Not Waiting For The Asteroid

Unless of course the commentary said only what we want. Then we're all for it.

http://www.popsci.com/science/article/2013-09/republicans-block-proposal-national-science-laureate-fearingscience

There's your problem, thinking that science is "certain". There is very little certainty in science. If there was, the earth would certainly still be flat, and the universe would rotate around earth. Science evolves with experimentation and hopefully NEVER remains static or "certain". What cowards, that won't allow debate on their "certainty".

commentators shape public opinion; public opinion shapes public policy;

********(public policy shapes how and whether and what research gets funded)*********

--you start to see why we feel compelled to hit the "off" switch on comments.

Soooo,

there you have it boys and girls,

comments are costing 0ur ill gotten gains.

Bizarre.

Particularly for a publication that brands itself as "Popular".

But then, perhaps they mean popular in the good old-fashioned communist sense, you know, as espoused by correct-thinking party cadres.

Yes, it's "People's Science"!

Mel Brooks said it best in Blazing Saddles, "We have to protect our phony baloney jobs." http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uTmfwklFM-M

Proves Popular Science isn't popular or science.

"the cynical work of undermining bedrock scientific doctrine is now being done"

So said the Vatican to Galileo.

Pop Science still alive?
Wow!

Yeah, cause nothing screams out bad for science quite like telling Popular Science writers how ridiculous they are with asinine articles like: "Why Do I P**p More When I Have My Period?"
Or how about - "Central Park Monkeys Caught Whispering About Hated Supervisor"
Which provoked a response from one reader who commented: "Oh great...another thing apes can do that Popular Science readers can't: Make comments"

I got it c, great comment.

Why the misunderstanding from the regulars?

Nah, it may or may not be economics. Imagine the chagrin/frustration of drafting and publishing a lengthly article/diatribe on their current agenda to have it summarily shot down by a 1 liner by a commenter.

I noticed that our Canadian journalists were all in agreement about the awfulness of comment sections on Twitter. They made some good points but their condescending attitude towards their readers shines through. In general, journalists are pretentious. Perhaps the quality of the comment section is a reflection of the types of people their writing attracts? Nah, that couldn't be it.

To be fair, I have noticed that the crap : interesting comment ratio is heavily in favor of crap. The problem is that the unstable and the OCD types flock to that environment and this drives off the interesting commenters. But I'll miss comments if they disappear since columnists at their best can only introduce a topic and at their worst manage to horribly mangle the topic. Space limitations can be both a curse and a blessing for readers. Some comments add valuable info to the column or a reasonable but opposing point of view.

Years ago I used to follow an investment blog that had an "ignore" button. This allowed each user to only see the commenters they found useful. This drastically improved the crap:interesting ratio. It's amazing how not having to read the repetitive ravings of a handful of nutters improves a comment section.

Popular Science - a "science" magazine for Arts Faculty lounges. aka, a publication that fits the mentality of the readers.

I think you missed the part where this idiot said 'Comments are bad for SCIENCE', Phantom.

I have no problem with you or anyone else deleting trolls or managing your sites as you see fit. Nor do I have a problem with you deleting comments that run counter to yours for whatever reason.

But let us be clear, comments and dissent are actually GOOD for science and this has been proven time and time again. Anybody familiar with the scientific method knows this to be true.

Popular Science is the face of what is wrong with 'science' today - the same idiots that hijacked the church, promoted idiotic policies that weren't good for anyone but themselves, and stuck to them despite all obvious evidence contrary to their stance - have now hijacked the scientific community.

I don't have the time of day for Popular Science, or Fat Al Gore or David Suzuki or any other poseurs. Let's just be honest about what they are.

"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" says the editorial. Well, when people see decisions taken which are of importance or great importance to their lives, without their knowledge or agreement, they do tend to become a little tetchy. Ms. McMillan has been explicit about this - see at the upper left of this page, "Why this blog?"

Popular consensus is worthless. "Scientific validation" must always be taken cum grano sails. "bedrock scientific doctrine" sounds more like something belonging to the Catholic Church or to Islam.

The editors of Popular Science should just have shut down their comments section, which of course they have every right to do. Instead they have elected to make obnoxious unscientific asses out of themselves in public.

"Nullius in Verba" -- On the word of no man -- erstwhile motto of the Royal Society, until politicians within the scientific community attempted to hijack even that. One of the strengths of the scientific method lies in its democratic nature. The reincarnation of Ghengis Khan and Attila the Hun can burst the bubble of the most prestigious scientific theory if they have the experimental evidence to do so, or can point to a failure or point of fact the theory is unable to address. The scientific method is the best (not perfect) method for discovering the laws of nature and guarding against or correcting self-deception.
Disruptive trolling is irritating to be sure. But it can be ignored and is still preferable to the complete suppression of debate. In science the slogan, "Newspapers without government is preferable to government without newspapers" is particularly true.

IMO, every magazine, newspaper, movie and tv production is now agenda driven. I used to subscribe to, read and watch a variety of media products. Nowadays barely any. National Geographic is the one that disappointed me the most. I hope that after the media collapses something better will be developed. I enjoy reading/watching a couple dozen people and would pay them but I refuse to financially support the agenda and politics of Big Government advocates. These days that is most of the media and entertainment industry.

Frankly, I'm fed up with nudgers and nannies in the media telling me that people like us are not capable of making our own decisions and need politicians and experts to legislate us into correct behaviour - preferably through new taxes and regulations. More compliance bureaucrats. More rules. More taxpayer "investment".

They'd be better off just deleting critical comments. Hey, it's their website.

Getting rid of spam and patently obscene/ridiculous comments is a major problem for any website, especially one like PS which posts articles that draw opinions from greatly diverse points of view (like the collapse of the WTC on 9/11). It's hardly surprising that the folks at PS would prefer not to have to deal with the problem; the study that they had done provides further support for their decision. From what I've seen, the idea behind the survey and its results is true - people who have little background on an issue tend to be swayed more by the ad hominem attacks of trolls than by the lengthy, reasoned responses. So, in the end, it's the trolls who control what many people take away from the discussion in the comments - and that's not a desirable outcome.

And remember that blogs also make decisions on whether or not to allow comments. Kathy Shaidle at Five Feet of Fury opted some years back to eliminate comments; it had become too much of a headache. (Having observed the comment history first hand, I fully support her choice!) While there are those who may feel that commenting is a "right", it's not - it's a "privilege", and each website/blogger should not be criticized for whatever policy they choose to embrace.

This is Popular Science, we can't have the opinions of the populus here!

I stopped reading Scientific American and Popular Science years ago because of their relentless pushing of the man-made global warming agenda.

Trolls are the reason why we can't have nice things, I agree, but deliberately shutting out comments lends to a theory that one likes debate a lot less.

"Getting rid of spam and patently obscene/ridiculous comments is a major problem for any website..."

Agreed!

But it's too bad Popular Science didn't have the gumption to just say "We're fed up with policing the comments section - that's it! No more!"

Instead, apologetic sophistry.

Popular Politics doesn't like the comment section messing with its politics..
people with high school educations are arguing, presenting their case, and winning..

Cant have that..

Well, it is called "Popular Science." I guess this means that the unwashed get to vote on the findings and conclusions, moderated by a journolist.

More cultural Marxism, the main tenet of which is to infiltrate society's institutions so as to change the culture to be conducive to the nutty and repulsive concepts of the radical left. The Nazis did the same thing as they rolled through the Soviet Union, but with the addition of strong arm tactics. The radical left is not quite able to do that on the same level as the gauleiters, as they only have government in their control, presently, but they are patient, and without scruple.

Popular Science is but a sad, sad shadow of what it used to be. You go on their website, and see all those nifty covers from the '20s through the '60s. Well, I have a whole shelf full of those magazines that my late father collected. They are damn fascinating to read. Sure, there is always the promotional bumf for all the inventions that never made it, that inspired those fantastic cover paintings (and they were, many of them, wonderful paintings).

But the do-it-yourself sections, and the "make modern technology accessible to the masses" sections were very well done, and a person could become quite well educated by reading them. They had a monthly feature on home chemistry, a feature on photography, usually several plans per month for home-built radios. Features on home improvement, boat building, and car repair. It was endless. And for most of them, they did not name brands and tell you what to buy. They were often very coy about brand names, to an extent that seems quite weird to us now.

It's quite apparent that the magazine of the past was aimed at more literate people than the one of today.

Cancel the subscription it is.

There's a comment,for the accountants, who WILL pay attention.

Related;
The CBC and the G&M have both made drastic changes to their 'comments' section in the past 2 months.

They are no longer 'user' friendly.

The G&M went from very good to terrible.They have instituted a 'moderator' on some 'sensitive' subjects.
Debate on any of the articles was greatly reduced. They did,and still do,have an 'ignore' feature which is very useful.However,an actual debate is close to impossible.

The cbc went from frustrating to terribly frustrating. They still censor comments that may violate their written and unwritten guidelines,but like the G&M,their new format stifles any real debate.

Maybe it is tinfoil time,but both major news sources in Canada that had once been open for limited discussion are now closed to that. Over time they will become 'echo chambers' where few dissenting voices will appear. I think it is by design,not by happenstance.
The G&M and Torstar own the Canadian Press,the cbc is the Canadian Press's biggest customer. They all despise the Conservatives and would roll over and pee in the air if Justin took over from the hated 'Harpo'.

It is a way of shaping public opinion.A small way,but it is another brick in the wall.

Their rationale for not having a comments section is the most bizarre thing I've seen this year. It wouldn't annoy me if they had instead said "we own this site and we're tired of moderating comments" which is a perfectly rational thing to do. Moderation takes time and resources, although, with the word "Popular" in the name of their magazine one would suspect they would be a bit more open to opinions of the public.

What they've done is to put forth a point of view which is so repugnant that the only response of any rational subscriber to their magazine would be to immediately cancel their subscription. Letting the public comment on topics is a very messy process and one gets every lunatic capable of using a keyboard weighing in. There are ways of filtering this seemingly unstoppable wave of inanity which are:
(1) Assigning various commentators opinions a positive or negative score by other readers. This is what slashdot does and the system works quite well. It does, however, work on the assumption that the lunatic fringe is only a small proportion of the commentators.
(2) Moderate the comments. This is what WUWT does and, given the volume of comments to WUWT, I marvel at how good a job the moderators do. Anthony has no hesitation in rejecting a comment if it fails to meet guidelines he's set.
(3) Declare that certain topics will not have comments accepted unless they deal with specifics. For example; the comment "evolution is utter atheist crap" has absolutely zero information value and the reader of the site would be better served by having a poll of whether or not visitors to the site believe in evolution. However, should an individual provide a well reasoned comment on the surprising lack of transitional forms of species in the fossil record, that would be accepted as a published comment.

The notion that there are absolutes in science is one that is held by individuals who have no deep knowledge of science. Everyone still alive by the age of 20 has an intimate knowledge of the theory of gravitation and I have no doubt that the editors of Popular Science would include the law of gravitational attraction as one of the absolutes to which there could be no dissent. Thus far, I don't know of a single published event of where an object, released from a point above the earth, has failed to fall toward the earth with an acceleration of 9.8 m/sec^2. However, the whole theory of gravitation is a heuristic; one that functions amazingly well, and there's a partial union of gravitational theory with relativity but not with quantum mechanics. Thus, despite what 99.99999% of people on the earth believe, the first practical demonstration of antigravity will have nullified an absolute. IMHO, dealing with a horde of cranks in order to let through one potentially brilliant scientific breakthrough is far preferable to the increasing assumption of absolute knowledge of the truth and brooking no dissent from the dogma.

Gee, I wonder what Popular Science thinks of the peer review process.

One suspects that PopularScience.com was receiving (to paraphrase Al Gore), "inconvenient remarks" that challenged its "science." Fine. Popular Science has removed itself from the rigorous debate process.

I know Kate has a "stay on comment" request. But we've all seen it veer off into the wild world of rainbows and unicorn farts. The big problem with various specialty sites like Popsci, is they create echo chambers and group things. Even /. is quite bad at this, it was tolerable a decade ago but if you post anything contrary to the raging opinion, you're likely to be modded into oblivion. Reddit is the same way. Not to say I haven't seen it here, but people do defend, counter defend, and all the rest.

David in Michigan,

You're right - it was Pop Mech that had the item on 9/11. My mistake.

I still hold to my basic idea; that dealing with spam/trolls and the misunderstandings caused by trolls are sufficient reason to discontinue comments.