Trust the Science? Climate Science? COVID Vaxxes? As My Late Uncle Bill Said “BS Baffles Brains”

Let's take pop science, and run it through Uncle Bill's handy dandy BS detector. Science is supposed to be our antidote to sensationalism. We expect careful reasoning, precise language, and conclusions that accurately reflect the evidence. Yet even popular science journalism is increasingly succumbing to the temptations of the attention economy. A recent headline proclaiming, "How Flocking Birds 'Defy' One of Physics' Most Fundamental Laws," illustrates the problem perfectly:

https://scitechdaily.com/how-flocking-birds-defy-one-of-physics-most-fundamental-laws/

The headline immediately invites a startling conclusion: that ordinary birds somehow violate Newton's Third Law of Motion, the familiar principle that for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction, something every farmer knows is true. If taken literally, the claim is extraordinary. Indeed, it would be revolutionary. It would require rewriting one of the foundations of classical mechanics. But a moment's reflection reveals the absurdity of such an interpretation.

Birds do not merely fly in flocks. They fly through air, take off from branches, land on the ground, perch on fences, collide with obstacles, and occasionally collide with each other. Every one of these activities depends upon perfectly ordinary mechanical interactions governed by Newton's laws. A bird flies because its wings push air downward and backward while the air simultaneously exerts an equal and opposite force on the wings, generating lift and thrust. Remove Newton's Third Law and powered flight itself becomes impossible.

Likewise, when a bird lands, its feet push against the branch while the branch pushes back. When two birds collide, each exerts forces upon the other according to the same physical principles that govern every other macroscopic object. If birds genuinely violated Newton's Third Law, they would inhabit an entirely different physical universe. They could not fly, perch, brake, or survive impacts in the manner we observe every day.

But that is not what the underlying research actually claims. The paper concerns the behavioural dynamics of flocking rather than the mechanics of flight. In modelling flock behaviour, one bird may respond to another while the second bird does not respond in precisely the same way. These are asymmetric patterns of information processing and behavioural influence, not violations of Newtonian forces. Bird A may adjust its course because it observes Bird B, while Bird B ignores Bird A. Such asymmetry may complicate mathematical models of collective behaviour, but it does not overturn classical mechanics.

There is an important distinction between a mechanical force and a behavioural response. Newton's Third Law concerns physical interactions between bodies. It does not require that attention, perception, or decision-making occur symmetrically. Confusing these two entirely different concepts creates the false impression that one of physics' most fundamental laws has somehow been overturned by a flock of birds.

This is not an isolated example. Science journalism increasingly favours headlines suggesting that Einstein has been disproved, Newton overturned, or "everything we thought we knew" has been shown to be wrong. In most cases, the underlying research is far more modest and considerably less interesting than the headline suggests. Incremental advances become revolutionary breakthroughs because dramatic headlines attract readers in a fiercely competitive online environment.

It's ironic of course. Scientists rightly criticise misinformation and exaggeration in public discourse, yet science reporting is not itself immune from the pressures of click-driven media. Precision is gradually sacrificed for spectacle, and careful distinctions disappear beneath attention-grabbing slogans.

None of this diminishes the value of the research itself. Understanding how information flows through bird flocks is a worthwhile scientific problem. What deserves criticism is not the science but the presentation. Readers should not be left with the impression that Newton's Third Law has been overthrown when the research concerns behavioural asymmetries rather than mechanical forces.

Good science deserves good communication. Public trust in science is strengthened not by exaggerated claims of revolutionary discoveries but by careful explanations that accurately distinguish what has been discovered from what remains unchanged. In this case, birds are doing exactly what they have always done: obeying the laws of mechanics while displaying remarkably sophisticated collective behaviour. It is the headline, not Newton, that takes flight.

https://scitechdaily.com/how-flocking-birds-defy-one-of-physics-most-fundamental-laws/

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41567-026-03317-0

Next time some climate change cultists, propounding zero net tries to win you over to the faith, just remember this example. Like politics, science too has its BS factor.

https://www.theringer.com/2023/01/11/tech/why-there-is-so-much-bull***t-in-science