This may seem to be an odd position for me to take...
-
I think the name of the rag says it all, even though that name is an oxymoron --- Popular Science --- Not real science or actual science, just popular science And they are THE ones to declare what is popular
It's the layman's way to inform themselves of what science is up to. Considering that many people don't have access to the journals that researchers publish in, it's one way to make science somewhat more accessible to the general public. And it probably is a gateway to youth in school to help define where their interests lie if they have an inclination for science. And to deride their selection is shortsighted. They are publishing what their market wants to consume, and they have a limited space in which to do it; of course they can't span all of science.
-
It's tough to swallow, but I grow weary of every article on anthropology or evolution turning into a debate on creationism v. evolution.
The difficult we do right away... ...the impossible takes slightly longer.
I've noticed the same with climate change. It galls me when someone says they don't "believe" in it. It's not a religion. The data either supports it or it doesn't. And, the data certainly supports it and our contribution to it. Somewhere around 2,000 scientific papers supporting this and around 3 that don't. Sounds pretty conclusive to me...
-
I believe they are in the right. I work with someone who used to be a newspaper editor. We were talking about an article that someone we both know had posted on-line with some glaring inaccuracies. The ex-editor stated "You are entitled to your own opinions, but not your own facts." Other comments on this thread have pointed out that there are still feedback channels, but feedback is no longer "packaged" with the story. I think that this is appropriate. If the article is about opinion, then it sounds like comments will be allowed, but when it is reporting a study or an observed fact trolls may undermine the credibility of the story.
Life is like a s**t sandwich; the more bread you have, the less s**t you eat.
-
You may, or may not agree with me, but I do feel that the decision of Popular Science to shut off comments[^] is the right one to take. Thoughts/comments?
Chill _Maxxx_
CodeStash - Online Snippet Management | My blog | MoXAML PowerToys | Mole 2010 - debugging made easierWell, they have the facts (from an study previously done), so I think they took this decision consciously. Although i'm sure moderation would have been better, probably they don't the resources or will to do it.
CEO at: - Rafaga Systems - Para Facturas - Modern Components for the moment...
-
You may, or may not agree with me, but I do feel that the decision of Popular Science to shut off comments[^] is the right one to take. Thoughts/comments?
Chill _Maxxx_
CodeStash - Online Snippet Management | My blog | MoXAML PowerToys | Mole 2010 - debugging made easierIt is their decision to make. Certain organizations have a focus on doing certain things. I take it that their focus is on distributing news. There are places that focus on distributing comments. That promotes a shared experience. In older days if you wanted to comment on the news you wrote a letter to the editor. Today there are folks who don't know what a letter is, or even how to write.
-
PhilLenoir wrote:
"You are entitled to your own opinions, but not your own facts."
I absolutely LOVE that. Perfectly sums up a lot of posts I've seen in a lot of threads.
That sounds real good but is a bit hypocritical. It is easy to believe that they present the "facts" when they present some thing that we don ' t know much about. But in the few cases when I have known a lot about the subject they presented, the facts were "their own". I'm not saying that they always present "their own facts" but I know some cases where they did. So saying You can chose your own opinion but not your own facts is .... OK, now I understand, it is not hypocritical - What they are saying is that while you can not chose your facts, they can.
-
It's tough to swallow, but I grow weary of every article on anthropology or evolution turning into a debate on creationism v. evolution.
The difficult we do right away... ...the impossible takes slightly longer.
-
You may, or may not agree with me, but I do feel that the decision of Popular Science to shut off comments[^] is the right one to take. Thoughts/comments?
Chill _Maxxx_
CodeStash - Online Snippet Management | My blog | MoXAML PowerToys | Mole 2010 - debugging made easierAs someone trained in the sciences, I appreciate and support Popular Sciences' position. Scientific certainty is not debatable! For some reason, people not trained in science try to speak about science. They form uneducated opinions. They write to their Congressional representatives. And, as Popular Science suggests, that affects public policy. Moderation is not an answer when an article spawns thousands of comments. Further, who is going to moderate? In reputable science publishing, articles are refereed by peers before publishing. But those publications are normally not of interest to the average (or even above average) reader. Consider Physical Letters B[^]. Open any of the Show preview links. Do you think that the non-science reader will have a clue? But worse, in today's society, the non-science reader thinks he has a right to comment. Not true! His uneducated comment may skew public policy. When reporting certainty, no comments. In the case of Popular Science, because articles are not refereed, arguments in favor of comments could certainly be made. But because Popular Science has a certain influence, I stand with the editors in making their decision.
Gus Gustafson
-
I think I disagree: I can see what they are saying, but the lack of adverse comments - or pointing out an alternative - strikes me as against the whole idea of science. OK, you get morons who post abuse, but WTF: moderate them as we do to reduce or remove their impact and dump them off the site. Shutting down all discussion is pretty much what some of the morons want, I suspect...
The only instant messaging I do involves my middle finger.
OriginalGriff wrote:
moderate them as we do to reduce or remove their impact and dump them off the site.
Which then leads to cries of censorship. Some of those morons think they are correct in debating science of which they have no expertise or in many cases, even any knowledge of. I had a friend who used to try to tell me he could figure the location of Atlantis without needing to do research or field work. I just tuned it out, but I'm sure others would jump on the bandwagon. As I've gotten older, I've become convinced that education has been wasted on the masses. They may have gone to school to memorize a few facts so they can pass a test and then forget them, but most of them never learned to think.
Psychosis at 10 Film at 11 Those who do not remember the past, are doomed to repeat it. Those who do not remember the past, cannot build upon it.
-
You may, or may not agree with me, but I do feel that the decision of Popular Science to shut off comments[^] is the right one to take. Thoughts/comments?
Chill _Maxxx_
CodeStash - Online Snippet Management | My blog | MoXAML PowerToys | Mole 2010 - debugging made easierIt certainly is a foolproof way to shut down any and all that may disagree with something Popular Science has stated or taken a stand on. The real question is who benefits most from shutting down comments, the readers or Popular Science? Readers of popular science are not forced to read comments any more than they are forced to read the original article. My personal opinion is that any site that shuts down commenting is taking an easy way out with dealing with dissention. Q How many times in the past has the general consensus within the approved scientific community been wrong? When the majority within the scientific community were wrong were they open to dissent from the minority? I believe we all know the answer to that question and what better modern day example for this then the Global Warming debate? Without taking a stance in favor of or against the theory that our planet is facing AGW (man-made global warming) I believe its pertinent to ask if mankind would have been better served if all dissenting opinion about AGW had been shut down from the start? With a sizeable number of professionals in various scientific fields of study coming out against it as well as even more switching sides to now oppose AGW its easier to see that this is not a settled debate and yet that is exactly the ideology about AGW that was initially pushed to the rest of us. So I ask again, is it really a good idea to shut down all voices just so you can shut down those voices that some find undesirable, dis-tasteful and even outright insulting?
-
You may, or may not agree with me, but I do feel that the decision of Popular Science to shut off comments[^] is the right one to take. Thoughts/comments?
Chill _Maxxx_
CodeStash - Online Snippet Management | My blog | MoXAML PowerToys | Mole 2010 - debugging made easierPete O'Hanlon wrote:
Thoughts/comments?
The article itself certainly suggests elitism at work. It suggests that they are doing this as a service to protect how the readers might form an opinion. Which of course is patronizing. And it certainly seems to implicitly suggest that it is the average reader that is prone to this.
-
It dosnt look like they are completely shutting it off (last paragraph):
Quote:
There are plenty of other ways to talk back to us, and to each other: through Twitter, Facebook, Google+, Pinterest, livechats, email, and more. We also plan to open the comments section on select articles that lend themselves to vigorous and intelligent discussion. We hope you'll chime in with your brightest thoughts. Don't do it for us. Do it for science.
So im not quite sure about this, but I know that some of the Norwegian news sites have partially shut down comments on potensially "harmful" articles.
Kenneth Haugland wrote:
It dosnt look like they are completely shutting it off (last paragraph):
Except of course that means that they are the ones that get to decide what articles "lend themselves to vigorous and intelligent discussion.". The other venues of course are transitory and/or not public and thus do not lend themselves to as much feedback.
-
Is the comment section of a web site the best place for a civil and unlighted debate on scientific issues ? Even trivial scientific/technology discussions turn into a cesspool of spambot, trolls, bullies and stupid and insulting comments.
I'd rather be phishing!
Maximilien wrote:
Even trivial scientific/technology discussions turn into a cesspool of spambot, trolls, bullies and stupid and insulting comments.
There is no right which does not have a negative side. And not to mention of course is the fact that this is Popular Science which is specifically targeting the mass market.
-
"We also plan to open the comments section on select articles that lend themselves to vigorous and intelligent discussion. We hope you'll chime in with your brightest thoughts. " They still keep the door open to enable comments for select articles/topics.
I'd rather be phishing!
-
I think it is the right decision, most the time people don't want to debate or discuss intellectual issues they just want to throw up BS that isn't germane (yeah I know a big word for me) to the issue. Unless it's a forum where there are mostly regulars and can be self moderated like the lounge it just doesn't work. I say self moderated because I'm sure they don't have the resources to moderate and baby sit. It's a shame though that someone with a real issue of insightful (yeah another $5 word) bit of knowledge is now silenced because of the 5% that think the internet is the place to be a child.
VS2010/Atmel Studio 6.1 ToDo Manager Extension The problem with the gene pool is that there is no lifeguard. -Steven Wright
Mike Hankey wrote:
I think it is the right decision, most the time people don't want to debate or discuss intellectual issues they just want to throw up BS that isn't germane (yeah I know a big word for me) to the issue.
Errr...do you understand what "Popular Science" is? This is not the IEEE Journal nor the New England Journal of Medicine. As "People" is to entertainment Popular Science is to science. It is specifically NOT targeting scientists nor strict scientific discipline. There are in fact magazines popularizing science in a much more strict way like Scientific American.
-
OriginalGriff wrote:
moderate them as we do to reduce or remove their impact and dump them off the site.
Which then leads to cries of censorship. Some of those morons think they are correct in debating science of which they have no expertise or in many cases, even any knowledge of. I had a friend who used to try to tell me he could figure the location of Atlantis without needing to do research or field work. I just tuned it out, but I'm sure others would jump on the bandwagon. As I've gotten older, I've become convinced that education has been wasted on the masses. They may have gone to school to memorize a few facts so they can pass a test and then forget them, but most of them never learned to think.
Psychosis at 10 Film at 11 Those who do not remember the past, are doomed to repeat it. Those who do not remember the past, cannot build upon it.
Years ago, we had a (very, very) junior PCB assembler that we took on for a couple of months between school and him going off to travel for his gap year. He believed pretty much anything on the then new internet - including that the UK and US governments had come to an agreement with Aliena that the could make crop circles, take cows for food and the occasional human for research... He didn't like it much when we referred to this as "aliens travelling 200 light years for a Big Mac". Mind you, he was educated - just thick-as-a-brick: he knew he'd need money to travel around India, so he was saving all his wages, and buying everything on a credit card instead... :doh:
The only instant messaging I do involves my middle finger.
-
I've noticed the same with climate change. It galls me when someone says they don't "believe" in it. It's not a religion. The data either supports it or it doesn't. And, the data certainly supports it and our contribution to it. Somewhere around 2,000 scientific papers supporting this and around 3 that don't. Sounds pretty conclusive to me...
danataylor wrote:
It galls me when someone says they don't "believe" in it. It's not a religion. The data either supports it or it doesn't.
Nonsense. That completely ignores the definition of "belief". Far worse to claim that there is plenty of scientific proof that disproves it. And that statement also implicitly ignores the very foundation of science itself. Science is not an absolute. It does not speak to the absolute nature of everything because it also is a belief system. If one accepts the assumptions of that belief system then one is of course at liberty to immerse oneself in the doctrine of the system. Which is how other belief systems work.
-
Thought: "Nature" way above informative, not necessarily on-line and commentable. "Popular Science", as lamentable a rag as "Scientific American".
-
RedDk wrote:
"Popular Science", as lamentable a rag as "Scientific American".
That hasn't been my experience. Nor have I ever seen the latter denigrated either.
-
If I read an article that's been composed by someone who knows what they're talking about, and has done research to arrive at their findings, why do I need to follow that up by reading comments from people who don't know what they're talking about, and whose research study only goes so far as Wikipedia (at best)? As for moderation: it's not a forum, it's a magazine, and the point of a magazine is to report news and issues that are important within the scope of the magazine, not to run a playpen. If I believe that the findings of an article are in error, or that some detail has been missed or could also be researched, or even just to congratulate the composer on a job well done, I can write the composer. Why would I want to inform the magazine?
I wanna be a eunuchs developer! Pass me a bread knife!
Mark_Wallace wrote:
If I read an article that's been composed by someone who knows what they're talking about, and has done research to arrive at their findings, why do I need to follow that up
Not sure why you would need to read comments but the scientific process is one that is supposed to allow criticism. Certainly one shouldn't assume that an article with "research" is in fact an absolute just because it exists.
Mark_Wallace wrote:
As for moderation: it's not a forum, it's a magazine, and the point of a magazine is to report news and issues that are important within the scope of the magazine, not to run a playpen.
Except of course the sole point of that magazine is to bring science to the popular attention. Rather misses the point when it dismisses that very audience.
