What I learned from debating science with trolls
In this cross-posting from The Conversation science astronomer Michael J. I. Brown shares his experiences in debating with and challenging online trolls.
I often like to discuss science online and I’m also rather partial to topics that promote lively discussion, such as climate change, crime statistics and (perhaps surprisingly) the big bang. This inevitably brings out the trolls.
“Don’t feed the trolls” is sound advice, but I’ve ignored it on occasion – including on The Conversation and Twitter – and I’ve been rewarded. Not that I’ve changed the minds of any trolls, nor have I expected to.
But I have received an education in the tactics many trolls use. These tactics are common not just to trolls but to bloggers, journalists and politicians who attack science, from climate to cancer research.
Peer reviewed, or it didn’t happen.
This is exactly how I feel about discussing politics online. Everyone seems to already have a side no matter what the policies are. Pick out a few bits that you don’t like and attack them without knowing much background at all and say how bad that party is despite others parties having done something similar in previous months or years. It doesn’t help that politicians do the same thing. I’ve given up on commenting on anything political online at all.
Distortions of logic used to win influence amongst the unwary. It happens in politics, courts, the media, the workplace. All part of human culture’s own predator / prey cycle.
Not so long ago we were burning witches so at least we’re improving. There’s perhaps still some time to go before honesty and rationality are widely valued in society beyond the usual lip service.
Great article. I despair at the level of debate and discourse around important national and global issues.
My personal observation is that we all feel we need to have an opinion on every topic. The logical person would only hold views on those areas they have an understanding of, and be prepared to change that view based on new information.
I just wanted to say that the Australian is a joke
The peer-revised mainstream is usually right, but not always.
Examples of breakthroughs that were ridiculed for years by the mainstream:
(1) Wegener’s theory of continental drift
(2) Warren and Marshall’s theory of bacteria-caused stomach ulcers
Even a touch of Lamarckism is recently being reported.
Typo “peer-reviewed”
Interestingly continental drift was accepted in Europe more rapidly than it was accepted in the United States. The availability of data (e.g., sea floor spreading) was also critical for continental drift to gain acceptance. Multiple theories can exist when there isn’t any data to differentiate between them. Naomi Oreskes has a detailed account of this in “The Rejection of Continental Drift”.
Warren & Marshall’s theory on ulcers was novel at its inception, but rapidly backed up with observation. They received their Nobel Prizes roughly 20 years after their initial studies.
Actually it took 11 years for Warren and Marshall’s theory to be accepted, and they were heavily criticised from the very beginning. Marshall, as its major proponent, was particularly attacked:
‘The study that really clinched it for the skeptics was published in The New England Journal in 1993 by Henschel from Austria, where he just uses antibiotics versus placebo in people with ulcers and showed that he got exactly the same results as Dr. Marshall had got five years before. So, that is what proves something in medicine. Someone who isn’t you gets the same result and says, “Hey, he must be right.” Convincing the skeptics is tough and it does take time.’
http://www.achievement.org/aut...../mar1int-1
And Marshall thought that money was a major reason for the skepticism:
‘The livelihood of gastroenterologists and many of the drug companies depended on these drugs that were worth billions of dollars, treating millions of people with ulcers.’
Frankly, I think the general public does have a right to question scientists, though they should have read some of the studies and understand the scientific methodology.
Surely you recognize your own assumptive corectness in the following:
“Unfortunately our Prime Minister, Tony Abbott, employed similar broken logic after the 2013 bushfires:
Australia has had fires and floods since the beginning of time. We’ve had much bigger floods and fires than the ones we’ve recently experienced. You can hardly say they were the result of anthropic [sic] global warming.
Bushfires are a natural part of the Australian environment but that does not exclude climate change altering the frequency and intensity of those fires. Indeed, the Forest Fire Danger Index has been increasing across Australia since the 1970s.”
I ask Michael – How does this compare with the “forest Fire danger Index” of 1734 – oh thats right we didnt have one then… so you use a recent relatively small pocket of science to speak for eternity and dismiss the PMs comments. Biased intepretation of facts is tool used by all sides. It is a bit ruich for you to try and take the high gorund based on YOUR assumptions and beliefs.