Popular Science Dot Com Shuts Down Comments

dusty1
Try developing more artful explanations instead of simply deciding the debate is over...........

That is a very good point.

Not artful in the sense of being sneaky or engaging in obfuscation but artful in the sense of clarity, unity, and coherence in arguments - the art of honest debate.

No claims to authority.

Just sound, open debate.

How to get information sensored.

1. Set forth an army of proffesional trolls to create havoc on comments boards.
2. Wait for a reaction.
3. Offer the solution - Removal of the comments board.

Most (I hate this term) conspircay theorists, prefer to have intelligent discussion. All the name calling and ridicule is done by those who push the official story. One only has to observe what happens on ats to know this is fact.

Mary Rose
reply to post by darkbake

 

Evolution, a theory, and "climate change," which formerly was called "global warming" and claimed to be man-made, are not settled science. Science is never settled.

Popular Science is in error to suggest that it can be.

edit on 02/16/14 by Mary Rose because: Clarify

I often tell people that 'proof' only has meaning in mathematics - you cannot 'prove' anything beyond all doubt in science. This is possible in mathematics because our definitions are finite and we do not allow any new characteristics. In physical languages we can only define approximately and so, no matter how good our logic is, we never have all the data. I cringe everytime I hear someone say 'such and such' is "proved".

reply to post by VoidHawk


You know, that thought had not entered my mind.

That's because I tend to be literal and forget to read between the lines.

You are absolutely right!

I say that because I've learned after 9-11 about the concept of problem-reaction-solution thanks to Alex Jones and David Icke. I didn't figure that out for myself. I needed others to help me see the light.

The input of others is essential.

That's why censorship is intolerable.

I've been watching the DVD of the series Downton Abbey.

I've noticed how it is possible to so quickly come up with a lie to cover-up that which you don't want to be discovered.

That's why it is imperative that we the people learn to identify lies.

Well, what the site will probably do if they want to open comments again; open up for it to be Disqus commenting or Facebook comments only. Those Disqus comments are hooked to your social media. It won't ward off trolls or comments they do not favor anymore than Google has. Just makes it more complex for the rest of us, then in turn it becomes a solid troll mass such as Yahoo comments. How about this new service "mask my email" that seems just as much as a farce as DISCUS, everything to be "linked in". Easier for the NSA too. PopSci in particular as mainstream as it is perhaps wants this path, as expressed and as it seems people's comments are taking apart their stories(whether they be troll bickering or those wanting to debunk the articles) maybe some of the trolling comes from them especially if they want to censor political leaning commentary.

Oh come on, seriously... I strongly believe that life developed on Earth via natural evolutionary mechanisms, but those exact mechanisms are not strongly defined and there are many things we don't understand about evolution. The same thing applies to climate change, there is still a lot we don't understand about climate change, the origins just being one part of it we don't clearly understand as well as we should. Let me guess, they think that "greenhouse gases" are the indisputable cause of all global warming and climate change... utter nonsense!!! People should be allowed to debate the origins of climate change instead of acting like we already know everything there is to know about it.

For christ sakes we need to stop thinking we are infallible gods who already have all the answers to the universe. We only just entered the electronic age less than a century ago! We are a baby species just learning our place in the universe and we are exceptionally far from having all the answers. Shutting off healthy debate on these issues is small minded and unscientific. If you can't handle opposing points of view then you shouldn't be doing science in the first place. What they are doing here is putting their fingers in their ears and declaring that everyone who doesn't believe what they believe is a "troll" and hindering scientific advancement. They are fools who couldn't be any further from the truth.

reply to post by Mary Rose

The point of my reply was to draw attention to activities, defined by the 'they' (I have no clue who 'they' are), as "politically motivated."

I am all too familiar with the Suspicious0bservers' YT channel. Davidson does a great job aggregating. I like his fresh opinions and that he is vocally skeptical of mainstream/consensus science. I have often wondered what he 'gets out of it' as he doesn't appear to be profiting from his efforts.

Snarl
I have often wondered what he 'gets out of it' as he doesn't appear to be profiting from his efforts.

I am of the opinion that people like him do what they do because they are compelled to - they're free thinkers and they probably simply care enough about the world they live in to try to make a difference.

I imagine more and more grown-up web sites will do this in future. I look forward to it with pleasure.

Perhaps, from now on, sites that aren't into rabble-rousing-for-profit will only accept comments if they are submitted by snail mail.

The video also pointed out this story about the L.A. Times:

L.A. Times Bans Letters from Climate Change Skeptics, Some Scientists Disgusted

Oct. 19, 2013 4:01pm Dave Urbanski

In a stunning move that some scientists are decrying as blatant censorship, The Los Angeles Times is no longer publishing letters from those who deny climate change.

“Simply put, I do my best to keep errors of fact off the letters page; when one does run, a correction is published,” writes Times letters editor Paul Thornton. “Saying ‘there’s no sign humans have caused climate change’ is not stating an opinion, it’s asserting a factual inaccuracy.” . . .

www.theblaze.com...

There can be no errors of fact when it comes to an overall theory as complex as "climate change" - a theory which used to be called "global warming" - "man made global warming."

(By the way, there is evidence we're actually entering an ice age.)

reply to post by Mary Rose


Yes, maybe so. But rigorous science shouldn't be. Inquiry and further research, of course...but not parsing for debate by people who reject science in the first place.

I think the Popular Science website shutting down comments is akin to security personnel escorting a demonstrator out of the congressional building after they had an outburst on the CSPAN camaras. See, there's a difference between reasonable orderly debate and unruly unreasonable exclamations. I suspect Popular Science will allow debate, but only between esteemed people who've proven themselves.

Some places make for good open unmoderated discussion and some don't. Popular Science probably grew exhausted moderating the comment lists. Not allowing just anybody to debate or to comment on something and grab attention is sound business and good government. Additionally, they have a right to do what they're doing and I won't hold it against them, since I think it's understandable.

reply to post by Mary Rose

Should they post the letters which proclaim Obama is a reptilian?

Seriously, I see nothing wrong with them banning letters from climate change skeptics, so long as the facts given in the letter are wrong. If they're unclear or unknowable, I guess ti depends on the tone of hte letter.

Either way, these're the EDITOR's decision. It's not a law they publish all letters. If someone doesn't like an editor, sub to a different newspaper or use the internet. How many news sites are there now? Millions? Lots of choices.

reply to post by jonnywhite


Their reason given was that the science is settled.

Again, that is an unscientific statement.

well...the website is called "Popular Science"...once they change it to "Exact Science"...than they can open the comments section again.

I dont see this as censorship. Censorship as we all know it from old media involves the prohibition of certain information, and with old media being for the most part a one-way communication, it would mean stopping publication. New media is different, its allows a communication between the publisher and their audience, if this magazine is finding that two-way dialogue counter-intuitive to the message they are trying to publish, then why not revert to the old media paradigm?

I mean they were a magazine before they were a website right?

Censorship would be if Google or Wordpress decided to not host crazy climate denying blogs. They're not doing that are they? Its not censorship.

Now go and evolve!

reply to post by MarioOnTheFly


I am concerned because I think it's important for the general public to be a watchdog over the vested interests who have control of education and media and often put out misleading information which is not in the best interests of we the people.

I think that the general public is in a healthy waking up process and the internet is largely responsible for it. I want the lines of communication to be open.

reply to post by Mary Rose


I absolutely agree. I was trying to point out...that it's exactly that which it states..."Popular"...hiding in plain sight.

reply to post by saneguy


Your comment is one of the most true and eloquent statements, that I have read on ATS in a long time.
Some of the Mods here should take note.