Scientific American and Science censorship...
in [Physics]
|
Prev: Definitely Demolition - Proven FACT, 9/11 could not possibly have been other than an inside job.
Next: [Guardian] 'Climategate' debate: less meltdown, more well-mannered argument
From: franklinhu on 17 Jul 2010 02:24 On Jul 16, 9:00 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Jul 16, 10:44 am, Marvin the Martian <mar...(a)ontomars.org> wrote: > > > On Thu, 15 Jul 2010 13:51:19 -0700, PD wrote: > > > On Jul 15, 2:00 pm, Benj <bjac...(a)iwaynet.net> wrote: > > >> I'm sure you all know that the censored forum supported by Scientific > > >> American, Physics Forums, has taken over "moderation" of > > >> Sci.physics.research. Or should I say taken over censorship of it.. > > > > Moderation is not censorship, though anyone on the wrong end of the > > > stick could equivocate. > > > True enough, moderation is not censorship. But your logic is flawed; > > censorship can be imposed by "moderators". > > Moderation is imposed by moderators. Whether that is perceived as > censorship is in the hands of the beholder. > Censorship is too broad a term. The real question is 'what is the job of the moderator in these forums?' I would think that the moderator should filter out personal insults and irrelevant topics and other such non-science junk. I think what the OP complains about is that even if someone posts a perfectly well researched and thought out topic that meets EVERY standard of scientific inquiry, that if it disagrees at all with the current scientific thought, that it will be disallowed in the forum. Anything which deviates from the status quo is being considered 'junk', when it should not be. I don't believe it is the job of the moderator to decide that something that someone submits must be wrong and therefore doesn't allow them to be published. They should only look at whether the arguments are presented in a sensible manner and may be of interest to someone else interested in the same topic - nothing more. So, if I try to publish something about "electrostatic gravity" as long as I back it up with some logic, this should be allowed. However, I think in most cases, it is not allowed since we all know that gravity isn't electrostatic in nature - right? So no one is allowed to read about how gravity could possibly be electrostatic. This is what the OP is complaining about, not just some random censorship. There ought to be moderation standards which strictly forbid the moderation of the types of ideas that may be posted - a freedom of speech right. But that never happens With regards with sci.physics.research, that forum is lucky to get 1 post a day. How uninteresting is that? How useless is that - there isn't any real discussion going on and I doubt anyone spends much time on that forum for that reason. Not open and not interesting. If sci.physics.research wanted to be interesting, they'd just moderate out the non-science junk so that posters would know that all ideas are allowed. But here in the wild west of sci.physics, there are lots of posts and lots of people like yourself who are willing to fling yourself into long conversations on just about anything. But of course, the problem here is that nobody is here to collaborate on ideas here either. It merely serves as a shooting gallery where the "real" scientists take shots at the crackpots. Case in point, I just wrote a lengthy article describing how to calculate the atomic line spectra and intensity using only Rydberg formulas. This is feat which has apparently never been done before. I'd think it would be a pretty big deal, but in the shooting gallery of sci.physics, nobody has taken a shot at it with zero substantial responses. Why? I can only guess it is becuase this is a shooting gallery, and if you can't take a shot, you don't. I painted a huge target, but no one is willing to shoot at it. The only other reason is that if what I say is correct, it completely blows away the foundations of the quantum mechanical atomic model which has been saying it is impossible to make such formulas for years and makes all the "real" scientists look like fools for not having discovered it themselves long ago - it show just how far into their shells they have withdrawn to completely ignore obvious results. To say anything would be to admit defeat. Now, it would be great, if forums were only moderated for rude behavior and legibility and the forums were there to help collaborate on new ideas rather than just shoot them down for fun. But, we have human nature to contend with and I'll take what I can get - long live sci.physics! > > > > Actually, the leftist who can resist being a dictator when handed a > > little power is rare. > > That may be so, but keep in mind that a lot of societies DELIBERATELY > choose someone to exercise that kind of control over certain aspects > of their lives. > > Such is the case with subscribers to moderated forums. They are > choosing them BECAUSE they are moderated. They are not choosing them > because they are the only things available and they have to suffer > with the fact that they are moderated. > > I will reiterate that there are AMPLE opportunities to publish > information in a completely unmoderated fashion, and in such a way > that they can be easily discovered. There is no ADDITIONAL need to > break the moderation in a moderated forum, so that unmoderated > information is displayed to that audience. To do so would make that > forum undesirable to the audience that subscribed to it. > > There are unmoderated forums and moderated forums, with subscribers to > each. It does absolutely no good to desire the abolition of moderated > forums. > > > > > > > Interesting that you support such abuse and shutting down of dialog. > > > And yes, the staff of "Scientific American" abandoned science for left > > wing politics decades ago. It's a worthless rag now.- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -
From: Benj on 17 Jul 2010 02:54 On Jul 15, 4:10 pm, Don <don.duc...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > Benji, keep in mind there is "science" and what is popularly known as > "junk science". The public doesn't know the difference, which is > essentially that real "science" makes testable predictions, while > "junk science" consists only of conjecture. > > Don Actually Don, you need to keep in mind that there are THREE things: Science, "Junk Science" and politics. The problem is that these three areas have become blurred...probably on purpose. Science and politics are polar opposites. The main features of science are supposed to be open mindedness, truth, and experiment (reality) as the true test of being right or wrong. Lies, force, dogma and censorship are as natural to politics as a bear taking a dump in the woods. Thus, when one blurs the borders, there occurs what is usually called propaganda. That means that one is using the (prior) reputation of science to further a political goal. Such activities became quite common after WWII. However, that does not mean it never happened before (remember the Galileo incident?) So one point I'm making here is that if scientists (or anyone with a strong interest in science for that matter) allow a political infestation into their activities, the outcome is surely going to be a loss of open-mindedness, disregard for truth, and experimental outcome based upon reality being replaced by dogma. And of course it's worse than that, given the natural functions of politics. Force and intimidation starts to be used to maintain dogma. Censorship is employed to insure that views counter to the views one wishes to have expressed for political reasons are never heard. Even the QUESTIONS are stripped from discussions in secret so even participants in a discussion, let alone the audience, are never aware that the given questions were ever raised. If they are never raised then they obviously cannot be intelligently discussed. Yes, the gulf oil blowout (sorry, the media term "spill" is too much "spin" for me) is a disaster. And there are a lot of politics involved in it. All this is natural. But what is much less natural and troubling is when that kind of politics starts appearing in Phys. Rev. and the leadership of long lists of scientific organizations. I'm sure this is not surprising if one uses the old-time rule: Follow the money. Even the tenure system is failing as tenured faculty find they are getting the axe for discussing scientific topics from the "wrong" political viewpoint. I find all this a very serious and important problem. From the discussion here so far, I can see that there are many who have been trained to turn a blind eye toward these things and deny they exist. Of course the further question of what do DO about it is why a large discussion is needed! And I find the discussion here so far amazingly thoughtful! It's a good start!
From: eric gisse on 17 Jul 2010 05:32 Benj wrote: > On Jul 15, 4:10 pm, Don <don.duc...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > >> Benji, keep in mind there is "science" and what is popularly known as >> "junk science". The public doesn't know the difference, which is >> essentially that real "science" makes testable predictions, while >> "junk science" consists only of conjecture. >> >> Don > > Actually Don, you need to keep in mind that there are THREE things: > Science, "Junk Science" and politics. > > The problem is that these three areas have become blurred...probably > on purpose. You have no training in the sciences so how do you expect to tell the three apart? > > Science and politics are polar opposites. The main features of science > are supposed to be open mindedness, truth, and experiment (reality) as > the true test of being right or wrong. Lies, force, dogma and > censorship are as natural to politics as a bear taking a dump in the > woods. > > Thus, when one blurs the borders, there occurs what is usually called > propaganda. That means that one is using the (prior) reputation of > science to further a political goal. Such activities became quite > common after WWII. However, that does not mean it never happened > before (remember the Galileo incident?) > > So one point I'm making here is that if scientists (or anyone with a > strong interest in science for that matter) allow a political > infestation into their activities, the outcome is surely going to be a > loss of open-mindedness, disregard for truth, and experimental outcome > based upon reality being replaced by dogma. And of course it's worse > than that, given the natural functions of politics. Force and > intimidation starts to be used to maintain dogma. Censorship is > employed to insure that views counter to the views one wishes to have > expressed for political reasons are never heard. Even the QUESTIONS > are stripped from discussions in secret so even participants in a > discussion, let alone the audience, are never aware that the given > questions were ever raised. If they are never raised then they > obviously cannot be intelligently discussed. > > Yes, the gulf oil blowout (sorry, the media term "spill" is too much > "spin" for me) is a disaster. And there are a lot of politics involved > in it. All this is natural. But what is much less natural and > troubling is when that kind of politics starts appearing in Phys. Rev. > and the leadership of long lists of scientific organizations. I'm sure > this is not surprising if one uses the old-time rule: Follow the > money. Even the tenure system is failing as tenured faculty find they > are getting the axe for discussing scientific topics from the "wrong" > political viewpoint. > > I find all this a very serious and important problem. From the > discussion here so far, I can see that there are many who have been > trained to turn a blind eye toward these things and deny they exist. > Of course the further question of what do DO about it is why a large > discussion is needed! And I find the discussion here so far amazingly > thoughtful! It's a good start!
From: Benj on 17 Jul 2010 13:48 On Jul 17, 5:32 am, eric gisse <jowr.pi.nos...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > Actually Don, you need to keep in mind that there are THREE things: > > Science, "Junk Science" and politics. > > > The problem is that these three areas have become blurred...probably > > on purpose. > > You have no training in the sciences so how do you expect to tell the three > apart? And the way you know what my "training" in the sciences is would be? I have noticed that you have taken the position that censorship in science is good thing and gives an increase in the "quality" of the work. I take a different view. There have been some suggestions so far that seem imply that we need to agree on some definitions. For example a blog has been suggested as a substitute for a forum. Blog: A blog would be a website dedicated to some proposition. Generally speaking, I'd say it fails to meet our purpose because information flow is primarily unidirectional. In other words there is little discussion. A forum on the other hand has the purpose (like this one) for contributors to freely exchange thoughts and ideas. Forum. A Forum either moderated or unmoderated has the purpose of discussion of a topic rather than a simple presentation of a single viewpoint (blog). The idea (which I believe to be true) is that when a large variety of opinions are expressed - even some that are totally in error - and an unrestricted discussion is permitted, there is a significant chance that some kind of "synergy" will result where the whole is greater than the sum of the opinions. In other words obvious errors will be rejected and other ideas will be examined and discussed in an effort to find "truth". While a final "truth" may or may not be reached in any given case, I do believe that the value of forums is that through discussion your thinking gets changed. And that is essentially what progress is: A change in thinking. A scientist once remarked to me that often you can make great progress just by discussing your problem with the janitor (who hasn't a clue what you are doing!) It's not that he gives you the answers (he can't) but it's that the discussion breaks you out of the thinking patterns in which you are stuck. Unmoderated Forum. An unmoderated forum is the ultimate expression of free speech. Rules are typically only suggestions. The forum is designated to emphasize a given topic, but that can't be enforced. Hence the problem with such discussions is that any given member can fill the forum with any kind of garbage and irrelevant trash. It might be the person has mental illness and thinks that internet posting will "cure" them. It might be someone insisting one moving the discussion to totally off-topic irrelevant subjects or it might be persons with a political agenda PURPOSELY disrupting the discussion to insure that any change in thought processes will not occur. All these things have been seen repeatedly on USENET. These things are the are the online equivalent of a group of people beating large drums at a Chamber of Commerce meeting. Moderated Group. To try to solve the disruption problem people have formed moderated forums. They put someone in charge of filtering out all the "noise". This moderator uses some sort of judgment to eliminate posts deemed "unproductive". But there is a problem here. One has to do with human nature. Psychological experiments (the guard- prisoner experiments) have shown that there is a GREAT human tendency to abuse power when granted authority. This means that our moderator can begin to not just filter noise and disruption but can also filter discussion according to their beliefs as well. In other words moderation turns into censorship. And of course it gets worse. Politicians gravitate toward power and authority the way bears gravitate to honey. Hence the worst possible case is when the same persons with a political agenda who were disrupting the unmoderated forum with noise, take over moderation of a moderated forum and then use that authority to skillfully manipulate the discussions away from positions and topics they deem opposed to their causes. Again the effect of mixing politics and science is to prevent any real discussion that can change thinking. The danger of the moderated forum is that it gives the false IMPRESSION to outsiders that a real discussion is actually taking place (who would be the persons the politics are trying to influence). But in the case of censorship, a true scientific discussion is clearly NOT taking place. Even it the discussions are "true" meaning factual, the censorship limiting the discussion keeps them from being open-minded. As someone noted here already, science advances by the EXCEPTIONS. Hence when censorship filters all exceptions, it filters all real science! Which leads to the ultimate question of THIS discussion: What is the difference between censorship and moderation? I suggest that one need look no further than what science is (open- mindedness, truth, experiment as final judge) to make such a decision. On the other hand false arguments (ad hominem attacks, appeal to authority, proof by assertion, etc.) are not truth and should be "moderated". But restricting all discussions only to those "facts" found in a freshman textbook, is not open-minded. How should one judge a discussion (or paper) on UFOs? Since they are not found in freshman physics texts do they not exist? Should some kind of established official dogma be the standard for judging truth? I think you can see the problem with this given the attraction of politics to power. If one can simply gain control of "official doctrine" then one easily gains control of science to further your political agenda. Examples abound. Does this not make sense?
From: Androcles on 17 Jul 2010 14:23
"Benj" <bjacoby(a)iwaynet.net> wrote in message news:81bf8752-4a45-4b74-93c1-606575475536(a)x21g2000yqa.googlegroups.com... On Jul 17, 5:32 am, eric gisse <jowr.pi.nos...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > Actually Don, you need to keep in mind that there are THREE things: > > Science, "Junk Science" and politics. > > > The problem is that these three areas have become blurred...probably > > on purpose. > > You have no training in the sciences so how do you expect to tell the > three > apart? And the way you know what my "training" in the sciences is would be? I have noticed that you have taken the position that censorship in science is good thing and gives an increase in the "quality" of the work. I take a different view. There have been some suggestions so far that seem imply that we need to agree on some definitions. For example a blog has been suggested as a substitute for a forum. Blog: A blog would be a website dedicated to some proposition. Generally speaking, I'd say it fails to meet our purpose because information flow is primarily unidirectional. In other words there is little discussion. A forum on the other hand has the purpose (like this one) for contributors to freely exchange thoughts and ideas. Forum. A Forum either moderated or unmoderated has the purpose of discussion of a topic rather than a simple presentation of a single viewpoint (blog). The idea (which I believe to be true) is that when a large variety of opinions are expressed - even some that are totally in error - and an unrestricted discussion is permitted, there is a significant chance that some kind of "synergy" will result where the whole is greater than the sum of the opinions. In other words obvious errors will be rejected and other ideas will be examined and discussed in an effort to find "truth". While a final "truth" may or may not be reached in any given case, I do believe that the value of forums is that through discussion your thinking gets changed. And that is essentially what progress is: A change in thinking. A scientist once remarked to me that often you can make great progress just by discussing your problem with the janitor (who hasn't a clue what you are doing!) It's not that he gives you the answers (he can't) but it's that the discussion breaks you out of the thinking patterns in which you are stuck. Unmoderated Forum. An unmoderated forum is the ultimate expression of free speech. Rules are typically only suggestions. The forum is designated to emphasize a given topic, but that can't be enforced. Hence the problem with such discussions is that any given member can fill the forum with any kind of garbage and irrelevant trash. It might be the person has mental illness and thinks that internet posting will "cure" them. It might be someone insisting one moving the discussion to totally off-topic irrelevant subjects or it might be persons with a political agenda PURPOSELY disrupting the discussion to insure that any change in thought processes will not occur. All these things have been seen repeatedly on USENET. These things are the are the online equivalent of a group of people beating large drums at a Chamber of Commerce meeting. Moderated Group. To try to solve the disruption problem people have formed moderated forums. They put someone in charge of filtering out all the "noise". This moderator uses some sort of judgment to eliminate posts deemed "unproductive". But there is a problem here. One has to do with human nature. Psychological experiments (the guard- prisoner experiments) have shown that there is a GREAT human tendency to abuse power when granted authority. This means that our moderator can begin to not just filter noise and disruption but can also filter discussion according to their beliefs as well. In other words moderation turns into censorship. And of course it gets worse. Politicians gravitate toward power and authority the way bears gravitate to honey. Hence the worst possible case is when the same persons with a political agenda who were disrupting the unmoderated forum with noise, take over moderation of a moderated forum and then use that authority to skillfully manipulate the discussions away from positions and topics they deem opposed to their causes. Again the effect of mixing politics and science is to prevent any real discussion that can change thinking. The danger of the moderated forum is that it gives the false IMPRESSION to outsiders that a real discussion is actually taking place (who would be the persons the politics are trying to influence). But in the case of censorship, a true scientific discussion is clearly NOT taking place. Even it the discussions are "true" meaning factual, the censorship limiting the discussion keeps them from being open-minded. As someone noted here already, science advances by the EXCEPTIONS. Hence when censorship filters all exceptions, it filters all real science! Which leads to the ultimate question of THIS discussion: What is the difference between censorship and moderation? I suggest that one need look no further than what science is (open- mindedness, truth, experiment as final judge) to make such a decision. On the other hand false arguments (ad hominem attacks, appeal to authority, proof by assertion, etc.) are not truth and should be "moderated". But restricting all discussions only to those "facts" found in a freshman textbook, is not open-minded. How should one judge a discussion (or paper) on UFOs? Since they are not found in freshman physics texts do they not exist? Should some kind of established official dogma be the standard for judging truth? I think you can see the problem with this given the attraction of politics to power. If one can simply gain control of "official doctrine" then one easily gains control of science to further your political agenda. Examples abound. Does this not make sense? ================================ Not to Gisse, he's troll, all troll and nothing but a dropout. |