Slashdot Mirror
Scientific American In Blog Removal Controversy
Lasrick writes "Danielle N. Lee, Ph.D, the Urban Scientist blogger at Scientific American, has been mistreated twice: once by the blog editor at biology-online.org and now by SciAm itself. The blog editor asked Dr. Lee to contribute a blog post at Biology-Online, and when she declined (presumably for lack of monetary compensation), the blog editor asked her whether she was 'an urban scientist or an urban whore.' Then, SciAm deleted her blog post, in which she wrote about the incident."
So real science is just like we see it on TV? Nice to know.
Time Bomber the Book coming soon.
Oh My!
Does that pass for evidence nowadays?
for the latter
Why wouldn't it count as evidence? Perhaps the word you were looking for (two actually) is incontrovertible proof?
Guns don't kill people; Physics kills people! - John Lithgow as Dick Solomon on Third Rock From The Sun
Also, questioning the quality of evidence isn't "flamebait", mods. I would like to believe that this scientist is acting in good faith, but I refuse to come into this with any prejudice.
I think because it's so easily faked. The screen-grab itself certainly provides no more evidence than the person saying, "I got an email and here is the text....."
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
You're equivocating. It may or may not be admissible as evidence in a hearing, but it doesn't tend to prove or disprove anything, and it certainly makes nothing manifest.
Finally, no evidence is "incontrovertible proof". The best we can get is "beyond reasonable doubt".
Which is both scientific and legal evidence, yes, thanks for adding to the conversation.
So let's extend the analogy, since it was used first by the Biology-Online.org representative it's fair game right?
Headline should have been:
Biology-Online.org representative admits it is always looking to screw it's contributors!
Guns don't kill people; Physics kills people! - John Lithgow as Dick Solomon on Third Rock From The Sun
No. I'm reading, understanding, and using the English language properly. You should try it some time!
Guns don't kill people; Physics kills people! - John Lithgow as Dick Solomon on Third Rock From The Sun
It's a blog article, not a trial. What would you like her to do, get all the server logs, authenticated by sworn affidavits from the admins?
Just like Joe Montana. No pay for appearance, no show. Loser.
As reported at The Guardianand elsewhere:
Three Squirrels
OK, maybe English isn't your first language, so I'll break it down. Possibilities:
i) I was using a different meaning of "evidence" to the one you had in mind (noting that there are several definitions of the word);
ii) I had exactly the same definition of "evidence" in mind as you, but decided to type nonsense just to annoy you.
Which is more likely?
She was right to want to say something and discuss the issue, but stuff like that belongs somewhere that clearly labels it an op-ed piece. It was not an article about science.
SciAm was wrong for removing it without notifying her of why. Perhaps they should have just moved it to an op-ed section for her. Or maybe it's against their policy to comment about competing websites, though that'd be weird. They tweeted this:
Re blog inquiry: @sciam is a publication for discovering science. The post was not appropriate for this area & was therefore removed.
Everyone has moments, hopefully not many, where they are slighted professionally. Having an audience placed in front of you does not mean you get to neglect them and use it as a soapbox for your issues.
Well, if someone is writing for a blog which I publish, I would not like them to publish personal spats containing libellous material to that blog, when all they have to show in favour of their position is their own screenshots of an e-mail exchange.
So, trying to understand the position of SciAm, I would like her to either provide something stronger, or to discuss these things elsewhere.
... and you have the combination of balls and shear stupidity to suggest that English might not be my first language? You are one funny SOB! Thanks for the laugh.
Guns don't kill people; Physics kills people! - John Lithgow as Dick Solomon on Third Rock From The Sun
is an urban scientist?
Scientific publishing operates more on trust than most people realize, and more than the legal system does. If I say I got this band on a western blot, and submit it to Science (the journal), they run routine checks to make sure I haven't done any very dumb editing like in MS paint. They send it to reviewers who will flag it if there's anything glaringly obvious technically. If the claims are extraordinary, they'll require more proof. But at the end of the day, I'm sending them things which could fairly easily be faked.
Why is it this way? Two reasons, one it's impossible to be absolutely sure of anything (as zero kelvin pointed out) and two, because scientists are generally not in it to lie to other people.
So unless there's a good motive for the person to lie, like an undisclosed financial incentive, why don't we assume scientists are being honest? Especially given that no one is disputing it and SciAm gave a politician's apology (or apologized without apologizing).
I'll assume you are too stupid to speak modern English, and fool enough to think that quoting the OED references to past and antiquated usage will somehow function as a valid argument in a discussion with someone who has an IQ at least 30 points higher than you. Now off you go little troll ...
Guns don't kill people; Physics kills people! - John Lithgow as Dick Solomon on Third Rock From The Sun
Ah, why did you have to bite at his bait? You were doing fine until this post
(And you are completely right, BTW -- a screenshot *is* evidence. Different pieces of evidence have different weights)
I admit that I have difficulty not calling a spade a spade as the expression goes. I am not completely convinced it was bait, though. I'm pretty sure he really is an idiot.
Guns don't kill people; Physics kills people! - John Lithgow as Dick Solomon on Third Rock From The Sun
Scientific publishing operates more on trust than most people realize, and more than the legal system does. If I say I got this band on a western blot, and submit it to Science (the journal), they run routine checks to make sure I haven't done any very dumb editing like in MS paint. They send it to reviewers who will flag it if there's anything glaringly obvious technically. If the claims are extraordinary, they'll require more proof. But at the end of the day, I'm sending them things which could fairly easily be faked.
Yes, and from time to time, data is actually faked.
Which is one of the reasons reproducibility is so crucial for science.
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
I think this is a little more outrageous than a joke about big dongles, don't you think? ;)
Which is both scientific and legal evidence, yes
Which is pathetic, since it's easily faked.
Non-bracketed usage is most common in British English. As for modern usage, compare e.g. instances of "this passes for" vs. "this passes as" on Google.
Time to crack open a beer and chill out, bud. You slipped up. And I don't care to compare our IQs, penis sizes, or whatever substitutes you make for decent measures of a human.
I'll assume you are too stupid to speak modern English
Why? Old ways of speaking are not invalid, and he's not wrong for using them.
2. since this is /.
It is as good as the persons word that it happened, and peoples word are often taken into evidence (as one piece of several that end up making it "proof").
But you already made this a philosophical (and therefore for most people useless) argument for your point with "no evidence is 'incontrovertible proof'". most of us live in the real world where some evidence actually do prove certain events did occur - especially when combinated with a few related pieces of evidence. even more so when the opposing side is not arguing against the evidence.
"...and consequently for legal reasons we had to remove the post."
How insulting would it be if someone asked Mariette DiChristina, "so are you a SciAm editor-in-chief or a whore for the legal department ? "
Equally insulting.
Mariette DiChristina needs to apologize for taking down Dr. Danielle Lee's post, no ifs and buts and back-pedalling.
because scientists are generally not in it to lie to other people
Throwing out an accusation that someone is using abusive language is nothing to do with science.
And you simply cannot imply - as you have done by saying "why don't we assume scientists are being honest" - that someone is less likely to lie in general just because they are a scientist. That is terrible prejudice.
... I would pay Danielle N. Lee, Ph.D, $25 for anal.
You're in luck, AC. She had a strap on that's just your size. Ginormous!
Or so I've heard from some biology website.
If you are the native english speaker then it is certainly your job to write as clearly as possible and if being misunderstood to try to clarify. Possibly without insulting people for not knowing _your_ native language - that makes you look like an idiot. being non-native in english does not in any way invalidate ZK's points.
I am not a native english speaker. so therefore anything i say must be wrong (especially since my grammar and spelling sucks), right mr. bigot?
There is quite a lot on Popehat, especially in the comments section.
http://www.popehat.com/2013/10/13/biology-online-org-urban-whores-and-the-many-axes-of-douchebaggery/#comments
What would the guys on Duck Soup do?
This was recently posted on Sci Am's website: A Message from Mariette DiChristina, Editor in Chief. It looks like a pretty reasonable explanation to me. The excuse is that it happened on a three-day weekend (Monday is Columbus Day in the USA) so they were short staffed. They were worried that if the accusation isn't correct, they could be sued, so they want to check the accuracy of the blog first. They acknowledge that they should have done better and claim that they will develop procedures for the future.
Knowledge is the small part of ignorance that we arrange and classify. (Ambrose Bierce)
There's no reason to cover for an abusive person.
It's not a good bet that it was private in any sense. If that's what they said to her directly, what were they saying behind her back?
I was an avid Sciam reader/subscriber until the early 70's.
Suddenly the magazine changed direction and started
playing politics. They also started shifting away from
some of the columns that were a treat to science geeks.
I lost both trust and interest in the way they deliver content.
1. I used a common English phrase;
2. I stated that I understood that my audience might not be native English, to show that I was willing to provide assistance;
3. I explained how to best approach a difficulty with reading comprehension: if you are not sure how to interpret something, don't choose an interpretation which makes no sense;
4. When my audience still failed to understand, I responded by providing a dictionary definition with several usage examples;
5. Finally, I provided a clarification on how to read this dictionary and a method to study modern usage.
What more should I have done, please? I'm not used to confronting someone who has such difficulty understanding how to handle language in general.
Nearly everything presented as "evidence" in court is easily faked. Witnesses are bought, knives look like murder weapons, unless everyone on the jury is a medical examiner and can see the wounds don't match the knife type. Evidence is evidence, even if not "strong" or "incontrovertible".
Learn to love Alaska
What if the lie is in line with the truth? That's what the drug companies that fake trials hope, and why Vioxx made it through. The lies were consistent and not glaring, and agreed with expectations. They were just wrong on whether it'd kill. But what about the other 9 that they did the same falsifications in trials? Nobody will ever find them. IT wasn't like the Fugitive where they knew it bad and covered it up, but that they don't know it's bad, so they find it to be good, without looking at any real data.
Learn to love Alaska
Which is why you're both posting anonymously on slashdot.
His use of English was consistent with a native speaker for use of "pass for". You lost the argument. You were right on the definition of "evidence" but got so lost on "for"/"as" that nobody remembers that he originally misused "evidence" when the appropriate word based on usage should have been "proof".
Learn to love Alaska
He's Dead Jim.
That's incontrevertible proof. Doesn't tell us what killed him or how he died, Just that "He's Dead Jim."
Simply put, incontrevertible proof can and does exist. It's just not required by Law.
Mod me up/Mod me down: I wont frown as I've no crown
So a picture of a person standing over a dead body holding a gun is not "evidence", nor is the eye witness account? The picture is offered as support for the eye witness, not a replacement for, nor in opposition to any other "evidence." So there is evidence for something, and none against, so why would you immediately pick sides against the evidence? That's flamebait, especially when you claim to be interested in the evidence.
Learn to love Alaska
The old saying seems to apply today ZK: "IT takes one to know one" says it all doesn't it.
Mod me up/Mod me down: I wont frown as I've no crown
Nearly everything presented as "evidence" in court is easily faked.
Not really - everything presented by one party is examined by the other party, so a pile of easily fabricated evidence implies reasonable doubt implies no conviction. When it comes to material evidence, a lot more time is spent explaining the relevance or irrelevance of evidence than on trying to show that e.g. the prosecution has fabricated evidence (which would be a pretty fucking serious accusation).
...it is too late for the pebbles to vote.
A place where assumptions lead to deaths?
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
It's unfortunate they come to your house with guns and force you to read and post on it. Have you contacted the police?
Looks like the Confederate Army Climate Alarmists run deep at Biology-Online and Scientific American (which long ago became Psudo-scientific Anti-american).
I would be very happy to push the button to 'kill'm all' at Biology-Online and Scientific American.
Bug exterminators are most definitely needed these days.
QED
Of course it's admissible as legal evidence, but that's not the sense in which I was using the word "evidence".
This is the kind of argument I only seem to have on geek forums. Everywhere else I have discussions, there is an understanding that you can't equivocate, i.e. you cannot choose your favoured definition for some term and then counterargue on the basis of your chosen definition rather than the other person's valid usage.
To be clear, the first definition in the OED is:
The quality or condition of being evident; clearness, evidentness.
This is the sense in which I was using "evidence". An e-mail screenshot obtained by an accuser does not make anything evident/clear, therefore it may be inappropriate to publish it in a professional blog run by a reputable magazine. In fact, it's the easiest sort of thing to fake.
Now, the third and fifth definitions of "evidence" are:
3a. An appearance from which inferences may be drawn; an indication, mark, sign, token, trace. Also to take evidence : to prognosticate. to bear, give evidence : to afford indications.
5a. Ground for belief; testimony or facts tending to prove or disprove any conclusion. [...]
You're all assuming these definitions. I'm using the first. I would think this obvious, because otherwise my post makes no sense. But, again, I never have this sort of problem with language except on geek blogs, where people seem to adopt domain-specific interpretations for words and ignore all others, even if they're more popular in common parlance.
You can cross examine a witness, but if they were paid off, how will that help you determine the evidence was tampered with? It always comes down to trust, not evidence.
Learn to love Alaska
If the assumption is correct, then it won't lead to deaths. That was the point. The drug companies (And others) are faking ever having had a trial, not having a trial, finding it kills, then going to market with it anyway (as in the fictional Fugitive example). If the assumption is correct, then there are no deaths. The problem isn't assumptions, but trust.
There has to be trust somewhere, and someone betraying it causes issues.
Learn to love Alaska
Everywhere else I have discussions, there is an understanding that you can't equivocate, i.e. you cannot choose your favoured definition for some term and then counterargue on the basis of your chosen definition rather than the other person's valid usage.
Being a geek forum, if there exists a technical definition that differs from the common use, you'll see it more likely used, even when less popular.
That said: http://www.thefreedictionary.com/evidence shows the first definition as "1. A thing or things helpful in forming a conclusion or judgment:"
Given the first definition in the first result on a search agrees with those you disagree with, I don't think it's nearly as clear cut as you imply. Why are you using the OED? As this is an American site, with a majority Americans on it, an American English dictionary would make more sense, and they all tend to have the more common "a thing that helps form a conclusion" definition, based on my quick scan of them online.
Learn to love Alaska
Pedantry at its best.
There is nothing to suggest a lack of incontrovertible evidence was the reason why SciAm has done this, and their unwillingness to address the issue with her personally at any point in time to discussed what happened is rather suspect. In fact, considering there have been other discussions about seedy behavior on SciAm blogs (granted none that involves SciAm or a partner) in the past with no intervention by SciAm is also suspect. On top of that, there is the giant contradiction that is their rationale making no sense in light of the fact that there is a large collection of non-science blog posts by various writers, from entertainment to just random ramblings.
I'm interested in knowing what sort of partnership SciAm has with this Biology-Online site.
Why is SciAm claiming the post was off-topic (clearly a bullshit excuse given other bloggers posts) then claiming it was due to legal reasons?
Oh and blaming not telling the author on poor cell phone reception... Right. Someone can click the delete button but can't be bothered to send an email?
It's just lies and more lies, a non-apology, and bullshit. I don't buy it for a second.
My bet: someone at biology online emailed SciAm to complain and SciAm was more than happy to censor Dr Lee. Now that they've been caught, they are furiously trying to backpedal and pretend it's all just a big misunderstanding.
I'm canceling my subscription, I don't want any part of such a two-faced crappy organization.
Natural != (nontoxic || beneficial)
People still read that infomercial rag? I recall 20 years ago SA still had relevant and interesting articles, but recently, it's just a rag filled with dodgy adverts for gimmicky watches and questionable "science" cruises...
Mostly random stuff.
If I were Scientific American, the last thing in the world I'd want to be associated with is this "ofek@biology-online.org" loser. Seriously, unless you're in law enforcement or the sex trade, you probably shouldn't be calling anyone a whore in your professional capacity.
But her response was combative, contained profanity, and implied (if unlikely) threats of violence. If I were a stodgy magazine like SciAm, I wouldn't want to be associated with that either.
Also it's a matter of the claims being presented.
Weak evidence is still evidence; a claim has been made and evidence put forward to support it.
Well, the Biology Online editor seems to have had a problem with politeness and professionalism. But it's also not particularly professional to post E-mails publicly and use them for a rallying cry for feminism in the sciences. The "science blogosphere" is not science, and who knows why the editor wrote what he wrote; maybe he (?) was just having a bad day. Professionalism and tolerance also means developing a thick skin and ignoring the occasional unprofessional behavior of others. I think everybody comes across as unprofessional and unpleasant in that exchange.
From your original post:
... and you have the combination of balls and shear stupidity to suggest that English might not be my first language? You are one funny SOB! Thanks for the laugh.
I don't know if he/she should be trusted to behave intelligently with large scissors or not, but suspect you meant sheer stupidity.
I see even classic Slashdot is now pretty much unusable on dial up anymore.
It's not because scientists are trusted, it's because of the scientific method. To be of value, experiments have to be repeatable. That's the test, not a review of the data before it is published.
If you are the native english speaker then it is certainly your job to write as clearly as possible and if being misunderstood to try to clarify. Possibly without insulting people for not knowing _your_ native language - that makes you look like an idiot. being non-native in english does not in any way invalidate ZK's points.
I am not a native english speaker. so therefore anything i say must be wrong (especially since my grammar and spelling sucks), right mr. bigot?
Except for failure to capitalize the first letter of stuff when you should have, you seem to be handling the English language fairly well, better, in fact, than a number of my fellow persons here in the U.S. for whom it is their first and only language.
I see even classic Slashdot is now pretty much unusable on dial up anymore.
This is old news and at least very one sided. SciAm put up a response post to the topic 4 hours before you submitted it on here. Staying up to date on the topic likely would have made you appear a touch more relevant.
http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/at-scientific-american/2013/10/13/a-message-from-mariette-dichristina-editor-in-chief/
Evidence tends to be collected and stored according to specific procedures involving multiple people, and is independently examined by the other party, with methods existing to detect tampering where there is any contention. The penalties for failing internal audits, or for being found to have fabricated evidence, tend to be fairly high. Nothing's foolproof.
All very different from a random person posting an alleged screenshot.
It's only "clear cut" in the sense that the definition you and one or two other people have taken would make my post a nonsense. A fundamental principle of reading comprehension is to discard the nonsense interpretations when you have trouble understanding something.
Since I would prefer to be as clear as possible to the greatest number of people, and since I could probably have chosen even clearer terminology, I should have done so. However, looking through Zero Kelvin's posting history, I think he likes to pick random fights, so maybe it wouldn't have helped as far as this thread. His later for/as argument, which I took in good faith as reflecting his lack of knowledge of English, might just have been further evidence of trolling.
But it's only the Internet lol. Something to deal with insomnia. Appreciate your responses, and nite nite.
Sci-Am is not the platform to settle scores for private insults. Taking it there merely damages Sci-AM,
an innocent bystander.
The site in question was a Scientific American partner. They were not an "innocent bystander."
For what it's worth, Scientific American has apologized.
http://jezebel.com/sciam-apologizes-for-deleting-bloggers-post-on-being-c-1444576536
And, looking at the link in the original article, biology online is no longer listed as a partner site.
It's not here: http://www.scientificamerican.com/partners/
although it was there as of October 4: http://www.scientificamerican.com/partners/
If it were faked, we would expect the person accused to be loudly and insistently stating "I didn't say that. Here is my actual e-mail."
Since they are not being challenged, I would expect that there are no grounds to challenge them.
In the metaphor of a jury trial, the defense is apparently not challenging the validity evidence.
Non-native speakers often confuse homophones like sheer and shear. Of course hypocritical idiots who incorrectly criticize others' grammar do as well, so I guess if you insist you're a native English speaker...
Zero for two, little guy. English is just not your strong suit no matter how desperately you want it to be. I recommend you refrain from weighing in on someone else's word usage in the future because this thread turned out really embarrassingly for you.
It's only "clear cut" in the sense that the definition you and one or two other people have taken would make my post a nonsense.
And there we have it. "Evidence" has a pretty obvious meaning, well used in our language, that makes your post a nonsense. That is what you have said.
Making something clear is exactly what evidence is, by your own definition. No one is talking absolutes here.
I suggest you tread lightly
Turn off cookies.
Nope, that alleged screenshot is evidence and could be used in court as such.
Learn to love Alaska
> This is the kind of argument I only seem to have on geek forums. Everywhere else I have discussions, there is an understanding that you can't equivocate, i.e. you cannot choose your favoured definition for some term and then counterargue on the basis of your chosen definition rather than the other person's valid usage.
From where I sit, you seem to be doing exactly that. Maybe it's a matter of dialect? I don't know where you're from; I'm from the eastern US. And where I'm from, a screenshot absolutely falls in the category of "evidence" in this context. Certainly not very good evidence, but evidence none the less.
You seem to be going through some length to paint yourself as the reasonable one here. But the fact that you are obstinately denying a common sense definition of the word "evidence" makes you come across as one of those unreasonable geek types you objecting to. Your best option here is just to admit that, in case it was ambiguous, you meaning was, "Does that pass for GOOD evidence nowadays," and to move on from there.
And for what it's worth, I have no issue with your use of "pass for." :)
No, but I noticed the changes... And just like Sci-Fi channel changed their image/logo, then dumbed down the content to reach a wider demographic (which it failed to do, because it landed in the uncanny valley of science fiction), Slashdot's going the same way with their new site redesign and more non-tech news.
If everywhere reports everything, then I can't filter my inputs as easily. Maybe it's just me, but I would prefer more specialized and deeper news about tech, since I have other sites I go to for hard core science or heath stuff, politics, etc. Tech related politics? Sure, random uninteresting BS? Meh, whatever. Get ready... Mark my words: /. is trying to have their SyFy moment, and discover the uncanny valley of tech-news.
Bitching about it is basically the ONLY thing we can do to make them listen before it's too late... Just look at their beta thread. Bitching galore. It's called for. Do you want to see that huge waste of space and non-fluid layout that adjusts itself for small screens? Size it down, watch the bar on the right disappear... Then come back... but not let you fill the screen horizontally so you can scan for content faster... Especially since the submissions are neutered. Hey, why not divide each sumbission into 10 separate pages, with ads on each one, like those top 10 list sites do! Oh, it'll be very profitable. Hey, we should make top 10 lists.
Top 10 Ways to Kill Slashdot:
0. Shut the fuck up.
1. Don't say a damn thing about bullshit.
That's incontrevertible proof. Doesn't tell us what killed him or how he died.
Well that really depends on how death is defined :D
Yep, basic social protocols haven't changed in a long time. My grandpa would have summed it up with something like "Don't air dirty laundry in public". or maybe "take the fight outside". She used SciAm because it had the broadest reach, she was out to crucify this guy's reputation and kill his career, which he may well deserve. However by using, as opposed to asking, SciAm to build the cross for her she has abandoned the moral high ground and picked a undignified and unprofessional gutter brawl in SciAM's show room. Go to any testosterone fuelled work site and you will find both people in a fight will be looking at the sack, you will also see other workers try to pull them apart before "the boss sees it". In another words she failed to show basic self restraint in public when quietly provoked in private, she lacks the dignity and manners that even "Bubba the slaughterman" displays while he's on the clock.
;)
Natural justice would see both of them out of the journalistic trade, but an "undignified and unprofessional gutter brawl" does have a way of attracting a crowd.
And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
Well, the bastard has been fired: http://www.biology-online.org/biology-forum/about34647.html Good riddance.
As I see it:
1) As far as reading comprehension, it is evident/clear that one should not take the interpretation which leads to a nonsense - the nonsense makes it clear that one interpretation in wrong;
2) As far as handling accusations by one human against another, the truth of an accusation is not evident/clear from an alleged e-mail screenshot provided by the accuser - the file does not make it clear that the accusation is true.
Are we agreed?
That is what criminal law and the court system are for. If a drug company does a trial and makes a honest mistake in missing dangerous side effects, they might be liable for damages but that is all.
But if they fake a trial and people die from the drug, I think it counts as negligent homicide.
C - the footgun of programming languages
The cross examination may turn out a contradiction to facts known to the court, but not to the witness, for example.
I've already agreed that I should have chosen the best possible language, but did not. The fact that this discussion is happening shows this to me - and while it is apparent to me that Zero Kelvin is a troll, everyone else here seems to be speaking in good faith.
I am not denying the alternative definition of "evidence" - I am merely confused that a few people are insisting upon this alternative definition then equivocating. When I read something and it makes no sense to me, I don't say, "This person is using words wrongly!" Instead, I say, "Maybe there are some meanings to these words that I'm not aware of." I check those meanings, and re-consider what I'm reading.
While my background is mathematics, over the past few months I've been assisting a linguist with writing research software. It's very interesting to see how different groups of people approach language. In this case, I would hypothesise that since people with an engineering mindset are so used to seeking unambiguous specifications, they even try to backport domain-specific language into everyday parlance, rejecting the nature of everyday speech.
This might be compounded by dialectal differences - but, again, when I'm reading English on the Internet and something doesn't make sense in British English, I'll consult an American English dictionary, and then perhaps even an Indian English. Except when hurling salvos across the Pond for entertainment, I shouldn't jump to a, "Your usage is wrong because only the Queen's English is right!"
This might come down to Postel's (paraphrased), "Be conservative in what you send; be liberal in what you accept." I was not sufficiently conservative in what I sent, for which I apologise; but it is sad to see people not being liberal in what they accept. It's not about right vs. wrong, but understanding the complexity of human communication.
The context is reliability of evidence in court. Posters appear to be making an equivalence between the reliability of data posted randomly on the Internet and the reliability of data presented in a court of law 0 or, perhaps, presented in a scientific paper.
I was suggesting that evidence is handled and scrutinised BEFORE reaching hearing in court of law in such a way as hasn't happened here before reaching the court of public opinion (IOW published on a public blog). Fabrication of legal evidence is not as easy as people seem to want to think it is.
I agree with the AC on this one. Columbus Day is not much of a holiday. It's certainly not a "three-day weekend" for most people. The public university I work for and the public elementary school my son attends are both open. I can't think of any private company that is closed today.
I suppose federal government offices might be closed today, if they hadn't already been shut down.
Since they are not being challenged, I would expect that there are no grounds to challenge them. In the metaphor of a jury trial, the defense is apparently not challenging the validity evidence.
No no no that's not how a criminal trial works at all. The burden of proof is on the prosecution to prove beyond reasonable doubt. Even if the defence says nothing, the jury should still not find guilt unless the prosecution has proven its case beyond reasonable doubt.
If this e-mail is all that was offered, the result should be an instant, trivial "not guilty" - or, more accurately, it wouldn't even get to court.
"Why is Glenn Beck not denying that he raped and murdered etc. etc.?
Well, technically he could have an identical twin, and this could be the twin that's dead...would a DNA test even catch that?
(But yes, for the vast majority of use cases, you'd be correct.)
Unity? Screw that: XFCE. Slashdot Beta? Screw that: SoylentNews. Australis? Screw that: Pale Moon. UX developers DIAF
You're being a simpleton. Yes, it does have to do with science, it's a scientist on a science blog. I'm not saying trust them because they're scientists. I'm saying that in the world of science publishing, trusting that someone didn't fake something is the default. That's the culture you're observing. Slashdot appears to be applying standards appropriate for the courtroom, not scientific publishing. A screenshot is acceptable as evidence by everyone in the discussion.
No, you're a towel. And two people having a spat because someone said something nasty (not even about doing science) is not to do with science just because at least one person involved is a scientist. Just humans being their usual lame selves.
I'm not saying trust them because they're scientists. I'm saying that in the world of science publishing, trusting that someone didn't fake something is the default.
So, don't trust them because they're a scientist, but trust them because they're publishing to a blog related to a popular science magazine? That's even weirderer.
A screenshot is acceptable as evidence by everyone in the discussion.
If that's all it takes, remind me never to work with any of these people.
Also, questioning the quality of evidence isn't "flamebait", mods. I would like to believe that this scientist is acting in good faith, but I refuse to come into this with any prejudice.
No being wrong and then being a doucebag about it is flamebait. You didn't question the quality of the evidence. You questioned if it was evidence at all. You were wrong about what evidence is. Or you had a typo or a brainfart or whatever. It doesn't matter, but your post was wrong and stupid and the fact that you won't just let it go, shows you are a doubebag too. Man up. Admit you messed up and be done with it next time. You don't have to be a jerk every time you make a mistake.
If this goes to court, the screenshot will be legal evidence. And for some reason, many people here assume all images are faked until proven otherwise. Ergo, fabrication of legal evidence is easy (as it's already been done here, by definition/consensus, if this case goes to court).
I'm just trying to point out the fallacy in people assuming everything is faked until proven otherwise (which is a separate issue from being skeptical). I presume most people are more moderate than that, but are silent, as there's nothing to say from the moderates, which is why the extremes get all the airtime.
Learn to love Alaska
2) As far as handling accusations by one human against another, the truth of an accusation is not evident/clear from an alleged e-mail screenshot provided by the accuser - the file does not make it clear that the accusation is true.
Are we agreed?
No. If someone has a claim that is unrefuted, and has "evidence" (even poor evidence), I'd tend to agree the claimant, than the silent and evasive accused. Is is proof? No. But it's enough to make it clear that *something* happened, and there's no reason to doubt the only version given. The reason why the Constitution specifically grants the right to silence is because silence implies guilt.
Learn to love Alaska
The funny thing is, you don't seem to understand the implications of your statement ;-)
Guns don't kill people; Physics kills people! - John Lithgow as Dick Solomon on Third Rock From The Sun
You got me there ;-)
Guns don't kill people; Physics kills people! - John Lithgow as Dick Solomon on Third Rock From The Sun
The Scientific American editor didn't seem to realize that the guy at Biology Online had been fired.
Knowledge is the small part of ignorance that we arrange and classify. (Ambrose Bierce)