This may seem to be an odd position for me to take...
-
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.)
-
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 easierI shut off Popular Science after it started spending three quarters of every issue bombarding me with Warmist claptrap. I wanted new tech. I got the Green Moonies.
-
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.)
What do you mean it didn't find anything? Googling "Atlantis Pegasus", the very first result points to what I was referencing. So does the second... and the rest of the first page. (Hint: Sci Fi T.V. show. I was making a joke.) But yes, Atlantis is a name for a resort these days. I've seen the ads.
-
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.
PhilLenoir wrote:
How kindly would you take comment about how to program from a road mender.
Nonsense analogy. First the comments are not about periods and syntax but rather about the content of the articles. That the correct analogy would be if I wrote a program and someone then commented on the user interface. Second the POINT of Popular Science is to bring science to the masses. It in NOT intended to bring science to other scientists. So now your analogy should be that I wrote a program specifically intended to help a "road mender" mend the road or at least learn better ways to do that and that person then wanted to comment on what I was telling them and I said no.
-
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
Mike Hankey wrote:
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.
I didn't really get the impression from the article that that was the reason they were limiting discussion.
-
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 easierMy first through was "hurrah for Pop Sci." In my experience, many laypeople have no clue about things scientific, but do have a strong opinion, often about some misconception they possess.
We can program with only 1's, but if all you've got are zeros, you've got nothing.
-
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"?
RedDk wrote:
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".
Not as far as I know in terms of journals. Peer review in journals is generally a process where articles are reviewed before publication as a first pass to verify the veracity of what the article states. It isn't of course a guaranteed process. Once articles are published then it is often possible to post "letters to the editors" (in what ever form that might take) where someone takes exception to some part of the content of the article. Whether these actually get seen publicly depends on the publication and editors.
RedDk wrote:
And this sifting operation. Try replacing that reading with actual experimentation.
Not sure what you mean. The normal scientific journal process can be broken into several categories. 1. "That is astounding". Then others will try to repeat the experiment. 2. "The experiment is flawed". Then others do not try to repeat it because it is already known to be flawed. 3. "I don't care". No one does anything because the results are "expected" or at least uninteresting to most of the audience. These might be replicated some years, but not to many, afterwards by various students but only to a limited extent. What most definitely doesn't happen is that every reported experiment is repeated multiple times. At best a flaw might be discovered in an original study because someone first accepts the first experiment as a given, tries to create a follow on experiment based on the first which fails, and ultimately discovers while looking at the failure that the original experiment cannot be replicated.
RedDk wrote:
Have you ever attempted to read an "abstract"?
Not exactly sure what you mean by "attempted" but I have read many abstracts.
-
PhilLenoir wrote:
How kindly would you take comment about how to program from a road mender.
Nonsense analogy. First the comments are not about periods and syntax but rather about the content of the articles. That the correct analogy would be if I wrote a program and someone then commented on the user interface. Second the POINT of Popular Science is to bring science to the masses. It in NOT intended to bring science to other scientists. So now your analogy should be that I wrote a program specifically intended to help a "road mender" mend the road or at least learn better ways to do that and that person then wanted to comment on what I was telling them and I said no.
Not so. The point of the anology is that different people have different sets of expertise. that's not elitist, it's common sense. Allowing anybody without the qualifying knowledge to freely comment cannot add anything. The source of the knowledge in this case would be experts in that field; even if they are mistaken experts (for every expert there's an equal and opposite expert!) Those with limited or no understanding in that field are unlikely to offer meaningful contribution. This is made more obvious in your observation that this journal is supplying information to non-experts. The argument that not facilitating comment is elitist does not hold water. To refine the anology: would having the road mender review your code add anything or allowing you to inspect a road patch? I think not. It doesn't mean that you or she is in an elite, only that you are not qualified so to do.
Life is like a s**t sandwich; the more bread you have, the less s**t you eat.
-
I shut off Popular Science after it started spending three quarters of every issue bombarding me with Warmist claptrap. I wanted new tech. I got the Green Moonies.
A good illustration of why the comments have been shut off. Get real: Global warming has happened and is happening and we're past the tipping point where methyl hydrates are being released from arctic ice. It's called Popular Science, not Popular Technology and it would obviously be a waste of time to read it if you don't want to be exposed to general science issues.
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.
PhilLenoir wrote:
If a journal has integrity, and a report it published is proven to be wrong, then I hope that it publishes a correction
They do not in general. There are several paths that occur. 1. The original author retracts the article. Then they publish that. 2. Some people object to the article. The journal will publish some of the criticisms. 3. Many people over many years object to the article. Then the journal itself might retract the article. 4. Other people create experiments (not replicate) which demonstrates results that are by definition inconsistent with the original article. Some of these might get published. I suppose it is possible that the journal might bias the selection process for new articles if 2/3 was occurring but otherwise it would be a normal selection process.
PhilLenoir wrote:
Clearly this journal lacks the resources or doesn't wish to tackle the complications of moderating discussion.
This however isn't a "journal". It is a magazine devoted to popularizing science for the general public. The general public is the ones that are supposed to respond.
PhilLenoir wrote:
I think that peer review is the best way to tackle poor science
Please post a link that shows that Popular Science has a peer review panel in place for articles.
-
Not so. The point of the anology is that different people have different sets of expertise. that's not elitist, it's common sense. Allowing anybody without the qualifying knowledge to freely comment cannot add anything. The source of the knowledge in this case would be experts in that field; even if they are mistaken experts (for every expert there's an equal and opposite expert!) Those with limited or no understanding in that field are unlikely to offer meaningful contribution. This is made more obvious in your observation that this journal is supplying information to non-experts. The argument that not facilitating comment is elitist does not hold water. To refine the anology: would having the road mender review your code add anything or allowing you to inspect a road patch? I think not. It doesn't mean that you or she is in an elite, only that you are not qualified so to do.
Life is like a s**t sandwich; the more bread you have, the less s**t you eat.
-
PhilLenoir wrote:
If a journal has integrity, and a report it published is proven to be wrong, then I hope that it publishes a correction
They do not in general. There are several paths that occur. 1. The original author retracts the article. Then they publish that. 2. Some people object to the article. The journal will publish some of the criticisms. 3. Many people over many years object to the article. Then the journal itself might retract the article. 4. Other people create experiments (not replicate) which demonstrates results that are by definition inconsistent with the original article. Some of these might get published. I suppose it is possible that the journal might bias the selection process for new articles if 2/3 was occurring but otherwise it would be a normal selection process.
PhilLenoir wrote:
Clearly this journal lacks the resources or doesn't wish to tackle the complications of moderating discussion.
This however isn't a "journal". It is a magazine devoted to popularizing science for the general public. The general public is the ones that are supposed to respond.
PhilLenoir wrote:
I think that peer review is the best way to tackle poor science
Please post a link that shows that Popular Science has a peer review panel in place for articles.
Quote:
This however isn't a "journal". It is a magazine devoted to popularizing science for the general public. The general public is the ones that are supposed to respond.
Last time I checked journal was a synonym for magazine. Certainly my thesaurus thinks so. Let's not start throwing syntax at each other, it doesn't further the debate. Agreed that the purpose is to disseminate science to the general public. I'm not sure I agrre about "supposed to respond", I suggest that's up to the publisher and clearly they think not. Esentially, if enough of the general public don't agree with the publisher they will vote with their feet.
Quote:
Please post a link that shows that Popular Science has a peer review panel in place for articles.
I never stated that it does. The point here is that general comment is NOT a valuable means of reviewing poor science. You, yourself, point out ways that corrections may still be arrived at. I'm not aware of any general criticism about the quality of Popular Science's reporting. Maybe you know differently, but 50% of the people I work with are applied scientists and I've never heard any disparaging remarks. Please enlighten me if you are aware of continuing quality issues.
Life is like a s**t sandwich; the more bread you have, the less s**t you eat.
-
PhilLenoir wrote:
Allowing anybody without the qualifying knowledge to freely comment cannot add anything...
Which, again, ignores the point of this magazine.
See my last post. I don't believe that allowing public comment IS the point of the magazine. I suggest that the point is to disseminate science news to interested laymen. Let's be clear, I HATE the idea of stifling debate, but when it does more harm than good... We all suffer because of trolling or worse, deliberate misinformation and propaganda. There are plenty of fora for debate, like the two of us here. I'm prepared to lose the right to comment in Popular Science if it helps clarity. I've been an environmentalist for all my adult life and I'm close to retirement. I consider myself a scientist at heart and one of biggest disappointments in life is to see inaction on climate change. I believe that much of the inaction is due to the surgical strikes of lobbyists versus the genuine desire for truth (at the expense of a clear message) of the scientists involved. Thanks for engaging in the debate!
Life is like a s**t sandwich; the more bread you have, the less s**t you eat.
-
RedDk wrote:
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".
Not as far as I know in terms of journals. Peer review in journals is generally a process where articles are reviewed before publication as a first pass to verify the veracity of what the article states. It isn't of course a guaranteed process. Once articles are published then it is often possible to post "letters to the editors" (in what ever form that might take) where someone takes exception to some part of the content of the article. Whether these actually get seen publicly depends on the publication and editors.
RedDk wrote:
And this sifting operation. Try replacing that reading with actual experimentation.
Not sure what you mean. The normal scientific journal process can be broken into several categories. 1. "That is astounding". Then others will try to repeat the experiment. 2. "The experiment is flawed". Then others do not try to repeat it because it is already known to be flawed. 3. "I don't care". No one does anything because the results are "expected" or at least uninteresting to most of the audience. These might be replicated some years, but not to many, afterwards by various students but only to a limited extent. What most definitely doesn't happen is that every reported experiment is repeated multiple times. At best a flaw might be discovered in an original study because someone first accepts the first experiment as a given, tries to create a follow on experiment based on the first which fails, and ultimately discovers while looking at the failure that the original experiment cannot be replicated.
RedDk wrote:
Have you ever attempted to read an "abstract"?
Not exactly sure what you mean by "attempted" but I have read many abstracts.
-
A good illustration of why the comments have been shut off. Get real: Global warming has happened and is happening and we're past the tipping point where methyl hydrates are being released from arctic ice. It's called Popular Science, not Popular Technology and it would obviously be a waste of time to read it if you don't want to be exposed to general science issues.
Life is like a s**t sandwich; the more bread you have, the less s**t you eat.
A good illustration of why moonbat fanatics want to shut everybody off."If there is no evidence, and we can't 'get real', shut everybody up at the point of a gun." :laugh:
-
A good illustration of why moonbat fanatics want to shut everybody off."If there is no evidence, and we can't 'get real', shut everybody up at the point of a gun." :laugh:
I can't work out if you are a troll or just very disrespectful. I get that you don't care, but lack of evidence? People who treat this as if it's a matter of belief really are behaving like ostriches. Global temperatures HAVE gone up rapidly in the past century. Sea levels Have gone up. CO2 IS a greenhouse gas (BTW, just in case you really don't know this stuff, the greenhouse effect is real and it keeps us alive). Methane IS locked up by arctic ice and methane is a more powerful greenhouse gas than CO2. True that we don't KNOW exactly how much, but it is a lot. How many more facts do you need. Scientists can use models to predict the effects of increased CO2. The models are inaccurate and there is disagreement about the numbers but to deny the facts? The processes are mind numbingly complex, including CO2 and thermal buffering by the oceans and any one missed fact throws models out. Look, just admit you don't care. I sort of respect that, especially as there is nothing to be done about climate change, other than mitigate and engineer protections. You may even be an alright person that cares about something other than yourself. Disrespecting those of us that do care about the environment is just loutish.
Life is like a s**t sandwich; the more bread you have, the less s**t you eat.
-
I can't work out if you are a troll or just very disrespectful. I get that you don't care, but lack of evidence? People who treat this as if it's a matter of belief really are behaving like ostriches. Global temperatures HAVE gone up rapidly in the past century. Sea levels Have gone up. CO2 IS a greenhouse gas (BTW, just in case you really don't know this stuff, the greenhouse effect is real and it keeps us alive). Methane IS locked up by arctic ice and methane is a more powerful greenhouse gas than CO2. True that we don't KNOW exactly how much, but it is a lot. How many more facts do you need. Scientists can use models to predict the effects of increased CO2. The models are inaccurate and there is disagreement about the numbers but to deny the facts? The processes are mind numbingly complex, including CO2 and thermal buffering by the oceans and any one missed fact throws models out. Look, just admit you don't care. I sort of respect that, especially as there is nothing to be done about climate change, other than mitigate and engineer protections. You may even be an alright person that cares about something other than yourself. Disrespecting those of us that do care about the environment is just loutish.
Life is like a s**t sandwich; the more bread you have, the less s**t you eat.
You're wrong about me. I'm not an alright person at all. All I care about is myself. Which means I don't appreciate being constantly solicited by 'maybe' people whose scientific abilities don't include proof of concept or the ability to refrain from fraud, intimidation and coercion. Incidentally all the models failed to predict the cooling of the past 15 years. Sincerity is not a substitute for competence.
