4 ms·

Funny, I don't even see the word "abuse" in Fiske's article.

nickpsecurity 10y ago
I was generalizing it into one word that's a superset of all the others. Probably should've put it in parentheses or something. My bad. Here's her words that she uses to describe any critiques people have been doing: "unfiltered trash-talk" "unmoderated attacks" "sheer adversarial viciousness" "methodological terrorism" "ad hominem smear tactics" "dangerous minority trend" That's just first two paragraphs. All of these are verbal equivalence to "abuse" or "harm" that gives the perception that whatever was going on is something bad with no rhyme or reason and needs to stop. Because who could possibly argue with her if they were supporting "smear tactics," "trash-talk," and some kind of "terrorism?" In reality, a number of scientists applied the principles of fact-checking and replication to a lot of work, including hers. The work failed these. They reported failures to use scientific method. Her side is resisting. Instead of addressing methodological failures, she instead calls it all trash-talk or terrorism while saying she can't or won't give examples of either the [methodological] terrorist attacks or "victims" of that abuse. Everyone should instead just keep doing things the broken way that made her career and only question things in the channels that proliferated these problems and that people like her control. Arguing against that is supporting "trash-talk," "attacks," "smear tactics," and "terrorism" coming from a "dangerous minority." Typical, SJW sophistry.
- jsprogrammer 10y ago
  wyager actually introduced the word. You then said that Fiske used the term. I don't see the term anywhere in Gelman's article. In fact, Gelman uses the term in a comment on the linked page: >Frederic: >I’m as bothered by anyone by trolls etc., and I’d’ve had no problem if Fiske had written an article about trolls, abuse of communication channels, etc. (ideally with some examples). But this has nothing to do with replication. These are two unrelated topics! What Fiske seems to be doing is conflating the replication movement, which she doesn’t like, with all sorts of “terroristic” behaviors which none of us like. I’d prefer for Fiske to write two articles, then I could say I agree with her article about bad behavior and I disagree with her argument about scientific criticism. Gelman has lots of valid points. I just didn't see any real discussion on abuse...anywhere...and was wondering what was being discussed in regards to using and redefining the word. I don't understand what methodological terrorism is, but I do see ad hominem arguments use. The words really should be defined somewhere for use to read, if they are going to be published. Also, examples of exactly what she is talking about would be really useful. [We are in the thread about people just making shit up and publishing it, right?]
  - nickpsecurity 10y ago
    "I just didn't see any real discussion on abuse...anywhere...and was wondering what was being discussed in regards to using and redefining the word." "[We are in the thread about people just making shit up and publishing it, right?]" I already corrected that and you're still focused on the use of the word instead of the tactics we're saying Fiske (and others) used. The word was a tiny point in that which I already owned up to as a mistake or missing clarification. What's your position on the characterization by Fiske of anyone that disagrees with her or doesn't use channels people like her control to post criticisms as (all the negative connotations like "smear tactics" or "terrorists" here)? And do you agree that scientists should only be allowed to do what established names in academia say (status quo) and be automatically labeled as supporting the same, negative things for any form of dissent? Or publish dissent however they choose so long as there's evidence like in the counterpoint?
    - jsprogrammer 10y ago
      I think people should be able to publish whatever they'd like. Honestly, I don't fully follow Fiske's argument. There are too many undefined phrases and an explicit unwillingness to use any examples. I'd believe many engage in ad hominem arguments and abuse. I'd also believe that many engage in arguments of authority. I'd even believe that possibly most people who call themselves scientists make those arguments from time to time. The thing about ad hominem and arguments from authority is that they are extremely easy to defeat. One simply needs to point out what is happening and continue going.
      - nickpsecurity 10y ago
        Good answer!
  - wyager 10y ago
    > wyager actually introduced the word. No I didn't, the person above me did. But it's true, Fisk didn't redefine this particular word, just some other ones (like "terrorism"). My mistake, I shouldn't have assumed the guy above me was correct.

I was generalizing it into one word that's a superset of all the others. Probably should've put it in parentheses or something. My bad. Here's her words that she uses to describe any critiques people have been doing: "unfiltered trash-talk" "unmoderated attacks" "sheer adversarial viciousness" "methodological terrorism" "ad hominem smear tactics" "dangerous minority trend" That's just first two paragraphs. All of these are verbal equivalence to "abuse" or "harm" that gives the perception that whatever was going on is something bad with no rhyme or reason and needs to stop. Because who could possibly argue with her if they were supporting "smear tactics," "trash-talk," and some kind of "terrorism?" In reality, a number of scientists applied the principles of fact-checking and replication to a lot of work, including hers. The work failed these. They reported failures to use scientific method. Her side is resisting. Instead of addressing methodological failures, she instead calls it all trash-talk or terrorism while saying she can't or won't give examples of either the [methodological] terrorist attacks or "victims" of that abuse. Everyone should instead just keep doing things the broken way that made her career and only question things in the channels that proliferated these problems and that people like her control. Arguing against that is supporting "trash-talk," "attacks," "smear tactics," and "terrorism" coming from a "dangerous minority." Typical, SJW sophistry.

jsprogrammer 10y ago
wyager actually introduced the word. You then said that Fiske used the term. I don't see the term anywhere in Gelman's article. In fact, Gelman uses the term in a comment on the linked page: >Frederic: >I’m as bothered by anyone by trolls etc., and I’d’ve had no problem if Fiske had written an article about trolls, abuse of communication channels, etc. (ideally with some examples). But this has nothing to do with replication. These are two unrelated topics! What Fiske seems to be doing is conflating the replication movement, which she doesn’t like, with all sorts of “terroristic” behaviors which none of us like. I’d prefer for Fiske to write two articles, then I could say I agree with her article about bad behavior and I disagree with her argument about scientific criticism. Gelman has lots of valid points. I just didn't see any real discussion on abuse...anywhere...and was wondering what was being discussed in regards to using and redefining the word. I don't understand what methodological terrorism is, but I do see ad hominem arguments use. The words really should be defined somewhere for use to read, if they are going to be published. Also, examples of exactly what she is talking about would be really useful. [We are in the thread about people just making shit up and publishing it, right?]
- nickpsecurity 10y ago
  "I just didn't see any real discussion on abuse...anywhere...and was wondering what was being discussed in regards to using and redefining the word." "[We are in the thread about people just making shit up and publishing it, right?]" I already corrected that and you're still focused on the use of the word instead of the tactics we're saying Fiske (and others) used. The word was a tiny point in that which I already owned up to as a mistake or missing clarification. What's your position on the characterization by Fiske of anyone that disagrees with her or doesn't use channels people like her control to post criticisms as (all the negative connotations like "smear tactics" or "terrorists" here)? And do you agree that scientists should only be allowed to do what established names in academia say (status quo) and be automatically labeled as supporting the same, negative things for any form of dissent? Or publish dissent however they choose so long as there's evidence like in the counterpoint?
  - jsprogrammer 10y ago
    I think people should be able to publish whatever they'd like. Honestly, I don't fully follow Fiske's argument. There are too many undefined phrases and an explicit unwillingness to use any examples. I'd believe many engage in ad hominem arguments and abuse. I'd also believe that many engage in arguments of authority. I'd even believe that possibly most people who call themselves scientists make those arguments from time to time. The thing about ad hominem and arguments from authority is that they are extremely easy to defeat. One simply needs to point out what is happening and continue going.
    - nickpsecurity 10y ago
      Good answer!
- wyager 10y ago
  > wyager actually introduced the word. No I didn't, the person above me did. But it's true, Fisk didn't redefine this particular word, just some other ones (like "terrorism"). My mistake, I shouldn't have assumed the guy above me was correct.