|
Thought:
"Nature" way above informative, not necessarily on-line and commentable.
"Popular Science", as lamentable a rag as "Scientific American".
|
|
|
|
|
RedDk wrote:
"Popular Science", as lamentable a rag as "Scientific American".
That hasn't been my experience. Nor have I ever seen the latter denigrated either.
|
|
|
|
|
Half of a thought anyway. Good for you little buddy. Good for you ...
|
|
|
|
|
The idiots have won.
Peter Wasser
Art is making something out of nothing and selling it.
Frank Zappa
|
|
|
|
|
If I read an article that's been composed by someone who knows what they're talking about, and has done research to arrive at their findings, why do I need to follow that up by reading comments from people who don't know what they're talking about, and whose research study only goes so far as Wikipedia (at best)?
As for moderation: it's not a forum, it's a magazine, and the point of a magazine is to report news and issues that are important within the scope of the magazine, not to run a playpen.
If I believe that the findings of an article are in error, or that some detail has been missed or could also be researched, or even just to congratulate the composer on a job well done, I can write the composer. Why would I want to inform the magazine?
I wanna be a eunuchs developer! Pass me a bread knife!
|
|
|
|
|
Mark_Wallace wrote: If I read an article that's been composed by someone who knows what they're talking about, and has done research to arrive at their findings, why do I need to follow that up
Not sure why you would need to read comments but the scientific process is one that is supposed to allow criticism.
Certainly one shouldn't assume that an article with "research" is in fact an absolute just because it exists.
Mark_Wallace wrote: As for moderation: it's not a forum, it's a magazine, and the point of a magazine is to report news and issues that are important within the scope of the magazine, not to run a playpen.
Except of course the sole point of that magazine is to bring science to the popular attention. Rather misses the point when it dismisses that very audience.
|
|
|
|
|
It is a dilemma as you indicate, but I agree with you that their decision is (most likely) the right one.
"Rock journalism is people who can't write interviewing people who can't talk for people who can't read." Frank Zappa 1980
|
|
|
|
|
Boy oh Boy, Glad to know that Talib is alive and well and now running Popular Science
|
|
|
|
|
I think the name of the rag says it all, even though that name is an oxymoron
--- Popular Science ---
Not real science or actual science, just popular science
And they are THE ones to declare what is popular
|
|
|
|
|
It's the layman's way to inform themselves of what science is up to. Considering that many people don't have access to the journals that researchers publish in, it's one way to make science somewhat more accessible to the general public. And it probably is a gateway to youth in school to help define where their interests lie if they have an inclination for science.
And to deride their selection is shortsighted. They are publishing what their market wants to consume, and they have a limited space in which to do it; of course they can't span all of science.
|
|
|
|
|
I believe they are in the right. I work with someone who used to be a newspaper editor. We were talking about an article that someone we both know had posted on-line with some glaring inaccuracies. The ex-editor stated "You are entitled to your own opinions, but not your own facts."
Other comments on this thread have pointed out that there are still feedback channels, but feedback is no longer "packaged" with the story. I think that this is appropriate. If the article is about opinion, then it sounds like comments will be allowed, but when it is reporting a study or an observed fact trolls may undermine the credibility of the story.
Life is like a s**t sandwich; the more bread you have, the less s**t you eat.
|
|
|
|
|
PhilLenoir wrote: "You are entitled to your own opinions, but not your own facts."
I absolutely LOVE that. Perfectly sums up a lot of posts I've seen in a lot of threads.
|
|
|
|
|
That sounds real good but is a bit hypocritical.
It is easy to believe that they present the "facts" when they present some thing that we don ' t know much about.
But in the few cases when I have known a lot about the subject they presented, the facts were "their own".
I'm not saying that they always present "their own facts" but I know some cases where they did.
So saying You can chose your own opinion but not your own facts is ....
OK, now I understand, it is not hypocritical -
What they are saying is that while you can not chose your facts, they can.
|
|
|
|
|
PhilLenoir wrote: Other comments on this thread have pointed out that there are still feedback channels, but feedback is no longer "packaged" with the story. I think that this is appropriate. If the article is about opinion, then it sounds like comments will be allowed, but when it is reporting a study or an observed fact trolls may undermine the credibility of the story.
Sorry but no.
First in point of fact there are a number of real science journals which almost never run refutation articles. Even when a previously posted article was flat out wrong. So a scientist might be proven right with more articles but finding out that one was wrong is often a matter of carefully sifting though a large variety of material to figure it out.
Second it is often the case that articles published in a journal is controversial because it is seldom the case that journals are willing to print the 2000th time the same experiment was run, nor are scientists willing to attempt to publish something like that. Thus they do in fact publish something 'new' which, in some cases, is just wrong. How wrong it is depends on many factors of which critical commentary might or might not reveal. And it is that commentary which likely reveals whether it is a fact or not or subjective or not.
And none of that is surprising given that scientists and editors are human.
|
|
|
|
|
It seems to me that what you mean by "comment" you take for what is, in common journal/scientific community parlance, known as "peer review". Short of botching up a meaning taking peer for pier and regurgitating Joyce somehow, I doubt that the same level of intelligence is at work.
And this sifting operation. Try replacing that reading with actual experimentation.
Have you ever attempted to read an "abstract"?
|
|
|
|
|
RedDk wrote: It seems to me that what you mean by "comment" you take for what is, in common
journal/scientific community parlance, known as "peer review".
Not as far as I know in terms of journals. Peer review in journals is generally a process where articles are reviewed before publication as a first pass to verify the veracity of what the article states. It isn't of course a guaranteed process.
Once articles are published then it is often possible to post "letters to the editors" (in what ever form that might take) where someone takes exception to some part of the content of the article. Whether these actually get seen publicly depends on the publication and editors.
RedDk wrote: And this sifting operation. Try replacing that reading with actual
experimentation.
Not sure what you mean. The normal scientific journal process can be broken into several categories.
1. "That is astounding". Then others will try to repeat the experiment.
2. "The experiment is flawed". Then others do not try to repeat it because it is already known to be flawed.
3. "I don't care". No one does anything because the results are "expected" or at least uninteresting to most of the audience. These might be replicated some years, but not to many, afterwards by various students but only to a limited extent.
What most definitely doesn't happen is that every reported experiment is repeated multiple times. At best a flaw might be discovered in an original study because someone first accepts the first experiment as a given, tries to create a follow on experiment based on the first which fails, and ultimately discovers while looking at the failure that the original experiment cannot be replicated.
RedDk wrote: Have you ever attempted to read an "abstract"?
Not exactly sure what you mean by "attempted" but I have read many abstracts.
|
|
|
|
|
|
RedDk wrote:
Get a life hothead
That has nothing to do with the discussion nor does it relate at all to my demeanor nor emotional state.
|
|
|
|
|
And THIS is neither a comment OR a thought. It is a REACTION.
|
|
|
|
|
|
I stand by my opinion. 
If a journal has integrity, and a report it published is proven to be wrong, then I hope that it publishes a correction. I'm a "scientific programmer" and I've seen plenty of poor science in my career.
Opinions are not facts. Opinions can and should be debated. Facts can and should be challenged. I argue that an article about opinion is appropriate for open comment whereas an article about fact needs more rigour than aired opinions. I'd be happy to see a false fact refuted or a questionable method challenged, but too often this is not what happens in this type of comment. Trolls sidetrack logical discussion by spreading misinformation or taking things off at a tangent. If comments aren't strictly moderated, then they often detract. Clearly this journal lacks the resources or doesn't wish to tackle the complications of moderating discussion.
I think that peer review is the best way to tackle poor science. If a report is shown to be erroneous then the journal should be notified. If they fail to publish a correction then they should be challenged.
In a perfect world, commenters would be as honest and forthright as I believe we both are; comment would enlighten and inform and bad science would be exposed quickly. As you point out, we, the editors and the scientists are all human and therefore flawed; hence the world is far from perfect.
Thanks for the feedback!
Life is like a s**t sandwich; the more bread you have, the less s**t you eat.
|
|
|
|
|
Unfortunately, I'm afraid our mutual friends' idea of "tenure" has somehow scrambled his respect for authority.
A short story: once I lent my Selectric to a classmate of mine so that he could finish typing his thesis and get it in on time. You know, nice IBM ball-type, easy to smack the paper on the roller with power-assisted fingers onn the keys ... had the machine for a couple hours ... I could hear him typing in there, right? Silence. Becomes ominous after a couple minutes. "Knock". "Knock". I open my door. He's standing there holding the machine. Says he, "Thanks. But K. has volunteered to accept my payments of $1.00 a page to do the typing for me. Guarantees he'll get it done before DEADLINE."
Moral of the short (ripstop nylon various colors):
Don't sacrifice qualia for the sake of defining it.
|
|
|
|
|
PhilLenoir wrote: If a journal has integrity, and a report it published is proven to be wrong,
then I hope that it publishes a correction
They do not in general. There are several paths that occur.
1. The original author retracts the article. Then they publish that.
2. Some people object to the article. The journal will publish some of the criticisms.
3. Many people over many years object to the article. Then the journal itself might retract the article.
4. Other people create experiments (not replicate) which demonstrates results that are by definition inconsistent with the original article. Some of these might get published. I suppose it is possible that the journal might bias the selection process for new articles if 2/3 was occurring but otherwise it would be a normal selection process.
PhilLenoir wrote: Clearly this journal lacks the resources or doesn't wish to tackle the
complications of moderating discussion.
This however isn't a "journal". It is a magazine devoted to popularizing science for the general public. The general public is the ones that are supposed to respond.
PhilLenoir wrote: I think that peer review is the best way to tackle poor science
Please post a link that shows that Popular Science has a peer review panel in place for articles.
|
|
|
|
|
Quote: This however isn't a "journal". It is a magazine devoted to popularizing science for the general public. The general public is the ones that are supposed to respond.
Last time I checked journal was a synonym for magazine. Certainly my thesaurus thinks so. Let's not start throwing syntax at each other, it doesn't further the debate. Agreed that the purpose is to disseminate science to the general public. I'm not sure I agrre about "supposed to respond", I suggest that's up to the publisher and clearly they think not. Esentially, if enough of the general public don't agree with the publisher they will vote with their feet.
Quote: Please post a link that shows that Popular Science has a peer review panel in place for articles.
I never stated that it does. The point here is that general comment is NOT a valuable means of reviewing poor science. You, yourself, point out ways that corrections may still be arrived at. 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. Please enlighten me if you are aware of continuing quality issues.
Life is like a s**t sandwich; the more bread you have, the less s**t you eat.
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
