Nice speech (although I disagree with the general discounting of all value for predictions); Crichton reminds me a lot of Scott Adams—he says a lot of insightful things, but occasionally also says something that drives me nuts.
“Media carries with it a credibility that is totally undeserved. You have all experienced this, in what I call the Murray Gell-Mann Amnesia effect. (I call it by this name because I once discussed it with Murray Gell-Mann, and by dropping a famous name I imply greater importance to myself, and to the effect, than it would otherwise have.)
Briefly stated, the Gell-Mann Amnesia effect works as follows. You open the newspaper to an article on some subject you know well. In Murray’s case, physics. In mine, show business. You read the article and see the journalist has absolutely no understanding of either the facts or the issues. Often, the article is so wrong it actually presents the story backward-reversing cause and effect. I call these the “wet streets cause rain” stories. Paper’s full of them.
In any case, you read with exasperation or amusement the multiple errors in a story-and then turn the page to national or international affairs, and read with renewed interest as if the rest of the newspaper was somehow more accurate about far-off Palestine than it was about the story you just read. You turn the page, and forget what you know.”
I also liked this (even though such people are fish in a barrel):
“One of the clearest proofs of this is the “Currents of Death” controversy. This fear of cancer from power lines originated with the New Yorker, which has been a gushing fountainhead of erroneous scientific speculation for fifty years. But the point is this: all the people who ten years ago were frantic to measure dangerous electromagnetic radiation in their houses now spend thousands of dollars buying magnets to attach to their wrists and ankles, because of the putative healthful effects of magnetic fields. They don’t remember these are the same fields they formerly wanted to avoid. And since they don’t remember, you can’t lose with any future speculation.”
And one of the teethgrinders:
The first is the report in Science magazine January 18 2001 (Oops! a fact) that contrary to prior studies, the Antarctic ice pack is increasing, not decreasing, and that this increase means we are finally seeing an end to the shrinking of the pack that has been going on for thousands of years, ever since the Holocene era. I don’t know which is more surprising, the statement that it’s increasing, or the statement that its shrinkage has preceded global warming by thousands of years.
I just happened to read a clever speech by Michael Crichton on this topic today. I think his main point echoes yours (or yours his).
http://www.crichton-official.com/speeches/speeches_quote07.html
Working link: http://web.archive.org/web/20070411012839/http://www.crichton-official.com/speeches/speeches_quote07.html
Nice speech (although I disagree with the general discounting of all value for predictions); Crichton reminds me a lot of Scott Adams—he says a lot of insightful things, but occasionally also says something that drives me nuts.
I also liked this (even though such people are fish in a barrel):
And one of the teethgrinders:
A little one-sided, me thinks: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antarctica#Ice_mass_and_global_sea_level