LISTSERV mailing list manager LISTSERV 16.0

Help for SOCNET Archives


SOCNET Archives

SOCNET Archives


SOCNET@LISTS.UFL.EDU


View:

Message:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Topic:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Author:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

Font:

Monospaced Font

LISTSERV Archives

LISTSERV Archives

SOCNET Home

SOCNET Home

SOCNET  January 2006

SOCNET January 2006

Subject:

Re: [Fwd: Nature's fake news]

From:

lawrence e raffalovich <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

lawrence e raffalovich <[log in to unmask]>

Date:

Fri, 13 Jan 2006 12:06:42 -0500

Content-Type:

TEXT/PLAIN

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

TEXT/PLAIN (189 lines)

***** To join INSNA, visit http://www.insna.org *****

This reminds me of Wm. Proxmire's Golden Fleece Awards.
What I find troubling is the deception and wasting of Prof. Watts' time.
--Larry

On Fri, 13 Jan 2006, Richard Rothenberg wrote:

> ***** To join INSNA, visit http://www.insna.org *****
>
> Something omitted from this discussion is what Sybil was actually
> ridiculing. Here's her main slash:
>
> "They spent three years or so building and running fiendish computer
> algorithms that could analyse who had e-mailed whom and how often. The
> stunning conclusion? Two people are more likely to strike up a
> relationship if they go to the same college class or have a friend in
> common. Brilliant, I think. Genius. It took years sorting though
> countless messages to work that out?"
>
> Long ago and far away, when in college, I found that I was more likely
> to strike up a relationship with someone I was in class with, or with
> whom we had a friend in common. Now, after the WWW, email, bluetooth,
> wifi, and all the other technologic advances, I think it's kind of
> interesting that this may still be true. I'm certainly out of my depth
> here, but I would venture to say that whether these modern methods of
> communication and interaction have made a fundamental difference in the
> way human being relate to each other is an interesting sociological
> question. (There's certainly been writing on both sides; some say Linux
> couldn't have happened without the new technology.) But whatever the
> answer, Sybil missed the question. I'm not sure the authors were
> focused on this question in particular, but they were certainly delving
> into the story.
>
> In any event, the analogy with The Daily Show may be misplaced, because
> those folks have an unerring ear for inanity. As Prof Watts reports,
> Sybil has ear wax.
>
> Rich Rothenberg
>
>
>
> David Gibson wrote:
>
> > ***** To join INSNA, visit http://www.insna.org *****
> >
> > Socnetters -- this is a truly outrageous situation. In the very least
> > beware of Helen Pearson.
> >
> > -------- Original Message --------
> > Subject: Nature's fake news
> > Date: Thu, 12 Jan 2006 11:02:25 -0500
> > From: Duncan Watts <[log in to unmask]>
> > To: Duncan Watts <[log in to unmask]>
> >
> >
> >
> > Dear colleagues -- you might be surprised to learn that /Nature News/,
> > that bastion of reliable and informed science reporting, is now in
> > competition with the Daily Show.
> > But apparently it is. Starting this week, /Nature News /has begun
> > publishing an online column: "To be blunt: Looking for the point of
> > seemingly pointless research," authored by "Sybil", an apparent
> > reference to the namesake of multiple-personalty disorders. Like the
> > original Sybil story, however, the news, and the reporter who writes
> > it, is fake.
> > The reporter is, in fact, Helen Pearson, a writer for /Nature/ who has
> > apparently won awards for science journalism in the past. Her intent,
> > however, is not to understand or explain the research she discusses,
> > but to ridicule and belittle it.
> > I'm embarrassed to say I was Ms. Pearson's first unsuspecting victim.
> > Last week my graduate student, Gueorgi Kossinets, and I published a
> > paper in /Science/, entitled "Empirical analysis of an evolving social
> > network". I won't burden you with the details here (you can find them
> > at http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/short/311/5757/88 if you're
> > interested), but I'm very proud of the paper, as well as Kossinets'
> > herculean efforts in performing the required analysis.
> > So I was particularly pleased when Ms. Pearson called me last week,
> > expressing her interest in writing a story for /Nature's/ online news
> > site. Having read Philip Ball's careful and insightful reports for
> > years, I imagined that /Nature News/ would be a great opportunity for
> > us to have a substantive but accessible news story written about our
> > work. And after speaking with Ms. Pearson for about two hours on the
> > phone, over two consecutive days, sending her some additional reading
> > material, and recommending (at her request) a number of other social
> > network researchers she could talk to, I felt pretty confident that we
> > would have exactly that. She asked lots of questions, seemed intent
> > on understanding my responses, and generally acted like a real science
> > journalist.
> > So imagine my surprise when monday morning I saw that our work had
> > been characterized as "bizarre" and "pointless" in a derisive fluff
> > piece by a fictional columnist. You can read it, which I recommend
> > you do, at http://www.nature.com/news/2006/060109/full/060109-1.html
> > (don't worry, it won't take long).
> >
> > I'm not sure what offends me more: the snide, silly, and ignorant
> > nature of the column itself; or the weirdly unprofessional manner in
> > which Ms. Pearson conducted herself. If you actually read our paper,
> > it should be obvious that Sybil hasn't, nor has she paid attention to
> > anything I said or wrote (remember, we spoke for two /hours/, not two
> > minutes). She also somehow never got around to soliciting comments
> > from anyone else, or perhaps she just ignored them as well; either
> > way, her opinions remain uncontaminated by any actual expertise. That
> > the NSF and the McDonnell Foundation funded our work, and that
> > /Science/ saw fit to publish it were also both obviously beside the
> > point.
> >
> > So what was the point?
> >
> > According to the news editor, Nicola Jones, Sybil's goal is "to peer
> > into science that, from its summary, press release or title, appears
> > to have arrived at a somewhat obvious conclusion. But, by interviewing
> > the authors of these works and delving more deeply into the science,
> > we hope to reveal the reasons why such questions are indeed worth
> > investigating."
> > I don't know what /Science/ said in its press release, because I had
> > nothing to do with it. But if you can find the part where our
> > questions are revealed to be worthy, please let me know, because I
> > seem to have missed it. And even overlooking the disingenuous nature
> > of Ms. Pearson's enquiries, since when does not reading anything, or
> > soliciting third party opinions, qualify as "delving more deeply into
> > the science". Or even satisfy the basic standards of science
> > journalism. In any case, understanding the point of our work was
> > clearly never Sybil's intent, seeing as she overlooked or disparaged
> > most of what I told her anyway.
> > So maybe it wasn't meant to be serious, in which case presumably it
> > doesn't matter that it's sloppy, slanted, and sarcastic. Ms. Jones,
> > at least, seems to think I'm the one being unreasonable: the real
> > intention, she claims, is to "enlighten and amuse" (so much for
> > "delving deeply"). Why can't I just be a better sport about it?
> > Well, if you think that publicly belittling someone's work that you
> > haven't even bothered to read, while remaining anonymous yourself, is
> > somehow clever, then feel free to have a laugh at my expense. But
> > please spare a thought for my graduate student, whose first big paper
> > has now been tarnished by Ms. Pearson's cheap shot.
> > And if you don't think it's funny, please share your opinion with the
> > Editor-in-Chief of Nature, Dr. Philip Campbell <[log in to unmask]
> > <mailto:[log in to unmask]>>, who ought to know that while this kind of
> > silly nonsense might be OK on the Comedy Channel, it has no place in a
> > distinguished journal like /Nature/.
> > Sincerely,
> >
> > Duncan Watts
> > Institute for Social and Economic Research and Policy
> > 815 IAB
> > Columbia University
> > New York, NY 10027
> >
> > (212)854-4343 (phone)
> > (212)854-8925 (fax)
> > http://cdg.columbia.edu <http://cdg.columbia.edu/>
> >
> >
> >
>
> --
> Richard Rothenberg, MD
> Professor, Department of Medicine
> Division of Infectious Disease
> Emory University School of Medicine
> Editor, Annals of Epidemiology
> 69 Jesse Hill Jr. Drive
> Atlanta. GA 30303
> P: 404-616-5606
> F: 404-616-6947
> E: [log in to unmask]
>
>
> _____________________________________________________________________
> SOCNET is a service of INSNA, the professional association for social
> network researchers (http://www.insna.org). To unsubscribe, send
> an email message to [log in to unmask] containing the line
> UNSUBSCRIBE SOCNET in the body of the message.
>

Lawrence E. Raffalovich
Associate Professor

Department of Sociology e-mail: [log in to unmask]
University at Albany
State University of New York Voice: (518) 442-4456
1400 Washington Ave. Fax: (518) 442-4936
Albany, NY 12222

_____________________________________________________________________
SOCNET is a service of INSNA, the professional association for social
network researchers (http://www.insna.org). To unsubscribe, send
an email message to [log in to unmask] containing the line
UNSUBSCRIBE SOCNET in the body of the message.

Top of Message | Previous Page | Permalink

Advanced Options


Options

Log In

Log In

Get Password

Get Password


Search Archives

Search Archives


Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Subscribe or Unsubscribe


Archives

October 2019
September 2019
August 2019
July 2019
June 2019
May 2019
April 2019
March 2019
February 2019
January 2019
December 2018
November 2018
October 2018
September 2018
August 2018
July 2018
June 2018
May 2018
April 2018
March 2018
February 2018
January 2018
December 2017
November 2017
October 2017
September 2017
August 2017
July 2017
June 2017
May 2017
April 2017
March 2017
February 2017
January 2017
December 2016
November 2016
October 2016
September 2016
August 2016
July 2016
June 2016
May 2016
April 2016
March 2016
February 2016
January 2016
December 2015
November 2015
October 2015
September 2015
August 2015
July 2015
June 2015
May 2015
April 2015
March 2015
February 2015
January 2015
December 2014
November 2014
October 2014
September 2014
August 2014
July 2014
June 2014
May 2014
April 2014
March 2014
February 2014
January 2014
December 2013
November 2013
October 2013
September 2013
August 2013
July 2013
June 2013
May 2013
April 2013
March 2013
February 2013
January 2013
December 2012
November 2012
October 2012
September 2012
August 2012
July 2012
June 2012
May 2012
April 2012
March 2012
February 2012
January 2012
December 2011
November 2011
October 2011
September 2011
August 2011
July 2011
June 2011
May 2011
April 2011
March 2011
February 2011
January 2011
December 2010
November 2010
October 2010
September 2010
August 2010
July 2010
June 2010
May 2010
April 2010
March 2010
February 2010
January 2010
December 2009
November 2009
October 2009
September 2009
August 2009
July 2009
June 2009
May 2009
April 2009
March 2009
February 2009
January 2009
December 2008
November 2008
October 2008
September 2008
August 2008
July 2008, Week 62
July 2008
June 2008
May 2008
April 2008
March 2008
February 2008
January 2008
December 2007
November 2007
October 2007
September 2007
August 2007
July 2007
June 2007
May 2007
April 2007
March 2007
February 2007
January 2007
December 2006
November 2006
October 2006
September 2006
August 2006
July 2006
June 2006
May 2006
April 2006
March 2006
February 2006
January 2006
December 2005
November 2005
October 2005
September 2005
August 2005
July 2005
June 2005
May 2005
April 2005
March 2005
February 2005
January 2005
December 2004
November 2004
October 2004
September 2004
August 2004
July 2004
June 2004
May 2004
April 2004
March 2004
February 2004
January 2004
December 2003
November 2003
October 2003
September 2003
August 2003
July 2003
June 2003
May 2003
April 2003
March 2003
February 2003
January 2003
December 2002
November 2002
October 2002
September 2002
August 2002
July 2002
June 2002
May 2002
April 2002
March 2002
February 2002
January 2002
December 2001
November 2001
October 2001
September 2001
August 2001
July 2001
June 2001
May 2001

ATOM RSS1 RSS2



LISTS.UFL.EDU

CataList Email List Search Powered by the LISTSERV Email List Manager