Print 102 comment(s) - last by rennock.. on Oct 2 at 2:51 PM

Comments interfere with preaching a "scientific doctrine" (presumably a religion of sorts), according to PopSci

First they came for the BoingBoing comments, then they came for the Popular Science comments, then they came for... wait, that pretty much sums up the current state of affairs.  After BoingBoing opted to scrap its in-article comments for a forum in a few months back in June, PopSci just announced its decision to follow in suit with an article entitled "Why We're Shutting Off Our Comments".  This remarkable act of reader censorship is backed by a number of questionable assertions -- most notably the notion that reader comments undermine the preaching of a "scientific doctrine" and that "comments are bad for science."  

(The New York Times has also scaled back comments, disabling them entirely in some pieces.)

I. Censorship, the Tired Retreat of the Thin Skinned

These decisions may smack some as subjective or even malicious.  After all comments are arguably the digital age response to print's "letter to the editor" -- and they often contain criticisms of the article ranging from grammatical erorrs to factual oversights.  Some may view the decision to ban comments as a form of censorship, a means for writers to escape any sort of visible accountability among their audience.

And while moderation of extreme trolling is at times necessary, comments provide an essential outlet for user opinion.

PopSci views comments as "bad for science". [Image Source: MNN]

But PopSci argues that the evil of comments outweighs their merits.  It says that it has been ovewhelmed by "trolls and spambots" and its editor Suzanne LaBarre writes:

Comments can be bad for science. That's why, here at, we're shutting them off.

And since the blog is about science they at least attempt to back their conclusion with a scientific study -- a journal paper published by Dominique Brossard a Life Sciences Communication professor at the Univ. of Wisconsin-Madison.  Published in the February 2013 edition of the peer-reviewed Journal of Computer-Mediated Communications, Professor Brossard's study involved perceptions of a fictious nanotechnology article, which people were asked to react to.  

People reacted neutrally when comments were disabled, but even when comments were generally positive their reactions did not noticeably improved.  However, when the reader feedback took on a "less civil" tone with people questioning the merits of nanotechnology, user perception of the publication itself (not just the topic discussed) took a decidedly negative turn.

II. PopSci Complains That Comments Interfere With Its Ability to "Indoctrinate" Readers

PopSci piece also in a roundabout way suggests it had to revoke its users' commenting rights due to their criticisms of studies on global warming.  It writes:

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.

She cites an editorial in The New York Times voicing similar complaints.

South Park
PopSci is preaching a "scientific doctrine" according to its top editor.
[Image Source: South Park Studios]

But it is Ms. LaBarre's use of the phrase "scientific doctrine" which should is most interesting, and perhaps telling.  The root word of indoctrination -- brainwashing with a rigid set set of beliefs -- is "doctrine".  Indeed the Wikipedia entry for "doctrine" states:
Doctrine (from Latin: doctrina) is a codification of beliefs or a body of teachings or instructions, taught principles or positions, as the body of teachings in a branch of knowledge or belief system. The Greek analogue is the etymology of catechism.[1]
Often doctrine specifically connotes a corpus of religious dogma as it is promulgated by a church, but not necessarily: doctrine is also used to refer to a principle of law...

And Google Inc.'s (GOOG) built in dictionary describes doctrine as:

a belief or set of beliefs held and taught by a church, political party, or other group.

Science has little to do with beliefs.  Science is the process of observation, of collecting hard, repeatable evidence.  Belief is unnecessary to a scientist who does their job right, as they are simply studying reality.

The phrase seems decidedly odd as coming from a science publication: after all isn't open, informed debate the root of all science?  Since when has indoctrination -- peddling of a set of rigid, unquestioning beliefs, most often associated with religion -- become part of the scientific process?

Perhaps lack of critical feedback, user bickering, and spam may indeed improve the perception of PopSci.  But it's hard to imagine Socrates or Plato, were they alive today, shutting the door to public commentary.  After all, as journalists we all have to remember we aren't actually doing science -- at least not at our news jobs -- we're simply trying to represent it in a clear and concise form that the public can understand and enjoy.

Socrates chose death before submitting to censorship and surrendering his right to free thought and free expression.

While PopSci writes "we have many delightful, thought-provoking commenters," it's hard to escape the impression that its editors think themselves greater science minds than their readership.  Perhaps that's why they're so eager to "indoctrinate" readers (quite literally what Ms. LaBarre says is the site's goals) with their superior wisdom (i.e. interpretations) of science.

But here at DailyTech we take a different view.  We reject censorship and believe in free expression.

We welcome all opinions from the novice to the professional.  We welcome respectful criticism of our authors, our articles, and the material therein, in a public place for all to see.  We don't believe doctrines and indoctrination have a place in open scientific discussion.

At the same time we acknowledge that comments -- criticism, trolling, and more -- are a painful burden at times.  But it is a burden we choose to bear because we must.  Perhaps it will hurt our readers' impressions of our site.  But journalism and science are founded upon open discourse and a receptiveness to feedback.  Once you lose that, you risk rapid loss of your accountability and credibility.

Sources: PopSci, BoingBoing, Journal of Computer-Mediated Communications, The New York Times

Comments     Threshold

This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

By EricMartello on 9/25/2013 12:12:24 AM , Rating: 2
I agree; but DT has never deleted a comment as long as I've posted here and that's good thing. They also don't write articles that are dripping with bias - they do a decent job of maintaining objectivity; which is more than I can say for most media outlets out there.

A lot of my comments get voted down simply because people disagree - yet are unable to form an argument and would rather just vote down out of spite. I myself do not vote comments down even if I disagree; I reply to them and refute them.

I think a better method for the voting system on this site should be higher placement in the thread based on more positive votes; with no negative votes possible. So everyone starts at 0 and can be voted up but not down.

Spam, posting ad links or whatever, should have an option to be reported as such, but the message would not become hidden until a threshold is reached, so that the "vote you down because i don't like what you say" people can't abuse it.

By stm1185 on 9/25/2013 2:49:59 AM , Rating: 1
DT not biased? It was just yesterday I was reading their incredibly biased joke piece about how Steam OS is a Gamer's alternative to Windows, WHILE REQUIRING A WINDOWS PC TO PLAY MOST GAMES...

So yeah pretty obvious bias right there.

RE: Normally I detest censorship in ANY form, but....
By rpsgc on 9/25/2013 5:53:23 AM , Rating: 3
It was a gamer's alternative to Windows 8 .


Seriously go back to school and learn how to read and interpret.

By stm1185 on 9/25/2013 2:11:50 PM , Rating: 2
That is f$%*ing retarded and you know it. Buying a new PC, Steam 0S is not an alternative to Windows 8 if it requires you to KEEP YOUR OLD WINDOWS 7 PC TO PLAY THE GAMES YOU WANT...

HOW IS THAT NOT OBVIOUS... dam Steam fanboys.

By stm1185 on 9/25/2013 2:13:48 PM , Rating: 2
If we want to be that stupid we might as say Android is the gamer's alternative to Windows 8 because you can stream games from your Windows 7 PC to an Android Shield handheld!

By EricMartello on 9/26/2013 1:49:36 AM , Rating: 2
For the article to be subjective and biased it would need to omit and/or falsely represent the opposing viewpoint(s). He actually concluded the article by explaining that SteamOS would not be a good choice for a "general use" OS, meaning that if you want to do anything besides gaming you would probably want something other than SteamOS.

SteamOS is initially acting as a "thin client" or "remote desktop" that allows the game to run on the Windows PC natively, and stream to the SteamOS "box" which would be connected to a TV. Nothing is being emulated; it's just being streamed.

The goal behind SteamOS is to leverage the popularity of the Steam sales platform to attract developers would would then produce games that execute natively on SteamOS, eliminating the need for a Windows PC altogether if all you want to do is play games.

My takeaway was that it's attempting to bridge the gap between PC and console gaming. I did not detect any bias or subjectivity in his BLOG post.

Even if he did interject his opinions, a blog post would qualify as op-ed so it wouldn't be expected to maintain the same objectivity level as a news article, i.e. he could tell us how he personally feels about it and that would be fine.

I think SteamOS is a good idea. I always thought there should be a lightweight gaming-dedicated OS that is built from the ground-up to run games.

Windows 7 and 8 both have very well-refined 2D, 3D and audio performance that greatly surpasses what any current Linux distro can muster...but if the people at Valve can innovate, their efforts could make Linux a real contender as a desktop OS that is on par with Windows.

RE: Normally I detest censorship in ANY form, but....
By Paj on 9/25/2013 8:23:07 AM , Rating: 2
Lol, DT is probably the most editorialised, biased news blog I've ever seen in my life.

In fact, that's the main reason I come here... to see what makes the far right, anti-science flat-earthers tick, and for the lively debate. It certainly isnt for the quality of the journalism - I'll stick with arstechnica for that.

By Schrag4 on 9/25/2013 10:22:00 AM , Rating: 5
In fact, that's the main reason I come here... to see what makes the far right, anti-science flat-earthers tick

That's funny, far-right DT readers come here to see what makes the far-left global-warming zealots who would hide data to skew their results tick.

"The whole principle [of censorship] is wrong. It's like demanding that grown men live on skim milk because the baby can't have steak." -- Robert Heinlein

Copyright 2016 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki