Comments on: Fame! http://www.badscience.net/2008/08/fame/ Ben Goldacre's Bad Science column from the Guardian and more... Sun, 14 Mar 2010 17:18:12 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.1 hourly 1 By: Squander Two http://www.badscience.net/2008/08/fame/comment-page-1/#comment-21788 Squander Two Thu, 21 Aug 2008 23:51:11 +0000 http://www.badscience.net/2008/08/fame/#comment-21788 Wasn't all this shite with bad formulae kicked off by the Drake equation? Wasn’t all this shite with bad formulae kicked off by the Drake equation?

]]> By: Paul Carter http://www.badscience.net/2008/08/fame/comment-page-1/#comment-21706 Paul Carter Wed, 13 Aug 2008 10:33:48 +0000 http://www.badscience.net/2008/08/fame/#comment-21706 Lafayette (comment 15): the perfect voice formula was even more gibberish than this one, and made it into the media despite the protests of the academic whose name appeared in the press. This is what the linguistics professor said afterwards: <i>This statement was not based on any research I have done or in which I have been involved. I did not devise this formula, and indeed had asked not to be associated with the formula, which I regard as meaningless. The formula, like all the quotations attributed to me, was devised by the PR company responsible for the story. The press release was put out without including changes I had requested, without my being shown the final version, and without my being informed that it was going out. I had been asked to comment on the study. None of my comments or my views on the plausibility of such a formula were included in the press release. Any queries about this item should be directed to 3 Monkeys Communications, Axtell House, 23-24 Warwick Street, London W1B 5NQ.</i> In other words, it was nothing more than astonishingly lazy journalism fuelled by a blatantly deceitful PR company who, of course, cared nothing about science but everything about helping their client sell telecommunications services. And this sort of rubbish ends up giving academics (and academic disciplines) a bad name among people who know enough to see through the "formulae" but not enough to understand the dark arts of public relations. Lafayette (comment 15): the perfect voice formula was even more gibberish than this one, and made it into the media despite the protests of the academic whose name appeared in the press. This is what the linguistics professor said afterwards:

This statement was not based on any research I have done or in which I have been involved.
I did not devise this formula, and indeed had asked not to be associated with the formula, which I regard as meaningless. The formula, like all the quotations attributed to me, was devised by the PR company responsible for the story.
The press release was put out without including changes I had requested, without my being shown the final version, and without my being informed that it was going out.
I had been asked to comment on the study. None of my comments or my views on the plausibility of such a formula were included in the press release. Any queries about this item should be directed to 3 Monkeys Communications, Axtell House, 23-24 Warwick Street, London W1B 5NQ.

In other words, it was nothing more than astonishingly lazy journalism fuelled by a blatantly deceitful PR company who, of course, cared nothing about science but everything about helping their client sell telecommunications services. And this sort of rubbish ends up giving academics (and academic disciplines) a bad name among people who know enough to see through the “formulae” but not enough to understand the dark arts of public relations.

]]> By: Lafayette http://www.badscience.net/2008/08/fame/comment-page-1/#comment-21623 Lafayette Mon, 04 Aug 2008 14:30:25 +0000 http://www.badscience.net/2008/08/fame/#comment-21623 Unprofessor Coghill made me want to set up a laboratory for the provision of shoddy research to back up whatever claim anyone paid me for. I'd run it for a year or two and then go very very public about it all. All I'll need is a million quid an legal representation. Unprofessor Coghill made me want to set up a laboratory for the provision of shoddy research to back up whatever claim anyone paid me for. I’d run it for a year or two and then go very very public about it all. All I’ll need is a million quid an legal representation.

]]> By: used to be jdc http://www.badscience.net/2008/08/fame/comment-page-1/#comment-21622 used to be jdc Mon, 04 Aug 2008 11:51:05 +0000 http://www.badscience.net/2008/08/fame/#comment-21622 I published a little <a href="http://jdc325.wordpress.com/2008/08/01/companies-buying-science-for-cheap-publicity/" rel="nofollow">post</a>on Friday afternoon asking why these businesses don’t ever conduct and publish (or sponsor) a <i>proper</i> study. I reckoned they would still get publicity, but without making the public think that scientists are wasting their time working out the perfect bacon butty when they could be doing something a little more worthwhile. When I searched the Apathy Sketchpad blog, I found at least one PR firm that had done so. My question is – if they can do it, why can’t the others? I published a little poston Friday afternoon asking why these businesses don’t ever conduct and publish (or sponsor) a proper study. I reckoned they would still get publicity, but without making the public think that scientists are wasting their time working out the perfect bacon butty when they could be doing something a little more worthwhile. When I searched the Apathy Sketchpad blog, I found at least one PR firm that had done so. My question is – if they can do it, why can’t the others?

]]> By: Ginger Yellow http://www.badscience.net/2008/08/fame/comment-page-1/#comment-21621 Ginger Yellow Mon, 04 Aug 2008 10:56:18 +0000 http://www.badscience.net/2008/08/fame/#comment-21621 I'd love to see the serious papers sign a code of conduct or something like that, agreeing not to publish these nonsense formulas. I realise it fills space in the summer months, but given that they're all about PR, why are they giving away free advertising? And that's before we get into the issues you've discussed before, such as devaluing science in the eyes of the public. I’d love to see the serious papers sign a code of conduct or something like that, agreeing not to publish these nonsense formulas. I realise it fills space in the summer months, but given that they’re all about PR, why are they giving away free advertising? And that’s before we get into the issues you’ve discussed before, such as devaluing science in the eyes of the public.

]]> By: Lafayette http://www.badscience.net/2008/08/fame/comment-page-1/#comment-21620 Lafayette Mon, 04 Aug 2008 10:13:42 +0000 http://www.badscience.net/2008/08/fame/#comment-21620 My favourite recent story of this nature was the "perfect voice" formula; research done for the post office comms network, if memory serves. They took a load of c'leb voices and played them to a test group, who then marked each voice in various criteria. The data was then crunched and a formula arrived at. Said formula was then used to digitally produce a voice that was much less interesting than the gifted orators used in the research. I likened it to marking up several colours in various criteria, and using the data to "mix the perfect colour", which as any fule kno is brown. I did email the chap to see where the important psycho-linguistic research was being published but, ah, he never replied. My favourite recent story of this nature was the “perfect voice” formula; research done for the post office comms network, if memory serves. They took a load of c’leb voices and played them to a test group, who then marked each voice in various criteria. The data was then crunched and a formula arrived at. Said formula was then used to digitally produce a voice that was much less interesting than the gifted orators used in the research. I likened it to marking up several colours in various criteria, and using the data to “mix the perfect colour”, which as any fule kno is brown. I did email the chap to see where the important psycho-linguistic research was being published but, ah, he never replied.

]]> By: Bogusman http://www.badscience.net/2008/08/fame/comment-page-1/#comment-21618 Bogusman Mon, 04 Aug 2008 09:26:43 +0000 http://www.badscience.net/2008/08/fame/#comment-21618 The problem with the "formula" is that the terms are not defined and therefore not measurable. It occurs to me that there might be a way to produce something out of this that would be at least an interesting exercise for statisticians. If the terms B and P were replaced by something that could actually be measured - like appearances of the name of the person in the columns of a specified range of publications (Hello, OK, Heat, Nuts, The BMJ, New Statesman for example) - then it would be possible to collect real data. Then you could apply some statistical modeling techniques that were probably taught during the stats lectures I slept through at University and produce something that was actually valid. Whether any sane person would actually want to do this - even in August - is of course another question. The problem with the “formula” is that the terms are not defined and therefore not measurable. It occurs to me that there might be a way to produce something out of this that would be at least an interesting exercise for statisticians. If the terms B and P were replaced by something that could actually be measured – like appearances of the name of the person in the columns of a specified range of publications (Hello, OK, Heat, Nuts, The BMJ, New Statesman for example) – then it would be possible to collect real data. Then you could apply some statistical modeling techniques that were probably taught during the stats lectures I slept through at University and produce something that was actually valid.

Whether any sane person would actually want to do this – even in August – is of course another question.

]]> By: Doctor Spurt http://www.badscience.net/2008/08/fame/comment-page-1/#comment-21617 Doctor Spurt Mon, 04 Aug 2008 09:22:30 +0000 http://www.badscience.net/2008/08/fame/#comment-21617 I figure it's also worth noting that dividing by zero doesn't give infinity or anything at all because the operation is undefined / illegal. I moaned about this a little on my blag: http://effortlessincitement.blogspot.com/2008/07/fame-formula-bollocks.html I figure it’s also worth noting that dividing by zero doesn’t give infinity or anything at all because the operation is undefined / illegal. I moaned about this a little on my blag:

http://effortlessincitement.blogspot.com/2008/07/fame-formula-bollocks.html

]]> By: Storm http://www.badscience.net/2008/08/fame/comment-page-1/#comment-21614 Storm Sun, 03 Aug 2008 21:24:32 +0000 http://www.badscience.net/2008/08/fame/#comment-21614 It's a little disturbing that although Mark Borkowski’s article was posted to the "Celebrity" section of GU, someone has linked to it from the Science page under the category "Mathematics"... http://www.guardian.co.uk/science Look down the picture menu on the right, when you see Nicole Kidman you know you're there. http://www.guardian.co.uk/lifeandstyle/2008/jul/28/celebrity.bigbrother What happened to the "Bad Science" link on the Science page? I hate having to scrabble around to see what the subs did to the original copy. Not that this appears to be on GU yet. It’s a little disturbing that although Mark Borkowski’s article was posted to the “Celebrity” section of GU, someone has linked to it from the Science page under the category “Mathematics”…

http://www.guardian.co.uk/science

Look down the picture menu on the right, when you see Nicole Kidman you know you’re there.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/lifeandstyle/2008/jul/28/celebrity.bigbrother

What happened to the “Bad Science” link on the Science page? I hate having to scrabble around to see what the subs did to the original copy. Not that this appears to be on GU yet.

]]> By: misterjohn http://www.badscience.net/2008/08/fame/comment-page-1/#comment-21613 misterjohn Sun, 03 Aug 2008 16:08:55 +0000 http://www.badscience.net/2008/08/fame/#comment-21613 If we were kind, and defined the function as a function of integer variables, so T is a positive integer, we would still have a load of crap.... If we were kind, and defined the function as a function of integer variables, so T is a positive integer, we would still have a load of crap….

]]> By: Jeesh42 http://www.badscience.net/2008/08/fame/comment-page-1/#comment-21612 Jeesh42 Sun, 03 Aug 2008 10:22:22 +0000 http://www.badscience.net/2008/08/fame/#comment-21612 Heh, this reminds me of the voter-paradox we learnt in undergrad economics, where the boffins initially came up with an unfalsifiable variable, D, to explain why people vote. Much like the above-mentioned "B", it serves absolutely no purpose because it means the model makes no predictions - if someone's fame seems to be high, even though their "event" came and went years ago (thus seemingly refuting the model - e.g. Princess Diana), it must be because their "B" is high. It just beggars the question, what explains B? Heh, this reminds me of the voter-paradox we learnt in undergrad economics, where the boffins initially came up with an unfalsifiable variable, D, to explain why people vote. Much like the above-mentioned “B”, it serves absolutely no purpose because it means the model makes no predictions – if someone’s fame seems to be high, even though their “event” came and went years ago (thus seemingly refuting the model – e.g. Princess Diana), it must be because their “B” is high. It just beggars the question, what explains B?

]]> By: iamjohn http://www.badscience.net/2008/08/fame/comment-page-1/#comment-21611 iamjohn Sat, 02 Aug 2008 20:55:56 +0000 http://www.badscience.net/2008/08/fame/#comment-21611 I had to skip that tricky, although frightfully clever-looking maths. But I think I got the gist of it: according to science George Clooney will always be famous, but that's not true and so science is flawed and so creationism is the only sensible option. Right? I had to skip that tricky, although frightfully clever-looking maths. But I think I got the gist of it: according to science George Clooney will always be famous, but that’s not true and so science is flawed and so creationism is the only sensible option. Right?

]]> By: used to be jdc http://www.badscience.net/2008/08/fame/comment-page-1/#comment-21610 used to be jdc Sat, 02 Aug 2008 20:55:06 +0000 http://www.badscience.net/2008/08/fame/#comment-21610 @Ministry: "That penultimate sentence really highlights why junk science is actively dangerous, in damaging the public’s perception of the real thing" I agree. I've copied & pasted a bit from that last para so I can quote it elsewhere on the internets. @DaveHolter: "Maybe I have a mutant copy, but this article isn’t in my paper version of the Guardian" Nope, 'twas missing from my copy too. @Ministry: “That penultimate sentence really highlights why junk science is actively dangerous, in damaging the public’s perception of the real thing”
I agree. I’ve copied & pasted a bit from that last para so I can quote it elsewhere on the internets.

@DaveHolter: “Maybe I have a mutant copy, but this article isn’t in my paper version of the Guardian” Nope, ’twas missing from my copy too.

]]> By: Ministry http://www.badscience.net/2008/08/fame/comment-page-1/#comment-21609 Ministry Sat, 02 Aug 2008 18:32:18 +0000 http://www.badscience.net/2008/08/fame/#comment-21609 "Great post, Ben" - and important, too. That penultimate sentence really highlights why junk science is actively dangerous, in damaging the public's perception of the real thing. “Great post, Ben” – and important, too. That penultimate sentence really highlights why junk science is actively dangerous, in damaging the public’s perception of the real thing.

]]> By: DaveHolter http://www.badscience.net/2008/08/fame/comment-page-1/#comment-21608 DaveHolter Sat, 02 Aug 2008 17:32:47 +0000 http://www.badscience.net/2008/08/fame/#comment-21608 Maybe I have a mutant copy, but this article isn't in my paper version of the Guardian, though it is available in the on-line version. And it is critical of a previous Guardian article. Odd? Maybe I have a mutant copy, but this article isn’t in my paper version of the Guardian, though it is available in the on-line version. And it is critical of a previous Guardian article. Odd?

]]> By: CDavis http://www.badscience.net/2008/08/fame/comment-page-1/#comment-21607 CDavis Sat, 02 Aug 2008 16:54:39 +0000 http://www.badscience.net/2008/08/fame/#comment-21607 Sorry - I can't accept your statements on trust. Throw some poo at Cammers and we'll talk. CD Sorry – I can’t accept your statements on trust. Throw some poo at Cammers and we’ll talk.

CD

]]> By: used to be jdc http://www.badscience.net/2008/08/fame/comment-page-1/#comment-21606 used to be jdc Sat, 02 Aug 2008 15:58:34 +0000 http://www.badscience.net/2008/08/fame/#comment-21606 "Great post, Ben" Thirded. Apathy Sketchpad did a couple of posts recently looking at the formula stories in just the Mail and Telegraph - there were quite a few and the papers weren't shy about repeating some year after year. <a href="http://www.apathysketchpad.com/blog/tag/stupid-formulae/" rel="nofollow">Apathy Sketchpad</a> “Great post, Ben”
Thirded.

Apathy Sketchpad did a couple of posts recently looking at the formula stories in just the Mail and Telegraph – there were quite a few and the papers weren’t shy about repeating some year after year. Apathy Sketchpad

]]> By: cebolla http://www.badscience.net/2008/08/fame/comment-page-1/#comment-21605 cebolla Sat, 02 Aug 2008 14:50:57 +0000 http://www.badscience.net/2008/08/fame/#comment-21605 Yep, great post ; and great 'poo' usage, on all levels. Yep, great post ; and great ‘poo’ usage, on all levels.

]]> By: alsodug http://www.badscience.net/2008/08/fame/comment-page-1/#comment-21604 alsodug Sat, 02 Aug 2008 14:36:55 +0000 http://www.badscience.net/2008/08/fame/#comment-21604 To give him credit he doesn't deserve, that the formula blows up at T->0 isn't the end of the world. It's okay just to have an asymptotic fit. In fact if it really does go as 1/T and not an exponential then that suggests that fame actually decays slower than you might think. Of course none of this makes up for the unforgivable pointlessness of the exercise. To give him credit he doesn’t deserve, that the formula blows up at T->0 isn’t the end of the world. It’s okay just to have an asymptotic fit. In fact if it really does go as 1/T and not an exponential then that suggests that fame actually decays slower than you might think.

Of course none of this makes up for the unforgivable pointlessness of the exercise.

]]> By: jonathanhearsey http://www.badscience.net/2008/08/fame/comment-page-1/#comment-21603 jonathanhearsey Sat, 02 Aug 2008 13:28:02 +0000 http://www.badscience.net/2008/08/fame/#comment-21603 Great post, Ben - I've been putting my own equations together about the Daily Mail and no matter how I 'fix' it the result is that people STILL buy the paper - shocking.... http://jonathanhearsey.com Great post, Ben – I’ve been putting my own equations together about the Daily Mail and no matter how I ‘fix’ it the result is that people STILL buy the paper – shocking….

http://jonathanhearsey.com

]]>