4 ms·

Twitter: A Blue Badge for Scientists?

1 points by webmaven 5y ago

ggm 5y ago
I think what they want to achieve (confidence building, trust) is laudable, but I think we can all see that the "do the research" crowd will interpret a scientist badge policed by Nature or a peer review group as proof of world government. Not that I wouldn't appreciate having it available. But, what about the occasional dickhead scientist? The ones who hang onto tenure by a single thread, but have something interesting to say? David Graeber might exemplify. He pissed off a lot of people. [0] Or, more perverse, the ones who are off-piste, but use their "I am a SKIENTIST" badge to intrude into fields they don't understand, and do bad work. Prof Ian Plimer comes to mind: occasionally on point, but often out to oppose AGW in fields he hasn't got the chops in. [1] A reasonable response to this post would be "you really just mean you agree with one, and not the other" -but the underlying point is still there. Inside their field, they'd own a blue scientist mark. Outside of their corpus of work, people would have to understand the limits of applicability of the badge. If the badge scheme has sub-field, then it gets down to a mighty complicated decision sum over the relevance of mathematics to everything... [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Graeber https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Graeber [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ian_Plimer https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ian_Plimer
- smt88 5y ago
  Why do you assume the "do the research" crowd is the target audience? There are lots of confused people in the middle of the online debate that never post to social media and need better signposts to tell them whom to trust.
  - ggm 5y ago
    I think thats probably the upside, yes. If it helps move the dial for people who won't assume 'badged' is 'conspiracy' its done a good thing. I guess the other ones were a lost cause anyway. Malcolm Gladwell can't get a badge. This is good. Stephen Pinker and Noam Chomsky get badges in linguistics only...
necovek 5y ago
Stupidity and unreasonableness of very intelligent people (including scientists) can go to extreme lengths. "Identity verified" should be the most they are awarded. Otherwise, it's just an appeal to authority, and can do more harm than good. TBH though, I am not a twitter user and article is paywalled, but I thought "blue badge" was simply identity-verified indication.
- webmaven 5y ago
  > I thought "blue badge" was simply identity-verified indication. On one level it is, but the semiotics are a bit more involved; Having a blue badge also indicates "this person is considered prominent enough by Twitter to be worth verifying", or perhaps "Being verified has value to this person".

1 points by webmaven 5y ago

ggm 5y ago

I think what they want to achieve (confidence building, trust) is laudable, but I think we can all see that the "do the research" crowd will interpret a scientist badge policed by Nature or a peer review group as proof of world government. Not that I wouldn't appreciate having it available. But, what about the occasional dickhead scientist? The ones who hang onto tenure by a single thread, but have something interesting to say? David Graeber might exemplify. He pissed off a lot of people. [0] Or, more perverse, the ones who are off-piste, but use their "I am a SKIENTIST" badge to intrude into fields they don't understand, and do bad work. Prof Ian Plimer comes to mind: occasionally on point, but often out to oppose AGW in fields he hasn't got the chops in. [1] A reasonable response to this post would be "you really just mean you agree with one, and not the other" -but the underlying point is still there. Inside their field, they'd own a blue scientist mark. Outside of their corpus of work, people would have to understand the limits of applicability of the badge. If the badge scheme has sub-field, then it gets down to a mighty complicated decision sum over the relevance of mathematics to everything... [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Graeber https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Graeber [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ian_Plimer https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ian_Plimer

smt88 5y ago
Why do you assume the "do the research" crowd is the target audience? There are lots of confused people in the middle of the online debate that never post to social media and need better signposts to tell them whom to trust.
- ggm 5y ago
  I think thats probably the upside, yes. If it helps move the dial for people who won't assume 'badged' is 'conspiracy' its done a good thing. I guess the other ones were a lost cause anyway. Malcolm Gladwell can't get a badge. This is good. Stephen Pinker and Noam Chomsky get badges in linguistics only...

necovek 5y ago

Stupidity and unreasonableness of very intelligent people (including scientists) can go to extreme lengths. "Identity verified" should be the most they are awarded. Otherwise, it's just an appeal to authority, and can do more harm than good. TBH though, I am not a twitter user and article is paywalled, but I thought "blue badge" was simply identity-verified indication.

webmaven 5y ago
> I thought "blue badge" was simply identity-verified indication. On one level it is, but the semiotics are a bit more involved; Having a blue badge also indicates "this person is considered prominent enough by Twitter to be worth verifying", or perhaps "Being verified has value to this person".