Here's the link to the article, will that shut you up?

http://pubs.rsc.org/en/Journals/JournalIssues/FO

If it bothers you that much you know what to do...write a blog piece!!

This type of foolish behavior does not "bother" me at all. To the contrary, it entertains.

I am giving very interesting and germane feedback: that it is absurd to copy/paste shill self-serving grossly overblown press releases on a "science" blog.

Ironic, in that the critique of the last one was trashed.

One constructive suggestion would be to aggregate these press releases in a section of the Website as a resource that people can use in order to get more information. The extra information would be in the form of useful discussion debunking or playing down the claims presented in the press releases. There is sufficient expertise around here in different fields that it might generate some useful commentary.

Just a thought.

Also: This rapidly rotating slideshow is making it hard to actually click on a link.

 

 

Ditto what Will said.  If you're talking about the last one that CPP commented on about being crappy, then there was no critique to be trashed as far as I saw, it was exactly the same issue, he/she just keeps commenting that it's crap and that they shouldn't be posted here and that's the end of the discussion.  And in fact the last article was pulled because Brian got in contact with the authors and there wasn't really any published work to back up the press release, but this one actually has a published article related to it that can be read and commented on, so it's two completely different situations. I'm not arguing with you about the quality of the press releases, as will said, you kind of have to read around what the journo say which is rubbish journalism, my point is simply that CPP isn't giving us any decent discussion and is just being negative, that's all. The fact of the matter is that this is an interesting piece (at least perhaps to some people) if you bother to read the article and it could be interesting to actually have a discussion about how the press release could have been improved, instead of just having a go at this site for posting it.

"You're missing the point of these news articles,"

Yeah, but Janede they're not news articles, they're press releases cobbled together by the humanities student in the press office. I can certainly see Pal & CPPs issue with this. We add authority to the articles by being a "science" website. A bare minimum should be something having a link to the original study. No data, no posting on LS.

Brian, if you want to keep this rotating stream of PR, then maybe we can relabel it to something like "From the INternet" or whatever (I'm total fucking shite at making up names...). Or..."For discussion"

I'd be inclined to add a header, and say that these are for discussion and might not contain links to the Per reviewed article. Also, maybe posting just a couple/day would work better for commenting? It's hard to build a commentariat when they cycle so quickly.

"The Dissection Room - here we post interesting PR and news articles sent in by readers. Remember, these aren't always critical commentaries of the orgiginal study - that's up to you, the reader. Join LabSpaces and help us dissect these articles and look at the science under the claim"

Exactly.  I discussed it here, but it went into the memory hole.

 

This.

 

I agree too. I like Tideliar's suggestion from earlier.

If you want the blogs, then go directly to the blogs page. http://www.labspaces.net/blogs

If you think one of the articles is complete bullshit, write a comment about it and it will be saved in the google cache forever.  I do not make the claim that these press releases are right or verified, I was hoping to wring that out in discussions with experts who visit the site.  The fact remains that a couple hundred thousand people a day get their news from places like ScienceDaily where discussions on these exact same press releases cannot occur.  I'm helping to provide a venue for those discussions to happen.  I'm glad you all feel so passionate about debunking bad science.  I am too! So let's discuss these releases, put the correct information out there, and maybe someone who hears about a broccoli cancer cure will do a google search and end up reading a well reasoned discussion of what's fact and what is fiction.

LabSpaces isn't about the Blogs, or the news, or the forum, it's about discussing and communicating science.  I'm not trying to put an emphasis on any one aspect of the site over the other.

You can't possibly expect someone to read every paper and write a summary for it before posting it on here, that would take way too long.  It would mean that only a couple of pieces would get put up a day or they would be out of date and it would defy the point of having a news section.

However I do like the idea of putting them in a seperate place for discussion.

Sorry PalMD I had not seen that.  I will go read it now.

@PalMD Well I don't know what the point of putting the press releases up is because I don't run LabSpaces, I just read the blogs and articles.  I do find that the press releases and articles are interesting to comment on, in fact Will tried to start up a discussion about the science behind this one in an earlier post, so I personally think it has some value.  I agree with you that there is no point in just rehashing stuff, but I also think that there is a place (as Brian said) on here for people who don't necessarily want to write an entire blog about it, to talk about the science behind the press release.  I understand your point, I read your blog piece on it, and I can see both sides of the argument here.  But I do still think that commenting on the press releases is just as valuable as writing a blog piece on it.

"I agree with you that there is no point in just rehashing stuff, but I also think that there is a place (as Brian said) on here for people who don't necessarily want to write an entire blog about it, to talk about the science behind the press release."

You don't have to write an entire blog about it. It takes 5 mins to read the PR and determine if it's worth a shit. And it takes 5mis to find the article, read the abstract and determine if there is any correlation between the two. I odn't think we should be posting unfettered PR.

If someone has time by all means read the whole paper and write up a detailed precise about what's right/wrong. It's not a prerequisite The only prerequisite should be some kind of 'input', or else we're just aggregating PR pieces.

I think I'm just going to have to agree to disagree on this one.

This site brings all the recent news to you in one place so that you don't have to go and search for it yourself.  Most of the time there is a clear indication of where to find the article if you are interesied in reading more about it.  Personally I have found out about things going on outside my field that relate to what I am doing on this site and have given me ideas for collaborations and future work.

Why should I expect someone else to go and read articles and rehash them for me.  If I'm interested enough from the news piece, I go and read it myself.

I am generally more critical than most and find flaws in the data better than most, so I wouldn't believe a review of an article done by someone else anyway.  Especially if they were mass producing them and probably not paying any attention to detail.  So not only do I not expect people to go and read every paper and summarize it for me, but I would not pay any more attention to it then I would a PR.

"This site brings all the recent news to you in one place so that you don't have to go and search for it yourself"

once more from the top: It's not news, it's PR. Do you know the difference? News is delivered/created by journalists (in this case it could be bloggers working as 'science journalists'). It involves (or should) appreciation of the topic at hand and informed commentary and possible counterpoint. PR is mindless drivel compiled by underpaid, overworked humanities majors that tries to sell you something.

 

"Why should I expect someone else to go and read articles and rehash them for me.  If I'm interested enough from the news piece, I go and read it myself"

Yes, but you're also a scientist and that's not the general target of the 'readers' that BK is looking for. You/we are the people who critically examine the articles/PR published so that those with less skill and experience can understand what's going on. Right now that's not happening because A) there are too few commenters, and B) too many articles.

 

"I am generally more critical than most and find flaws in the data better than most, so I wouldn't believe a review of an article done by someone else anyway.  Especially if they were mass producing them and probably not paying any attention to detail.  So not only do I not expect people to go and read every paper and summarize it for me, but I would not pay any more attention to it then I would a PR."

With all due respect that is either profoundly arrogant or profoundly naive, and possibly both.

"The peculiar evil of silencing the expression of an opinion is, that it is robbing the human race; posterity as well as the existing generation; those who dissent from the opinion, still more than those who hold it.  If the opinion is right, they are deprived of the opportunity of exchanging error for truth:  if wrong, they lose, what is almost as great a benefit, the clearer perception and livelier impression of truth, produced by its collision with error.  ~John Stuart Mill, On Liberty, 1859"

 

"We are not afraid to entrust the American people with unpleasant facts, foreign ideas, alien philosophies, and competitive values.  For a nation that is afraid to let its people judge the truth and falsehood in an open market is a nation that is afraid of its people.  ~John F. Kennedy"

 

"Censorship sucks, Brian. ~Tideliar, 2010"

And of course, Lenny motherfukken Bruce

"Take away the right to say "fuck" and you take away the right to say "fuck the government." "

 

This is the internet mate. You need a thicker skin than that. I'm not calling you names. I simply pointed out that what you were saying and the way you said it sounded arrogant and naive. Trust me, we are long way from name calling. I am invested in this discussion like you, and don't want to see it degenerate into a flamewar. Then aagin, I do love a good flamewar...

 

 

These are not the same thing. In my professional role I evaluate a lot of literature, I expect much as you do. I don't trust the press release because it is a press release. This is not the same thing as wanting to see raw data in a write-up. Furthermore, by your logic you don't read or trust review articles either?

 

 

And I'm not disputing any of that. In fact that reinforces my point about us not being the target readership of "The Public". We are the target readership of "the experts". Some of us will take the follow-up reading one step further and post a comment or even write a blog piece on it.

 

 

Why would it reduce your target audience? The sheer fact that you've bothered to write something up should stimulate further discussion. It might be creative criticism of your evaluation if you're judged to be mistaken in your analysis, or it might be further discussion of the article in the perspective that you provide. Have faith in your abilities as scientist to write intelligent critiques outside your field of excellence.

Writing well for a lay audience takes more practice, but then one or other of the bloggers might lend a hand tightening up your prose for example, or helping you clarify a point you're trying to make. I'd be more than happy to offer that service.

And finally, if you're not an expert in physics and you're not comfortable writing it up, then don't. That doesn't change the fact that this would add significant value to the section of LabSpaces we're discussing here. There are plenty of people who are experts or at least experienced in multiple fields and disciplines already using the site. If we get a critical mass movement then this could snowball

I'm the douche for saying I'm more than willing to change things on this site to better Foster discussions about science. Ok CPP. You got me. Anyone have a vinegar refill?

A few humble suggestions:

*put the blogs above the news, or split the page vertically

*have a page with both blog posts and news stories ordered by number of recent comments, this helps people find the most active conversations quickly

*in the form for submitting a news story, provide a place where it's obvious that the user's summary is welcome (I was squeamish about copy-pasting, and it was a small part of the reason I only suggested one news story). There is a definite need for those of us without blogs to write more than 140 characters on something and put it out there.

*I am torn on the issue of censorship. Is there a way to allow users to set CPP's posts to invisible, so you can only get them if you click on them? Or make it so guest comments can be thumbs-downed, and for any old comment that gets enough thumbs down to go invisible? I've seen this type of thing on other sites.

I see that as the equivalent of giving a kid washable crayons for writing on the wall instead of spraypaint, more than a ball-gag. *insert inappropriate comment about CPP and voluntary vs. involuntary ball-gags here*

 

*people who are themselves incapable of, or assume others are incapable of, ciritically reading press releases are completely unfathomable to me.  I mean, seriously. Weren't any of you raised on "believe none of what you hear and only half of what you read"? And isn't it self-explanatory that press releases count as something you 'hear'?

Dr Becca if we say that it is for the public then we need to completely change the site and write blogs about our fields of knowledge for non scientists and remove the press releases.  If we say its for scientists then it doesn't have to change because if the gerenal public don't find it here they will find it on the other sites.  The press release is out there, you can't stop that.

So in my opinion it is the crucial point.

 

I just want to find a way to get the right information out to people in the face of all of the misinformation out there.

TimeSpaceCubeLab Dude:

The purveyors of breathless press releases are not having any trouble getting their information out there. You copy/pasting their overblown senationalist shit is not helping to "get the right information out to people in the face of all the misinformation out there".

Love, CPP

TL kill the thread! Should we segregate published news from the pr? Should we stop posting pr? Should I stop drinking and go to bed? Who the fuck knows. We'll figure it out I guess. I gotta go piss in a fake bush excuse me

Re PalMD's post and comments here and there...

Anybody volunteering to vet all posts in their specialty? I didn' think so.

Gotta love destructive people. Quick to crap of the initiative of others, nowhere to be found with a creative alternative.

 

Oh snap!  Passive Aggressive Prof strikes again!!!!

I guess it's been a few weeks since the Bored Bitchy Goddess called me names. She has clearly missed me.

I think there have been plenty of solutions offered in this thread.

People who wrote thoughtful comments with creative suggestions are not the people I refer to as desctructive.

Shouldn't you be shopping for shoes or something?

Laydeeees and Yyyeeentlemen...welcome the main event, we are at LabSpaces and we are LIIIIIIIIIIIIVE!

In the Red corner, GMP, she's a blogging phenom, new on the scene but not new to the Science! She has her own blog and she isn't afraid to speak to her mind.

In the Blue Corner we have Dr. Isis, longtime bogger, renowned Scibling, blogging heavyweight and Goddess of Shoes!

You know this is a grudge match. You know this is a fight to the last word.

This.
Is.
The.
Main.
EVEEEENNNNT!

 

Ladies, your referee for the evening is Dr. Brian Krueger. I do not expect a good clean fight, and I do not expect anyone to beg for mercy. At the bell, bring down the fire....

This is why I *heart* you Tideliar.

I think a 10 year old got on your computer and replied for you.

 

 

"Oh snap!  Passive Aggressive Prof strikes again!!!!"

What does this even mean? Isis the hater of low class white people was offended by something apparently.

Goddess (what does this mean I've often wondered- I can't believe people even find it amusing) of shoes or common SITC trend follower? "Feminist" who encourages half the population, especially the impressionable young women who frequent her site, to feel more "powerful" by strutting around like ponies in high heeled shoes (which restrict normal human movement and can lead to injuries and deformities) all day.

Interestingly, the clique that is rabidly attacking LS had no problem with their good friend and co-blogger Drugmoney linking to this crap (below) from his SB site recently. When I complained that it was spreading lies equivalent to the "woo" these guys whine about constantly PalM said "aww Isabel" or some other condescending crap and DM nastily replied that it doesn't mean he agrees with it etc. So what if it was only twittered, I heard about it and linked to it from a science web site. The post is full of misinformation without proper citation. I don't see how it could have been valuable even as an opinion piece since it is based on unsubstantiated claims. Why muddy the waters of the cannabis legalization debate by calling attention to pieces that regurgitate this propaganda? I guess it's evil to encourage people to eat broccoli, because people are so stupid they will automatically think you mean that eating a big plate of the stuff will cure their late stage cancer. But it IS okay to tell people smoking pot causes cancer, leads to physical debilitation, speeds up the aging process, etc.

Jason Goldman of science blogs also read this article (by a devout Christian colege student who also writes about saving herself for marriage and other standard lines, to the degree that it's hard to tell if she's even a real college student imo) and called it a great article. really?

Oh and Becca, by your voting technicque someone like me who at least tries to keep these megalomaniacs on their toes would be invisible (at least judging by the lack of support I get from other readers). Would I at least know I was invisible so I could stop bothering?

Here's a portion of what DM linked to with the approval of all his anti-woo buddies (if you want the link you'll have to go to his twitter page I refuse to link to this crap anymore):

In case you weren’t paying attention in Health class when the side-effects of this drug were gone over, here’s a quick crash course:

Marijuana side effects include physical problems like breathing difficulties and deteriorating physical abilities.Despite a popular belief, marijuana side effects speed up the heart, blood and breathing rate. The body is taxed more and this speeds up the aging process just like methamphetamines do. The marijuana side effects from this extra exertion on the body include a higher risk for lung cancer, heart attacks and strokes.When marijuana is used habitually, the natural chemical balance of the brain is disrupted affecting the pleasure centers and regulatory systems. The ability to learn, remember and adapt quickly to changes is impaired by marijuana use.People who drive after using marijuana are nearly twice as likely to be involved in a fatal car crash. (Side note: under Prop 19, getting behind the wheel of a car just after using marijuana is perfectly permissible)It is also what is referred to as a “gateway” drug.  The more you use, the more you have to use in order to experience the high.  This often leads people to take up other drugs in order to achieve the high they are no longer experiencing from marijuana.It is not the same as alcohol.  You can drink a little bit of alcohol without getting completely trashed.  The entire point of using marijuana is to get high.

 

I have no idea what that all that stuff isabel said was.  Maybe it was greg laden?

"someone like me who at least tries to keep these megalomaniacs on their toes"

 

One last LMFAO on that one too. Thank you guardian of the internet from saving us from the horrid people. Thankfully you post anonymously so, you're like batman or something right?

*YAWN*

arrogant. elitist. racist. troll.

The hypocrisy bit is pretty interesting, Isabel, but not all that surprising.  It only makes them look like trolling internet bullies.

Regardless, I think some good changes are going to come about as a result of the discussions that have gone on here with people who have offered constructive suggestions on how to better highlight the press releases as topics of discussion.  It wasn't obvious before and I can see how a newcomer to the site might see the posting of the press releases as an endorsement.

We'll get it all figured out for the better.  Thanks for stopping by.

"So it's just fucked up that PalMD is over here complaining so sanctimoniously about brocolli misinormation."

Sorry to hear that. Don't assume I have any clue of what you're talking about, and we'll get along fine.

"Jeez, if that's your definition of racist I'd like to know what drugs you're on."

You comment, "Isis the hater of low class white people was offended by something apparently.", in my opinion is racist. It apparently wasn't meant to be, but I fail to see how highlighting Isis' cultural background has any relevence to the 'cross blog trolling'

It only makes them look like trolling internet bullies

 

Oh NOES!!!  TEH POOR BROCKLEEZ!!!!

Really not sure where the racist stuff came from since the last time I checked out this thread. FYI, I have joked plenty about my family and I being "rednecks" (my parents do have hunting rifle Christmas ornaments and my brother a gun rack in the back of his truck ;), and I don't know many "true" rednecks that find this characterization all that offensive.

I do think some of the critiques (even the more brutal ones - ahem, CPP :) are being taken further out of context than was (maybe) intended. Also, as Brian pointed out, some good changes are already happening (and still on the way) because of these discussions. I never really had a problem with the news portion of the site, but I can understand the issues others are pointing out with the press releases and design. I'm sure Brian and LS will never please everyone, but he does have the best intentions of making this a great place for science discussion and works hard to achieve that goal.

Now, as humorous as this thread was to read through a couple of days ago, it's getting kind of old now. Can we move on and talk about the magical powers of broccoli? Or maybe to the next press release???

Well gee sure Dr. O, now that you've straightened us all out on the offensiveness (or lack of it) in calling someone a redneck, even with the assumption that it = racist. Interesting that you and your family would not find this offensive. That was the point, and the point that Isis was making, that it is perfectly reasonable to assume.

yeah, I know it was so much more fun when we were all laughing about how OMG!! Isis is the goddess of shoes!!! Sorry to be such a downer, pointing out the hypocrsisy and all. Yeah let's all move on everyone, Dr. O is bored!

Jesus fucking Christ put a sock in it and stop finding offence everywhere. Dr. O was perfectly reasonable and wasn't even aiming anything at you. Are you this fucking touchy in real life too?

Why are you and Dr. O even here if you are bored??? Don't you have anything better to do? I swear, people are such fucking control freaks!

Jeez, yeah it is totally rude to comment on what other people should be discussing, I mean who cares? Why not just move on yourself? And yes, she did quite rudely suggest I was making a big deal over nothing with her "FYI" redneck dismissal. What relevance did that have to anything?

I thought the hypocrisy and cliquey-ness was extremely relevant.

Anyway, I didn't realize your collective required everyone to continue participating even when they become bored, and that everyone must end a conversation when it gets too controversial and "unpleasant" as if we are at a cocktail party or something. It's no big deal for me one way or the other if you want to go back to your pleasant chit-chat.

Tideliar, you are kind of an abusive asshole anyway.

Goodbye.

Oh hai Issie,

 

Isabel brings up many good points that go unaddressed by the people who started this whole discussion. She pointed out their hypocrisy and they had a chance to explain why what they do on their blogs is a valid discussion of science and what Brian does here is not.

Instead they resort to grade school comebacks that are neither helpful nor conducive to discussion. And then criticism of the site design, which has absolutely nothing to do with this topic, were thrown in as well. So childish.

And because Isabel keeps pressing the point, trying to get them to answer the real issue, others want her to just shut up?

I don't get it. I'd like to know why DM and PalMD think its ok to do exactly the same thing on their own sites and its not "crappy journalism". 

Isabel- I applaud you for standing up in the face of so much opposition.

 

She snapped because people are snapping at her. And no one has answered the main question. Instead insults are hurled at her for even bringing it up. I am glad she is challenging them.

The chance to rebutt Pal was lost when he went with the ever so classy and intelligent remark:

Oh NOES!!!  TEH POOR BROCKLEEZ!!!!

Is he not capable of adult conversation? Or perhaps he doesn't want to admit she's right.

Oh, and to clarify the sexism charge- I don't make this lightly or bring it up very often.

Sure, I bet you call guys crazy trolls too. But the difference is in those cases they probably are acting like crazy trolls. Calling women who say things people may not want to hear 'crazy' or implying they are unhinged i.e. "snapping" or "touchy" and "finding offence everywhere" (your earlier comment above) are all standard sexist lines used to dismiss something a woman is saying.

I have to agree that you did snap unnecessarily Isabel. I'm all for you calling Pal and CPC and others over their hypocrisy and standing up to them and totally agree with Jade that you made some good points that they refuse to address, but no one can say anything without getting some of your abuse.  You have to admit it has gotten kind of pointless, the people who you actually want to respond aren't responding to you and are just leaving pathetic, juvenile responses.  It pisses me off just as much as it pisses you off, believe me. I've had a similar experience on another blogging site recently, they don't bother to actually have an intellectual conversation with you about your comments but just pick you up on stupid little stuff, belittle you and tell you that they're right, you're wrong and that's all there is to say about it. As Tideliar said, welcome to the internet I guess, though I don't get why people can't have grown up conversations without deteriorating into personal insults and oneupmanship. It's bloody frustrating, but I think the point Dr O (though I can't speak for her) and I were trying to make is that no one wants to hear a bunch of back and forth insults between you and Pal/CPP, it's not particularly nice. Until they have something useful to say for themselves then it might just be worthwhile dropping it.

Has this thread officially died now?  I was enjoying reading the banter.

Who said I even took offense at anything Tideliar? THAT "too sensitive" assumption is way overused toward women who someone is trying to silence. I rarely bring up the sexist angle, but got a real bad feeling from your attacks. I just think you are kind of an ass now sorry. Telling ME to shut up? And I didn't slander anyone. If anyone has snapped on this thread it is you, repeatedly. Everyone thinks its cute, kinda like it's cute when CPP swears. I think you were rude and abusive, as CPP's ridiculous post above is. I have bben banned from exactly one blog, based partially on his lies. The internet is not some magic place where it's okay to be an ass to people. What a ridiculous thing to say.

"insults between you and Pal/CPP"

I was making clear points, what insults between me and CPP and Pal? I was hardly trading insults. Furthermore, I didn't call anybody a loon or too sensitive or tell them to put a sock in it. I made arguments and tried to hold their feet to the fire. yeah threads die, and this one would have so what? Why the need for the big dismissive (implying I was making a mountain out of a molehill) announcement?

"Really not sure where the racist stuff came from"

Isis made the first snide remark about diversity to GMP based on her history of attacking GMP for supposedly racist remarks. Maybe the thread derailed when Isis came on the scene?

Why didn't you and Dr. O just leave if you were bored? Why the need to make an announcement that we need to go have another conversation? Why didn't you just leave? I am really curious about this.