|
Uncivil Comments
|
Uncivil comments are bad for science.
Popsci.com will no longer allow comments. http://www.popsci.com/science/article/20...yCen+Tech) 
yeah. Unfortunatly some people seem to get satisfaction out of endlessly and repeatedly posting garbage over and over again whilest other try to debate. The same pritty much in the comments section of every media online outlet.
I agree with their decision. I've noticed that I have a bad habit of checking the comments section after I read something I've never known about before, usually thinking, hm, is this true? I should see what other people think. And if I'm not too interested in that subject that'd be the end of it.
But I never do this when I'm doing research for work or studies, because I know it's bad science to be biased or take public opinion seriously. Comments actually have quite a lot of sway over what a reader would conclude about an article. Which is why, like the article says, evolution and global warming is still problematic for so many to understand that it's not a matter of opinion. 
It says 'can be' and gives explanation on their site.
Way to twist words, dumbass. (Uncivility can be good for chastising purposes.) 
Most comment sections I've seen are unmoderated cesspools of pure human stupidity. Any site that does away with comment sections is doing the right thing, IMO.
"Well, evolution is a theory. It is also a fact. And facts and theories are different things, not rungs in a hierarchy of increasing certainty. Facts are the world's data. Theories are structures of ideas that explain and interpret facts. Facts don't go away when scientists debate rival theories to explain them. Einstein's theory of gravitation replaced Newton's in this century, but apples didn't suspend themselves in midair, pending the outcome. And humans evolved from ape- like ancestors whether they did so by Darwin's proposed mechanism or by some other yet to be discovered."
-Stephen Jay Gould (September 26, 2013 at 7:41 pm)Captain Colostomy Wrote: It says 'can be' and gives explanation on their site. You, know, I didn't even think of that when I posted it. I certainly did not intend to twist words. You're correct, it doesn't say "is bad." Thank you for pointing out my dumbassness and correcting me. Peer review is alive and well. (September 26, 2013 at 7:44 pm)Max_Kolbe Wrote:(September 26, 2013 at 7:41 pm)Captain Colostomy Wrote: It says 'can be' and gives explanation on their site. No worries. I expect not thinking from theists anyways. 
Max, just a suggestion, but you might want put in a little more effort in your OPs to catch people's interest and to start the discussion on where you stand. Otherwise you come off as a bot.
Thanks for bringing the article to my attention. It must truly be a vexing decision for them.
|
|
« Next Oldest | Next Newest »
|
