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.'"
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?
"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 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.
...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
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?
nobody's multi-billion dollar industry's reputation had potential to be damaged by the results.
GP didn't say anybody was a creationist. He merely exploited the parallel between evolution denialism and climate change denialism.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
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.