5 ms·

> Good scientists should welcome this challenge with open arms They should welcome online trolling, abuse, and personal attacks? That is what Fiske criticizes

> Good scientists should welcome this challenge with open arms They should welcome online trolling, abuse, and personal attacks? That is what Fiske criticizes in her article, not serious criticism and debate, which she explicitly welcomes and encourages.

unimpressive 10y ago
Fiske is pulling a classic Motte and Bailey strategy. http://slatestarcodex.com/2014/07/07/social-justice-and-words-words-words/ http://slatestarcodex.com/2014/07/07/social-justice-and-word... The Motte is that we should condemn personal attacks, trolling, and abuse. This is completely uncontroversial and nobody sane would disagree. The Bailey is that criticism made outside of the peer review process is somehow terrorism, which is so ludicrous that ones reaction should involve spirited laughter.
- nickpsecurity 10y ago
  That was a great read. Illustrated the problems really well. I thought the antibiotic thing was hilarious. Still need more condensed posts to drop on anyone skeptical about the SJW effect happening where lines are drawn in prejudicial ways with words that are used as weapons. Many people might not go through such a long piece.
wyager 10y ago
Have you seen what passes for "online abuse" right now? The fact that Fisk earnestly uses the phrase "methodological terrorism" suggests that she is not to be trusted with negative connotations. Everyone agrees "abuse" (connotation: wife beating) is bad, so people like Fisk just redefine "abuse" to mean "being blunt online", and people who aren't inoculated against semantic overloading techniques fall for it.
mafribe 10y ago
They should welcome online trolling, abuse, and personal attacks? Nobody should welcome it, but -- as it comes with the territory -- they need to ignore it. She works on what is historically and cross-culturally arguably the most controversial subject, namely human sexuality. Attacks are to be expected, and the mature reaction to this is to lead by example: ignore the attacks and be as meticulously scientific as possible in the hope of inspiring others to be similarly mature. All the more so if you work in a field (psychology) that has a long history of unsupported claims and lack of methodological rigour. The reason science works, the reason we can fly to Mars, have a supercomputer in everybody's pocket today, can treat many diseases, is because sufficiently many adhere to a rigorous scientific methodology and every scientist is extremely critical of colleagues who don't. It is incumbent upon all scientists to hold themselves and others up to the highest standards. Computer science grew out of worries about the lack of rigor in the foundations of mathematics,triggered by the (re-)discovery of non-Euclidian geometry. Mathematics, the most rigorous of all scientific fields, is currently beginning to move towards formally verified proofs. To be even more reliable.
- hackuser 10y ago
  > it comes with the territory I disagree; that's an excuse for abusive, unproductive behavior. In many environments, people manage to criticize ideas respectfully and productively, even on social forums like HN. Abuse is counter-productive and completely unnecessary.
  - mafribe 10y ago
    I disagree; What do you disagree with? The factual claim? It's not relevant that some manage to discuss sexuality respectfully and productively. Most can't, as of October 2016. Claims of scientific misconduct (in a general sense) ought to be taken seriously by scientists. There is nothing else to say. What alternative do you suggest? Somebody said mean things on Twitter, hence psychologists like Fiske should continue as before?
    - hackuser 10y ago
      > Claims of scientific misconduct (in a general sense) ought to be taken seriously by scientists. I disagree. Not all claims should be taken seriously; most should be ignored. Claims accompanied by abuse seriously and rightly damage their own credibility; if I see abuse anywhere, I just stop reading and move on. There are not nearly enough resources to address every random person's claim about every issue in the world. People don't read every book and website, address every conspiracy theory, or give time to every crackpot or amateur who wants to have a say. Google doesn't listen to every users' ideas about their software; the military doesn't listen to everyone's strategic recommendations; physicists don't listen to every person's theory of thermodynamics; the pilots of your airplane don't want your input on how to do their jobs. I have no interest in random people's ideas about IT; they have no idea what they are talking about. You need to demonstrate that you are worth their time by establishing credibility. It seems silly that because people have access to a platform that amplifies their voices, they think professionals will want to hear from them.
      - Kalium 10y ago
        When reasonable criticism by highly qualified statisticians is dismissed as terrorism, perhaps it is possible that abusive behavior by critics is not the issue at hand.
conistonwater 10y ago
I think you are missing the point of both the blog post and Fiske's own article. What she labels as "personal attacks" was, in fact, legitimate scientific criticism, and she tries to dismiss it based on it not being published according to the right norms (according to her). She's trying to bring accusations of trolling and abuse, and you are taking her word for it as if that is the right description of what has been happening so far. She doesn't "explicitly welcome" serious criticism, because criticism published in scientific journals is rather seriously flawed and ineffective (too slow, too strong an incentive to be biased in favour of already published papers: see, for example, the discussions and failed replications that arose from Bem's ESP paper, that was really terrible). This is consistent with her comment about "methodological terrorism", which is as wrong-headed as can be, and I think clear evidence that it's not about "online abuse" in the usual sense. If you read Gelman's posts (going back quite a while), for example, you'll see that the criticism that Fiske dismisses as trolling and abuse is nothing of the sort, and being published on a blog does not make it less valid. In the end, it is part of the culture of science and part of being a good scientist that one should be willing to accept criticism, and maybe refutations, of one's own work, so trying to get above it by claiming "personal attacks" is seriously bad form. P.S. There was another example of this kind of an "attack" when somebody wrote a bot for finding statistics errors: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12643978 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12643978

unimpressive 10y ago

Fiske is pulling a classic Motte and Bailey strategy. http://slatestarcodex.com/2014/07/07/social-justice-and-words-words-words/ http://slatestarcodex.com/2014/07/07/social-justice-and-word... The Motte is that we should condemn personal attacks, trolling, and abuse. This is completely uncontroversial and nobody sane would disagree. The Bailey is that criticism made outside of the peer review process is somehow terrorism, which is so ludicrous that ones reaction should involve spirited laughter.

nickpsecurity 10y ago
That was a great read. Illustrated the problems really well. I thought the antibiotic thing was hilarious. Still need more condensed posts to drop on anyone skeptical about the SJW effect happening where lines are drawn in prejudicial ways with words that are used as weapons. Many people might not go through such a long piece.

wyager 10y ago

Have you seen what passes for "online abuse" right now? The fact that Fisk earnestly uses the phrase "methodological terrorism" suggests that she is not to be trusted with negative connotations. Everyone agrees "abuse" (connotation: wife beating) is bad, so people like Fisk just redefine "abuse" to mean "being blunt online", and people who aren't inoculated against semantic overloading techniques fall for it.

mafribe 10y ago

They should welcome online trolling, abuse, and personal attacks? Nobody should welcome it, but -- as it comes with the territory -- they need to ignore it. She works on what is historically and cross-culturally arguably the most controversial subject, namely human sexuality. Attacks are to be expected, and the mature reaction to this is to lead by example: ignore the attacks and be as meticulously scientific as possible in the hope of inspiring others to be similarly mature. All the more so if you work in a field (psychology) that has a long history of unsupported claims and lack of methodological rigour. The reason science works, the reason we can fly to Mars, have a supercomputer in everybody's pocket today, can treat many diseases, is because sufficiently many adhere to a rigorous scientific methodology and every scientist is extremely critical of colleagues who don't. It is incumbent upon all scientists to hold themselves and others up to the highest standards. Computer science grew out of worries about the lack of rigor in the foundations of mathematics,triggered by the (re-)discovery of non-Euclidian geometry. Mathematics, the most rigorous of all scientific fields, is currently beginning to move towards formally verified proofs. To be even more reliable.

hackuser 10y ago
> it comes with the territory I disagree; that's an excuse for abusive, unproductive behavior. In many environments, people manage to criticize ideas respectfully and productively, even on social forums like HN. Abuse is counter-productive and completely unnecessary.
- mafribe 10y ago
  I disagree; What do you disagree with? The factual claim? It's not relevant that some manage to discuss sexuality respectfully and productively. Most can't, as of October 2016. Claims of scientific misconduct (in a general sense) ought to be taken seriously by scientists. There is nothing else to say. What alternative do you suggest? Somebody said mean things on Twitter, hence psychologists like Fiske should continue as before?
  - hackuser 10y ago
    > Claims of scientific misconduct (in a general sense) ought to be taken seriously by scientists. I disagree. Not all claims should be taken seriously; most should be ignored. Claims accompanied by abuse seriously and rightly damage their own credibility; if I see abuse anywhere, I just stop reading and move on. There are not nearly enough resources to address every random person's claim about every issue in the world. People don't read every book and website, address every conspiracy theory, or give time to every crackpot or amateur who wants to have a say. Google doesn't listen to every users' ideas about their software; the military doesn't listen to everyone's strategic recommendations; physicists don't listen to every person's theory of thermodynamics; the pilots of your airplane don't want your input on how to do their jobs. I have no interest in random people's ideas about IT; they have no idea what they are talking about. You need to demonstrate that you are worth their time by establishing credibility. It seems silly that because people have access to a platform that amplifies their voices, they think professionals will want to hear from them.
    - Kalium 10y ago
      When reasonable criticism by highly qualified statisticians is dismissed as terrorism, perhaps it is possible that abusive behavior by critics is not the issue at hand.

conistonwater 10y ago

I think you are missing the point of both the blog post and Fiske's own article. What she labels as "personal attacks" was, in fact, legitimate scientific criticism, and she tries to dismiss it based on it not being published according to the right norms (according to her). She's trying to bring accusations of trolling and abuse, and you are taking her word for it as if that is the right description of what has been happening so far. She doesn't "explicitly welcome" serious criticism, because criticism published in scientific journals is rather seriously flawed and ineffective (too slow, too strong an incentive to be biased in favour of already published papers: see, for example, the discussions and failed replications that arose from Bem's ESP paper, that was really terrible). This is consistent with her comment about "methodological terrorism", which is as wrong-headed as can be, and I think clear evidence that it's not about "online abuse" in the usual sense. If you read Gelman's posts (going back quite a while), for example, you'll see that the criticism that Fiske dismisses as trolling and abuse is nothing of the sort, and being published on a blog does not make it less valid. In the end, it is part of the culture of science and part of being a good scientist that one should be willing to accept criticism, and maybe refutations, of one's own work, so trying to get above it by claiming "personal attacks" is seriously bad form. P.S. There was another example of this kind of an "attack" when somebody wrote a bot for finding statistics errors: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12643978 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12643978