Sandwalk: Terms & Conditions on Nature Network

Monday, May 05, 2008

Terms & Conditions on Nature Network

Eva Amsen has an interesting question about how you would fund research if you were in complete control of all the money in the world [see, Would you rather?].

I was all set to post a comment when I realized that I had to sign in to Nature Network in order to do so. That reminded me about the terms and conditions. That's way more hassle than I'm prepared to put up with. I prefer the rough and tumble of unrestricted blogs.

My question is, does anyone else feel this way? What's the future of science blogging? Is it the strictly controlled environment of Nature Networks where the fora are part of a for-profit venture? Or is it the free-for-all environment of some of the other science blogs? Or is it something in between like the relatively unrestricted environment of the blogs run by SEED magazine?

6 comments :

Anastasia said...: What a great question.

Anonymous commenters frustrate me. The way I see it, if you are going to hide behind a pseudonym, then don't bother to say anything at all.

OpenID is a good compromise, so people can identify themselves without needing to make an account at every site they visit.

At times, I'm tempted to require some sort of log in on my blog, but then I remember that I don't take the time to comment on something that requires a special log in.; Monday, May 05, 2008 5:48:00 PM
rikard said...: The terms will have you promise

...not to submit or create any link to, any defamatory, obscene, indecent, lewd, pornographic, violent, abusive, offensive, insulting, threatening, menacing, unlawful or blasphemous material

So no blaspheming. Wonder who decides about what is blasphemous.; Monday, May 05, 2008 6:09:00 PM
Anonymous said...: From Life of Brian:

[Matthias is about to be stoned to death]
Matthias: Look, I don't think it ought to be blasphemy, just saying "Jehovah".
[Everyone gasps]
Jewish Official: You're only making it worse for yourself!
Matthias: Making it worse?! How can it be worse?! Jehovah! Jehovah! Jehovah!
Jewish Official: I'm warning you. If you say 'Jehovah' once more--
[Mrs. A. throws a rock at the Jewish Official]
Jewish Official: Right! Who threw that stone? Come on. Who threw that?
Crowd: She did! It was her! [suddenly speaking as men] He! He. Him. Him. Him. Him. Him. Him.
Jewish Official: Was it you?
Mrs. A.: Yes.
Jewish Official: Right...
Mrs. A.: Well, you did say 'Jehovah.'
Crowd: Ah! Ooh!...
[Crowd throws rocks at Mrs. A.]
Jewish Official (stamping up and down): Stop! Stop, will you?! Stop that! Stop it! Now, look! No one is to stone anyone until I blow this whistle! Do you understand?! Even, and I want to make this absolutely clear, even if they do say 'Jehovah'!
Crowd: Ooh...!
[Jewish Official gets stoned to death]; Monday, May 05, 2008 10:55:00 PM
Heathen Mike said...: Off topic, but I wanted to see if you heard your post about flunking creationist students who pass biology mentioned on the most recent episode of the Skeptic's Guide to the Universe. Steven Novella disagrees with you, but I think he misses your point.; Tuesday, May 06, 2008 7:15:00 AM
Anonymous said...: Argh, I know, the requirement for a Nature Network account is annoying.
They are going to change the blogging software at some point (it's even MORE annoying behind the scenes) and maybe they'll have a different commenting system then, although I guess blog comments will still be part of the site so must be subject to some kind of terms of service. But maybe a simplified comment TOS would be enough, saying that NN and blog owners reserve the right to remove comments.; Tuesday, May 06, 2008 1:23:00 PM
RPM said...: Anonymous commenters frustrate me. The way I see it, if you are going to hide behind a pseudonym, then don't bother to say anything at all.

Anonymous != pseudonymous. There's a difference. Using a consistent pseudonym isn't much different from using your real name.; Tuesday, May 06, 2008 2:01:00 PM

Quotations

The old argument of design in nature, as given by Paley, which formerly seemed to me to be so conclusive, fails, now that the law of natural selection has been discovered. We can no longer argue that, for instance, the beautiful hinge of a bivalve shell must have been made by an intelligent being, like the hinge of a door by man. There seems to be no more design in the variability of organic beings and in the action of natural selection, than in the course which the wind blows.Charles Darwin (c1880)

Although I am fully convinced of the truth of the views given in this volume, I by no means expect to convince experienced naturalists whose minds are stocked with a multitude of facts all viewed, during a long course of years, from a point of view directly opposite to mine. It is so easy to hide our ignorance under such expressions as "plan of creation," "unity of design," etc., and to think that we give an explanation when we only restate a fact. Any one whose disposition leads him to attach more weight to unexplained difficulties than to the explanation of a certain number of facts will certainly reject the theory.

Charles Darwin (1859)

Science reveals where religion conceals. Where religion purports to explain, it actually resorts to tautology. To assert that "God did it" is no more than an admission of ignorance dressed deceitfully as an explanation...

Peter Atkins

Quotations

The world is not inhabited exclusively by fools, and when a subject arouses intense interest, as this one has, something other than semantics is usually at stake. Stephen Jay Gould (1982)
I have championed contingency, and will continue to do so, because its large realm and legitimate claims have been so poorly attended by evolutionary scientists who cannot discern the beat of this different drummer while their brains and ears remain tuned to only the sounds of general theory. Stephen Jay Gould (2002) p.1339
The essence of Darwinism lies in its claim that natural selection creates the fit. Variation is ubiquitous and random in direction. It supplies raw material only. Natural selection directs the course of evolutionary change. Stephen Jay Gould (1977)
Rudyard Kipling asked how the leopard got its spots, the rhino its wrinkled skin. He called his answers "just-so stories." When evolutionists try to explain form and behavior, they also tell just-so stories—and the agent is natural selection. Virtuosity in invention replaces testability as the criterion for acceptance. Stephen Jay Gould (1980)
Since 'change of gene frequencies in populations' is the 'official' definition of evolution, randomness has transgressed Darwin's border and asserted itself as an agent of evolutionary change. Stephen Jay Gould (1983) p.335
The first commandment for all versions of NOMA might be summarized by stating: "Thou shalt not mix the magisteria by claiming that God directly ordains important events in the history of nature by special interference knowable only through revelation and not accessible to science." In common parlance, we refer to such special interference as "miracle"—operationally defined as a unique and temporary suspension of natural law to reorder the facts of nature by divine fiat. Stephen Jay Gould (1999) p.84

Quotations

My own view is that conclusions about the evolution of human behavior should be based on research at least as rigorous as that used in studying nonhuman animals. And if you read the animal behavior journals, you'll see that this requirement sets the bar pretty high, so that many assertions about evolutionary psychology sink without a trace.

Jerry Coyne
Why Evolution Is True

I once made the remark that two things disappeared in 1990: one was communism, the other was biochemistry and that only one of them should be allowed to come back.

Sydney Brenner
TIBS Dec. 2000

It is naïve to think that if a species' environment changes the species must adapt or else become extinct.... Just as a changed environment need not set in motion selection for new adaptations, new adaptations may evolve in an unchanging environment if new mutations arise that are superior to any pre-existing variations

Douglas Futuyma

One of the most frightening things in the Western world, and in this country in particular, is the number of people who believe in things that are scientifically false. If someone tells me that the earth is less than 10,000 years old, in my opinion he should see a psychiatrist.

Francis Crick

There will be no difficulty in computers being adapted to biology. There will be luddites. But they will be buried.

Sydney Brenner

An atheist before Darwin could have said, following Hume: 'I have no explanation for complex biological design. All I know is that God isn't a good explanation, so we must wait and hope that somebody comes up with a better one.' I can't help feeling that such a position, though logically sound, would have left one feeling pretty unsatisfied, and that although atheism might have been logically tenable before Darwin, Darwin made it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist

Richard Dawkins

Another curious aspect of the theory of evolution is that everybody thinks he understand it. I mean philosophers, social scientists, and so on. While in fact very few people understand it, actually as it stands, even as it stood when Darwin expressed it, and even less as we now may be able to understand it in biology.

Jacques Monod

The false view of evolution as a process of global optimizing has been applied literally by engineers who, taken in by a mistaken metaphor, have attempted to find globally optimal solutions to design problems by writing programs that model evolution by natural selection.

Richard Lewontin

More Recent Comments

Monday, May 05, 2008

Terms & Conditions on Nature Network

6 comments :