A while ago I wrote about "celebrity astronomer" Knut Jørgen Røed Ødegaard getting dissed by colleagues for hogging the media spotlight and making statements about matters he knows little about (according to his detractors in the piece, that is).
Now, KJ is getting spanked in the media again, this time by Professor Emeritus Kaare Aksnes from the Department of Theoretical Astrophysics, University of Oslo. You can read the original hatchet job here, and a follow-up here (Norwegian only). Thanks to Torbjørn for bringing this to my attention. Basically, Prof. Aksnes is opening up a fresh can of whoop-ass on KJ - not for hogging the media spotlight (which could be jealous whining and not legitimate criticism), but for a) making erroneous statements, and b) not being interested in input from - you know - actual scientists before making statements in the media. Prof. Aksnes makes the point that Ødegaard only has a M.Sc. and an unfinished Ph.D. by way of actual knowledge, and that he relies on internet studies for factual content.
KJ strikes back, saying that he feels he has done much more for astronomy than Prof. Aksnes ever has. Moreover, he feels that the fact that Prof. Aksnes only points to a few bones of contention while he (KJ) has had several thousand articles published in media over the last 8-10 years points to him (KJ that is) being quite precis with his statements. I find flaw with that argument. First of all; I have no idea whether or not KJ is full of it when he speaks in the media, but if left with the choice between trusting statements on facts relating to astronomy made by Prof. Aksnes and M.Sc. Ødegaard, that's a no-brainer. There's no doubt whatsoever that the professional credibility and credentials round goes to Prof. Aksnes, by a margin akin to what you'd expect in a prize fight between Mike Tyson and KJ. KJ's second point, that he must be accurate in his statements because he has gotten so widely publicized is where he goes off the deep end. When Prof. Aksnes pointed to a few factual discrepancies, it doesn't necessarily mean that those are the sum total of actual errors. Not to mention that a good bit of the pieces on KJ deal with "This is how KJ lives", "This is how KJ spends his Christmas", "KJ - the difficult years", etc. To top it off, KJ is usually in the media because reporters use him as an expert. Thus, what he says is probably being printed without much scutiny.
Going back to KJ's statement that he's done much more for astronomy than Prof. Aksnes has: That's a statement with some underlying assumptions. I'm not an astronomy guy, so I've never even heard of Prof. Aksnes, and so I'm not familiar with his body of work. Thus, KJ assumes that Prof. Aksnes really hasn't done all that much. Second of all, KJ then assumes that Prof. Aksnes is wrong in the assessment that KJ gets things wrong. Because if Prof. Aksnes is right regarding factual content, KJ does a great disservice to astronomy by spreading false info, and so KJ's defense strategy is null and void.
Now, KJ is getting spanked in the media again, this time by Professor Emeritus Kaare Aksnes from the Department of Theoretical Astrophysics, University of Oslo. You can read the original hatchet job here, and a follow-up here (Norwegian only). Thanks to Torbjørn for bringing this to my attention. Basically, Prof. Aksnes is opening up a fresh can of whoop-ass on KJ - not for hogging the media spotlight (which could be jealous whining and not legitimate criticism), but for a) making erroneous statements, and b) not being interested in input from - you know - actual scientists before making statements in the media. Prof. Aksnes makes the point that Ødegaard only has a M.Sc. and an unfinished Ph.D. by way of actual knowledge, and that he relies on internet studies for factual content.
KJ strikes back, saying that he feels he has done much more for astronomy than Prof. Aksnes ever has. Moreover, he feels that the fact that Prof. Aksnes only points to a few bones of contention while he (KJ) has had several thousand articles published in media over the last 8-10 years points to him (KJ that is) being quite precis with his statements. I find flaw with that argument. First of all; I have no idea whether or not KJ is full of it when he speaks in the media, but if left with the choice between trusting statements on facts relating to astronomy made by Prof. Aksnes and M.Sc. Ødegaard, that's a no-brainer. There's no doubt whatsoever that the professional credibility and credentials round goes to Prof. Aksnes, by a margin akin to what you'd expect in a prize fight between Mike Tyson and KJ. KJ's second point, that he must be accurate in his statements because he has gotten so widely publicized is where he goes off the deep end. When Prof. Aksnes pointed to a few factual discrepancies, it doesn't necessarily mean that those are the sum total of actual errors. Not to mention that a good bit of the pieces on KJ deal with "This is how KJ lives", "This is how KJ spends his Christmas", "KJ - the difficult years", etc. To top it off, KJ is usually in the media because reporters use him as an expert. Thus, what he says is probably being printed without much scutiny.
Going back to KJ's statement that he's done much more for astronomy than Prof. Aksnes has: That's a statement with some underlying assumptions. I'm not an astronomy guy, so I've never even heard of Prof. Aksnes, and so I'm not familiar with his body of work. Thus, KJ assumes that Prof. Aksnes really hasn't done all that much. Second of all, KJ then assumes that Prof. Aksnes is wrong in the assessment that KJ gets things wrong. Because if Prof. Aksnes is right regarding factual content, KJ does a great disservice to astronomy by spreading false info, and so KJ's defense strategy is null and void.
Posts
10 comments:
...beat you to this story, brotha. See below your post.
Anders 1, Wilhelm 0.
Yeah!
:-D
:-(
Couple of comments on your post:
There's no doubt whatsoever that the professional credibility and credentials round goes to Prof. Aksnes
True, professional credibility goes to the prof. But disregarding the people involved here for a moment; I personally find it hard to accept a statement as fact just because the dude has a PhD and a professorship when there is disagreements between professionals.
My biggest kick was this: KJ stated public that a new moon orbiting around the earth was discovered. Prof. Aksnes pointed out to him that this was the remains of the Appolo rocket, which orbit prof. Aksnes himself had calculated long time ago. :-D
And mind you, KJ worked as a press contact for the institute of astro physics at UiO, and if he was good at that (i.e. kept himself updated on what's going on at the institute), he should have known this. If not for that, he should have known as a professional astronomer. KJ failed on both points!
And also a main point for me: When researches/ experts points out that KJ makes erroneous statements, he does not issue a retraction.
When Prof. Aksnes pointed to a few factual discrepancies, it doesn't necessarily mean that those are the sum total of actual errors
Right on! KJ really opens up for some serious self ownage when he basically encourage the scientific community to find errors in his media articles.
But disregarding the people involved here for a moment; I personally find it hard to accept a statement as fact just because the dude has a PhD and a professorship when there is disagreements between professionals.
If it was indeed a disagreement between professionals as in peers I'd agree. In this case however, it's not a disagreement between peers, but a disagreement between two professionals at vastly different levels. Prof. Aksnes has demonstrably achieved expert status, while by comparison, KJ is an amateur. Thus, I hardly think you can overlook the PhD etc. considering that the other guy doesn't have one and isn't actively involved in research.
KJ stated public that a new moon orbiting around the earth was discovered. Prof. Aksnes pointed out to him that this was the remains of the Appolo rocket, which orbit prof. Aksnes himself had calculated long time ago. :-D
And mind you, KJ worked as a press contact for the institute of astro physics at UiO, and if he was good at that (i.e. kept himself updated on what's going on at the institute), he should have known this. If not for that, he should have known as a professional astronomer. KJ failed on both points!
Yep; epic fail on KJ's part right there.
And also a main point for me: When researches/ experts points out that KJ makes erroneous statements, he does not issue a retraction.
..which is another thing distinguishing KJ from actual scientists. Whereas an actual scientist is expected to issue a retraction/correction if earlier published works contain errors which affect the conclusions derived from said work. And believe it or not, it ain't hard to find issued corrections or retractions. Because the potential backfire from knowingly publishing stuff which is flat out wrong is so great for scientists (Sudbø anyone?), there's an incentive to stay honest - you don't even have to put some kind of moral perspective into it. Not saying it doesn't happen of course, but at least there's an incentive to stay on the straight and narrow. In mainstream media however........
KJ really opens up for some serious self ownage when he basically encourage the scientific community to find errors in his media articles.
No kiddin....if Prof Aksnes is the vindictive type, KJ is in for an asskicking now. Especially seeing as how Prof. Aksnes is an emeritus and thus has access to university databases while having lots and lots of time on his hands....
Thus, I hardly think you can overlook the PhD etc. considering that the other guy doesn't have one and isn't actively involved in research.
Nope, I agree. But notice my "disregarding the people involved here" disclaimer. I just pointed out that just having a PhD doesn't always make you right. In this particular case, it is an overwhelming difference. But that is due to Aksnes track record rather then the difference in education level.
Especially seeing as how Prof. Aksnes is an emeritus and thus has access to university databases while having lots and lots of time on his hands....
Oh yeah! As I said in my previous post, I'd love to see the follow-up on this one. I usually dislike vindictive types, but in this case, it could be too much fun...
I just pointed out that just having a PhD doesn't always make you right. In this particular case, it is an overwhelming difference. But that is due to Aksnes track record rather then the difference in education level.
Well; as long as the Ph.D. in question is from the same field, it's strongly correlated, wouldn't you say? Of course; if the Ph.D. is in, say, sociology, that wouldn't add much in a discussion of astronomy.
Well; as long as the Ph.D. in question is from the same field, it's strongly correlated, wouldn't you say?
Yes, there are a strong correlation, I agree. But when it comes with fields of sciences outside my own, I have a hard time knowing how overlaping the area of expertise are. For example a PhD in organic synthetis and a Msc in theoritical chemistry are both within the field of chemistry, but for the most part cover different areas of the science.
But basically I'm just putting in the disclaimer and having a argument because I'm sick of people with a doctor degree making absolute statements way outside their field, that in the end affects me. Which is a different issue.
Although there are very talented and skillful people (I've worked with some) that have short university or university college education and some with MSc's and PhD's that I can't figure out how they manage to get their degree, there strong correlation about how scientific talented people are with their level of education. It requires a lot of work to finish a university degree and there are a screening of candidates at each level, so the lesser talented people peel away at each level.
Just to make that clear.
Anyway, even if Aksens just had a high school diploma, he has pointed on some weak points in KJ's style that KJ should have addressed more serious.
But basically I'm just putting in the disclaimer and having a argument because I'm sick of people with a doctor degree making absolute statements way outside their field,
Hellz yezz
Within astrophysics however, I'd imagine that the theoretical folks outnumber any other permutation by a large factor. Can you imagine how much it would suck to be in the "experimental astrophysics" division? What would you do? Use a high-speed camera to observe collisions between pebbles you throw against each other on your desk while assuming vacuum because there's no budget for actual facilities? Wait for some NASA-guy to send some pocket lint from outer space (or from his wardrobe)?
I admit it - I know Jack and Shit about astronomy, and Jack just had to go pick up his dry cleaning
Use a high-speed camera to observe collisions between pebbles you throw against each other on your desk while assuming vacuum because there's no budget for actual facilities?
No. You use some of those nano-robots. They are really tiny and have very little mass, so in addition to repair your DNA at a molecular level and fix bad personality and body odor, they can also travel at light speed and be used in astronomy. This nano technology (or nanoVT as we in the biz call it), sure is amazing.
:-)
..those nanorobots are old hat; it's all about the nanocarbon tubes now, dontcha' know?
Post a Comment