This week saw an actual sea change and weak stomach for debate on consensus over publishing comments that argue for scientific method derived facts and the truth.
This excerpted and edited from PopularScience.com -
Why We're Shutting Off Our Comments
By Suzanne LaBarre - Posted 09.24.2013 at 8:15 am
Starting today, PopularScience.com will no longer accept comments on new articles. Here's why.
Comments can be bad for science. That's why, here at PopularScience.com, we're shutting them off.
Another, similarly designed study found that just firmly worded (but not uncivil) disagreements between commenters impacted readers' perception of science.
If you carry out those results to their logical end--commenters shape public opinion; public opinion shapes public policy; public policy shapes how and whether and what research gets funded--you start to see why we feel compelled to hit the "off" switch.
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. Scientific certainty is just another thing for two people to "debate" on television. And because comments sections tend to be a grotesque reflection of the media culture surrounding them, the cynical work of undermining bedrock scientific doctrine is now being done beneath our own stories, within a website devoted to championing science.
The 'money quote' has to be:
popular consensus on a wide variety of scientifically validated topics
This is what Popular Science, the magazine and website, bases all of it opinion and articles on ... popular consensus. The fact that Popular Science is shutting down comments to their consensus derived articles proves that they admit to publishing Consensus over Scientific Method derived facts.
Since WHEN is Consensus a substitute for Scientific Method?
Not once is Scientific Method mentioned as the basis of information their articles are based upon. Their statement only alludes to popular consensus and scientifically validated topics.
Further, the editors admit to trying to shape public opinion through their publishing silo with this observation - "commenters shape public opinion; public opinion shapes public policy; public policy shapes how and whether and what research gets funded--you start to see why we feel compelled to hit the "off" switch." - and therein lays the rub.
Who holds the scientific community's feet to the fire when mathematical formulas and data are shaped so that results reflect the intent of the politically-motivated public policy. Follow the money.
The biggest problem with Popular Science is that the editors are nothing more than Progressive-Minded J-School Stenographers who report what has been bought-and-paid-for Consensus objectives, rooted in politically-motivated public policy, as opposed to reporting Scientific Method derived FACTS!!!
Does the mathematical fraud perpetrated by the University of East Anglia ever get reported and calculated into the Consensus equation? At Popular Science, now that they have hit the "off" switch on comments to their published articles - we, at LA Conservative Examiner, think not!