This may seem to be an odd position for me to take...
-
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.
-
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.
Now we have it. When logical debate fails, throw insults. For anyone who actually wants facts: NASA[^]. NASA are clearly frauds ;P Wikipedia[^]. A wikipedia article showing that the 5 year average temperature has risen consitently, with a blip in 2005. There was a reduction in solar output which slowed temperature rise, but we are now back to normal solar output. Sites that deny these facts use very specific data (not global, full year data) and typically obfuscate their lack of candour. I guess that the rise in sea level has been caused by "unusually heavy rains" and New York's budget provisions for dealing with sea inundations are more proof of lack of competence.
Life is like a s**t sandwich; the more bread you have, the less s**t you eat.
-
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.
PhilLenoir wrote:
I don't believe that allowing public comment IS the point of the magazine
That would be fair point if it wasn't historically allowed. But it was allowed both before the internet and with it.
PhilLenoir wrote:
We all suffer because of trolling or worse, deliberate misinformation and propaganda.
Yes the problem with free speech is that everyone gets to comment. There is no restriction on the veracity of comments, relevancy or anything else.
PhilLenoir wrote:
I'm prepared to lose the right to comment in Popular Science if it helps clarity.
That statement however, in terms of the Popular Science stance, is why it suggests elitism. It suggests that the editors understand "clarity" and the audience doesn't. They are suggesting that the audience cannot make an informed decision on their own.
-
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:
Last time I checked journal was a synonym for magazine
Valid point. I am using journal to differentiate those magazines that are specifically intended to publish results about experiments and which articles are almost always written by scientists and whose audience is largely scientists (professionals.) And they often use "Journal" in the name like the "New England Journal of Medicine" and that IEEE allows one to "Browse Journals & Magazines".
PhilLenoir wrote:
Esentially, if enough of the general public don't agree with the publisher they will vote with their feet.
Journals don't target the general public and although it might be possible that a specific journal might cease to be if they lost their focus it would take a very long time and replacing them, and a replacement would be needed, would be difficult.
PhilLenoir wrote:
I never stated that it does.
I am talking about Popular Science and I thought your statement was referring to that.
PhilLenoir wrote:
The point here is that general comment is NOT a valuable means of reviewing poor science.
And thus to make the previous comment very specific.... Popular Science does NOT have a peer review process. So the ONLY way to receive comment is via a popular mechanism. Does that make it clearer?
PhilLenoir wrote:
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
All magazines (journals included) make mistakes. Now the only dissenting opinion that one will likely ever see for Popular Science is if the editors withdraw an article or post an opinion themselves about it.
-
RedDk wrote:
Get a life hothead
That has nothing to do with the discussion nor does it relate at all to my demeanor nor emotional state.
-
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.
The story takes a bad turn when years later he crashed his truck. When they x-rayed his neck, they found a shadow they investigated further and found he had a brain tumor the size of an apple. It was so sad, he'd call me from the hospital to tell me he had figured out gravity and the physicists had it wrong, but he couldn't explain it in words. He didn't last much longer after that. It made me re-examine all the goofy stuff he used to tell me, but I knew him over 30 years and he was always like that. Now when I hear people spouting crazy stuff I wonder if they have a tumor as well. Can't be that many of them, can there?
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 easier -
The story takes a bad turn when years later he crashed his truck. When they x-rayed his neck, they found a shadow they investigated further and found he had a brain tumor the size of an apple. It was so sad, he'd call me from the hospital to tell me he had figured out gravity and the physicists had it wrong, but he couldn't explain it in words. He didn't last much longer after that. It made me re-examine all the goofy stuff he used to tell me, but I knew him over 30 years and he was always like that. Now when I hear people spouting crazy stuff I wonder if they have a tumor as well. Can't be that many of them, can there?
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.
-
Now we have it. When logical debate fails, throw insults. For anyone who actually wants facts: NASA[^]. NASA are clearly frauds ;P Wikipedia[^]. A wikipedia article showing that the 5 year average temperature has risen consitently, with a blip in 2005. There was a reduction in solar output which slowed temperature rise, but we are now back to normal solar output. Sites that deny these facts use very specific data (not global, full year data) and typically obfuscate their lack of candour. I guess that the rise in sea level has been caused by "unusually heavy rains" and New York's budget provisions for dealing with sea inundations are more proof of lack of competence.
Life is like a s**t sandwich; the more bread you have, the less s**t you eat.
"Now we have it. When logical debate fails, throw insults." Or slurs eh?
-
I've spouted crazy stuff all my life. Because of a health issue I had an MRI 4 years ago. My brain was unusual, but no tumors.
KP Lee wrote:
My brain was unusual, but no tumors.
I've lost count of the number of CT Scans and MRIs I've had. Besides being a unique individual, it seemed I had a unique physiology. I had PSC, where the vessels coming from my liver and gall bladder were small and thready. Only 4 in 100,000 have it. A doctor performing a test on me got confused and failing to find that vessel, may have injected the radioactive dye into my pancreas (which shares the vessel) instead. This led to months in the hospital and and over the years, ultimately to a liver transplant. Soooo looking forward to them being able to bioprint me a new one someday to get off the immunosuppressants.
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.
-
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.
PhilLenoir wrote:
Get real: Global warming has happened and is happening
But given the previous comment and that it an accepted fact then why does every issue devote 3/4 of the space to articles about that? (Not saying it does but that is what the post that you responded to said.) Surely there is a lot of science out there to report on?
PhilLenoir wrote:
It's called Popular Science, not Popular Technology and
To be fair when I read it commonly many years ago there were more technology articles in than would be justified by a complete survey of all of 'Science'.
-
KP Lee wrote:
My brain was unusual, but no tumors.
I've lost count of the number of CT Scans and MRIs I've had. Besides being a unique individual, it seemed I had a unique physiology. I had PSC, where the vessels coming from my liver and gall bladder were small and thready. Only 4 in 100,000 have it. A doctor performing a test on me got confused and failing to find that vessel, may have injected the radioactive dye into my pancreas (which shares the vessel) instead. This led to months in the hospital and and over the years, ultimately to a liver transplant. Soooo looking forward to them being able to bioprint me a new one someday to get off the immunosuppressants.
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.
Wow, you had it worse than I did. My regular physician couldn't figure out what she was reading, so sent me to a specialist. My problem was completely different, I had more blood vessels in my brain than normal, but nothing to be alarmed about. I figured that was why I used to be smarter than most and may have caused my drop in brain function. There is no way I could take the SAT test now and score in the 98th percentile in math nationally.
-
PhilLenoir wrote:
Get real: Global warming has happened and is happening
But given the previous comment and that it an accepted fact then why does every issue devote 3/4 of the space to articles about that? (Not saying it does but that is what the post that you responded to said.) Surely there is a lot of science out there to report on?
PhilLenoir wrote:
It's called Popular Science, not Popular Technology and
To be fair when I read it commonly many years ago there were more technology articles in than would be justified by a complete survey of all of 'Science'.
Quote:
why does every issue devote 3/4 of the space to articles about that
To be honest, I think that there's some exaggeration there! I do think that the large number of articles on the subject is due to a number of factors that include contoversy, the complexity and the huge implications. I work for an environmental and land resource, watershed based, agency which has major roles in planning, flood prevention and summer flow augmentation. Climate change occupies much of our attention. In our watershed we've seen one-in-a-hundred-year events become more like one-in-ten-year. There are huge implications for property loss and human lives are at risk. This tends to mean big money and, ultimately, science does tend to follow the $!
Quote:
many years ago there were more technology articles
I agree. If we look back on our careers, a lot of new technology used to rely on new science. We see a lot of new technology now comes out of process refinements. Even the space race, that drove a lot of innovation, has slowed. Sure, we have quantum computing and carbon tube research, but these aren't hitting the production lines yet. Even 3D printing is based on old inkjet printing techniques. I assume that when we have our next spurt of new technology based on new science, we'll see that reflected in Popular Science.
Life is like a s**t sandwich; the more bread you have, the less s**t you eat.