It appears to be part of a larger pattern:
http://www.popsci.com/science/article/2013-09/why-were-shutting-our-comments?dom=PSC&loc=recent&lnk=1&con=why-were-shutting-off-our-comments-
Who would guess that Popular Science would be that contentious?
Reminiscent of Galileo being told to quit his comments on science. Sad to see the Popular Science website take that action.
Surprising, since at PopSci, 'the future is now'
They're don't need to argue about the future. Plus no prophets since 'the future is now'
Actually that was the NT promise!
Thanks M.J. for this interesting article. I have experienced the difficulty in articulating a comment or question in a way that adds to an on-line discussion. Timing, audience, vocabulary, context have worked against my sincere intentions. It inclines me to step back from participation at times.
For the host of such services it comes down to the question of where to draw the lines. Popular Science is simply making a choice on where the line is for them.
In that respect, I've come to appreciate Logos' Forum Guidelines in approaching the difficulties of managing website forums.
I too am gaining a greater appreciation of this as time passes.
agreed.
With the greatest respect, Don, I think people were directing comments not to Logos at large, but in the context of some big incident that could have been avoided with slightly more care, by the people in charge of the rollout process.
There is room for grace, and also professionalism. It's not always a clear line or an easy line to walk, but I think the directed complaints have been fair in this particular situation. To take a particular example, regarding my comments, I chose to characterise the error in a manner which might have sounded "nasty and unforgiving". I take responsibility for that. But to my thinking, in a purely secular setting, if grace were not an ethos, an error of a similar magnitude could have led to economic consequences far worse. As far as I see it, grace is still operating.
That article was stupid.
I agree, here is a quote from the article for those who did not actually read it.
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.
This is stupid.
That article was stupid. I agree, here is a quote from the article for those who did not actually read it. 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. This is stupid.
It truly is a bizarre quote, especially from someone who - ostensibly at least - is claiming to be scientifically-oriented.
~Butters [:)]
t truly is a bizarre quote, especially from someone who - ostensibly at least - is claiming to be scientifically-oriented.
[:D] I'd like to weigh in on this...... 185lbs.
I'd like to weigh in on this...... 185lbs.
With or without Logos? If with, how many resources? [:P] Had to turn this back to Logos somehow? [;)]
I'd like to weigh in on this...... 185lbs. With or without Logos? If with, how many resources?
With or without Logos? If with, how many resources?
That's the joy of digital books. They don't weigh anything, so his weight would be the same whether with Logos or without. Well, of course you've got to count the weight of his laptop or whatever, but that's not what you asked.
Did y'all see this related piece from the NY Times? http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/22/magazine/no-comments.html?pagewanted=all&_r=1&
Do you suppose forum incivility has replaced the saloon of the Wild, Wild, West? We need some place to come to fistifcuffs.
I
Wow! And I thought everything was always up for grabs in science, and you simply go where the evidence leads. Apparently, you go where the evidence leads, unless it leads to scientific heresy.
That opening sentence: "Comments can be bad for science. That's why, here at PopularScience.com, we're shutting them off." In other words, from now on we will tell you what to believe.
Apparently, you go where the evidence leads, unless it leads to scientific heresy.
Very interesting comment, Michael. I'm intrigued. What is scientific heresy?
Scientific heresy is holding an interpretation of evidence that is different from the consensus held by a particular group. The particular group is hard to define, but consists mostly of those who control the primary journals in the various fields and those to whom they give access.
Back to the first point, civility is nearly dead in this culture. I need not provide any evidence to support that assertion; it is readily available in this forum, at the line at your local Starbucks, at the stoplight down town, etc.
Once upon a time it was scientific heresy for a doctor to wash his hands between treating patients. The doctor probably greeted his patients with a handshake. Maybe incivility is a form of enhanced hygiene.
Science is a never ending, self correcting, human enterprise. Useful up to a point. What is the investigation beyond physics?
Peace, Steve! *smile*
Do you mean this kind of "stuff"???
Metaphysics (Greek)
Aristotle
Perseus Digital Library
Book 1
[980a][21] πάντες ἄνθρωποι τοῦ εἰδέναι ὀρέγονται φύσει. σημεῖον δʼ ἡ τῶν αἰσθήσεων ἀγάπησις· καὶ γὰρ χωρὶς τῆς χρείας ἀγαπῶνται διʼ αὑτάς, καὶ μάλιστα τῶν ἄλλων ἡ διὰ τῶν ὀμμάτων. ουʼ γὰρ μόνον ἵνα πράττωμεν ἀλλὰ καὶ μηθὲν [25] μέλλοντες πράττειν τὸ ὁρᾶν αἱρούμεθα ἀντὶ πάντων ὡς εἰπεῖν τῶν ἄλλων. αἴτιον δʼ ὅτι μάλιστα ποιεῖ γνωρίζειν ἡμᾶς αὕτη τῶν αἰσθήσεων καὶ πολλὰς δηλοῖ διαφοράς. φύσει μὲν οὖν αἴσθησιν ἔχοντα γίγνεται τὰ ζῷα, ἐκ δὲ ταύτης τοῖς μὲν αὐτῶν οὐκ ἐγγίγνεται μνήμη, τοῖς δʼ ἐγγίγνεται. [980b][21] καὶ διὰ τοῦτο ταῦτα φρονιμώτερα καὶ μαθητικώτερα τῶν μὴ δυναμένων μνημονεύειν ἐστί, φρόνιμα μὲν ἄνευ τοῦ μανθάνειν ὅσα μὴ
English:
[980a] [21] All men naturally desire knowledge. An indication of this is our esteem for the senses; for apart from their use we esteem them for their own sake, and most of all the sense of sight. Not only with a view to action, but even when no action is contemplated, we prefer sight, generally speaking, to all the other senses. The reason of this is that of all the senses sight best helps us to know things, and reveals many distinctions. Now animals are by nature born with the power of sensation, and from this some acquire the faculty of memory, whereas others do not. [980b] [21] Accordingly the former are more intelligent and capable of learning than those which cannot remember. Such as cannot hear sounds (as the bee, and any other similar type of creature) are intelligent, but cannot learn; those only are capable of learning which possess this sense in addition to the faculty of memory. Thus the other animals live by impressions and memories, and have but a small share of experience; but the human race lives also by art and reasoning. It is from memory that men acquire experience, because the numerous memories of the same thing eventually produce the effect of a single experience. [981a] [1] Experience seems very similar to science and art, but actually it is through experience that men acquire science and art; for as Polus rightly says, "experience produces art, but inexperience chance."1 Art is produced when from many notions of experience a single universal judgement is formed with regard to like objects. To have a judgement that when Callias was suffering from this or that disease this or that benefited him, and similarly with Socrates and various other individuals, is a matter of experience; but to judge that it benefits all persons of a certain type, considered as a class, who suffer from this or that disease (e.g. the phlegmatic or bilious when suffering from burning fever) is a matter of art. It would seem that for practical purposes experience is in no way inferior to art; indeed we see men of experience succeeding more than those who have theory without experience. The reason of this is a that experience is knowledge of particulars, but art of universals; and actions and the effects produced are all concerned with the particular. For it is not man that the physician cures, except incidentally, but Callias or Socrates or some other person similarly named, who is incidentally a man as well. [20] So if a man has theory without experience, and knows the universal, but does not know the particular contained in it, he will often fail in his treatment; for
OR ?? Christian Mysticism? OR???
Science is a never ending, self correcting, human enterprise. Useful up to a point. What is the investigation beyond physics? Do you mean this kind of "stuff"??? Metaphysics (Greek) Aristotle
"For Jews demand signs and Greeks seek wisdom, but we..."
Science is a never ending, self correcting, human enterprise. Useful up to a point. What is the investigation beyond physics? Do you mean this kind of "stuff"??? Metaphysics (Greek) Aristotle "For Jews demand signs and Greeks seek wisdom, but we..."
Peace! Interesting! Captivating! 1 Corinthians 1:22-25 ... Thanks for the passage! *smile*
This was the text for my first and last sermons in each of my 5 parishes during my 44 years of serving our Saviour and His Church in the Pastoral Office! Yes! I'd do it all again! *smile*
Jesus Christ and Him Crucified! And Him Resurrected -- of course!
And Him Resurrected -- of course!
Hi Milford.
Yes, that is our unique hope.
Think our forums are contentious[?] It appears to be part of a larger pattern:
Think our forums are contentious[?]
"There is no lack in these days of captious listeners and questioners; but to find a character desirous of information, and seeking the truth as a remedy for ignorance, is very difficult. Just as in the hunter’s snare, or in the soldier’s ambush, the trick is generally ingeniously concealed, so it is with the inquiries of the majority of the questioners who advance arguments, not so much with the view of getting any good out of them, as in order that, in the event of their failing to elicit answers which chime in with their own desires, they may seem to have fair ground for controversy."
(source: NPNF; NPNF CE)
Human nature did not change much, did it?
His name? Basil.
Letters of Basil the Great
Do not miss out on this!
I found this on 22 Words, and thought it appropriate (and fun) for this thread. Attribution is given in the header. I haven't read the original and this doesn't imply any endorsement of whatever is there.
If your argument falls into the bottom three levels, you need to work on your rhetorical skills. :-)
very nice
