Science blogs: ur doin it wrong.

As a non-scientist who frequently blogs on Evolution and the political debate concerning pseudo-science I am not sure I can do the job as well as scientists do it -- when it comes to blogging. I frequently link to Science Blogs posts because the level of detail is sometimes beyond me -- as I would expect when things start getting into the weeds.

So why do I blog? The debate is not truly about the validity of science but about the political and public relations aspects of the various pseudosciences. Since I am a parent, and grandparent, and had my kids educated in public school, I am one of those constantly targeted by groups like the Discovery Institute. They know they are not going to convince actual scientists of their position -- so they aim at school boards, church members, and parents to make their case. If there was validity to their scientific claims then why is their apparent chief spokesman (by volume) a lawyer (little casey luskin) or their supposed scientist actually a philosopher (Stephen Meyer). Even one of the few scientists involved, Michael Behe, has yet to publish any actual scientific work supporting ID. The less said about Philip Johnson and William Dembski the better. I figure if they target me, then I have the right to respond.

But do not ever expect me to reach the levels of the posters on various science blogs. I hold a Master's Degree in IS, not Biology. Now if you need a new computer program to help with some aspect of biology research, give me a call -- but past high school frog dissection, I am pretty well gone :-)

BYW, what are you using for your spellchecker? I need to incorporate one into a web app and like the simple interface yours has.

Thanks,
Ted

tedhohio@gmail.com
http://sciencestandards.blogspot.com

Ted Herrlich said: BYW, what are you using for your spellchecker? I need to incorporate one into a web app and like the simple interface yours has. Thanks, Ted tedhohio@gmail.com http://sciencestandards.blogspot.com

Dammit! I just missed being site visit # 10,000,000 by about a minute (I got 10,000,024)

Is there a consolation prize?

I can't say that I'm enormously impressed by an article where the first page is full of multisyllabic jargon, and proceeds to commit an utterly basic grammatical error at the top of page 2!

The author has clearly failed to survey a sufficiently large set of blogs and so has not realised that there is a wide range of blogs with differing aims and intentions. She (?) has obviously not stop to consider the point that the various bloggers are using a particular available "technology" and that in a few years time, the various blogs studied might well progress in different directions.

I note that the author is a graduate student in "library and information sciences" and so from some peoples' point of view isn't a "proper" scientist. The article is certainly weak on "hard" statistical analysis; it is very anecdotal.

An interesting practical experiment would also be to reverse the roles of writers and readers

It just sounds like standard issue concern trolling to me, so much so that I have to ask if there is a hidden science denial agenda at work.

It's interesting. I'm reading a good book about persuasion. But it's critical to understand that persuasion techniques don't work with people who have set up rigid defenses against a definitive conclusion, and who have invested their self-image into not being persuaded by you.

When you are dealing with someone whose intense emotional bias against you is such that they are constantly looking for an excuse to discredit you, it will never matter how obsequious you are.

Committed science deniers will always, always, always find an excuse to discredit rational critique of their position. No-one can walk on eggshells carefully enough to satisfy their demands for "civility"; those particular eggshells are rigged. "There is less than total disagreement between scientists on some issues, scientists present their data in a way designed to be persuasive and convenient instead of just publishing unedited raw data, someone who supports science said something mean to me, someone just published a new book that rehashes old rebutted arguments but you haven't rebutted that exact book yet", etc, etc, etc. Any of these lame excuses, and worse, will be used.

In fact, obsequiousness to creationists and their ilk will backfire. It will make third parties perceive creationism as "one equal side that is taken seriously in a debate". And that is, of course, the very goal of the concern trolls.

Please note that I am strongly in favor of ACTUAL civility and persuasiveness. Efforts by concern trolls to trick critics into standing up for themselves so weakly that science deniers gain stature in the eyes of neutral observers should not be mistaken for sincere advocacy of civility or education.

What a terrible suggestion. I cannot imagine how the quality of this site would be improved by allowing FL or IBIG to post header articles and having (folks like) RBH comment on them.

The whole thing looks like a paper by a social sciences/humanities graduate with little understanding of hard sciences. I say this as an archaeologist (as post-modern in its trends as any social science is likely to get) but at least one who has an educational background in hard sciences and who can recognise bullshit when it hits him in the face...

Does this mean FL will become a contributer?

Somebody get Keith a baby wipe.

There's room for all types of science blogs. My first one was pretty tehnical and apparently of no interest to anyone but I've gotten a lot of interest in my current one which is aimed to fit in the the gardening blog/diy/Michael pollan set (but from someone who acually understands it). I think the approach I'm trying also is working bc I keep the posts really short and simple and only go into more detail when asked to.

Ted Herrlich said: BYW, what are you using for your spellchecker? I need to incorporate one into a web app and like the simple interface yours has. Thanks, Ted

The whole thing looks like a paper by a social sciences/humanities graduate with little understanding of hard sciences.

Are we sure Matt Nisbet wasn't a co-author of that paper?

Another populist doofus who thinks all opinions are equally valid. "Ordinary persons" DO create and publish purportedly "science" blogs - Uncommon Descent, for example.

I can just see "Fundamentalist Liar" (FL) or Robert Byers or some of our other poisonous friends from the past turned loose at the helm of PT. Karen's right - the first day of next month would be appropriate.

Karen S. said:

What a terrible suggestion. I cannot imagine how the quality of this site would be improved by allowing FL or IBIG to post header articles and having (folks like) RBH comment on them.

Let's try that next month...on the first, of course.

Ichthyic said: The whole thing looks like a paper by a social sciences/humanities graduate with little understanding of hard sciences. Are we sure Matt Nisbet wasn't a co-author of that paper?

I'm an "ordinary person" who comes to Panda's Thumb (and Scienceblogs) to read discussions about science in the news. I can't imagine why I would want to read something about a scientific topic by someone who doesn't know anything about science. (Frankly, there is often plenty of that in the comments section of some posts.)

Paul Burnett said: "Ordinary persons" DO create and publish purportedly "science" blogs - Uncommon Descent, for example.

This is one of your crowd you know.
Its like the writer is saying just include the viewer more and education will happen better.
Science is not for everyone. Its up to the person to come up to the level of human knowledge from over the centuries and not have the knowledge dumbed down for easy understanding.
Creationism has had a influence on many to get involved in the areas of human knowledge who otherwise would not of got involved.
Science is a unique endeavor and always its from different motivations from the ordinary that push people in. Its seen as a smart thing. So either smart people get involved or people who aspire to smartness get involved.
Demographics in historic science are not a cross section of mankind or nations.

The reader should have to keep up and not the writer slow down.

Robert Byers said: This is one of your crowd you know. Its like the writer is saying just include the viewer more and education will happen better. Science is not for everyone. Its up to the person to come up to the level of human knowledge from over the centuries and not have the knowledge dumbed down for easy understanding. Creationism has had a influence on many to get involved in the areas of human knowledge who otherwise would not of got involved. Science is a unique endeavor and always its from different motivations from the ordinary that push people in. Its seen as a smart thing. So either smart people get involved or people who aspire to smartness get involved. Demographics in historic science are not a cross section of mankind or nations. The reader should have to keep up and not the writer slow down.

One response to Byers per thread is enough, folks. Thanks!

To play devil's advocate a bit, I actually do think there would be some value in a Daily Kos style science site with reader diaries/blogs. I certainly don't think all or even many science blogs should be like this, but it would serve a useful news/research aggregation function and could even in principle help with science activism. Quite what this would have to do with science education, however, I have no idea.

Let me state straight away - I am not a scientist, however I know that any comments I make here will be welcomed as long as they contribute in a positive fashion, and like a previous poster, I come here to learn from people with a proven track record of study, I know I would probably bypass anything relating to genetic drift, or population dynamics, or many other things if the writer was me, so I don't see that as a positive teaching or learning mechanism. On the other hand, a simplification or step by step lead through (especially on some of the probability related posts) would be helpful.

I’m an “ordinary person” who comes to Panda’s Thumb (and Scienceblogs) to read discussions about science in the news. I can’t imagine why I would want to read something about a scientific topic by someone who doesn’t know anything about science.

It seems to me that this is really more about marketing and PR. It is true that some scientists write in a way that is not accessible to the layman,and others are writing directly to their target audiences (atheists, cosmologists). But there exists writing talent within the scientific community to explain things elegantly and concisely as well.

The main problems, from a perspective of marketing, are twofold--some people are never going to buy your product. They are rigid ideologues, brought up on a notion that ideas outside their core beliefs are positively toxic. An analogous person might be someone who lives inside North Korea and who buys the fantasies of the North Korean propaganda state completely and without a whit of doubt. Personally, I would not expend one iota of energy attempting to cater to this demographic, since this market is already saturated with politico-religionist wharrgarbl.

Next, you are competing with a powerful corporate media which sells hysteria packaged in various forms, and which finds anti-intellectual rhetoric profitable. This anti-intellectual force is less rounded and complete, but its target market (having bought the idea that critical thinking is somehow seditious) doesn't really notice that the component parts of this populist discourse do not all add up to the same thing.

I think that science could peel off a few scraps of this demographic, although I frankly think you'd be better off hiring a PR firm to do it for you.

Finally, the market (IMO) that's going to give the best return on your efforts could be called Reasonable People and People who Can't Be Bothered by Insane Political Drivel. I think the more elegant and concise style of scientific discourse is easily understood by these people, and that they would consume it if it were to cross their field of vision.

Ginger Yellow said: To play devil's advocate a bit, I actually do think there would be some value in a Daily Kos style science site with reader diaries/blogs. I certainly don't think all or even many science blogs should be like this, but it would serve a useful news/research aggregation function and could even in principle help with science activism. Quite what this would have to do with science education, however, I have no idea.

Reed A. Cartwright said: http://orangoo.com/labs/GoogieSpell/

RBH said: One response to Byers per thread is enough, folks. Thanks!

Kevin B said: Do you think that Mr Byers' "contributions" are what the author of the JCOM article meant by "non-scientist participation"? The bit about "welcoming non-scientists" and "focus[sing] on explanatory, interpretative, and critical modes of communication" does seem a little ironic in this context.

As another "ordinary person" I also find the article a bit odd.

We've already seen plenty of examples (including our favourite one mentioned above) of how a "science blog" written by someone who has no clue quickly ceases to be educational in all respects other than demonstrating the inherent fragility of the human mind.

However I've never had any issues participating in and being welcomed on real science blogs as a non-scientist. Adhering to the principle of "don't talk complete crap" seems to help out a lot.

My favorite part of science blogs tends to happen when different people are talking about the same thing--arguments are tiresome, but when Orac and Chu-Carrol both weighed in on animal experimentation, or when the chiropracty blogsplosion happened, I got to see different approaches to the same idea. And I was able to learn more just from seeing how different fields approached things.

I think what is being called for is a way to get mainstream attention to science blogs, and I'm... not sure how to do that, besides bloggers guest-spotting for newspapers or something.

Blogging is a relatively recent phenomenon. Prior to that, the best “up-to-date” information about science was received passively from a relatively few science reporters who were both articulate and knowledgeable.

It was true when I was researching full time and it is still true today; the typical researcher spends 60 to 80 hour weeks just dealing with all the aspects of research and mentoring.

So most researchers simply would not have time to write articles for the layperson; and most would not be articulate enough nor would they understand the preconceptions and misconceptions many laypersons bring with them to their reading about science.

Blogging is more direct and interactive; but as we see with the trolls, it gets cluttered up with pages of pure nauseating crap that drives people away in exasperation.

But even with the directness and interactivity, most front-line researchers don’t have the time to spend mentoring laypersons in addition to all their other responsibilities. And it doesn’t count towards any kind of career advancement.

Retirees have often been excellent sources for educating the public. There have been a number of retirees who have produced a series of articles in science magazines and trade journals that have been warmly received (Dick Crane of the University of Michigan comes to mind).

I don’t know how many retirees care to run blogs however. I don’t know how many would necessarily know how or would have the energy. It appears to require a lot of time and site management.

off topic, my niece was just handed a copy of the Ray Comfort Origin of Species at Melbourne University, Australia

Snaxalotl -

Vaguely related, Sarah Palin made a speech to a worshipful crowd in Calgary, Alberta, Canada the other day. Alberta is rich from fossil fuels. Nevertheless, they proudly elected a creationist premier for quite a few years.

As a dual citizen with plenty of friends and family in Canada, I am keenly aware that there is an element which is obsessed with imitating whatever is the most screwed up in the US.

Australia is probably similar.

Both Australia and Canada have proudly exported creationist leaders to the US "market". I believe Australia actually has the lead.

Mike Elzinga said: Blogging is a relatively recent phenomenon. Prior to that, the best “up-to-date” information about science was received passively from a relatively few science reporters who were both articulate and knowledgeable.

Paul Burnett said: Anybody who was lucky enough to live near a big university could find ways to get information about science.

Kevin B said: Do you think that Mr Byers' "contributions" are what the author of the JCOM article meant by "non-scientist participation"? The bit about "welcoming non-scientists" and "focus[sing] on explanatory, interpretative, and critical modes of communication" does seem a little ironic in this context.

I'm a nonscientist who does occasionally blog about science - but other things being equal, I'd prefer to read an in-area expert discussing science than my own fairly-well-informed-but-still-firmly-layperson blatherings.

Anyone can blog about anything already, and that's fine. The proposal to impose an inversion and have nonscientists blogging about science reeks of "vox populi" - but one thing I have little interest in spending time reading is institutionalized ignorance.

but one thing I have little interest in spending time reading is institutionalized ignorance.

Karen S. said:

I’m an “ordinary person” who comes to Panda’s Thumb (and Scienceblogs) to read discussions about science in the news. I can’t imagine why I would want to read something about a scientific topic by someone who doesn’t know anything about science.

But if someone did want to do that, they could go to Uncommon Descent.

harold said: Snaxalotl - Vaguely related, Sarah Palin made a speech to a worshipful crowd in Calgary, Alberta, Canada the other day. Alberta is rich from fossil fuels. Nevertheless, they proudly elected a creationist premier for quite a few years. As a dual citizen with plenty of friends and family in Canada, I am keenly aware that there is an element which is obsessed with imitating whatever is the most screwed up in the US. Australia is probably similar. Both Australia and Canada have proudly exported creationist leaders to the US "market". I believe Australia actually has the lead.

Rahn -

Please note that, as I mentioned before, I am Canadian. I hold both US and Canadian citizenship.

Alberta, especially the southern half is VERY American in attitudes

Or to put it another way, the Canadians there are especially prone to holding attitudes that you (and for the most part I) strongly disagree with.

I'm going to guess that you may be from Ontario. Just a guess.

As for we Canadians being “proud” of exporting the creationists… Nope - we were just putting out the “trash”!

Rahn said:

harold said: Snaxalotl - Vaguely related, Sarah Palin made a speech to a worshipful crowd in Calgary, Alberta, Canada the other day. Alberta is rich from fossil fuels. Nevertheless, they proudly elected a creationist premier for quite a few years. As a dual citizen with plenty of friends and family in Canada, I am keenly aware that there is an element which is obsessed with imitating whatever is the most screwed up in the US. Australia is probably similar. Both Australia and Canada have proudly exported creationist leaders to the US "market". I believe Australia actually has the lead.

A couple things: Alberta, especially the southern half is VERY American in attitudes: In fact, some say the US LOST the War of 1812 because part of the peace treaty was to define the border from the Lake-of-the-Woods west at the 49th parallel of latitude...... many American settlers had already settled far north of this new boundary! Mind you, we did give you the State of Maine..... birth home of the Bushes, including W. As for we Canadians being "proud" of exporting the creationists... Nope - we were just putting out the "trash"!

Matt G said:

Kevin B said: Do you think that Mr Byers' "contributions" are what the author of the JCOM article meant by "non-scientist participation"? The bit about "welcoming non-scientists" and "focus[sing] on explanatory, interpretative, and critical modes of communication" does seem a little ironic in this context.

"Non-scientist" is being generous in this case. "Anti-scientist" is the preferred nomenclature.

Kevin B said: I'm afraid that I can't resist being really mean and linking the fact that the article author is a "graduate student in library and information science" with the thought that bookshops will persist in putting "The Chariots of the Gods" on the shelves under "Astronomy" rather than "Science Fiction". :)

snaxalotl said: off topic, my niece was just handed a copy of the Ray Comfort Origin of Species at Melbourne University, Australia

Karen S. said:

As for we Canadians being “proud” of exporting the creationists… Nope - we were just putting out the “trash”!

In other words, they were Expelled?

Mike Elzinga said:

Karen S. said:

As for we Canadians being “proud” of exporting the creationists… Nope - we were just putting out the “trash”!

In other words, they were Expelled?

Defenestrated. Expectorated? Defecated?

de-maple-ized.

over and over again can get monogamous after a while,

Henry J., I am so stealing that!

harold said: Rahn - I'm going to guess that you may be from Ontario. Just a guess.

Rahn -

That sounds like Newfoundland.

I spent part of my life in NS.

Good to see that there is some sanity in the Maritimes.

harold said: Rahn - That sounds like Newfoundland. I spent part of my life in NS. Good to see that there is some sanity in the Maritimes.

PEI?

harold said: PEI?

OT, but when I click on the "Smithsonian’s Human Origins Initiative" post (the one just younger than this one), all I get is a blank page. Anyone else?

GvlGeologist, FCD said: OT, but when I click on the "Smithsonian’s Human Origins Initiative" post (the one just younger than this one), all I get is a blank page. Anyone else?

I also notice that there are no recent comments listed on the main page. What's up with PT?

Sorry about the overlap HJ.

test

Reed A. Cartwright said: test

More info is here: http://www.flicspasalon.com/free-handmade-soap.html

This is such a blast! For the long line of comments...

Do you know that it's the best time to receive the loans, which will make you dreams real.