Your Opinion is Bad For Science, According to Suzanne LeBarre, Online Editor for “Popular Science”

(SUSANNE POSEL)   Suzanne LeBarre, online editor for Popular Science, announced to web users of their news site are shutting off their comments option because it “can be bad for science.”

LaBarre maintains: “As the news arm of a 141-year-old science and technology magazine, we are as committed to fostering lively, intellectual debate as we are to spreading the word of science far and wide. The problem is when trolls and spambots overwhelm the former, diminishing our ability to do the latter.”

Popular Science is concerned about attracting “vexing commenters” who are “shrill, boorish specimens of the lower internet phyla.”

The “fractious minority wields enough power to skew a reader’s perception of a story” and this is not good for scientific dispensation.

This is the exact definition of a “troll” according to the MSM.

LaBarre cites a study entitled, “The ‘Nasty Effect’: Online Incivility and Risk Perceptions of Emerging Technologies” which expounds that “uncivil discourse is a growing concern in American rhetoric, and this trend has expanded beyond traditional media to online sources, such as audience comments.”

With data collected from 1,183 participants that led to the assertion that those exposed to “rude comments ended up with a much more polarized understanding” of the subject matter of the article.

Essentially, the comments influenced the reader’s perspective, comprehension and opinion about the information they received from the article more than the article itself.

Mainstream media’s reaction to this is to point out that “online comments have always been — and probably always will be — one of the Web’s thorniest problems.


5 Responses to Your Opinion is Bad For Science, According to Suzanne LeBarre, Online Editor for “Popular Science”

  • let’s tell it like it is: _popular science_ is bad for science.
    _poplular mechanics_ is bad for science. any scientist that takes money to write a favorable report for a corporation, or coverup a government crime is bad for science.

    bad science is bad for science. peoples’ opinions can never be bad for science, but they can be bad for crooked quacks- like most modern day whore ‘scientists’.

  • what they are saying is- we only want to hear good comments that pat us on the back. well, then you better start doing a good job- hadn’t you!! fire the quacks.

    you got a long way to go, suzanne.

  • Well, if La Barre doesn’t like it then she can go lump it!

  • Hehe
    Are they afraid, huh, of critical thinking, no wounder they dont teach it to day.

    The core fundament, and I will putt it this way, teach it to the young ones, be shure they can site the fundamentals of the methodic behind critical think, and then you have given the child all it needs, the rest is just funn.

    Math sould be given acordingly, to the expected level, and no reason for further teachings, I would focus on a mutch brouder level, to rise that is more important than singling out some paths, in Cemisrty and Science in general, the math is the language that is universal, one of the very few exept, english language.
    In Cemistry you have math, thats just scraped on in the original math teachings, and take the math in Cemistry insead, so the can and know what the issues are about, like Carbon equalents/bindings, a.s.o.
    Many dont even think of the similaritys behind a Jettengine, large powergeneratores builded into the mountains to generate hydropower, and a ordinary Hairfan.
    There is prinisps, NO difference, the work in exactly the same way, the are all Fans.
    Their prisips are of a Turbo, a rotor driven air injectore, almoust similare in contruction as a HairFan.
    So to learn is to use what you have, practising is everything, even in Cenistry.
    I grew up with both Microscope/Telescope(builded my self), and then the range will be exonential in scope of teachings, when you can by your self expirienc microscopic levels down to cellulare levels, to black Holes.

    The fact is that Science to day is corrupted to its core, faked writings, faked reportings, fake statistics read by people what have no clue on what they actually look at, they can even read a Graph, thats a sceary low level.
    I have read it all, from Leonardo DaVinci to H. Keller(witch prbably non of you have ever heard about, but a lott of people have had their entire world changed because of her), and the AGW scam was my initiale start to read myself up on the latest in Science and I was baffeled, therer was nothing new, and since midd 70 the world have stopped.
    I have no doubth about Humanitys ability to be creative, not a second do I doubtj it.
    The problem to day is corruption and false Science.
    The level is belowe stunning, and the path forward seems like a dead end, the combustian engine, 300 years old and is stil hailed as a “marvel” by some stoneagoe wilans.
    Where is ION driven jett engine (mach 10) gone, I havent heard anything for a decade, despite their efficiency.

    Lett them close the commentary feilds, I dont care I am not impressed anyway, so they will in the end, down in their od drivel.
    And the humanity is the greates and the only real victim in this mrornic impliments of regulation on the huamnitys ability to counter crappy science, like the AGW/CarboNazis is, bollocs in every aspect.
    And the present Astronomy havent moved since the medival times, the geosentrism is hilarious at best, like the even more idiotic Darwinism/Evolution, dangerous at wurst, promoting and have promoted eugenics, a.s.o.
    Never lett thos corrupted so caled “right thinkers” have their agende for them selfs, we will slipp inot the Dark ages in a hart beat.
    This is like the Inkvsition, they deside what We shall think and Belive.

    We have sinc the midd 80 slippe into a barbaric world, where robberbarons rule, and their minions is everywhere, and in the realms of mind, we have the Church.
    Bucled bouth ends.
    What a brave new world.


    “If we are to achieve things never before accomplished we must employ methods never before attempted”
    ― Francis Bacon( b 1560- d 1626)

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Show some support!

We are 100% Listener & User supported!! Every little bit helps us continue. Donations help fund the site and keep all the free information on it. Thanks in advance and KEEP UP THE FIGHT!!!

Visitor Map

Subscribe For New Posts & Updates

Enter your email address to subscribe to FederalJack and Popeyeradio and you will receive notifications of new posts by email.

News Categories
The Wigner Effect
Col. L Fletcher Prouty: Secret Team