This may seem to be an odd position for me to take...
-
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.
-
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.
PhilLenoir wrote:
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.
Sorry but no. First in point of fact there are a number of real science journals which almost never run refutation articles. Even when a previously posted article was flat out wrong. So a scientist might be proven right with more articles but finding out that one was wrong is often a matter of carefully sifting though a large variety of material to figure it out. Second it is often the case that articles published in a journal is controversial because it is seldom the case that journals are willing to print the 2000th time the same experiment was run, nor are scientists willing to attempt to publish something like that. Thus they do in fact publish something 'new' which, in some cases, is just wrong. How wrong it is depends on many factors of which critical commentary might or might not reveal. And it is that commentary which likely reveals whether it is a fact or not or subjective or not. And none of that is surprising given that scientists and editors are human.
-
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.
jschell wrote:
Errr...do you understand what "Popular Science" is?
I'm 64 and I've been reading it since I was in my early teens. We are having an intellectual discussion now but if I had put a link to a music video or told you my toes where fat then it would be the BS I'm talking about.
VS2010/Atmel Studio 6.1 ToDo Manager Extension The problem with the gene pool is that there is no lifeguard. -Steven Wright
-
PhilLenoir wrote:
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.
Sorry but no. First in point of fact there are a number of real science journals which almost never run refutation articles. Even when a previously posted article was flat out wrong. So a scientist might be proven right with more articles but finding out that one was wrong is often a matter of carefully sifting though a large variety of material to figure it out. Second it is often the case that articles published in a journal is controversial because it is seldom the case that journals are willing to print the 2000th time the same experiment was run, nor are scientists willing to attempt to publish something like that. Thus they do in fact publish something 'new' which, in some cases, is just wrong. How wrong it is depends on many factors of which critical commentary might or might not reveal. And it is that commentary which likely reveals whether it is a fact or not or subjective or not. And none of that is surprising given that scientists and editors are human.
It seems to me that what you mean by "comment" you take for what is, in common journal/scientific community parlance, known as "peer review". Short of botching up a meaning taking peer for pier and regurgitating Joyce somehow, I doubt that the same level of intelligence is at work. And this sifting operation. Try replacing that reading with actual experimentation. Have you ever attempted to read an "abstract"?
-
PhilLenoir wrote:
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.
Sorry but no. First in point of fact there are a number of real science journals which almost never run refutation articles. Even when a previously posted article was flat out wrong. So a scientist might be proven right with more articles but finding out that one was wrong is often a matter of carefully sifting though a large variety of material to figure it out. Second it is often the case that articles published in a journal is controversial because it is seldom the case that journals are willing to print the 2000th time the same experiment was run, nor are scientists willing to attempt to publish something like that. Thus they do in fact publish something 'new' which, in some cases, is just wrong. How wrong it is depends on many factors of which critical commentary might or might not reveal. And it is that commentary which likely reveals whether it is a fact or not or subjective or not. And none of that is surprising given that scientists and editors are human.
I stand by my opinion. :) If a journal has integrity, and a report it published is proven to be wrong, then I hope that it publishes a correction. I'm a "scientific programmer" and I've seen plenty of poor science in my career. Opinions are not facts. Opinions can and should be debated. Facts can and should be challenged. I argue that an article about opinion is appropriate for open comment whereas an article about fact needs more rigour than aired opinions. I'd be happy to see a false fact refuted or a questionable method challenged, but too often this is not what happens in this type of comment. Trolls sidetrack logical discussion by spreading misinformation or taking things off at a tangent. If comments aren't strictly moderated, then they often detract. Clearly this journal lacks the resources or doesn't wish to tackle the complications of moderating discussion. I think that peer review is the best way to tackle poor science. If a report is shown to be erroneous then the journal should be notified. If they fail to publish a correction then they should be challenged. In a perfect world, commenters would be as honest and forthright as I believe we both are; comment would enlighten and inform and bad science would be exposed quickly. As you point out, we, the editors and the scientists are all human and therefore flawed; hence the world is far from perfect. Thanks for the feedback!
Life is like a s**t sandwich; the more bread you have, the less s**t you eat.
-
It 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?
Global warming is a great way to illustrate the challenge here. Globally we have little to no policy to address the issue. Why? I suggest that it is precisely because of open and uneducated denial, if not downright misinformation by big oil. I come down firmly on the side of man-made global warming and the resultant cliamte change. I also come down firmly on the side that syas that it's already too late and that we need to be putting policy in place not so much as to slow or reverse it, but to deal with the fallout. Last month's Conservation Magazine had a good article on exactly this. I think that poor debate becomes a ready excuse for inaction, so it is better to have the debate in better fora than web comment sections.
Life is like a s**t sandwich; the more bread you have, the less s**t you eat.
-
I stand by my opinion. :) If a journal has integrity, and a report it published is proven to be wrong, then I hope that it publishes a correction. I'm a "scientific programmer" and I've seen plenty of poor science in my career. Opinions are not facts. Opinions can and should be debated. Facts can and should be challenged. I argue that an article about opinion is appropriate for open comment whereas an article about fact needs more rigour than aired opinions. I'd be happy to see a false fact refuted or a questionable method challenged, but too often this is not what happens in this type of comment. Trolls sidetrack logical discussion by spreading misinformation or taking things off at a tangent. If comments aren't strictly moderated, then they often detract. Clearly this journal lacks the resources or doesn't wish to tackle the complications of moderating discussion. I think that peer review is the best way to tackle poor science. If a report is shown to be erroneous then the journal should be notified. If they fail to publish a correction then they should be challenged. In a perfect world, commenters would be as honest and forthright as I believe we both are; comment would enlighten and inform and bad science would be exposed quickly. As you point out, we, the editors and the scientists are all human and therefore flawed; hence the world is far from perfect. Thanks for the feedback!
Life is like a s**t sandwich; the more bread you have, the less s**t you eat.
Unfortunately, I'm afraid our mutual friends' idea of "tenure" has somehow scrambled his respect for authority. A short story: once I lent my Selectric to a classmate of mine so that he could finish typing his thesis and get it in on time. You know, nice IBM ball-type, easy to smack the paper on the roller with power-assisted fingers onn the keys ... had the machine for a couple hours ... I could hear him typing in there, right? Silence. Becomes ominous after a couple minutes. "Knock". "Knock". I open my door. He's standing there holding the machine. Says he, "Thanks. But K. has volunteered to accept my payments of $1.00 a page to do the typing for me. Guarantees he'll get it done before DEADLINE." Moral of the short (ripstop nylon various colors): Don't sacrifice qualia for the sake of defining it.
-
Pete 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.
Elitism? How kindly would you take comment about how to program from a road mender. Probably as well as the road mender would take your comments on mending roads. Clearly the publishers did not take this decision lightly and nowhere did I see a hint of elitism. The brightest of us are open to suggestion and when we are not specialists in a subject and rants will tned to polarize us. This isn't healthy. Removing the conduit for trolling is a price I think worth paying in this instance.
Life is like a s**t sandwich; the more bread you have, the less s**t you eat.
-
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.
BrainiacV wrote:
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
So, was that his(her) way of saying, "Go, jump in the ocean!"? Without doing any research I think I can definitively say that it used to be an island on Earth, probably close to Europe. I can definitively say it is or isn't an island on Earth.
-
BrainiacV wrote:
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
So, was that his(her) way of saying, "Go, jump in the ocean!"? Without doing any research I think I can definitively say that it used to be an island on Earth, probably close to Europe. I can definitively say it is or isn't an island on Earth.
Pretty sure Atlantis is in the Pegasus galaxy...
-
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
-
I tend towards thinking that when it comes to the internet it is best to allow comments. My perception is that comments tend to be self policing in that really ridiculous comments tend to get the ridicule they deserve. There again when it comes to science the vast majority of people do not fully understand what the scientific method is and may confuse comments with peer review. That said I would rather see the controversy through comments than have to read peer review articles as I am lazy...
“That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence.”
― Christopher Hitchens
GuyThiebaut wrote:
...see the controversy through comments than have to read peer review articles as I am lazy
I've never read a peer review article. Both reading and writing peer review comments can be taxing, but reading is usually easier because they have to point out the reason for making the comment. While writing usually involves reading the code and figuring out an unusual but valid data combination that will produce an error. Figuring out there is a reason and how to clearly state it, is usually a pain. Sometimes, making a point feels like you are reasoning with a brick. I asked someone to stop putting duplicate data in a fact table in a data warehouse DB. "It isn't a duplicate, the primary keys are different." (An identity field) He even accused me of being inexperienced in DB design.
-
Pretty sure Atlantis is in the Pegasus galaxy...
Interesting where "research" leads you: www.atlantis.com[^] Searching for "Atlantis Pegasus" didn't find anything but suggested "Atlantic Pegasus" and searching there found other resorts. Therefore Atlantis is a resort. (Yea, right, and "she" is dating a French model.)
