4 ms·

TIL "Sealioning" which it wasn't. we're discussing scientific culture. OP is pointing out a problem. and now you say always and everywhere which is a strong

by froh 2y ago

TIL "Sealioning" which it wasn't. we're discussing scientific culture. OP is pointing out a problem. and now you say always and everywhere which is a strong claim. happens sometimes, ok. happens a lot, okay. but "everywhere", "always"? also it would be genuinely interesting to get pointers on meta research, evidence based statements about the trustworthiness of X as in scientists, institutions, papers, publishers, ... I ask for that and you respond "Sealioning" shrug have a grand evening

pclmulqdq 2y ago
I've argued on the internet enough to know where the "source?" discussion goes. Nipping bad faith arguments in the bud is a good idea, in general, and the best way to do that is to call the argument out for what it is. It's also a good idea not to try to start them, but I don't control your behavior. Doubling down on your bad faith arguments is not a good look, either. If you would like to have a discussion with long-form essays and cited sources, start by bringing some. In other words, if you want other people to put in effort, put some in first. Here's my anecdata: I have submitted 6 papers for review and had 7 reviewers request a citation of one sort or another.
- froh 2y ago
  I get the logic and I get where you come from. I come from a place where of all "information sources" scholar.google.com is still one of the slightly more trustworthy ones. the review process has its quirks, but it's better than no peer review at all. in that world, where academic peer reviews appears to be a last "bastion" of reliability, a statement like the one that started this thread is something I feel the urge to "nib the bud". if we were in a room I'd suggest we have beer of sorts and a good laugh about the irony of this thread. I think you need to be careful to not initiate the very rhetoric game you want to fight. if your top level statement had been your anecdata, and maybe a question about the pervasiveness of this phenomenon and if there is nuance? like, if the journal asks an expert in the field about a review and they do know relevant papers, maybe indeed some of their own, a citation request may be just fine? I'd said nothing. just nothing. but the thread starter overgeneralized the missing trustworthiness of the scientific peer process as a whole. and there I dared to ask: is that really so? should we stop trusting published science, in general, and "do our own research" ;-) do you see, where I come from? do you see the irony of this thread? and can we have a figurative beer?
  - pclmulqdq 2y ago
    Let's have a beer but I want to give you some feedback too: When someone says something, it's a good idea to assume they are not lying to you, even when it's something you disagree with. So when you read on the internet "this has happened to me every time and happens to every scientist I know," you should read that as though it is coming from someone who is positioned to make that statement. From that point, if you disagree (which you do), make the content of your disagreement clear. Something like this works great: "I don't think this is true - they mostly have real context to add." Then we will have something to discuss that is narrow enough to have a fruitful dialogue that expands the point of contention for the readers, and opens the door to higher effort from your interlocutor. Debate (including online debate) is not for the participants, but for the third parties. Start with an assumption of good faith even if you don't like the wording. Then, respond in good faith back and you will get the discussion you want.

by froh 2y ago

pclmulqdq 2y ago

I've argued on the internet enough to know where the "source?" discussion goes. Nipping bad faith arguments in the bud is a good idea, in general, and the best way to do that is to call the argument out for what it is. It's also a good idea not to try to start them, but I don't control your behavior. Doubling down on your bad faith arguments is not a good look, either. If you would like to have a discussion with long-form essays and cited sources, start by bringing some. In other words, if you want other people to put in effort, put some in first. Here's my anecdata: I have submitted 6 papers for review and had 7 reviewers request a citation of one sort or another.

froh 2y ago
I get the logic and I get where you come from. I come from a place where of all "information sources" scholar.google.com is still one of the slightly more trustworthy ones. the review process has its quirks, but it's better than no peer review at all. in that world, where academic peer reviews appears to be a last "bastion" of reliability, a statement like the one that started this thread is something I feel the urge to "nib the bud". if we were in a room I'd suggest we have beer of sorts and a good laugh about the irony of this thread. I think you need to be careful to not initiate the very rhetoric game you want to fight. if your top level statement had been your anecdata, and maybe a question about the pervasiveness of this phenomenon and if there is nuance? like, if the journal asks an expert in the field about a review and they do know relevant papers, maybe indeed some of their own, a citation request may be just fine? I'd said nothing. just nothing. but the thread starter overgeneralized the missing trustworthiness of the scientific peer process as a whole. and there I dared to ask: is that really so? should we stop trusting published science, in general, and "do our own research" ;-) do you see, where I come from? do you see the irony of this thread? and can we have a figurative beer?
- pclmulqdq 2y ago
  Let's have a beer but I want to give you some feedback too: When someone says something, it's a good idea to assume they are not lying to you, even when it's something you disagree with. So when you read on the internet "this has happened to me every time and happens to every scientist I know," you should read that as though it is coming from someone who is positioned to make that statement. From that point, if you disagree (which you do), make the content of your disagreement clear. Something like this works great: "I don't think this is true - they mostly have real context to add." Then we will have something to discuss that is narrow enough to have a fruitful dialogue that expands the point of contention for the readers, and opens the door to higher effort from your interlocutor. Debate (including online debate) is not for the participants, but for the third parties. Start with an assumption of good faith even if you don't like the wording. Then, respond in good faith back and you will get the discussion you want.