tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9633767.post8087250856405023382..comments2020-05-23T10:14:06.130-07:00Comments on The Curious Wavefunction: The demise of SciAmBlogsWavefunctionhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14993805391653267639noreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9633767.post-811658591753680612015-01-03T14:51:03.102-08:002015-01-03T14:51:03.102-08:00Thanks for your comment - couldn&#39;t agree with ...Thanks for your comment - couldn&#39;t agree with you more!Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13490235892347190545noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9633767.post-27204729837490095322014-12-24T17:10:27.518-08:002014-12-24T17:10:27.518-08:00The funny thing is that some of the bloggers that ...The funny thing is that some of the bloggers that were let go are the ones who made much noise (and probably among the key people responsible for your &quot;departure&quot;) after your posts on Feynman and Wade&#39;s book. I don&#39;t agree with you (or with other people) on many topics. But, I am absolutely not in favor of any kind of censorship. On the other hand, SciAm and several other &quot;scientists&quot; and bloggers were. I don&#39;t send emails to organizations orto people in charge of those places every time I see an article that I don&#39;t agree. I simply don&#39;t read and I don&#39;t care if millions of people read and agree with the author. It doesn&#39;t bother me.<br /><br />Regarding &quot;science blogging&quot; and &quot;writing &quot;outside&quot; their areas of expertise,&quot; I would like to write a few things. I think a person HAS TO be an expert in his field in order to write a truly scientific post/book/article at a relatively well respected and known website, blog (or whatever) like SciAm etc. Or the person has to prove himself and get approval from experts in the field. I am not saying they should not be allowed to write. They can still write and post even on those &quot;serious&quot; websites, but it should clearly be marked as &quot;opinion.&quot; <br /><br />Wade is not a scientist. But, he wrote a book (his opinion) on genetics and race with a long list of references. After your great post, I bought the book and read it. There are things that I agree with him and there are that I am not. I should again mention that your post on Feynman was probably among the best I read. In fact, I even think that you didn&#39;t defend him as much as I wanted.<br /><br />The most annoying thing for me about social media and &quot;science blogging&quot; is that there are tens of people (some call themselves &quot;scientists&quot;) who (remarkably) agree on EVERYTHING with each other and act as a group especially on &quot;controversial&quot; topics. It is clear that there are social and economical benefits as a result of this. As always, I stay away from people I don&#39;t like. But, I don&#39;t try to block their activities.<br /><br />Chemdiaryhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06428076032546974013noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9633767.post-82645259528121182352014-12-17T07:28:41.256-08:002014-12-17T07:28:41.256-08:00Thank you for changing some of the language in you...Thank you for changing some of the language in your post, Ash. Glendon Mellowhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03582347493421110738noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9633767.post-8546671285757256142014-12-16T03:42:31.140-08:002014-12-16T03:42:31.140-08:00Well said Dave. Diversity seems to be like electro...Well said Dave. Diversity seems to be like electrons: it works best when you don&#39;t actually tamper with the equipment.Wavefunctionhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14993805391653267639noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9633767.post-84525757932766082222014-12-15T20:13:54.507-08:002014-12-15T20:13:54.507-08:00Hit the nail right on the head, as usual. This cod...Hit the nail right on the head, as usual. This code word, &#39;diversity&#39;, especially to entrenched interests, has always been about presenting orthodoxy, but coming from people of various colors, genders, polarities, valences, whatever. <br /><br />Even if you take contrary positions, it&#39;s as if some lawyer sits beside an editor and makes certain that this is an acceptable opinion, filtered through some lens of acceptability related to who speaks, and who might listen. The problem, however, is that acceptable positions get a bit worn, predictable, and boring.<br /><br />There are limits, no doubt. Being mildly controversial should be well within them.<br /><br />One other piece of social media that deserves mention, as well. Self-appointed inquisitors from various interest groups scour the web for &#39;incorrect&#39; opinions to shriek at, and for some reason, editors these days lack the gonads to tell them<br />to go to hell.Defiatron https://www.blogger.com/profile/18079748114787155061noreply@blogger.com
http://wavefunction.fieldofscience.com/feeds/8087250856405023382/comments/default
wavefunction.fieldofscience.com
crawl=CC-MAIN-2020-24
13430
application/http; msgtype=response
sha1:CUTZQTD5YCLG4YOMQYR5SOJACSO6LZDI
<urn:uuid:5aaba2aa-4132-4b25-a5a0-35990b6043a4>
2020-05-27T12:59:38Z
172.217.164.147
application/atom+xml
sha1:Z5CYQQBZQH4V2UWYQV66D2XTM5BVXJFP
<urn:uuid:cfb3d158-8208-44b4-b43e-aa464706e878>
http://wavefunction.fieldofscience.com/feeds/8087250856405023382/comments/default
response
<urn:uuid:9072df16-9fd0-4b46-be62-d0ab0b579425>
isPartOf: CC-MAIN-2020-24
publisher: Common Crawl
description: Wide crawl of the web for May/June 2020
operator: Common Crawl Admin (info@commoncrawl.org)
hostname: ip-10-67-67-190.ec2.internal
software: Apache Nutch 1.16 (modified, https://github.com/commoncrawl/nutch/)
robots: checked via crawler-commons 1.1-SNAPSHOT (https://github.com/crawler-commons/crawler-commons)
format: WARC File Format 1.1
conformsTo: http://iipc.github.io/warc-specifications/specifications/warc-format/warc-1.1/