Do Comments On Web Pages Ruin Science? 281
GregLaden writes "Last week Popular Science shut down comments on their web pages citing the damage being done to the public perception of science as their reason. Earlier research suggested this might be a good idea because trollish, negative comments can color the perception by readers of a news story. However, some have taken Popular Science's move to be anti-science, implying that science itself is positively affected by web and blog comments, as though these comments contributed to the science being done itself. Here, I take exception to this and suggest that while comments are important in relation to the public perception of science (which itself is important) blog and web commentary never, or only rarely, influences the process of scientific inquiry itself."
I have left helpful commets many times (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Dissident Speech (Score:5, Interesting)
Nope, no room for that, even in the "science" community.
Conform or be squelched.
Scientists, in my experience, typically respect dissident thought. (I am not going to say that good dissident ideas are always embraced, but they are generally listened to if there is serious thought behind them.) Dissident speech devoid of thought, on the other hand, is generally ignored in science. (It is, after all, not a democracy.)
Use Slashcode. FFS. (Score:0, Interesting)
If a collection of scientists and on-line media professionals can't figure out how to put together a working comment section on a website, then I can only wonder at their ability to perform the rest of their duties with any integrity.
What a bunch of whiny fools.
Also. . .
A politically motivated, decades-long war on expertise has eroded the popular consensus on a wide variety of scientifically validated topics. Everything, from evolution to the origins of climate change, is mistakenly up for grabs again. Scientific certainty is just another thing for two people to "debate" on television. And because comments sections tend to be a grotesque reflection of the media culture surrounding them, the cynical work of undermining bedrock scientific doctrine is now being done beneath our own stories, within a website devoted to championing science.
~Suzanne LaBarre
Is she serious?
What kind of idiot could make a statement like that with a straight face?
"The origin of climate change is mistakenly up for grabs"???
"Scientific certainty"???
"The Bedrock of scientific doctrine"???
Those, ladies and gentlemen, are words born of zealotry, not science.
Sure, there are rude comments and insane comments, and that's what moderation is for. But what I'm betting is really the problem here are the intelligent and reasoned critics who raise points the editors can't address without losing their ivory tower air of authority, (at best), or at worst, just looking ignorant and stupid.
Re:Moderation (Score:0, Interesting)
I don't know how many times I've seen the mantra "non-ionizing radiation can't harm you" repeated here and modded up.
Biological organisms are affected by non-ionizing radiation--period. The nature and degree of that effect is still poorly understood. The melatonin hypothesis has come under fire recently, but to entirely discount it's existence reveals a certain degree of ignorance.
Comment systems don't work. Slashdot's might be the best I've come across--but that doesn't mean its flawless.
And hell no I didn't read the article. ;)
Re:Dissident Speech (Score:4, Interesting)
It's one thing for people of near equal knowledge and ability to have a debate, even a heated one, but when we're talking about every one from credentialed experts to netkooks to astroturfers all posting in a format that seems to give equal weight to everyone, the results are anything but productive or useful.
One of my favorite blogs is by Professor Matt Strassler, a physicist at CERN, and also a damned fine writer, but frankly I ignore the comments to his blog entries because for every legitimate question or observation, there's some bloody nutjob who thinks because they use the word "quantum" in a sentence, that somehow makes what they're saying a legitimate critique.
Re:Dissident Speech (Score:5, Interesting)
What also gets very irritating is someone whose last maths was when they were 15 sitting there, at 46, shouting repeatedly on a website that they have disproved Einstein (not really stating what that means; I normally assume they mean disproving E=mc^2), and then refusing to listen to any response. What is *also* irritating are well-intentioned people who equally are 31 years from their last maths lesson trying to quell that line of thought with something that is simply wrong (and frequently, alas, condescendingly wrong) and then the two sides get in a flame war, and we end up feeling we'd have been better off skipping a comment section entirely.
People with no education in maths or physics claiming without support that Einstein was "wrong" (a word which takes careful definition; no professional physicist would deny, in well-defined boundaries, that predictions of Einstein's theories are incorrect, but that doesn't mean they're "wrong" in the way that is often bandied around) are surprisingly common. About six years back I started compiling a database of emails that I was sent and books my department was sent that argued Einstein was wrong in manifold, creative, naive, inaccurate -- and yet frequently different -- ways. After a few months I got bored of it because they began repeating themselves and the volume was huge.
This was before comments threads. If I'd done it when comments threads were set up I may never have gained my PhD thanks to time spent arguing with people online who refused to learn anything about the topic they were stubbornly opposing - even topics the details of which they stated were inaccurate. Of course, me not getting my PhD probably wouldn't have been much of a loss to science, but I've enjoyed venting anyway.
My Opinion (Score:5, Interesting)
Ok, here's my take. Consider the voters. There's a huge bunch of dedicated, unswayable republicans. There's a huge bunch of dedicated, unswayable democrats. Almost nothing can make these people change their position. These are in almost perfect balance, because they're not making decisions rationally; they're making decisions based upon a random distribution of single party planks or other factors (like, that's how my wife votes, or that's how the family votes.)
In between are the swing voters who actually decide things. Arguments on web sites don't make them swing. They are thinkers. Arguments on web sites don't make either of the dedicated voter groups change their mind either. They're just talking to hear themselves talk and get a rah-rah from like minded types.
How does this relate to science? I think we have a very similar breakdown. There's a group of people who aren't science oriented, even if they know a few facts. They're influenced by things like religion, "dad told me", the enticement of rumors, etc. These people are not going to change their minds. Then there's a group who knows science is... well, science, and they're aware that it's a process that, in large part, delivers new and reliable knowledge, as well as new and interesting paths where knowledge may be found. They're not going to change their minds either.
Swing science types? Not so many. That would be people who aren't sciency, as it were, and could be convinced (but if someone wasn't convinced by their science classes, I don't hold out much hope for them, unless their science classes were truly awful.) Or, it would be people who are aware of science and its wonderful track record, who are currently going along with yes, science is the bomb, but who would easily be convinced that science is consistently wrong. Know anyone like that? I don't.
Bottom line? The comments... they do nothing. :)
Re:science and perceptions of science. (Score:2, Interesting)
"it's clear to me that the issue isn't with science itself, or how it's "done" in some sort of ontological sense. the issue is with how people perceive science, and how they perceive others' perceptions of science to be. These meta-perceptions are really what the whole issue is about."
Not really, in this case. The REAL issue, is that Scientific American has been getting increasingly involved -- and writing about -- issues that are more political than scientific. Like for example the issue of "gun control". Empirical evidence -- statistics gathered by the the relevant governments themselves -- overwhelmingly indicates that it just doesn't work in the United States. (Or, for that matter, in Western nations). After the recent shooting they re-published an OPINION piece on gun control, written 2 years ago, that contained exactly zero science other than a vague reference to one study and an even vaguer reference to "other" studies (not a single, reference, citation, or footnote).
Commenters on the SciAm site have increasingly been people who disagree over these POLITICAL issues. After all, if a "science" magazine publishes non-scientific political opinions, then commentors feel free to chime in. Why not? Everybody has an opinion on politics, whereas many people would not be comfortable or qualified to criticize an article that was hard science.
SciAm was getting exactly what it deserves. But now apparently they can't take their own medicine, so they've decided to stifle dissent. Well, that's nice. It's their choice. But it's not exactly going to win them any friends. I stopped buying it years ago, because of its obviously biased reporting. I don't feel the need to pay for somebody's propaganda.
That's sad, though, because it used to be one of my favorite magazines.
(Note to flamers and trolls: if you really want to pull the "[citation needed]" crap over something that has been well-known for decades, I can give you more than Slashdot would probably allow in a single post. But it will probably have to wait until next Monday because of my schedule. You don't get to bitch about that; it's a legit schedule issue and I'm warning you up front.)
Re:Dissident Speech (Score:2, Interesting)
Uh, no. *Some* of the people on each side believe they're right. I'm pretty sure that John Boehner is just trying to protect his job (position as Speaker of the House) and wishes the Tea Party never made the demands in the first place.
And what gives you such deep insight into the minds of others, to accurately judge who is sincere or not? Remember, no one sees themself as the villain of their own story; most people have layers upon layers of rationalizations, justifications, and excuses, which combine to form a 'moral code'. It's entirely possible, even probable, for someone's motivations to be completely consistent with an earnest belief that they are in the right, even when observers see their actions as corrupt and self-serving. Even serial killers and child molesters typically have worldviews that frame themselves in a positive light. It takes an unusually honest disposition to admit to flaws in one's own character, even to oneself... and politicians are not generally known for such honesty.
It's actually much more complicated than that, and your analogy is a good example. Many child molesters, for example, are consumed by self-loathing, but unable to control their behavior. I recall the story of a child molester from some years ago that begged to be kept in prison when his sentence was up, because he knew his own destructive behavior was beyond his control (and sure enough ended up re-offending). Whatever insights they may have of their own psyche, they are still driven by the desire for that quick release or physical pleasure they get out from the act. Drug addicts, serial rapists, wife beaters, etc., all fit into this pattern, unable to control their emotions. But nevertheless they typically do view themselves as villains.
Now I'm not saying that John Boehner falls into this category, but there are many justifications that the mind can come up with, including following a path of supporting an evil idea, simply to remain in a position to do a greater "good" later. Harry Reid may be using a similar justification to support Obamacare, telling himself that all the harm, destruction of the economy, loss of jobs and and other bad consequences are worth if the final collapse of the program leads to fully socialized single-payer healthcare system.
Re:Dissident Speech (Score:5, Interesting)
That's almost exactly the reply I'd like to have made, except that I don't think a lot of these people are acting just to disrupt. They normally seem to passionately believe that they're correct, and their purpose is to convince you - not to enter into a debate. A friend of mine once took up one of these people who had challenged physicists to find a flaw in his "disproof of relativity" (special, of course, since you don't need much beyond high school maths to follow it), and was offering a million pounds to be disproven. So my friend - a professor in cosmology - took him up on it and a couple of months later said "This is pointless; you spend two pages explaining why a particular statement of his is wrong and he replies 'No, you're wrong.' " It would be impossible to win that man's million pounds (a promise allegedly witnessed by a solicitor with funds that can be checked with his accountant), because it's impossible to convince him that he doesn't understand high school maths.
Absolutely pointless getting into the discussion, since certainly the net result is that you'll have been disrupted.