5 ms·

Why 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 ago
Really 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 ago
So you didn't read the article, right?
- acadien 13y ago
  Currently it seems none of the top level posters have read the article.
HarryHirsch 13y ago
They 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 ago
  A 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 ago
Just 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 ago
They'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 ago
  What 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 ago
    Reddit 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 ago
    It'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 ago
By 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.

BigTuna 13y ago

Really 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 ago

So you didn't read the article, right?

acadien 13y ago
Currently it seems none of the top level posters have read the article.

HarryHirsch 13y ago

They 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 ago
A 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 ago

Just 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 ago

They'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 ago
What 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 ago
  Reddit 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 ago
  It'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 ago

By 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.