h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

No, Subcom, I don't believe that I am missing your point. Opinions are all very well but some, when subjected to a - not even very harsh - critical light, just fade away. And pieces consisting more of such opinion rather than fact tend to make themselves rather more susceptible to this fading than others. Opinions which are *interpretations* of events or issues (i.e. personal perspectives or interpretations) certainly can enhance a discussion of it and challenge our preconceptions. Those which wilfully ignore fact, well, irritate at best. If someone came up to me and expounded on how the Sun really orbits the Earth or the planets were pushed along by angels despite having no grounds for believing these I wouldn't hang about for too long to listen to it. Similarly when I read an article maintaining that a phenomenon long exposed as a hoax really has a deeper mystical significance.

One of the reasons I didn't like the article was because I didn't think it fitted the Editorial Guidelines, specifically points 1, 7 and 9. As regards the other two articles, these contain opinion but in these cases, it's there to serve the subject matter, not the other way around.

Another reason I didn't like the article was because it was mostly conjecture about New-Age spirituality bolstered by some spurious personal belief in the power of crop circles (see my previous point). Richard Dawkins once told a story that the great Douglas Adams himself used to relate about the human need to believe in mystical influences:
'A man didn't understand how televisions work, and was convinced that there must be lots of little men inside the box, manipulating images at high speed. An engineer explained about high-frequency modulations of the electromagnetic spectrum, transmitters and receivers, amplifiers and cathode ray tubes, scan lines moving across and down a phosphorescent screen. The man listened to the engineer with careful attention, nodding his head at every step of the argument. At the end he pronounced himself satisfied. He really did now understand how televisions work. "But I expect there are just a few little men in there, aren't there?"'

Well, forgive me if I'm a right royal pain in the arse, but I think I'm only saying the sort of stuff that DNA himself would have said. Sorry if it grates, but this is Peer Review, after all.

I've been avoiding comment on this and several other threads, but can wait no longer.

"But I would like to hear why other clearly identified opinions should be allowed in the Guide, but this one should not."

Breaking a rule a couple times is no excuse for breaking it again. (If indeed a rule as been broken). What I'm trying to point out is that the arguement that "oh, this has been done before so it should be allowed again" is immaterial and inappropriate to the real issue. The real issues is, "has a rule been broken?" If there is no way to determine whether a rule has been broken, or if it is unclear or indeterminant if a rule has been broken, then the rule itself should be re-written to be clearer, and no offenses taken.

Case in point: the issue of how an article expressing an opinion should be allowed into the edited Guide. Since clearly things that have expressed opinion have been allowed into the edited guide recently (as you point out two excellent examples), the issue seems to be the "how" these entries should be written more than anything else. This "how" is guided by the existing item #9 in the Writing Guide, which states, in part, that "... the Edited Guide we're looking for well-balanced entries rather than subjective rants. We're looking for entries that show both sides of the argument, especially on potentially contentious topics ...".

It would seem, then, that admitting articles that express one side of a contentious issue are not appropriate. Submitting OTHER entries expressing other assenting or otherwise differing opinions (as was suggested elsewhere in this thread) in order to balance things out "in the Guide as a whole" would seem to provide a double violation of this rule. Two wrongs don't make a right. Not only that, but there may indeed be more than one side to any given issue, and having the _edited_ Guide full of this sort of thing strikes me as being counter to the spirit of this rule. That's what the forums (fora?) are for.

I suggest a more clear re-wording of the rule to provide for any changes in acceptance criteria that have since not been made official. It's a bit like having a speed limit that no one follows. Why have a rule in place if no one follows it or no one wishes to enforce it? In such a case, the rule should be re-worded or otherwise clarified to reflect (and make official) the change in, or new interpretation of, the affected policy.

As to whether this article is or is not in contradiction of the rules is what should be discussed here. I don't think it's applicable that other articles have crossed some perceived line and therefore this one should be allowed based on that precedent. This article would simply work just fine, if it clearly presents both views of the subject and not that of one side. Simply saying, "there are others that contend the opinions stated in this article" is not sufficient in my opinion; that's not presenting another opinion, merely stating that one exists. An article like this should, in my interpretation of the rule (and I must admit, it seems very clear on this point), have more about the other explanations researched and stated clearly prior to being edited for the guide. Either that, or the change in the way the rule is interpreted should be explained so that it is clear why this sort of thing is now acceptable.


- JD (just ain't no scientist, but has worked in government far too long already)

FM,

Okay, if you think it doesn't meet points 1 or 7 of the guidelines, that's a more sound footing than the debatably unenforced point 9 (keeping entries well-balanced). I still think your prejudice towards skepticism is clear, and the piece is not factually incorrect as you accuse, but I'd rather drop it and turn to the more interesting argument...

Excellent. JD, that's exactly the wound I was trying to rub salt into. There seems to be dissonance between guideline #9 (Try to be balanced) and the kinds of entries that have slipped into the Edited Guide lately. I started a discussion on the Editorial Feedback section asking about this. http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/h2g2/alabaster/F47997?thread=173200&latest=1 We should probably move further discussion about Guideline #9 over to that thread. You might be interested to see what Sam wrote there (a member of h2g2 staff). My impression from Sam's clarification is that Guideline #9 is fulfilled as long as an entry is not a total "subjective rant," which I would argue does not fit as a description of this piece, and as long as there are substantial facts presented, which Zaphod's Crop Circles does have. Two wrongs don't make a right, but three lefts do. I don't think any of these "wrongs" are earth-shattering to the credibility of the Guide, but I wouldn't mind seeing the Guidelines clarified a little.

Word to the wise: they're called Writing *Guidelines*. Not rules.

> "1. Write About Reality"

Crop Circles are real objects that you can reach out and touch. No problem here. If anyone seriously wants to suggest that there are no such things as crop circles, go ahead. Even if all crop circles are hoaxes, they're still real hoaxes.

> "4. Be Instructive, Informative and Factual"

Yep. Facts like the existance of a Mandelbrot set crop 'circle', and facts like the majority of people believing the hoax explanation. Note that the guidelines suggest that facts should form the *base* of your entry - not necessarily the entirety.

> "7. Write About What You Know"

I think the author's demonstrated a good knowledge of the subject area, though I'm no expert on the area. Certainly nobody's demonstrated that this entry has any mistakes. If you can see specific inaccuracies or missing info - SAY SO. Otherwise, there's not a problem.

> "9. Try to be Well-balanced"

A variety of theories and beliefs are provided for crop circles. The author doesn't really slag off or praise any particular theory. It's not a 'subjective rant'. It does have a few rough patches where Zaphod's beliefs show through - and I do want him to try and smooth those out. But that's because I'm a perfectionist, not because this entry is completely out of line.

Anyway, I guess there's little point discussing this at a high level - some will see this entry as balanced, some won't. Silly really to argue on the broad scale. Better to work at the level of specific paragraphs which need a little work, imo - rather than dismissing or praising the thing in its entirety...



Zaphod - http://www.circlemakers.org/ is worth a link, and it has one in the entry, but I think it's a little superficial to reference it just as a 'FOR' link. You could stand to have a sentence or two explaining the site. After all, it's not really an argument that all circles are hoaxes, which is what you're kind of painting it as.

And I do think you should pick up on some of the points made in this thread. I understand the irritation at having to do so much balancing on your entry - having gone through the same process for Pascal's Wager. Why not make the changes, and then start up a thread on the entry when it's Edited, title it 'Author's Note', and explain your own personal ideas there.

For example, the "no-one has directly seen a crop circle in the process of forming" paragraph still needs changing. If you don't do it, the sub-ed will, and will probably do it worse.

I also think that it might be worth clarifying that the existance of some hoaxers *is* totally undisputed. For example, "Though there is evidence that crop circles are manmade, by the same token there is no evidence to suggest that this occurs in all cases" I would rewrite to "It is undisputed that some crop circles are manmade, though not necessarilly all."

*sigh* Why do I get into these things?
-Martin (skeptic)

I left Zaphod a week to see would he make any major attempt to make this balanced. I have now re-read it.

It is one of the funniest things I have read in recent years. It is so ludicrous that the very ridiculousness of the whole thing is surely enough to convince any sane person that this is all a big joke. Well done Zaphod! Is there any harm in putting such a "tongue-in-cheek" piece into the guide?

If it does go in, there are a few typing errors which should be corrected:
on par with --> on a par with
recognising there --> recognising that there
to access the site --> to visit the site, or, access to the site
these power --> these powers
Mandlebrot --> Mandelbrot
Sonehenge --> Stonehenge
Knight's Templar --> Knights Templar
spritually --> spiritually
ourselves) and it could be --> ourselves) it could be
phenomenon such as crop circles --> phenomena such as crop circles
two phenomenon --> two phenomena
subtlely --> subtly
Aricebo --> Arecibo

I don't think the links to FOR and AGAINST will be allowed. Whatever goes on within the guide, external links are only allowed to reputable sites. THe FOR site is too amateurish to be allowed in my opinion (it refers to "the human specie" for example). For balance, the AGAINST site should be removed too.

One final note, can you explain what you mean about the St Michael and St Mary ley lines intersecting? At how many points do these two lines intersect?

Zaphod, the behavio(u)r of some of your detractors paints a bad image of skeptics, and makes "believers" seem to be the model of restraint and rationality by comparison.

Thanks to Deidzoeb, Lucinda et al, AGB, and Gnomon and others for your suggestions, remarks, criticisms, etc. I knew the entry would bring a little happiness into some people's lives. I have given it another push, with more alterations, though resisting changing the title (Sorry Deidzoeb!).
Is it to be the final irony that I've been told by the moderators to remove some failed URLs, including www.circlemakers/. I have therefore withdrawn the section on arguments FOR/AGAINST, and, of course, it cannot be shown in the bibliography together with other broken sites.
Lucinda - How can I possibly cut the afterthoughts. Perhaps you will be proved right by its removal during editing process. In the meantime, until I absolutely have to, I would like it to stay.
Zaphod

Thanks, Zaphod, for being so polite to me when I lost my head. I did genuinely think that you were joking, but I've been told by other researchers that you are serious. I still don't like your article, but you are obviously representative of a group of people who feel the crop circles are mystical in origin, so I suppose you should have your say.

I'd like to see more balance in it. You don't actually seem to say anywhere how you think the circles are formed. You just say it is by some mysterious force. Do you have any idea how it happens? Did I miss that bit. If you do, perhaps you would bring it out more, with more emphasis on what you think is the mechanism and less on the cosmic stuff.

I might just change *my* opinion if anyone can give me a coherent and convincing explanation of how and what one would measure at the 'photon level of water'. Having been exposed to physical chemistry for the best part of 20 years I have yet to hear this phrase used at all, let alone in a meaningful context. :-|

Hand on heart FM I don't know what it means myself. It was something I picked up whilst doing my researching and have since double checked my source and this is what actually is said. However, if it doesn't make any sense whatsoever then I'll bow to your long experience and remove it. Unless someone else has any ideas?

lsaw a documentary where thier was Guys with rope and 2 by 4's
Making crop circles.

Hi, Zaphod!

I think you have certainly made some improvements by expanding coverage of known circlemakers. I'm very surprised that the moderators had problems with the http://www.circlemakers.org/ site - it's certainly up at the moment, and it's always been fine whenever I looked at it before. Since BBCi has included it as one of its 'Best Of the Web' sites (see http://www.bbc.co.uk/webguide/ under the Entertainment - Weird Web sction) I seriously think that you should put that link back in.

If you check back on my first post, you will see that that 'photon level of water' sentence is the one I pointed out as looking totally meaningless - I certainly agree with FM that it should be removed!

I still have problems with the treatment of Levengood's work, which I will deal with in another post.

Azara

With regard to your 'Microwave Energy' section -

Your description makes it sound as if these strange results (swollen nodes etc) have been found by a large number of researchers, rather than by Levengood's team. I've had a look at version of the famous 1994 paper, which is at
http://www.xs4all.nl/~icircle/dcircles/Levengood_Physiologia.htm
and an awful lot of information which would be vitally important from the point of view of checking the results is simply not there.
He says that 'A typical test group contained 6-10 plants taken within the crop imprint and an equal number of normal or control plants removed from the same field at distances ranging from 10 to 300 m from the outer periphery of the formation.' 6-10 plants is a very small sample, and the first thing that anyone else would want to check is how random this sampling was. His collaborator John Burke says on another site 'Writing a letter to author Pat Delgado to ask for details on the biological studies, career biophysicist Dr. W. C. Levengood was shocked to find that no biological studies were being conducted. He asked for and received plant samples taken in line with his instructions in what was to become a steady stream of plants across the Atlantic. ' Apparently Levengood was depending on British crop circle enthusiasts to take his samples for him. No matter how complex a mathematical analysis he does afterwards, his results can only be relied on to the extent that the sampling was genuinely random, and that appears impossible to check. Unconscious bias in sampling is one of the easiest ways to get 'anomalous' results which fade away on further research.

The second point that rings alarm bells is his mention that 'The majority of the test sample groups were collected within 1-5 days post formation. ' Since plants inside the circles are still alive, the effect of the date of sampling after the date of actual formation could be substantial - the distribution of plant growth factors is affected by the direction of light and gravity, and over a period of days this could make a difference. The obvious way to check this would be to sample the same circle regularly, over a period of a couple of weeks, but he never seems to have done that.

The third point I would have problems with is his controls which were known man-made circles. Practice seems to make a big difference in the quality of the circles made - his 'controls' appear to have been only in wheat (while he was measuring a range of crops in 'genuine' circles) and to have been made and sampled by his associates in England. But any real control should have been made by an experienced circlemaker, so the value of these controls is doubtful.

Overall, the impression from actually reading the paper is that these are tentatively interesting results, but far more rigorous experimental design would be needed to completely exclude the various possible sources of bias. However, nobody seems to have done that in the intervening period. I think the average botanist would indeed expect these results to fade under more rigorous conditions, and be reluctant to devote any serious time to it.

Anyway, I seriously think that you should rephrase your paragraphs on this. If you put 'A team led by Dr. WC Levengood has reported results...' at the beginning, it will make it clear that (in spite of the article in a fairly respectable journal) these results are still tentative, have been found only by Levengood and his associates, and have not stirred much interest in the general scientific community. You should definitely change the sentence 'These effects are not reproduceable by conventional hoaxing methods (i.e. boards, rope, feet, etc.)' since it begs the whole question. 'Levengood's associates were unable to reproduce these results by conventional hoxing methods' is a better description of the situation.

Azara

ok, wow, what a back log.

i have just read the entry as it stands now, I have no idea what it was like before,

my opinion:

Bl**dy good work, should definately go in the guide.
I think you've done a fine job of explaining theories and that they are theories, and offering lots and lots of different view points.

i like the large amount of links that have been inlcuded for those that are interested in further investigation and i like the inclusion of other source material for the same reason.

the only part i found hard to get through was at the very end where i got a bit fed up and bored, but that is my attention span and proabably not a fault in the article.

i have no way of knowing whether other comment in this thread were at time of writing, but as it stands now i firmly believe this entry should go into the guide and i'd like to congratulate zaphod on a great bit of work, and how calmly he reacted to some quite inflametory comments.

FABT

Interesting. Seems like (dis)proving Levengood would make quite a good A-level biology project. If one could convince a science teacher, that is.

If you can find an apporpriate crop circle.

I would like to compare 'However, at least two-thirds of the world's crop circle activity takes place in Southern England, the majority of these being more specifically within the downlands of Wiltshire and Hampshire.' With a similar statistic I heard on Have I Got News for You a few years back where something like 99% of UFO spottings are reported in the USA.
Interesting

I see that this entry has been recommended.

. . and I didn't have time to implement Azara's suggestions vis-a-vis Levengood's research or resolve the 'photon level of water' issue. Oh well, maybe the sub-ed will do the biz.
Thanks again for all your comments, ripostes, scholarly insights, praise, encouragement or whatever. It's been a long and interesting journey.
Zaphod

Well, you could try to update it quickly before the copy is made.. (is it already made? I don't know..)



Congrats. I really do think that it is a good entry.