locations Narrator scenes: where to shoot...

[EthicalEgret]

I'm making documentaries for YouTube and I don't know how to decide where to shoot my narration segments. I see that filmmakers are doing amazing stuff with Photoshop's generative fill, so that could be useful for my project, but it seems to be limited to stationary shots.

My current project features two interviews with retired scientists, and lots of historical footage from the 90's.

Do I just say f*** it and film at my desk, or film in any arbitrary scenic outdoor setting? My closest city is San Francisco, so my current thinking is to film something on Embarcadero with the Bay Bridge in the background. It would look nice but it's not relevant for my film content.

EDIT: Actually, Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory would be a relevant location that I can get to, but I don't know if they'll let me film there.

 

[EthicalEgret]

what if you simply interviewed the scientists in their homes or offices

Well, they were filmed already.

I found a free AI tool that can generate scenes in Blender really easily. I think I'm going to start with this.

 

[CelticRambler]

I won't share the whole script right here, but below is the first major narrative segment which covers the ideas of the lighthouse and the castle with the moat.

Well, as they say, that changes everything. For that part of the script, I don't know why you'd bother with any kind of an "interesting" background.

There are, for me, two major problems straight off:
(1) Based on that excerpt, this isn't a documentary, it's an opinion piece, and the opinion is yours (even if you're drawing on the examples of others) so this narration should feature you. When you start adding imagery that is purely symbolic, you will inevitably distract from the message you're hoping to convey.
(2) You've included as fact statements that are most definitely open to interpretation ("the peer review process is completely broken" - is it?) and your first example (at least in that excerpt) refers to an economist, not a scientist. "Economic science" is more akin to philosophy than any of the STEM/Life Sciences, so before even you get to the discussion about whether or not young upstarts are having their radical ideas kept out of the mainstream by old fogeys, you've opened a different can of worms and your lighthouse and castle visual metaphors make no sense.

I would suggest that you watch Veritasium's video on the validity of published research, which falls into roughly the same category of "discussions on the theme of science". A clear presentation of the situation (problems, causes, solutions) with no distracting stock footage and simple relevant graphics to illustrate the points.

Now that might not be the look you're going for ... but your metaphors are somewhat off-kilter too. A lighthouse is not a guiding light - it's a warning beacon (beware: sail towards me and you will sink on the rocks below); and a castle with a moat is a place of security in times of war. So with this imagery, you're setting a scene of all-out conflict, and - potentially - one faction deliberately trying to destroy the other with false promises ... none of which relates to the remainder of the text.

If you want to shoot this anywhere other than against a blank wall, I think a library (old and dusty or bright and modern) is exactly what you need. That'd allow you to use props such as a rejected paper or a book of since-discredited "accepted fact" in a setting that perfectly fits the topic. After all, if the paradigm-shifting research doesn't get published, then there is no challenge to the established order.

 

[EthicalEgret]

I think this is all good feedback to improve the approach I'm taking.

But I can't tell if you're actively disagreeing with the argument itself, or just pointing out ways to improve it. I do think that the flaws of the peer review process are pretty well known and accepted (Vox article for you). Since it comes across as an opinion, I can make some changes, but my view remains that this is already an established problem that affects all the disciplines of science. I don't agree that economics is somehow more prone to this problem than whatever your favorite STEM is. And actually, I'd argue that the very attitude that the flaws of peer review can't/don't affect the natural sciences, helps to create the conditions for WHY they do – because STEM researchers are so convinced of their infallible objectivity, they're uninterested in evidence to the contrary. It's my understanding that the sociology of science has long held that the natural sciences suffer all the same problems as every other field.

So while you personally may take issue with the notion that peer review flaws affect the natural sciences, practically every researcher I know (in the disciplines of neuroscience, physics, and chemistry), and every person I've interviewed for the video I'm making, are supportive of the position that peer review is a very flawed system, and does affect STEM fields / natural sciences.

And for another supporting example of old-fogeys vs young-upstarts...

One potential downside is that important research bucking a trend or overturning accepted wisdom may face challenges surviving peer review. In 2015, a study published in P.N.A.S. tracked more than 1,000 manuscripts submitted to three prestigious medical journals. Of the 808 that were published at some point, the 2 percent that were most frequently cited had been rejected by the journals.

Peer Review: The Worst Way to Judge Research, Except for All the Others (Published 2018)

A look at the system’s weaknesses, and possible ways to combat them.

www.nytimes.com

Since the topic at hand involves things which were not published, I can't direct you to some of the other supporting evidence. Some of those come from the people I've interviewed, so I guess you'll just have to watch the video when it's done.

The Veritasium video is good, I think it's actually supportive of my position... But it's actually a very different KIND of science video. This is more like a classroom sort of video. It doesn't involve telling anybody's story, it's mostly teaching and illustrating statistics and such. The flaws of peer review is not the central subject of my video, so I'm not doing a deep-dive (like Derek has) on all of the many examples of how and why peer review is flawed.

I think the feedback on the metaphors is really good, I think you made great points. I guess with the lighthouse, I think of the scenario where sailors are lost at sea, and then they become excited to see a lighthouse because they've finally found land. So I guess there's not just one possible interpretation. With the castle, sure, it's safety for the people who are inside, but it's also to keep others from getting in. Which is the idea with some new scientific idea being sent for publication, it is trying to get into the broader awareness.

I'm concerned that lecture-style delivery will reduce engagement.

 

[EthicalEgret]

And actually, I'd argue that the very attitude that the flaws of peer review can't/don't affect the natural sciences, helps to create the conditions for WHY they do – because STEM researchers are so convinced of their infallible objectivity, they're uninterested in evidence to the contrary.

To add one more point to this, I interviewed a physics professor emeritus of Princeton and he actually gave me a beautiful quote which supports my point. I'll paraphrase it for you:

We were very biased, and I was probably the most biased. But then again, that shouldn't matter. If you've got a real phenomena – here you've all got these snooty people, all the better to prove them wrong.

Some STEM scientists incorrectly the assess how much bias can impair their own judgement.

 

[CelticRambler]

I think this is all good feedback to improve the approach I'm taking.

But I can't tell if you're actively disagreeing with the argument itself, or just pointing out ways to improve it.

Primarily the latter, by means of the former! The first "grown-up" theatre play I ever went to (won the tickets in a letter-writing competition as a schoolboy) was about Galileo trying to convince the Church of this stupid idea that maybe the Earth orbited the Sun, so I've had a long-standing awareness of the Establishement being resistant to change. What I wanted to demonstrate was how easy it is for a narrative to be derailed if that narrative makes categorical assertions that are easily challenged; and to point out that attention to how the script is written is arguably of far more importance than any particular imagery used for the accompanying video.

This is more like a classroom sort of video. It doesn't involve telling anybody's story, it's mostly teaching and illustrating statistics and such. The flaws of peer review is not the central subject of my video, so I'm not doing a deep-dive (like Derek has) on all of the many examples of how and why peer review is flawed.

In this context, you need to be even more careful about how you present the information, especially when it comes to statistics, especially-especially in today's world where the general public's ignorance of the limits of statistical data means it's aggressively used to push all kinds of social, economic and (pseudo)scientific agendas.

Once again I'll make reference to Derek/Veritasium on the subject. Above, you cited the sentence

Of the 808 that were published at some point, the 2 percent that were most frequently cited had been rejected by the journals.

In Derek's video of this week (mostly about statistical hacking), at 6m47s you'll find the following counterargument:

In social science, it's been shown that studies that later fail to be replicated, receive on average 153 more citations than studies that can be replicated.

Even before there was a thing called the Internet, those of us studying STEM and Life sciences were warned - repeatedly - to not trust what we read in the library, unless and until we'd tracked down all of the original studies upon which presumptions or conclusions were based, because in many cases a dozen different "studies have shown" referred to the very same one-off experiment, which no-one was ever able to reproduce, or that was based on a tiny sample, or which was funded by a vested interest, or was flawed in some other way. Things have not been improved by the Internet.

It's not the peer-review system that's broken (in fact peer-review is great at debunking bad science), it's the concept of tying academic success to the publication of any old clickbaity rubbish, statistics and science be damned, and there's definitely an educational video worth making in that. However, I'm wondering how such a contentious subject fits into your project; are you sure you're not using too broad a brush stroke to paint a picture that ideally needs fine lines?

 

[EthicalEgret]

I really appreciate the thoughtful feedback, even though we disagree. I think that, to fully make my point, I would need to share with you more info which I don't want to do via the forum, and I'd rather wait for the video to be done. I plan to have a private review before it's to go public and that would be the perfect place to continue our discussion. But this is still very helpful in making sure my approach is well considered.

It's not the peer-review system that's broken (in fact peer-review is great at debunking bad science), it's the concept of tying academic success to the publication of any old clickbaity rubbish, statistics and science be damned, and there's definitely an educational video worth making in that.

I think that the examples given which are taken to support the success of peer review, suffer from survivorship bias. Those areas of science which are legitimate but have been incorrectly identified as debunked "bad science", are not considered here. Such examples cannot be published in most journals because peer review weeds them out, so we have not even examined that side of problem. My videos will bring attention to these. I have clear examples of peer feedback which is unscientific and unprofessional conduct. There is also the situation where the editor will not even allow the peer review to take place.

However, I'm wondering how such a contentious subject fits into your project; are you sure you're not using too broad a brush stroke to paint a picture that ideally needs fine lines?

Do my above statements help show how it fits in? I can adjust my wording to state that there is a known issue that peer review is a flawed, imperfect process, and that the people I'm interviewing are adding new and further examples to substantiate the argument that peer review is even more broken than is generally understood.

Another aspect of how the flaws of peer review fits the story, is to show that viewers should give consideration to these stories even though some particular results were not able to pass peer review. If we hold up peer review as an unquestionably perfect system which can never fail in promoting good and important scientific findings, then viewers will simply say, "these stories are not worth my time".

 

[mlesemann]

Those areas of science which are legitimate but have been incorrectly identified as debunked "bad science", are not considered here. Such examples cannot be published in most journals because peer review weeds them out, so we have not even examined that side of problem. My videos will bring attention to these. I

I'm not seeing how these areas "incorrectly identified as 'debunked bad science'" are later shown to be, in fact, good science?

If it's not via peer review, what alternate system is currently available to show that these results are repeatable and scientifically solid?

 

[EthicalEgret]

I'm not seeing how these areas "incorrectly identified as 'debunked bad science'" are later shown to be, in fact, good science?

No, you would not see that. I've not given any such examples. If you want a historical example, continental drift is good. It was not resolved through peer review, but through demographic shift. Some historians have claimed that the paleomagnetism evidence convinced everyone but the historical record shows this in fact is not what happened, that actually the new evidence was largely unconvincing to the staunch critics and many of the participants in the debate were not even aware of the new evidence.

Continental drift is confirmation of Planck's principle,

a new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it.

If it's not via peer review, what alternate system is currently available to show that these results are repeatable and scientifically solid?

I believe that peer review should not be replaced, but improved.

 

[CelticRambler]

Do my above statements help show how it fits in?

No!

This is more like a classroom sort of video. It doesn't involve telling anybody's story, it's mostly teaching and illustrating statistics and such. The flaws of peer review is not the central subject of my video, so I'm not doing a deep-dive (like Derek has) on all of the many examples of how and why peer review is flawed.

That's lot of confusion and mixed messaging. The passage above suggests that this is an educational video, yet the previous excerpt is very definitely in the realm of opinion and debate. Those are not necessarily polar opposites, but if you start with an absolutist statement ("It's well-established that the peer review process is completely broken." ) then you need to demonstrate how you came to that conclusion for it to be educational. If you want to come across as credible, you can't touch on a contentious topic of great importance to the audience you're addressing, then sideline that discussion by dismissing it as "not the central subject".

You also say you're not telling anybody's story, so we're back to the basics of script writing: what is the central subject? What is the video about? What's the logline? How do the absolutist statements and strawmen arguments you've posted above drive the narrative if they're essentially footnotes to the main discussion? That's what I'm not seeing.

I understand your reluctance to post the full script in public, but if you want to send it by PM, I'll happily look over it so that I can make a more informed criticism. I'm inclined to think that your "castle" metaphor might actually serve a purpose, but there's no way of knowing on the basis of what you've revealed so far.

 

[EthicalEgret]

@CelticRambler, we won't be able to have a productive conversation if you're not reading my replies.

if you start with an absolutist statement ("It's well-established that the peer review process is completely broken." ) then you need to demonstrate how you came to that conclusion for it to be educational.

You quoted the original draft of the narrative, yet I've already told you I'm taking your feedback and able to revise the approach to address your criticism:

I can adjust my wording to state that there is a known issue that peer review is a flawed, imperfect process, and that the people I'm interviewing are adding new and further examples to substantiate the argument that peer review is even more broken than is generally understood.

The video you cite agrees with my statement that peer review is a flawed, imperfect process. Yet you seem to be arguing it is flawless?

You also say you're not telling anybody's story,

That is NOT what I said. What I said is that Derek Muller's video is not telling anybody's story.

The Veritasium video is good, I think it's actually supportive of my position... But it's actually a very different KIND of science video. This is more like a classroom sort of video. It doesn't involve telling anybody's story,

My video will include the firsthand accounts of several people I've interviewed, along with the story of several others I've not interviewed but of whom there is already ample material in videos and books.

the people I'm interviewing are adding new and further examples to

Since the topic at hand involves things which were not published, I can't direct you to some of the other supporting evidence. Some of those come from the people I've interviewed, so I guess you'll just have to watch the video when it's done.

To address your concerns, I will use citations as there are plenty of studies into this subject.

Please read my replies more carefully. You seem to be thinking I am saying things that I am not. I'm not sure why you are confused, I think I've written quite clearly.

You have pointed to a video which has a heavy focus on math and statistics. I am not making a video which will use math and statistics, instead, it is firsthand accounts and shows how these modern examples are continuations of historical events and trends, and I will use citations wherever I need to introduce an issue such as the flaws of peer review. I will again point out that your own reference supports the position that peer review is in fact a flawed and imperfect process, so I'm not sure why we seem to be going in circles now.

 

[EthicalEgret]

How do the absolutist statements and strawmen arguments you've posted above

Please identify the strawman if you're going to make such an accusation.

 

[EthicalEgret]

@CelticRambler I think what's actually happening here is that you're reacting defensively to a perceived threat, as if I'm some kind of anti-science heretic, some detractor who doesn't respect the fine institution of science, and who needs to be set straight. Does that sound about right?

I am very much pro-science. I'm as much a fan of the institution of science as any other critical thinker you will ever meet. Let's be very clear about that. I however do not think science benefits from blind worship. We should all be interested in understanding where our processes may need improving. Lets be aligned on that.

Lets remember all the many horrible things that were done in the pursuit of science:

It’s striking how easily we forget the evil following “science” can do. So many times throughout history, humans have thought they were behaving in logical and rational ways only to realize that such acts have yielded morally heinous policies that were only enacted because reasonable people were swayed by “evidence.” Phrenology—the determination of someone’s character through the shape and size of their cranium—was cutting-edge science. (Unsurprisingly, the upper class had great head ratios.) Eugenics was science, as was social Darwinism and the worst justifications of the Soviet and Nazi regimes. Scientific racism was data-driven too, and incredibly well respected. Scientists in the 19th century felt quite justified in claiming “the weight of evidence” supported African slavery, white supremacy, and the concerted effort to limit the reproduction of the lesser races. It wasn’t so long ago that psychiatrists considered homosexuality unhealthy and abhorrent. There is at least one prominent, eminently rational psychiatrist who hasn’t come around on transgender people. And many scientists decided that women were biologically incapable of the same kind of rationality you find in men, a scientific sexism reborn in contemporary evolutionary psychology. Weirdly enough, you find a similar kind of misogyny in that high priest of scientism, Richard Dawkins.

Please tell me, how successful was peer review in weeding out the junk science of all these waypoints in science history?

• Phrenology
• Eugenics
• Social Darwinism
• Nazi human experimentation
• Scientific racism
• Scientific homophobia and sexism

So what will you tell me now? Those were all just problems of the past and all the problems are completely sorted out? Humans were flawed in the past, but they're all better now?

 

[CelticRambler]

we won't be able to have a productive conversation if you're not reading my replies.

I am reading them, and (right up to the last one) you're still making a Big Deal about the legitimacy or otherwise of the peer-review gateway to getting research published ... having very clearly stated that The flaws of peer review is not the central subject of my video.

Okay, obviously I misunderstood your earlier reply regarding the Veritasium video, so that leaves me with even less of an idea. It's not about statistics, it's not about peer-review, it's not a classroom format ... but what is it about?

 

[EthicalEgret]

you're still making a Big Deal about the legitimacy or otherwise of the peer-review gateway to getting research published

No, you are the person who derailed this conversation. I was looking for help with shoot locations and metaphor ideas, and you decided to try to teach how I'm wrong about the flaws of peer review and whether or not this is well established (1, 2).

so that leaves me with even less of an idea.

I've shared with you as much as I'm willing to share. Seeing as how you handled this much, I'm not looking forward to divulging more. I'm still waiting to hear back where it was that I constructed a strawman argument.

 

[EthicalEgret]

Peer Review in Science: the pains and problems - Science in the News

Before new science is published, it is often reviewed by other scientists. But, this system of peer-review is not without flaws. Read on to learn more.

sitn.hms.harvard.edu

 

[CelticRambler]

I'm still waiting to hear back where it was that I constructed a strawman argument.

Well seeing as you asked:

If we hold up peer review as an unquestionably perfect system which can never fail in promoting good and important scientific findings, then viewers will simply say, "these stories are not worth my time".

Whose opinion is that? Certainly not mine, as I pointed out to you that the long-standing advice to students of science is "don't believe anything you read in the papers (unless you've tested it for yourself)"

And let's back up a bit: you asked for suggestions for background imagery for narration, to which I indicated it'd depend on the context and content of the narration. I offered an example based on fuel-cell technology; you came back with the peer-review thing and have been arguing the point ever since ...

Hence my new question to you: if this video is not about the process of getting a manuscript published in an established scientific journal so that the scientist can proclaim "I'm a published researcher" (the only reason peer-review exists today), why is it revelant to make even the slightest reference to it in the video - let alone try to create bespoke imagery to accompany contentious statements? It's no different to a musician having their demo tape rejected by a music studio, or an author having their novel rejected by a publishing house.

This is not a defence of the peer-rewiew process, it's a question of good script-writing and good video editing. You'll see the same advice in the screen-play threads: cut out the distracting background noise and focus on the main story. When you've done that, deciding on a perfect location will be a lot easier.

 

[EthicalEgret]

if this video is not about the process of getting a manuscript published

peer review being flawed is essential CONTEXT for the stories

Whose opinion is that? Certainly not mine

never said it was, I was constructing a hyperbolic hypothetical to illustrate a point

cut out the distracting background noise and focus on the main story. When you've done that, deciding on a perfect location will be a lot easier.

There are two narratives or plots: The people and their experiences, along with the wider implications.

Joe is a great scientist.
Joe was wronged by other scientists.
Joe's story...
Joe's big discovery was rejected, but actually so too are many papers.
Mel is also a great scientist.
Mel was wronged by other scientists.
Mel's big discovery was also rejected.
Mel's story...
Actually the biggest discovery of all was rejected.
That story...
Societal implications.