can be reduced. It can >NEVER be eliminated. Thus your desire for "correct data" is impossible. At >least in this universe. > >In the asteroid case being discussed, the astronomer didn't release his >data. The press took it from a web site. The web site was NEVER intended to >be used by the press. It was for scientists to share data with each other. >By sharing data we reduce error. If these ways of sharing information didn't >exist, science would be at a huge disadvantage. Again, the astronomer did >EVERYTHING correctly. It was the PRESS that cried wolf. > >So then I ask this: Why shouldn't the PRESS wait a day or two to get a >better, more accurate story? :) > >Let me say that again: There is no such thing as perfectly correct, >crystal-clear data. In science, there is no such thing as a correct answer. >It's all subject to revision. > >----- >Bob Martino, Tucson, AZ > >Can you really name a star? Read the Truth! >http://home.columbus.rr.com/starfaq/ >. > >>Hello, Bob and the list, >> >>thereīs no problem, astronomers say, the asteroid MAY hit the earth, the >>question is about the timing to say that an how to say that. >> >>Why canīt the british astronomers wait a day or two to get the correct >>data. This was the second time from the british sience-community to be >>in hurry. >> >>Simple question, what means to wait a day or two in silence and then give >>a correct and crystal-clear information. Why to give the preliminary data >>to the media, if all knows, what the result will be? >> >[snip] > > > > >______________________________________________ >Meteorite-list mailing list >Meteorite-list_at_meteoritecentral.com >http://www.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list > -- Pekka Savolainen Jokiharjuntie 4 FIN-71330 Rasala FINLAND + 358 400 818 912 Group Home Page: http://www.smartgroups.com/groups/eurocoin Group Email Address: eurocoin_at_smartgroups.com --------------040301020004020207080806 Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit <html> <head> </head> <body> <br> Hello, Bob,<br> <br> <br> Yes, I sure know, the truth in the science is the best quess or the best opinion<br> the community can aggree, and this truth corrects itself all the time. Better this<br> way, if the absolute truth was found in middle-ages, I suppose, our world<br> should be a bit different than now...;-<br> <br> When I wrote "crystal-clear information", I didn´t mean the absolute truth,<br> just the information formated so, that the media and my 88-years granpa <br> can underrestand that, and this means, the information has to be translated<br> from the science-language to the "clear lanquage". As I mentioned, the problem<br> in fact is not in astronomers, not in press, but just between them. <br> <br> Anyway, if the media takes the material from the web and is too lazy or busy <br> to consult an astronomer, the media should take the responce, but as we have <br> noticed, this is just a dream.<br> <br> When the astronomer finds a target classified as Torino 1, that´s nothing. When <br> the press founds the same data, it´s a sensation. NEO-community is trying to<br> find NEOs, media is trying to find news, and it´s even better, if they can find a<br> sensation. And if some journalists don´t find a news, they will make a news.<br> <br> In the science, if somebody wants the community to accept his / her opinion as<br> the current "truth", he / she has to prove it. If the media wants a news, it´s enough,<br> if they can pick the juicy parts from the totality, suitable to build a news.<br> <br> I have arqued with the finnish press, and that´s a total waste of time. Much better<br> way is to try to find journalists, who honestly are interrested in the theme and try<br> to get them to underrestand "the crystal-clear information", there is not the absolut<br> truth in these cases, but this means correspondence between the science and the<br> media, and I really hope, this discussion starts and goes on. The first step could be<br> to tell to the media, it may be wise to check from the serious astronomer, does the<br> Torino 1 -classification really mean the end of the world...;- <br> <br> NEOs are the most "media-sexy" topic in the astronomics for a long time, and I belive,<br> this is the main reason for the overreacting of the media. The press doesn´t sell, if<br> the reporter tells, you can get killed in a car-accident or you can burn you and your<br> family, if you smoke in the bed, and these are the everyday risks, everyone can limit.<br> <br> I´m not shooting the astronomers and neither the media, because both of them are<br> trying to do their job. If we talk about the moral of these jobs, the situation is a bit<br> different...;- But I suppose, we have to live with the media, so the old "keep your<br> friends closer and your enemies even closier" suits also in this situation.<br> <br> Anyway, it´s true, the science needs the media and the media needs the science. I<br> aggree with you, it´s a wise question, why didn´t the media wait a day or two. But<br> they want their news anyway, and that´s why somebody have to tell to the media,<br> why to wait and publish a good news is better than to hurry and make themself as <br> clowns. The Spacequard Symposium and forums like that could be a way to do that.<br> <br> Specially in the NEO-case I see the good relationships between the community and <br> the media important. The risk is real, and the NEO-community makes what they <br> can to find and limit or eliminate the risks. The community can calculate the risks, <br> the media can tell them to the public, but the way to do that, should be something<br> other than now. Belive, there is lot of work to do with this, but also belive, this could<br> be done, at least I hope so.<br> <br> So, I think we can aggree, there are not the corrcet answers or not the absolute truth,<br> so perhaps we can talk about the relative truth in this case. With this I mean, we should<br> find the way to proportion the NEOs to the everyday life with the media in a reasonable<br> way...<br> <br> best regards,<br> <br> pekka s<br> <br> <br> <br> <br> <br> <br> <br> <br> Bob Martino wrote:<br> <blockquote type="cite" cite="mid:00aa01c37358$7d6b34c0$0300000a_at_TheMonolith"> <pre wrap="">Pekka,<br><br>Perhaps I wasn't really clear.<br><br>What you are asking for is "crystal-clear information." This DOES NOT EXIST<br>IN SCIENCE!!<br><br>EVERY measurement has error associated with it. Every one. You cannot tell<br>me that the size of your computer screen is "exactly 17 inches" (or<br>whatever) and have me believe you. As a scientist I know that there is no<br>such thing as a perfectly precise measurement.<br><br>What science does is measure the best it can, get preliminary results, and<br>then try to measure better. With better measurements the results are better<br>but there is STILL SOME ERROR. So you measure again with more precise<br>measurements or you use additional data and you get even better results. And<br>these results STILL SHOW ERROR. So you do it again and have even better<br>results, but there will STILL be some error. Error can be reduced. It can<br>NEVER be eliminated. Thus your desire for "correct data" is impossible. At<br>lea st in this universe.<br><br>In the asteroid case being discussed, the astronomer didn't release his<br>data. The press took it from a web site. The web site was NEVER intended to<br>be used by the press. It was for scientists to share data with each other.<br>By sharing data we reduce error. If these ways of sharing information didn't<br>exist, science would be at a huge disadvantage. Again, the astronomer did<br>EVERYTHING correctly. It was the PRESS that cried wolf.<br><br>So then I ask this: Why shouldn't the PRESS wait a day or two to get a<br>better, more accurate story? :)<br><br>Let me say that again: There is no such thing as perfectly correct,<br>crystal-clear data. In science, there is no such thing as a correct answer.<br>It's all subject to revision.<br><br>-----<br>Bob Martino, Tucson, AZ<br><br>Can you really name a star? Read the Truth!<br><a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://home.columbus.rr.com/starfaq/">http://home.columbus.rr.com/starfaq/</a><br> .<br><br></pre> <blockquote type="cite"> <pre wrap="">Hello, Bob and the list,<br><br>there´s no problem, astronomers say, the asteroid MAY hit the earth, the<br>question is about the timing to say that an how to say that.<br><br>Why can´t the british astronomers wait a day or two to get the correct<br>data. This was the second time from the british sience-community to be<br>in hurry.<br><br>Simple question, what means to wait a day or two in silence and then give<br>a correct and crystal-clear information. Why to give the preliminary data<br>to the media, if all knows, what the result will be?<br></pre> </blockquote> <pre wrap=""><!---->[snip]<br><br><br><br><br>______________________________________________<br>Meteorite-list mailing list<br><a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:Meteorite-list_at_meteoritecentral.com">Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com</a><br><a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://www.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list">http://www.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list</a><br><br></pre> </blockquote> <br> <pre class="moz-signature" cols="$mailwrapcol">-- Pekka Savolainen Jokiharjuntie 4 FIN-71330 Rasala FINLAND + 358 400 818 912 Group Home Page: <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://www.smartgroups.com/groups/eurocoin">http://www.smartgroups.com/groups/eurocoin</a> Group Email Address: <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:eurocoin_at_smartgroups.com">eurocoin@smartgroups.com</a> </pre> <br> </body> </html> --------------040301020004020207080806--Received on Fri 05 Sep 2003 12:53:08 AM PDT |
 StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit Yahoo MyWeb
|