Slashdot Mirror
Do Comments On Web Pages Ruin Science?
GregLaden writes "Last week Popular Science shut down comments on their web pages citing the damage being done to the public perception of science as their reason. Earlier research suggested this might be a good idea because trollish, negative comments can color the perception by readers of a news story. However, some have taken Popular Science's move to be anti-science, implying that science itself is positively affected by web and blog comments, as though these comments contributed to the science being done itself. Here, I take exception to this and suggest that while comments are important in relation to the public perception of science (which itself is important) blog and web commentary never, or only rarely, influences the process of scientific inquiry itself."
Nope, no room for that, even in the "science" community.
Conform or be squelched.
Could you point out a scientific study for your hypothesis?
Restore the madness of youth's lechery
it's clear to me that the issue isn't with science itself, or how it's "done" in some sort of ontological sense. the issue is with how people perceive science, and how they perceive others' perceptions of science to be. These meta-perceptions are really what the whole issue is about.
For a comment to further scientific discourse, not only does it have to contribute a constructive thought, but others need to perceive it as constructive and build further on it. Web comments are often exactly the opposite - people make a mental impression of your comment without fully trying to comprehend (or even read!) it, and respond based on that. So you get what we have here today. Trolls, shills, pedants, and grammar nazis.
Actually, my favorite comments are at the right-wing rag Daily Caller. Every single comment thread devolves into one party accusing the other party of being closet democrats.
Next Question.
Maybe instead of shutting down commentary, they should have implemented the kind of half-decent moderation system that the only usable comment sites have adopted.
Since when do random websites have the moral obligation to provide comment sections?
I read TFA and all I got was this lousy cookie
surely it's because they're trolling the trolls of the trolls
a go catch phrase can obscure analysis for 60 years.
Why not create two comment sections for each article -- one for [moderated/edited/upvoted/expert/approved/etc] comments, and another section for anything-goes comments?
Best of both worlds, no? This plan allows for thoughtful/intelligent discussion, and also provides a chance for anybody to get their say. The latter section could be ignored/collapsed, if you don't want to read it.
I don't think that open comments systems can survive the onslaught of paid comments. If "winning" means having more comments (say) opposing global climate change than supporting it, that is very cheap to arrange if you have a modest amount of cash (or a suitable number of committed followers). Such tactics render the comments section value subtracting, and it is no surprise if they get turned off over time.
That is especially true if there is not a strong community present on the site. Slashdot has that, and so it is doing better than most sites.
and the recipients give plenty of thanks for a simple solution to their problem. If there were no comments, it's harder for me to leave a solution. I have to look up the persons school or work email which takes time and isn't always successful. Eliminating comments is like eliminating roads to stop traffic accidents.
Is that if some scientist decides they've discovered X through Y, some dude across the world who's already gone down that path and found a flaw with Y can chime in. And then another one who found a fix to the flaw can also chime in. Thus science wins.
Probability that this actually occurs on a popular website and that the original scientist reads it? I'd assume slim to none. Still, you're taking away the most globally significant feature of the internet by limiting communication.
I'd guess the practical benefit to comments is that kids too young to decide their future might be able to get excited and participate in a discussion here. Nurturing excitement in STEM is always a good thing.
Same question. Science is bedrock. Comments are the opposite. Comments can have a positive effect, on all kinds of things, provided the wheat and the chaff live on opposite sides of town.
I come here for the love
They don't have to. They can be scaredy-cats and get all butthurt by words on the internet if they want to.
Nope, no room for that, even in the "science" community.
Conform or be squelched.
Scientists, in my experience, typically respect dissident thought. (I am not going to say that good dissident ideas are always embraced, but they are generally listened to if there is serious thought behind them.) Dissident speech devoid of thought, on the other hand, is generally ignored in science. (It is, after all, not a democracy.)
Are trolls part of the scientific process?
Table-ized A.I.
read the article and the scientific study.
People posting factual incorrect stuff and sway an opinion.
Thank about that for a minute.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
That sounds dangerously close to unwarranted entitlement of posting to whatever website.
I read TFA and all I got was this lousy cookie
Moderation is what makes any comments section of a post work. Otherwise you have chaos. Not censorship, but putting useful stuff to the fore and useless stuff to the rear. Kinda like here, where +3 and higher comments get seen and the trollbait/average stuff gets passed.
As for whether commentary does anything for science... 99% of the time, no. But there is that 1% of the time where someone says something you might not have thought of. Scientists collaborate and discuss things between themselves to further their work, right? Who says someone in the public doesn't have the spark of some idea that will help once in a blue moon?
Laughter is the Spackle of the Soul.
It has nothing to do with dissident speech. It has nothing to do with squelching actual scientific discussion.
Read the damn study.
There is no such thing as dissident speech in science. Ignorant, fallacious, and incorrect speech is another thing.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
I can speak like a drunken sailor and be utterly scientific or speak in ideal erudite diction and be utterly unscientific.
Further they're talking about the perception of science which is itself unscientific since perception isn't scientifically relevant.
I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
"Do Comments On Web Pages Ruin Science?"
Does it get any dumber?
Might as well surrender reality to Faux News...
Nope, no room for that, even in the "science" community.
Conform or be squelched.
Could you point out a scientific study for your hypothesis?
I believe the official request is posed in the form of [citation needed]
Sorry, they have no obligation to let you post on their site. It's their site, and they can do with it what they think is best. Fortunately, you can start a blog and rant away all you want.
Incidentally, I heard most scientific journals won't let just anyone publish articles. Talk about squelching dissent!
I found the comment section on Popular Science to be worse than worthless. Good riddance, I say.
PopSci has stories about science, but it's not a primary source (like peer reviewed journals).
Even if scientists are closely involved in the articles, how often do web page comments influence them?
Comments don't do any harm. It's idiots believing comments that does.
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
Since when is Popular Science considered a good scientific magazine? I stopped reading it when I noticed most of the articles are about tech gadget reviews and cars.
People can say all they want. But they're not entitled to post wherever they want.
If a collection of scientists and on-line media professionals can't figure out how to put together a working comment section on a website, then I can only wonder at their ability to perform the rest of their duties with any integrity.
What a bunch of whiny fools.
Also. . .
A politically motivated, decades-long war on expertise has eroded the popular consensus on a wide variety of scientifically validated topics. Everything, from evolution to the origins of climate change, is mistakenly up for grabs again. Scientific certainty is just another thing for two people to "debate" on television. And because comments sections tend to be a grotesque reflection of the media culture surrounding them, the cynical work of undermining bedrock scientific doctrine is now being done beneath our own stories, within a website devoted to championing science.
~Suzanne LaBarre
Is she serious?
What kind of idiot could make a statement like that with a straight face?
"The origin of climate change is mistakenly up for grabs"???
"Scientific certainty"???
"The Bedrock of scientific doctrine"???
Those, ladies and gentlemen, are words born of zealotry, not science.
Sure, there are rude comments and insane comments, and that's what moderation is for. But what I'm betting is really the problem here are the intelligent and reasoned critics who raise points the editors can't address without losing their ivory tower air of authority, (at best), or at worst, just looking ignorant and stupid.
... The main purpose of the Slashdot beta design seems to be to make the comment system unusable?
I used to think that the web comments on science articles tended to consist of an over-representation of people with one or two personal pet ideas (eg: Dark matter is the ether of the 21st century, etc....) but then I discovered that it really was possible to make over $7000 dollars a month working from home on the internet.
How can it be factual and incorrect, you utter flid?
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
This isn't about squelching dissident speech in science ... not among scientists.
It's when trolls, shills, and other many others with personal or idealogical agendas start posting lies, half-truths, propaganda or other questionable facts *as science* on these public forums. The public gets more content from the comments than they do the articles and/or studies. Pollute the comments and you pollute the facts & science the readers take away from the articles.
It is done all the time. Just look at both sides in the DC Shutdown. Both sides are lying. But those that watch FOX News believes one side, and those that watch MSNBC believe the other. Only a few of us can actually decipher the bullshit enough to know that both sides are out to screw the American Public.
Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
like making decision based on scientific research. wait, what?
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
Nope, no room for that, even in the "science" community.
Conform or be squelched.
Could you point out a scientific study for your hypothesis?
Wow, that's offensive. Be a doubleplusgood citizen and apologize or you'll be reported.
...actually doesn't say what Popular Science claims it does.
What it DOES say is that, when confronted by rude or over-the-top comments, most people's views don't change - but the people at the "edges" get slightly more dogmatic about their opinions. We're talking about a very small percentage of comments overall which show any influence at all.
That's it.
No, contrary comments do not turn people off of the stories, keep them from commenting on-topic, or anything drastic.
What the study does end up doing is give journalists (with second-rate or nonexistent science backgrounds) a good excuse to ignore people who notice that they wrote a bad or scientifically incorrect story - or a completely overblown one. Like the meta-story about comments on science stories.
"Only a few of us can actually decipher the bullshit enough to know that both sides are out to screw the American Public."
Which itself is bullshit, because each side believes earnestly they are in the right. Neither side believes that in the long run it's position is worse for America, but is instead better. One or both sides may be incorrect in this belief...but each side believes in the truth of their fundamental principles.
Monkey spunk. Tell that to Galileo.
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
"blog and web commentary never, or only rarely, influences the process of scientific inquiry itself"
If so, then what does it matter whether or not commentary is allowed ?
What almost certainly happens is a bunch of pseudo- or anti-science gets posted. People then read this stuff and see it as legitimized by being on Popular Science, when they forget - or fail to see the distinction - that the dubious claims are on in a comments section.
Honestly, I believe that the Internet is modern science's biggest boon, and it's biggest threat. When know-nothings have a voice that can be as heard by as many people as experts, we're in trouble, and the Internet has brought that to us in spades.
This has been alluded to, but the real issue here isn't whether scientists are going to be persuaded to alter their pursuits. Rather, it's how non-scientists perceive the value of scientists. And, when most scientists are funded by non-scientists (i.e. all of us, through our taxes), this can have a profound effect on whether scientists can continue their work.
Citation
Greg Laden would like nothing more than to shut down anyone who disagrees with him - he is anti-science.
It's one thing for people of near equal knowledge and ability to have a debate, even a heated one, but when we're talking about every one from credentialed experts to netkooks to astroturfers all posting in a format that seems to give equal weight to everyone, the results are anything but productive or useful.
One of my favorite blogs is by Professor Matt Strassler, a physicist at CERN, and also a damned fine writer, but frankly I ignore the comments to his blog entries because for every legitimate question or observation, there's some bloody nutjob who thinks because they use the word "quantum" in a sentence, that somehow makes what they're saying a legitimate critique.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
Scientists, in my experience, typically respect dissident thought. (I am not going to say that good dissident ideas are always embraced, but they are generally listened to if there is serious thought behind them.) Dissident speech devoid of thought, on the other hand, is generally ignored in science. (It is, after all, not a democracy.)
My mileage varies. If your "dissident thought" would negatively impact funding, like the study of AGW, scientists neither respect "good dissident ideas" nor do they ignore them. They are, in fact, quite abrasive about it. I've seen this is the local papers especially. Someone writes a letter to the editor about AGW that the scientists don't like and there are immediate public responses shouting them down.
Alright Ass, I be you never made a typo either. It was obvious he meant Factually incorrect.
Now GFY
Sorry, teleporters just kill you and then make a copy. A perfect, soul-less copy.
Who knows. Maybe this submission is a trial balloon from Dice Holdings to see if they can get away with becoming a posted content/advertising only site.
It wouldn't have if it was some random site, but it was Popular Science, which I'm sure some slashdotters posted at. I'm sure those folks might like to discuss it.
As for those who are upset about its messageboard shutting down, I suggest that if they see a story there they would like to discuss that they submit it to slashdot. If it isn't accepted, put it in your slashdot journal.
Most folks who come here like science.
Free Martian Whores!
People that disagree with scientific fact often do it based on having read a couple of dumbed down pseudo-scientific books without having the basic knowledge to understand what they are talking about. Consequently, they create controversy based more on emotion that in analysis, knowledge or research. Such controversy is a useless waste of time and a distraction from proper research.
What also gets very irritating is someone whose last maths was when they were 15 sitting there, at 46, shouting repeatedly on a website that they have disproved Einstein (not really stating what that means; I normally assume they mean disproving E=mc^2), and then refusing to listen to any response. What is *also* irritating are well-intentioned people who equally are 31 years from their last maths lesson trying to quell that line of thought with something that is simply wrong (and frequently, alas, condescendingly wrong) and then the two sides get in a flame war, and we end up feeling we'd have been better off skipping a comment section entirely.
People with no education in maths or physics claiming without support that Einstein was "wrong" (a word which takes careful definition; no professional physicist would deny, in well-defined boundaries, that predictions of Einstein's theories are incorrect, but that doesn't mean they're "wrong" in the way that is often bandied around) are surprisingly common. About six years back I started compiling a database of emails that I was sent and books my department was sent that argued Einstein was wrong in manifold, creative, naive, inaccurate -- and yet frequently different -- ways. After a few months I got bored of it because they began repeating themselves and the volume was huge.
This was before comments threads. If I'd done it when comments threads were set up I may never have gained my PhD thanks to time spent arguing with people online who refused to learn anything about the topic they were stubbornly opposing - even topics the details of which they stated were inaccurate. Of course, me not getting my PhD probably wouldn't have been much of a loss to science, but I've enjoyed venting anyway.
Particularly as in many cases - and I do it myself, shamefully - people are normally very good at skipping the article to read the comments. Of course, Slashdot would never succumb to that kind of thing.
Science is also about communication, and that includes the general public, not only scientists. One of the main points of science is to provide better understandings of the world so that people other than scientists can make use of that information. If you don't directly speak to the broader public, and especially if some of your funding is coming from the public, then in my opinion a scientist isn't doing their job and/or isn't maximizing the value of the work they are doing.
Granted, talking to the general public about science is a big challenge sometimes, but cutting off communication with the general public on scientific issues is not a good thing either.
I'm pretty sure it's science that ruins lots of comments on web pages.
"If a collection of scientists and on-line media professionals can't figure out how to put together a working comment section on a website, then I can only wonder at their ability to perform the rest of their duties with any integrity."
Yes, because a professor in loop quantum gravity is an expert in building comment sections and designing and implementing a robust and working moderation system.
Jesus Christ.
That reminds me of the sign Wile E Coyote - Super Genius....
I feel comments have great potential value in allowing the topic to evolve and can take it in new superiors directions. That said, comment moderation is needed to eliminate trolls. Troll IP addresses should be tracked and once a troll is confirmed, he can get auto deleted or even barred from the topic as long as it is confirmmed he/she authors only crap. It takes a smart moderator to winnow the wheat from the chaff. Some entry creds are needed to weed out trollmods - volunteers who crave power.
This means a parallel to the normal academic process of publication followed by letters to the writer and follow on publication, but on a vastly accelerated form that can only be done online. It may be labor intensive? Where will valuable volunteers come from? Journals already have trouble getting learned critical commentators - will it work online?
We all know who/what the culprit is. Why are we so afraid to name it?
It's right wing paid manipulation of social media. Either primary by paid shills, or secondary by brainwashed followers of right-wing media. There are rich people out to manipulate the public for their own means and they are grossly in one camp. If you believe the "Dems" or the "Left" are equally culpable you have a severely warped sense of perspective and scale, probably induced by exposure to said propaganda outlets. (Or as a coping mechanism to rationalize your pre-existing world view. Nobody wants to believe that their heros are evil.)
It's a systematic attack on the public mind. Ranging from the sabotage of public education, the positioning of public debate, the capturing of media outlets, and the dissemination of propaganda through churches and other religious organizations.
You are being assaulted. The time for compromise and discourse is over. We are being brutalized by mindeless savages that have their morals and rationality removed. It's time to stop being polite.
We're in agreement that many Slashdotters are going to like Popular Science and that science in general. My point was that the article was nothing but blatant trolling and served no useful purpose.
Create your own Science site and do comments "right". Sort of like rather than spam science sites with bullshit science claims, prove your claims on your own site.
Scientists, in my experience, typically respect dissident thought. (I am not going to say that good dissident ideas are always embraced, but they are generally listened to if there is serious thought behind them.) Dissident speech devoid of thought, on the other hand, is generally ignored in science. (It is, after all, not a democracy.)
My mileage varies. If your "dissident thought" would negatively impact funding, like the study of AGW, scientists neither respect "good dissident ideas" nor do they ignore them. They are, in fact, quite abrasive about it. I've seen this is the local papers especially. Someone writes a letter to the editor about AGW that the scientists don't like and there are immediate public responses shouting them down.
Stop being silly.
Scientists getting grumpy about anti climate change letters to the editor have nothing to do about funding. They have everything to do about the fact that no serious scientific discussion goes on in letters to the editor. You get random gripes, political diatribes, and rants there. You aren't exactly getting novel scientific ideas in letters to the editor in your local paper.
If somebody writes a letter to the editor questioning evolution or gravity or whatever, scientists will get grumpy about that too. But that random letter to the editor will have no effect on their funding.
Scientists just don't like being called out as incompetent at their job by people who generally have no idea of what they are talking about, which is generally what you have with letters to the editor on climate change. I don't think that this is an unreasonable reaction to be honest.
Does anyone actually read the idiocy found on any and all open forums? It's always the same crazies pushing their agendas. I can't think of any case where I'd like to have a forum set up to discuss my web content. If people want to talk about it, go to a site dedicated to discussion, like, oh, this one.
The only thing worse than a Democrat is a Republican.
This is a brilliant example of how comments don't work. It's emotional, obscene and grammatically incorrect. Comment sections don't foster debate, they tend to foster name calling and repetition of the same damned arguments over and over again.
When it comes to AGW or evolution, the two topics I've paid the most attention to so far as comments from non-scientists, the bulk of the "skeptics" information seems to come from a very small number of organizations whose sole purpose is to spread anti-science FUD. Whether it's the Koch Brothers and their various shills or Answers in Genesis, it's all the same strategy; muddy the waters by making it look as if there is still huge debate on the scientific theory they're attacking. Throw in a bit of "consensus is evil, only believe dissenters" nonsense, they can give the appearance of a theory being total dreck, without ever having to bother actually publishing a single article in a journal to support the claim. Of course, it helps they have nasty little shills like Michael Behe and Roy Spencer who happily cash the cheques and publish anti-science material with their PhDs prominently displayed, but when you look at their actual publishing history in the journals, never publish anything to support the claims they so eagerly make on blogs, editorial sections or comment sections.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
Uh, no. *Some* of the people on each side believe they're right. I'm pretty sure that John Boehner is just trying to protect his job (position as Speaker of the House) and wishes the Tea Party never made the demands in the first place.
When science is settled as a framework (evolution, for example), comments about the mechanisms are always fruitful. Any comments that assault the framework in a "Flat Earther" kind of way is really the author announcing their ignorance....so disabling comments is a very unfortunate move for Pop Sci. They should have more confidence in scientific truth to win out, rather than limit participation...
Science isn't a democracy. There are no scientific dissidents. There are jackasses who are too stupid to understand science, and they yell loudly about how it must be wrong. If you think that a conclusion made by scientists is wrong, we would absolutely love it if you could prove them wrong. People being wrong is how science moves forward. Going into the comments section and telling people that the earth isn't really getting warmer does not count as proving anyone wrong.
Is 1563649 a prime number?
It can take years to do research on HIV and how it leads to AIDS, and it can take some maniac or holistic medicine astroturfer roughly twenty seconds to post an absurd and false claim against your research.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
I remember in Ye Olde Days, when the sci.* Usenet groups started trying to push all the whackos to the talk.* and alt.* hierarchies, where researchers, if they were feeling particularly bored, could go and beat on netkooks. Coupled with moderation, it did return the sci groups back to some modicum of reason.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
It just annoys the publishers and justifies the comments even if such are "trollish" or negative. If "science" cannot handle those comments then it is not science.
Preventing comments is just the nonlethal form of hanging the smart ass because that's what science cannot handle... so much for being objective and all the other things they say they are.
My karma is not a Chameleon.
They do not, but any scientist does have a scientific obligation to not try to repress dissent. Science thrives on dissent.
Troll is not a replacement for I disagree.
I'm amused by the ironic juxtaposition of your post and your sig.
It publishes gee whiz bang bang articles. It pretends this is Science.
yeah, they do not need to be there for opposing views in science to be heard. Its called "publishing papers" not trolling around on popular science being a trollfag. just because some conspiracy site tells you chemtrails are for holographic projections of reptoids or whatever doesnt mean you have a valid viewpoint on cloud seeding or something. if you are doing research, and are an expert in a field (trained or self taught), publish a paper, let other experts review your work. some idiot on the internet, even with 5 phds can still be wrong about something, and its data that shows it. and the only people qualified to really comb over bleeding edge science are basically degree holders in the specific field. science itself, the process of peer review, etc, thrive on new contrary ideas. But explaining science to the public only runs into huge opposition because of religion and politics, and these areas are huge majority consensus topics usually (evolution, climate change, cosmology in general). most journalism on science is pretty bad, because journalists like to show both sides of a story. but there arent two sides to science. one side is wrong, and thats what peer review and revolutionary ideas are for. Newton was a fucking genius, and he was wrong. it took centuries for einstein to find out why. but ignoring newton would have been retarded in the interim. even not using newtons laws for most day-to-day objects now is retarded. even though newton was wrong, he's still close. not like 6000 year old earth, adam on a dinosaur. and thumbs up for the poster re: hiv/aids. thats a good example of some fraud (wakefield) and some loudmouth celebs (jenny mcarthy and jim carrey) set in motion internet idiots to post all over news sites, etc that hiv doesnt cause aids, so dont worry about sleeping with someone who has hiv. if you have hiv, dont take antiretroviral medication. take some homeopathic "cure". those comments have likely directly led to higher infection rates, and/or worse health for people who had already contracted the virus. its settled. we do not know all the mechanisms and we are likely to be wrong on some details, but consensus has been reached, dont put hiv in your body, or you will get aids.
This is a brilliant example of how comments don't work. It's emotional, obscene and grammatically incorrect. Comment sections don't foster debate, they tend to foster name calling and repetition of the same damned arguments over and over again.
What kind of place do you think this is?!? ..Oh wait.
... it became possible for the audience of mouthbreathers to post their drivel online and make their views seem relevant/popular/legitimate. If online comments prove anything, it's that the masses are morons. Internet is the new TV and that's why internet comments have been going downhill as more of the masses came online over the last 10 years. The internet became too easy to use for the low brow population.
I frequently see anti-science posts on slashdot get modded up. America is just one big cesspit if ignorance and internet comments show that in spades.
"web commentary never, or only rarely, influences the process of scientific inquiry itself."
What does?
Could it be....
the money.
Uh, no. *Some* of the people on each side believe they're right. I'm pretty sure that John Boehner is just trying to protect his job (position as Speaker of the House) and wishes the Tea Party never made the demands in the first place.
And what gives you such deep insight into the minds of others, to accurately judge who is sincere or not? Remember, no one sees themself as the villain of their own story; most people have layers upon layers of rationalizations, justifications, and excuses, which combine to form a 'moral code'. It's entirely possible, even probable, for someone's motivations to be completely consistent with an earnest belief that they are in the right, even when observers see their actions as corrupt and self-serving. Even serial killers and child molesters typically have worldviews that frame themselves in a positive light. It takes an unusually honest disposition to admit to flaws in one's own character, even to oneself... and politicians are not generally known for such honesty.
Sounds a lot like Popular Science really.
What I find shocking here that they can't manage to exploit technology to solve this problem for them. They are a science publication but hold onto this silly notion that they have waste resources on moderation. They are much like many journalists that present a portrayal of the state of the art that is 10 or 20 years out of date.
Terribly ironic really.
A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
You're a fucking idiot.
"News for Nerds. Stuff that matters."
An article about what's happening at Popular Science INC seems to fall into that category. NPR covered it for the same exact reasons. Covering it her is "within scope" regardless of how many people get their panties in a bunch.
This overly inclusive version of the term Troll you are using is a barrier to meangingful discourse. Anything worth discussing will likely "offend" someone eventually.
A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
Require signup to post? Ban after obscene or blatant misuse? Close comments after a certain period of time? Allow for reporting of abuse? Incorporate moderation? Allow voters to push comments up or down? In most cases you cannot change those who act without showing respect and dignity for others opinions or beliefs. Ideas should be debated respectfully. Sadly, you can't remove the human aspect.
Popular Science quoted some random study that showed divisive argument tended to sway users that already had a per-conceived bias more towards their own bias. Then proceeded to misquote and twist what the study truly said all over the media. There was an interview with them on NPR and NPR strait up called them out on it, but they spent the majority of the interview dodging the question.
This was either a PR stunt, a poor excuse to cut an expense, or both.
Lastly, can I be the first to point out that Popular science has very little to do with science and hasn't in well over 50 years? They are to Science what the Enquirer is to hard news sites.
If you think that a conclusion made by scientists is wrong, we would absolutely love it if you could prove them wrong.
Like Subrahmanyan Chandrasekhar's star model which turns out to be a good explanation for stellar evolution? He eventually did run into people who absolutely love to be proved wrong.
Going into the comments section and telling people that the earth isn't really getting warmer does not count as proving anyone wrong.
The problem here is that research for this particular field is being used for justification for public spending and behavior modification to the tune of tens to hundreds of billions of dollars a year. Complaining about the few people who don't think the Earth is warming ignores the big problem - major, civilization-altering decisions based on weak scientific and economic projections.
What kind of idiot could make a statement like that with a straight face?
"The origin of climate change is mistakenly up for grabs"???
I can't help but notice that you left off the first part of the quoted sentence. You know -- the part about the *other* major subject of right-wing science denial.
Sure, there are rude comments and insane comments, and that's what moderation is for. But what I'm betting is really the problem here are the intelligent and reasoned critics who raise points the editors can't address without losing their ivory tower air of authority, (at best), or at worst, just looking ignorant and stupid.
Funny how the evolutionary biologists seem to have the exact same problem.
(Not everyone is practiced in publicly debating bogus talking points.)
Visit the
Stop being silly.
I've seen it happen much more than once.
Scientists getting grumpy about anti climate change letters to the editor have nothing to do about funding.
You didn't read what I wrote. I said that the original comment (letter to the editor, in this case) could have an impact on the funding, not how grumpy the scientist is. Yes, indeed, if a well written letter can create a response of "why are we spending so much money on this" or "that makes sense" in the public, then that can have a negative impact on funding.
They have everything to do about the fact that no serious scientific discussion goes on in letters to the editor.
You're right. No discussion takes place. Someone tries but the "scientists" respond with either "you aren't a climate scientist and therefore have nothing useful to say about science" or "the question has been settled and there is no more debate", or both. Sometimes if the author can be identified as working for "the wrong people", the claim that their opinion has been bought and paid for is the insult used by the "scientists" who are ignoring dissenting opinions.
You aren't exactly getting novel scientific ideas in letters to the editor in your local paper.
Only in the realm of modern AGW research is it considered a "novel scientific idea" to have more than correlation to back up a theory. But then, the claim was that scientists ignore such dissenting opinions, and the truth in the real world is much much different.
Scientists just don't like being called out as incompetent at their job by people who generally have no idea of what they are talking about, which is generally what you have with letters to the editor on climate change.
Not always, but the response is usually the same. And questioning the science didn't used to be considered calling someone incompetent. Science used to be above that. I've seen it in areas that don't involve AGW. A lot of areas that don't involve AGW.
The hypothesis is that popsci doesn't like criticism of its articles because it affects the publication's bottom line and/or the ego of its editors and staff. Even without data, it's a pretty reasonable default assumption because it is a well known fact that humans always act in their self interest, even under the guise of philanthropy. It is also well known that most humans, especially otherwise intelligent and successful ones, abhor criticism. The few who don't, who can filter useful data out of it while keeping their emotions at bay, are the ones with the potential to be successful scientists.
The grand parent post is right. There is a lot of emotional fervor for certain positions in just about every discipline, especially for the heavily politicized ones (eg climatology). The critical factor here is that while these convictions are often held for the position supported by the most facts, the emotional satisfaction coming from being on the 'right' side causes the group to make logical errors as work progresses. Perhaps emotional control skillsets should be part of every science curriculum to help minimize this.
Respond with your best reasons, rationally, unemotionally. Don't let yourself get caught in the flame war, instead go on with your life. Why do we need to suppress speech again?
They also have no obligation to publish truthful articles. Should they, though?
I think you're projecting.
The reason to put up comments section on your website is that you control it. You can take down the really bad stuff. Without it, someone will put up popularsciencesucks.com which you have no control over.
Lastly, can I be the first to point out that Popular science has very little to do with science and hasn't in well over 50 years? They are to Science what the Enquirer is to hard news sites. ... which makes people that care about Popular Science's move sound even more out of touch. People making a big deal out of this mystify me.
"Old man yells at systemd"
Yes, indeed, if a well written letter can create a response of ..
But it can't and doesn't. So there's that.
"Old man yells at systemd"
Here, I take exception to this and suggest that while comments are important in relation to the public perception of science (which itself is important) blog and web commentary never, or only rarely, influences the process of scientific inquiry itself."
It might influence some who are loosely using what science and for what reason, keeping the reality of who by its use might ultimately be affected by it a real concern. There is a lot of science out there and not all science is being used for noble purposes.
If you think that a conclusion made by scientists is wrong, we would absolutely love it if you could prove them wrong.
Like Subrahmanyan Chandrasekhar's star model which turns out to be a good explanation for stellar evolution? He eventually did run into people who absolutely love to be proved wrong.
Please elaborate. In particular, I'm curious how you can use the story of Subrahmanyan Chandrasekhar's life as an argument against GP's observation that scientists love to be proven wrong.
Here's a question. Who downmodded me; a Creationist or an AGW pseudo-skeptic? Or perhaps someone whose both.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
Yes, because a professor in loop quantum gravity is an expert in building comment sections and designing and implementing a robust and working moderation system.
Did I say that? No. I said, "A group of scientists and on-line media professionals."
I was referring to the editors and publishers of the science magazine website. -Not their guest authors, who, of course, don't have any part in day to day operations of a web publishing effort.
You don't solve the problem by squelching all discourse and then giving certain people the right to 'broadcast', unchallenged, based on title alone.
I can't help but notice that you left off the first part of the quoted sentence. You know -- the part about the *other* major subject of right-wing science denial.
I agree with your POV, but you gotta pick your fights.
I left that out because this is Slashdot, which is no stranger to the ravages of sci-zealotry. I felt my larger point would get lost amidst all the machine gun fire.
They do not, but any scientist does have a scientific obligation to not try to repress dissent. Science thrives on dissent.
There is a big difference between legitimate dissent, and useless argument. If a scientist posts a discovery of a newly discovered fossil, is it the scientist's duty to answer every one of the hundreds of claims of the Earth being created in 4004 b.c.e.? How about the person who wants to argue about Phlogiston theory when people are trying to discuss the large hadron collider? Some things just aren't open to debate any more
I've worked with many scientists, and just about universally, they welcome challenges and problems. But real challenges, not someone telling them they are going to hell because they don't believe in things that the accuser does.
The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
Ah denialists, is there no stupidity they will not sink to in their ignorance. There is no sensible dissent, just pseudo scientific mumbo jumbo.
Respond with your best reasons, rationally, unemotionally. Don't let yourself get caught in the flame war, instead go on with your life. Why do we need to suppress speech again?
When someone is trolling in disagreement, you simply ignore it.
Arguing with creationists, tobacco industry lawyers, birthers and deniers is pointless. You'll never change their mind, and their only purpose is to disrupt you.
The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
Ok, here's my take. Consider the voters. There's a huge bunch of dedicated, unswayable republicans. There's a huge bunch of dedicated, unswayable democrats. Almost nothing can make these people change their position. These are in almost perfect balance, because they're not making decisions rationally; they're making decisions based upon a random distribution of single party planks or other factors (like, that's how my wife votes, or that's how the family votes.)
In between are the swing voters who actually decide things. Arguments on web sites don't make them swing. They are thinkers. Arguments on web sites don't make either of the dedicated voter groups change their mind either. They're just talking to hear themselves talk and get a rah-rah from like minded types.
How does this relate to science? I think we have a very similar breakdown. There's a group of people who aren't science oriented, even if they know a few facts. They're influenced by things like religion, "dad told me", the enticement of rumors, etc. These people are not going to change their minds. Then there's a group who knows science is... well, science, and they're aware that it's a process that, in large part, delivers new and reliable knowledge, as well as new and interesting paths where knowledge may be found. They're not going to change their minds either.
Swing science types? Not so many. That would be people who aren't sciency, as it were, and could be convinced (but if someone wasn't convinced by their science classes, I don't hold out much hope for them, unless their science classes were truly awful.) Or, it would be people who are aware of science and its wonderful track record, who are currently going along with yes, science is the bomb, but who would easily be convinced that science is consistently wrong. Know anyone like that? I don't.
Bottom line? The comments... they do nothing. :)
I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
I have never claimed anything I have posted to be "science". In fact I rarely claim anything I post as "factual", though I often post claiming things are "obvious" or "common sense". Of course there are those who might interpret those types of statements as polluting the discussion (and they are who I was speaking to).
Einstein was as correct as Newton, for sufficiently low values of certainty.
Ironically, you're debating that point... Why are things so black and white here?
Back in the days of the first colleges and universities, lectures and debates would often be accompanied by students, supporters, and opponents cheering, booing, hissing, shouting, stomping, throwing vegetables and "stuff", having nerdfights, and more. External interests often sent in their own observers into the crowd, to help the "correct" argument along. Most of them are still standing. And not the worse off, for a little reconstruction, here and there.
Since most were in or around churches, there were usually some of those nice gentle Cluniac brothers around, ready to be helpful.
Uh, no. *Some* of the people on each side believe they're right. I'm pretty sure that John Boehner is just trying to protect his job (position as Speaker of the House) and wishes the Tea Party never made the demands in the first place.
And what gives you such deep insight into the minds of others, to accurately judge who is sincere or not? Remember, no one sees themself as the villain of their own story; most people have layers upon layers of rationalizations, justifications, and excuses, which combine to form a 'moral code'. It's entirely possible, even probable, for someone's motivations to be completely consistent with an earnest belief that they are in the right, even when observers see their actions as corrupt and self-serving. Even serial killers and child molesters typically have worldviews that frame themselves in a positive light. It takes an unusually honest disposition to admit to flaws in one's own character, even to oneself... and politicians are not generally known for such honesty.
It's actually much more complicated than that, and your analogy is a good example. Many child molesters, for example, are consumed by self-loathing, but unable to control their behavior. I recall the story of a child molester from some years ago that begged to be kept in prison when his sentence was up, because he knew his own destructive behavior was beyond his control (and sure enough ended up re-offending). Whatever insights they may have of their own psyche, they are still driven by the desire for that quick release or physical pleasure they get out from the act. Drug addicts, serial rapists, wife beaters, etc., all fit into this pattern, unable to control their emotions. But nevertheless they typically do view themselves as villains.
Now I'm not saying that John Boehner falls into this category, but there are many justifications that the mind can come up with, including following a path of supporting an evil idea, simply to remain in a position to do a greater "good" later. Harry Reid may be using a similar justification to support Obamacare, telling himself that all the harm, destruction of the economy, loss of jobs and and other bad consequences are worth if the final collapse of the program leads to fully socialized single-payer healthcare system.
"Somebody has to do something. It's just incredibly pathetic it has to be us."
--- Jerry Garcia
For instance that bullshit article in Scientific American on radioactive emissions from coal stations is shown as a lazy summary of a Oak Ridge staff newsletter article by an administrator by the comments. Just being in S.A. lent credibility but if people go to the website and see the comments they can find out that it really was a baseless opinion piece derived from an article written by someone who had not bothered to check their "facts" before putting them in that staff newsletter.
Popular Science Pussy Rag is passe compose. First, butt fuck all Popular Science employees, Second, take a Louisville slugger to the head of each Popular Science employee.
Leve 'm all dead in a pool of their own blood on the street.
'Nough Said.
Every now and again I like to rub the noses of people in those Christianity-Lite franchises that Mendel, Darwin and a pile of others they rail against were real Christian Scientists. The see the Jesuits as just as much as their mortal enemy as Dawkins.
It's not a war against science, it's a war against reason itself.
Huh? Moderation has yet to occur. If the post gets modded over-rated a few times, nobody sees the comment. Other people have said the same thing in a nicer way, so the pointer to the correction still exists. Of course /. does not allow you to edit your own comments to correct grammar and spelling, which if it was a "Science" site I would consider essential.
Claiming a raw string of words breaks ever single comment in a thread is like claiming that having "twat" in the dictionary makes it an obscene book. It's a very small portion of the book, and I'll bet more people notice the word "twat" than would notice a moderated down personal attack.
-The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.
Or News sites on science only!
Yes, they do. The reason is that there is a large number of elderly people calling themselves the tea party, who spend all day on the comment boards telling everyone that gravity is Obama's fault and that he is the Devil's child.
I know I'm tired of it. Good call Popular Science.
Take the cheese to sickbay, the doctor should see it as soon as possible - B'Elanna Torres, "Learning Curve"
Flat earthers, creationists and climate change deniers are immensely annoying but this is still a terrible decision. Trolls will never go away, but they are only kept in check by challenging them.
On the other hand science can benefit from intelligent and and well informed commentary and like any other human activity benefits from critical, constructive media coverage and public debate.
In the final analysis science is too important to just leave it to the scientists.
But they do cause autism. I definitely feel 0.000009% more autistic just writing this.
Both sides are in the "right".
I'll be here all week.
Yes they do!
Deporting communists and stopping their spreading of FUD on junk science (e.g. global warming, etc...) works better!
Popular science is a contradiction in terms. You don't advance science by taking a straw poll. You advance science by thinking long and hard on one question, and testing your conclusions against concrete evidence, not perceptions, not emotions, not other people's opinions, urban myths, fantasies, and other garbage. Science is not big happy thoughts or profundities that are so profound that they're actually meaningless. Science is about arriving at the definitive answer to a small question and moving on from there. Popular science is just a hokey new age religion.
The comments of Pop Science sites isn't "Science". Science is a *process*. Its not just an anarchic room of people screaming at each other and accusing the socially awkward dudes with pocket protectors and labcoats of being secret communists or whatever. Its about following a process and has nothing to do with opinions.
The scientific process involves doing studies that confirm or contradict in a disinterested manner a hypothesis, publishing it in a respectable journal (or in the case of thesis, submitting it to a respectable academic [ie not a think tank] institution), where noted and accepted academics (not a websites penut gallery) then either find flaws in the study and reject it, or later down the track perform their own studies and publish them.
At no point does any of this involve shouting at scientists about being part of some vast left wing conspiracy, citing popular crank-science guys with such poor grasp of statistics its a wonder they can even tie their own shoelaces right, or in fact any of this.
In other words, if your not an expert in the specific field with a doctorate and a publication history to back that up, your not engaging in peer review, your just another joe shmoe web jock yelling at the nerds for saying things that contradict your political religion.
Excuse the Unicode crap in my posts. That's an apostrophe, and slashdot is busted.
I'd like to believe you, but the reality is that the majority of people on this planet do not believe in evolution or AGW. Even in the most educated nations, a very large percentage (though minority) of people are young earth creationists. So what can you expect from online comments but a representation of public beliefs? (Sources: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Climate_change_opinion_cause_is_human_by_country_2008-2009.png / http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Level_of_support_for_evolution#Public_support )
This space intentionally left blank
Science thrives on dissent.
No it doesn't. Science is not a democracy unless your advocating ontological relivity, but uh thats crazy talk. Its politics, not science, your thinking of.
Science thrives on *peer review*. The people in the comments of pop sci sites are not peers, unless the sight is checking to make sure the commenters have appropriate qualifications and publication history in the specific field of course.
Excuse the Unicode crap in my posts. That's an apostrophe, and slashdot is busted.
Apparently a certain influential Dr. Eddington didn't love to be proven wrong, especially by an Indian. And his influence was strong enough for Chandrasekhar to seek greener pastures in a different country.
your sorta insightful, sorta ironic comment disproves your argument. Comment sections do foster some debate and do influence some science. But not every site does it right and not every comment is going to be a winner.
I think Slashdot does a pretty good job. Things tend to balance out and there is usually some new sources of data for both sides. It is funny to see an Apple got caught doing something stupid story get modded pro-Cupertino after it is first posted and then slowly turn to wtf-Apple as the day goes on. Sometimes the pro-Apple crowd sleeps in and then you get the comments like 'Why does everyone hate Apple today?'.
I would like to see a way to actually debate someone. Too often there is the confusion of 'who said what' and people confusing support for criticism and vice-versa. Maybe a 'take it outside' function or something.
There was nothing stopping any state from establishing a socialized single-payer healthcare system, except perhaps voter disapproval. Case in point Romneycare. Romneycare affected one state and hasn't exactly turned that state into a model of health care efficiency. If it had, more states would have followed suit, but they didn't.
Alas, we now have, let's call it what it really is, the Subsidized Care Act and the 28hr A Week Underemployment Act and the 49 Employee Small Business Act and the Waived For Obama's Buddies Act and the Insurance and IRA Growth Act and the Stick it to the Youth Yet Again Act.
Wow, no actual arguments presented by you whatsoever in your ad hominem personal attack. Congratulations on your failure at (1) rational discourse, (2) comprehension of how science and the scientific method actually works, (3) being raised a really nasty person who spews trash when he fails to comprehend a comment.
I grew up reading Popular Science and felt no need then to comment on any of the articles then, and feel no need to do so now. Our obsession with commenting is just crazy, and here I am commenting on commenting, on a site made for doing one thing: commenting. What happened to the world?
I think therefore I can't be ~TTNH
In which case I'm not quite sure why you mention the scientists in the sentence at all - which does read as if you're casting aspersions on their professional abilities. If that wasn't your intent then that's fine, but it's what it seems to say...
That's almost exactly the reply I'd like to have made, except that I don't think a lot of these people are acting just to disrupt. They normally seem to passionately believe that they're correct, and their purpose is to convince you - not to enter into a debate. A friend of mine once took up one of these people who had challenged physicists to find a flaw in his "disproof of relativity" (special, of course, since you don't need much beyond high school maths to follow it), and was offering a million pounds to be disproven. So my friend - a professor in cosmology - took him up on it and a couple of months later said "This is pointless; you spend two pages explaining why a particular statement of his is wrong and he replies 'No, you're wrong.' " It would be impossible to win that man's million pounds (a promise allegedly witnessed by a solicitor with funds that can be checked with his accountant), because it's impossible to convince him that he doesn't understand high school maths.
Absolutely pointless getting into the discussion, since certainly the net result is that you'll have been disrupted.
There are very few scientists who could honestly say they don't suffer from cognitive dissonance. If a "science" website is not open for debate, then people will vent their frustrations elsewhere. But in doing so, they're likely to take their loyalties away too.
"News" websites don't offer unbiased news. "Science" websites tend not to offer unbiased opinions. Research and findings are not facts. Theories are not facts. Nothing can be concrete and immovable. Scientists know this, and claim that the peer review system makes this so. However, even that is not without flaws. The most well accepted of these (in scientific circles) is Darwin's theory of evolution. It would never have made it passed peer review without alteration.
The truth will always be the truth. But so often it is first denied, then ridiculed, and finally accepted as self evident.
Open discussion, and commends are part of that process. If a website offering news does not open itself to opinion, then how else will the people feedback? How will they know if they're doing a good job? How do they know if their thought match those of the public, or if they're out of touch?
Debate is healthy, and necessary, and you shouldn't need a degree to participate!
I do feel that as in previous posts, moderation is needed. Someone needs to own a comment section, and to "chair" discussion.
Very true, all theories in physics are valid within their domain. Special relativity reduces to Newtonian mechanics for velocities significantly less than that of light. General relativity reduces to Newtonian gravity for sufficiently light masses, low accelerations and low speeds. In most situations while it can be entertaining to use the general relativistic description it's also pretty pointless, given that it's orders of magnitude harder than the Newtonian description and the corrections are frequently unobservable. For instance, most of the time NASA will use Newtonian physics to plan the flight path of satellites, because the corrections from GR are utterly insignificant except possibly towards Mercury and further in (and even there the corrections are so small as to be most likely negligible).
As with Newtonian physics, so with relativity -- there's no doubt they're not a complete theory but will be found to emerge from some more "fundamental" theory in some limit or other, in the same way as Newtonian physics emerges from relativity. (Aspects of Newtonian physics also emerge from quantum mechanics, interestingly. You can cast the Schroedinger equation as two separate equations modelling fluid flow - the Bernoulli equation (basically the evolution of the momentum) and the continuity equation (continuity of mass), with one difference: the Bernoulli equation picks up a complicated correction to the potential energy. Drop that and suddenly you've got nothing more than rotationless fluid mechanics.)
I very much doubt that. From the politicians that I've met, some honestly believe that what they're doing is for the good of everyone whereas others are borderline sociopaths and are just in it for personal gain with no concern about the damage that they do on the way. Those in the former category are often willing to go along with those in the latter if they think some long-term goal can be achieved as a result, and those in the latter are typically happy to play along with the long-term goals of the former because they're mostly focussed on the short term. If Congress has managed to avoid having any of the second category, then I'd be shocked. From a couple of thousand miles away, it looks more like they're in the majority...
I am TheRaven on Soylent News
Perhaps it's different in other disciplines, but I've never seen an idea that could negatively affect my funding, and if there were one it would not be a dissident idea, quite the reverse. Grants aren't to prove that X is true, they are to explore the factors relating to X. If someone has an idea that is disruptive to an entire field (everything you were doing is wrong) then that produces more funding, not less, because now there are a whole new range of avenues of investigation. The things that negatively affect funding are (repeatable) results that show something so conclusively that there is no point in ever investigating it again, and those are very rare.
The AGW example is particularly silly, because fields where there is deep division in the scientific community are the ones where it is easiest to get funding, as everyone wants to know which competing theory is correct (or that they're both wrong). Most climate scientists I've met would love for there to be some strong, evidence-backed, scientific theories countering their work, because then their next grant application practically writes itself.
I am TheRaven on Soylent News
claims of the Earth being created in 4004 b.c.e.?
Hey, Sid Meier says that civilizations began in 4000 BCE. That leaves four years for an evolution from amoebas to post-hunter-gatherer humans. I can live with that.
Just to cover more ground, there are times when the majority of peers turned out to be smart, educated, hard working, honest, and wrong.
I think one way or another, open channels for people to get their ideas out there are good. If one site wants to turn comments off, fair enough.
There are plenty of other sites where people who are professionals (engineers, etc.) can post comments which agree or disagree with some topic.
What I don't agree with is if "the experts" start closing ranks. That just sounds too much like when the police force closes ranks to cover something up. I don't think one site closing comments is what that is, but it would be worrying of the notion of dismissing anyone "not in the field" became dominant.
I doubt it ever will though, not in a reasonably free society.
The trouble with general views about AGW is that it is also a political and moral issue. Like abortion where fundamentalist religion types get involved attacking science, we have post-modern ecology global justice and global governance types getting involved defending the science.
And you always want to be careful who you have defending you.
The deniers are nutballs.
When you miss two letters, one of which is a repeat of one you did type, the problem isn't at the end the arms - it's between the ears.
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
All you need are some people paid 5c/post to post and upmod each other and you get the paid comments available at +5 no problem.
"we have post-modern ecology global justice and global governance types getting involved defending the science."
These are people you're making up because you believe that they MUST be there.
Moreover, how the fuck does that change climate science into wrong? IT DOESN'T. Not even you can bring yourself to say why you're putting idiot faithiests attacking scientists and "green hippies" defending science together.
And in this specific case, how do you know they are publishing false ones? They have printed ones that have turned out wrong, but then they either have a retraction (rarely), a follow-up that shows how the earlier paper was wrong, or it goes down the crapper.
Meanwhile Fox doubles-down on the lies and rather than go down the crapper, you retards lap it up and applaud them.
I heard you can cure AIDS with hydrogen peroxide, it was posted on a sciency type website so it must be true.
It's not so much the fact that they remove the comment section as their stated reason to do so.
Note that "Popular Science" is not a science web site. It is a news web site which specializes on science news. Note that this doesn't even make it a scientific publication platform. The only influence they may have on science is very indirectly, if someone from outside science who is responsible for funding science reads it and lets it influence the funding decisions.
I think you should peer review your comments before posting. That made my brain hurt.
Currently, three stories up from here is this: http://tech.slashdot.org/story/13/10/02/2212202/researchers-show-how-easy-it-is-to-manipulate-online-opinions
Note how negative comments have no effect while positive ones seem to have an undue effect.
The sole test of knowledge is experiment. -- R. Feynman
I'm not sure I can be on the same page with you on this. For one, every single human being suffers from cognitive dissonance in one way or another, so that's not being debated. Secondly, scientific debate, and mindless banter are two very different things, therefore I'm glad that they vent elewhere. Science, real science does not require loyalty. I've yet to encounter real scientists so entrenched in their beliefs that they never change, that trait seems to be predominantly with the religious. No one says findings are facts, they call them findings for a reason. No one calls theories facts, they are models of processes that withstood the test of time, and more importantly, have been used successfuly to make predictions. Debate is only as healthy as the mind of the debater. You can't debate with reality, and nonsensical ideas are rightfully shot down, because we all have a finte time here, and scientists would rather spend it doing science than educating the uneducatable.
When I say "no one calls" I am talking about people who know what those words actually mean, not the ignoramus.
Actually that doesn't work AC. Learn some science dude.
Read our article to find out.
It wouldn't have if it was some random site, but it was Popular Science, which I'm sure some slashdotters posted at. I'm sure those folks might like to discuss it.
Did you ever actually read the comments on a Popular Science article? Go look at any Youtube comment section and you'll get an idea of what it was like. There was no actual scientific discussion going on, it was just a lot of staggeringly ignorant people shouting about how science is all just conspiracy or the world is only 6000 years old or global warming is a liberal hoax...No matter the subject of the actual article.
Seriously. Nothing of value is lost in them doing away with comments.
This is just a comment to the previous news story about the issue. How is this reaction to said news story newsworthy?
Respond with your best reasons, rationally, unemotionally. Don't let yourself get caught in the flame war, instead go on with your life. Why do we need to suppress speech again?
This isn't about supressing speech. Joe C. Crackpot is quite free to publish his own journal or website showing how 1=2 (complete with a division by zero in his proof). However, in your typical scientific journal such "speech", and all the ensuing counter-speech, provide absolutely no benefit to the folks who presumably came to read up on the latest advances in DNA sequencing (or whatever). If it is providing no benefit to the readers, no point in having it.
your typical random commentor on a web page has between 0.0001% and 0.0% relevency to science.
trolling != dissidence
denial in the face of overwhelming evidence != dissidence
ignorange of basic science != dissidence
The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
uh...Popular Science does not DO science, they communicate (popularize) science. Communication works best when it is two way. To prohibit comments eliminates some two way communication. I guess they don't want to fully fulfill their communication mission. So much for them. Maybe they won't be so popular. But making it about saving scientific research is ridiculous. They have delusions of grandeur. They write about science at a keyboard, not in a science lab. This is about their egos, nothing more.
Most climate scientists I've met would love for there to be some strong, evidence-backed, scientific theories countering their work, because then their next grant application practically writes itself.
I don't know how anybody who has seen the sausage being made in the ClimateGate affair can claim that. Climate science is highly politicized, and there was a lot of internal pressure to present a consensus viewpoint.
2+2=4. Damnit, the correct answer is 5. Let me try again: 2+2=4. Hrm.
OK, there are some racist scientist out there. And when I said that scientists love to be proven wrong, very few of them will actually be happy to find out that there life's work has actually been proven wrong. Maybe "science" as a general idea "loves" to be proven wrong rather than an individual scientist... Science moves forward when people are proven wrong. Einstein replaced Newton's theory of gravity with something better, then Hawking came along and pushed it further. The key part here is the "something better." Something that better fits the data we have, or something that broadens the scope, or just makes the calculations easier (without being less accurate.) My core point still stands, you will not influence the future direction of science by being a dumbass on a message board. Learn what you need to learn, do a study, prove someone wrong, and get your accolades.
Is 1563649 a prime number?
No.
A recent episode of the SGU discusses this very topic.
http://www.theskepticsguide.org/podcast/sgu/427
If they plan on censoring it, I prefer no comments at all. Censorship seems to be the trend these days. It started with filtering spam comments. Oops, I included a $ sign in my comment, my post was blocked. But now it is different. Now if you make a comment the site owners simply disagree with, it disappears. Freedom of speech? Meet the memory hole. With algorithms that can identify sentiment, I fear for the future of open discourse on the web.
Well, if you weaken any statement enough, it'll eventually become not false. I will agree that scientists tend to be more welcoming of change and correction than other groups. I don't see the question as "is it perfect?", but "is there anything better out there for the task at hand?"
For me, there are occasionally better tools out there than science. For example, if the outcomes you can measure are clearly definable and easy to impartially determine, then markets are a better approach. Losing money automatically when you're wrong is a far stronger and more effective correction than grudgingly admitting a few decades from now that you might have been on the wrong side of a scientific argument.
"... some honestly believe that what they're doing is for the good of everyone whereas others are borderline sociopaths and are just in it for personal gain..."
People who honestly believe that what they're doing is for the good of everyone are a far more serious and dangerous threat than people who are just out for personal gain.
The SciAm site is often weighted down with trolly arguments that quickly seem to degenerate into fights between the two camps of True Believers. While this is NOT where science is being done, it is where opinions are being formed that in turn decide what science will get funding. I usually go to the source papers to avoid the opinion crap.
"There is no god but allah" - well, they got it half right.
It's not like every website on the internet needs to compete with YouTube for rankings on keywords like "[expletive]" "[expletive]" "[expletive]" and "[expletive]."
Besides, pick one of the following: are we running out of bandwidth capacity, or is it still time to increase the size of every URL on the internet by 400% via irrelevant conversations people are forced to download in order to read an article?
Every trollism an AC posts is prefixed, in my mind, with "A. Coward whined, in a weak and cowardly voice:"
And yes, the rest of us are also able to filter the bullshit, thanks. Funny that you mention consensus, the antithesis of science.
Alternatively, Reid may think that Obamacare is better than what we have now, and that most of the talk about dire consequences is politically-motivated hyperbole. It wouldn't be the first time that people had made unsupported statements to suit their political views.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
PopSci has been a favorite read for many years, but I have never been deluded to thing it has anything to do with science. It is a 'popular magazine' meant for marketing to the general public. It covers 'science' also 'inventions' and many popular trends but it is not a hard science publication. The magazine SCIENCE or THE SMITHSONIAN are both more science than PS is. But such is its appeal. It is 'popular' because they dummy down science and inventions to a few paragraphs or a few pages, but it is never in enough detail for me to even start to believe it is 'science'.
Reading old PopSci magazines (1960's and before on Google Books) you will find more in depth articles related to science and technology and even the 'how to' movement of the day than we see now.
PopSci is an ENTERTAINMENT venue that communicates some science and tech to the public in easy to digest pieces, not a 'learned' magazine or proctored journal that I would expect for hard core scientists to want to publish in.
The problem here is that the politics is irrelevant to the science, and anti-AGW people frequently diss the science because they don't like some politicians.
It's perfectly reasonable to say "This proposed course of action is worse than just continuing what we're doing." You may be wrong, of course, but anybody can be. It's not reasonable to say "I don't like the consequences of this scientific study, so it's false."
The planet is warming up very quickly, the carbon dioxide content of the atmosphere is going up very quickly, and it's almost certainly the result of human action and will continue if we continue doing what we have been doing. What to do about this, and what measures are justified, is an open debate.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
uh...Popular Science does not DO science, they communicate (popularize) science. Communication works best when it is two way. To prohibit comments eliminates some two way communication...They have delusions of grandeur. They write about science at a keyboard, not in a science lab. This is about their egos, nothing more.
I can't tell if you're trolling, trying to illustrate the point about comments diminishing the value of the story, or actually being serious.
Do you have any proof that this sort of "communication" works better? Because we've seen plenty that indicates all the FUD spread by commenters reduces the public's understanding.
Maybe you're projecting a bit with this whole "delusions of grandeur" spiel? Do you think you (and all the other random commenters) actually add to the public's understanding about science? Do you (plural) think all the nitpicking you do over research actually contributes anything? Do you really think the half second you spent thinking about this issue before replying qualifies you to make such claims about Popular Science?
Giving millions of morons, illiterates, and trolls a large megaphone is a terrible idea. It's ruined all my favorite science sites, and the evidence shows that it decreases public understanding.
SWM seeks new sig for a brief fling
Grants aren't to prove that X is true, they are to explore the factors relating to X.
Which has an implicit assumption that X is true. For AGW, a grant to explore means of preventing AGW by carbon sequestration assumes that AGW is actually happening and needs to be mitigated. A grant from Xerxes to study the effectiveness of whipping the waves into submission assumes that you can whip the waves into submission, you just don't know which technique is the most effective.
None of the research about AGW is to determine if it is true. The fact is irrefutable and the debate is over according to the scientists who have grants to study this stuff. They can't give positive reviews to any proposal that questions this because that would show that the fact of AGW isn't irrefutable and the debate is still worth having.
The AGW example is particularly silly, because fields where there is deep division in the scientific community are the ones where it is easiest to get funding, as everyone wants to know which competing theory is correct (or that they're both wrong).
Unfortunately for science, some science funding is not based on an innate desire to know the truth, it's a desire to "do something" about a hot topic. "We have a crisis and we need to know how to solve it...". Without AGW, I doubt there would be much money for studies on how to use iron seeding to turn the oceans into a better carbon sink. We wouldn't want to play with the oceans like that except for the predictions of impending doom if we don't.
Funding agencies are even explicit about the difference. Office of Naval Research differentiates between pure and applied science in their granting. "Pure" is the "truth" part; "applied" is the "how do we best use that which we know is true"?
So, if someone came out tomorrow with proof that AGW was nonexistent, there would be a lot of grant money that dries up. It wouldn't even take proof, just convincing the public. (This is why letters to the editor can have an effect.) The public would want to know why congress was funneling money into NSF etc. for research on a problem that doesn't exist. The congressmen would want to know from NSF etc why they were granting money for this.
Most climate scientists I've met would love for there to be some strong, evidence-backed, scientific theories countering their work, because then their next grant application practically writes itself.
Maybe, but the chances of it being funded, given the limited pot of money available and large number of applicants who would be seeking money for more urgent problems (and there are always urgent problems looking for more money) is very small. The reviewers for such grants would question the need for a study to disprove the irrefutable. If being able to write a grant proposal were all it took to get grant money, then grants would be horses and beggars would ride.
It is the fact that all scientists know the political part of the grant process that makes AGW such a hot button. Once the crisis is over the money goes away. Once Xerxes realizes the waves are beyond the control of a whip, the money to study techniques for using whips on the waves dries up.
If you doubt this, then explain the surge in atmospheric and climate science funding in the last decade or so. Do you believe that nobody really wondered how the atmosphere worked before that? That the climate was just something that happened without anyone wondering why? The pure science quest has been there all along, it's the crisis that brought the boatloads of cash, and if the crisis goes away the boats and the case leave port for more interesting climes.
Now, we've wandered quite a distance from the original reason I commented. Someone made the claim that scientists respect or ignore dissenting opinions. It is an observable fact that they do not ignore dissenting opinions, especially when they appear in public as, e.g., letters to the editor. My pointing out that fact is "flamebait" to some people, but the fact remains.
And by what measure is consensus the antithesis of science? This is nothing more than made-up meme, a lie told by clever pseudo-scientists and aped by morons like you.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
Clearly, if you're reading this, comments are definitely not important for anything.
Take this sig and smoke it.
I think that the message is that other sites will follow in their stead, that is, they will move to disallow comments. I can't say that I will miss comments all that much, or at least they could make you do some work before you get to comment. If you want to comment, you have to show that you really want to make an effort. Moderation has become somewhat impractical, forcing people to make a real effort in some way would help matters greatly.
I propose that an anti-Twitter approach might work to eliminate much of the problem. This is to force people to write. This means that instead of an upper bound in the number of characters, there should be a lower bound, MORE than some number of characters. This might remove some of the moderation issues and a simple content analysis could remove the most obvious forms of abuse. But raising the bar to be able to comment by composing complete sentences and paragraphs would all but eliminate trolls and other causal abuses that are predicated on the Twitter and cell phone model. If you look at the abusers, the first marker is that the posts are all short. When people want to persuade and to show that they are thoughtful they take the time to write complete sentences where the thoughts follow one another in an orderly way, and they don't take shortcuts of informal fallacy.
If people get emotional and check their thinking skills at the door, then you are right. Attacking someone because of typos is a classic case of ad homenum attack. Criticize someone for one thing when you disagree with them for something else, or attack their character because you can't argue effectively to what they said that you disagree with. I know, poor vision leads to many types, which could be the cause for the exchange in this thread. What one has to learn to do is to stay on topic, especially if one has a reasoned argument for what one believes and is willing to use words to express it. I think that because many people are lazy and do not have developed reasoning and debate skills that they avoid discussions that they should be part of, especially if they wish to be citizens in a democratic state, or have aspirations to have their voice heard in some way. It may be that there are bullies who want to squash reasonable discussion because of some political agenda they have, or even because they are angry and don't have the wits to think through to a solution for their life's problems, but if we are being intimidated by such people into not thinking, then the Brown Shirts will not be far behind. It is our civic duty to discuss and debate if need be, and to demand that the people who represent us do the same with honestly. To avoid doing this because you dislike contention is a sign of weakness which some tyrant will exploit.
I propose that an anti-Twitter approach might work to eliminate much of the problem. This is to force people to write. This means that instead of an upper bound in the number of characters, there should be a lower bound, MORE than some number of characters.
Then the trolls would just repeat themselves. Repeat themselves. Repeat themselves. Repeat themselves. Repeat themselves. Repeat themselves (...) until the minimum character count is reached.
Measuring comments by its size is not a good way to improve anything, IMO
This is a UDP joke, I don't care if you get it or not...
Arguing with creationists, tobacco industry lawyers, birthers and deniers is pointless. You'll never change their mind, and their only purpose is to disrupt you.
When have you had the opportunity to argue with "tobacco industry lawyers" and why would find it "pointless" instead of educational?
It is easy to blame a holocaust like the war on drugs on prison and related enforcement industries. Chew on the fact that companies are nearly outlawed from selling so-called "unsafe" products. I doubt very much that any scientific positions held by big tobacco influenced consumption (the war on marijuana may have...). Nor do I think their lies sold more tobacco just as I don't think the lies of used car salesmen sell more cars. On net, and this doesn't excuse a specific instance that can be demonstrated in civil court.
Some people are expected to lie. This doesn't necessarily excuse specific instances but keep in mind that specific instances were exactly what we avoided prosecuting. It was instead a giant money grab from future and ongoing smokers and their suppliers. It has dick to do with the past. Otherwise we could assign damages, collect and new companies could startup unfettered.*
Also, your use of the term "deniers" indicates an unscientific and irrational close mindedness on your part. More so as you deny the holocaust of the war on drugs and directly or indirectly support the ongoing carnage.
I support the right of companies to sell products and expect the honesty to be in regards to what is sold, not how it will affect my life. If you tell me this Dodge Neon will get me lots of pussy, that isn't a promise you ought be held to. More so, seeing the pussy it is likely to get me, I don't know if I would want it kept.
*FYI, I don't smoke (anything), never have.
I think that there should always be an option to voice your opinion. We also talk about it on our blog: http://ronntorossian.com/popsci-takes-a-calculated-risk/
Reid may think that, but that doesn't make it so. Bad laws are hardly ever repealed when the fail.
Here is the test, if ObamaCare fails to live up to ANY expectation it has, will it be repealed and the system put back the way it was (being better than ObamaCare)? THAT will be impossible. And I predict that is exactly what will happen. AND I further predict that Harry Reid and Nancy "vote for it to see whats in it" Peloisi will be the ones designing the NEXT boondoggle, even though they have already proven (hypothetically) to be incompentent in drafting any sort of legislation that IMPROVES Healthcare.
This is what I call "Fix it till it is really broken, then replace it with something worse and take credit for improving it for while ignoring the pain it caused everyone else" syndrome, typical of government.
Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
Fundamental Attribution Error
Akrasia
People give in to temptation. The difference between a child molester and a person who ate the cheesecake even though they were on a diet, is they suffer from different temptations. Neither of them wants to want the bad thing. Neither of them think their action is the right thing to do. But they do it anyway.
Politicians on the other hand, don't pass bad laws in a moment of weakness. You won't hear a congressman saying, "I know I shouldn't have voted for that bill, but I just couldn't help myself." (unless you're reading the onion.) There must be something else that explains politician's behavior, and I suspect Lawrence Lessig has the right idea about it.
So, a small amount of analysis does need to be done, A short list of common abuses might cover 95% of the cases. The first one that I see if that they ratio of response to reply has to be high. If what you cite is a significant abuse, then a script looking for a large percentage of repeated substring in the message would be rejected. I know this could get out of hand, but a modest check for common abuses could be economically done and discourage the most common abuses.