To be fair
The first result in google for the PNTO looks much more credible than half the sites we were told to use in school at 13 - well laid out, somewhat legible, recently updated...
During Saturday – at least to this writer, it may have started Friday in the lagging time-zones – a story started to take off on Twitter, news sites and blogs. Picking up – either marginally re-written or verbatim – a wire release, journalists were gratified to discover that the Internet makes kids stupid. Specifically, the …
True, the first result in google is the original hoax site and it was done very well.
However, link #3 is Wikipedia page which in the summary you can see from the google search results (i.e. you don't even need to follow the link) includes the word Hoax.
Link #4 is from a site called museumofhoaxes.com.
At the moment, link #2 is this Register article so when the kids were researching the species, those to links I mention above would have been Links 2 & 3.
How this test was a test of the Internet is beyond me. Were half the students told to use a library and the other half the internet within a set period of time? At least that would provide some sort of baseline for the comparison. The implicit assumption is were there no internet the students would have done a better job researching the question. The test proved nothing about the internet and little about our children. It proved the researchers had an agenda.
So how is it that pre-internet we have the Piltdown Man (which was a hoax, just like this was), the famous Jackalope, Unicorns and the whole menagerie of mythic creatures of which SOME people at some time believed existed. Don't get me started on talking snakes.
The same test could have been performed 20 years ago by telling the students to use the phone instead of the then nascent internet - and the results would likely have been equally useless. I can imagine the stories then "the phone has made out children incapable of doing research!"
Nothing like drawing a straight line from an erroneous assumption to a foregone conclusion!!
Everything in Internet forum postings is true, especially by those with an axe to grind and a ready supply of straw.
I have an idea, maybe we should do something more to get people to think like us. Anonymous postings on Internet forums is clearly not enough. Start by going door to door with pamphlets. If things pick up maybe later we get to colonize a few countries and teach them the Right Way.
... what does this tell us about the researchers' own bias? Picked sample sets, anyone? Or maybe it's sheer... well, what do you call it if you expect kids with a modern edumacation to just understand proper research protocols "intuitively"? Naivety?
Personally I'm getting the feeling that even scientists aren't very critical any longer, especially not of each others' work. Very small sample sets, meta studies, and a general lack of understanding of basic statistics make me wonder how they got their titles. No wonder the anti-science religious movements are gaining traction where they'll hurt our science- and therefore tech base the most, even if it's long-term for now.
Several scientists, notably Chinese, got caught plaggiarizing under the extreme publish-or-perish pressure in the international scientific rat race, but some of the work I wouldn't want to be caught dead plaggiarizing with. It really is quite a shame that we're losing our science-y edge now that most of us are warm and comfy and are more interested in securing a paycheck than in pushing forward the boundaries of what we can do.
and read Asimov's "Foundation" -- specifically Hari Seldon's criticism of what passed for research in the Empire. Personally I think it should be required reading for anyone entering into any science.
Asimov saw this coming decades ago -- it's just happening sooner than he predicted..
Wonderful description - I haven't a copy to hand at the moment but the Chancellor's (or what ever he was ) assertion that meta-analysis WAS the only scientific method was priceless.
I also liked the mayor's conclusion that the Chancellor had seems a consumate donkey but was really rather a clever politician in that he's had talks for days with the scientists who were the governors of Terminus but all he'd said and promised when analysed by symbolic logic amounted to nothing - that everything he'd said had eventually been canceled out by other statements and NOBODY (except the mayor ) has noticed. I often think of this when listening to politicians.
The statement "the research [...] asked the children to research as real information a species, the Pacific Northwest Tree Octopus" appears, at first glance, to be incorrect. The PPT merely says that "96% of 7th graders" (11 years old?) recommended http://zapatopi.net/treeoctopus/ "to another classroom, studying endangered species".
Although it *is* ambiguous, my reading is that the *other* classroom were the ones supposedly studying endangered species, and that the children who were asked to recommend that website did *not* have the opportunity to do any online research. That is, it seems they were shown that website and asked to make a judgment based on the information in front of them, on that single website.
It does raise questions about 11-year olds and whether they know that octopodes are marine animals, but it says nothing about online research -- it might just as well have been a page from a (fake) textbook.
Richard Chirgwin "could do better". B-
"It does raise questions about 11-year olds and whether they know that octopodes are marine animals..."
As any fule know: tree octopi are amphibious, start their life in water, and have a specially adapted skin which retains moisture in the damp, rain-forest environment in which they live.
Seriously, if an 11-year old was shown *only* the zapatopi site, then I'd expect 25/25 to succumb. And I'd expect a good few adults to fall for it, too.
I suspect that most 7th graders, when tasked with writing a paper about a subject, do not assume that the subject in question does not exist.
In fact, I suspect that most people, when tasked with researching a subject, do not assume that the subject in question does not exist. This was demonstrated twice, by the students and the reporters.
In fact, that the students did not catch the hoax -- we assume they were not simply playing along -- is a positive sign, because they must have ignored the Wikipedia article on the subject.
Hey, that's nothing! You should be around when the sasquatch make a ruckus about the tree octopi. Why, one of those sasquatch threw a tree octopus so hard it knocked out my truck's back window and set off my shotgun and dropped a whitetail by the side of the road! I tried explaining that to the game warden, but the octopus had slithered underneath and I couldn't find it. Then after I got my stupid ticket, the octopus slithered into the engine compartment and got caught in the fan belt. So there I was with a dead truck, dead mush in the engine, and a ticket for a deer I didn't shoot.
And then that sasquatch started laughing at me, and I didn't have no more shells.
Journalists in "Printing Possibly Biased Research Confirming Something It's Readership Already Kind-Of Believes To Chase Ratings" Shocker.
Seriously, Reg Hacks and Editors, is this a shock to you? If so, how's that internship panning out for you? Did you find the stationary cupboard ok?
Perhaps the study is flawed, but there is a lot of anecdotal evidence to support the claim that people readily believe any crap out there.
An amazing number of people out there actually believe the youtube cell phone hoaxes about popping corn http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V94shlqPlSI and cooking eggs and that anyone posting that it is a hoax is just a shill for the telcos. Then of course there are all the people that believe stuff about cars running on water.
But is this a generational thing? Since forever people have believed all sorts of nonsense including religion and other mythologies.
Just as many USians wanted schools to give creationism to be given equal status to evolution, here in NZ a Maori group wanted Maori mythology on the creation of NZ to be presented with equal status to tectonics in school geography. The latter was luckily thwarted.
Stupidity surrounds us - it isn't just on the interwebs.
... is that people are selective. They tend to read articles that support their views. They tend to remember (and quote) them, while dismissing, ignoring or twisting information that runs contrary either to their pet beliefs - or how they think things "ought to be".
The difficulty with the internet is that you can't tell the difference between a journalist and a 13 y.o. american, They can bother write blogs. They can both create forums (and the level of debate in either's forum will probably be at much the same level). They can both claim to have researched their material - although I expect this research is mostly just plagiarising the work of others - with whom they agree. And you can't tell if they miss a deadline because their mum has revoked internet privileges or because they've just spent a week in rehab.
...most of whom pride themselves on not understanding science or math...
Consider two examples:
1) Journalists falling for these: Iraqi's 'close support of Al Quaeda, and their huge cache of Weapons of Mass Destruction
2) Policy makers: At the time that the Berlin Wall fell and the Soviet Union collapsed, Condeleazza Rice admitted said (out loud! I heard her say it) that she didn't see it coming.
(According to Wiki: Her dissertation centered on military policy and politics in what was then the communist state of Czechoslovakia. So, she was a export on the Soviet Systems.)
Yet, when 12 year olds fall for an old hoax, THAT makes the news...
I'm guessing that the "researchers" (dare I call them this for their lapsidasical approach to science?) probably vandalised the wikipedia page about the hoax to increase its plausibility to the group. Without a vandalised page I'm fairly certain your average schoolchild of the internet generation would quickly discover that its a hoax (seen as its often a bugbear of teachers that pupils resort to wikipedia so readily).
As has been mentioned elsewhere, the children were not asked to research the Tree Octopus. They were just asked to review the Zapato website, without being told it was a hoax.
There was therefore no need to nobble Wiki or anywhere-else, for the simple reason that the children were not expected to look at any other site.
Question 2 is actually pretty close. The big problem here is when told to actually do something, people rarely check to see if you've given them a trick question until it becomes obvious that the task can't be accomplished. Wikipedia has an interesting list of such pranks at "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Snipe_hunt." And judging by the list, they seem to be pretty effective on all ages of people.
A second point of contention would be that the children actually did accomplish what was asked of them. A quick look shows that "http://zapatopi.net/treeoctopus/" actually does seem to be a reliable source of information on the Pacific Tree Octopus. This is irrespective of the fact that said octopus is a hoax. Alternatively, Wikipedia offers a substantial article on Klingons, despite also being fictitious. This article would be considered to be reasonably useful by most people, despite consisting of more than just the statement "Klingons do not exist."
The researchers asked for reliable information on the Pacific Tree Octopus and they got it. The joke here is that the well-trained trick cyclists don't know how to do research. Perhaps I could get a paper out of that...
Exactly, if the "researchers were introduced to the kids as experts / people to be trusted then they would have started out with the assumption that the Tree Octopus exists. There are a lot of strange creatures in the world that are often featured on kids TV shows after all, and if you don't know a lot about Octopus it's not that much stranger then tree frogs.
It would have been more interesting to also give them a strange but true creature and ask them to find out if they exist and show prof for their answer.
But Snipe Hunts, Santa, Easter Bunny et al; kids will go along with the joke for a while.
The kid thinks.
"Let them think you are gullible, it will lure them in range."
"Oh, this looks fun."
Neither researchers or journalists seem to factor this in.
But remembering my youth, I would say it probably still happens.
A clever parent allows for it.
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2019