What Popular Science said (in a big picture sort of way) was that science requires a certain degree of rigor. It requires the creation of a theory, the advent of some testing procedure that lets you test the theory, and then a peer review process whereby people who actually know what they are talking about examine what has been proposed and offered and render some conclusion... pro or con.
Popular Science views itself as part of this process by disseminating the latest theories and ideas to the public in a readable way. The idea is to educate the public about the current state of science. What is happening in their comments section, however, interferes with that mission. Indeed, what they see happening is that gangs of morons show up in their comment section and attack their articles with lies, ignorance and politicized myths. The result is that people who come to them to be informed leave confused with bad facts, bad theories and wrong beliefs. In effect, the public is de-enlightened.
I also suspect, though they didn’t say this, that they are having a hard time getting people to write articles for the public knowing that no matter what they write, they will be savaged by mouth breathers. That’s bad for science too if scientists withdraw from the public.
So was this a good decision or a bad one? Well, on the one hand, I tend to think that valid theories need to be able to stand up to criticism. That would seem to make this a bad decision. But hold on... “Criticism” implies certain things. For one thing, it implies that the criticism is “informed” rather than ignorant. Ignorant criticism is merely disruptive. It is the equivalent of something screaming “nuh uh”. It makes people waste their time talking about things that are not genuinely in dispute or not even relevant. It also wrongly implies some genuine dispute where there isn’t one.
Moreover, the concept of “criticism” assumes a level of good faith. That good faith at a minimum requires (1) not repeating discredited arguments over and over, (2) admitting when your criticism has been defeated, (3) not making assertions without some basis in fact or logic, and (4) staying on the topic rather than trying to divert the topic.
The problem with the comments at places like Popular Science (and many more) is that the “criticism” doesn’t meet this basic standard. The people making these comments repeat the same discredited arguments over and over, no matter how many times their claims have been debunked. They never provide any evidence to support their claims. They refuse to admit when they are wrong. Rather than addressing the issue at hand, they try to redefine the issue to shift the debate to other areas. And they are hostile, insulting, and they try to shout down their opponents.
In effect, they are hecklers, not critics.
Because of this, I reject the claim that Popular Science is trying to stifle “criticism.” They are trying to stifle propaganda... propaganda that misleads people who don’t know better and who come to the magazine to be informed. I have no problem with that. And make no mistake, these people are doing this to every single topic Popular Science discusses, be it discussions of climate change, evolution, drones, fracking, missile defense, vaccines, etc. – even discussions of space turn into environmental diatribes from the left and attacks on the Islamofication of NASA on the right. Essentially, both fringe left and fringe right have polluted their comment section with utterly politicized nonsense.
Hence, I find myself applauding the move, and I think others will follow suit because this same problem exists all over the web. Articles on films turn into anti-liberal Hollywood diatribes (or personal attacks on actors). Articles on law get filled with attacks on lawyers and utterly false assertions of law. Articles on medicine turn into diatribes for or against Obamacare. Business articles turn into OWS or anti-Fed rants. It’s a mess. And few have found a way to deal with it. Some have tried requiring people to register. Others even require the submission of a credit card to open an account. Some use heavy moderation. But none of those things work very well.
For this reason, I suspect that websites that are dedicated to educating people about topics that require some level of expertise, e.g. legal advice, financial advice, tax advice, science, etc., will gradually eliminate comments and will instead allow reader input only through the submission of letters to the editor or by letting people with counter-ideas submit their own articles for review... both of which can be vetted for what value they add to the debate.
Yeah, it’s elitist, but sadly, it’s necessary.
(Note that this will not stop genuine criticism as genuine critics, i.e. the kind who can actually support their criticism, tend to submit their own articles for publication or run their own websites debunking false science, medicine, law, etc. What this stops are the hecklers who make debate impossible.)
Now, all that said, Popular Science does actually deserve a lot of criticism. Why? Because they politicized themselves. Making the point that the comments were a fountain of idiocy that was misinforming people was a valid reason to do this... but they didn’t stop with that. Instead, they said this:
“A politically motivated, decades-long war on expertise has eroded the popular consensus on a wide variety of scientifically validated topics. Everything, from evolution to the origins of climate change, is mistakenly up for grabs again.”Uh, wrong. Science is not about “popular consensus”.... science is about theory and proof. In fact, if we were to believe that science is about “popular consensus,” then banning the comments would be the anti-science move since it would prevent people from shaping that “popular consensus.” Moreover, “the origins of climate change” are not subject to a consensus and a magazine dedicated to the state of science should realize that. In fact, this is one of the most disputed topics in science since... well, ever.
Unfortunately, this betrays Popular Science’s real motive. Rather than being a smart decision to protect science from hecklers, this tells us that all they really wanted was to stifle dissent to their politicized theories. That tells me that Popular Science must be viewed as politicized and should not be trusted.
So ultimately, my conclusion is this. In a big picture sense, this is a smart and necessary decision and I think this will spread. But Popular Science’s real motive was despicably political, and for that, they deserve scorn and to lose our trust.
Thoughts?
73 comments:
A very complex issue, nicely discussed. On the surface, I don't like the idea of shutting down debate. But I agree that much of what you see at these places is not even close to valid criticism. And if people aren't there to debate openly and honestly, but are there instead to shout others down, then they don't really deserve the platform. It's too bad for people who are interested in legitimate debate, but they weren't getting it either way.
I think the key to making this work would be for the various websites/magazines being more open to presenting all valid sides. Clearly, Politicized Science won't do that, but hopefully others will.
What Popular Science said (in a big picture sort of way) was that science requires a certain degree of rigor.
Oh please. The name is "Popular Science", not "Physical Review". Like all popular science magazines, they hype scientific hypothesis and experiments that the causal reader would find exciting - like faster than light travel, death beams and teleportation. These generally consist more of speculation and science by press release rather than actual science - as going through their old archives to check for later verification can attest. Although I admit they were pretty rigorous with the recent size comparisons between fictional sci-fi spaceships.
Popular Science views itself as part of this process by disseminating the latest theories and ideas to the public in a readable way. The idea is to educate the public about the current state of science.
Playboy magazine viewed itself as a philosophical and literary magazine. No, the idea is to make money. Unfortunately, like Hollywood, they also like to influence the political process. Science magazine owners, editors, reporters and a substantial fraction of scientists tend to be just as progressive as reporters for liberal newspapers and are subject to the same temptations.
The result is that people who come to them to be informed leave confused with bad facts, bad theories and wrong beliefs. In effect, the public is de-enlightened.
The presumption that ordinary people can't tell the difference between a good argument and a bad one is a basic plank in the progressive manifesto and the harbinger of the totalitarian policy of restricting free speech to people "in authority". Can't have people being exposed to bad ideas - so censor them. If you're arguing that's already the case, then shut up shop because Stalin's already won.
I also suspect, though they didn’t say this, that they are having a hard time getting people to write articles for the public knowing that no matter what they write, they will be savaged by mouth breathers. That’s bad for science too if scientists withdraw from the public.
You don't need to be a college professor to write for POPsci. Hell, especially not for POPsci. Presumably they pay money for their articles and there's a vast number of people who can write well and have a BS in a hard science and the ability to make a phone call to a researcher for information. Not to mention the ego boo which comes from being in print. If they are worried that Cletus and Buddy will come after them with a shotgun they can use a clever device called a pen name.
Because of this, I reject the claim that Popular Science is trying to stifle “criticism.” They are trying to stifle propaganda... propaganda that misleads people who don’t know better and who come to the magazine to be informed.
You know what really misleads people looking to be informed? Supposedly respectable "Science" magazines with a political axe to grind. Now that's propaganda.
So ultimately, my conclusion is this. In a big picture sense, this is a smart and necessary decision and I think this will spread. But Popular Science’s real motive was despicably political, and for that, they deserve scorn and to lose our trust.
Here's my "scientific" hypothesis of why this happened. Instapundit - an extremely popular libertarian news aggregator site has been putting up POPsci articles for a while. I suspect he did that to wait until they published a politically slanted article and then linked to their article w/o comment. Which had the effect of unleashing his minions upon them. Now, the latest IPCC report was just about to come out and POPsci was doing the people's work of presenting the party line. The comments, which were heavily slanted to
"you idiots" in message had to go lest someone get the wrong idea.
I submit my hypothesis will be proved if POPsci goes back to accepting comments once the media message blizt has ended. Sites like POPsci, NYTs et al accept comments so they can sell the email to spammers for money. Additionally it generates hits and boosts
advertising revenue.
Andrew....Well stated article. I do agree with K though. I go to Pop Sci and occasionally read the comments. The fun usually starts when someone, from the right usually, replies to a comment that someone, from the left usually, posted that shows the utter foolishness of the author's politicized point of view.
Could be anything from AGW, medical advances (socialized), time travel, etc. When the obvious slant is pointed out and refuted, all hell breaks loose and the slurs start to fly.
The reason for this is as stated above...by trying to pass themselves off as experts in the particular topic, the bias evident in their article is exposed and the criticism flows. They are not a peer reviewed publication. They are a popularly reviewed one and when the public calls them on it, they fall back on the standard trope of "the idiots just don't understand science."
Just about everything is politicized these days thanks to the h8'ers on the left that shout down opposing views.
No, the idea is to make money.
K, while I don't have any special regard for Popular Science--I'm sure I've perused their site at some time, but I'm not an avid reader--I have to push back on that comment. It's perfectly possible to do something for both "the money" and some greater purpose. That is the heart of entrepreneurship and we ought to remember it. It's a very leftist/Marxist concept that the two are mutually exclusive. (And that we should enslave all the doctors because everyone has a fundamental right to an angioplasty.)
Re: Patriot's last paragraph... to be fair, some folks on the right haven't helped matters. It's why I don't bother with Big Hollywood anymore... too much guilt by association and WAY too much apophenia (seeing patterns in otherwise random information).
I've been a PopSci fan for years - my grandfather was a subscriber for literally decades... I only wish he hadn't gotten rid of his collection before he passed - and I guess this was inevitable. Every time they cover something even remotely relevant to "green," whether it's global warming or sustainable living or even electric cars, the nutjobs always come out of the woodwork and like all nutjobs, they ruin it for the other folks who may be simply skeptical/questioning.
Free speech can be ugly sometimes. The best response is to censor it, of course.
I apologize for the sarcasm. However, I view PS's response as typical from the self-appointed "guardians of truth." Too many of these scientists believe they should be in positions of power, making decisions for the good of society.
True, much of the criticism is ill-informed. But, ANY criticism is intolerable to the Left. It's all lumped together, no matter how thoughtful or well considered. So, as is typical from the Left, all dissent is shut down.
In the name of science.
FYI, Tom Clancy has died. RIP
Mountain Man, This isn't a free speech issue. You have plenty of free speech, you don't have the right to speak at their magazine however.
Moreover, this issue goes way beyond politics. Politics is probably the motive at PS, but the issue is much broader than that. It's the same problem faced at any site that deals with expertise. It's one of (1) intentional misinformation and (2) misbehavior.
Terry, That is the key to remember, there are two issues here. There is the issue of what should be done about these people who are flooding sites with idiocy and lies and making debate impossible, and there is the issue of PS's own motives, which are clearly political.
PS's motives are indefensible and are a strong reason to drop them, but that's not the issue that interests me.
As for the other issue, I really think you will see this as a trend. This is just politicized trolling at its worst and there's no reason the legitimate readership, i.e. people who are actually there to learn something, should be subjected to that. And I can tell you that I've seen the same thing everywhere online and on most topics. The anonymity of the net and the ability to act without consequence are the problems. How to fix that is the question. For people who depend on click-throughs, like Yahoo, they don't care so they won't do anything, but for people who are actually trying to serve some purpose, this is a problem.
K, I'm sorry Popular Science doesn't live up to your exacting standards. Have you advised them of their failings?
So it's Marxism to point out that stupid people are easily misled? You have a strange view of Marxism.
Shame about Clancy. I'm not a huge military fiction guy but I read a few of his early novels, played a couple of his games and watched some of his movies. There are more popular writers of books, but I can't think of any who succeeded in three fields.
Anthony, I read several of his books and I always thought he seemed like a good guy. He was young too, 66.
Patriot, Thanks! This isn't really about Popular Science, they are just the ones who fired the shot... and for the wrong reason at that. The issue here is that people who are actually trying to enlighten people are finding their comments sections filled with idiocy, lies and hate. This is going on everywhere and in every kind of context.
To give you an example, Amazon has set up an internal board that is meant to let you ask questions of the community. The idea is to create a sort of tech support by having people answer common "how to" and "what if" questions that Amazon doesn't provide answers for in their rules and procedures. Of course, the thing is an utter mess as people flame each other, spread lies, go on political rants, etc. It is essentially useless because of that.
I've spoke with lawyers who tried to do some websites giving basic legal guidance and they had to stop because they said people were showing up, calling them liars and then giving the exact wrong advice in the comments. They found it was confusing the hell out of people. Go to a medical website, particularly one about vaccines and look at all the freaks who are posting links to conspiracy websites to stop the Satan Bug, or look at the Obamacare rants (pro/con). You can't even look at a movie site without finding tons and tons of comments attacking Palin, Obama, or whatever star is in the news.
That is not a good user experience. And there's no reason websites need to allow that. Thus, I think this will become a trend and I think it's justified. If it was just valid criticism, I would agree, but it's not... it's just heckling and propaganda.
tryanmax, The heart of free market capitalism and conservatism is that people should be allowed to make their own choice and to buy and sell whatever they want, because in seeking to enrich themselves, they will make the world better by fulfilling the wants of others. As you note, only Marxists see the desire to fulfill consumer desires and "doing something good" as being contrary ideas.
As for Popular Science, they are what they are. They are not a peer-reviewed scientific journal and it's stupid to criticize them for not being that. Their goal is to inform the public of new ideas and to entertain them in the process. There's nothing wrong with that. I don't agree with their political stance obviously, and I think it is discrediting, but they also have the right to control their user experience. And if people don't like their slant, they'll stop reading -- as has been happening to a great many other magazines. That's capitalism in action.
And I have seen the problem they are talking about -- and not just at their place. Article after article over there turns into political screaming about things barely even tangential to the article itself. That's unacceptable.
We actually "solved" that problem here early on when Larry and I used to chase away people who were just here to fight or cause problems. We just relentless blasted them with logic and debunked their crap until they called us commies and then left. Unfortunately, for sites with more traffic, that's just not possible.
Scott, This:
and like all nutjobs, they ruin it for the other folks who may be simply skeptical/questioning
... is what the nutjobs will never understand. They don't understand people. They are screaming idiots, so clearly everyone must be a screaming idiot... and if you aren't screaming loudly or idiotically enough, then you must be on the other side!!! Ultimately, that kind of behavior only turns people off and it ends up discrediting the real skeptics who are doing the actual work of convincing people.
And re: Tom Clancy, I've never read any of his novels but I'm a big Hunt for Red October fan (the movie, that is). I must make a point of reading the novel one day.
Scott, I like some of his earlier novels, but never read the later ones. Red Storm Rising was pretty fascinating.
BTW, as a parent of a child with autism, I run into this all the time. I would go so far as to say that open comments sections actually perpetuate bad information. Find an article that explains exactly why vaccines cannot cause autism and you'll see a slew of retorts claiming to have "observed" the cause and effect. (FYI, autism usually becomes diagnosable around the age children receive several vaccines, so it's a case of correlation mistaken for causation.) Scientifically and medically, it is very well established that nothing in vaccines (preservatives or otherwise) have the ability to "cause" autism, yet the myth persists.
The same observations can be made of any article debunking other supposed causes of autism as well as several of the "home remedies" that have cropped up. Part of it is that autism is still poorly understood and many people are desperate for answers that just don't exist. But it is a disservice to those people to serve them with misinformation instead.
tryanmax, I've seen that too. Those people are very persistent in spreading their conspiratorial BS. And when they aren't making up first-hand knowledge of whatever it is they are claiming, they will post links to "unbiased" sites (unlike the site they are attacking which must be biased because it's relies on "doctors" or "paid experts" who "have an agenda") and those "unbiased" sites are nothing but pure misinformation.
Unfortunately, people are poor judges at what is and is not true. And when they see these sites, run by people claiming to be doctors or scientists and talking about studies (that have long since been discredited) which supposedly prove the link, the more gullible believe it and run with it. Soon, you've got more people who refuse to vaccinate their kids.
It is a real disservice. That's why I'm fine trying to shut these people down. If they want to spread their lies, let them build their own credibility rather than piggybacking on someone else.
"BTW, as a parent of a child with autism, I run into this all the time. I would go so far as to say that open comments sections actually perpetuate bad information. Find an article that explains exactly why vaccines cannot cause autism and you'll see a slew of retorts claiming to have "observed" the cause and effect. (FYI, autism usually becomes diagnosable around the age children receive several vaccines, so it's a case of correlation mistaken for causation.) Scientifically and medically, it is very well established that nothing in vaccines (preservatives or otherwise) have the ability to "cause" autism, yet the myth persists."
-----------------------
Tyranmax,
You left out the "YOU ARE A PAID TOOL OF BIG PHARMA THAT MAKES ITS MONEY OFF OF DEAD CHILDREN!!!!!!!!!!!" accusation.
Kit, I think I was trying to block it out. The world is full of idiots.
Kit and tryanmax, Most of what is said in comments these days is of that level, which is another reason to try to find a way to block those people. Unfortunately, moderation is really difficult and self-moderation is a joke because these people have no shame.
Tyranmax,
It is indeed.
Have you ever read Autism's False Prophets by Dr. Paul Offit, a pro-vaccine guy.
"Most of what is said in comments these days is of that level, which is another reason to try to find a way to block those people. Unfortunately, moderation is really difficult and self-moderation is a joke because these people have no shame."
As anyone who has visited browsed the comments of a youtube video can attest. :)
Kit, True. And it's not just there, it's everywhere. When you can skim the comments of an article about the benefits of drinking orange juice and find this kind of idiocy, then it's time to do something about it.
tryanmaxIt's perfectly possible to do something for both "the money" and some greater purpose.
Yes, but it's a trade off. You can't be purely a source for "people looking to be educated about science" and make money. All popular science magazines compromise their science, usually in a major way to make themselves entertaining to the general public. What gets my goat is when they push their political viewpoints as "Science" and doing so on the back of their magazine being an authoritative source on same.
"When you can skim the comments of an article about the benefits of drinking orange juice and find this kind of idiocy"
Orange Juice? Seriously?!?!?!
Kit, It has nothing to do with orange juice. It is simply an opportunity to spew. So they take a "health article" about the effects of orange juice and they start screaming about supplements and how taking the right vitamins will stop cancer, BUT THE FDA WON'T LET YOU KNOW THAT BECAUSE DOCTORS MAKE TOO MUCH MONEY ON YOU HAVING CANCER!! Then they start posting links to insane sites and their friends show up and repeat the claims. Soon the whole thing devolves into an insane anti-science, anti-FDA, anti-doctor rant with completely false claims about medicine.
That's the point. Almost none of these comments have anything to do with the topic at hand, they are just people using the opportunity to comment to spew their insane beliefs to try to win converts.
Andrew,
You might find this entertaining. It contains crude humor and foul language (3min 30sec): LINK
Kit, I'm aware of that book, but I haven't read it. Is it worth reading? It seems every month, somebody is giving me a book on autism. Usually they are packed with heartwarming but essentially useless anecdotes. It's only a matter of time before we get an autism exploitation show on TLC.
It nails what you are talking about perfectly.
What i read of it was good.
Here is the Amazon link: LINK
He has actually gotten death threats for his pro-vaccine advocacy and his criticism of the anti-vaccine nuts.
And here is the product description from Amazon.com
--------------------
A London researcher was the first to assert that the combination measles-mumps-rubella vaccine known as MMR caused autism in children. Following this "discovery," a handful of parents declared that a mercury-containing preservative in several vaccines was responsible for the disease. If mercury caused autism, they reasoned, eliminating it from a child's system should treat the disorder. Consequently, a number of untested alternative therapies arose, and, most tragically, in one such treatment, a doctor injected a five-year-old autistic boy with a chemical in an effort to cleanse him of mercury, which stopped his heart instead.
Children with autism have been placed on stringent diets, subjected to high-temperature saunas, bathed in magnetic clay, asked to swallow digestive enzymes and activated charcoal, and injected with various combinations of vitamins, minerals, and acids. Instead of helping, these therapies can hurt those who are most vulnerable, and particularly in the case of autism, they undermine childhood vaccination programs that have saved millions of lives. An overwhelming body of scientific evidence clearly shows that childhood vaccines are safe and does not cause autism. Yet widespread fear of vaccines on the part of parents persists.
In this book, Paul A. Offit, a national expert on vaccines, challenges the modern-day false prophets who have so egregiously misled the public and exposes the opportunism of the lawyers, journalists, celebrities, and politicians who support them. Offit recounts the history of autism research and the exploitation of this tragic condition by advocates and zealots. He considers the manipulation of science in the popular media and the courtroom, and he explores why society is susceptible to the bad science and risky therapies put forward by many antivaccination activists.
--------------------------
Kit, Nice!
"How you prepare for the internet?"
"I don't know. Try going to your local middle school chess club. Hand out meth and guns. That might be good practice."
LOL!!
I'm sorry Popular Science doesn't live up to your exacting standards. Have you advised them of their failings?.
My only "exacting standard" is popular science magazines shouldn't be pushing politicized science, and then shutting down comments when their readers disagree with them.
Yes, I advised them of my opinion with an e mail to the editor when it happened. As you might have noticed, I was rather annoyed.
So it's Marxism to point out that stupid people are easily misled? You have a strange view of Marxism.
Yes, that would be a strange view of Marxism. My point, OTOH, was that it's Marxism to shut down publication of dissenting opinions on the basis of the people doing the dissenting are incapable of telling a good argument from a bad one.
My apologies if I did not communicate that clearly.
tryanmax, "autism exploitation"
Yikes. That brings to mind the idea of Blacksploitation films... only different.
Autsploitation?
In all seriousness, I know exactly what tryanmax is talking about, though the term "autism exploitation" struck me as funny. That is the exact sort of obnoxious thing the networks love: take one non-representative case and paint a very unrepresentative picture of a problem as easily overcome, then that becomes an annoying stereotype you need to overcome when you meet people who now buy into the stereotype.
K, I recognize the tradeoff and that magazines like Popular Science are merely infotainment (which usually means they are short on both information and entertainment). I'm just pushing back against the impulse to derive cynicism from the involvement of money.
The fact is, the folks at Pop Sci believe they are promoting the greater good and that their income is justified to help promote that. But they regard the fundraising efforts of their opponents just a cynically as you do theirs.
The exchange of money indicates next to nothing. There are rich liars and poor liars as well as rich and poor honest folks. Where Pop Sci gives themselves away is in citing "consensus science" as a reason for shutting down the discussion forum. I guess they believe in consensus by imposition.
I think it is a weak decision especially in light of the true motives. I don't see why they can't someone just review the comments from time to time and remove the garbage. You can put in a disclaimer: we are not the government so we can decide what constitutes appropriate speech. We won't tolerate posts off-topic or personal insults...you get the drift. Monitoring posts is a part of modern life but for some reason it seems to take a back seat to SUCKING UP TO COMMUNIST SYMPATHIZERS IN THE OBAMA ADMIN..
Sorry. The best method to control the trolls is to not feed them; just ignore them.
K, It is hardly Marxism to stop trolls. In this country, you have a right to speak your mind, but you don't have a right to be heard. And when you can't behave like an adult, people are well within their rights to treat you like a child and shut you up... you don't have a right to ruin other people's discussions. That's not Marxism. It's not Marxism when the Republicans toss protestors out of their convention, when HotAir limits the people who can get accounts to comment and bans those who misbehave, or when Rush screens his callers to make sure his own show flows the way he wants and his listeners never get to hear a legitimate counter. People have the right to control the flow of information they choose to provide, and their audiences have the right to punish them or reward them accordingly.
As for Popular Science, this article wasn't about the merits of Popular Science, it was about what they did and why this is a necessary thing in the broader context. In fact, as I note in the article, I think they made this decision for the wrong reason (politicization), but the real issue is the big picture reason and why it is valid. And in that regard, I flat out reject the idea that there aren't experts or that they somehow are required to let themselves be used by idiots to spread lies.
Also, you need to realize that the world is not black and white. Just because something is scientific does not mean it needs to be dry and lifeless and can't also entertain. Just like political blogs can do other things to keep people entertained. The world is not about forcing everything into clearly defined boxes.
tryanmax, The idea of "consensus science" should be troubling to anyone who legitimately thinks about science.
LOL, I tend to be very non-PC when discussing autism. I figure I'm entitled.
Kit, I think I'll pass on the book, not that I don't think it would be worthwhile. I just bet I'm already aware of most of what's in it. The description sounds very familiar. Plus, just the description makes me want to run home and hug my daughter.
Not that this applies to you, but because I think it's funny: Almost everything people give me falls into two categories: 1) stuff I read a month ago or 2) stuff that doesn't actually have anything to do with autism.
Ok this is totally off topic so please don't shut me down.
Tryanmax- it seems most of the kids I have seen with autism have usually been male but I noticed you mentioned your daughter. Is there a sex predilection or just sampling error on my part?
Andrew, that's the baseline, for sure. But when you follow it up with a move that goes decidedly against consensus-building, then you've got real problems.
Koshcat, Their true motives do discredit their decision, but I think this will spread.
I think the problem with moderation is that it is difficult. It requires you to spend a lot of time reading comments and aggressively policing what can and cannot be said. That in turn leads to a lot of bad blood because the lines are always fuzzy. That also raises the censorship argument to a higher level because rather than just shutting everyone up, you end up actively deciding who deserves to be heard and who doesn't.
Also having censored some comments, I can tell you that these people are often very good at walking that line for a long time where you feel like there is something wrong, but can't put your finger on it until they suddenly reveal themselves.
As for not feeding the trolls, I agree with that, but this is a different issue. This is people who are actively looking for a platform coming to your place and using it as a platform to spread lies and myths to your audience. And with there being so many of them, as they are banding together in movements now in many cases (like the vaccine people), they feed themselves.
Moreover, keep in mind that it makes places unbearable for the regular visitors you hoped to attract in the first place. It's the equivalent of Target letting a bunch of cultists roam their aisles screaming about the end of the world and telling the customers: "Just ignore them and they'll go away." That may work, but you're going to lose a lot of customers in the process.
Koshcat, no, you are correct. Most autistic people are male. I forget the ratios, but they are very lopsided.
tryanmax, True. They are definitely being hypocritical about it -- it's all about consensus... and we don't like the consensus you reached!
Glad you're not PC about it.
Tyranmax,
No problem.
I originally brought it up because I actually thought you had read it because you stating similar talking points (angry about fake cures, anti-vacciners).
He has another book out now about so-called "alternative medicines".
Also, feel free to use the term "Autsploitation".
Koshcat, I just googled it. The ratio is ~4:1
tryanmax and Koshcat, Any idea why? Damaged X chromosome? Right/left brains issues?
I wonder if over-diagnosis is a problem. I know it is one for ADD/ADHD (and this is coming from someone who is ADD).
Tryanmax probably knows more than I do about it but from what I do understand it is not known.
Kit, I'd bet I've read an article or two by Offit. I read a lot online. Strangely, that's where all the best info on autism is. The stuff that makes it to print or TV seems geared to generate emotional response: either saccharine inspiration stories that reveal nothing useful ("Our child was diagnosed autistic, so we worked really hard with him--but we won't say how--and now he's in college!") or a half-hour devoted to the latest conspiracy theories masquerading as hard news.
The reason I pose that is that I know boys tend to be more hyper than girls and this has led to more diagnoses of ADD/ADHD among boys.
As someone who has Attention Deficit Disorder, this annoys the hell out of me because it results in people assuming that people who have ADD are just lazy or what have you.
"Strangely, that's where all the best info on autism is."
Irony!
"The stuff that makes it to print or TV seems geared to generate emotional response: either saccharine inspiration stories that reveal nothing useful ("Our child was diagnosed autistic, so we worked really hard with him--but we won't say how--and now he's in college!") or a half-hour devoted to the latest conspiracy theories masquerading as hard news."
Not surprising at all.
I want to clarify something. When you have such lopsided numbers it could not solely be "over-diagnosis". I was simply wondering if that could be a factor.
To the room: there is some concern with over-diagnosis. The keepers of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM) have recently tightened it up and eliminated Asperger's altogether. (Those formerly diagnosed would now either be high-functioning autistic or just run-of-the-mill awkward.)
Right now, there are only theories as to why boys are more affected (as is the case with most facets of autism). Males are inherently more susceptible to disorders resulting from genetic damage due to the nature of the Y chromosome. It's possible that boys only need to receive the gene from one parent while girls would need to receive it from both to manifest the disorder. I don't know if that jives with the epidemiology, though.
Tyranmax,
Interesting.
Do you think its possible the intense focus on vaccines has taken resources away from research that could find the real causes of autism?
Probably. At the very least, everyone contributing time or money to anti-vaccine causes could have better spent that effort on promoting earlier diagnosis and treatment.
The biggest danger with the anti-vaccine people is that they are convincing large numbers of people not to vaccinate their kids, which is bringing back diseases we had cured. This is apparently a huge problem in white religious communities and in the black community.
it seems like just about everything is politicized anymore. Articles are written backwards according to what the author wants the conclusion to be. Yes, this is particularly bad in science, but applies in virtually everything from straight out political discourse and current events to film criticism. I liken it to legal advocacy. A defense attorney is going to argue only those facts that help the client. Rarely do you find an author who presents evidence from both the prosecution and the defense. The objective author can analyze, but conclusions can only be drawn from the validity of the evidence.
Generally if something can hit both sexes but hits boys more than girls, it is a problem with the X-chromosome. Males don't have that other X chromosome to protect them. However, no specific mutation has been found to account for the disorder. The wikipedia page is an interesting review. One wonders about a disorder where an underlying mechanism has not been found. It is possible that one hasn't been found. I suspect there may be some genetic predisposition that something in the environment sets off. There has been association with age of the parents; increase age leading to higher rates. Aging gamates have been associated with other diseases as well. An interesting problem where even just diagnosing the disorder is challenging and controversial.
Koshcat, that all strikes me as likely. One possible clue to the causes of autism is in the way their immune systems behave differently from other people's. I read about it in a highly technical article that I am at a loss to adequately summarize.
In a nutshell, the immune system is a series of chemical checks and balances like every other body system. Something goes wrong, one chemical triggers inflammation. Meanwhile, another anti-inflammatory chemical keeps it in check. Both are regulated by a third chemical. (This is a simplification.) It seems that in many autistic individuals, the regulatory chemical is lacking but, for reasons not yet understood, the inflammatory and anti-inflammatory chemicals stay in check, but both at higher-than-normal levels. I have no idea what this means, maybe because the study authors didn't yet either.
I can understand how this information might resurrect fears of vaccines given the extensive attention to the immune system. Of course, what that overlooks is that all diseases arise from the immune system's inability to fight it off. The current state of medicine is finding that even some genetic disorders can be staved off by a healthy immune system. In other words, many people may have "bad" genes that never display them--kind of like a broken beam held up by a support column. It is thought that autism may be that sort of disorder.
Andrew - Because vaccines have done their job so well, 21st Century mentality does not have any recollection when large swathes of the world died from common diseases like measles, diphtheria, poxes, typhoid, and polio. The polio vaccine came out just as my Mother was having children and remembers the relief of not having to worry about her children contracting it.We have all but eradicated small pox, a major killer of large swathes of populations. That's science.
There is an alarming rise in the rate of measles and mumps surging back with very few doctors who have ever seen them. Just in time for Obamacare! Yey! Do we overvaccinate. Maybe. Is that bad, no.
Bev, Nonsense! Vaccines don't stop disease, they control people.
//rolls eyes
In all seriousness, there are a lot of articles now about diseases like that coming back and people dying from things that were previously gone because of vaccines. What a mess!
As for over-vaccinating, I have no idea how.
I stumbled on a great quote today. "There's a name for alternative medicines that work. They are called medicine."
That is a great quote, but you know the paranoid response: they suppress things that work when they make more money selling things that don't.
And they say weed doesn't cause paranoia. I'd tell them to do they're own double-blind study but they probably think that means reading in the dark with your eyes closed.
I tend to think stupidity causes paranoia.
And to be politically correct, don't you mean a "double seeing impaired" study? ;-P
Weeds DO cause paranoia! We always had to kill them by ripping them out of the ground. I hated them. I know for a fact that weeds haunted me as a child. So I guess you are right about weeds causing paranoia.. Oh, you said "weed"...nevermind.
Pet Peeve here...
Scientific Consensus (as I understand it) does not mean that you poll the opinions of a group of people you have vetted to be "scientists" and then go with whatever the group thinks. That is called groupthink and among other things it is supposed to be ultimately responsible for the O Ring failure that blew up the Challenger Shuttle mission.
Rather Consensus means that experimentation that is done shows that a theory has not been disproved. This is because in Science one can never truly prove anything is right. Newton's Law of Gravitation states that objects with mass attract each other proportional to the square of their distance from each other. Experiment after experiment shows this to be true. Since every heavenly body and everything dropped from a height on earth seems to follow this law there is a consensus that it is correct.
However, if once, two objects can be shown not to attract each other proportional to the square of their distance and the experiment is repe4atable thus due to gravity and not other factors then Newton's Law of Gravity no longer has a Consensus that it is correct. And this had happened. Newton's Law was replaced.
It was replaced by Albert Einstein and the observational evidence that it had failed to predict the attraction of two objects was the orbit of planet Mercury. Mercury is so close to the Sun that it is subject to the Relativistic effects of the Sun's mass. The warping of spacetime that near the Sun causes Mercury to lose one tenth of one second of one minute of one degree of arc in its orbit as seen from Planet Earth. Newton's Law appeared to be broken and prior to Einstein scientists could not explain it. Einstein figured it out and wrote the General Theory of Relativity.
Irony is as smart as Einstein was we know his theory is wrong or if you rather incomplete. It cannot explain gravity on a quantum level.
For my money let the comments be made. Among the trash of creationism, global warming hysteria and what have you, you don't know when someone might come up with a crazy, cockamamie idea that has to be complete hokum that we will eventually find out is the next Theory of Relativity.
Post a Comment