Slashdot Mirror
How Blogs Are Changing the Scientific Discourse
quax writes "Mainstream media always follows the same kind of 'He said, she said' template, which is why even climate change deniers get their say, although they are a tiny minority. The leading scientific journals, on the other hand, are expensive and behind pay-walls. But it turns out there are places on the web where you can follow science up close and personal: The many personal blogs written by scientists — and the conversation there is changing the very nature of scientific debate. From the article: 'It's interesting to contemplate how corrosive the arguments between Bohr and Einstein may have turned out, if they would have been conducted via blogs rather than in person. But it's not all bad. In the olden days, science could easily be mistaken for a bloodless intellectual game, but nobody could read through the hundreds of comments on Scott's blog that day and come away with that impression.'"
Climate change
Home on the range
Though it's buried in snow
Vice suds, for a change
Burma Shave
Get thee glass eyes, and, like a scurvy politician, seem to see things thou dost not.--King Lear
While blogging might be good for long-established academics, younger academics might just be undermining their own careers by posting their thoughts on blogs. They can prove a distraction that slows one down from publishing, and if you post a novel thought or promising research direction on your blog, it might just be picked up by one of your fellows who beats you to publishing first.
Considering that one's ideas, namely the publications arising from those ideas, are what one is judged on when getting grant funding and tenure, why give them away for free?
Who else will agree with everything they say, if not sock puppets?
"climate change deniers"?
Ah, where would we be if we couldn't put others down ... makes you feel good, huh?
This is an interesting discussion. On the one hand, more people can follow or even contribute to scientific debates when they're online, on blogs. Otoh, the amount of noise can become incredible, obscuring the debate for those who can't judge who's credible and who's not. What do we think of a world where it's not the best scientist who "wins", but the one who's most persuasive in online debates.
no, I don't have a sig
Grrr. If you can't (won't?) state your opponent's point of view accurately, then why would you ever expect to have a decent conversation?
"We receive as friendly that which agrees with, we resist with dislike that which opposes us" - Faraday
I don't agree with the premise. Yes we hear about the conflicts more than we used to because conflicts are what people tend to talk about. Modern media devotes attention to the disagreements, even when there are lots of agreements. There are serious considered discussions taking place, but you don't hear about them because modern media ignores them. I imagine that there are thousands of conversation every day but only 1% of them are vocal disagreements. Now fill all the blogs with that particular 1%. Many people would get the impression that its all disagreement and conflict. But that is simply not true in general. Blogs aren't changing scientific discourse. Blogs are pulling disagreements and conflicts on scientific topics into modern media.
The difference with Bohr/Einstein was probably something to do with the fact that nobody's multi-billion dollar industry's reputation had potential to be damaged by the results.
systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
I figured there would be a backhanded comment directed at people that don't believe the climate change mantra. First sentence in! Surprised they didn't use the old standard statement of "those that don't believe the FACT of climate change". Then to say it's a small group that doesn't believe in it? Ah yes. The old "this is how it is, but don't research it, because then we will have to shout you down, cause that's how science works!"
that is why even climate change deniers get their say, although they are a tiny minority.
Right off the top? Classy.
True Believers are worse that vegans in their dampened ability to think straight through their dollops of misplaced, righteous outrage.
Overly emotional thinkers trying to assuage their human guilt. -It's not a bad thing to feel guilt, but without the ability to think rationally, it gets pinned on irrational things.
Proof of irrationality?
Just count the number of posts questioning climate change in any given story where the question comes up. Seems like a fairly even split to me. Not "a tiny minority". And some days, only the lunatic fringe are adamant about Global Warming.
And yes, for the record, they've shifted their position. It used to be "Global Warming". Now that we've had, what is it? 17 years of no warming according the last story from satellites sent up to measure global temperatures, the dissonant believers have shifted their story to fit the emotional demands. Now it's "Climate Change." -Which, yes, holly hell, there is climate change.
If you're going to get into a righteous huff and blame a sacrificial carbon goat, pick a windmill and stick to it.
And no, carbon emissions have nothing to do with why the weather is freaking out.
The peer review system for scientific journals is broken. It was supposed to ensure that only valid research which takes a field forward would actually get published. Techniques such as blind and double blind reviewing were supposed to help in ensuring that there was no bias towards specific researchers such as those who were considered to be leaders in the field. However what happens in practice is usually a long way from that ideal, vested interests and group think often result in new, fresh ideas not being published (older academics pulling up the ladder) and mutual back scratching is very common. Reviewing is rarely blind let alone double blind and so all the abuses those are supposed to prevent can (and do) take place. New approaches to publishing ideas and possibly even research results should be encouraged. Blogs are also far from ideal, but if it helps get ideas out to a wider audience then they're a step in the right direction.
Actually, if you pull your head out of your ass, you'd realize a lot of climate denial comes from skepticism about their methods and as such, being unconvinced by their results. And a lot of us are actually probably more scientifically literate than you are.
Here's the part that probably would be a head fuck for you since you're so smug and think you're so smart. I think we need to find alternative energies and stop the reliance on fossil fuels, but not because of climate impact, but simply because it's going to run out.
And I claim that the "scientists" (and I use that term loosely, and I happen to be one of those "scientists", just in a different field, and know first hand how full of shit "scientists" typically are and how driven they are by money and ego and prestige and how they'd stab their own mother in the back just to get published, and how you have to toe the political line because failure to do so is suicide for your career, seriously, I have friends who left academia because they were sick of "whoring themselves out for a grant" and found industry to be a lot more pure and clean, and then reading through scientific journals constantly to find the 5% that's actually worth anything while, seriously, sifting through bullshit is such a large part of the job it's actually sort of amazing) methods are garbage. They've come to a pre-concieved notion, and now they're trying to find evidence that supports it. They don't have an accurate model, as is proven damn near every week, but they keep trying to cram the evidence into the model rather than maybe considering their model is wrong. That isn't science, that's religion. Also, maybe being more open with their raw data would be a help too. In most areas of science, if a researcher refuses to show their standard deviations, and refuse access to their raw data, they'd be considered two bit at the best and a fraud at the worst. In climate science, that's just SOP.
Science articles are at best n-1 dimensional projections of n dimensional objects.
Climate denial is the insistence that the climate science as accepted by mainstream is entirely incorrect based solely on the fact that it means that we cannot continue with the current scheme of huge financial interests in fossil fuels and must change.
So "climate denial" doesn't actually exist. Good to know.
...one can then ALSO see the sorts of personal bias a scientist has.
This also helps identify if they're peddling some sort of politically-motivated mendacity.
-Styopa
"And no, carbon emissions have nothing to do with why the weather is freaking out."
Yup, this is climate denial: evidence you don't like is denied.
Well done.
PS IPCC was named what? And when?
Gilbert Plass' paper in 1955 was named what?
Frank Luntz said what to do to minimise the impact of Global Warming for his Oil Baron prez?
How does the rise of science blogs impact the central idea of Kuhn's Structure of Scientific Revolutions?
This posting is provided 'AS IS' without warranty of any kind, implied or otherwise.
This is an interesting discussion. On the one hand, more people can follow or even contribute to scientific debates when they're online, on blogs. Otoh, the amount of noise can become incredible, obscuring the debate for those who can't judge who's credible and who's not. What do we think of a world where it's not the best scientist who "wins", but the one who's most persuasive in online debates.
Your point is well-intended and I sympathize, but speaking as a [reasonably successful] tenured professor in a scientific discipline at a major research university, I would point out this is how science has always been. It's never actually been about who the "best scientist" is--that's very subjective--it's always been about who is most persuasive or popular. This was Kuhn's point, as well as that of other philosophers of science such as Quine or Feyerabend (who all came from very different perspectives).
There's always been this myth that science rises above psychology, sociology, and human nature, but nothing is further from the truth. I think some scientists aspire to that, but it's unattainable--something that some helpfully recognize but others unfortunately don't. The latter cloak themselves in vacuous arguments about "objectivity" and what's "more scientific" but it's meaningless and distracts from substantive arguments over important issues.
Science has always been most like the music industry--there's only a modest correlation between quality, popularity, and success. Many of the best scientists are overlooked or forgotten; many never receive funding; others are grossly wrong but are popular because they capture the zeitgeist of a certain era; and still others are financially successful and well-known and do good work. You have to sort of be willing to sacrifice yourself at the altar of science to survive, which is an ironic position to be in. To give one perhaps oversimplified example: why does everyone know about Darwin, but not Wallace?
Blogs and whatnot are complicating all of this by reinforcing the noise, as you say, but they are also focusing attention on issues such as the worth of peer review and formal publication. They're also giving outlet to some who might not otherwise have voices. But the fundamental phenomena are nothing new. In this regard, the question is: would you rather have infighting and manipulation with or without the communication afforded by the internet?
" I happen to be one of those "scientists", just in a different field"
"They don't have an accurate model, as is proven damn near every week"
Your own words betray both your bias and your inability. Just because someone in an expert in their field doesn't mean they are an expert in all fields. Their model has been inaccurate only in that it underestimated the time frame because they were being conservative. They've made adjustments in their outlook whenever they've received new information to warrant an adjustment, and then your ilk claims that means they are wrong when they are just doing real science and following the data. I'd be interested in knowing what major part of the science has been disproven or revised and has been published in a peer reviewed journal. It's really ironic you say all this when the initial "hockey stick" find was entirely unintended.
"full of shit "scientists" typically are and how driven they are by money and ego and prestige"
This statement is irrelevant to whether they have good data, in the private sector this would be called ambition. I work in the private sector and know quite a few people who fit this description. I'd wager it's something that encompasses many humans regardless of what they believe or where they work.
" "whoring themselves out for a grant" and found industry to be a lot more pure and clean"
I think there are many people in lower wage jobs that would disagree. It seems to be a white collar to think that they've got it terribly bad. Just watch any episode of a show beginning in "Real Housewives of..."
"maybe being more open with their raw data would be a help too. In most areas of science, if a researcher refuses to show their standard deviations, and refuse access to their raw data, they'd be considered two bit at the best and a fraud at the worst."
Yes, deny the absolutely copious amounts of data available. You can have a different opinion, but everyone has the same facts. Your absolute arrogance, coupled with your ignorance of basic logic has rendered you unable to make a salient point that can be supported in fact.
Based on your statements, your language, grammar, and complete inability to support your argument, I'd wager your claim that you're more scientifically literate than anyone is a bit overestimated. I could get my 4 year old daughter to speak to you, she can probably break down the science into words and concepts small enough for your to wrap your head around.
Hahaha shows what you know. Yes the sun has been considered. Many times. You're fairly ignorant of the body of research on global warming, at best.
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
Lior didn't think much of two recent articles in Nature Biotechnology and attempted the traditional reply route, but the journal declined to publish it - so he blogged it:
http://liorpachter.wordpress.com/2014/02/10/the-network-nonsense-of-albert-laszlo-barabasi/
http://liorpachter.wordpress.com/2014/02/11/the-network-nonsense-of-manolis-kellis/
- www.thesunisiron.com/
- http://topdocumentaryfilms.com...
- www.answersingenesis.org/
The truth is out there people!!!
Tell me, do you ALWAYS read what you think is there, and ignore what is said?
That didn't happen here. Let's look at what was actually written down:
Climate denial is the insistence that the climate science as accepted by mainstream is entirely incorrect based solely on the fact that it means that we cannot continue with the current scheme of huge financial interests in fossil fuels and must change.
It's not merely the insistence that climate science is entirely incorrect (which in itself already rules out a lot of people who disagree with the more extreme climate change claims), but entirely incorrect on a very peculiar grounds.
So who actually claims that climate science as accepted is entirely incorrect on the grounds that we must "continue with the current scheme of huge financial interests in fossil fuels"? Nobody.
So we have a claim which is patently false because it is based on an argument which doesn't exist. Hence, my post.
But there's also this gem:
When you deny that the shit weather is evidence of AGW, you're denying climate change, because climate is the average weather, and the average weather is the weather you have, each event.
Climate != shit weather. Climate != average weather either. And shit weather != average weather too. And none of the three == the weather you have, each event. It is rare to see four different concepts conflated so badly.
Shit weather happens whether there is climate change or not. Hence, the presence of shit weather is not in itself evidence of climate change. You have to do statistics on fairly large numbers of such events in order to say anything useful about climate-related effects.
Calling any scientific skeptics "deniers" is an attack on science and scientific method.
Calling deniers "skeptics" surely degrades science more.
Aye, but then again you post to places not here, don't you, duckie!
No, I pointed to two spots in this thread which illustrated my case. And my use of "here" is meant to refer to refer to arguments in this thread.
Yes, they say that we shouldn't change our habits instead. Which means the same thing, darling, doesn't it?
Of course, it doesn't. When you make an argument, then the content of the argument is what gives it meaning. Sure, consider the biases of the people making the arguments. But don't be foolish enough to substitute your imaging of their biases for their actual arguments.
Only one whining about shit weather is you, dear.
Nope. I quoted the AC in question who originally used that term. And I quoted it in my previous post so that your very concern was addressed then.
"Climate != average weather either. "
Ah, so climate is something completely different, then, hmm?
Yes. For example, consider the average temperature of Earth for the last 4.5 billion years. What climate does that represent? It's a mix of a variety of radically different climates on Earth, from a water poor, methane rich atmosphere (from before the Earth accumulated most of its current water) to today's nitrogen/oxygen mix. The geology of Earth changed radically from just after the formation of the Moon (thought to be by an impact of a Mars-sized object with Earth) and today's plate tectonics. And the Sun has changed significantly in solar output over that time too.
But this shows that you've never let cluelessness get in the way of proclamations against those who actually know stuff because your politics disagrees with the required actions that are a consequence of adapting to the new information.
Slashdot seems to have way too many people projecting their psychological problems on others. I addressed most of your concerns in my previous post. Your last reply was completely off base and irrational.
The blog is a terrible invention. It needs to be undone. The reason I say such as surprising thing is that blogs do not allow for nuance and flexibility is normal human discourse. Here on Slashdot we have the added tools to remedy much of the failings of blogs, even as dice.com wants to take them away in the interface now under beta. Many people don't realize why they hate the beta interface so much. I think it is because it is an intentional regression to the lack of features in most blogs for directing conversation at distractions and disruptions in conversations. The beta would move us toward the social media model at Facebook and Google which has the effect of crippling discussion.
The reason denialists have more power on blogs is the same reason trolls have more power on blogs and why marketers love blogs, because one person can disrupt a conversation on a blog much more easily than if it had more structure, such as threading, topic changes, contextual quoting and reply, all features that Slashdot is closer to and Reddit is even closer to. There are features that were available long ago to e-mail and listservs, and USENET newsgroups, and have been systematically abandoned by the current social media corporations, Facebook and Google, and others because the lack of structure makes it easier for business intelligence, for the Big Data application of being able to mine (spy) the data of billions of users, but this priority is making it hard for people to have useful discussions. It means that tiny minorities or committed partisans can ruin civil discourse. It also means that blog owners are thrust into a moderation role they never wanted.
So the changes scientists are facing due to running public blogs is that people whose agenda is obvious have to be dealt with. The problem is that running a blog gives such intrusions too much power to disrupt and usurp discussions. Even on social media sites, like Facebook, the people who read a presumably private thread have to self-censor and police themselves because the medium does not handle disruptions well. Disruptions would be better handled by contextual reply and change of topic.
The most glaring and unforgivable example of this degradation of communication and the capacity to support a discussion is Google. Google bought an archive of USENET postings that ran from its origins in 1985 untill past 1990. Those postings were created by newsreader programs that supported all of the features for discussion now lacking in most blogs, and yet Google went on to remove all of those features, consciously, in Google Groups and Google+ which have deteriorated into self-promotions, especially the latter, and all for the profit motive and to the loss of debate and discussion that we need to support democratic institutions in the world. True human conversation is far messier than any blog allows for, and the means to deal with it have existed long before the Web, long before social media, and we need to return to these tools.
My advice to any scientist is to not run a blog. They would be better off running a mailing list or a USENET-like newsgroup.
Actually, if you read a few history of science books what you'll see is that a lot of what we call "the scientific method" came out of arguments just like this. If you look at organizations such as The Royal Society in London in the 1600s they started out as glorified debate clubs arguing the new ideas of the day. Do you want to convince others you are right and win the debate? Better show evidence. Even better, show evidence that they can replicate for themselves. From this came the notion of more formal evidence which later evolved into "the scientific method". Optimistically, widened public debate via blogs might be the best thing that could happen to science, leading to more rigor on how best to validate and confirm new ideas.
Doesn't matter. First to publish gets the prize. Second place needs to find a new phd
Excuse the Unicode crap in my posts. That's an apostrophe, and slashdot is busted.