The reason: spam bots, trolls and comments that cause people to misunderstand the scientific information provided in the article - a reason accompanied by a research stamp. what do you think?
Is the free market of ideas on the Internet being abused by vested interests? In one of the articles on YNET that was about vaccinations, and in which as usual the unscrupulous people who give others advice on how to kill their child (not vaccinate) went wild, there was one interesting response (unfortunately I didn't save the link, I'm writing from memory) "I read an article on the science website about So we must vaccinate, and that it is safe, and I was convinced to vaccinate my children until I read the comments and changed my mind."
This response turned on a red light for me, because besides the fact that I am the editor of a website that is read by over one hundred thousand unique surfers per month (and currently also making efforts to increase exposure - I just opened a Twitter account yesterday), I am also a person, and unlike these people, I cannot bear on my conscience that something should happen to even one child, and since then I started blocking trolls who expressed a position against vaccines. I have not done so on any other controversial issue, even on issues where there is no disagreement among the scientists but between the scientists and brainwashed people - such as global warming or evolution.
The consideration in this case was conscientious. There is a good chance that such advice may cause parents not to vaccinate their children, and then bear the consequences - serious illness, disability and even death. I have no control over other news sites and every time the question of vaccines comes up, these ignoramuses organize and succeed in swaying public opinion, but not with me. Recently, I eased up a bit, leaving the social arguments of the vaccine opponents but not the pseudo-scientific ones. After social networks began to spread their arguments in an uncontrolled manner I contacted the writers And I asked them to answer One by one for each claim that appears online, Even though I knew that websites such as Hesonimon Ltd. and other truths were behind them and not innocent citizens.
Why did I remember this, because there are scientific sites that went to greater extremes. Yesterday, the website of the old magazine Popular Science announced that it had decided to cancel the possibility of adding comments to articles.
Susan LeBarre is the online content editor for Popular Science. writes that the decision was made due to the number of trolls and spam bots, and also due to the fact that an open forum at the bottom of the article could harm science.
On the explanation page for the decision, LeBar writes: "This decision was not taken lightly. As the news arm of a 141-year-old science and technology magazine, we are committed to encouraging lively intellectual debate as we spread the word of science to the general public. The problem starts when trolls and spam bots disrupt our ability to do this.
Although alongside the low responses, there are also refreshing, intelligent and thought-provoking responses. However, even if it is a negligible minority, the reactions are wild and cause the reader's perception of the story to be distorted - this is shown by studies, such as the one led by Prof. Dominique Broussard from the University of Wisconsin in Madison, where 1,183 Americans who read a fake post about nanotechnology and when they were asked what they thought about the subject (they are careful As for benefits or supporters). Each of them saw randomly arranged responses - some supportive of the topic ("If you don't see the benefits of using nanotechnology in this type of product you're an idiot") or more cultured responses.
The result, as Diatram Scheufele wrote about it in the New York Times: impolite responses not only polarize readers but often cause them to change their perception of the journalistic story itself."
In those civic groups that supported or opposed the first call for the technology, something we identified in a preliminary survey - they continued to feel the same feeling after reading the responses. Those who were exposed to the risks associated with the technology planted in aggressive responses made the study participants think that the disadvantages of the technology are greater than previously thought. Another study with a similar design showed that judgmental statements expressing disagreement (even if not impolite) affect the perception of science among readers.
In other words - comments change public opinion and according to Popular Science even a small minority of such comments may bias the reader's perception of the story.
"This is, of course, in addition to the reactions that arise from political motivation that erodes the public consensus on a wide range of scientific topics, from evolution to the cause of climate change, receiving harsh reactions. Scientific significance is another issue where any two people can argue on television and since the response mechanism tends to be a grotesque reflection of media culture, the cynical work of undermining the cornerstones of scientific doctrine is done under our own articles, within a site designed to promote and glorify science." Le Bar concludes.
I would love to know what you think, in the comments mechanism of course...
By the way, there is an excellent solution against spam bots, it's called Eximet. Saves me from having to read tens of thousands of junk comments.
69 תגובות
In my opinion, responses from registered surfers and recognized by the system should appear first.
Comments from others should preferably appear at the end and/or after filtering
ב
What an original idea……..not
Psychiatry is a very unclear field of medicine.
To that extent it is not clear that all those involved in this field should be "called to order".
Psychiatry must be put on a scientific basis.
There is no such thing as "not in the field of science".
in particular in the field of medicine.
The medical profession is increasingly based on scientific tools.
Gone are the days when the doctor was omnipotent.
Unfortunately, there remains one unique field, the field of psychiatry.
In this field the doctor is still omnipotent.
In this area, patients are still denied basic human rights, whether they are sick or not.
Benjamin May
What you say is not in the field of science and will not advance the issue of skepticism (in the positive sense).
?
Should the freedom of the web be preserved so that readers do not run away to other sites?
In my opinion, the freedom of the internet should be maintained, blocking extreme and automatic comments is of course acceptable to me, but blocking discussions will remove the possibility of discussion and deepening the topic of the article, which may cause the readers to move to other sites or create forums to discuss the topic outside the site and it's a shame, sometimes reading the comments is more interesting than the article.
ב
agree with you If it was just my problem I wouldn't think of bothering
In it you are the general public under the reasonable assumption that they will not be attentive to my attempts..
Miracles
In some respects you are right, but the point is that journalists do not publish
what they know Since "Hidan" brought up "another truth" as a negative example
I found it appropriate to speak thanks to this site, because of the familiarity, even if it is little,
that I have with him.
On another point, I have a more serious claim to "Yaden". Medicine and medical experiments are
One of the professions they deal with on this site. Nothing would be removed from the site and its honor if
He was also concerned with the rights of human beings who are used, sometimes against their advantage, as test subjects.
This aspect of science is also worthy of discussion in my opinion (even if my opinion is biased in the circumstances....).
Unfortunately, we have all been "celebrating" for almost twenty years now, a renaissance of ignorance and mockery of the scientific method, so much so that today it is common to think that science is another type of mystical belief, and scientific findings or theories are "supposedly" true only for those who believe in them.
This is a cultural retreat that has been compared to the darkness of the Middle Ages, and we will all have to reap the fruits of this ignorance, at a time when the human race will find itself desperately in need of scientific knowledge to regulate its relations with the environment, at the height of the population explosion on the planet together with a natural environment in mass collapse and an extreme scarcity of resources to economize this population.
Benjamin May
What you describe is very familiar to me personally. I'm not trying to comprehensively defend the establishment. On the contrary - I have a lot of anger about the situation in the country and the direction in which it is moving.
But, I really don't think that's the issue here. This site deals with science, and attempts to damage the scientific method. Please don't mix things up.
Miracles
The fact is not, the "Yediot Ahronoth" family was satisfied with this:
http://www.mynet.co.il/articles/0,7340,L-4139554,00.html
Unfortunately, there is no factual investigation here, which could have shocked quite a few people,
But they know they themselves know the story at least in Israel. They chose not to
delve into it. In my opinion, they are raised in the public interest and in the trust of their readers.
May:
Your case is a private case.
The general case is that the owners of Sharara silence in all kinds of ways those who think differently from them.
That is why it is so important that the discussion is always completely free.
Benjamin May
YNET will be happy to publish anything you give them. Why don't they advertise?
Miracles
If "Hidan" and other newspapers published what is known about psychiatry
And experiments on humans in Israel and if I hadn't gone through what the newspapers mentioned
to "Amat Other" (and two other niche newspapers: Meta Asher News and Kibbutz News)
Refuse to post, I would probably think like you.
The bitter truth is more complex than the idyllic picture of you and Avi Blizovsky
are drawing Ask Dan Shechtman...
ב
Maybe this topic is new to you... I have known Falun Gong (and Qigong) for many years. This is just one of the reasons why I refuse to enter China.
But - why do you constantly mix revealing the truth with blatant lies?
Benjamin May
I did not say to close "Other Truth". I only suggest changing the name of the website to "Dangerous Lies". 🙂
In my opinion, exposure of something like the one I brought in the link above is worth thousands of junk articles and thousands of junk comments.
Even if it turns out in the end that this is not true, it is still worth a thorough and serious investigation.
oops…
..and I wanted to write "they will be doubtful about you as much as they are..."
Miracles
I completely agree with you - and every word of your words in stone, I will add and say that I will make my important decisions
According to the official sources, but this does not prevent me from listening to "others", which, unfortunately,
Regarding the vaccinations, at least they got screen time (on the official channels!) much more than what I think they deserve...
If they even deserve it.
All this does not contradict the right of existence of niche websites where these and others can express their opinions and findings
be as dubious as they may be and let the reasonable person make the right decision.
Miracles:
Who will reveal what they are trying to hide?
I'm sure that not many dare to speak in China about the matter presented in the following link:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PsVv3XTG1t4
And this is what happens when you try to reveal the matter:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aS72wz0h6B8
Of course, this is a very extreme example.
Usually the attempts to hide are about much less serious things.
But since there are attempts to hide there must be a mechanism that will reveal.
Even if the disclosure mechanism is problematic in itself, there is still a justification for its existence.
Benjamin May
Which is better - to listen to the Ministry of Education and the World Health Organization - or to find "another truth" (polio vaccine)
Which is better - to listen to the IPCC, to every university I know, to every research institution I know - or to find "a different truth" (warming).
When it has to do with my children's future, I will take the "risk". I think anyone who does otherwise is an idiot.
Miracles
I am afraid that you trust the scientists with your eyes closed, scientific truth is subject to changes due to considerations
Much less matter-of-fact and much more personal than is commonly thought. According to a study I read (I don't
remember the source), the truth changes when the scientific elites change. If we hadn't fought Prof.
Schechtman maintained his views until after the death of his most prominent opponent Prof. Pauling (and in our world
There could be many and varied reasons for this), it is possible that his discovery would have been buried for generations.
And on a personal note: what I can prove to you and my father Blizovsky (or any reasonable journalist)
From the documents I have on human experiments in Israel, he could change many minds
About the Ministry of Health, the State Comptroller's Office and other important factors. It is a fact
that you choose to remain in your blindness, unlike the editors of "Another Truth".
This is already a good reason to visit there from time to time...
Miracles
Regarding the vaccines - I was thinking of less dramatic solutions...
..and for our matter..
There are no magic solutions and there are no "slips" the simple reality dictates limitations and so does the study of history
Won't fix everything. An editor who puts "everything" on a website or newspaper will drown at least some of his readers in garbage. who will
A censor will sooner or later give up a worthy piece of information. The virtue of sites like "Hidan" is
That the surfer knows where the doubt starts and how small it is. The virtue of websites like "Another Truth"
It is the freedom of choice, you will - you will take it and if you have the time and means you will investigate and maybe you will also come to the truth
Otherwise, which has been hidden until now, it is true that the chances of this are small - but I think that most of the surfers for the "truth".
otherwise" recognize that.
The very division of work between "truth" (the science and the like) and "other truth" gives the surfer freedom of choice
True. Just like we can all buy medicine at a pharmacy, but there will be those who prefer to collect
Traditional herbs - and remind you aspirin and quinine (for example, the list is long) started through them
As traditional medicines, as long as the user recognizes his limitations (but also the interests of
the pharmaceutical companies) after all, this is a legitimate freedom of choice.
ב
certainly.
There will always be those who say nonsense.
But this does not justify limiting the freedom of discussion.
ב
We are not talking about the same thing. An American politician once said (Moynihan) that everyone has the right to their own theories but not to their own facts.
For example, the subject of the polio vaccine. All the opponents are based on lies (like the vaccine has not been tested, like there is a relatively high risk in the risk, like the vaccine does not vaccinate, like DDT causes polio...).
For example, global warming. The warming is a fact. The effect of CO2 emitted by man is a fact. There is nothing to argue about that. What can be said as a theory is that the effect of the warming is overall positive. It is also possible to argue that it is better to handle the problem in a different way. You can say that it is better to invest the money in more urgent issues. But it cannot be said that the phenomenon does not exist. It's a lie.
Benjamin May
This is an emergency authority. They can initiate a curfew and go from house to house to vaccinate. Not a pleasant situation…
Let's be honest... Prof. Shechtman's research was not published, and would not have been published, in "Another Truth".
Science makes mistakes - it's all about people in the end. But I'm sure the scientific establishment has learned its lesson, and I haven't seen a site like "Another Truth" that admits a mistake. On the issue of vaccines, for example.
for miracles:
There are always people who think they are smarter and more successful than the public.
This in itself does not bother anyone.
But sometimes a reality arises where the power is in the hands of these people and then everyone who thinks differently from them suffers badly.
It happens in politics in a big way: managing the state.
This also happens in politics on a small scale: management of a kibbutz, management of a seat, management of cooperative companies.
It also happens in science.
Almost all scientists who have achieved important achievements have done so despite the opposition they encountered.
for miracles
And what do you have to say about the decades that Dan Shechtman wasted to publish his discovery
Because scientific journals "knew better" and filtered his research?
As I already wrote here, I don't usually browse "another truth" and it is clear to me that some (and maybe most)
The news there is much less reliable than the ones here, but still, in my opinion, it should be discussed
Cape is right for bringing opinions that have been censored (and in my opinion not always rightly so) elsewhere.
D.
Thank you for the update regarding the authority of the Ministry of Health. Probably the leadership problem in the country
More serious than I thought.
Benjamin May
Regarding elections in a democracy - I really don't think that democracy is a successful thing... and just like I said, most people choose the one who speaks the most beautifully. And even if you have justified positions, it is quite possible that the head of the other party is the better choice. But - I guess it is clear to everyone that this is the most just method...
Regarding vaccinations - the Ministry of Health has all the authority to vaccinate by force. If the idiots trying to prevent vaccines were successful, and one person got sick.... The ministry would have had to exercise this authority (Israel is subject to the instructions of the World Health Organization - and the topic of vaccination today is also under the instructions of the organization).
Beyond that, all the claims of the opponents are completely false... and this is exactly the problem with junk sites like "Another Truth"?
for miracles
Please read on "Wikipedia" about the wars of the Nobel Prize winner, Dan Shechtman
For the publication of his discovery (quasi-periodic crystal) against the efforts of "interested scientists"
thwart advertising. The respected scientific press (now a little less
honorable...) refused to publish the word of the discovery. This is not an isolated case.
In particular, there is an allegation of a predatory consensus. One that does not allow deviation. which does not allow an appeal.
One that allows the "sages" to determine what the "truth" is.
Your claim is Aristotle's claim.
I will give you an example:
The ultra-orthodox claim: A person must not criticize matters of religion and faith before he has studied these matters for at least a few years.
(Mila Karso Shas and Poskim)
Do you accept this claim?
for miracles
What you wrote to "B" is true, but the same truth exists in every aspect
Hail a democratic country. We do not have the tools of the Mossad for the positions
Special, the Central Bureau of Statistics, the Ministry of Health and Ministry
Foreign affairs - and we still argue and try to make informed decisions (in elections
for example) even without understanding all of these. If anyone thinks they understand
More than the UN experts and the scientists who advised most countries of the world
sign the Kyoto agreement - certainly not you, Avi Blizovsky,
Or me, we'll convince him.
In the matter of vaccinations, I will go one step further: if the state experts
believe in the effectiveness of the robust and the need for them (I believe so
despite all my negative news about the Ministry of Health) and are ready
To spend a lot of public money to implement this need, was
They should try and legally enforce the vaccine on anyone who doesn't
Resilience - just like enforcing the law of wearing a helmet on riders
motorcycle or use of a seat belt for children.
To remind you of one of the horrifying accidents in recent years
A girl was saved because she wasn't wearing a seatbelt - and the statistics are still there
The known is right enough for the traffic police - and whoever wants to
Arguing is his right.
to try and close the stage on which only other voices appear
He will give them strength (although it is certainly not a necessity for our case that the stage
You will be on the pages of "Popular Science").
It is true that "Popular Science", "The Scientist" and for that matter also "Scientific
American" are more reliable than "another truth" - the problem is that filtering, all
Filtering (not to mention censorship), will ultimately leave true words
that deserve to be known to the public - outside.
ב
Do you have enough education in any subject to do it? Otherwise - you will be convinced who are all kinds of scribblers who know how to write beautifully.
What you say is the role of a scientist, not the role of anyone interested in the subject.
I'm not saying you shouldn't be a skeptic, but you need a really good reason to doubt the scientific consensus. A good example is climate change. Pay attention to the deniers - a loud and unprofessional group who talk about topics they don't understand - but very convincing 🙂
For the sake of clarifying the truth, it is worth checking other hypotheses.
Benjamin May
This site is full of lies. Why believe a single word there? If Scientific American lied like that - what would you say about it??
to June
A completely true story. I have all the documents.
You are welcome to examine them yourself. when you say
wherever you say Some of the documents are on the website
My, http://shafan.clanteam.com
I will be happy to show you the rest myself.
It turns out that there are those who don't want you to know what's going on
In the basis of psychiatry. It is actually "medicine".
Social" in the bad sense of the word - considerations
Social determine the need and nature of
Medical Care.
for miracles
I did not claim that everything written is "true".
otherwise" scientifically proven at the accepted level,
The point is that they make claims even if
are not convenient for sites dealing with science
- and do not hide "inconvenient" claims
goddess. In the end, the scared scientist
that his claims will be tested cannot be trusted.
** Correction...randomly rude comments...
I'm sorry but the level of your translation from English is low and the Hebrew text came out confusing.
for example:
And when they were asked what their opinion was on the subject (they are cautious about the benefits or supporters). Each of them saw randomly arranged responses - some supportive of the topic ("If you don't see the benefits of using nanotechnology in this type of product you're an idiot") or more cultured responses.
Should be:
They were asked what their opinion was on the subject (whether they fear the benefits or support them). After each of them randomly saw either a rude response ("If you don't see the benefits of using nanotechnology in this kind of products you are an idiot") or more civilized responses.
The meaning is completely different
Can you give a link to this virtual magazine?
Benjamin May
"Another truth: ... I mean a lie. There is no other truth, there are people who try to criticize science - and that is beside the point.
Just an example - there is an article that claims that the polio vaccine given now has not undergone clinical trials. This is much worse than a lie:
1) Clinical trial - means vaccinating one group and not vaccinating a second group, then showing that there is a difference in the number of people who contract the disease. Do you think it's serious?
2) Safety trial - there is no need to perform a safety trial in this case of a vaccine. Of course, "another truth" is not understood on the subject.
3) In the whole world, there is one case, and that too without doubt, of a person who contracted polio from the weakened vaccine, when he was previously vaccinated with the killed vaccine.
Is this called truth?? And the amount of false information on this site is simply amazing. I can go on and on and on.
Want to talk about the Ritalin lies? About curing cancer? 9/11? Is the world even cooling?
disgrace!!!
If you think that your site has the same target so it will be better to stop all talkbacks and to open a new site that will allow all to publish thier opinion.
Benjamin,
What is the realistic basis of the book's subject?
To my father Blizovsky. I see your site as a great blessing for knowledge
and its distribution, except that you are also censoring things in my opinion
They have a place in the public consciousness. therefore exist
Websites like "Other Truth" where the debate is more open.
Your disqualification of the website "Another Truth", as if standing
Behind him "innocent citizens" is out of place
(And let me assume you don't know them personally
and you don't know their motives in depth).
I myself have no connection to "another truth", except that the site
He posted a link to a website I built. which is a lot
More than you would be willing to do for the subject
in the minds of many of your readers.
Point that "point" the upload is missing and in my opinion incorrect.
I have many opinions on the subject which I think is fascinating, but I am not a professional in the related subjects, so I will spare you from idle mutterings.
In any case, I changed direction on a number of subjects, as well as other scientists I know. The point that "point" presented refers to a certain point in the timeline. Yes, it's hard to wire our neurons to think differently, it's a process and it takes time, I haven't heard or seen an immediate change yet. But it exists all the time, we are dynamic creatures with incredible adaptability.
On the other hand, when a charged discussion is not conducted well by the terminology of the bad guys against the good guys. There is an unhealthy polarization and indeed there is no change of opinion. We are hardwired to always defend our side and if it is attacked we will defend it, that's why I at least demanded from my father to stop using derogatory and insulting terms and use neutral and matter-of-fact language. And I suggest everyone to stick to the rules of thumb, except, change can be through comments and articles, don't expect it to be too soon. You believe in a certain side, explain why, share data, be patient.
Sometimes countries apply sanctions against parents who do not vaccinate their children, or who oblige citizens to vote in elections. I personally believe that it is worthwhile to develop a critical attitude, but to remember that we are all human.
In my opinion, there is also room for bloggers not to allow comments.
There are very successful bloggers without comments. And there is always the risk of regression in reactions, and only one bad reaction is enough to break the balance.
But specific about the science site. The science site does not have enough primary information that will attract readers. There are websites in the English language which are much more interesting, primary and have a more interesting and diverse background. I am here because of curiosity about the Israeli scientific discourse. This need will not be met.
opinion:
First, the point raised by "point" is really interesting and correct. In my opinion, people who are most affected by comments are those who do not have a strong preconceived opinion about the subject of the article. Thus, for example, on the subject of vaccines, a person who does not understand all the details and does not know all the facts on the subject, can easily be influenced by some reaction of a "troll" or a person with an interest.
Second, there are indeed interesting and smart comments that add to the article and open up an interesting discussion (as in this case). But, in my opinion, most of the responses come from people who don't put a lot of thought into what they write but react in the heat of the moment, and therefore, the level of responses is accordingly (although on this site this is often not the case).
I can testify for myself, for example, that quite a few times I intended to write a response or an opinion to some article or another response, but in the end I refrained from doing so because I felt that I was not knowledgeable enough or that I had nothing interesting to say on the subject. I assume, from my familiarity with the reactions on various news sites, that this is also the case with others like me - who are not sure of their opinion. This creates a situation where most of the responses come from people who did not put much thought into their writing. (Here, I was also debating whether to send this comment or not).
In conclusion, my opinion is that since there is no balance between comments in favor and comments against, it is indeed necessary to prevent the publication of any comment. But there may be better ways to do this than to completely give up the possibility of comment (as they decided to do in the magazine "Scientific America"). For example, you can charge a nominal fee (a few cents) for each response. In my opinion, such a payment mechanism will immediately reduce most of the "troll" comments and leave mainly comments from people who really care about expressing their opinion or answering previous comments.
And following the previous response, I will give an example. Questions on health-related topics are quite often answered by websites related to homeopathic medicine. These appear in many cases in a Google search at the top of the first page of results. Many people get their health information from these sites, while sites that provide reliable scientific information are relegated to low-priority search pages. This creates a distorted reality for the user regarding medical facts. The way to fight ignorance, especially in the age of the Internet, is more scientific websites open to discussion, which will push homeopaths and creationists of all kinds.
Answer to my father. If I refer to your answer then as you mentioned the public is more inclined to popular answers than to those of the scientists. There is no doubt that this is a problem that the scientific community must consider and be challenged by. Burying your head in the sand or alternatively using the law or filtering will not help but will make people look for other and more dubious sources of information. What is required is to continue to confront the same pseudo-scientific attitudes and constantly look for more creative and convincing ways to eradicate these attitudes. The solution is not to block websites. This will only, in my opinion, cause further isolation of the scientific approach. Fewer visits to sites like yours will eventually cause 'answers' to certain search engine questions to lead to sites perpetuating the very positions you oppose. Therefore, despite the difficulties and violence of those trolls, a distorted discussion is better than disconnection and isolation.
I do not feel that I am influenced by rubbish opinions or opinions that are formulated in blunt language. I see who most of the commenters are (on websites in general) - people that in reality I would stay away from as much as possible. So I'm used to a situation where out of 100 responses there are maybe 2 that are worth some reference, and their intelligence is evident in their language and phrasing. In short, I'm not so much in favor of censorship. (I do not mean the paid writers, of course, it is clearly worth filtering them, if at all possible.) In the end, the main importance is attributed to the articles themselves, and not to the talkbacks.
Correction: Better this way.
witness that.
Meanwhile, most science websites and forums are suffocated under the world of those who "come to participate in some kind of discussion" and are abandoned by the more serious participants. A complete elimination of the reaction mechanism may be going too far, but all kinds of trolls and harassers must be resolutely blocked.
Yael, you probably don't know how to read numbers. I wrote how many people read the site, if you think there are only a few, read the astrology sections in NRG.
Yossi, there's no reason to repeat a lie a thousand times after they've already received an answer on a million and one sites. This is simply a criminal attempt to hijack the discussion. And in order for people to make a rational judgment they must know the data, the vaccine refusal affair shows us that the public today believes more in reactions that seem authentic and popular (even though organized criminals are behind them) than in scientists.
According to the serious and considered responses above, it is appropriate and more how to keep the discussion open. If there are reactions that may convince to actions that are possibly life-threatening, similar to the example of vaccines, then these reactions should challenge the scientists and responders so that they know how to deal with them in a better and more convincing way. A critical discussion is always desirable since it forces all parties in the discussion to improve their arguments and thus their position. This is how knowledge is promoted. In any case, those who follow the arguments of the pseudo-scientists will go there anyway even if they are provided with a rational and logical argument. Why ? Because humans (and this certainly includes scientists) do not choose their faith based on rational consideration alone.
The comments are much more interesting than your stereotyped opinions. Give up the comments and the individual readers on this site will also stop logging in.
The site of science is truly a protected wild flower in our fields, but still deals with science
Popular means an interface that provides interesting articles from the professional world
of science to those most of whom are not scientists but just interested.
Unfortunately and happily, we are a people that likes to argue and express an opinion, even if it passes
to personal stripes. It must be noted that there are also wonderful responses, interesting questions,
Corrections to the writer and other types of vegetables that definitely contribute to the article itself.
It doesn't seem to me that a person would make a decision based on a response on a website without testing (as a vaccine
or not vaccinating his children). And if it still happened then that person is responsible
The only one (from a legal point of view).
I wish it was possible to maintain a mature level of responses. Maybe you can learn
From other popular science websites (in different languages) and their way of handling irrelevant responses
And comments on personal stripes?
another one
On the subject of AGW - the "skeptics" (or to be precise - the deniers) make many claims that are contrary to observations and science. They claim that there is no recent increase in temperature at all. They claim that the vast majority of climate scientists are liars. They claim that the sun is the cause of warming. They claim that warming is for the better.
Don't talk it's scientific skepticism!!!! Do not beautify the subject!! The "debates" within science exist and it should be that way. But don't mix things up. Not healthy….
Regardless of the scientific question whether a certain claim is true or not. Pay attention to the simple fact that we are all brainwashed. If someone changed his mind because of comments, it means that he had no comments, he would have thought according to a certain line. And where is this line determined? Not out of reason and thinking. but from aggressive brainwashing.
Therefore, most of those who consider themselves skeptics are not at all. They question what they have learned to question out of unquestioning faith in their worldview.
I don't know where the "90%" figure is coming from, I also don't understand why he thinks it's so-so easy to set up a competitor to a site like this.
But in my feeling I agree with the claim that many come for the discussion - and I guess it adds to your popularity..
Of course, sometimes the comments also correct the article (starting with spelling errors, continuing with wording and ending with factual errors).
Sometimes there are also interesting talkbackists whose opinions are worth reading.. (like me 🙂 just for fun)
But even now, even though the number of readers is relatively small (to Popular Science, no offense), most of the comments are still junk, and the more readers the article has, the more the amount of junk comments grows in a way that seems exponential and eliminates the quality comments...
No matter what decision you make about this site, I will remain a reader of it :). Successfully!
90% of the readers come to participate in some kind of discussion, blockade, competing universe and easily,
A mature person with a clear mind knows how to distinguish between science and opinions, and it is clear that there are a variety of opinions on any subject. A plurality of opinions actually 'opens the mind' and I don't think we should be afraid of that. Some commenters also add to what is written in the article or clarify controversial issues.
Personally, I don't think that the matter of vaccinations (whether to vaccinate or not) is at all scientific. Science is supposed to explain the essence of the vaccine, the way the vaccine works, but as soon as the matter goes to the parents' decision, it becomes emotional, with all that implies. And even if there are researchers who study emotions - emotions themselves are not science. And although science is important, it cannot take responsibility for everything that happens on earth.
And of course you always have the full right to delete slander and the like.
Happy holiday!
Miracles
Skepticism is the heart of science.
Without skepticism it is not science but religion.
The problem with creationism is not that it casts doubt on existing science - but that it brings something that is clearly unscientific as an alternative theory.
This is exactly the logic of finding a subtle point that may not have been fully understood (or just claiming that it has not been fully understood) and claiming that because there is no evolution there is a God who betrays creationism and intelligent planning as not science.
Because what these people lack is doubt.
AGW supporters also doubt whether the temperature will rise by 4 degrees, 3 degrees or a degree and a half. They doubt whether the damage will be catastrophic or just terrible, the majority do not think that humanity will become extinct because of it - and some actually do.
The skeptics are simply on the low end of the spectrum - they expect a low rise in temperatures and damage that is not worth the countermeasures required to prevent it.
that's it. The fact that there are many ideologues on each side who serve as straw men for the other side - this is the main problem of this field.
Many sites suffer from trolls, and spammers,
A way to deal with advertisements is A. Protection from bots, B. Blocking the problematic address.
Secondly, people are supposed to be responsible for themselves - with any half-formulated response good enough to convince them to do something stupid like not vaccinating their children against measles or something - so this is an indication that the system does not know how to explain what the vaccine does, how statistically insignificant the risks are against its usefulness and the like.
The right way to fight lies is really, not by blocking the comments. They will find the wrong ideas on the internet anyway - so it's better to give them an answer.
By and large, they shoot themselves in the foot, interesting articles on hot topics can get a lot more hits because of comments. Those who close comments can actually lose a lot of money.
I have seen many articles where the responses of the opponent were more reasoned and more grounded than the article itself.
It is certainly difficult to understand that a person - especially one who has an opinion and not just research - would prefer not to give a platform to someone who is not a professional to tear his article apart. I know of an article (full of nonsense) that spoke against tzimahunot - and some commenters there brought quite reasoned responses that showed exactly where the reporter was wrong. This is not uncommon.
A lot of reporters really don't like talkbacks - and as much as they hate the trolls who print one stupid line - much more hate those who break down their argument paragraph by paragraph.
I completely agree with Yossi.
There are many commenters on your site who do not understand the concept of "skepticism". In their understanding, this means skepticism about science itself.
But - there are enough intelligent commenters who express a unified opinion.
The problem with YNET is the junk articles of all kinds of charlatans. The level of readers there is accordingly... therefore, don't get excited about what's happening there.
Many sites suffer from trolls, and spammers,
A way to deal with advertisements is A. Protection from bots, B. Blocking the problematic address.
Secondly, people are supposed to be responsible for themselves - with any half-formulated response good enough to convince them to do something stupid like not vaccinating their children against measles or something - so this is an indication that the system does not know how to explain what the vaccine does, how statistically insignificant the risks are against its usefulness and the like.
The right way to fight lies is really, not by blocking the comments. They will find the wrong ideas on the internet anyway - so it's better to give them an answer.
I am guessing that the real reason that the comments are closed is not that the reporters are afraid that one of the reporters will sound more convincing and smarter than them.
I understand your fear of a lawsuit when the stats work on 100,000 readers.
Along with this, your website is the only one of its kind in Israel and provides a platform for news that is becoming more and more rare. Therefore, definitely keep the blogs. Although they are saturated with slander, there are interesting exchanges in them. Much more interesting when a chain reaction is created for the article. It also gives you a measure of which articles are of interest to the public and which are less so.
P.S. Where is Dr. Gali in physics?