Editorial: PopSci Kills Comments, Blames Global Warming, Evolution
September 24, 2013 8:26 PM
comment(s) - last by
Comments interfere with preaching a "scientific doctrine" (presumably a religion of sorts), according to PopSci
First they came for
, then they came for
, then they came for... wait, that pretty much sums up the current state of affairs. After
opted to scrap its in-article comments for a forum in a few months back in June,
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
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.
views comments as "bad for science". [Image Source: MNN]
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 PopularScience.com, 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
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
, 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.
Complains That Comments Interfere With Its Ability to "Indoctrinate" Readers
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.
The New York Times
voicing similar complaints.
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
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.
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 (
) 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
. 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
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.
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
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.
Journal of Computer-Mediated Communications
The New York Times
This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled
RE: How low they've falled
9/30/2013 11:45:33 AM
Oh - my - God. Do you realize that the East Anglia issue is not relevant to the conclusions of science? It's a canard to distract you from the main issue. You could also find errors in papers discussing gravity experiments, does that mean gravity is not real? You could find errors (and
of misconduct) in medicinal research, but does that mean it's OK to smoke cigarettes or eat arsenic? Try being balanced and honest with yourself. The
of the evidence is what you should look at. That is even part of the scientific process. This "doctrine" simply is a belief that the best way of living is to evaluate evidence, weigh each piece on its merits, and consider ALL the evidence. You should not just look at the East Anglia complaint you have. Look at the truly incredible number of independently researched and authored (and reviewed) papers. And even there with East Anglia, look at ALL the evidence in the issue behind your complaint, and you'll find the overall conclusions about global warming
How many research papers have you read from a diverse source of universities and scientific institutions? How many abstracts even? Extreme claims about untrustworthy and sloppy science require extreme evidence. Until you have thoroughly done your homework, don't accuse people of fraud or unreliable science. It's easy to
you're being prudent even as you're being imprudent by making claims about research of which you know nothing. Try actually being prudent. Try reading a large, representative sample of current research articles and understand their content. If you can't, then talk to the experts in the field whose claims you doubt. If you're unwilling to listen to them when you lack an understanding of their science, then you have no business of accusing their work of being untrustworthy. Period.
“So far we have not seen a single Android device that does not infringe on our patents." -- Microsoft General Counsel Brad Smith
Canadian Government Once Again Lashes Out at F-35 Lightning II Program
April 4, 2012, 11:04 AM
Top Physics Professor Resigns From Post, Denouncing Global Warming "Fraud"
October 13, 2010, 4:02 PM
Study Indicates Evolution Disbelief is Fueled by Fear of the Uncertain
September 28, 2010, 9:29 AM
It Cuts Both Ways: American Majority Deems Nanotechnology Immoral
February 23, 2008, 1:57 AM
150M Android Apps Still Susceptible to Heartbleed
April 24, 2014, 12:48 PM
Amazon Prime Pantry Will Deliver 45 lbs of Groceries to Your Door for $5.99 S&H Fee
April 24, 2014, 10:10 AM
NSA Spying Won't Impact Huawei's Growth
April 23, 2014, 8:24 PM
Amazon, HBO Team up to Bring HBO Content to Prime Members
April 23, 2014, 11:36 AM
U.S. Wants to Reduce Tension Over Internet Net Neutrality
April 22, 2014, 2:07 PM
AT&T Announces Plans to Expand Ultra-Fast Fiber Internet Network to 100 Cities
April 22, 2014, 9:36 AM
Most Popular Articles
A Bug's Life: Female Cave Bugs Have Penises, Penetrate Males for Three Days
April 17, 2014, 7:20 PM
HTC Hires Former Samsung Marketing Chief Who Developed "Galaxy" Brand
April 18, 2014, 6:00 PM
NASA Finds "Habitable Zone" Planet Sized Similar to Earth
April 18, 2014, 3:13 PM
Dotcom Bomb: U.S. Case Against Megaupload is Crumbling
April 22, 2014, 6:00 PM
Thanks to Government Crackdown, Chinese "Porn Cop" Has Watched 600K Adult Videos
April 21, 2014, 12:00 PM
Latest Blog Posts
Space Terrorism is a Looming Threat For the United States
Apr 23, 2014, 7:47 PM
Facebook Aims to Provide Internet to "Every Person in the World" with Drones, Satellites
Apr 1, 2014, 10:20 AM
Retail Mobile Sites Experience Outages in Light of Simplexity's Bankruptcy
Mar 14, 2014, 8:48 AM
Tesla vs. BMW: Who Has the Safer EV?
Feb 1, 2014, 2:56 PM
Justice Leaks Details of Next HTC One Two Flagship Phone
Dec 5, 2013, 4:04 PM
More Blog Posts
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. -
Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information