Keith’s note: (sigh) its the “Far Side”, not the “Dark Side”. Don’t you people have editors?

Biologist, Explorers Club Fellow, ex-NASA Space Biologist and Payload integrator, Editor of NASAWatch.com and Astrobiology.com, Lapsed climber, Explorer, Synaesthete, Former Challenger Center board member...

49 replies on “Astronomical Ignorance at the Washington Post”

  1. i don’t get the point of this post… “the dark side” is simply a poetic way to refer to the lunar far side, the phrase has been in use for over 200 years. the term “dark” can mean “unknown,” as the far side once was.

    it’s a perfectly legitimate and well known expression to refer to the lunar far side.

    1. It is wrong wrong wrong and so are you. The “dark side” is constantly changing depending of where the Moon is in its orbit.

      1. Quibbling over colloquialisms is for the birds. or are you a hardcore ball-buster, jonesing for a fight? then i say, put up your dukes! enough of shooting the breeze, get the ball rolling and go the whole nine yards! if you would rather take a rain check on that, then you should just build a bridge and get over it, or throw in the towel on monday morning quarterbacking other people’s use of common expressions entirely.

        1. We astronomers will complain for as long as it takes, and correct the ignorant people who do not understand the Moon. People who DO understand, yet simply refuse to use correct, accurate language — “far side” is just as easy, descriptive, and perfectly accurate — are barbarians. You have a right to be wrong, but nothing you say can alter the fact the Keith is right.

          1. Astronomy has nothing to do with it. Ignorance has nothing to do with this either. It’s just an idiom. If anything, it’s English.

            The article used the phrase correctly, and correctly described how the Moon is illuminated as well.

            I’d say they’re on your side here, so really, you have absolutely nothing to complain about. Except you want to complain.

            BTW, calling people barbarians over the correct use of a colloquialism is just plain stupid. If you want to look for ignorance, I suggest you start there.

          2. Sorry, I did not mean to imply that you personally, Hug Doug, are a “barbarian”. And perhaps I should have read the Post article before rushing to support Keith.

            But I do think precision in language is a crucial element of civilization, which we should all strive to defend. The moon has no “dark side”, any more than Earth does — only a far side. There is really no good reason to confuse the two, even for poetic license, especially given the common misconception about the issue. I have met many people who are confused about the “dark side”, “far side” distinction, most of whom really ought to know better.

          3. well, most people who say “i’m starving!” aren’t, and we don’t really go nine yards when we “go the whole nine yards” and very few people who “get the ball rolling” actually roll a ball. and so on. but for the most part, we all know what everyone means when we use such idioms.

            so you’ve got a very long row to hoe (of course, not literally!) if you want to make language be totally “precise” –

            especially the English language, which likes to jump other languages in dark allys and rummage through their pockets for loose words, phrases, and grammar.

            also, i suspect the majority of the people who are confused about the “Dark Side of the Moon” would never have been properly instructed otherwise without the existence of this phrase in the first place. the phrase itself isn’t the cause, it’s the fact that most people go around life never giving a second thought about how the Moon orbits the Earth.

          4. “most people go around life never giving a second thought about how the Moon orbits the Earth” — quite.

            But people really are interested, in my experience, even when they do not quite understand. And having seen genuine confusion about this issue in people who just haven’t really thought it through, but do actually care, I think it is worth while to take the trouble to make the point when it comes up.

            In a friendly and gentle way, of course, taking care not to call folks barbarians….. 🙂

        2. Keith is a “hardcore ball-buster, jonesing for a fight”. This site started as NASA RIF Watch (axe to grind) and slowly morphed over time into a NASA/space news site. But, it’s good to keep its origins in perspective when editorial cartoons are included as illustrations for a news article. In other words, there is what could be described as an editorial slant to most news articles here.

          As usual, YMMV.

          2. i daresay the point my post flew right over your head! however, what you say is true enough. i’m well aware of Kieth’s editorial biases, sometimes i agree, other times he rubs me the wrong way, but the majority of the articles here are about things that NASA / the space community ought to be taken to task for.

            and i am having a blast using all these idioms 🙂

      2. plainly put, it’s not “wrong wrong wrong,” but like so much of our language, as seen in my other post, it’s just metaphorical, usually a reference to a time gone by. however, like the the other phrases i used, it is a common expression. the article (if you gave it a chance and actually read it) also calls it the far side, and correctly explains that the Moon rotates, so the far side also gets sunlight.

        you can complain all you like, the phrase isn’t going to go away. much like “sunrise” and “sunset,” though the term is inaccurate, it is just ingrained into our language and culture. see Pink Floyd for more details.

          3. presumably not because you pitch hissy fits when someone uses a colloquialism referring to the lunar far side 🙂

      3. Well, we could always talk of the “dark side” of Mercury, because then that would be a true and accurate statement (albeit not as “romantic” metaphor-wise)

        1. Not true at all. Mercury rotates on its axis and all portions of it’s surface take turns being “dark”.

          1. Kill joy. You’re right… Why didn’t I get the memo on this?!

            Okaaay, let’s go with “dark side” of Kepler-10 b. (though that’s even less romantic then with Mercury… I doubt Pink Floyd can help this one)

  2. Doug has a point. The “dark” side of the moon is a colloquialism much like saying the sun “sets.” That said in a scientific context (which this article portends to be in) the correct term is far side. To be fair though the article does mention that the “dark” side is not permanently in darkness and that the moon does rotate.

    I have seen and heard far more egregious ignorance about Physics and Astronomy. For example one of my physics professors told the class about one time his daughter came home from school . She told him that the teacher said that the reason the astronauts are floating in the ISS was because there “is no gravity in space.” *facepalm

    1. It is wrong to use “dark side” when referring to the “far side” since the dark side is constantly changing. But who cares abut being accurate?

    2. Doug has a good point, I have talked to people who referred to the dark side of the Moon and almost everyone realizes that it is not eternally in the darkness. I saw a discussion of this topic a few years ago and people asserted that “dark” might mean “unknown” even though that is also not true of the “far” side of the Moon.

      I think that the Pink Floyd song is largely responsible for that term being so common. It is a nit.

    3. It’s not too surprising really. I work at an aerospace company, whose autoclaves have appeared in a picture attached to a story in the local newspaper captioned as “centrifuges”.

      When it comes to technology, manufacturing methods, etc. etc. . . .I’m convinced journalists just reach into a hat of ‘techy’ terms and pull one out.

  3. I suspect they did this with intent: “Dark Side” is click-bait for humans and higher search rank for Google/Bing, (Thank you Pink Floyd and George Lucas). I have seen this game before (but, yes, have refrained from playing it).

  4. While the headline starts off misleading with it usage of “dark” side, this article goes on to explain that the “dark” side isn’t dark at all, but gets “plenty of light” in various contexts. I think this article does an excellent job using the phrase “dark side”. It acknowledges that there is a language issue here, but actually plays on that issue to introduce the interesting science and images, instead of just sinking into the usual semantic argument of “yes it is” or “no it isn’t”. I like their approach, and I think it is not an ignorant or poorly edited article.

  5. If you read the article linked in the tweet, you’ll see that it actually focuses on describing the inaccuracy of referring to it as the “dark” side, so I think yes, they do have editors.

  6. So, the fact that “dark” is in quotes pretty much says it all. They weren’t aiming for accuracy, they were quoting a lyric at the very least.

    Here is the rule: Use quotation marks [ “ ” ] to set off material that represents quoted or spoken language.

    1. Quotes have other purposes, and the WaPo article was doing that (altho I think their attempt at clarity only confused)

      They were using “Scare Quotes” which wikipedia describes:

      Scare quotes or shudder quotes are quotation marks placed around a word or phrase to imply that it may not signify its apparent meaning or that it is not necessarily the way the quoting person would express its concept. The quotes serve a function similar to verbally prefixing a phrase with “so-called”. When referred to as “scare quotes”, the quotation marks are suggested to imply skepticism of or disagreement with the quoted terminology.

      1. Headlines are not the work of Authors, in general. Seems like this was. I believe with the quotes it served a dual function of both scare quotes and as another said, click-bait for search engine rank. If the authors did not do the headline and was written after the article was submitted I doubt the article would have contained the explaination.

        2. I’ve been writing a newspaper column for almost six years and I promise that I don’t write the heds (as we call them). In fact my editor does try to be accurate but she skims dozens of pieces everyday; anyway, her job is to relate my content to what she perceives is the general interests of the readers.

          Or something.

          1. Whether the article writer or a headline writer created the “hed”, it integrated well with the quoted use of the word “dark”.
            Whoever wrote the headline appears to be aware of the article’s content. Good job for them.
            Altho, they should not have used the word, as I explained in a previous post. Don’t try to confuse just so you can un-confuse your audience.

  8. A) The far side is on average darker – at new moon you have something 4 magnitudes brighter than a full moon blasting away above the near side – and even in a lunar eclipse its still pretty bright by far side standards

    B) that same near side object is screaming away continually at radio frequencies – radio astronomers will in fact be arguing that the far side is indeed the dark side once easy access is established

    C) so far as I know, the IAU has not weighed in on the matter – the washington post could name the sides Woodward and Bernstein and be just as official as the near and far sides

    D) what will the hypothetical residents of an EML2 station call that side of the moon?

  9. The WP put “Dark” in quotes. It explained at length that Far Side is the correct term and why. “Dark” was originally used in the sense of “Unknown”, as in the centuries old term “Darkest Africa” or “Heart of Darkness”. It doesn’t mean lack of light. Unfortunately, as the old meaning of “dark” faded, the lack of light meaning remained, confusing generations of youth.
    The problem is that the WP was actually making a nuanced point, but it was misguided. The old phrase should just disappear. Subtlety is not for newspapers to the masses. Their heart was in the right place, but I fear that confusion is the result. With the physical sense of the word being predominant it is best to not get all 19th century in the headline. (Speaking as someone who was a science teach back when the Earth’s crust was still cooling)

    1. the use of Dark for “unknown” is still used sometimes today – i.e. Dark Horse, and quite prominent astronomically, Dark Matter, which is also a nice play on words since it’s literally not visible.

      I suspect that as long as Pink Floyd’s album remains a classic, the phrase is going to persist in the public’s awareness…

    2. It wasn’t unknown to the Africans, who happened to have dark skin. I hardly think we want to go down the path trod by Joseph Conrad (white Polish racist) with this… The mood could turn dark very quickly.

      1. I don’t think the term Dark Continent or Darkest Africa were ever meant racially,

        As NPR wrote, when describing a controversy after the use of it:

        Originially, the term “dark continent” came into use in the 19th century to describe a continent largely unknown and mysterious to Europeans. Explorer Henry M. Stanley used it in his 1878 book, “Through the Dark Continent”.

        Altho the intense racism of the Europeans and Americans was almost incomprehensible, the term then as now means “mysterious” and “unknown”.

        It is only you that is dragging racism into this.

  10. They DID put “dark” in quotes, after all, indicating that the word was used as a colloquialism. If they had not used the quotes, I think you would have had a valid criticism.

  11. Here’s a thought: maybe more people, including people at the Post, have heard of Pink Floyd than have seen images of the far side of the Moon…. or even know that the Moon is phase locked with one side always facing the earth. Just a thought.

  12. When the great unwashed masses refer to the dark side of the moon, it’s because they really and truly believe the far side of the moon is dark all the time. I’m sure almost NOBODY uses dark in the context of unknown. If you did a survey and asked why they call it the dark side of the moon, 99% of the American public would say because it’s dark all the time.

  13. It’s an easy mistake to make, especially for those of a certain generation!

    “The lunatic is on the grass! The lunatic is on the grass…“

Comments are closed.