Guest post by W. Jackson Davis (who attended the seminar today as listed below)
The contrarian discourse in the blogosphere–what are blogs good for anyway?
Franziska Hollender, Institute for Social Studies of Science, University of Vienna CSTPR Conference Room, 1333 Grandview Avenue. Tuesday Sept. 11, 2012
Summary from CSTPR
The media serve to inform, entertain, educate and provide a basis for discussion among people. While traditional media such as print newspapers are facing a slow decline, they are being outpaced by new media that add new dimensions to public communication with interactivity being the most striking one. In the context of climate change, one question has arisen from recent events: what to do with the contrarians? Some propose that the contrarian discourse is merely an annoying sideshow, while others think that it
is science’s responsibility to fight them. Blogs, being fairly unrestricted and highly interactive, serve as an important platform for contrarian viewpoints, and they are increasingly permeating multiple media spheres.
Using the highly ranked blog ‘Watts up with that’ as a case study, discourse analysis of seven posts including almost 1600 user comments reveals that blogs are able to unveil components and purposes of the contrarian discourse that traditional media are not. They serve as extended peer communities as put forth by post-normal science, however, blog users themselves do not see post-normal science as a desirable goal. Furthermore, avowals of distrust can be seen as linguistic performances of accountability, forcing science to prove its reliability and integrity over and over again. Finally, it is concluded that the climate change discourse has been stifled by the obsession of discussing the science basis and that in order to advance the discourse, there needs to be a change in how science as an ideology is communicated and enacted.
Approximate Transcript by W. Jackson Davis
(vetted for accuracy by Ms. Hollender)
Introduction
I did this study because this “mediated” society [one blanketed with diverse media] calls the integrity of science into question. A changing media landscape provides new possibilities for public discussion and participation.
Anthony Watts received an invitation to this talk and posted it online. It received 476 comments. The comment section verified my results and provided extended peer-review at the same time.
This study was done as a Master’s thesis–a small scale study by a graduate student. I sampled 7 blog posts by Anthony Watts between 2006 and 2012. I used principles of critical discourse analysis (Fairclough, Wodak). The climate blog “Watt’s Up With That” (WUWT) is ranked 118 of more than one million. WUWT gets 3 million hits per month. My results should be seen as an in-depth case study rather than overview of the field.
Discourse analysis–my primary methodology–is used to analyze prevalent power structures and views language as a social practice. provides overview of prevalent power structures.
Results
Normal science (as promulgated by Thomas Kuhn) is seen as the goal by bloggers above all else. However, their request is to provide people broadly with the means and education to evaluate and disseminate the scientific data they provide, which does not fit with the principles of normal science in which the production and review of results of inquiry stay inside the scientific community and even within a certain paradigmatic community.
Post-normal science (defined by Funtowitcz and Ravetz) as practiced by the blogger community is described as anti-scientific, yet the blog community does extended peer-review and demands the further opening of science towards the public. She believes that whether post-normal science is anti-scientific may be debatable.
Post-normal science is, in her view, a description, not a prescription. Normal science no longer fits with complex socio-economic factors that influence science.
Analyzing the seven WUWT posts, she finds discursive strategies on WUWT to include ridicule, personal attacks, and name-calling. She says this is formally discouraged on the site, but nonetheless occurs.
Narrative structures utilized on WUWT include: 1) Scientific data dissemination. 2) Critique of scientific findings. 3) Social and political implications of climate change. 4) Climate change as a political tool to challenge capitalism and impose a new model of wealth onto the American public.
Comment thread narratives include: 1) The authority and trustworthiness of science. 2) The role of science in society. These are often discussed at length.
Discussion
Science itself is not a sound action-basis and does not determine what the results of scientific inquiry imply for society. Science is not free of values and beliefs, it is not done under the exclusion of social, economic and political factors.
Data represent a social construction. Who constructs the data, and for what purpose, is relevant to the analysis. Nothing is without (observational) bias. In fact data construction is never unbiased. There is always a translation between the observed phenomenon,what we observe and what we record as the data that represent what we have observed.
The choice of media arena is crucial to the discourse. Some people say blogs, and post-normal science, is a sideshow (WUWT), irrelevant, and unimportant. However, choice of media is crucial. This is among the reasons she wanted to research it.
Gate-keeping exists implicitly and explicitly on blogs, including WUWT. Censorship is taking place. Hostile comments prohibit an open and constructive discourse–but gate-keeping is no longer imposed by the medium but by human intervention. Interactivity is high, manifest as responses to posts and subsequent responses to posters.
Not all of this is true for WUWT–there is definitely gate-keeping, however. Certain kind of comments are welcome, while others are deleted by the site manager (gate-keeper).
There are very few dissenting comments on WUWT, and if so, they are viciously attacked. Self-selection of contributors therefore takes place, under the influence of and to avoid prospective attacks on views expressed.
These are all things that happen at WUWT–it is not that free, not everyone is welcome. There is gate-keeping.
Interactivity of the WUWT blog is high. No post has less than 50 comments, and the seven posts analyzed here received up to 400 comments.
Example: The post advertising this talk was published on Sept. 1, 2012, receiving at least 476 comments. Personal attacks on Ms. Hollender were commonplace, including “This girl has a brain the size of a peanut.”
She experienced extensive misunderstanding of certain terms and notions “science as ideology, “avowals of distrust, “linguistic performances.” Plans to disrupt and intervene in her presentation were posted. One comment said to offer her another Zoloft and put her by the window, she’ll enjoy the bright colors in the sunlight.”
On the plus side, the constant questioning encompassed in blog comments holds scientists accountable. She agrees with this function, which she considers valuable. This is what she expressed as avowals of distrust, which is a term from speech-act theory and describes linguistic performances that accomplish something beyond a statement.
The example of the post announcing her talk, and the many responses, illustrate exactly some of the problems she sees with the blog. About 250 have nothing to do with her talk, and instead diverge to off-track issues–and there is no formal mechanism to keep the comments on track.
Responses
Post-normal science is a description, not a prescription. It is something that is happening, not something that should be happening. We have problems now, certain things are at stake. What comes out of science is one thing–what we do with it is another.
“Science is not an ideology, but it is not free of values and beliefs–and what role science plays in our society is a matter of ideology.”
“Blogs are an underrated media arena and need to be taken more seriously in academia–extended peer review works very well in the Blogosphere, but constructive discourse is not happening because of personal attacks and ridicule.”
Peer-review needs to be extended toward wider public, “extended peer review” using non-traditional approaches. People who are not expert in the field should engage, look at material, point out mistakes. This function works very well in the blogosphere. Often papers are reviewed like this (example of Roger Pielke on his blog). This facilitates uncovering of mistakes and inconsistencies. Constructive discourse is mixed up, however, with “noise”–personal attacks, non-constructive replies, etc.
Every scientist used to criticism–but not used to being called “ridiculous.” Blogs would work better without the non-constructive discourse.
She personally takes no position on climate change in order to remain objective in her analysis. She is unbiased, deliberately avoids sitting in either of the corners.
“Q and As”
Q: Are you personally involved [in the issue of climate change and its causes]?
A. No, she deliberately avoids taking either side on ethical grounds. She will not engage, because this would compromise her objectivity.
Q. Productive criticisms emerge from this blog–does same come out of journals? Does vitriol facilitate critical attitude even though it is harsh?
A. Yes, generates content and visibility, and so vitriol is not all bad. It can lead to constructive discourse. Also steers away many people. Also generates a lot of media attention.
Re: open source journals–they still stay within the scientific boundaries. You can access them, though it is hard if you are a lay person. Blogs a better medium to reach a wider public than just your own colleagues. Access is not the same. Blogs are superior in this regard.
Q. Have you observed any difference between Anglo sphere blog tradition and European tradition?
A. She has not read many German blogs–not as many. She does read some institutional blogs, but there is less of a divide in Germany than in US, so do not have two oppositional views on climate. Don’t have the same diversion of opinion in Europe.
Q. How can you learn and take back to journals to get them to engage a broader audience?
What can the journals do [to reap this benefit of blogs]?
A. The journal Nature Climate Change offers a possible model–it has moved to an online format, there are chat rooms. There is still a barrier to access, however. The reason is economic; when you have a print journal, have to pay for it. The access [under this business model] cannot be free to everyone. Individuals can always seek out information by going to a University library, but this is not generally done. Nature Climate Change has made a step toward broader access with online forum. Scientific journals do use a certain kind of language, but it is not journals’ responsibility to teach this to the public, it is the responsibility of each individual.
Q. Your presentation is concerned with discourse between two groups [“warmists” and “skeptics”]; how do you view the two camps and where do you sit?
A. She is still undecided on the science. She feels she cannot take either side because she does not have all the [scientific] information required. She is not a climate scientist–she is undecided. Adapting to climate change may require certain lifestyle changes, which she does embrace (such as recycling). She nonetheless believes that it is important to keep an open mind on both sides. Science never proves anything beyond doubt. Still, the question remains as to what we should do about climate change. The precautionary principle is important–it is essential to act sooner than later.
Q. Do blogs help generate new ideas and avenues of research?
A. Different roles of commenters–there is the police function, aimed at exerting power and silencing oppositional voices. Another role is productive–criticism, reinforcement, engaging information.
Q. Do you see same people serving the same role repeatedly, or do people switch roles?
A. Both. Blogs are more complex than they appear.
Q. My question is about the blogs’ influence on the relation of “normal” and “post-normal” science. Many people who post on WUWT do so because they cannot get their findings published in what they consider a biased and even corrupted climate science peer-review system. Do the blogs enable exposure of new ideas that can enter the discourse of “normal” science?
A. She only looked at Watt’s posts, and not at the guest posts that would pertain more to this question. Guest posts are written by knowledgeable people. She cannot judge whether guest posters would be able to publish what they write on WUWT. It is generally not clear whether they tried. Anyone can write anything they want–there probably are ideas that do not have peer review that can be beneficially published on blog.
Q. Do other blogs have a more balanced or “intermediate” view on climate change? I am thinking of the Judith Curry blog–is this an intermediate view on climate?
A. Judith Curry has adopted “warmist” views [views supportive of the hypothesis of anthropogenic global warming], in Watt’s opinion, but her blog gets many diverse comments as well. Interaction between bloggers is interesting. Most blogs have distinct viewpoints, but none encourage diverse views.
Comment from audience. Competitive discourse as on blogs may be a “purer” method of sorting out the “truth.” Aristotle used in his rhetoric. Blogs may be modern equivalent. Gecker [sp?] and Posner [sp?] at the University of Chicago have economic blog where they debate each other on economic matters using this format.
Reply. There is initiative in Europe called “deliberative democracy”–citizens have access to information and experts. It works well, although it takes a lot of effort and expense.
Comment from audience. People are generally getting very negative on blogs right now in U.S., maybe because of the political season.
Reply. She says this is part of the reason she looked at 2006-2012–she wanted to integrate over time. She wanted to control for short-term fluctuations, including seasonal and political, as a kind of “control.”
Comment from audience. There is a major misunderstanding of [your position on] blogs — you (she) is not taking a side, but rather just describing what is going on.
Reply. She agrees–she does not take sides. She is descriptive, not prescriptive. She feels very misunderstood in that regard.
Comment from audience. A book that comes to mind is Republic of Science, by Ian C. Jarvie. He edited some journal the philosophy of social science. He defends an Anglo-American norm, very much non consciously adopted by most scientists. Ravetz came out that it is the urgency of the matter that drives standards.
Reply. She replies that post-normal science does NOT promote lower standards…one of the main problems is that whether climate change is taking place, and whether anthropogenic. The other side is concerned with what to do about it after having adopted what they perceive as a scientific consensus, so the discussion between the two opposing groups is not about the same thing anymore, which makes it frustrating for both sides.
______________________________________________________________________
The representative of the host organization, CSTPR, stated that both audio and visual of this seminar will be posted on sciencepolicyColorado.edu in the next couple of weeks.
===========================================================
Comment by Anthony:
For the record, Ms. Hollender never contacted me nor asked any questions online that I am aware of. She states that she sampled seven WUWT blog posts to come to her conclusions. As of this writing, there are 7,764 published stories, which would make her sample size 7/7764 = ~ 0.0009 or .09%. I think that if I were to do a study with a sample size that small, I’d probably be laughed at.
Since she chose what posts to sample, I have no idea what if any personal bias she might have intentionally or inadvertently introduced by her choices. I do know this though, her statement of:
Interactivity of the WUWT blog is high. No post has less than 50 comments, and the seven posts analyzed here received up to 400 comments.
The “no post has less than 50 comments” is demonstrably false. There are many many posts at WUWT which have less then 50 comments, especially in the early days of 2006 and 2007. However, even recent posts such as:
Weekly Climate and Energy News Roundup for 9/9/2012
…has only 7 comments, so this suggests to me that she wasn’t very careful with her sampling methods, and perhaps used personally formed opinions rather than hard data to come to that conclusion.
Also as of this writing there are 895,357 approved comments and the traffic count is at 125,607,045 views.
I don’t claim WUWT to be the perfect venue, and clearly there are many things that could be done better here, but I think the numbers speak for themselves. If there’s any other climate blog that can garner that kind of reach, please let me know. I encourage her to do an identical study on RealClimate, and note what she finds there, especially when it comes to gatekeeping.
UPDATE: Just a few minutes after posting, Fran Hollender responded in comments. Here’s that comment along with my reply:
Fran Submitted on 2012/09/11 at 9:39 pm
I wish you had consulted me on your added comments, too. In my talk I specifically said that in my sample (!), no post had less than 50 comments.
REPLY: It certainly doesn’t read that way, and you vetted the document by W. Jackson Davis before posting was done here. Not knowing which posts you sampled, I can’t confirm anything of what you talked about.
And further, how could I contact you? You’ve never revealed yourself to me or to WUWT that I am aware of….until now. But a search shows you commented under a fake name here on 02/07/2012 as “thedetroiter”.
Here’s the two comments:
===============================
thedetroiter 2012/02/07 at 4:27 am
Oh, as an addition: even here in Germany we know not to trust anything the BILD writes. Most of you won’t understand the BILDblog, but its mission is to debunk their bullshit.
Before using a BILD article as a basis for an argument, thing again. Next time maybe just enjoy the naked ladies and move on.
================================
thedetroiter Submitted on 2012/02/07 at 3:25 am
Right. Green activist, you say? Vahrenholt was a lobbyist for Shell and responsible for “improving their public image”. He now works for one of the biggest energy companies in Germany.
================================
These suggest you have biases too.
– Anthony
UPDATE2: Fran has responded to criticisms in a lengthy comment here
Hi Mods…My comment at 3:06am seems to be stuck in moderation….
[No, sorry, not there either . . mod]
Franziska’s seminar comes across as whining rant, but she was right on the money about one thing:
WUWT is forcing (climate) science to prove its reliability and integrity over and over again.
Mission accomplished! Keep up the good work!
An afterthought: If Ms. Hollender actually believes her thesis, she should jump in here and defend it. This after all, is a living, current event, not a dusty bit of scribble discovered in an old library written by a long-dead author. If she wants to experience science, she has no better opportunity. She will learn what every biologist, psychologist and doctor has to learn – how to experiment on and learn from a subject that has its own significant degree of self-determination. It takes guts and fortitude to do it, but she’ll learn the truth of her thesis, and there is no better experience for a student that has aspirations of higher learning. Working with subjects that bite back is both exhilarating and consciousness-raising, be they polars bears or “angry mobs”.
From DirkH on September 12, 2012 at 12:13 am:
Yet when I was an American college student in the ’90’s, taking German classes and practicing by translating and reading ads in Der Spiegel, one thing I noticed has stuck with me ever since.
Three ply toilet paper.
Here in the US for institutional use like schools and businesses, we had rolls of thin paper, was actually shiny. For home use there were softer brands, although the strength wasn’t optimal, and nothing above two ply.
But in West Germany, not only did they have toilet paper with three layers, but each layer was different, one was soft, one was for strength… Toilet paper that you actually had to think about which side went where. The legendary German propensity for over-engineering and advanced technology, exemplified by that to be used once and flushed.
Der Spiegel may have been a socialist rag, but those companies advertising in that rag knew that those socialist readers appreciated their comfort, and were willing to pay for it. No Soviet-style bucket of dry leaves and corn husks for those environmentally-minded leftists!
Where is the evidence?
Now try the same analysis at RealClimate and other Warmist blogs.
Perhaps they should search WUWT for “Leif” or “R. Gates” or “LazyTeenager” et. al. They should also take a look at the site policy and realise there are rules. Finally when the story emerged about Heartland and the faked document Anthony made a post about it. Anthony was viciously attacked and dissenter comments came in thick and fast.
It’s always fun to watch Gramscians like Hollender. She’s using anti-establishment revolutionary language to defend the cream of the financial cream, the coolest of the media darlings, the harshest of the tyrants.
She’s like Eugene Debs defending J.P. Morgan, or John Brown defending Jeff Davis, or Lenin defending the Czar, or Robespierre defending Louis XVI.
Simply an Establishment tool.
has anyone posted this?
Center for Science and Technology Policy Research: University of Colorado, Boulder: Ogmius 10TH Anniversary issue
Fran Hollender
In the fall of 2011, I was a visiting graduate student at CSTPR to conduct research for my Master’s thesis. When I first asked Roger [Pielke, Jr.] whether he thought there would be an opportunity for me to come to Boulder for a semester, I had no idea that my stay would change my career choices.
Coming over from the University of Vienna I was new to American academic culture, but the relaxed and friendly atmosphere at the Center immediately put me at ease…
After I returned to Vienna, I decided to pursue a Ph.D. after finishing my Master’s degree this year…
http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/ogmius/archives/issue_33/hollender.html
or this?
Center for Science and Technology Policy Research, University of Colorado, Boulder
Fran joins CSTPR from the University of Vienna, Institute for Social Studies of Science, where she is pursuing an MA in Science, Technology and Society. Fran will be collaborating with Max Boykoff on a project examining climate change and social media.
http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/about_us/meet_us/fran_hollender/index.html
Paul Clark says:
September 11, 2012 at 10:19 pm
The post sample size, 7/7764, is 0.0009 or 0.09%.
REPLY: Thanks, got distracted by getting kids to bed, fixed – Anthony
Anthony, I can really relate to you.
Re previous post:
“Yet when I was an American college student in the ’90′s…” should have been “the ’80’s”. Yup, I too am now old enough that I’ll drop decades.
Not as bad as I thought it might be. Biased of course. She believes that everything is biased – a great excuse for not even attempting to be fair and neutral. But let us put that aside for now. As her stated intent was purely to analyse the discourse here let me restrict my comments to that topic.
Firstly I think she seriously overstates the importance of ridicule and invective and similar negative comments in blog discussion. Such comments are not an expression of power by the powerful as she seems to believe. They are more like background noise produced mostly by people on the fringe of the community. The respected regular voices don’t do this. Invective and ridicule really don’t deter discussion. Nor do they win respect.
On the one hand Ms Hollander notes that comments containing ridicule and abuse do appear despite being prohibited in the blog policy. She is right. Some do. On the other hand how does she think such comments could be excluded other than by the exercise of censorship and moderation?
It isn’t enough to simply state that censorship and moderation take place and stop there. It is actually impossible to run a blog without moderating discussion in some fashion unless your intention is simply to provide a free hosting service for pr0n and v14gra advertisements. One MUST look deeper at the nature of the moderation, at whether serious dissenting voices are permitted, at whether moderation is used neutrally or abused as a tactic to cut off discussion or win arguments that cannot be won in other ways. It isn’t at all clear that Ms Hollander has done this.
Moderating a blog is a difficult compromise. WUWT owes a large part of its success to doing this difficult thing well. It applies moderation in a generally weak and fairly fact neutral manner, cutting only the most abusive posts. The result is a vigorous albeit very noisy forum with serious discussion taking place against a background of namecalling and similar noise. WUWT owes a large part of its success to the FAILURE of other climate blogs to do this well. Realclimate in particular is notorious for using censorship as a weapon to cut off argument. Other climate blogs have been caught editing history. In the short term these tactics can ensure that the “correct” side wins every argument. But they have killed themselves by doing this since no real discussion can take place in forums with such policies.
Some comparative analysis would have been particularly useful here.
Also I wish she’d stop assuming that WUWT is
mfo says:
Fran
You’re no doubt reading these comments. Fundamentally I think you’re a decent person but you do present yourself as being prejudiced against WUWT and people who question Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming. I know that students are under pressure to believe in CAGW.
mfo, I do not think there will be pressure only that “global warming” will be assumed to be true in acadeia.
Regarding your suggestion of “reading the comments”, I think that may be very counter-productive for this lady because many of the viewpoints and subjects will be alien to her, and without understanding the context, she may just falsely interpret our anger at poor quality work and partisan presentation of the “facts” (by others) as an unjustified attack on people she holds in high esteem.
The best advice I could give Ms Hollender is to try a subject where she will have more empathy with the various sides and not this subject where she fails to understand our view at all. So, I suggest she go and look at the debates about midwife assisted child birth. This is a good subject where I’m sure she will understand the debate and good to compare the methodology of those experts who advocate seeing childbirth as a medical “problem” needing medics (the few predominant in the US) and those who see it as natural and one that should be left to the more holistic care of midwives.
She claims that WUWT is a fight “against science”. This would be akin to claiming those who support natural child birth are “against medicine”. Being in favour of not treating natural things as “a problem” doesn’t mean you are against science or medicine. The other benefit of assisted childbirth is that there are countries which support the “contrarian” view (as she would put it) and where medicalised child birth is not the norm.
I think this would be a far better case study for her: she could compare the way the medical profession in the US “evangelise” their superiority in medicine and probably play with the fears of people to support and enhance their role. She will also be able to see professional people in the UK who are respected for their views (unlike us sceptics) who are against the “alarmist” medics who want to scare mothers into their care.
Hopefully, when she realises that you can be pro-medicine but against medicalising natural child-brith, she might understand that we sceptics are pro-science but against academics “medicalising”, “alarming” … declaring a problem out of natural cycles in the climate.
The big question in both cases, is at what point should natural child-birth be considered a problem needing to be medicalised? Likewise, at what point should variation in the climate be considered a problem that allows untrained, untested, self-appointed “climate doctors” to declare a medical problem for the climate …. for which we then have to pay a bill of $trillion.
Don’t yer jest know when someone uses the term ‘discourse’ that what follows is gonna be a wack of post modern criticism, (‘critique’) deconstucting the obstructiveness of those pesky free marketeers and/ or CAGW skeptics who jest won’t come ter the party ‘ when the facts are uncertain, the stakes are high and decisions are urgent?’ …sigh.
Latimer Alder:
At September 12, 2012 at 3:19 am you report
Really? That large? Evidence please.
Richard
”Some propose that the contrarian discourse is merely an annoying sideshow, while others think that it is science’s responsibility to fight them.”
Science’s responsibility to fight contrarian discourse……since when?
I thought it was “Science”s responsibility to prove it’s theory stands up to scrutiny.
The science is NEVER settled.
Poor old Fran and her solemn pompous agenda laden twaddle,(jargon enriched of course, to make it seem weighty and ‘academic’)…but then you caught her out as an ‘activist’!
Couldn’t help but chuckle.
Do you think they feel shame or humiliation?
Nicely done Anthony.
“What would Anthony do here if there was suddenly an influx of highly literate and scientific posters launching strong and seemingly successful attacks against his points?” That’s the point. There are no “seemingly successful attacks”. There are only good scientific attacks or worthless attacks. If someone launched strong and successful scientific attacks against his points, Anthony, like most folks here, would sit back and smile and enjoy. Knowledge and wisdom and would grow. That would be a good thing.
If Ms Hollander want’s to precipitate a constructive discussion then perhaps she should use language that sounds neutral, part of the general lexicon and intelligible across a range of professions and disciplines. She initially came across to me as some sort of nutjob zealot gibbering on with language that seemed like some sort of rhetorical Mobius strip. She now asserts that “post normal science” means something else. When you read what she now says she was referring to as simply an area of scientific enquiry which is a work in progress, the “jury” still being out. To describe an area of science which is in fact “incomplete” or “partially explained” as “post normal” is unhelpful to say the least and utterly banal in its anaesthetised, meaningless stupidity IMHO.
She says she is neutral on the AGW-Skeptic discourse but the sort of language she uses is strongly associated with the extremist pro warmistas such as Lewandowski, Hamilton, Gleick, McKibben and Hansen etc. I could hardly imagine any scientist using such language. It is the language of intellectual masturbation not procreation.
Ms Hollander if you want to contribute to the public discourse with some expert work ( using “expert” in the legal sense) then I suggest you also work on being seen as credible to “the court” of interested public opinion, i.e. sounding credible by using credible, meaningful language, “plain” language.
“Post normal” is not something unique to climate science or any part of science, most of us live our entire lives and make the big lifechanging decisions and choices in a “post normal” state of being. WTF are you on about making up junk jargon to describe what is completely and utterly normal to the human condition?
PS
Verstehen Sie?
richardscourtney says:September 12, 2012 at 4:46 am
Latimer Alder:
At September 12, 2012 at 3:19 am you report
‘Personal attacks on Ms. Hollender were commonplace, including “This girl has a brain the size of a peanut.”
Really? That large? Evidence please.
Gentlemen, that is hardly a way to encourage engagement with this lady.
Just wondering how many solar posts with accompanying comments she included in her “study”.
A good dose of the Leif, Vuk, Sharp and Tallbloke interaction would certainly require a better understanding of the history of those relationships. And perhaps a more comprehensive understanding of the history of many of the posters would be required before any conclusions could be considered valid,(i.e Oliver Manuel)
In defense of Ms Hollender
As a masters student, Ms Hollender is probably young and I suspect she is un-used to the “robust” nature of our discussions. In a more formal, accademic environment, discussion tends towards the very formal and very polite. At WUWT, as with much of the web, people are less restrained and will call a spade a spade, or a fool a fool. (Note that identification of “fools” is highly subjective.
Further Ms Hollender is, I presume, a product of the modern education system. She has probably never seen contrarian or even conservative opinion except as a “bad example”.
If she is bright, time and wider exposure to the world may yet save her.
So let’s not be too hard on Ms Hollender: it isn’t entirely her fault. 🙂
Ms. Hollender, I hope I’m wrong about this, but you seem like a person with an agenda, looking for evidence to prove it. I’m not even sure what your hypothesis is, but it seems to be a vague derivitive of an insulting assumption which assumes things not currently in evidence. If your hypotheis isn’t honest or is just an intellectual sounding attempt to promote a political agenda, do the planet a favor and find a new field of study.
But if you want to truly advance the understanding of science as it pertains to blogs, why don’t you test the notions of using blogs to crowd-source the refining of scientific hypothses or asking if blogs can help with crowd sourcing of actual experimental protocols or can blogs and online environments replace scientific print journals? Those seem like very interesting topics to me.
The moment they use jargon they lose me…. Specially when it attempts to undermine bedrock tenets…… Post Normal science… WTF. She reckons we have moved into an era beyond what was “normal” for science.
…. That just shows her ignorance of two things.
1: That the scientific method cannot be moved away from. If you do. Then you ain’t doin’ science no more.
2: The scientific method is not being applied in many instances. So she’s looking at what is abnormal and thinking it is normal….
I hope the criticisms here do her good. She needs to view things from beyond her own egocentric orbit…;-)
Crispin in Waterloo says “Climate Audit is another high end chat room and is an important adjunct to WUWT.”
That’s a bit unkind, Crispin, even if inadvertently. They are different animals, say as a hard cover book is to a paperback. Anthony typically starts a topic with a commentary, Steve almost always with a cutting edge analysis. The intensity of response at CA is more analytical, at WUWT more conversational. IIRC, it was Steve’s example that encouraged Anthony along until he surpassed his numbers.
That said, there is a place for both and I’m not wishing to be rude to either Steve or Anthony or to suggest changes to either. The world would be so boring if all blogs were run the same way with similar content. I enjoy both. But they are incomparable.