tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post7563865283149272149..comments2024-03-19T00:24:23.577-04:00Comments on <center>Sandwalk</center>: "The Perils of Public Outreach"Larry Moranhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05756598746605455848noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-67230727709036046812017-05-19T08:19:53.804-04:002017-05-19T08:19:53.804-04:00This sounds like the modern version of ‘play nice’...This sounds like the modern version of ‘play nice’.<br /><br />It seems she is concerned some ‘social justice warriors’ will fall victim to ’schoolyard-style bullying’.<br />After all, ‘scientists are taught to look for problems in arguments, not to praise them.’<br /><br />I think the people at University are being trained to be easily offended (micro-aggression?).<br />If one finds the critique offensive, then that might make ‘critical discussion impossible.’<br /><br />I believe the probability of response in this case would be proportional to (the amount of praise engaged in) over (the amount of fault finding).Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01987183007523742829noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-76697439609055665122017-05-17T00:02:34.811-04:002017-05-17T00:02:34.811-04:00She seems to be complaining that "scientists&...She seems to be complaining that "scientists" are addressing/attacking other scientists in public forums after just reading "off the cuff" comments by the scientists being attacked. Hurt feelings and a "culture' of being super careful about what you say is the complaint.<br /><br />Its a criticism towards other scientists and not the non scientist public. i'm off the hook! I guess say whatever i want. Her point would be it doesn't matter what i say!(This is a rumour to crush, everyone I hope agrees).<br />Yes she wants scientists to keep it AT HOME. not out in the street.<br />Conclusions in science, origin pugilists know, is a contact sport.<br />It shouldn't make a culture of censorship or intimidation.<br />As the great DON CHERRY says YOU have to take a few punches in the corners of the rink. <br />I hope she is not saying scientists can't be questioned by anyone iin public IF scientists can't question each other in public?!<br />making a priesthood here. Hopefully not.Robert Byershttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05631863870635096770noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-11193252106087054982017-05-16T23:37:08.089-04:002017-05-16T23:37:08.089-04:00I don't think you quite get what she's say...I don't think you quite get what she's saying, although I also think you do get the implication of what she's saying. She's saying that non-journal (or academic book or talk, presumably) statements are more open to misrepresentation because they aren't precise and in jargon.<br /><br />The thing is, as you say, so what. If the statements made aren't clear or are wrong, they should be criticized no matter what venue they were presented in. She's also saying that criticizing is an attack (a favorite claim of pseudoscience and fringe science proponents, which should have given her pause before using that approach - I suspect she would object to me saying that, which she shouldn't do because that's censorship. :) sarcasm mode off). You're saying it's normal back and forth, and I agree. She's looking, IMO, for a way to make statements but not have them critiqued, only accepted, or to have an "it's not my fault I said what I said" out for any wrong statement. Again, that's something you see all the time in pseudoscience and fringe science.anthrosciguyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02192669356363848169noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-25226722915375051192017-05-16T13:51:17.357-04:002017-05-16T13:51:17.357-04:00Public criticisms after publication are just an ex...Public criticisms after publication are just an extension of peer review, in my opinion. No one accepts a paper as undeniably true just because it has been looked at by 3 or so reviewers and subsequently published. It is understood that pre-publication peer review is just the first step for any scientific findings.<br /><br />There is also a balancing act between getting scientific findings out into the public eye and rigorous peer review. It could be argued that just getting data out into the larger scientific community is a good thing, even if it entails flawed methodology, lack of controls, poor data analysis, or poorly supported conclusions. Others argue for conclusions that are supported by tons of data from multiple methods and analyses. As always, the sweet spot is probably somewhere in the middle.<br /><br />I can't say that I agree with it, but I was rather intrigued by the idea of no pre-publication peer review. Simply publish the paper online, and then open it up to comments. Perhaps even allow additions to the paper as more data comes in, with appropriate annotations to show when the changes were made.Erichttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09481645265615126897noreply@blogger.com