3 ms·

Obviously we've had plenty of discussions about censorships and online fora and I've got nothing to add there. But does this strike anyone as specifically anti

Obviously we've had plenty of discussions about censorships and online fora and I've got nothing to add there. But does this strike anyone as specifically anti-science? If science is a process that's continually open to revision and re-examination, it seems like claiming a right to ban wrongthink goes directly against that part of the philosophy. What good is it to claim to be evidence-based if you also claim the ability to censor evidence that you've decided, a priori, that doesn't fit your desired narrative? I mean it's one thing to allow political discussions to be moderated but it seems like science claims a particular philosophy that must be open to challenge, right?

TameAntelope 5y ago
I disagree, mostly on the grounds that it takes very little effort to challenge something, and a lot more effort to correctly respond to that challenge. Honestly, I'm curious what you think a solution might be that would respect this basic fact of argumentation.
- godshatter 5y ago
  I'm not the person you're replying to, but I too have wondered about this. The only thing I can come up with is that it takes a lot less effort not to reply to the challenge. The urge to prove someone wrong is the other side of the coin for the trolling problem. People wouldn't fish if others didn't take the bait.
- throwawayboise 5y ago
  It takes quite a bit of effort to credibly challenge something, unless there's a serious, obvious flaw in the methods or evidence supporting the original claim (that's what peer review is supposed to catch).
aliasEli 5y ago
Yes, but extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
wccrawford 5y ago
If the commenters are looking to do science, they can publish their own studies. If they're looking to argue science, They can start their own blog. They aren't being censored or silenced. They're just being removed from a personal blog.
chickenpotpie 5y ago
This blog isn’t science, it’s a blog. People talking about science isn’t science. Actual science still allows people to disprove results through peer reviewed studies and research.
epgui 5y ago
"continually open to revision and re-examination" Absolutely, but your main point is moot. When you're wrong, sometimes you're just wrong. Science is not supposed to accommodate bad ideas, and the arbiters of science are people. Usually, very smart and discerning people. When you delete stupid things that don't make sense, it's called tidying up, not censoring. People just have a hard time accepting that their ideas objectively suck, and that really shouldn't be surprising.
raphlinus 5y ago
You have to make a distinction between good faith and bad faith comments. The latter don't add to a scientific discussion or intellectual curiosity at all. Being openminded is one of the great virtues, especially for scientists, but it doesn't mean that when someone screams insults, you have to take seriously the possibility that they're true. I think the lack of that distinction is one of the nuances missing from much online communication these days. With bad faith comments, I try to downvote and move on, but any comment made in good faith, even and especially when I don't agree, is a good thing.
rsynnott 5y ago
Thousands of comments along the lines of “my uncle’s dentist’s cat told me about this wonder drug that cures covid AND dissolves Bill Gates’ 5G chips” does not useful debate make. I mean, I’m exaggerating, but only a bit. Have you seen the sort of comments this sort of thing gets?

TameAntelope 5y ago

I disagree, mostly on the grounds that it takes very little effort to challenge something, and a lot more effort to correctly respond to that challenge. Honestly, I'm curious what you think a solution might be that would respect this basic fact of argumentation.

godshatter 5y ago
I'm not the person you're replying to, but I too have wondered about this. The only thing I can come up with is that it takes a lot less effort not to reply to the challenge. The urge to prove someone wrong is the other side of the coin for the trolling problem. People wouldn't fish if others didn't take the bait.
throwawayboise 5y ago
It takes quite a bit of effort to credibly challenge something, unless there's a serious, obvious flaw in the methods or evidence supporting the original claim (that's what peer review is supposed to catch).

aliasEli 5y ago

Yes, but extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

wccrawford 5y ago

If the commenters are looking to do science, they can publish their own studies. If they're looking to argue science, They can start their own blog. They aren't being censored or silenced. They're just being removed from a personal blog.

chickenpotpie 5y ago

This blog isn’t science, it’s a blog. People talking about science isn’t science. Actual science still allows people to disprove results through peer reviewed studies and research.

epgui 5y ago

"continually open to revision and re-examination" Absolutely, but your main point is moot. When you're wrong, sometimes you're just wrong. Science is not supposed to accommodate bad ideas, and the arbiters of science are people. Usually, very smart and discerning people. When you delete stupid things that don't make sense, it's called tidying up, not censoring. People just have a hard time accepting that their ideas objectively suck, and that really shouldn't be surprising.

raphlinus 5y ago

You have to make a distinction between good faith and bad faith comments. The latter don't add to a scientific discussion or intellectual curiosity at all. Being openminded is one of the great virtues, especially for scientists, but it doesn't mean that when someone screams insults, you have to take seriously the possibility that they're true. I think the lack of that distinction is one of the nuances missing from much online communication these days. With bad faith comments, I try to downvote and move on, but any comment made in good faith, even and especially when I don't agree, is a good thing.

rsynnott 5y ago

Thousands of comments along the lines of “my uncle’s dentist’s cat told me about this wonder drug that cures covid AND dissolves Bill Gates’ 5G chips” does not useful debate make. I mean, I’m exaggerating, but only a bit. Have you seen the sort of comments this sort of thing gets?