John Campbell’s interview last night with “Moon Man” and self-proclaimed earthquake predictor Ken Ring was, according to the unprecedented stream of Twitter messages following it, a “train wreck”, “harsh”, “disappointing” and “poor journalism”.
Media veteran Dr Brian Edwards weighed in (site loading slowly today) soon after the appearance to condemn Campbell’s effort:
John, your mindless, bullying, tirade against ‘moon man’ Ken Ring on tonight’s Campbell Live was perhaps the worst piece of egotistical, self-important, out of control, closed-minded, biased, unprofessional non-interviewing I have seen in more than 40 years of New Zealand television.
With respect to Dr Edwards, I think he is over-reacting. What John Campbell engaged in was on a par with a mild episode of BBC Hardtalk as fronted by attack dog intellectual Stephen Sackur – though without the finesse or, it has to be said, the intellectualism. In a sense, the interview with Ken Ring was a train wreck, but at least Ring wasn’t permitted to air his banal theories in a softball interview, the trap a journalist at the Gisborne Herald fell into:
The Gisborne Herald has been the only media outlet to ask him about his success highlighting the likely dates of quakes, he said.
’Nobody has interviewed me at all. The way I see it the geologists have got it all wrong – they say these earthquakes are not occurring on any known faults, but earthquakes create faultlines as they go.
Not that the Gisborne Herald felt the need to consult a geologist, an astrophysicist or a scientist of any persuasion in this single-source story.
It is this type of easy media exposure which Ken Ring is adept at manipulating to his own end. Let us not forget that Ken Ring publishes a long-running and presumably lucrative series of weather prediction almanacs – his website is currently pushing the version for Ireland.
Giving Ring airtime in the media has turned out to be a very bad idea – people are taking his theories seriously and in the wake of last week’s quake, many are considering leaving Christchurch in the days around March 20, when Ring next predicts a quake will occur. The Campbell Live interviews preceding the exchange with Ring showed how intelligent, hard-working and obviously fearful Cantabrians have bought into Ring’s scientifically unfounded predictions.
Given all of that, its not surprising that Campbell was angry, that he was unwilling to give Ring a free run as so many before him have done. Campbell succeeded in shutting Ring down and tore into his theory as he should have done. But so unfocused was the attack that the average viewer never even got to hear a summary of Ring’s theory before Campbell attempted to demolish it. The overall impression for those who had only vaguely heard of Ken Ring then was that of a poor old man sitting alone in a TV studio being shouted at by a flustered and clearly angry John Campbell. Tragically, people are flocking to Ring’s defence as a result.
The irony is that Campbell could have simply asked Ring four or five simple questions and stood back as Ring shot himself in the foot attempting to answer them with his wacky pseudoscientific explanations. That’s all that would have been required for the average Campbell Live viewer to write Ring off as a crackpot and move on.
The set-up of the interview didn’t help, with Campbell on location in Christchurch and Ring stuck up on his own in the Auckland studio. At least TV3 didn’t put Ring head to head live on national TV with GNS Science seismologist Dr Kelvin Berryman – that would have been unfair, inappropriate and have made for bad TV.
I yesterday spent much of the day at the Science Media Centre trying with limited success to persuade journalists not to give Ken Ring any more airtime. Unfortunately last night’s episode of Campbell Live has resulted in a lot of people lending moral support to a guy who is preying on the fear of vulnerable quake victims. I don’t think that’s what John Campbell set out to achieve but it was a side-effect of the shotgun approach he took when he needed the incisiveness of a surgeon’s scalpel.
For an analysis of Ken Ring’s earthquake predictions check out this piece by fellow Sciblogger David Winter
PETER GRIFFIN 
Alison said, “Certainly many of his supporters have complained that he should have been given the opportunity to speak more freely.”
Alison… I don’t see Ring supporters on this list… I see people critical of Campbell’s rude unprofessional ambush… I’ve never read Ring’s theories… don’t intend to either…
This thread has been enlightening…
@Michael Edmonds
“translation – You guys won’t validate my woo so I’m leaving”
No, I said exactly what I mean, which is “This forum is degrading into unscientific squabling and irrationally defensive position taking”. Like GJ ” I’m quite capable of speaking for myself, thank you”.
And if you had read back through the thread you would have seen that I am no sycophant for Ring’s theories, merely a proponent for the open mind that all scientists require to perform as scientists. It is the absence of that situation in this blog that I find so tiresomehere. I have been drawn back by Alison’s entry. believing her to be someone who at least acts rationally.
@mainlyme
I think most people here and elsewhere agree that the original interview was a fiasco and it is good that John Campbell apologised. I’m guessing the stress of covering the quake is proving challenging for John Campbell.
I also can’t see why he would do a second interview as the first one has gained him so much sympathic support. But it would be quite nice to see someone else interview him so long as they ask some good questions as Peter suggested above.
However, a more detailed explanation on TV along side a few probing questions would be most educational for the NZ public.
Also can anyone tell me what the exact details are for the March prediction? Given a single day has been specified I am interested in seeing how this turns out and if the media will notice.
@petersmith
RATFLing? does that involve flinging rats? As Grant pointed out you have misread his use of the Wizards comments.
The facts I’m talking about are those which would show that Ken Ring is capable of predicting earthquakes and or weather. Sadly these seem to be missing from anything he has written. His predictions/opinions appear to me to follow the same pattern as a sideshow psychic – vague.
MainlyMe,
“Wish that others here had not closed down to rational discussionâ€
While the only “evidence” offered by you to back Ken Ring’s “predictions” has had no response (the list of references you gave) it hasn’t been “shut down”.
In fact, if I recall correctly, the Science paper you refer to was actually mentioned in the SMC page I linked earlier. Certainly the commentary offered on that page gives some context for you.
Perhaps you could paraphrase why you think that they are relevant and say more that what the geologists on the SMC page do for us?
Peter Smith,
Alison… I don’t see Ring supporters on this list…
Alison can speak for herself, but speaking for myself I took her reference to “his supporters†to mean all the various places people having commenting, the TV3 website, Facebook, Edward’s piece, etc.
This thread has been enlightening…
Excuse me for saying this, but I think it would work better if you didn’t persist with tart remarks about others like this and offered more constructive comments.
On that note, have you read David’s article?
@mainlyme
apologies, my “translation” overstepped the mark but I still disagree that “this forum is degrading into unscientific squabling and irrationally defensive position takingâ€. A few strong statements but still a general agreement that the interview was a fiasco.
I think the biggest disagreement is over whether Ken Ring should have been given airtime or not. I think he should be given airtime but with someone who will politely ask probing questions.
And I am quite aware you are not a proponent of RIng’s theories
Grant asked, On that note, have you read David’s article?.
Grant, in the context of Campbell’s PR disaster, Ring’s theories and David’s article are irrelevant… the issue is about rude interviewing…
MainlyMe,
Excuse me if I’m missing your position on this.
Petersmith,
Why should I correspond with you? You complain about the lack of “facts”, then when invited to contribute excuse yourself!
Good riddance.
GJ, I didn’t ask for a response…
Petersmith,
You objected to a lack of “facts” and made pot-shots about the lack of science, then when politely invited to offer substance excused yourself. Also, I wrote giving JC’s response: circling back to before that (as you are asking to) is not moving forward.
‘Good riddance’ => find someone else to play with 😉
@GJ
I am in danger of letting the anger speak, but that would be no more helpful than Campbell’s disgraceful tirade last night.
Why are you expecting me to defend Ring’s philosophy, when I have ON THREE OCCASIONS stated that I am not a “believer” in it? In any case the veracity of his theories is not the focus of the Griffin article or of the subsequent debate you have entered. Lest you need reminding, this discussion is founded on a disgraceful bit of journalism (now acknowledged by its perpetrator), about standards of journalism and the right for a person to be heard in a civil debate directed at the ball, not the player.
Further you have the audacity to paint others as the perpetrators of the malice erupting in this thread when a track back shows you repeatedly as the primary perpetrator. You try to excuse yourself by asserting that points were “made hurriedly” or “taken out of context” (in otherwords, it’s our fault) or self-deprecation (“A little pedantic this…”) but that does not wash. You own your words AND the effect that they have. Choose them carefully.
@ ME
Thank you, I understand and appreciate your comment..
@GJ
You told Petersmith
“Why should I correspond with you? You complain about the lack of “factsâ€, then when invited to contribute excuse yourself!
Good riddance.”
For others who doubted my earlier assertion that “unscientific squabling and irrationally defensive position taking” here is the final proof.
It’s like playtime in the sandpit!
@ Michael – there are no exact predictions from Ken about the March event – so far I’ve seen two different versions (the ‘moonshot’ & a considerably vaguer option). Just writing something about this at the moment. For petersmith & mainlyme – this is one of the problems that I have with Ken’s ‘predictions’ – they are vague to the point of being useless (or of allowing just about any event to count as a ‘hit’). It would be great if Ken would provide more clarity or precision when he’s asked (& I have asked, always politely), but unfortunately that’s not forthcoming. If you ask a scientist for a prediction about something they’ll give it, with an indication of how probable they think it’ll be, & they’ll try to be as precise as they can. Vagueness just muddies the waters.
(And for the record, Grant is correct in his interpretation of what I meant about Ring supporters in my previous comment here.)
MM,
Why are you expecting me to defend Ring’s philosophy
You must have missed my last comment to you. I took the trouble of putting that right on my own initiative.
You offered the comment listing the references and remarked that people where trying to shut things down. All I was doing was inviting you to take the only real substance I could see you had offered re the science further, thinking it would be more productive to talk about the science (or lack of it) than personal potshots. (Like those you’ve just issued I have to admit.)
Instead you both seem now want to swing back to not science. I’m not being evasive, it’s just you two keep shifting what you want, which is impossible for me to try help.
Further you have the audacity to paint others as the perpetrators of the malice erupting in this thread when a track back shows you repeatedly as the primary perpetrator.
No, I did not, nor I did not try create fights – it’s just not my style. I spent a lot of time today trying to clear up that up already. I’d appreciate it if you would not restart it by accusing me of things I haven’t done.
Interesting. My brother just rang me as they had a small quake in Wellington and he was worried that Christchurch must have had another major quake.
Then 5 minutes later an aftershock here in Christchurch.
Reminding myself that correlation is not necessarily causation. 🙂
Grant I’m not playing with anyone… it’s not a game in the sandpit…. the facts are that Campbell tonight acknowledged he stuffed up… end of story… that is exactly what this was about… not the theory or even the science… so sorry, you are spitting your own dummy from some kind of imaginary sandpit…
@Alison
Thanks, that is interesting. I’ve already heard several people in Christchurch suggest that they are going to get out of town on March 20th because of a Ken Ring “opinion”. sigh. I think with people here being tired and stressed they are more susceptible to such rumours.
Mmmm. While I agree that the interview could have been handled better, I rather think that John C was – underneath it all – angry that rumours and unsubstantiated claims (from any source simply make people more tired & more stressed. And that anger boiled over into how he handled the interview, with the results that we’ve seen.
Post should be up now, by the way.
Speaking just for myself, I can’t see the value of returning to the interview itself given JC has apologised and moved on. It seems to me that the thing to do is move on as well.
You might note that Brian Edwards has expressed the same opinion. (I read of Brian’s opinion after writing this comment: I’m just adding this before I sent it in.)
Petersmith: please note the wink I added – I was writing a fun, friendly hint. I never said it was “a game in the sandpitâ€.
GJ… “Good ridance” is not writing in fun… Grant, you write on the run… without much thought, no critical analysis, no depth, off topic, and dog people when THEY don’t understand what you are thinking/trying to say… for someone who prides himself as an objective scientist that is not a good look… [Don’t get me wrong… I’m not saying you aren’t good looking (wink)… no, no, no, no…. I’m not saying you ARE good looking…(wink)…
Alison, making excuses for Campbell’s rudeness doesn’t cut it either… the bottom line is he was rude and that was the sole reason for the public outrage and embarrassing apology. From what I can tell Campbell and those behind the story (the ‘scientists’) were the only ones angry… Haven’t heard of any one else complaining and he hasn’t been charged with anything…
@GJ;
I endorse Petersmith’s observations on your contributions 100%. Please, this time rather than responding in prompt denial, sit in front of a mirror and … look/think.
I’d appreciate it you both would stop slagging me. I have patiently been refraining from abusing you in reply. I have been telling the truth; if you don’t want it there’s not much I can do.
Wanting to talk about the interview is fine, I never said otherwise, but using that as an excuse for abusing me for inviting you to discuss the science is misplaced.
I invited you to discuss the science based on *your* leads, it was not a case of me trying to change the subject. Can you see how I might feel about trying to move the discussion forward following *your lead* only to be abused for trying to do the right thing by you?
Grant, what were my “leads????????” Have you noticed that your posts are mostly defending yourself… trying to explain yourself… you should take a course in effective communication… you need it.
@ Petersmith
“you should take a course in effective communication”
Actually, according to his CV GJ has expertise in communications per this extract … “I have strong interests in science communication and am open to writing contracts or other work (e.g. editing) in this area.”
Clearly it is our problem not his (to anticipate GJ’s response)
(;->)*
* Per GJ, the grin makes it OK.
Guys lets call it a day with the squabbling, bring it back to science-related stuff or discussion of the Campbell Live piece and/or apology or its time to shut the thread…
@PG;
Given the focus of the post was the Campbell interview, his apol last night, it’s time to move on (notwithstanding that there will undoubtedly be Broadcasting Standards Authority consideration somewhere in the future).
I vote close the thread. The science matters can be discussed in other SciBlog posts on the Ring Theories which remain active.
Ciao!
(PS. Any chance you might consider an alternative spam defense than ReCAPTCHA? One of the major frustrations I have experienced in this engagement has been trying to decypher the passwords needed to post. I have lately encountered math-based systems (eg 1234 + 4321 =….) that are substantially more user friendly.)
Peter Griffin,
I agree. I stand by what I wrote in my previous comment.
I’ve already left, as it were, as I feel I’ve done all I can to try put this right (I have only came back seeing your comment). I understand people are testy right now and I have tried my level best to be polite over this, and to not reply in kind.
(Just for clarity: my previous comment crossed over MainlyMe’s reply.)
MainlyMe, re captcha words: just push the recycle button on captcha, it’d toss up a simpler one – hopefully sooner rather than later! 😉
@GJ
Thanks for suggestion.
Ciao
Comment on John Campbell’s interview with Ken Ring Monday 28 Feb 2011
Campbell’s Interview with Ken Ring is outstanding as the preeminent classic of how our mass media is controlled and how it so singularly supports the incumbent vested interests / status quo and the dogmas of mainstream thinking. Psychologists refer to this as the human condition of normalcy.
Campbell’s so-called interview with Ken Ring is not journalism – it is the exact opposite. This was a biased misrepresentation of facts clearly contrived to destroy Ken Ring’s presentation of his science. I can hear modern day scientists in GNS groaning as they read this.
As so many of their peers in New Zealand and throughout the world these scientists have forgotten the true purpose of real scientific investigation in favour of the easier and more lucrative work of maintaining the ‘accepted versions’ of reality that are now mostly dictated by an extremely sophisticated techno / industrial / military complex. Too much modern science, and the funding supporting its outcomes, is no more than searching for and discovering evidence to underpin the mechanisms serving techno / industrial / military complex and the wealth it generates for an elite plutocracy.
Proof of this was when Campbell asked GNS’s Dr Kelvin Berryman if any scientific research had been done to validate the effects of the moon on earthquake events and Berryman replied “Yes it had be done – about 100 years agoâ€. HUH??? Did I miss something??? Campbell certainly missed it (or chose to miss it) given that he let that absurd comment pass without asking the obvious question, “How could research done 100 years ago possibly confirm or refute what any reasonable person with a good computer might be able to determine today – given the huge amount more available scientific data and the ability to manipulate and model such data over many scenarios not possible 100 years ago? It is horrifying to hear one of our leading scientists make an assertion that 100 year old research into moon influence on earthquakes could still be held as valid today – especially when it comes to trying to determine future events to potentially save many lives. Shame on what passes itself off as modern science that it has not investigated this linkage given the astounding results of Ring’s track record in such predictions.
http://www.radiolive.co.nz/Ken-Ring-predicted-Chch-Earthquake-and-the-current-terrible-weather/tabid/506/articleID/16322/Default.aspx
http://www.predictweather.com/ArticleShow.aspx?ID=306&type=home
Being a very simple man – I make a very simple deduction – which is nevertheless grounded in some simple calculations i.e. given Ken Ring’s previous predictions (especially his greater accuracy in predicting weather patterns) and given the relative accuracy of his timing of events then surely it is incumbent on us all to sit up and take notice. But no – the vested interests who have never got anywhere near close in their ability to predict earthquakes prefer to attack the only reasonably accurate forecaster, on proven historic basis, because they refuse to recognize the science he has developed. And the journalist, Campbell, charged with presenting the two sides of such argument in an unbiased manner so that presumably intelligent viewers can make up their own minds, chose rather to support the established scientists against the outsider.
Perhaps Campbell believes his appalling attempt at presenting the facts has made Christchurch and its citizens safer from some pernicious new form of witchcraft that can only end in sleepless nights for them all? If so then he is not worth one dollar of his over-generous salary.
In all this we must remember that history is replete with such mindless protecting of the commonly accepted BELIEF (as opposed to any science worth its name) e.g. ‘the world is flat and if you sail too far the boat will fall off the edge’; and more notably the classic example when Galileo back in late 1500’s proved that a lesser weight body will fall at the same speed as a body mass of a greater weight thereby disproving Aristotle’s assumption that the reverse was true, yet his peer scientists of the day refused to believe the obvious evidence preferring instead to blindly accept the infallibility of Aristotle (who by the way never undertook any form of rigorous experimentation).
Certainly it seems that as a species, human society has progressed not one jot in the ability of its individual constituents to think freely and remain unattached to the persuasions of commonly accepted truisms – regardless of how true or untrue they may subsequently be proven to be.
It seems after all that we are a herd animal at our core – and clearly our shepherds and herders, in order to maintain hegemony of their current power-based dogmas, employ and highly reward, articulate pretenders to the notion of unbiased journalists and presenters of the facts.
Erich Fromm describes this debilitating state of normalcy in an essay he wrote in 1954 titled ‘The Psychology of Normalcy’
(for full article refer: http://www.erich-fromm.de/data/pdf/1954a-e.pdf )
What is so deceptive about the state of mind of the members of a society is the “consensual validation“ of their concepts. It is naively assumed that the fact that the majority of people share certain ideas or feelings proves the validity of these ideas and feelings. Nothing is further from the truth. Consensual validation as such has no bearing whatsoever on reason or mental health. Just as there is a „folie à deux“ there is a „folie à millions.“ The fact that millions of people share the same vices does not make them virtuous, the fact that they share so many errors does not make the errors to be truths,
and the fact that millions of people share the same forms of mental pathology does not make them sane.
There is, however, an important difference between individual and social mental illness, which suggests differentiation between the two concepts: that of defect, and that of neurosis. If a person fails to attain freedom, spontaneity, a genuine expression of self, he may be considered to have a severe defect, provided we assume that freedom and spontaneity are the objective goals to be attained by every human being. If such a goal is not attained by the majority of members of any given society, we deal with the phenomenon of socially patterned defect. The individual shares it with many others; he is not aware of it as a defect, and his security is not threatened by the experience of being different, of being an outcast, as it were. What he may have lost in richness and in a genuine feeling of happiness is made up by the security of fitting in with the rest of mankind–as he knows them. As a matter of fact, his very defect may have been raised {141} to a virtue of his culture, and thus may give him an enhanced feeling of achievement.
NOTE:
folie – (psychiatry) is a psychological disorder of thought or emotion; a more neutral term than mental illness
folie à deux is a term used in psychology / psychiatry meaning a syndrome in which symptoms of a delusional belief are transmitted from one individual to another
folie à millions in this context is taken to mean a delusional belief held by the masses to be an indisputable and immutable truth (one might add further – it is indeed the apex of human madness and the primary symptomatic cause by which human societies time and time again throughout history come to accept a lie propagated by a plutocracy to maintain their political and financial hegemony of the masses.
Now here is my FORECAST based not so much on science as the refutation of the most unscientific body of assumptions ever propagated in human history.
Our Governments, particularly in the so-called free developed world have been for many years now totally misrepresenting the real facts of our economies and the global economy such as real rates of inflation. Just as in Galileo’s day, all the governments today, their bureaucracies and academic institutions are focused on propagating and maintaining an economic theory which, even though it uses very complex and high-level mathematics, is no more scientific than Caribbean witchcraft and voodoo. It is an economic theory developed by artifice and the virtual conjuring of statistics and figures that have as much resemblance to reality as Mickey Mouse has to high literature.
Just as the earthquake in Christchurch has taken the population there by surprise so the coming and inevitable global economic cataclysm (caused by the fatal controlled explosion of the US monetary base) will take most everyone in the world by surprise, including the overpaid Keynesian savant economists; and this coming financial quake will have equally if not more devastating impacts on whole nations cumulatively resulting in the folie à millions. Unless there is a sudden and very swift reversal of these global economic policies and a renewed and invigorated return to the age old virtues of hard work and savings, where the dynamics of inflation and deflation are truly understood and contained, rather than reliance on unsustainable property bubbles to enshrine the masses in delusional comfort of appreciating house prices, then the outcome is inevitable.
One way or another we are soon about to see and experience the effects of a financial tsunami – however, even the prescient Austrian school of economic theorists, many of whom, although they have, well before the events, called the recent financial quakes such as the 1987 share market crash; the Japanese Bubble popping of 1990; the Asia-Pacific financial crisis of 1997/98 and the resulting recent global volatility which many of them predicted, they are nevertheless, by their own admission, unable to predict the month or the year of the next big financial crisis – but one thing they are adamant about and that is that no country can keep expanding its money ad infinitum as US and many other countries are doing right now without it ending in misery.
Be warned and take note.
The day of reckoning is looming and we would all be advised to start making preparation for the inevitable day – just as it incumbent on us all to prepare for another possible earthquake in Christchurch and / or any other region of New Zealand. This will need a whole new shift in thinking – a whole new raft of solutions not the least being our recognizing the problems and limitations inherent in our current erroneous assumption that growing cities with large concentrated populations is the only rational, economic and scientifically valid way of progressing human population growth – nothing could be further from the truth. It will require the conceptualizing of new modern ‘state-of-the-art’ independent and environmentally-integrated communities being developed and designed to optimally serve the community residents and that will, to a much more effective degree, insulate them from both natural disasters as well as global economic catastrophes.
But transcending all of this, it is my fervent hope and prayer that, especially in the light of the pain and suffering experienced by the resilient people of Christchurch, that we can, as one people united, rise above the debilitating divisions and boundaries that have been cemented in place by false doctrines and unworkable theories propagated by a powerful global elite to their direct benefit and that we can steer New Zealand to a truly free economy based on hard work and equitable sharing of resources whereby we can reclaim our place as world leaders focused on developing solutions that will not only insulate us from disasters (as much as that can be achieved) but it will establish our nation as leaders in sustainable communities along with the development and deployment of the necessary leading edge technologies needed to underpin any such development and the gainful employment that such strategy would generate.
Now is the hour, as a united people, to move forward with a new sense of purpose and an open mind to new solutions and scientific endeavour, enthused by a new invigorated willingness to share and cooperate.
This may also require a shift in our understanding of what constitutes democratic process and real leadership and how leadership qualities might be evoked and engendered in many more distributed and functional, fulfilling, participatory ways.
MainlyMe: You’re welcome. Have to admit CAPTCHA frustrated me at times when I first used it until I figured that one out! 🙂
@allyoop
“As so many of their peers in New Zealand and throughout the world these scientists have forgotten the true purpose of real scientific investigation”
Perhaps you would like to provide some evidence for this rather than the tedious postmodernist, paranoid tripe you just posted.
You talk about transcending and “a shift in our understanding” but you do not say what the change will be to or what we will transcend to. Just discontented mutterings about the world as it is (from a rather paranoid point of view in my opinion).
Rather than ranting perhaps you would like to give us some idea of what this fantastic new world of yours will look like?
Peter Griffin, who do you think you are to decide what information I should/shouldn’t be allowed to hear?!?!
Stop being so presumptuous.
Ken Ring may be deluded and I certainly don’t subscribe to his predictions, but you have no right to determine what the public hears. You clearly think far too highly of yourself.
@alister I never suggested I was in a position to do anything of the sort. The media makes up its own mind about such things, but I suggested to Campbell Live that dealing with Ken Ring’s predictions required some careful handling given the lack of credible scientific evidence supporting his claims and the fact that the people of Christchurch are vulnerable, exhausted and scared. Their intentions were good, but the result was, as someone wrote on Twitter, a “train wreck”…
Peter said, “but I suggested to Campbell Live that dealing with Ken Ring’s predictions required some careful handling given the lack of credible scientific evidence supporting his claims and the fact that the people of Christchurch are vulnerable, exhausted and scared.”
does your response imply that Campbell Live was interviewing Ring at least in part due to the Science media centre’s prompting? [Some of] the people of Christchurch are vulnerable, exhausted and scared… but I haven’t seen any evidence that that was caused by or due to Ring…
Peter Griffin said, “but I suggested to Campbell Live that dealing with Ken Ring’s predictions required some careful handling given the lack of credible scientific evidence supporting his claims and the fact that the people of Christchurch are vulnerable, exhausted and scared.”
does your response imply that Campbell Live was interviewing Ring at least in part due to the Science media centre’s prompting? [Some of] the people of Christchurch are vulnerable, exhausted and scared… but I haven’t seen any evidence that that was caused by or due to Ring…
@petersmith “does your response imply that Campbell Live was interviewing Ring at least in part due to the Science media centre’s prompting?”
Definitely not. The interview was already lined up by the time I contacted them and suggested it might not be such a good idea. As they say, the rest is history…
petersmith – a commenter over on my blog (the ‘original’, but I’ve done a copy-&-paste to bring it over to SciBlogs) wrote to say that he’d met a friend who had self-evacuated but who is pretty much terrified of being anywhere near the South Island on March 20th as a result of KR’s ‘predictions’. This is only a single data point but it is also evidence that at least someone has been scared by what he has to say.
Alleyoop – there is no evidence that KR’s ‘predictions’ of quakes have been accurate; his statements are so vaguely phrased that pretty much any event could be claimed as a postive ‘hit’. You might like to read David Winter’s post on the subject: https://sciblogs.co.nz/the-atavism/2011/03/01/ken-ring-cant-predict-earthquakes-either
Alleyoop,
Alison’s being rather modest and not promoting her own effort on the same topic, which I recommend in addition to David’s post:
https://sciblogs.co.nz/bioblog/2011/03/01/predicting-earthquakes-hedging-your-bets/
(Excuse my popping back in!)
Hi, I have just joined this forum as a result of reading the above article, as it raised some important questions for me that perhaps can be answered here. I haven’t read all the 100 or so comments here, so please forgive me if these questions have already been addressed.
“I yesterday spent much of the day at the Science Media Centre trying with limited success to persuade journalists not to give Ken Ring any more airtime”
I find the above article and particularly the above comment extremely disturbing, and I have experienced a similar reaction from anyone I have directed towards the article. I am not an active subscriber to Ken Ring’s theories, however I find it strange that if he were such an obvious crackpot that the scientific communtiy would go to such great lengths to deny him airtime. My questions are as follows:
– Do you not credit the average person with the intelligence to distinguish true science from ‘wacky pseudoscience’?
– What is it about Ken Ring’s theories that you think resonates with people?
– Should the ‘scientific’ community invest more time and energy in better connecting with the people, so they could experience the following that you are so fearful of Ken Ring obtaining?
– Is the ‘scientific method’ that I hear so much about, so closed to alternative theories, so as to refuse to investigate them further?
– Are you not genuinely interested in the fact that many farmers and fisherman, who’s livelihoods depend on it, consider Ken’s forecasting far more accurate than traditional science?
– Why is there such a real and obvious fear of Ken gaining traction, and a blatant agenda to shut him down? Does it come from the scientific community, or from those who fund it?
I am not from a scientific background, but I am from the real world, and I understand the way real people react to these things, and it is usually a with a combination of hope and fear. They are not always as rational and black and white as those that rely on science for all the answers, but that does not mean they are less intelligent.
Whether you like it or not, there is a pleasant intuitiveness about the concept that the moon’s gravity can have an impact on seismic activity. The science communitys reaction to Ken’s theories comes across as insulting and really risks alienating the people further. It smacks of protectionism, cronyism and almost seems Orwellian in its nature. For a GNS scientist to claim Ken’s theories were debunked 100 or so years ago, appears to be clear evidence of how blinkered the science has become.
If you want to maintain credibility, perhaps you should engage in these debates openly instead of shutting them down. Rather than banging on about the lack of scientific evidence, how about studying it for a while and seeing how it stacks up. Maybe its just bad PR, or the public perception is wrong, but at the moment the reaction seems bolshy and a bit childish.
People believe in many things, not just those backed by current ‘conventional’ wisdom. At the end of the day it is the people who matter, and their reaction to this debacle should be enlightening. I hope you can shed some light on my queries.
Cheers
Peter Griffen, you stated “I yesterday spent much of the day at the Science Media Centre trying with limited success to persuade journalists not to give Ken Ring any more airtimeâ€. Clearly your actions indicate that you believe that you are in a position to determine what the public should/should not hear – it is that simple. Just stick to putting the scientific view forward – for that you’d get my support.
Mark,
There are plenty of posts around the place talking about how poor Ken Ring’s method is. This post was talking about the problem of dealing with cranks in the media.
There are really 3 choices:
1) Leave them alone, but let their missinformation fester away (v. damaging in this case)
2) Challenge them head on,which gives them exposure and, since TV is about theatre more that facts, runs the risk of alienating the middle ground
3) Patiently debunk their crank theories. But evolutionary biolgosists and climate change scientists know how that goes – if you’re just making stuff up as you go along then it’s free easy to make more stuff up and much harder for a debunker to explain the flaws in each new idea.
Given the great difficultly in presenting someone like Ring on the TV, I’m not sure that the best idea wasn’t to just leave him be.
@markj in answer to your questions…
– Do you not credit the average person with the intelligence to distinguish true science from ‘wacky pseudoscience’?
No, but the “average person” still gets around 90 per cent of their information about science from the media and more than ever the media is vulnerable to manipulation by people like Ken Ring who are very good at self promotion. Did you read the Gisborne Herald article I linked to? As such, information is lent credibility when it is presented in the media, often when it has none eg: Ken Ring in the Gisborne Herald.
– What is it about Ken Ring’s theories that you think resonates with people?
People hate feeling out of control – at the behest of nature, the weather etc. They want certainty and science doesn’t have all the answers for them. So they look for alternative theories for comfort eg: that humans can have no affect on the climate, its all bigger than us etc….
The problem is this often provide cold comfort because the theories are not based on fact. This goes for various alternative health treatments as much as it does for Ken Ring’s predictions.
– Should the ’scientific’ community invest more time and energy in better connecting with the people, so they could experience the following that you are so fearful of Ken Ring obtaining?
Yes! That’s what we are trying to do at the Science Media Centre – help scientists engage with society more effectively and also to break down some of the barriers between science and the media. The more scientists we have who are able to explain the science in understandable terms and work with the media, the less room there is for charlatans and crackpots to spread fear, uncertainty and doubt, often for their own financial or ideological ends.
– Is the ’scientific method’ that I hear so much about, so closed to alternative theories, so as to refuse to investigate them further?
No, that’s what the scientific method is there for. If you have an “alternative theory”, or hypothesis, subject it to the scientific method, perform an experiment, design it properly, peer-review it, publish it, see if its results can be replicated. That is the further investigation you speak of and it is how new knowledge in the scientific world is created.
– Are you not genuinely interested in the fact that many farmers and fisherman, who’s livelihoods depend on it, consider Ken’s forecasting far more accurate than traditional science?
Many farmers? How many? I’d like to see some objective data on that – maybe an independent, anonymous survey of people who have bought his weather almanacs. I’m interested in it in the same way I’m interested that my parents drink colloidal silver even though its efficacy is not supported by the evidence.
– Why is there such a real and obvious fear of Ken gaining traction, and a blatant agenda to shut him down? Does it come from the scientific community, or from those who fund it?
What happened a week ago? An earthquake that killed hundreds of people. Now Ken Ring is predicting another earthquake in the same area. Don’t you think it is a little ill-advised at best, irresponsible at worst, to be pushing an unscientific theory that may result in people uprooting their lives, leaving the area, disrupting their efforts to rebuild their lives, on the basis of what some guy in Auckland think s might happen?
I know what you are getting at in what you are saying about the gap between cold, hard scientific evidence and the “pleasant intuitiveness” of theories that sound good or seem like they make sense. And everyone loves an underdog, a battler who overturns conventional wisdom. But we are dealing with people’s lives here, not a bizarre paw reading or magic trick from Ken Ring’s colourful past.
@Peter Griffin
I think that MarkJ is asking VERY sensible questions that are representative of those that the general populace need to be soundly answered. I hope that you have the time and are in a position to provide him with complete responses (a function very aligned to the Science Media Centre’s brief, I expect).
It is my pub-talk experience that it is perceptions like those expressed by MarkJ that form (or at least contribute to) the rift between the person in the street and the science community, the very rift that the science community must mend if it is to hold the place in society that enables it to contribute to a strong future for the nation. Scientists are often perceived as arrogant know-alls who manipulate the system to serve their own ends (Hmmm … how could that be?).
PG says, “They want certainty and science doesn’t have all the answers for them. So they look for alternative theories for comfort eg: that humans can have no affect on the climate, its all bigger than us etc…. ”
In terms of earthquakes as they relate to ordinary people, science has next to no answers…
STOP PRESS!!!
I have just received an email from the Producer of Campbell Live (responding to my written complaint). Included in that is the following statement:
“Mr Ring declined because he is on his way to Australia. He plans to come back on our show next week.”
@alister that’s what we do every day… did you see this?
@petersmith well just because we don’t have the full picture, is it right for some guy to pretend he does? I’d rather have a little bit of knowledge than a load of crap!
@mainlyme yes, I heard this from them, despite my better judgement, given what has transpired, a second appearance is probably actually a worthwhile exercise to clear up the confusion that was created the other night.