3 ms·

My favorite part of this mess is that Jad Abumrad (one of the two guys behind Radiolab which, I think, is extremely messy with its science) called the initial o

by dmazin 14y ago

My favorite part of this mess is that Jad Abumrad (one of the two guys behind Radiolab which, I think, is extremely messy with its science) called the initial ousting of Lehrer when he recycled passages a "cheap moral crusade."[1] [1]: https://twitter.com/jadabumrad/status/218042197826732033 https://twitter.com/jadabumrad/status/218042197826732033

phillmv 14y ago
To be fair, the "self plagiarizing" thing got way out of hand. It's a little bit not cool to not tell your audience that you've recycled some of your own columns. But… at the time I really didn't see any grounds for all the cries of lèse majesté.
- ghaff 14y ago
  Agreed. Reasonably large chunks of material in A-list pubs was probably over the line of accepted practice. But way, way different from plagiarizing someone else or making stuff up. In general, I don't find anything especially wrong with judiciously reusing material. If I've explained XYZ tech in an article in the past, I may well cut-and-paste that paragraph, reworking it a bit for flow, if I need the same explanation again. Similarities might well be sufficient to be called plagiarism if it were someone else I cut-and-pasted. That said, I would be a lot more conservative in the case of a commissioned article from a major publication.
aheilbut 14y ago
His link to Aaron Sorkin's recycled dialogue is hilarious. (Fortunately Sorkin writes fiction.)
MartinCron 14y ago
It is easy to call the Radio lab guys "messy" but it is a lot harder to tell compelling science stories that fit the medium and the audience. If you can name a better general-audience radio show about science, I will eat my tote bag.
- dmazin 14y ago
  Radiolab is incredibly compelling, I agree. I listen to every episode. I can't think of a more entertaining science radio show, but we need to define "better" if you want me to name a better one. There are certainly more scientifically accurate and informative shows, like Science Friday and Car Talk, and The Skeptics' Guide to the Universe. Radiolab is so entertaining because it's willing to compromise accuracy - and sometimes any tie to reality as with the whale-thanking-the-diver episode - for the sake of a good story. And because of this, it's hard to call it a science show, just like it's hard to call Armageddon a science movie.

by dmazin 14y ago

phillmv 14y ago

To be fair, the "self plagiarizing" thing got way out of hand. It's a little bit not cool to not tell your audience that you've recycled some of your own columns. But… at the time I really didn't see any grounds for all the cries of lèse majesté.

ghaff 14y ago
Agreed. Reasonably large chunks of material in A-list pubs was probably over the line of accepted practice. But way, way different from plagiarizing someone else or making stuff up. In general, I don't find anything especially wrong with judiciously reusing material. If I've explained XYZ tech in an article in the past, I may well cut-and-paste that paragraph, reworking it a bit for flow, if I need the same explanation again. Similarities might well be sufficient to be called plagiarism if it were someone else I cut-and-pasted. That said, I would be a lot more conservative in the case of a commissioned article from a major publication.

aheilbut 14y ago

His link to Aaron Sorkin's recycled dialogue is hilarious. (Fortunately Sorkin writes fiction.)

MartinCron 14y ago

It is easy to call the Radio lab guys "messy" but it is a lot harder to tell compelling science stories that fit the medium and the audience. If you can name a better general-audience radio show about science, I will eat my tote bag.

dmazin 14y ago
Radiolab is incredibly compelling, I agree. I listen to every episode. I can't think of a more entertaining science radio show, but we need to define "better" if you want me to name a better one. There are certainly more scientifically accurate and informative shows, like Science Friday and Car Talk, and The Skeptics' Guide to the Universe. Radiolab is so entertaining because it's willing to compromise accuracy - and sometimes any tie to reality as with the whale-thanking-the-diver episode - for the sake of a good story. And because of this, it's hard to call it a science show, just like it's hard to call Armageddon a science movie.