
Reddit’s science forum banned climate deniers. Why don’t all newspapers? - rpm4321
http://grist.org/climate-energy/reddits-science-forum-banned-climate-deniers-why-dont-all-newspapers-do-the-same/
======
logfromblammo
I think the "debate" is obscuring the real issue, which is the development of
terraforming technologies. Stabilizing Earth's climate at the point most
beneficial for its biosphere is good practice for more challenging future
homes of the Earth biocomplex, such as Mars, the Jovian Big 4, Titan, Ceres,
and even the hardcore nightmare mode terraforming: Venus.

If humans can change planetary climate accidentally, we can certainly do it
intentionally with a smaller and more directed effort. And if we can "fix"
Earth to be optimally friendly to Earth life, those efforts will translate to
environments that are more hostile from the beginning.

I just wish that politics hadn't hijacked the science to turn it into a
machine for moving money and influence around.

~~~
timje1
In response to your last sentence: people who can hijack systems to gain
power, money and influence tend to end up running things. It's pretty much
inevitable.

~~~
logfromblammo
Yes, but the hand that I wish into requires less frequent washing.

------
nkuttler
That's... interesting. I hope that they didn't ban people who deny that the
current climate change is man-made? Denying facts is just silly, forbidding a
discussion about causes for these facts seems non-scientific.

~~~
NegativeK
Reddit is not something that should be held up to scientific rigor.

Also, the assumption that the climate change denial comments have any chance
of being well supported (not just because they're wrong, but because they're
not authored by people with scientific training) is probably misplaced.

~~~
nkuttler
Certain reddit communities are vigorously trying to uphold scientific
standards. AskScience, AskHistoriance etc come to mind. Yes, if deniers of
man-made climate change can't cite scientific sources they shouldn't write in
scientific reddits.

The problem I see with "people with scientific training" though is that it's
very hard to make a career unless you support the view that the current
climate change is man-made, see
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Climate_science_opinion2.p...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Climate_science_opinion2.png).
But there should (still) be enough percentage points left to find valid
opposing arguments.

------
Xeoncross
Why didn't he give an example? He said they just talk without backing up their
claims with substantial data, yet that is exactly what he did and we are
supposed to take his word for it. (Even if I do believe him)

~~~
DanBC
Giving a specific example turns the discussion from "a group of people do this
thing, and we've banned them" and whether that's a good or bad idea into
"here's an example" followed by bitter discussion of how that example should
or shouldn't be allowed in the sub.

------
tokenizer
I think this shows scientific institutions and advocates in a bad light.

Rupert Sheldrake had a great TED talk on the dogma's of modern science, and
was even further legitimized when a private council of TED banned the talk.

Link:
[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JKHUaNAxsTg](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JKHUaNAxsTg)

~~~
warfangle
TED talk is the epitome of scientific discourse (edit: /tongue-in-cheek).

Rupert Sheldrake is a parapsychyologist.. really? .... -really-?

Maybe it should have been Venkmann.

~~~
tokenizer
You mean PHD Biologist that lectured at Cambridge University?
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rupert_Sheldrake](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rupert_Sheldrake)

So if you were a scientist interested in a field that others called, "stupid",
you would just change for fear of peer pressure? I admire following your
interest with scientific method... Which is what this man advocates, and not
just blind faith to stats... Did you even watch the video before forming your
opinion?

~~~
warfangle
From what I can tell, he used to do pretty awesome work ... and then went a
little crazy.

Much of this, for example, looks like depak chopra level pseudoscience drivel:
[http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Rupert+Sheldrake+&hl=en&...](http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Rupert+Sheldrake+&hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C33&as_ylo=1978&as_yhi=2013)

~~~
tokenizer
I wouldn't go that far. So how would one approach doing scientific work on
additional sense in addition to the known 5?

Or what about the idea of constants not being so exactly concrete? Just do
yourself a favour and watch the video.

And besides, his theory on morphological evolution isn't based on anything but
experimentation and theory. If you dismiss it simply because it seems "too
crazy"... then I could argue it could be comparable to the scientists of
Galileo, dismissing such ridiculous ideas. Not even worth entertaining...

~~~
warfangle
> his theory on morphological evolution isn't based on anything but
> experimentation and theory

Alright, I'll bite. Can you point me to his papers that describe falsifiable
experiments, and to the peers that have repeated his results? Or just some
books on Amazon?

~~~
tokenizer
Sure!

[http://scholar.google.ca/scholar?q=Morphic+Resonance&btnG=&h...](http://scholar.google.ca/scholar?q=Morphic+Resonance&btnG=&hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C5&as_vis=1)

More specific:
[http://www.alice.id.tue.nl/references/sheldrake-1992.pdf](http://www.alice.id.tue.nl/references/sheldrake-1992.pdf)

Again, not saying he's right. I'm saying that to dismiss an actual scientist
when they say that in general, the field of science has "believers", and not
enough people entertaining the questioning of "facts", is a dogmatic, and bad
trend.

This is a good unbiased look on the whole event:
[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_SGzu8TJsyo](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_SGzu8TJsyo)

~~~
warfangle
So, over time, chicks unrelated to each other began to not peck at a given
object as much, given a negative stimulus. Results aren't really in question,
it's the "oh, they're all psychically linked" that's pretty much in question.
There are multitude of other explanations possible, including involuntary
corruption of the test by the experimenter (see also: the 'counting' horse
that was actually responding to visual cues from its trainer, and not actually
counting).

See also: Venkman and the pretty girl at the beginning of Ghostbusters

I tried to find instances of other scientists

Morphic resonance (and the 'morphogenic field') is an old idea from before we
even knew about chromosomes, let alone DNA: it's a lot like how homeopathy was
a big thing until we kind of figured out that bacteria caused disease.. A low
statistical correlation with no corresponding replication with a high
probability of accidental corruption by the original experimenter does not a
compelling argument make.

Your 'unbiased look' at the event is by the guy himself. I don't think that
really counts..

~~~
tokenizer
> Your 'unbiased look' at the event is by the guy himself.

Agreed lol.

I guess we just don't agree on the merits of materialism. While I definitely
think it helps explain the world, and is our best friend when it comes to our
perceptions or reality, it is a poor agent in even CONSIDERING non-
materialistic characteristics in anything.

I find the whole thing highly ironic. It's almost like the highly educated /
scientifically literate persons in our day and age worship materialism instead
of the scientific method. Thats all science is. The methods and the steps we
take to create reproducible research. Not the institutions and boards that
write to editors claiming that the constant of the the speed of light did NOT
change during the 20 years between X and Y.

I for one, can hold onto the ideas of constants, without engaging in a flight
or fight response in my neocortex that forces me to reject new or creative
ideas without even entertaining them.

For instance, could you investigate the possibility that global warming isn't
because of human action? I could even thought I dont BELIEVE it. The dogmatic
idelogue of modern science would have you act like a religious person
regarding it. /rant.

~~~
warfangle
Except no one wants to even peer review or try to replicate this guy's
experiments, because a) they're flawed and b) they're batshit insane.

The conclusions he draws are -way- out there. It's like newton comparing the
dropping of two objects and their rate of fall, and saying the penny drops at
the same rate as the bowling ball because the penny thinks faster. Complete
disconnect between results and hypothesis.

He's saying "look, their behavior changes over time (even this is disputable)!
Without the chicks talking to each other! IT MUST BE PSYCHIC." God of the
gaps, and all that.

------
randomknowledge
Reading the article, and then seeing responses posted here, I am starting to
think hacker news isn't the place for these kind of discussions. Any time any
kind of contentions topic is posted a small number of people, similar to those
described in the article, come out of the wood work and feel the need to share
their uninformed opinions.

On an unmoderated forum like this one, perhaps it is better to keep the
discussions restricted to subject like programming languages and operations
systems, and avoid inadvertently providing a microphone for those with an axe
to grind.

------
reginaldjcooper
I have no problem from banning people that refuse to accept reality from any
educational or political forum. If they banned people for talking about
Intelligent Design or alchemy (outside a historical context) I would say
that's a feather in their cap as well.

------
MrZongle2
An irrational move made by a small-minded person.

Sunlight is the best disinfectant. If you're confident in your views and your
opponent is incapable of articulating his (and, in fact, may actually be
hurting his cause) ... you make sure he has a big audience.

~~~
raganwald
Let me see now: You start your comment with an ad hominem attack on the author
and then move to making an unsubstantiated claim that contradicts the
experience of Every. Single. Online. Community.

I don't think you're contributing to this discussion, and in fact, your
comment is an example of what drags discourse into the gutter: Emotional,
personal attacks coupled with information-free claims contradicting the
established body of knowledge in a field.

If I had the power, I'd mod your comment and all like it into oblivion without
hesitation, along with being very clear to you and anyone asking why I would
make that choice.

~~~
MrZongle2
_If I had the power, I 'd mod your comment and all like it into oblivion
without hesitation, along with being very clear to you and anyone asking why I
would make that choice._

I hope that's sarcasm, otherwise you're simply reinforcing my point.

~~~
raganwald
No, it isn't sarcasm. Online communities need moderation to thrive. If you
allow people to insult each other at will, eventually you drive all the
thoughtful folks away: We have better things to do than constantly point out
Discussion 101 things like fallacies and abusive behaviour.

Unmoderated forums end up full of people who have a great deal of time on
their hands and a large emotional attachment to arguing online. If that's your
bag, you should hang out in such places. If it isn't you should try to avoid
comments that come out swinging with insults.

I favour moderated forums, and I favour moderating away comments that are
blatant examples of abuse. Your tastes may vary.

p.s. Normally I just downvote and move on, but since this discussion is
actually about moderation, I thought that explaining myself was appropriate.
But normally, I don;t engage in much of this kind of discussion, because it
"feeds the trolls:" People with an emotional axe to grind thrive on arguing
angrily about why they should be allowed to argue, angrily.

------
ryandvm
Codifying circle jerks is a dangerous precedent for a sub-reddit. Of course
that assumes that the goal of the forum is fostering discussion and not just
engaging in choir-preaching...

------
altoz
Prediction: /r/Science goes the way of /r/politics and /r/atheism and stops
being a default sub-reddit.

------
elgabogringo
When the global warming scientists can actually use their theories to predict
something, then I'll pay attention.

For now, the only thing they seem to predict is the number of government
grants, conference invites, and headlines they'll get from their unproven,
dire predictions.

~~~
jfoutz
This one got ten pages in science 30 years ago.
[http://www.sciencemag.org/content/213/4511/957](http://www.sciencemag.org/content/213/4511/957)

Predicted around 1/3 of a degree, reality is about 1/2 of a degree. So,
there's that.

~~~
wtvanhest
In fairness, there were probably other papers that were not nearly as
accurate.

~~~
jfoutz
In fairness, the default stance would be no change at all. I can't find any
that said earth would get colder or stay the same. However, that query is hard
to google for. Are you saying Hansen just got lucky? The paper is pretty
accessible, i found a copy at nasa
[http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/abs/ha04600x.html](http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/abs/ha04600x.html)

The reality is, there are a small vocal minority of people that will reject
every climate change claim out of hand. There is no known standard that will
satisfy those folks. They don't assign the probability as .0000000001, they
assign it as zero. now and forever zero. That seems irrational to me, but
maybe they know something i don't.

I dunno. Me personally, I'd put a high probability on climate changing, and a
_slightly_ lower probability on it being caused by humans. I'd put a low
probability on us doing anything about it. I'll be dead before the big
consequences kick in, so it really doesn't matter much to me. It's kind of
ridiculous i'm wasting time commenting about it given my beliefs about any
sort of change, but whatever. I'm inconsistent.

------
ozh
Next, please: ban creationists.

~~~
timdiggerm
Only if they're jerks. Perhaps you didn't read the article?

------
philosophus
Nietzsche describes "der letzte Mensch" as the lowest form of human life. His
scientific materialism is the most degrading, smallest illusion, worse than
any religious dogma. The last man has regressed to the thoughts of what we
used to call "beasts," that is, life which is concerned with, can only
understand, biological sustenance. Even that may be overly generous, as beasts
can be at least curious. His religion, such as it is, is survival, or, at the
most, health.

He is not so much scientific as scientistic. Science, understood as a type of
mathematical empiricism, is not metaphysical. Empirical rigor prevents the
authentic scientist from making claims about the existence of God or the
proper ends of human life -- or about science itself. When one's gaze turns
from the empirically quantifiable to examine the scientific method itself, one
has started doing philosophy. One cannot look through the microscope and look
at the microscope at the same time.

The idea that science is a metaphysical system rather than a method for
modeling the world mathematically is scientism. Scientism makes claims that
are not susceptible to mathematical analysis or reproducible experiments; that
is what distinguishes it from science. These claims include: the world as
perceived by human senses is the primary or ultimate reality; science is the
best way of understanding the world; God (the Hebraic, infinite God) does not
exist; health (understood as reproductive fitness) is the primary object and
standard of value of human life. These are all metaphysical or moral claims
and as such do not describe objects in the world or physical matter that can
be examined by the scientific method.

Scientism leads naturally to pseudo-science. If you believe in scientism, then
you believe that "science" can provide answers to metaphysical and moral
questions. If you believe that, then you believe things like <a
href="[http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/12/131217210540.ht...](http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/12/131217210540.htm">this</a>)
are scientific, rather than pseudo-science. It is pseudo-science because it is
based on beliefs concerning what is better as the end of life. Such beliefs
are not susceptible to mathematical modeling and are therefore not part of
science.

Pseudo-science leads to progressivist political ideologies. Karl Marx is
merely the most infamous proponent of "scientific materialism," his term for a
baroque and metaphysical religion. It is a religion, based on scientistic
historical analysis, atheism, and economics as the valuation of human
flourishing. Following the disastrous horrors of the Soviet and Maoist
experiments, few today openly fly the Communist banner, but similar ideals
persist in more subtle forms.

Progressivism, because it is inherently a metaphysical system based on
mythological pseudo-science, views Christianity as infidels. As in Islam, the
infidel is sometimes tolerated, sometimes more aggressively attacked. Militant
atheism distinguishes itself from science by, again, making metaphysical
claims about the nature of reality instead of mathematically modeling certain
phenomena, and further by enacting legislation (or more thug-like vigilantism)
enshrining its particular mythology (scientism). The infidel, as again in
Islam, is not argued with but attacked in a jihad, whether through official
legislation or "activism."

------
paulhauggis
Why ban them? It's important to hear multiple opinions on the topic. If they
are trolling or not adding anything to the discussion, then yes, ban them.

~~~
DanBC
> It's important to hear multiple opinions on the topic.

Like evolution? It's important to hear that a God created everything, and
directs the Universe?

Or like Earth sciences? It's important to hear that God created the world
6,000 years ago and all those scientists have got it wrong?

It's pretty clear why they were banned. It's not for presenting opposing
views, but for aggressively dismissing real science without scientific
evidence to support them.

> After some time interacting with the regular denier posters, it became clear
> that they could not or would not improve their demeanor. These problematic
> users were not the common “internet trolls” looking to have a little fun
> upsetting people. Such users are practically the norm on reddit. These
> people were true believers, blind to the fact that their arguments were
> hopelessly flawed, the result of cherry-picked data and conspiratorial
> thinking. They had no idea that the smart-sounding talking points from their
> preferred climate blog were, even to a casual climate science observer,
> plainly wrong. They were completely enamored by the emotionally charged and
> rhetoric-based arguments of pundits on talk radio and Fox News.

[...]

> Over and over, solid peer-reviewed science was insulted as corrupt, while
> blog posts from fossil-fuel-funded groups were cited as objective fact.
> Worst of all, they didn’t even get the irony of quoting oil-funded blogs
> that called university scientists biased.

~~~
Tarang
What if reddit was run by people who were the skeptics? Then the science
community would be banned.

In silence it's all about who decides who is silent. In this case its reddit
but what if it isn't?

~~~
DanBC
Reddit has not banned anti-science denialists. A scientist run sub-reddit
about science has banned anti-science denialists, after attempting to talk to
them.

People interested in hearing the various view points of climate change
scientists and campaigners and denialists could set up a sub-reddit.

------
iterationx
Radiation from fukushima is about to destroy the world's oceans and the fake
environmentalists are still whining about carbon. Science is truly in the
service of the State. Anybody who uses the word "denier" to denigrate their
political opponents is employing dishonest tactics that only a fool would find
convincing.

~~~
reginaldjcooper
I like the juxtaposition of

> Anybody who uses the word "denier" to denigrate their political opponents is
> employing dishonest tactics that only a fool would find convincing.

and

> fake environmentalists

