7 ms·

Science relies on constructive criticism. How to keep it useful and respectful

82 points by nabla9 6y ago

ggm 6y ago
Be in the field or declare your dilettante status.
- hntroll666 6y ago
  I'm not seeing the benefit. Being "in the field" is imaginary. If a good point is raised, does it matter where it comes from?
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
  - avs733 6y ago
    Being 'in a field' is not rigidly bounded but it is hardly imaginary. It doesn't matter where a good point comes from but where a point comes from has a huge impact as to whether a point is good. Being in a field means you are familiar with the content and style of discourse. You speak the language, even if the language is always English. You know how to communicate ideas within group norms. That is useful because it aids shared meaning making in any form of communication. If I stood up as an educator at a ACM conference and started talking about 'normalizing to C+' there is serious potential for misunderstanding that I'm talking about grading whereas y'all might think I'm talking about programming languages. We make meaning of information in context as human beings, some of that context is local (e.g., the rest of what I'm reading) some of it is regional (dialectic, people who ask me at restaurants in my area 'do you want a coke' and then clarify what kind because coke is a euphemism for soda not Coca Cola)...some of it is even broader. The key thing is not all of it is shared, and context is key to inferring or constructing shared meaning.
  - omgwtfbbq 6y ago
    Depends on the Field. I'd say that in Physics for example there is almost never any good points raised by those on the outside. Should everyone be forced to address every not even wrong idea that comes across their desk?
- kergonath 6y ago
  Different people have different ideas about what “the field” is. And outsiders can give valuable insights and ideas just because they don’t always follow the ideas that everyone in “the field” has internalised. It is hard for them to go all the way though, because they often miss things that are obvious to specialists. You should not dismiss outsiders a priori. Not all of them are crackpots.
  - ggm 6y ago
    I didn't say dismiss. I said declare.
blackbear_ 6y ago
Quite related: "Criticism of Ideas Is Not Harassment" [1] [1] https://www.chronicle.com/blogs/letters/criticism-of-ideas-is-not-harassment https://www.chronicle.com/blogs/letters/criticism-of-ideas-i...
- zamfi 6y ago
  It’s worth reading the piece that inspired this one [0] too, through. [0] https://www.chronicle.com/article/when-academic-bullies-claim-the-mantle-of-free-speech https://www.chronicle.com/article/when-academic-bullies-clai...
  - tenkabuto 6y ago
    > Academic freedom has been weaponized, cut loose from its traditional mooring in intellectual expertise (as has been argued by intellectuals expert in the subject, such as Robert Post and Joan Scott), Huh. This phrasing suggests to me that the response article (OP) is pretty on point, maybe even more than the author explicitly mentions: rather than there being ideologies that are beyond reproach or criticism, "experts" are not to be questioned.
    - avs733 6y ago
      no...its saying exactly the opposite. questioning is good. claiming academic freedom to drive targeted Harassment of people you do not like is not criticism. The first article is talking about what is and is not criticism, it is not talking about who is and who is not allowed to perform critique. If you and I disagreed in a meeting, even if we had a serious argument, I'll accept that as critique. If I followed it up by convincing all our coworkers to write you emails telling you to kill yourself, that isn't criticism thats harassment.
      - throwaway894345 6y ago
        > If you and I disagreed in a meeting, even if we had a serious argument, I'll accept that as critique. If I followed it up by convincing all our coworkers to write you emails telling you to kill yourself, that isn't criticism thats harassment. The broader cancel culture debate, including here on HN, made me realize how few people actually understand that threats and harassment do not fall under the rubric of criticism. Similarly, many people seem to think it's only harassment if convicted in a court of law, and if the law doesn't bother to pursue cancellers then what they are doing must not be harassment. It seems that we free speech advocates are not doing a very good job of educating people about what is and isn't free speech, or at least I thought we had been doing a better job.
mdpopescu 6y ago
Why, exactly, is one supposed to be respectful of - to put it mildly - people who are "not even wrong"? What is the purpose of that respect or, conversely, what is gained if we dismiss out of hand criticism because it is not respectful?
- hn8788 6y ago
  Because we're human beings, and it doesn't matter how right you are if nobody can stand having you around. I'd wager that a group of "average" researchers that can be respectful and get along is going to get more done than a genius that nobody will work with because they're an ass.
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
  - tristor 6y ago
    I wish that were true, but historically you'd be wrong. While there are plenty of counter-examples, when it comes to innovation and novel inventions that have widely sweeping social effects, they're usually the result of the "eccentric genius", and not always by the choice of the inventor. One of the things I find interesting in this larger comment thread is the failure to acknowledge that historically speaking it's been those who bucked current consensus to investigate or prove out their ideas that faced backlash, censure, and harassment within academia, not people who happened to have mainstream ideological viewpoints coloring their work. There's a lot of words in this larger comment thread about reasoned criticism of some of the more difficult to prove ideas being championed by those in the CRT camp as being harassment, and a lot of people trying to paint those putting forward that criticism as being disrespectful assholes. But rather, history paints a different picture of the types of research that endures harassment. As an example, take the case of the doctor who first pushed for other doctors to wash their hands. [1]. [1]: https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2020/03/23/ignaz-semmelweis-handwashing-coronavirus/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2020/03/23/ignaz-semme...
dekhn 6y ago
everything about this article applies to arguing on the internet. it's really painful to watch these guidelines violated over and over. I think the worst violation is to immediately accuse anybody who disagrees with you as 'gaslighting'.
- mistermann 6y ago
  Also: gish galloping.
  - etrabroline 6y ago
    Fortunately academia is supposed to be immune from that because you can write academic papers in response to one another without a time limit as in oral debate.
- labatyd 6y ago
  You forgot screaming "whataboutism" anytime you try to introduce a comparable example to a topic where they are clearly arguing in bad faith. That has been the single greatest weapon in destroying true discourse that I have seen.
  - dekhn 6y ago
    that's a good point. In many debates, I have to reply to people saying "whataboutism actually makes sense in this context".
  - etrabroline 6y ago
    I have never heard "whataboutism" outside of hackernews and I have never seen it accompanied with an actual argument of _why_ an analogy doesnt apply. Any use of analogy can apparently be dismissed with that one word like its a magic spell.
    - dekhn 6y ago
      I see it all the time at work (at a FAAMG company). It's just as silly in that context, and as lacking in supporting evidence.
wombatmobile 6y ago
How to Criticize with Kindness: Philosopher Daniel Dennett on the Four Steps to Arguing Intelligently [0] 1. You should attempt to re-express your target’s position so clearly, vividly, and fairly that your target says, “Thanks, I wish I’d thought of putting it that way.” 2. You should list any points of agreement (especially if they are not matters of general or widespread agreement). 3. You should mention anything you have learned from your target. 4. Only then are you permitted to say so much as a word of rebuttal or criticism. [0] https://www.brainpickings.org/2014/03/28/daniel-dennett-rapoport-rules-criticism/ https://www.brainpickings.org/2014/03/28/daniel-dennett-rapo...
- mistermann 6y ago
  I wonder how useful to society it would be if there was a website that had an implementation of this, so internet arguments could be moderated with some structure.
- casefields 6y ago
  Throw in Bertrand Russell's Liberal Decalogue and we have a great foundation: 1. Do not feel absolutely certain of anything. 2. Do not think it worth while to proceed by concealing evidence, for the evidence is sure to come to light. 3. Never try to discourage thinking for you are sure to succeed. 4. When you meet with opposition, even if it should be from your husband or your children, endeavor to overcome it by argument and not by authority, for a victory dependent upon authority is unreal and illusory. 5. Have no respect for the authority of others, for there are always contrary authorities to be found. 6. Do not use power to suppress opinions you think pernicious, for if you do the opinions will suppress you. 7. Do not fear to be eccentric in opinion, for every opinion now accepted was once eccentric. 8. Find more pleasure in intelligent dissent than in passive agreement, for, if you value intelligence as you should, the former implies a deeper agreement than the latter. 9. Be scrupulously truthful, even if the truth is inconvenient, for it is more inconvenient when you try to conceal it. 10. Do not feel envious of the happiness of those who live in a fool’s paradise, for only a fool will think that it is happiness. The Best Answer to Fanaticism—Liberalism: https://docdro.id/V5pgUbH https://docdro.id/V5pgUbH
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
omgwtfbbq 6y ago
Important to note that criticism is natural and necessary to move fields forward. There is a movement across Academia particularly in CRT and adjacent fields to equate criticism of an idea or theory with bullying or personal harassment which is obviously ridiculous.
- Pfhreak 6y ago
  Big citation needed on the 'movement across Academia'. Most Academics I've ever worked with, and folks who are serious about their work invite critical thought. I do see some folks dress up intolerance in the trappings of criticism and then feign injury when the academics or others refuse to engage with their 'critiques'. A concrete example is how many folks will use the expression "gender critical" to dress up intolerance towards trans and non-binary people. There are legitimate discussions to have about gender, and there are legitimate critiques of positions that can be levied against different viewpoints. But that doesn't mean that all criticisms are valid or brought forward in good faith. Some of those criticisms are bullying and harassment and it's important to understand that criticism is a nuanced topic and we can't just say, "All criticism good" or "all criticism bad" and be done.
  - omgwtfbbq 6y ago
    Well you're kind of exactly demonstrating my argument. Criticism of someone's idea or theory is not harassment of that person. It's by definition not ad-hominem
    - Pfhreak 6y ago
      It's not so simple, unfortunately. Yes, in an ideal world I would agree with you -- criticism, when deployed reasonably, is not harassment. But let's look at some concrete ways this could break down. I'm going to use HN as an analogy, but swap in whitepapers, emails, etc. Example 1: If I specifically open your comment history, and raise critique against only your comments, methodically going through them and finding specific things to be critical of, is that harassment? I don't do this to anyone else, just you. Is it reasonable to feel uncomfortable that someone is laser focused on critiquing only your work? Example 2: It is much easier to offer critique than to address critique -- if I intentionally respond to your comments/papers with loads of hard to answer but relatively meaningless questions, thereby slowing you down, is that harassment? An author's time is a limited resource, and if I'm deliberately trying to cause them to spend it dealing with me, is that harassment? In debate, this is called the Gish Gallop and it's widely effective. Example 3: If I respond to your comments with disingenuous questions or criticisms that I know will prompt an emotional response in you in an effort to get you to respond in a frustrated way, is that harassment? Humans are not emotionless automata, and even when we try to maintain barriers between ourselves and our ideas, a sufficiently needling criticism can eventually get under someone's skin. Example 4: What if there's a significant power imbalance? Let's say you are a tech celebrity and you go onto twitter and post, "Look at this person's HN post, can you believe this? Hey, everyone, please go write one critical reply to their post." You are brigading someone, and sure, a lot of the questions might be critical, but the volume and intent might not be critical. Is that harassment? Like many things in engineering, scale and intent matters. There's a lot of malicious behavior that can be dressed up as "I'm just asking questions". These behaviors can be intentional or unintentional and they can make people reasonably feel pretty strong emotions like fear, anxiety, etc. Perhaps, in a perfect world, we'd be able to use axioms and construct arguments and no one would malaiciously engage with the scientific process, but we don't live in that world. We live in a world where humans are involved and it's messy and emotional and we try to do the right things, but there are people who, for whatever reason, think it is fun or gain some benefit from stalling those whose ideologies differ.
rrock 6y ago
Excellent advice. I'd add one more thought for the reviewers side of the equation (peer review specifically). Your objective as a reviewer is to help the authors present their case. Keeping that in mind helps to separate what additional work is essential vs. Nice to have if given unlimited time and resources. Beginning reviewers tend to lean toward the latter. It takes training and practice to write useful reviews / critiques. Mentors should take the time to do this for their trainees.
EricE 6y ago
"The science is settled!" Often uttered by people who should know better - or probably do but don't care because it's a politically expedient statement. Not a bad article, but the real elephant in the room these days is how to have a dissenting viewpoint and NOT get your carrier ruined.
- Mountain_Skies 6y ago
  As pushback continues to mount against this political behavior in science, those who created the environment, sensing a loss of power, will push more of these "can't we just get along" articles in an attempt to silence those pushing back against their bullying and political gamesmanship. Far beyond this situation, attacking and then suing for peace, then attacking and suing for peace, over and over again is a timeless battle tactic. Those who want to do science instead of engaging in political battles are easy targets for this tactic because they just want things to end so they can go back to research. Those who wield science as a sword for political purposes of course will take advantage of this weakness and the manipulation will never end by concession. If science journalists are serious about wanting peace, they can adopt a zero tolerance policy for politics in their content, including the passive aggressive writing that attempts to sneak in political attacks inside other content. But they won't because ultimately the politics are far more important than the science. If it were otherwise, they wouldn't have gotten into this situation in the first place.
- philliphaydon 6y ago
  The media is notorious for spreading “the science is settle”, and the reaction of the public to label anyone a denier if someone doesn’t think /exactly/ the same way, has ruined science for me.
  - AnimalMuppet 6y ago
    It shouldn't ruin science for you. It should ruin the media and the public for you.
    - philliphaydon 6y ago

82 points by nabla9 6y ago

ggm 6y ago

Be in the field or declare your dilettante status.

hntroll666 6y ago
I'm not seeing the benefit. Being "in the field" is imaginary. If a good point is raised, does it matter where it comes from?
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- avs733 6y ago
  Being 'in a field' is not rigidly bounded but it is hardly imaginary. It doesn't matter where a good point comes from but where a point comes from has a huge impact as to whether a point is good. Being in a field means you are familiar with the content and style of discourse. You speak the language, even if the language is always English. You know how to communicate ideas within group norms. That is useful because it aids shared meaning making in any form of communication. If I stood up as an educator at a ACM conference and started talking about 'normalizing to C+' there is serious potential for misunderstanding that I'm talking about grading whereas y'all might think I'm talking about programming languages. We make meaning of information in context as human beings, some of that context is local (e.g., the rest of what I'm reading) some of it is regional (dialectic, people who ask me at restaurants in my area 'do you want a coke' and then clarify what kind because coke is a euphemism for soda not Coca Cola)...some of it is even broader. The key thing is not all of it is shared, and context is key to inferring or constructing shared meaning.
- omgwtfbbq 6y ago
  Depends on the Field. I'd say that in Physics for example there is almost never any good points raised by those on the outside. Should everyone be forced to address every not even wrong idea that comes across their desk?
kergonath 6y ago
Different people have different ideas about what “the field” is. And outsiders can give valuable insights and ideas just because they don’t always follow the ideas that everyone in “the field” has internalised. It is hard for them to go all the way though, because they often miss things that are obvious to specialists. You should not dismiss outsiders a priori. Not all of them are crackpots.
- ggm 6y ago
  I didn't say dismiss. I said declare.

blackbear_ 6y ago

Quite related: "Criticism of Ideas Is Not Harassment" [1] [1] https://www.chronicle.com/blogs/letters/criticism-of-ideas-is-not-harassment https://www.chronicle.com/blogs/letters/criticism-of-ideas-i...

zamfi 6y ago
It’s worth reading the piece that inspired this one [0] too, through. [0] https://www.chronicle.com/article/when-academic-bullies-claim-the-mantle-of-free-speech https://www.chronicle.com/article/when-academic-bullies-clai...
- tenkabuto 6y ago
  > Academic freedom has been weaponized, cut loose from its traditional mooring in intellectual expertise (as has been argued by intellectuals expert in the subject, such as Robert Post and Joan Scott), Huh. This phrasing suggests to me that the response article (OP) is pretty on point, maybe even more than the author explicitly mentions: rather than there being ideologies that are beyond reproach or criticism, "experts" are not to be questioned.
  - avs733 6y ago
    no...its saying exactly the opposite. questioning is good. claiming academic freedom to drive targeted Harassment of people you do not like is not criticism. The first article is talking about what is and is not criticism, it is not talking about who is and who is not allowed to perform critique. If you and I disagreed in a meeting, even if we had a serious argument, I'll accept that as critique. If I followed it up by convincing all our coworkers to write you emails telling you to kill yourself, that isn't criticism thats harassment.
    - throwaway894345 6y ago
      > If you and I disagreed in a meeting, even if we had a serious argument, I'll accept that as critique. If I followed it up by convincing all our coworkers to write you emails telling you to kill yourself, that isn't criticism thats harassment. The broader cancel culture debate, including here on HN, made me realize how few people actually understand that threats and harassment do not fall under the rubric of criticism. Similarly, many people seem to think it's only harassment if convicted in a court of law, and if the law doesn't bother to pursue cancellers then what they are doing must not be harassment. It seems that we free speech advocates are not doing a very good job of educating people about what is and isn't free speech, or at least I thought we had been doing a better job.

mdpopescu 6y ago

Why, exactly, is one supposed to be respectful of - to put it mildly - people who are "not even wrong"? What is the purpose of that respect or, conversely, what is gained if we dismiss out of hand criticism because it is not respectful?

hn8788 6y ago
Because we're human beings, and it doesn't matter how right you are if nobody can stand having you around. I'd wager that a group of "average" researchers that can be respectful and get along is going to get more done than a genius that nobody will work with because they're an ass.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- tristor 6y ago
  I wish that were true, but historically you'd be wrong. While there are plenty of counter-examples, when it comes to innovation and novel inventions that have widely sweeping social effects, they're usually the result of the "eccentric genius", and not always by the choice of the inventor. One of the things I find interesting in this larger comment thread is the failure to acknowledge that historically speaking it's been those who bucked current consensus to investigate or prove out their ideas that faced backlash, censure, and harassment within academia, not people who happened to have mainstream ideological viewpoints coloring their work. There's a lot of words in this larger comment thread about reasoned criticism of some of the more difficult to prove ideas being championed by those in the CRT camp as being harassment, and a lot of people trying to paint those putting forward that criticism as being disrespectful assholes. But rather, history paints a different picture of the types of research that endures harassment. As an example, take the case of the doctor who first pushed for other doctors to wash their hands. [1]. [1]: https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2020/03/23/ignaz-semmelweis-handwashing-coronavirus/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2020/03/23/ignaz-semme...

dekhn 6y ago

everything about this article applies to arguing on the internet. it's really painful to watch these guidelines violated over and over. I think the worst violation is to immediately accuse anybody who disagrees with you as 'gaslighting'.

mistermann 6y ago
Also: gish galloping.
- etrabroline 6y ago
  Fortunately academia is supposed to be immune from that because you can write academic papers in response to one another without a time limit as in oral debate.
labatyd 6y ago
You forgot screaming "whataboutism" anytime you try to introduce a comparable example to a topic where they are clearly arguing in bad faith. That has been the single greatest weapon in destroying true discourse that I have seen.
- dekhn 6y ago
  that's a good point. In many debates, I have to reply to people saying "whataboutism actually makes sense in this context".
- etrabroline 6y ago
  I have never heard "whataboutism" outside of hackernews and I have never seen it accompanied with an actual argument of _why_ an analogy doesnt apply. Any use of analogy can apparently be dismissed with that one word like its a magic spell.
  - dekhn 6y ago
    I see it all the time at work (at a FAAMG company). It's just as silly in that context, and as lacking in supporting evidence.

wombatmobile 6y ago

How to Criticize with Kindness: Philosopher Daniel Dennett on the Four Steps to Arguing Intelligently [0] 1. You should attempt to re-express your target’s position so clearly, vividly, and fairly that your target says, “Thanks, I wish I’d thought of putting it that way.” 2. You should list any points of agreement (especially if they are not matters of general or widespread agreement). 3. You should mention anything you have learned from your target. 4. Only then are you permitted to say so much as a word of rebuttal or criticism. [0] https://www.brainpickings.org/2014/03/28/daniel-dennett-rapoport-rules-criticism/ https://www.brainpickings.org/2014/03/28/daniel-dennett-rapo...

mistermann 6y ago
I wonder how useful to society it would be if there was a website that had an implementation of this, so internet arguments could be moderated with some structure.
casefields 6y ago
Throw in Bertrand Russell's Liberal Decalogue and we have a great foundation: 1. Do not feel absolutely certain of anything. 2. Do not think it worth while to proceed by concealing evidence, for the evidence is sure to come to light. 3. Never try to discourage thinking for you are sure to succeed. 4. When you meet with opposition, even if it should be from your husband or your children, endeavor to overcome it by argument and not by authority, for a victory dependent upon authority is unreal and illusory. 5. Have no respect for the authority of others, for there are always contrary authorities to be found. 6. Do not use power to suppress opinions you think pernicious, for if you do the opinions will suppress you. 7. Do not fear to be eccentric in opinion, for every opinion now accepted was once eccentric. 8. Find more pleasure in intelligent dissent than in passive agreement, for, if you value intelligence as you should, the former implies a deeper agreement than the latter. 9. Be scrupulously truthful, even if the truth is inconvenient, for it is more inconvenient when you try to conceal it. 10. Do not feel envious of the happiness of those who live in a fool’s paradise, for only a fool will think that it is happiness. The Best Answer to Fanaticism—Liberalism: https://docdro.id/V5pgUbH https://docdro.id/V5pgUbH

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

omgwtfbbq 6y ago

Important to note that criticism is natural and necessary to move fields forward. There is a movement across Academia particularly in CRT and adjacent fields to equate criticism of an idea or theory with bullying or personal harassment which is obviously ridiculous.

Pfhreak 6y ago
Big citation needed on the 'movement across Academia'. Most Academics I've ever worked with, and folks who are serious about their work invite critical thought. I do see some folks dress up intolerance in the trappings of criticism and then feign injury when the academics or others refuse to engage with their 'critiques'. A concrete example is how many folks will use the expression "gender critical" to dress up intolerance towards trans and non-binary people. There are legitimate discussions to have about gender, and there are legitimate critiques of positions that can be levied against different viewpoints. But that doesn't mean that all criticisms are valid or brought forward in good faith. Some of those criticisms are bullying and harassment and it's important to understand that criticism is a nuanced topic and we can't just say, "All criticism good" or "all criticism bad" and be done.
- omgwtfbbq 6y ago
  Well you're kind of exactly demonstrating my argument. Criticism of someone's idea or theory is not harassment of that person. It's by definition not ad-hominem
  - Pfhreak 6y ago
    It's not so simple, unfortunately. Yes, in an ideal world I would agree with you -- criticism, when deployed reasonably, is not harassment. But let's look at some concrete ways this could break down. I'm going to use HN as an analogy, but swap in whitepapers, emails, etc. Example 1: If I specifically open your comment history, and raise critique against only your comments, methodically going through them and finding specific things to be critical of, is that harassment? I don't do this to anyone else, just you. Is it reasonable to feel uncomfortable that someone is laser focused on critiquing only your work? Example 2: It is much easier to offer critique than to address critique -- if I intentionally respond to your comments/papers with loads of hard to answer but relatively meaningless questions, thereby slowing you down, is that harassment? An author's time is a limited resource, and if I'm deliberately trying to cause them to spend it dealing with me, is that harassment? In debate, this is called the Gish Gallop and it's widely effective. Example 3: If I respond to your comments with disingenuous questions or criticisms that I know will prompt an emotional response in you in an effort to get you to respond in a frustrated way, is that harassment? Humans are not emotionless automata, and even when we try to maintain barriers between ourselves and our ideas, a sufficiently needling criticism can eventually get under someone's skin. Example 4: What if there's a significant power imbalance? Let's say you are a tech celebrity and you go onto twitter and post, "Look at this person's HN post, can you believe this? Hey, everyone, please go write one critical reply to their post." You are brigading someone, and sure, a lot of the questions might be critical, but the volume and intent might not be critical. Is that harassment? Like many things in engineering, scale and intent matters. There's a lot of malicious behavior that can be dressed up as "I'm just asking questions". These behaviors can be intentional or unintentional and they can make people reasonably feel pretty strong emotions like fear, anxiety, etc. Perhaps, in a perfect world, we'd be able to use axioms and construct arguments and no one would malaiciously engage with the scientific process, but we don't live in that world. We live in a world where humans are involved and it's messy and emotional and we try to do the right things, but there are people who, for whatever reason, think it is fun or gain some benefit from stalling those whose ideologies differ.

rrock 6y ago

Excellent advice. I'd add one more thought for the reviewers side of the equation (peer review specifically). Your objective as a reviewer is to help the authors present their case. Keeping that in mind helps to separate what additional work is essential vs. Nice to have if given unlimited time and resources. Beginning reviewers tend to lean toward the latter. It takes training and practice to write useful reviews / critiques. Mentors should take the time to do this for their trainees.

EricE 6y ago

"The science is settled!" Often uttered by people who should know better - or probably do but don't care because it's a politically expedient statement. Not a bad article, but the real elephant in the room these days is how to have a dissenting viewpoint and NOT get your carrier ruined.

Mountain_Skies 6y ago
As pushback continues to mount against this political behavior in science, those who created the environment, sensing a loss of power, will push more of these "can't we just get along" articles in an attempt to silence those pushing back against their bullying and political gamesmanship. Far beyond this situation, attacking and then suing for peace, then attacking and suing for peace, over and over again is a timeless battle tactic. Those who want to do science instead of engaging in political battles are easy targets for this tactic because they just want things to end so they can go back to research. Those who wield science as a sword for political purposes of course will take advantage of this weakness and the manipulation will never end by concession. If science journalists are serious about wanting peace, they can adopt a zero tolerance policy for politics in their content, including the passive aggressive writing that attempts to sneak in political attacks inside other content. But they won't because ultimately the politics are far more important than the science. If it were otherwise, they wouldn't have gotten into this situation in the first place.
philliphaydon 6y ago
The media is notorious for spreading “the science is settle”, and the reaction of the public to label anyone a denier if someone doesn’t think /exactly/ the same way, has ruined science for me.
- AnimalMuppet 6y ago
  It shouldn't ruin science for you. It should ruin the media and the public for you.
  - philliphaydon 6y ago