How Blogs Are Changing the Scientific Discourse 136
quax writes "Mainstream media always follows the same kind of 'He said, she said' template, which is why even climate change deniers get their say, although they are a tiny minority. The leading scientific journals, on the other hand, are expensive and behind pay-walls. But it turns out there are places on the web where you can follow science up close and personal: The many personal blogs written by scientists — and the conversation there is changing the very nature of scientific debate. From the article: 'It's interesting to contemplate how corrosive the arguments between Bohr and Einstein may have turned out, if they would have been conducted via blogs rather than in person. But it's not all bad. In the olden days, science could easily be mistaken for a bloodless intellectual game, but nobody could read through the hundreds of comments on Scott's blog that day and come away with that impression.'"
Not good for one's career (Score:5, Interesting)
While blogging might be good for long-established academics, younger academics might just be undermining their own careers by posting their thoughts on blogs. They can prove a distraction that slows one down from publishing, and if you post a novel thought or promising research direction on your blog, it might just be picked up by one of your fellows who beats you to publishing first.
Considering that one's ideas, namely the publications arising from those ideas, are what one is judged on when getting grant funding and tenure, why give them away for free?
Interesting (Score:5, Interesting)
This is an interesting discussion. On the one hand, more people can follow or even contribute to scientific debates when they're online, on blogs. Otoh, the amount of noise can become incredible, obscuring the debate for those who can't judge who's credible and who's not. What do we think of a world where it's not the best scientist who "wins", but the one who's most persuasive in online debates.
Nope, not skepticism: straw clutching. (Score:0, Interesting)
"skepticism about their methods".
Which methods you have been told by someone ABOUT WHOM YOU ARE COMPLETELY UNSKEPTICAL ABOUT as being poor. Right?
"Here's the part that probably would be a head fuck for you since you're so smug and think you're so smart."
Nope, I AM smart. So smart that your follow on has nothing for me in illumination.
"and I use that term loosely, and I happen to be one of those "scientists", just in a different field, and know first hand how full of shit "scientists" typically are and how driven they are by money and ego and prestige "
Yeah, right. Bullshit. There are PhDs working at AIG who have CATEGORICALLY stated there is PROOF that TRex was a vegetarian in the Garden of Eden.
YOU are full of shit and driven by money, ego and presige, I can fully concur (you DO claim you are a scientist, and that all scientists do this as far as you are aware), but your attempt to slur anyone else because you're crass and venal cuts no mustard.
"and how you have to toe the political line because failure to do so is suicide for your career"
Ah, so tell me how when Shrub was in charge how all the climate scientists in the USA "toed the political line" or got shitcanned by the "oil baron" Shrub...
"Also, maybe being more open with their raw data would be a help too"
More denier bingo.
What more openness do you need? GISS. Google it.
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/
But you've heard from the shitstains of the blogworld how CRU wouldn't give McIntyre information
a) he already had
b) wasn't CRU's to give
c) Could freely get from the actual owner
d) was unpaid for by McIntyre, who was not a UK taxpayer, but wanting a handout at UK taxpayer expense.
and have just swallowed it whole like the credulous moron you are.
PS 9 investigations later: no fraud.
Re:Journals are failing (Score:4, Interesting)
it's always been that way (Score:5, Interesting)
This is an interesting discussion. On the one hand, more people can follow or even contribute to scientific debates when they're online, on blogs. Otoh, the amount of noise can become incredible, obscuring the debate for those who can't judge who's credible and who's not. What do we think of a world where it's not the best scientist who "wins", but the one who's most persuasive in online debates.
Your point is well-intended and I sympathize, but speaking as a [reasonably successful] tenured professor in a scientific discipline at a major research university, I would point out this is how science has always been. It's never actually been about who the "best scientist" is--that's very subjective--it's always been about who is most persuasive or popular. This was Kuhn's point, as well as that of other philosophers of science such as Quine or Feyerabend (who all came from very different perspectives).
There's always been this myth that science rises above psychology, sociology, and human nature, but nothing is further from the truth. I think some scientists aspire to that, but it's unattainable--something that some helpfully recognize but others unfortunately don't. The latter cloak themselves in vacuous arguments about "objectivity" and what's "more scientific" but it's meaningless and distracts from substantive arguments over important issues.
Science has always been most like the music industry--there's only a modest correlation between quality, popularity, and success. Many of the best scientists are overlooked or forgotten; many never receive funding; others are grossly wrong but are popular because they capture the zeitgeist of a certain era; and still others are financially successful and well-known and do good work. You have to sort of be willing to sacrifice yourself at the altar of science to survive, which is an ironic position to be in. To give one perhaps oversimplified example: why does everyone know about Darwin, but not Wallace?
Blogs and whatnot are complicating all of this by reinforcing the noise, as you say, but they are also focusing attention on issues such as the worth of peer review and formal publication. They're also giving outlet to some who might not otherwise have voices. But the fundamental phenomena are nothing new. In this regard, the question is: would you rather have infighting and manipulation with or without the communication afforded by the internet?