|
PhilLenoir wrote: Last time I checked journal was a synonym for magazine
Valid point. I am using journal to differentiate those magazines that are specifically intended to publish results about experiments and which articles are almost always written by scientists and whose audience is largely scientists (professionals.)
And they often use "Journal" in the name like the "New England Journal of Medicine" and that IEEE allows one to "Browse Journals & Magazines".
PhilLenoir wrote: Esentially, if enough of the general public don't agree with the publisher they
will vote with their feet.
Journals don't target the general public and although it might be possible that a specific journal might cease to be if they lost their focus it would take a very long time and replacing them, and a replacement would be needed, would be difficult.
PhilLenoir wrote: I never stated that it does.
I am talking about Popular Science and I thought your statement was referring to that.
PhilLenoir wrote: The point here is that general comment is NOT a valuable means of reviewing poor
science.
And thus to make the previous comment very specific....
Popular Science does NOT have a peer review process. So the ONLY way to receive comment is via a popular mechanism.
Does that make it clearer?
PhilLenoir wrote: I'm not aware of any general criticism about the quality of Popular Science's
reporting. Maybe you know differently, but 50% of the people I work with are
applied scientists and I've never heard any disparaging remarks
All magazines (journals included) make mistakes. Now the only dissenting opinion that one will likely ever see for Popular Science is if the editors withdraw an article or post an opinion themselves about it.
|
|
|
|
|
Journal vs. magazine: I understand your differentiation, although I was using "Journal" in a generic sense. Maybe it's because I'm an aging Brit!
My comments about comment and dialogue (sic - I'm an aging Brit!) are specific to PS and certainly not to Scientific Journals (as per your intended use). If you had asked me 20 years or more ago about reducing public input I would have been aghast, but I've seen so much perversion of facts delivered as vehement comment that I find myself sympathetic to PS' argument. I guess that we may have to agree to differ on this.
Life is like a s**t sandwich; the more bread you have, the less s**t you eat.
|
|
|
|
|
PhilLenoir wrote: 20 years or more ago about reducing public input I would have been aghast, but I've seen so much perversion of facts delivered as vehement comment that I find myself sympathetic to PS' argument.
Yes but 20 years ago it was much harder to comment. And the editors filtered the comments. Not to mention that for most people they didn't have as much to comment on - there is much more material and it is much, much easier to access.
|
|
|
|
|
Well, they have the facts (from an study previously done), so I think they took this decision consciously. Although i'm sure moderation would have been better, probably they don't the resources or will to do it.
|
|
|
|
|
It is their decision to make. Certain organizations have a focus on doing certain things. I take it that their focus is on distributing news. There are places that focus on distributing comments. That promotes a shared experience.
In older days if you wanted to comment on the news you wrote a letter to the editor. Today there are folks who don't know what a letter is, or even how to write.
|
|
|
|
|
As someone trained in the sciences, I appreciate and support Popular Sciences' position.
Scientific certainty is not debatable! For some reason, people not trained in science try to speak about science. They form uneducated opinions. They write to their Congressional representatives. And, as Popular Science suggests, that affects public policy.
Moderation is not an answer when an article spawns thousands of comments. Further, who is going to moderate?
In reputable science publishing, articles are refereed by peers before publishing. But those publications are normally not of interest to the average (or even above average) reader. Consider Physical Letters B[^]. Open any of the Show preview links. Do you think that the non-science reader will have a clue? But worse, in today's society, the non-science reader thinks he has a right to comment. Not true! His uneducated comment may skew public policy.
When reporting certainty, no comments. In the case of Popular Science, because articles are not refereed, arguments in favor of comments could certainly be made. But because Popular Science has a certain influence, I stand with the editors in making their decision.
Gus Gustafson
|
|
|
|
|
It certainly is a foolproof way to shut down any and all that may disagree with something Popular Science has stated or taken a stand on.
The real question is who benefits most from shutting down comments, the readers or Popular Science? Readers of popular science are not forced to read comments any more than they are forced to read the original article. My personal opinion is that any site that shuts down commenting is taking an easy way out with dealing with dissention.
Q
How many times in the past has the general consensus within the approved scientific community been wrong?
When the majority within the scientific community were wrong were they open to dissent from the minority?
I believe we all know the answer to that question and what better modern day example for this then the Global Warming debate?
Without taking a stance in favor of or against the theory that our planet is facing AGW (man-made global warming) I believe its pertinent to ask if mankind would have been better served if all dissenting opinion about AGW had been shut down from the start? With a sizeable number of professionals in various scientific fields of study coming out against it as well as even more switching sides to now oppose AGW its easier to see that this is not a settled debate and yet that is exactly the ideology about AGW that was initially pushed to the rest of us.
So I ask again, is it really a good idea to shut down all voices just so you can shut down those voices that some find undesirable, dis-tasteful and even outright insulting?
|
|
|
|
|
Global warming is a great way to illustrate the challenge here. Globally we have little to no policy to address the issue. Why? I suggest that it is precisely because of open and uneducated denial, if not downright misinformation by big oil.
I come down firmly on the side of man-made global warming and the resultant cliamte change. I also come down firmly on the side that syas that it's already too late and that we need to be putting policy in place not so much as to slow or reverse it, but to deal with the fallout. Last month's Conservation Magazine had a good article on exactly this.
I think that poor debate becomes a ready excuse for inaction, so it is better to have the debate in better fora than web comment sections.
Life is like a s**t sandwich; the more bread you have, the less s**t you eat.
|
|
|
|
|
Pete O'Hanlon wrote: Thoughts/comments?
The article itself certainly suggests elitism at work. It suggests that they are doing this as a service to protect how the readers might form an opinion. Which of course is patronizing. And it certainly seems to implicitly suggest that it is the average reader that is prone to this.
|
|
|
|
|
Elitism? How kindly would you take comment about how to program from a road mender. Probably as well as the road mender would take your comments on mending roads.
Clearly the publishers did not take this decision lightly and nowhere did I see a hint of elitism. The brightest of us are open to suggestion and when we are not specialists in a subject and rants will tned to polarize us. This isn't healthy.
Removing the conduit for trolling is a price I think worth paying in this instance.
Life is like a s**t sandwich; the more bread you have, the less s**t you eat.
|
|
|
|
|
PhilLenoir wrote: How kindly would you take comment about how to program from a road mender.
Nonsense analogy.
First the comments are not about periods and syntax but rather about the content of the articles. That the correct analogy would be if I wrote a program and someone then commented on the user interface.
Second the POINT of Popular Science is to bring science to the masses. It in NOT intended to bring science to other scientists. So now your analogy should be that I wrote a program specifically intended to help a "road mender" mend the road or at least learn better ways to do that and that person then wanted to comment on what I was telling them and I said no.
|
|
|
|
|
Not so.
The point of the anology is that different people have different sets of expertise. that's not elitist, it's common sense. Allowing anybody without the qualifying knowledge to freely comment cannot add anything. The source of the knowledge in this case would be experts in that field; even if they are mistaken experts (for every expert there's an equal and opposite expert!) Those with limited or no understanding in that field are unlikely to offer meaningful contribution. This is made more obvious in your observation that this journal is supplying information to non-experts. The argument that not facilitating comment is elitist does not hold water.
To refine the anology: would having the road mender review your code add anything or allowing you to inspect a road patch? I think not. It doesn't mean that you or she is in an elite, only that you are not qualified so to do.
Life is like a s**t sandwich; the more bread you have, the less s**t you eat.
|
|
|
|
|
PhilLenoir wrote: Allowing anybody without the qualifying knowledge to freely comment cannot add
anything...
Which, again, ignores the point of this magazine.
|
|
|
|
|
See my last post. I don't believe that allowing public comment IS the point of the magazine. I suggest that the point is to disseminate science news to interested laymen. Let's be clear, I HATE the idea of stifling debate, but when it does more harm than good...
We all suffer because of trolling or worse, deliberate misinformation and propaganda. There are plenty of fora for debate, like the two of us here. I'm prepared to lose the right to comment in Popular Science if it helps clarity.
I've been an environmentalist for all my adult life and I'm close to retirement. I consider myself a scientist at heart and one of biggest disappointments in life is to see inaction on climate change. I believe that much of the inaction is due to the surgical strikes of lobbyists versus the genuine desire for truth (at the expense of a clear message) of the scientists involved.
Thanks for engaging in the debate!
Life is like a s**t sandwich; the more bread you have, the less s**t you eat.
|
|
|
|
|
PhilLenoir wrote: I don't believe that allowing public comment IS the point of the magazine
That would be fair point if it wasn't historically allowed. But it was allowed both before the internet and with it.
PhilLenoir wrote: We all suffer because of trolling or worse, deliberate misinformation and
propaganda.
Yes the problem with free speech is that everyone gets to comment. There is no restriction on the veracity of comments, relevancy or anything else.
PhilLenoir wrote: I'm prepared to lose the right to comment in Popular Science if it helps
clarity.
That statement however, in terms of the Popular Science stance, is why it suggests elitism. It suggests that the editors understand "clarity" and the audience doesn't. They are suggesting that the audience cannot make an informed decision on their own.
|
|
|
|
|
I shut off Popular Science after it started spending three quarters of every issue bombarding me with Warmist claptrap.
I wanted new tech.
I got the Green Moonies.
|
|
|
|
|
A good illustration of why the comments have been shut off. Get real: Global warming has happened and is happening and we're past the tipping point where methyl hydrates are being released from arctic ice. It's called Popular Science, not Popular Technology and it would obviously be a waste of time to read it if you don't want to be exposed to general science issues.
Life is like a s**t sandwich; the more bread you have, the less s**t you eat.
|
|
|
|
|
A good illustration of why moonbat fanatics want to shut everybody off."If there is no evidence, and we can't 'get real', shut everybody up at the point of a gun." 
|
|
|
|
|
I can't work out if you are a troll or just very disrespectful. I get that you don't care, but lack of evidence? People who treat this as if it's a matter of belief really are behaving like ostriches. Global temperatures HAVE gone up rapidly in the past century. Sea levels Have gone up. CO2 IS a greenhouse gas (BTW, just in case you really don't know this stuff, the greenhouse effect is real and it keeps us alive). Methane IS locked up by arctic ice and methane is a more powerful greenhouse gas than CO2. True that we don't KNOW exactly how much, but it is a lot. How many more facts do you need. Scientists can use models to predict the effects of increased CO2. The models are inaccurate and there is disagreement about the numbers but to deny the facts? The processes are mind numbingly complex, including CO2 and thermal buffering by the oceans and any one missed fact throws models out.
Look, just admit you don't care. I sort of respect that, especially as there is nothing to be done about climate change, other than mitigate and engineer protections. You may even be an alright person that cares about something other than yourself. Disrespecting those of us that do care about the environment is just loutish.
Life is like a s**t sandwich; the more bread you have, the less s**t you eat.
|
|
|
|
|
You're wrong about me. I'm not an alright person at all. All I care about is myself.
Which means I don't appreciate being constantly solicited by 'maybe' people whose scientific abilities don't include proof of concept or the ability to refrain from fraud, intimidation and coercion.
Incidentally all the models failed to predict the cooling of the past 15 years. Sincerity is not a substitute for competence.
|
|
|
|
|
Now we have it. When logical debate fails, throw insults.
For anyone who actually wants facts:
NASA[^]. NASA are clearly frauds 
Wikipedia[^]. A wikipedia article showing that the 5 year average temperature has risen consitently, with a blip in 2005. There was a reduction in solar output which slowed temperature rise, but we are now back to normal solar output. Sites that deny these facts use very specific data (not global, full year data) and typically obfuscate their lack of candour.
I guess that the rise in sea level has been caused by "unusually heavy rains" and New York's budget provisions for dealing with sea inundations are more proof of lack of competence.
Life is like a s**t sandwich; the more bread you have, the less s**t you eat.
|
|
|
|
|
"Now we have it. When logical debate fails, throw insults."
Or slurs eh?
|
|
|
|
|
PhilLenoir wrote: Get real: Global warming has happened and is happening
But given the previous comment and that it an accepted fact then why does every issue devote 3/4 of the space to articles about that? (Not saying it does but that is what the post that you responded to said.) Surely there is a lot of science out there to report on?
PhilLenoir wrote: It's called Popular Science, not Popular Technology and
To be fair when I read it commonly many years ago there were more technology articles in than would be justified by a complete survey of all of 'Science'.
|
|
|
|
|
Quote: why does every issue devote 3/4 of the space to articles about that
To be honest, I think that there's some exaggeration there! I do think that the large number of articles on the subject is due to a number of factors that include contoversy, the complexity and the huge implications. I work for an environmental and land resource, watershed based, agency which has major roles in planning, flood prevention and summer flow augmentation. Climate change occupies much of our attention. In our watershed we've seen one-in-a-hundred-year events become more like one-in-ten-year. There are huge implications for property loss and human lives are at risk. This tends to mean big money and, ultimately, science does tend to follow the $!
Quote: many years ago there were more technology articles
I agree. If we look back on our careers, a lot of new technology used to rely on new science. We see a lot of new technology now comes out of process refinements. Even the space race, that drove a lot of innovation, has slowed. Sure, we have quantum computing and carbon tube research, but these aren't hitting the production lines yet. Even 3D printing is based on old inkjet printing techniques. I assume that when we have our next spurt of new technology based on new science, we'll see that reflected in Popular Science.
Life is like a s**t sandwich; the more bread you have, the less s**t you eat.
|
|
|
|
|
My first through was "hurrah for Pop Sci."
In my experience, many laypeople have no clue about things scientific, but do have a strong opinion, often about some misconception they possess.
We can program with only 1's, but if all you've got are zeros, you've got nothing.
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
