Bovine Magnetoception

[Psychonaut]

I read today that 'scientists' have conjectured that cattle have magnetoception; why? Because on satellite imagery they were found to mainly align north-south.

The conjecture is absurd, given that there are numerous other possible explanations.

One farmer has said that cattle tend to align themselves to avoid the brunt of heavy winds; it may be that generally this can be done by pointing north-south. There may be marginally more comfort gained in relation to the sun's rays.

How do these 'scientists' get away with throwing around such utter bullshit?

[Richard Baron]

This should be easy enough to test. Put the creatures in a featureless circular room, get a big magnet to generate fields in varying directions and see what happens. But you'll need a shovel to clear up the bullshit afterwards.

[effie]

How do these 'scientists' get away with throwing around such utter bullshit?

Why do you assume it's bullshit? I don't have much time to explain now (as usual), but concisely I can tell you that hte majority of living organisms (from bacteria to birds, bees and mammals) have magnetite particles which serve as compasses which guide them in magnetic fields. When (or better IF) I find time (given that lately I have been working like crazy) I will post links to some extremely interesting papers. I think that Barr was the first to notice and study the aforementioned phenomenon (1940, I think). When I check my sources I 'll get back to you.

ps I was upset by your post, because you usually express well founded opinions and not arbitrary critiques. What happened now?

[John W. Kelly]

Udder nonsense!

[Psychonaut]

The reason that it is bullshit is that you cannot make an assertion until the evidence, as per Richard's suggested experiment, is in.

Cattle may well have magnetoception, I am not asserting that they do not. What I am asserting is that no responsible scientist should be making wild claims before the results are in.

[Rortabend]

I've heard of people navigating by the stars. Does this mean we can now navigate by cow instead?

[effie]

What I am asserting is that no responsible scientist should be making wild claims before the results are in.

I don't think that there's anything wrong with expressing what you call "wild" claims. Please notice that every knowledge that we have today and that we take for granted was once a "wild claim". In my opinion problems begin when such a claim is considered a well-founded scientific conclusion. I agree that every opinion must not be considered equal to proven knowledge until it is experimentally proved so. Obviously evidence can prove or reject any hypothesis. Nonetheless, many times during history of science evidence has come after a wild guess has been expressed. The examples are infinite. All I am saying is that what you today characterize as a wild claim, tomorrow may be just an ordinary common knowledge. After all, you cannot expect a newly born idea to provide all the supporting data!

[Psychonaut]

Perhaps my problem, then, is with the reportage.

It is all too often that we see in papers that scientists have said this, or that scientists have said that.

Yet, when scientists say one thing or another they can mean incredibly different things.

"We are as certain as is humanly possible that this is the case, as certain, for example, as I am that you are standing in front of me (much as both may not be the case)"

"Well, if you are really going to press me for my best guess then I would say this is the case, you know, if you gave me free money for a bet, but I wouldn't bet my own money, even a pound"

The degree of un/certainty never seems to come across in the media. I doubt this is always the media's fault though. There are always plenty of scientists willing to push an idea before the data is in, perhaps because they want funding for collecting the data.. But then I guess still the media should be regulating their proximity to the podium, but they seem to act inversely to sanity?

[maryshelley]

The media will say what bests sells the media. The media don't have a great track record when it comes to science reporting. Sentationalism sells!

[bus2bondi]

edit

[maryshelley]

Yes different kettle of fish but what you would ideally expect to see a control experiment set up which is then repeated by different teams and the results compared. The concept may sound absurd but stranger things have turned out to be 'true'...

[Psychonaut]

The idea of bovine magnetoception is far from absurd. The idea that something should be proposed as 'the case' before there is any evidence would be far from absurd, were it not such standard practice.

[maryshelley]

I read today that 'scientists' have conjectured that cattle have magnetoception; why? Because on satellite imagery they were found to mainly align north-south.

The conjecture is absurd, given that there are numerous other possible explanations.

One farmer has said that cattle tend to align themselves to avoid the brunt of heavy winds; it may be that generally this can be done by pointing north-south. There may be marginally more comfort gained in relation to the sun's rays.

How do these 'scientists' get away with throwing around such utter bullshit?

Sigh. The operative word here is 'conjecture'. They are guessing using the satellite evidence that was put before them. Someone else is free to come up with an alternative, indeed one farmer has. Either or both conjectures may be utter bullshit. I expect there will be some way to test further either proposal.

In order to counter such 'utter bullshit' would you propose a blanket ban on people using their imaginations to solve problems....? I mean where would that leave philosophy.....?

[Psychonaut]

They have told informed the media that they think that the evidence implies a particular conclusion. They are doing an odds-on guess, and such guesses should be limited to proposing methods of testing them. Informing the world that there is 'evidence' in favor of bovine magnetoception is as flawed an action as putting someone behind bars because 'he was probably the murderer, and besides he was nuts anyway'.

[maryshelley]

I would have to see the wording of the article to fully 'judge' it. Do you have a link to the original piece? I know the media have a way of misreporting and/or misunderstanding what has been said.

For instance, something that was widely broadcast in the media last year was 'global warming blamed on cow farts'. This is what a short summary of the research actually indicated:

"According to the FAO, when emissions from land use are factored in, the livestock sector accounts for 9 percent of all carbon dioxide emissions derived from human-related activities, as well as 37 percent of methane emissions—primarily gas from the digestive system of cattle and other domesticated ruminants—and 65 percent of nitrous oxide gases, mostly from manure."

So take media reporting of 'science' with a large pinch of salt...
That is not to say that some scientists don't 'exploit' the media to attract attention (and further funding) to their research but what is said and what is reported often bear little relation.....