According to ABC 7 Denver unnamed "friends" have dubbed Richard Heene a "Mad Scientist".Oh here we go again! Then this news station reports every bad word someone can say about him, with no independent verification. There are many many stories like this out there, all relying on the reporting of other news outlets often with no independent verification of anything. Most of the "news" out there on this topic is the same way. The meta message of all this that I am getting is "of course he's bad he's interested in science." Another case of the mad scientist stereotype at work.
The news then goes on to report on a 911 hang up and a mark on Heene's wife's face and her red eye. They don't even hedge on their rather overt suggestion that he must have hit her. She said her eye was irritated by a problem with her contact lenses. (I have had that happen. My eye got really red. I have also been punched repeatedly in the eye by an abusive boyfriend. My eye did not turn red, and it was really obvious that I had been punched.) Then they report that a business assistant who was supposedly with him while chasing a tornado in Colorado slugged them. They also report that he was convicted of vandalism in 1997 in LA. They also report that he and his wife met as aspiring actors in Los Angeles.
What the author of that story argues is that because this guy is interested in science he is a dangerous mad man. They did this not even a full year ago in the case of the Late Bruce Ivins. He was a scientist who worked with anthrax. Not a back yard experimenter. The FBI relying on very little information with the media's cooperation painted Ivins as a mad scientist and convicted a dead man of being a terrorist. I did not see one story that was sympathetic to Ivins until oh, a few month's ago. He was tried convicted and sentenced to death by the media. The fact that the FBI even went along with that is a sad commentary on our American society. Apparently scientific interest, analytical talent, and being good at math can be portrayed as, being strange and eccentric, being schemeing and conniving, and being cold and calculating. I have seen this happen in any story that involves a scientist suspected or accused of any kind of wrong doing. Being a scientist or just a science enthusiast can become evidence of guilt....at least to the news media.
Now I don't live in that house. I have no special knowldge on weather there is domestic violence in the Heene house. I do know that there is no actual evidence of anything, just insinuations and steroetypes. If you look at anyone's life you are likely to find someone who does not like them to speak ill, or some legal trouble somewhere. The incorrectly applied stereotype that says an Asian woman like Mayumi heene must be a docile submissive doormat (contradicted by this video). So as the wife of a crazy out of control "mad scientist" she must have been physically and emotionally abused.
Would it really be so hard to get the media to use the word allegedly at least once in these kind of stories?
Comments
On more than one occasion I have seen the mainstream (as in big news papers, and tv networks, who most people get their news from, along with entertainment producers) media throw all scientist under the bus. For years the media gave the message that all scientist were kooks, or dangerous, and when accused of some wrong doing were toooooo willing to jump to the conclusion of guilt facts be dammed. If I sound steamed by having this happen for the umpteeth time well I am.
Hontas Farmer | 10/17/09 | 17:37 PM
"I have known Richard for over 20 years. He is an amazingly creative
human (now turned mad scientist) who insists on repeatedly proving that
there is a very fine line between genius and insanity."
http://franksfunnies.wordpress.com/2008/09/13/richard-heene-on-wife-swap/
I have a problem in portraying Bruce Ivins in the same context as Richard Heene. There is no question that Bruce Ivins was a real scientist that got caught up in the mass hysteria surrounding anthrax, and represents the epitome of the problem with media reporting. The public wants to crucify someone, so innuendo is sufficient. However, Richard Heene is not in the same category, and while I don't have a problem with his searching for anti-gravity in tornadoes, or trying to prove we descended from aliens, the two people are not in the same category.
Gerhard Adam | 10/17/09 | 15:06 PM
1.) You have equated fringe belief with the notion of the mad scientist.... that scientist are all clinically insane, dangerous, megalomaniacs who play god. I am not sure you are from the USA originally so just in case. This is what wikipedia says which is yankee centric...
A mad scientist is a stock character of popular fiction, specifically science fiction. The mad scientist may bevillainous, benign or neutral, and whether insane, eccentric, or simply bumbling, mad scientists often work withfictional technology in order to forward their schemes, if they even have a coherent scheme. Alternatively, they fail to see the evil that is implied will ensue from the hubris of “playing God”. Not all mad scientists are evil or villains. Some are protagonists (or at least positive forces), such as Dexter in the animated series Dexter's Laboratory or Dr. Emmett "Doc" Brown from the Back to the Future movies. Occasionally, there are self parodies of mad scientists making fun of the stereotype.
The press calling him that has NOTHING to do with fringe belifes. So far as the general public is concerned Einstein's General Relativity is about as sensible as anything Richard Heene would say. Remember this case and this particular blog post are about the perceptions of people who are not scientist. Which brings me to point two.
2.) You say " There is no question that Bruce Ivins was a real scientist"
I don's dispute tht either. However I wonder just how you define a real scientist? Does having a degree automatically make one a real scientist? If so which degree? Is a PhD. all that makes one a real scientist? (If so Freeman Dyson who only has a bachelors degree is proof of the falsehood of that.)
I assert that doing experiments and formulating testable theories are all that are required to make one a real scientist. The degree's are just the most orthodox way to get paid for those activities.
Science is not for a special prussian elite.
(As for Heene's physical theories. The question is gravity any different in a tornado than in calm air. The stress energy tensor of a Tornado is likely different from that of a column of still air. I don't know what the stress energy tensor for a cyclone is but if that tensor is different it implies a slightly different solution to Einstein's equation. ( G=kT vs G=kT' ) However the dominant mass in the system would be the earth, any gravity modification in the eye of a cyclone would be extremely hard to measure and very very negligible. So in a sense his intuition is right, but he lacks the education to know how small of an effect he would have to measure. Never the less there is a difference between negligible and non-existent. That's what the kooky theory of curved space-time says about the quacky theory of Heene.)
Hontas Farmer | 10/17/09 | 18:58 PM
As for the distinction with a "real scientist", my point has nothing to do with education per se, but it does distinguish between a "dabbler" or "tinkerer" and someone that is actually doing it for a living. This doesn't negate the contributions that someone else may make, but my point in bringing up Ivins, was that here you had someone that did science for a living and was truly being cast as a "mad scientist" simply because the public and law enforcement needed a scapegoat.
Richard Heene is not in that category. I have no quarrel with Richard Heene as being a scientist, inventor, or nothing for that matter. However, in the same way that you're chastising the press for labeling him a "mad scientist", I think you're going too far in assigning him a level of credibility, that he hasn't earned.
Gerhard Adam | 10/17/09 | 20:05 PM
Get this, after being 100% sure this wasn't a hoax, the Sheriff is now saying he's going to file criminal charges according to the AP. If I were their lawyer I would play the video's of the Sheriff's officals talking about how naturally upset those parents seemed.
Honestly can't we all just let this drop?
Hontas Farmer | 10/17/09 | 20:26 PM
I'm not suggesting that someone who is a "scientist" automatically has credibility (regarding their opinions), but they certainly have the credibility to claim being a scientist. They may not be very good at it, or they may be a genius. However, someone with no credentials, regardless of their interests, cannot arbitrarily lay claim to titles simply because they are interested in those areas. In this respect, "scientist" is a title.
No matter how many chemistry experiments I do with my grandkids, I can't call myself a chemist. No matter how many slides we look at through a microscope, doesn't allow me to lay claim to being a microbiologist. Even working on my car doesn't automatically make me a mechanic, nor does building a deck make me a carpenter.
Ivins really was a scientist. Whether he was any good at it or not is immaterial. He didn't go out to promote himself as a scientist or innovator. He came into the public eye because of law enforcement. There are already far too many people that grant themselves titles whether it be "psychic investigators", or "creation scientists". The simple fact is, that it is possible to distinguish between someone who has legitimately pursued that path as a career versus someone that is merely pursuing an interest. While the latter could well discover the next greatest principles of nature, it isn't likely and the "credibility" I'm referring to is their laying claim to being a scientist when they've done nothing of the sort.
Gerhard Adam | 10/17/09 | 20:46 PM
Gerhard. If you did chemical experiments with your kids and made observations that's science. If you observed microbes and noted their behavior and responses to various stimuli that's science. If you observed the heavens and saw a comet no one has seen before they would name it after you... that's science.
As websters dictionary puts it. A scientist is " a person learned in science and especially natural science : a scientific investigator"
Scientist and the "claim to being a scientist" is nothing special. It is this thinking that being a scientist is some special thing that some group of selected mandarin's in certain ivory towers can only bestow on you that holds back modern science.
Did you know that Nikola Tesla was self educated? Yet he is considered a genius inventor-physicist. He had some pretty strange idea's.
Did you know that Satyendrah Bose only had a masters degree and not a PhD? Yet he is considered a genius theoretical physicist.
Did you know that Gene Schumaker GOT HIS DEGREE IN ENGLISH LIT NOT SCIENCE... yet he discovered either with others or on his own 22 comets.
Most of the great scientist of old were not taught anything we would call science. Even though they were not learned they conducted scientific investigations. As you are defining it those people aren't scienitst.
Gerhard I'm sorry to tell you but you, are a scientist. Report to the nearest gov't lab to pic up your wild hair and pocket protector.
Hontas Farmer | 10/17/09 | 21:01 PM
So, in a sense, it is a reasonable question to ask, whether everyone that is interested in science is necessarily representative of what we expect the "public face" of a scientist to be? There's no question that we could argue in circles forever on this, by the semantics alone. But I'm sure, that there's also a certain concept of a "scientist" that you have in terms of the characteristics that you would consider to be representative.
Obviously there are well-known scientists and even Nobel prize winners that had whacked out ideas, as well as knowing there were self-educated individuals that produced great work. Perhaps I'm being too strict in my interpretation, but my sense of Richard Heene is that he's reasonably media savvy and that makes me suspicious. As a result, maybe I'm being too harsh in questioning where he draws the line between media exposure and publicity.
Gerhard Adam | 10/17/09 | 21:59 PM
The latest news is that at this hour as I write at about 12:50 AM MDT their are sheriffs executing a search warrant, and the Sheriff is going to have a press conference at 11 AM to announce what he has said may be at worst class 3 misdemeanor charges. For what I wonder? Launching a balloon in a residential zone? What's that a $500 ticket? He has spoken of federal charges.
Assuming for a moment this was a hoax and this is about publicity any trumped up charges would only
1.) Keep this story in the news for way too long.
2.) Possibly result in those kids being placed in foster care which trust me is likely to be FAR worse than having parents who are into "weird" science.
Hontas Farmer | 10/18/09 | 01:59 AM
Syd.
Syd (not verified) | 10/18/09 | 00:19 AM
...all for what appears to be one big joke on us.
It may be, and as I've said I certainly have my suspicions. The only reason why I'm not more adamant about it, is some years ago, I was involved in a rescue operation for an entire night searching for a 6 year old boy. He turned up sleeping in a neighbor's barn.
So, I'm well aware of what kids can do and still drive their parent's crazy. My only real point of suspicion here is that given the behavior of so many people over the past few years and the prevalence of "reality TV" programs. This type of activity also looks more and more like the type of thing that could be employed as a ploy to garner such attention (remember Octo-mom).
Gerhard Adam | 10/18/09 | 00:33 AM
As for the 911 call. In a little podunk town 911 would mean that Andy could deputize Gomer, Goober, and Floyd the barber to look for the boy. This ain't LA NYC or Chicago were talking about. He called the FAA they likely spent a healthy ammount of time on hold with them, then were told to call 911. Then they called a TV station and asked them to have their helecopter search for them. When they called 911 what did 911 do? Call the FAA. Which makes me wonder what did the FAA do at that point?
To be honest it was a scene of utter and complete confusion.
Listen to Gearhard. Anyone who has ever had a 6 or 7 year old kid knows they don't think like little adults.
Hontas Farmer | 10/18/09 | 01:52 AM
Anonymous (not verified) | 10/18/09 | 15:34 PM
Oh and please note that you are a stuck up snob, and an a$$hole and be nice enough to pass that on to you illustrious colleagues.
Some people sheesh.
Hontas Farmer | 10/18/09 | 16:05 PM
Anonymous (not verified) | 10/21/09 | 12:15 PM
Anonymous (not verified) | 10/21/09 | 12:15 PM
mikimaster (not verified) | 10/18/09 | 23:04 PM
Science is a process used for answering your questions about the world. If you have a hypothesis, then investigate an hypothesis, then modify that original hypothesis based on that investigation, you are applying the scientific method. If you do this as far as I am concerned you are a scientist.
I really think you should read the article which appears as related to this one. The one about science education. A person can go to school for years and years answering rote questions out of books (often involving massless strings, frictionless surfaces and other such nonsense) but not really learn anything about science. Only researching something about which there is no known and accepted answer can make one a scientist for real. Education is only necessary for that up to a point.
Hontas Farmer | 10/19/09 | 05:33 AM
A high school student asked to job shadow me the other day. When she asked what classes I would recommend she and others interesting in journalism take, I said "social sciences, literature and as much math, chemistry, biology and physics as you can cram into your schedule."
So we aren't all of us nihilistic barbarians, but I do wish some of those people would Just. Shut. Up.
And thanks for the link to the Dyson interview.
Rod Rose | 10/19/09 | 17:04 PM
The worst thing that should happen to these people is a massive fine, that's it. They will pleah bargain just to end this. I know I would even if I was innocent.
Hontas Farmer | 10/19/09 | 20:09 PM
winston (not verified) | 10/24/09 | 00:13 AM
My mother is an example of someone like yourself who apparently only pays casual attention to the media and fills in the blanks with what you call common sense.
First of all the affidavit was filed by a sheriff's deputy CLAIMING Mayumi Heene admitted to a hoax. that is worlds different than a signed sword confession. Even Lisa Bloom on CNN someone who has been vocal in thinking this is a hoax finds that document release to be kind of odd. As she pointed out the affidavit does not mention any video or audio recording of this admission. Nor has Mayumi signed a sworn statement saying it is a hoax.
Second what percentage of people do you think could name the president of Afganistan much less his closest rival? Seriously
The fact that you think that the doccument in question was a signed sworn statement by Mayumi Heene, and the probability that most people could not name the president of Afganistan, prove that the media is more interested in the lurid and tablodish.
In the words of Richard Jewel, someone EVERYONE KNEW WAS THE OLYMPIC BOMBER UNTIL HE WASN'T, "People forget the heroes and remember the villains."
I don't blame you, the source you rely on to tell you the truth have little to no interest in facts, only in ratings.
Hontas Farmer | 10/24/09 | 12:11 PM
Matt S (not verified) | 10/20/09 | 18:02 PM
Hontas Farmer | 10/20/09 | 18:13 PM
Not to be snarky, but didn't you just do the same thing? You are tossing all reporters/journalists into one category, on the presumption that all of us employ the same techniques. We don't. Neither do scientists. One indulgence, please: when you say "the media," would you be specific? Do you mean the commercial TV networks, or the cable news networks, or the cable infotainment programs, or the print industry (we ain't all dead yet) in its daily, weekly, monthly or quarterly format? I'm a print journalist (well, they're trying to train me to Tweet, and I'm depending on my college-age grandson to get me through THAT latest evolution) and a science enthusiast.
There is debate in the industry over the use of "allegedly." Some believe if a statement is attributed to a named source (say, the Larimer County Sheriff's Department) that "allegedly" isn't necessary. Some papers refuse to use unnamed sources, even on the infamous "deep background" level. Hint to all: You are NEVER off the record when speaking to a reporter. If you don't want it printed, don't say it, show it or do it. This assumes, naturally, that the reporter has identified him/herself as a reporter.
Hontas, I am NOT defending how Channel 7 handled this story. I am saying only that "the media" is as much an inaccurate characterization of everyone in my field as "mad scientist" is of everyone in yours.