Online comments hurt science understanding, study finds

[HuckleB]

http://www.jsonline.com/news/health/online-comments-hurt-science-understanding-study-finds-ib88cor-185610641.html

"A new obstacle to scientific literacy may be emerging, according to a paper in the journal Science by two University of Wisconsin-Madison researchers.

The new study reports that not only are just 12% of Americans turning to newspaper and magazine websites for science news, but when they do they may be influenced as much by the comments at the end of the story as they are by the report itself.

In an experiment mentioned in the Science paper and soon to be published elsewhere in greater detail, about 2,000 people were asked to read a balanced news report about nanotechnology followed by a group of invented comments. All saw the same report but some read a group of comments that were uncivil, including name-calling. Others saw more civil comments.

"Disturbingly, readers' interpretations of potential risks associated with the technology described in the news article differed significantly depending only on the tone of the manipulated reader comments posted with the story," wrote authors Dominique Brossard and Dietram A. Scheufele.


..."



Well, this does explain a fair amount.

[GummyBearz]

1. As a scientist I am annoyed at commentors for that reason

it used to be my policy to try to correct them when they commented incorrectly in my field of expertise, because I figured a little less bullshit on the internet would be a good thing. That policy quickly got over run by the sheer amount of bullshit out there... I need a bigger shovel

[Electric Monk]

3. Try a google images search for 'someone wrong on the internet'

[closeupready]

2. Scientists are thought of as lots of things, but rhetorical wordsmiths isn't one of those things.

Condescending, yes; dismissive, yes; egotistical, yes.

Persuasive? No. Neil Degrasse Tyson may be an amazing scientist, but Perry Mason he will never be, for many reasons - some obvious, some subtle.

[longship]

4. Not just nanotechnology.

There is a whole lot of bad science on the Net. It is as endemic as porn (one would suspect).

One might suspect that kook Ray Kurzweil might be responsible for much of the nanotechnology pseudoscience.

Then there's anti-vaccine kooks, the creationist kooks, the climate change kooks, the homeopathy kooks (and pretty much all of AltMed), the anti-GMO kooks (who only seem to cite Seralini), etc.

Science is a bitch. One opposes it at ones peril. Unfortunately science reportage sucks, so relatively few realize how science actually functions. We even see it here on DU. No surprise given how bad science education is.

R&K

[Blecht]

5. Just look at the homeopathy threads here

And you will see that no matter how much evidence debunking homeopathic "medicine" that we scientists present, the true believers continue believing.

Science is really pretty simple, but you have to stop "believing in" crap as a first step. A lot of people can't make that leap, and their comments only help confuse the issue.

[HuckleB]

6. Oh, indeed. Nevermind, things like acupuncture, reiki, GMOs, etc...

... evidence is far too meaningless, and fictions are spread far too wide.

[Archae]

7. Nothing new there.

Have you ever read Isaac Asimov's "The Cult Of Ignorance?"

[HuckleB]

8. Yes, but the expansiveness and determination of the ignorance has never been more widespread.