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."
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.
...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.
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.
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.