Scientific experiments get their illuminatory power from the researcher's willingness to specify, before s/he sees the results, what a 'fair' process for interpreting them would be.
Thus research is the opposite of public relations - if we consider "spin" to be "creative interpretation of the data so as to support a predetermined conclusion", PR flacks try to maximize 'spin', researchers try to eliminate it.
And the way they eliminate it is by deciding ahead of time, "if the data were to come out looking like X, I would conclude Y" - in other words, by posing and answering hypothetical questions.
This is a hugely powerful tool, that goes a long way toward controlling for our natural tendency to interpret the data so as to favor our preferred conclusion.
And - coming from a science background - I hate to see a perfectly good tool lying unused, when it could be so helpful.
Which is why it drives me batty when NCFocus blog commenters refuse to answer hypothetical questions - it says to me that their goals aren't mine, they're here for fighting/winning, not for learning.
(some people would disparage this as a "litmus test" - but one man's litmus test is another woman's valuable tool for discerning mindsets.)
So, the etiquette question is this: is it reasonable for the blog owner to say "I want the comments to be worth my time, I want them to be for learning not for fighting", and to achieve this by restricting commenting to those individuals who will answer hypothetical questions?
If the site was my living room, I'd definitely want to invite learners in and not invite fighters back.
So it's tempting to do the same here, but it also brings to mind the adage "if you want to test someone's character, don't give them adversity, give them power" - i.e. this might be a very bad idea, either inherently or as the start of a slippery slope toward comment-toadyism.
And there's a BIG positive externality, that comes from having a place where people from different walks and philosophies of life talk to each other, even if nobody's mind gets changed on the specific issues - and if you narrow the functionality and prerequisites, you'll lose that.
(State: still a little bit cranky, thinking aloud, not ready to stand behind any conclusions, feeling a bit guilty about coming down too hard on today's commenter whose comment I haven't approved (yet), and definitely in need of sleep. I will be wiser tomorrow.)
Stale blog offering Perspective on ideas, issues and life from Nevada County, California - belaboring the obvious since 2003
Tuesday, July 11, 2006
3 comments:
Welcome, and thanks for caring enough to donate your time and thoughts toward greater collective wisdom...
Terms of engagement:
* Please be civil.
* * * * Please do not post anonymously * * * (I'd remove this choice if I could, and I may remove your comment if you do) - instead, do this:
Click on the 'Name/URL' radiobutton, then enter your real name (if you're brave) or a pseudonym (if you're not). (You can leave the "URL" field blank.)
Or go ahead and click "Anonymous", but put your name in your comment.
* The Management reserves the right to delete comments (Moderation Certificate can be found here). You can always post it on a blog of your own.
If you run into technical difficulties, please a) accept my apologies, then b) email your comment to aherror2011 at gmail.com with "Comment for [name of this blog]" in the Subject line.
New policy re climate contrarianism comments as of 11/11/2009:
Comments questioning the climate science community's understanding of climate change (97% of active climatologists now believe that the earth is currently warming and that it's human-caused - link) will be deleted unless the commenter:
a) is local
b) uses his real name
c) provides link(s) to substantiate his claim(s)/inference(s)
d) is willing to collaborate on constructing an argument tree, to get us past the usual sterile point-counterpoint-countercounterpoint.
(For people who can't read the above, a summary:
1) Be civil;
2) Don't post w/o giving at least a pseudonym;
3) Don't espouse climate-denial crankery unless you're local and willing to stand behind it.)
Caveats:
1. Comments could be delayed: they are being moderated, and I'm sometimes away from the computer for a day or more.
2. : Perfectly legitimate comments are sometimes miscategorized (by the blogging platform) as spam, & not published. If this happens to yours, please notify me, else I might not notice for a day or two.
Michael and Debra, what are your respective email addresses? I'd like to talk to each of you privately.
ReplyDelete(you can provide them as a comment to this post - that way it's sure of reaching me, and, since comments are premoderated now, it won't be published)
Debra?
ReplyDeleteVery funny, Russ.
ReplyDelete:-}
"Before anything can be done, something else must be done first."
I'm not going to post to the blog until I have replied to Debra and Michael, and I haven't done that because, well, it's not my highest priority task.
In any case, empirically, it seems my blog likes to go on vacation in summer.
(not sure where, it never sends postcards.)