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

Congratulations, Jason
By kyuuketsuki on 9/25/2013 2:54:29 AM , Rating: -1
This is quite possibly one of your worst "articles" (I use the term loosely) yet.

1) Since when is anyone obligated to run a comments section on their articles? Just because you seem to enjoy riling up Dailytech viewers and then engaging them in the comments section doesn't mean it's everyone's cup of tea.

2) Your focus on the word "doctrine" is weird and way off base. Science is *not* about being open-minded or engaging in discussion with anybody (no matter how ill-formed) at any time. The scientific method is actually quite rigid and well-defined, not to mention the peer-review process.

And, in any case, the definition of the word doctrine includes the following: "a body or system of teachings relating to a particular subject". Given that, please tell me how the phrase "scientific doctrine" somehow inherently implies holding science as a religion?

3) Your letters-to-the-editor comparison would only be valid if comments were carefully curated and the author and/or editor chose a select few to actually display. I don't recall newspapers having pages upon pages of letters on display from everyone who took the time to voice an opinion.

RE: Congratulations, Jason
By Flunk on 9/25/2013 9:17:54 AM , Rating: 2
Excellent points, and I'd like to add that I think the following quote is particularly funny. Seeing as the claims made in it could just as easily apply to articles written by the author.

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 errors to factual oversights

RE: Congratulations, Jason
By coburn_c on 9/25/2013 9:31:03 AM , Rating: 3
I think that was the point, it was a rather self aware article.

RE: Congratulations, Jason
By coburn_c on 9/25/2013 9:34:21 AM , Rating: 2
The definition is a 'a set of beliefs', I don't think that's quite.. well whatever.

I think he rightfully criticized them for silencing the public and his assessment was apt.

I have no idea why there's a South Park image in there tho.

RE: Congratulations, Jason
By Schrag4 on 9/25/2013 10:14:14 AM , Rating: 3
...1) Since when is anyone obligated to run a comments section on their articles? Just because you seem to enjoy riling up Dailytech viewers and then engaging them in the comments section doesn't mean it's everyone's cup of tea....

Am I the only one that finds this extremely ironic? You're not only riled up, but you're using the comments to express yourself. So it's good for DT but it's not good for PopSci?

RE: Congratulations, Jason
By xprojected on 9/25/2013 11:19:36 AM , Rating: 2
Jason knows that controversial op-eds, presented as articles, generate the most comments. And comments provide entertainment and generate more page hits, which generates more ad revenue for Dailytech. That's all it's about in the end, money. And maybe an inflated ego.

I've learned to distrust most of Jason Mick's posts, which is sad as most of the Anandtech and Dailytech staff is informative and non-sensational. He seems better suited for writing spy/espionage novels.

PopSci can do what they want on their site. Science may be about peer review, but anonymous commenters are not "peers". They are, usually, ignorant schmoes. Good scentific debate requires that both sides have some level of reputation and experience.

RE: Congratulations, Jason
By Dorkyman on 9/25/2013 7:46:33 PM , Rating: 2
Funny, I think my CV would demonstrate that I have a pretty decent science and engineering background, and I tend to agree with Jason most of the time.

Maybe it's a different Jason Mick you're writing about.

Boy, ain't it great that DT allows comments so these matters can be discussed.

RE: Congratulations, Jason
By Monkey's Uncle on 9/27/2013 2:07:22 PM , Rating: 1
Let's see you do better. Write an article regarding this and see if you can get DT to publish it.

Whether you like his writing style or not, Jason is getting paid to write this.

Can you say the same? Do you get paid for your articles? Where have you published?

RE: Congratulations, Jason
By rennock on 10/2/2013 2:51:10 PM , Rating: 2
The same can be said for you.

"So, I think the same thing of the music industry. They can't say that they're losing money, you know what I'm saying. They just probably don't have the same surplus that they had." -- Wu-Tang Clan founder RZA

Copyright 2015 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki