I’m on an island in Maine for a few weeks (big shout out for North Haven!) This morning I picked up a copy of “Working Waterfront,” a newspaper that focuses on issues of coastal fishing communities. I came across an article about modeling “fish” populations — actually lobsters, I guess they’re considered “fish” for regulatory purposes. When I read it, I thought “wow, this article is really well-written, not dumbed down like articles in most newspapers.” I think it’s great that a small coastal newspaper carries reporting like this. (The online version has a few things that I don’t recall in the print version, too, so it’s even better). But in addition to being struck by finding such a good article in a small newspaper, I was struck by this:
According to [University of Maine scientist Yong] Chen, there are four main areas where his model improved on the prior version. “We included the inshore trawl data from Maine and other state surveys, in addition to federal survey data; we had better catch data to work with than before; we had more realistic biology built into our virtual lobsters; and we used a statistical approach that incorporates margins of error in our inputs (this approach uses Bayesian statistics),” he said.
The phrase “virtual lobsters” is kinda nice, I think. But check out the seemingly gratuitous mention of Bayesian statistics. There’s just no way the intended audience for this article is expected to know what Bayesian statistics is — unlike “v-notching protection”, which is mentioned elsewhere but the article doesn’t bother to explain because, hey, everybody knows what v-notching protection is.
I’m not sure why Bayesian statistics is mentioned here. Just to throw in some jargon in order to sound sophisticated? Or is there some sense that people won’t know what Bayesian statistics is, but maybe they’ve heard that it’s a good thing?
Worst thing about the article: the headline "Fathoming: One fish, two fish: The virtual reality of counting lobsters." It should just be "One fish, two fish, red fish, blue fish." We'll grant them the use of "fish" for crustacea, fine. And "one fish, two fish," that's great, because we're talking about estimating their numbers. But don't pass up "red fish, blue fish"! When they're cooked, they're red; when they're live, they have a bluish tinge and can (rarely) be a striking blue color. One Fish, Two Fish, Red Fish, Blue Fish, it woulda been perfect.
I'm guessing you may be close to the sites featured in Robert McCloskey's Time of Wonder. If you know the book and recall any of its pictures and happen on any of the book's venues with a camera, take a snap for us inland readers facing a summer without tides.
Speaking as someone very familiar with the field, I would say that your latter assessment is bang on. People don't really know what Bayesian statistics is, but they do believe that it is fancy and impressive. It makes the speaker appear cutting edge.
It annoys me when people use math as an empty status marker. This habit might be particular to my neck of the woods.
Maybe "Bayesian" gives credibility to the idea of virtual lobsters. The quote seems to give a decent interpretation of the power that the approach has for assimilation of heterogeneous data, especially given that the author is a local reporter*.
Folks who have studied classical statistics should be happy to note that Dr. Chen has not changed the rules, he is just using a different set. Mathematicians might sitting by the ocean might be inclined to follow up on the subject.
On another note, I would consider replacing "margin of error" with "uncertainty" or "multiple sources of variability" in inputs.
*It would be great if reporters would let the scientists that they interview give some feedback on the write-up. Apparently, this is rarely the case.
I was on Deer Isle last week — across the bay from North Haven — and also discovered the Working Waterfront paper. I was very impressed as well; it was an entertaining and informative read. Personally, I'm willing to tolerate a little gratuitous jargon dropping, if that's the price for a new quality paper…
Pardon my mistake- the author is an oceanographer rather than a reporter.
Maybe Chen mentioned Bayesian statistics in the interview when describing his methods, and the reporter felt it was important to include in the article, as a new approach to statistics or something.
FH, as bpchesney points out, North Haven is just across the bay from Deer Isle — quite close as the porpoise swims, but quite a distance by ferry and car. I've been to Deer Isle on a bike trip, but have no photos handy. I could post a few North Haven photos, of course, but I'm not sure that's really what this blog is for. If there is overwhelming clamor for it, I'll post some pictures. A search using your favorite search engine will turn up photos and info for the curious.
David L, you're right, the byline lists two authors, one of whom is an oceanographer and one a nature reporter. Boy, imagine if all newspaper articles were written by, or with, an expert in the field!