21 replies to this topic

[Mike K.]

Popular Science has announced that it will no longer allow readers to leave comments on its online articles.

Not that comments are a necessary component of online publications, but they do serve a purpose and can often add tremendous value to a story. Nonetheless, Popular Science has deemed that "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."

Say again, Popular Science? Those things you believe are "mistakenly up for grabs" have been up for grabs since they were first proposed. The "theory" of evolution is a theory. The "theory" of man-induced global warming is also a "theory." And as many scientists that there are who side with one theory, others side against it. Such is the nature of "science." I was always taught that until something is proven to be true, it may or may not be true, we just don't know for certain. But thanks to Popular Science and their fight against a "decades-long war on expertise" (aka scientists debating science with other scientists, perhaps?), if their editors and financiers say something is true...

Link to article: http://www.popsci.co...ng-our-comments

[patrick venton]

guess they were getting their ass kicked on some articles, and cant take the heat...control freek death knell.... by the way what is necessary to be a scientist... by the way of "who".

[Mike K.]

They reference some study in the article that claims negative comments can impact people's opinions (well, duh). That coupled with spammers was enough to shut down feedback.

There are ways to deal with spammers and there are means of moderating contributors. Closing the comments of one of the most read mainstream scientific publications is a devolutionary step.

[Bingo]

I think we need more robots like this to study volcanoes, and where they came from...



http://www.google.ca...ved=0CEoQ9QEwBg

[pherthyl]

Popular Science has announced that it will no longer allow readers to leave comments on its online articles.

Not that comments are a necessary component of online publications, but they do serve a purpose and can often add tremendous value to a story. Nonetheless, Popular Science has deemed that "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."

Say again, Popular Science? Those things you believe are "mistakenly up for grabs" have been up for grabs since they were first proposed. The "theory" of evolution is a theory.

Yup, never mind the incredibly overwhelming evidence, I'm sure some nutjob commenters have a very valid criticism of evolution.

It's a shame that they decided to shut down comments but I see where they're coming from. Too many people with zero scientific knowledge trotting out their ridiculous pet theories or trying to cast doubt and clouding the truth.

For some reason there is a strong anti-intellectualism strain in our society. The response to people that actually know things is more often "f you for trying to tell us how things are" rather than "maybe we can learn something from your expertise". People also seem to have this bizarre confusion about the value of opinions. For some reason your neighbour's opinion or some talking head on the TV is held in the same or higher esteem than people who actually dedicate their lives to researching these topics. The transition towards Idiocracy I guess.

[patrick venton]

devolutionary.... this is a milepost word for me..... this is the first time I`ve been exposed to this word..... good one..

[jklymak]

And as many scientists that there are who side with one theory, others side against it. Such is the nature of "science." I was always taught that until something is proven to be true, it may or may not be true, we just don't know for certain.

Except there are almost zero experts in biology who disagree with the basics of the theory of evolution, just as there are almost zero experts in climate science who doubt the veracity of man-induced global warming. Sure, its all just "theories", but theories with overwhelming evidence to support them.

All the "theories" of aeronautics keep your airplane aloft. They are just theories. Are you not going to fly because they may not be true? The link between being exposed to radiation and dying of cancer is just a theory, are you going to walk around with Plutonium in you pocket? At some point you have to admit that a theory is "good enough" to provide practical guidance, otherwise science is a pointless exercise.

[Baro]

They explained their reasons pretty clearly in the article. When the goal of a publication is to help increase scientific literacy, having every article full of ignorant conspiracy theories and pseudoscience serves only to create the false impression that there's any sort of room for debate on the issue. When you're not an expert your self, simply seeing huge arguments under an article can give the false impression that the issue is controversial, or cast doubt on the subject. And no, a lay person's opinion on the matter is worthless.

There are countless extremely important scientific issues that have fallen victim with this sort of false-controversy generated by people with agendas or people that have bought into unscientific agendas. Popular science no longer wants to help facilitate this dangerous misinformation.

How many scientifically illiterate people took far too long to come around about climate change and did not take action soon enough due to paid shills and misinformation due to an entirely fabricated "controversy" or "debate" over the last decade?

How many parents avoided incredibly important vaccinations because of entirely fabricated evidence and controversy against vaccines?

How many people still use "homeopathy" and other useless (or even dangerous) snake oil because of outright false claims and fabricated or grossly exaggerated dangers of "big medicine" ?

How many people actually believe in insane conspiracies like "chemtrails" or government weather control or earthquake machines, or 9/11 trutherism because every bloody article about a flood, storm, earthquake or disaster ever will invariably have tons of comments and youtube links CLICK HERE FOR PROOF OF OBAMA NEW WORLD ORDER HAARP WEATHER CONTROL BIG FOOT 9/11 CONSPIRACY.

You want debate on science, become a scientist (or at least genuinely attempt to educate your self on the matter, no, reading conspiracy websites don't count) and debate your peers in your field, otherwise shut up and let the grown-ups talk.

[Mike K.]

Popular Science is a magazine for kids and teenagers.

What we have here is a publication that is complaining about lay persons posting silly comments and thereby raising doubt about the content published by the magazine, but ironically it's those same lay persons that the magazine targets.

One can understand their desire to maintain integrity on their own website, but c'mon, Pop Sci isn't exactly a scientific journal. And moderating online comments or operating a system that deflects spam is not difficult to do. It will take some manpower but this is a decade-old industry now.

[eseedhouse]

The "theory" of evolution is a theory. The "theory" of man-induced global warming is also a "theory."

In science a "theory" is a body of knowledge, not simply a hypothesis, which is what the general public usually means by the word.

As a tournament chess player I am familiar with this use. We chess players refer to "opening theory" and "endgame theory" in exactly this sense.

Evolution is easily falsifiable, but has not yet been falsified and in fact has been supported by the available evidence to a very high degree. As has "global warming".

I was always taught that until something is proven to be true, it may or may not be true, we just don't know for certain.

This depends on what you mean by "certain". Science never claims absolute certainty, unlike various religions. It can however provide some facts which you can safely bet your life on. In fact of course we do things every day that are just that, betting our lives that Science is right.

But thanks to Popular Science and their fight against a "decades-long war on expertise"

Which as anyone who is the least bit Scientifically literate and has been around for awhile and observant knows, is not a hypothesis but an observed fact.

Whether they should have therefore closed comments I have no opinion about. They own the site, they can do with it what they like.

[pherthyl]

Popular Science is a magazine for kids and teenagers.

What we have here is a publication that is complaining about lay persons posting silly comments and thereby raising doubt about the content published by the magazine, but ironically it's those same lay persons that the magazine targets.

Nothing about that is ironic. They want to educate people about science not fill their head with nonsense. Yes PopSci is focused on the "exciting" science that will appeal to teenagers (robots and gadgets) but that doesn't mean they don't want to be reasonably scientifically accurate.

One can understand their desire to maintain integrity on their own website, but c'mon, Pop Sci isn't exactly a scientific journal. And moderating online comments or operating a system that deflects spam is not difficult to do. It will take some manpower but this is a decade-old industry now.

You can moderate spam but you can't really moderate ignorance.

[Mike K.]

Everyone's getting caught up about evolution and global warming. That's not what this is about.

Popular Science deals with thousands of issues, ideas, theories, etc. The magazine has basically stated that none of what they write can be praised, criticized or debated by their readers. In a world where the flow of information is no longer top-down and controlled a holy few, doesn't anyone find it weird that a publication dealing with science of all things has just given up on 15 years of Internet advancements and disabled a major aspect of online publishing?

Virtually every news outlet around the world encourages comments and feedback from its readers. Some are just and fair, others are ridiculous, but the vast majority of the time credible news organizations attract reasonable praise, criticism and debate on their comments sections that add a different dimension to the content they publish. And if Pop Sci really had a serious issue with spammers and nutbars, why couldn't they muster up the willingness to take a more proactive approach to moderating content and differentiating between legitimate feedback and nonsense?

[Dimitrios]

I don't know, I don't have any problem with Pop Sci getting rid of article commenting. I don't think this sort of thing generally enhances the quality of the articles, accuracy, or anything else.

The problem is, people like commenting. They like the smug satisfaction they get from writing their little piece of extra info that was left out, disagreeing with some minor (or major) point made, complaining about the spelling, or making up some tenuous link with another subject that has little bearing on the topic at hand. Although commenting came from the blog (and discussion board) world, it's seen as an integral part of online journalism these days, and you may not be able to put the genie back in the bottle. Though I think they have every right to get rid of commenting, I think their readership (page views, or whatever) and consequently ad revenue may suffer.

[Mike K.]

CNet's coverage of the comment shut down has a great follow-up discussion

[eseedhouse]

The magazine has basically stated that none of what they write can be praised, criticized or debated by their readers.

No they haven't. They have merely declined to fund it on their site. No attempt to stop criticism elsewhere has, so far as I know, been made. When they start to, say, do DOS attacks on the web pages of people that criticize them call me. I'll be with you.

[Mike K.]

You're right, their readers can still email them their thoughts and they can engage the magazine via Facebook and Twitter. But those are vastly different forms of communication than a comments section directly below an article.

Reading coverage of the shut down on various sites across the interwebs, there seems to be a growing consensus in feedback to said coverage that Pop Sci may be outgrowing its usefulness and attracting ever increasing numbers of dissidents. Throughout it's nearly 150 year history the magazine got away with riveting tales of flying cars, bases on Mars and underwater cities, but in this day and age readers are less likely to consume wild tales of traversing Mars on rovers by 2020 or inhabiting other planets (at least not any time soon), and these readers tend to call the publication out for its many grand ideas that push the realm of possibilities but eventually fizzle away only to be featured on the front cover a few years later. I mean how romantic is the idea that we'll inhabit another planet by 2250? You'll lose a readers interest unless you can convince them that they'll be seeing or even doing something spectacular well within their lifetime.

Over the last decade I'm sure the content in the magazine has become ridiculed and scoffed at and the publisher has made an attempt to save face by restricting feedback under the guise of some scientific endeavor or whatever their claim was. I just hope that this is not a sign of things to come.

[eseedhouse]

You're right, their readers can still email them their thoughts and they can engage the magazine via Facebook and Twitter. But those are vastly different forms of communication than a comments section directly below an article.

Vastly different? I think that's a great big exaggeration. Got any actual evidence concerning of the "vastness" of this difference?

There are gajillions of web sites out there for anyone to deny science if they wish to.

[Mike K.]

Vastly different? I think that's a great big exaggeration. Got any actual evidence concerning of the "vastness" of this difference?

Sure, it's on our Twitter page waiting for you. If you can't find it check Facebook. If you still can't find it email us and we'll email it to you sooner or later.

And the next time you want to a comment to this forum, post on our Facebook page instead.

[eseedhouse]

Sure, it's on our Twitter page waiting for you. If you can't find it check Facebook. If you still can't find it email us and we'll email it to you sooner or later.

And the next time you want to a comment to this forum, post on our Facebook page instead.

So you don't have any. Thought so.

I post on Facebook all the time, as it happens. I avoid Twitter like the plague and intend to keep doing so.

I see you missed the nice easter egg I thoughtfully left for you in my message.

[Mike K.]

Ed, if you want to comment to this thread, please use Facebook.