6 ms·
Reddit’s science forum banned climate deniers. Why don’t all newspapers?
- paulhauggis 13y agoWhy ban them? It's important to hear multiple opinions on the topic. If they are trolling or not adding anything to the discussion, then yes, ban them.
- BigTuna 13y agoReally though, what have climate change deniers added to the discussion in the last 5 years? I'm all for entertaining multiple opinions on any topic but I don't think deniers are operating in good faith.
- trapezor 13y agoSo you didn't read the article, right?
- acadien 13y agoCurrently it seems none of the top level posters have read the article.
- HarryHirsch 13y agoThey are banned because it's the Science forum, and the scientific consensus is as much in favour of Global Warming as it is in favour of Special Relativity. The climate change deniers do nothing but add noise. Now, politics is a different beast altogether. It has nothing to do with observable reality and everything with who you know or can get to float your boat. Anyone who does not believe this is advised to read Robert Caro's biography of Robert Moses and then come back. Climate change deniers are playing politics. That, or they are being played at politics.
- mindslight 13y agoA key difference is that special relativity makes predictions that have been repeatedly tested. > Climate change deniers ... are being played at politics I wholeheartedly agree with this. And the same thing goes for the supporters as well. Once politics enters the landscape, it's there. It affects who gets considered a 'peer', which publications are considered 'objective', who gets funded, and scientists' standings at their employers. One of the key tenets of science is that by repeatably checking predictions, we can put a damper on humans' standard tribal behavior. The harder these predictions are to check (in this case, due to timescale and noisefloor), the less science actually works. When the results are then repeated dogmatically instead of questioned skeptically, it starts to seem an awful lot like religion.
- herbig 13y agoJust like the idea of "teach the controversy," giving legitimacy to ridiculous ideas gives the impression that either side is equally likely/valid. Really it just wastes people's time.
- ceejayoz 13y agoThey'd likely ban someone who believes in a flat Earth, too. Climate deniers aren't interested in adding to the discussion beyond reposting the same debunked arguments over and over.
- DanBC 13y ago> It's important to hear multiple opinions on the topic. Like evolution? It's important to hear that a God created everything, and directs the Universe? Or like Earth sciences? It's important to hear that God created the world 6,000 years ago and all those scientists have got it wrong? It's pretty clear why they were banned. It's not for presenting opposing views, but for aggressively dismissing real science without scientific evidence to support them. > After some time interacting with the regular denier posters, it became clear that they could not or would not improve their demeanor. These problematic users were not the common “internet trolls” looking to have a little fun upsetting people. Such users are practically the norm on reddit. These people were true believers, blind to the fact that their arguments were hopelessly flawed, the result of cherry-picked data and conspiratorial thinking. They had no idea that the smart-sounding talking points from their preferred climate blog were, even to a casual climate science observer, plainly wrong. They were completely enamored by the emotionally charged and rhetoric-based arguments of pundits on talk radio and Fox News. [...] > Over and over, solid peer-reviewed science was insulted as corrupt, while blog posts from fossil-fuel-funded groups were cited as objective fact. Worst of all, they didn’t even get the irony of quoting oil-funded blogs that called university scientists biased.
- Tarang 13y agoWhat if reddit was run by people who were the skeptics? Then the science community would be banned. In silence it's all about who decides who is silent. In this case its reddit but what if it isn't?
- warfangle 13y agoReddit isn't run by the /r/science mods. If you want to create a subreddit dedicated to emotional vitriol on subjects which already have scientific consensus, there's an easy way to do that: http://www.reddit.com/subreddits/create http://www.reddit.com/subreddits/create Might I suggest the subreddit name, 'butthurt'?
- reginaldjcooper 13y agoIt's a science discussion subreddit. I think "your statements must be within a standard deviation of reality as measured" is not an unreasonable requirement for posting to a scientific discussion. It actually is quite nice to have, say, young earth creationists denied a chance to show their views when you are trying to have a discussion about reality.
- vdaniuk 13y agoBy definition there is one correct hypothethis(as far as scientific consensus is established) and infinite number of wrong hypothethis. If community provides an opportunity for its members to hear multiple opinions, correct hypothethis will be drowned in the deluge of wrong ones. Cognitive capacity is limited and gatekeepers sometimes are a good thing. Peer reviewed journals is one example of that.
- ozh 13y agoNext, please: ban creationists.
- timdiggerm 13y agoOnly if they're jerks. Perhaps you didn't read the article?
- Xeoncross 13y agoWhy didn't he give an example? He said they just talk without backing up their claims with substantial data, yet that is exactly what he did and we are supposed to take his word for it. (Even if I do believe him)
- DanBC 13y agoGiving a specific example turns the discussion from "a group of people do this thing, and we've banned them" and whether that's a good or bad idea into "here's an example" followed by bitter discussion of how that example should or shouldn't be allowed in the sub.
- logfromblammo 13y agoI think the "debate" is obscuring the real issue, which is the development of terraforming technologies. Stabilizing Earth's climate at the point most beneficial for its biosphere is good practice for more challenging future homes of the Earth biocomplex, such as Mars, the Jovian Big 4, Titan, Ceres, and even the hardcore nightmare mode terraforming: Venus. If humans can change planetary climate accidentally, we can certainly do it intentionally with a smaller and more directed effort. And if we can "fix" Earth to be optimally friendly to Earth life, those efforts will translate to environments that are more hostile from the beginning. I just wish that politics hadn't hijacked the science to turn it into a machine for moving money and influence around.
- timje1 13y agoIn response to your last sentence: people who can hijack systems to gain power, money and influence tend to end up running things. It's pretty much inevitable.
- logfromblammo 13y agoYes, but the hand that I wish into requires less frequent washing.
- maxerickson 13y agoWe don't know the point that is most beneficial for the biosphere. And if we did, I bet we would still aim at the point that was the most beneficial for humans. (I'm not sure this can even be discussed objectively; how do you decide between biomass and biodiversity, and so on)
- nkuttler 13y agoThat's... interesting. I hope that they didn't ban people who deny that the current climate change is man-made? Denying facts is just silly, forbidding a discussion about causes for these facts seems non-scientific.
- samspenc 13y agoAbsolutely. I was pretty shocked myself upon reading this article. I guess that forum is going to be only people who are agree on climate change now.
- Rudism 13y agoThe article seems to indicate that they primarily forbade the posting of conspiracy theories (ie, the "Big Green" and "Big Oil" accusations), and that bans only came after repeated violations of the rules.
- NegativeK 13y agoReddit is not something that should be held up to scientific rigor. Also, the assumption that the climate change denial comments have any chance of being well supported (not just because they're wrong, but because they're not authored by people with scientific training) is probably misplaced.
- nkuttler 13y agoCertain reddit communities are vigorously trying to uphold scientific standards. AskScience, AskHistoriance etc come to mind. Yes, if deniers of man-made climate change can't cite scientific sources they shouldn't write in scientific reddits. The problem I see with "people with scientific training" though is that it's very hard to make a career unless you support the view that the current climate change is man-made, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Climate_science_opinion2.png http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Climate_science_opinion2.p.... But there should (still) be enough percentage points left to find valid opposing arguments.
- tinco 13y agoWhy would they not ban people who deny current climate change is man-made without proper evidence, and so disrupt proper scientific debate? Where do you get the facts idea, I don't see anything about facts in the article. What facts are you talking about?
- tokenizer 13y agoI think this shows scientific institutions and advocates in a bad light. Rupert Sheldrake had a great TED talk on the dogma's of modern science, and was even further legitimized when a private council of TED banned the talk. Link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JKHUaNAxsTg http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JKHUaNAxsTg
- sharkbot 13y agoThat's incorrect. Rupert Sheldrake gave a TEDx talk on his non-scientific opinions, which wasn't considered to be appropriate. The talk is still available, just not under the TEDx label. See here for more details: http://www.ted.com/conversations/16894/rupert_sheldrake_s_tedx_talk.html http://www.ted.com/conversations/16894/rupert_sheldrake_s_te...
- tokenizer 13y ago> non-scientific opinions hmm... lets check out your link... > ...be removed from the TEDx archive if the ideas contained in it are wrong to the point of being unscientific... So who judges this? Did you even watch the video? The whole thing was about questioning things we already THINK we know the answers to. How is the opposite of such not Dogma? Did you even research Constants? He had. But you're right, just plain wrong. http://arstechnica.com/science/2011/11/fundamental-constants-are-not-constant-or-maybe-they-are-we-dont-know-really/ http://arstechnica.com/science/2011/11/fundamental-constants...
- protomyth 13y agoDr. Rupert Sheldrake's interview about the TEDx video is interesting. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kAuxXvNVhgA http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kAuxXvNVhgA
- warfangle 13y agoTED talk is the epitome of scientific discourse (edit: /tongue-in-cheek). Rupert Sheldrake is a parapsychyologist.. really? .... -really-? Maybe it should have been Venkmann.
- MrZongle2 13y agoAn irrational move made by a small-minded person. Sunlight is the best disinfectant. If you're confident in your views and your opponent is incapable of articulating his (and, in fact, may actually be hurting his cause) ... you make sure he has a big audience.
- this_user 13y agoHave you actually read the article or only the headline? The main point the author makes is that a small but very vocal minority kept derailing any serious discussion which left the moderators no other choice.
- phazmatis 13y agoThose poor helpless /r/science masses, unable to control theirselves when a controversial post is made. It's a good thing we have moderators to save us from ourselves. (Face it: People suck)
- toomuchtodo 13y agoDisagree. There are some people who simply disregard reason/evidence and rationalize their beliefs on emotion. "The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter." - Winston Churchill
- MrZongle2 13y agoThere are some people who simply disregard reason/evidence and rationalize their beliefs on emotion. That's true, and the world will never be rid of them. And that's probably a good thing, because every now and then, they might be right. I'm not saying that this is the case with global warming/climate change, but history is full of examples where a contrarian turned out to be correct. Repressing speech because it is unpopular or simply wrong is ultimately counterproductive, because it establishes a precedent.
- HelloMcFly 13y agoYour comment may be correct, but it may not be in line with the goal of the mods at r/science. If their goal is better discussion rather than predictable, emotional rabble-rousing, then removing the biggest obstacle to that end seems like the right move.
- reginaldjcooper 13y agoI have no problem from banning people that refuse to accept reality from any educational or political forum. If they banned people for talking about Intelligent Design or alchemy (outside a historical context) I would say that's a feather in their cap as well.
- elgabogringo 13y agoWhen the global warming scientists can actually use their theories to predict something, then I'll pay attention. For now, the only thing they seem to predict is the number of government grants, conference invites, and headlines they'll get from their unproven, dire predictions.
- jfoutz 13y agoThis one got ten pages in science 30 years ago. http://www.sciencemag.org/content/213/4511/957 http://www.sciencemag.org/content/213/4511/957 Predicted around 1/3 of a degree, reality is about 1/2 of a degree. So, there's that.
- wtvanhest 13y agoIn fairness, there were probably other papers that were not nearly as accurate.
- jfoutz 13y agoIn fairness, the default stance would be no change at all. I can't find any that said earth would get colder or stay the same. However, that query is hard to google for. Are you saying Hansen just got lucky? The paper is pretty accessible, i found a copy at nasa http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/abs/ha04600x.html http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/abs/ha04600x.html The reality is, there are a small vocal minority of people that will reject every climate change claim out of hand. There is no known standard that will satisfy those folks. They don't assign the probability as .0000000001, they assign it as zero. now and forever zero. That seems irrational to me, but maybe they know something i don't. I dunno. Me personally, I'd put a high probability on climate changing, and a slightly lower probability on it being caused by humans. I'd put a low probability on us doing anything about it. I'll be dead before the big consequences kick in, so it really doesn't matter much to me. It's kind of ridiculous i'm wasting time commenting about it given my beliefs about any sort of change, but whatever. I'm inconsistent.
- iterationx 13y agoRadiation from fukushima is about to destroy the world's oceans and the fake environmentalists are still whining about carbon. Science is truly in the service of the State. Anybody who uses the word "denier" to denigrate their political opponents is employing dishonest tactics that only a fool would find convincing.
- Sharlin 13y ago[citation needed]
- deleted 13y ago[deleted]
- reginaldjcooper 13y agoI like the juxtaposition of > Anybody who uses the word "denier" to denigrate their political opponents is employing dishonest tactics that only a fool would find convincing. and > fake environmentalists
- randomknowledge 13y agoReading the article, and then seeing responses posted here, I am starting to think hacker news isn't the place for these kind of discussions. Any time any kind of contentions topic is posted a small number of people, similar to those described in the article, come out of the wood work and feel the need to share their uninformed opinions. On an unmoderated forum like this one, perhaps it is better to keep the discussions restricted to subject like programming languages and operations systems, and avoid inadvertently providing a microphone for those with an axe to grind.
- ryandvm 13y agoCodifying circle jerks is a dangerous precedent for a sub-reddit. Of course that assumes that the goal of the forum is fostering discussion and not just engaging in choir-preaching...
- altoz 13y agoPrediction: /r/Science goes the way of /r/politics and /r/atheism and stops being a default sub-reddit.
- philosophus 13y agoNietzsche describes "der letzte Mensch" as the lowest form of human life. His scientific materialism is the most degrading, smallest illusion, worse than any religious dogma. The last man has regressed to the thoughts of what we used to call "beasts," that is, life which is concerned with, can only understand, biological sustenance. Even that may be overly generous, as beasts can be at least curious. His religion, such as it is, is survival, or, at the most, health. He is not so much scientific as scientistic. Science, understood as a type of mathematical empiricism, is not metaphysical. Empirical rigor prevents the authentic scientist from making claims about the existence of God or the proper ends of human life -- or about science itself. When one's gaze turns from the empirically quantifiable to examine the scientific method itself, one has started doing philosophy. One cannot look through the microscope and look at the microscope at the same time. The idea that science is a metaphysical system rather than a method for modeling the world mathematically is scientism. Scientism makes claims that are not susceptible to mathematical analysis or reproducible experiments; that is what distinguishes it from science. These claims include: the world as perceived by human senses is the primary or ultimate reality; science is the best way of understanding the world; God (the Hebraic, infinite God) does not exist; health (understood as reproductive fitness) is the primary object and standard of value of human life. These are all metaphysical or moral claims and as such do not describe objects in the world or physical matter that can be examined by the scientific method. Scientism leads naturally to pseudo-science. If you believe in scientism, then you believe that "science" can provide answers to metaphysical and moral questions. If you believe that, then you believe things like <a href="http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/12/131217210540.htm">this</a> http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/12/131217210540.ht... are scientific, rather than pseudo-science. It is pseudo-science because it is based on beliefs concerning what is better as the end of life. Such beliefs are not susceptible to mathematical modeling and are therefore not part of science. Pseudo-science leads to progressivist political ideologies. Karl Marx is merely the most infamous proponent of "scientific materialism," his term for a baroque and metaphysical religion. It is a religion, based on scientistic historical analysis, atheism, and economics as the valuation of human flourishing. Following the disastrous horrors of the Soviet and Maoist experiments, few today openly fly the Communist banner, but similar ideals persist in more subtle forms. Progressivism, because it is inherently a metaphysical system based on mythological pseudo-science, views Christianity as infidels. As in Islam, the infidel is sometimes tolerated, sometimes more aggressively attacked. Militant atheism distinguishes itself from science by, again, making metaphysical claims about the nature of reality instead of mathematically modeling certain phenomena, and further by enacting legislation (or more thug-like vigilantism) enshrining its particular mythology (scientism). The infidel, as again in Islam, is not argued with but attacked in a jihad, whether through official legislation or "activism."