Your question is formulated around the "effects on society and science". I will limit my answer to the effects on science and my answer is no. Knowledge in science is comprised in and validated through publications and we don't see publications citing Google and Wiki sources. As for social effects, the problem reverts to communication. Communicating incorrect or irrelevant or false scientific facts from unreliable sources falls within the same non-scientific common communication between humans that existed even before the internet. Unreliable sources existed for ever and moreover they were not improvable, while Wikipedia content is improvable through their own system of continuous contributions. Nevertheless, for non-scientific people, common communication of scientific facts has its own role as a first step in gaining scientific knowledge and understanding.

Dear Dragan, a wonderful question in my opinion. You know: there is is general law in psychology that says that as the audience or auditorium increases, the levels of understanding decrease. This applies perfectly well to googwick science. It does increase general knowledge. Not right knowledge.

Googwick science does help in socializing science - experiments, discoveries, inventions, and the like. I believe socializing science is a necessary part for improving society's conditions. However, that set of knowledge should by no means be confused with adequate science.

Scientific journalism, google and wikis, forums and teaching are part of the fundamental dimension concerned with bringing science to society. There are levels and channels, modes and languages - and yet, they should be differentiated.

The serious part (and I agree with you also on this) is that sometimes scholars and researchers-to-be focus (almost exclusively) on googwick criteria. A grave sin!

The beauty of science lies in critical understanding. Not understanding through few searches here and few searches there or just via these Google/Internet searches only. Of course, there are two sides to this. We must access information fast, and we must access information accurately, and many of us tend to use these tools (more quite often in recent years) on the Internet. They can be counterproductive (as you state briefly in your question).

Many young people who search for information use these tools (Google and Wikipedia=‘googwik’) to understand fact which might be wrong interpretation of science in general (as you claim). It is not easy though, and I don’t decry on young people making mistakes. I even not blame media because these can be used as a partial reference tool but should not be fully trusted as a reference tool per se.

In my view; of course, science does not profit from ‘googwik’ understanding but some small business minded enterprises might profit in generating opportunistic profile.

I smiled looking at this word of yours: ‘googwik’. Took me few seconds to figure out and think what this word might entail. Remember I could have Googled it but I didn’t because there is no point in googling everything. Imagination and intuition are worth more than million Google/Wikipedia searches. Critical reflection is a dying phenomenon.

Whether we like it or not, the trend is moving toward more information

being obtained through internet sources including sources like

GOOGLE, WIKIPEDIA, and RESEARCHGATE.

Like most things, it is important to read several articles, evaluate them

for quality of presentation, sort, and accept, or reject the information

that they provide. Then, based on experience, and each one of us has

an acquired network of experience, make a decision as to whether to

do more research, or not.

Your question is formulated around the "effects on society and science". I will limit my answer to the effects on science and my answer is no. Knowledge in science is comprised in and validated through publications and we don't see publications citing Google and Wiki sources. As for social effects, the problem reverts to communication. Communicating incorrect or irrelevant or false scientific facts from unreliable sources falls within the same non-scientific common communication between humans that existed even before the internet. Unreliable sources existed for ever and moreover they were not improvable, while Wikipedia content is improvable through their own system of continuous contributions. Nevertheless, for non-scientific people, common communication of scientific facts has its own role as a first step in gaining scientific knowledge and understanding.

I believe we need to look at the two aspects of the posted question (contained in the last two paragraphs) separately: "What is the value of 'googwik science'?" and "Does science profit from 'googwik'?".

In the post it is already indicated that the quality of the content of "googwik" in general will be of lower quality and greater variation than science. As a result the ability of the reader to asses the quality of source an statements becomes even more important.

In my experience "Googwik's" value therefore resembles that of any tool: A hammer can solve a problem in one place and be a problem in another. It depends on the user and the usage. If we as a society are able to educate the potential users (ideally everybody) to critically assess information and their sources, this tool can be very helpful. The more we fail to enable the users, the more harm will come from this tool.

The second question is more difficult to answer, in my view. Science itself--as collected knowledge and a method--can hardly be damaged, but its perception among the public and its (positive) effects can certainly be affected very badly: First, the obviously bad quality of (some of) "googwik" may may lead those who do not understand the difference to distrust or discard science. Also, the flood of contradictory information in "googwik" can cover the often very clear results of science effectively negating the effects of such clear results.

Although you did not ask for a way how to deal with this threat, let me add that I believe our most important approach is for scientists (in fact all those who understand actual science) to help people to learn to critically assess information and their sources. Also, we have to illustrate the difference between "googwik" and science--along with each of their benefits and strengths.

Great Question!

Does free access to knowledge and/or pseudo knowledge (googwik science) have damaging effects on society and science?

Only to those who believe that access to scientific knowledge is the exclusive domain of scientists. Popular science is what draws in new talent, science is not a form of freemasonry with secret rites and knowledge.

There is lots of rubbish published on the web but there is no shortage of rubbish published in the peer reviewed scientific journals, financed by vested interests and edited by similar.

I agree with J.S. Mill here, the best way to test any argument is to put it up for debate.

The problem is not free access, but the lack of critical skills and a basic understanding of the fundamental principles of science by some users. These must be taught to the new generations of professionals and scholars. Of course, Google is not a source, but a search engine for locating sources. I teach my undergraduate and graduate students to use the advanced search page of Google Scholar, so instead of looking for the proverbial needle in a haystack they can go into the needle shop and find what they need. Wikipedia is good for a quick look at a topic and for following through on the citations and links provided, not as a source in its own right, unless one is doing research on what Wikipedia editors think and write (Wikipedia states this clearly on its website). Students are also encouraged to use whatever closed access journal services are available to them, and administrators must sometimes be encouraged to broaden the range of subscriptions. It is a never-ending struggle, but it should be at the core of our work as educators.

Source: http://www.livescience.com/32950-how-accurate-is-wikipedia.html

In 2005, the peer-reviewed journal Nature asked scientists to compare Wikipedia's scientific articles to those in Encyclopaedia Britannica—"the most scholarly of encyclopedias," according to its own Wiki page. The comparison resulted in a tie; both references contained four serious errors among the 42 articles analyzed by experts.

And last year, a study published in the Journal of Clinical Oncology found that Wikipedia had the same level of accuracy and depth in its articles about 10 types of cancer as the Physician Data Query, a professionally edited database maintained by the National Cancer Institute.

...

Life's Little Mysteries asked Adam Riess, professor of astronomy and physics at Johns Hopkins University and one of the scientists credited with proposing the existence of dark energy , to rate Wikipedia's "dark energy" entry.

"It's remarkably accurate," Riess said. "Certainly better than 95 percent correct."

Wikipedia is certainly accurate a lot of the time and the journals in all sciences are not only frequently inaccurate they are plagued by dishonesty too. In biomed science it has now become the norm to check the affiliations of scientists who publish. In pharmacology significant amounts of disinformation, omission of negative results and downright fabrication of data have blighted the discipline to an alarming level. While caution must be applied when looking at internet sources it is not only Wikipedia that can be misleading.

A research article presents first hand research knowledge, that may contain false information. On the contrary, an encyclopaedia article must contain reliable knowledge since it is based on a consensus opinion of the experts. The method of this kind of knowledge production is simple: number of related research articles (some of which may of course present bad research) that mutually verify each other, may lead to a consensus opinion of experts and may yield a reliable encyclopaedia article on the subject. Therefore, while some research articles may offer sometimes false information, the method how the encyclopaedias are constructed is such that they cannot afford to present false information. If they do, this is more often the weakness of scientific knowledge and not out of ignorance of the expert contributors. This is not true for Wikipedia.

An argument that would conditionally justify bad science of Wikipedia, as the above comments apparently tend to do, cannot really excuse the weaknesses of Wikipedia, being based on the consensus of all and not a consensus of experts.

In spite of the obviously defective "method", Wikipedia scored very well in a few studies that compared it to other encyclopaedias. Indeed we do not know how good the studies were (could somebody post a full study to help us verify this?) and one or two studies are certainly not enough. The amateur-scientists would typically rely on such unverified, poor studies.

One really bad side of Wikipedia is expressed in the method of its use, where often people without basic knowledge of some field are able to produce, by copy-past method, really correct articles and pretend knowledge that they in reality do not have. To verify this may be very difficult.

No problems, Dragan,

all is OK, only references to GoogWik are not acceptable.

Regards,

Eugene.

Clifford,

Multiple reliable sources confirming each other are necessary in order to reduce the 5%.

Free access to knowledge that is scientific or otherwise is a vital equalizer of society and it has to be promoted with good spirit. If accessing knowledge requires wealth and fortune, then only wealthy people will have access to it and they will remain the beneficiaries of  knowledge which I think is not socially plausible. Science always functions on scientific processes and scientific results.

The free knowledge for a scientist (scientist is not a person of a complete meta-knowledge ) is to widen his/her knowledge and understand the subject under study so that a well established and scientific conclusion can be reached. True  public policy makers  should also base their decisions on scientific results, consulting with scientists of the subject, not on any information obtained from the internet.

Information and knowledge from the internet are for public consumption and for learners in most cases. If they are to be used for scientific purposes, they have to be verified by a scientist. No person becomes a prominent scientist with out initially learning the basics and fundamentals of the knowledge he/she is accumulating and using.

Besides, it is not bad  for common usage of information and knowledge for unscientific purposes. If some one  wants to fix some technical matter where the information might be available on the internet, then that by it self is a big help for the person. 

As to the necessity of journals to be the only true sources of knowledge is a day light secret  and is provided by Dear Barry. 

Judging by the fanciful notions flying around in theoretical physics and cosmology a 5% error rate is not that bad.  

If one, when tempted to comment on something, instead of searching between own articles or instead of searching for the references cited in own articles, - hurries to open Google or Wikipedia and searches there for the answer – we have most probably a « googwik scientist ».

It would be a wonderful world if we could answer all questions by simply searching the scientific literature. Sadly there is just as much rubbish in the journals as there is on Google and Wikipedia.  The rubbish is produced by the author (and sanctioned by the peer reviewers) not by the platform it is published on.

It is perhaps better if we do not try to artificially separate the 'real' scientist from the Google searcher.  Science is a search for the truth, not a freemasonry. 

Dear Barry,

I was wondering….So this is where you publish your science.

(Pardon: -- 1 was not me, but could have been me.)

Dear Barry,

I appreciate that you challenge the establishment of “science”. I challenged it too, at the appropriate level though and I think with an appropriate method. If you have some well founded objections, publish it in a strong journal, this will be appreciated. My papers are here

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24595128

https://www.academia.edu/7263554/Clash_of_Confidence_and_Responsibility_in_Scientific_Publishing

and as 3 comments in “Science”, here:

Science 4 October 2013: Vol. 342 no. 6154 pp. 60-65, DOI:10.1126/science.342.6154.60

live at http://comments.sciencemag.org/content/10.1126/science.342.6154.60,

I started this thread not for amusement but to hear what people, who have different experiences, would say about "this" important problem. Yet I insisted on exposing this problem and to oppose it to the problem of “popularization” of science and various effects that Google and Wikipedia may have: instead of takng it as a source of information, to take it as knowledge itself. One of those effects is that somebody who is jurist can easily construct an argument from quantum mechanics and pretend to “know” what s/he is writing. The problem is not in her/his “rights” to do this; the problem is in the meaning of such engagement.

Saying that this is O.K. and that the journals that pretend to be “scientific” have the same problems is simply not true, Barry. Because of various reasons. If you have expertise about at least one scientific discipline, one narrow field, go and verify what can be found on Wikipedia about this. As a non linguist, I find linguistics pages very good; I find history page very variable, depending very much on the actual politics and therefore not reliable. I find medical pages variable and in principle unreliable and would not recommend them to be used as “textbooks”. Philosophy is variable too but not more than "information"; but mathematics is often convincing and just information, of course.

But my question is complex. We are all under a tremendous pressure that is presented as a movement “for the democracy” in knowledge: everyone can know, has just to see where the problem is, to be told what is the right answer, and can claim to “know”. And this is just NOT TRUE. Knowledge contains inevitable answer to a deep “why” question: if this something is case, a "deep" why it is so? What means “understanding”, that not knowledgeable person just cannot have. I (just) hope you can understand what I mean. Therefore it is just NOT POSSIBLE that Wikipedia, for example, can offer “knowledge”. It can offer information. Those are two quite different things.

But my question is NOT about those two or more sources of information. My question is about misuse of them. I am sorry, I did not put the question correctly. Jimmy Wales knew what were the risks, we sometimes disregard this and, as Barry, defend UNDEFENTABLE and waist our energy in a false direction. Please read again my question above.

Cliff,

May be, but look at this.

There are number of issues. I use Google of course, and Weikipedia quite often, to get some information. I can find, for example, that the activation of a Potassium channel (Katp) may lead to bronchodilation. Well, I am very far from “knowing” that this will bring a cure for asthma and I know this! Or how functionally significant this may be. Or whether human bronchial smooth muscole HAS Katp!!! Or whether this is a theoretical construct that corresponds to unspecific channel? Or … But Cliff, this is the MOST SIMPLE example, because linguistics, molecular biology, biochemistry, mathematics and similar sciences, that have their “scientific language” (more or less, terminology I mean) are written by the experts or students. So the "googwiks" do not intrude there. Yet the social sciences, that most often just do not use much of specific terminology, at least the genre is not easily recognizable, there anyone may go in and have opinion?!!!

This is a problem.

Then, and then! My friend Clif, here comes somebody with a degree from University of (let me just avoid to spell it out) and contradicts me on the interpretation of the  "noumenon" because ‘this and this” he found (on Wikipedia, of course) and I just am not right because he is right, because this, science, is democratic, this is democracy. As simple as this. Or I ask a sincere question how to solve the Problem of Double Effect (an ethical problem) and other person, a “commentator on duty”, reads this on Wikipedia and writes to me 2 pages of lecture, then copies a section from PhD on E. Anscomb of some guy (I do not know where from, from the other part of the globe I guess)  - without citing the real author and makes me impressed and obstruct the entire sincere discussion. And we have a disputes and disputes that go for a year; disputes about somebody’s rights to have opinion on just anything.

This is one of the problems of the misuse of Wikipedia.

A serious researcher would never base his work on googwick science production. But to some extend, they are very interesting to the population solving some basic questioning. Besides, it is easier to fix a mistake at googwick science than in any book because it is exposed to the world and lots of people change what is wrong even withing a couple of hours. I would compare the information on those sites with the work of a nurse. They can be very helpful guiding a patient, but they are not made to substitute a doctor. Neither a phamacist. Those professionals have a considerable knowledge which can solve lots of problems and their orientation is at times as good as of a doctor. But they are not to substitute any doctors and everyone knows it. Therefore, the democratization of knowledge is good for everyone. Today with a single click you can find out what something is for, who created it and much more. Real scientist go to google scholar and find there articles with technical language which is not comprenhensible by one who has not formal education.

A scientist who does not know of that, should be going to google instead to learn about reliability of a discourse, ethics and how to set aside the sources for his studies.

Dragan

On many levels I agree with you that casual use of scientific information without any discipline or expertise is, or at least can be harmful.  That is certainly the case where journalists pass comments on complex issues with little knowledge and perhaps secondary agendas.  It is utterly contrary to the scientific method to use information from an unverified source and anyone carrying out serious research should be sceptical about sources that are not independently verified.  

Much of what is written on Wiki's is incorrect, inaccurate or downright dishonest but Wikipedia sadly does not have the monopoly on that.  It is certainly correct that untrained minds attempting to use scientific data without a full understanding of it can have dangerous social effects, such as disseminating frightening disinformation to the general public. 

Interestingly one of my research students has just written a dissertation on the press coverage of H1N1 influenza comparing articles written by journalists with science degrees over scientists with no scientific background.  Her conclusions were as expected, that the scientists wrote the better news coverage of what the press described as a pandemic.  This was not because scientists are necessarily cleverer than non-scientists simply that they understand the many complexities of the subject better than the lay commentator.

I do not know of one serious researcher who would use Wikipedia as a research tool either in science or any other academic discipline.  The outright prohibition of its use is common in the areas I teach in.  I am not sure that I extend that prohibition to Google in its entirity however.  A Google search can lead a researcher to Medscape, Pubmed and many other very reliable sources.  The route taken to the material is far less important than the application of discretion when the material is discovered.

I do 100% agree that those using Wikipedia to lift the work of others, those using it without citing original authors and those using it to support ideological positions is a menace but, once again,  those phenomena are not exclusive to what you refer to as the 'Googiwik Scientist'. 

Vilemar,

democratization of knowledge is a bad idea. It leads to global misunderstanding. Barry, as journalist and thinking person, knows this very well.

Regards,

Eugene.

Dear colleagues!

Citing somebody (Googy, Wikky, literature) is, as a whole, medieval method. Remind scholasts.

Regards,

Eugene.

Barry

O.K. , we agree on ALL POINTS! Where is then disagreement between us? Where? Why should you almost always write just opposite to what I say? Let us advance a step further, Barry!

"Googwik" is an "Ideal type", as Weber used the term, but hard to exemplify. There is no “googwik” to show with a finger. But if you asked a question “Is jurisprudence just?” and if I wanted to “teach you” at that very instance, show you how clever I am, or just to teach everybody, because “science is available to everybody and we all do science” or to put in practice some similar ideology (see for example Science 2.0 movement), I can find on Wikipedia 2-3 articles describing the concept – I could answer the question even WITHOUT REALLY READING the answers in Wikipedia. This would put you, FOR SURE, in quite desperate situation, because you will NOT only have your answer, but the discussion would take some unpredictable direction. Then, farewell to the discussion, my dear Barry.

And this has been on RG all the time on all threads, since I am on RG. This is why I asked, what I think to be a fundamental metaquestion: Is googwik science useful? My answer is that its sources are useful to me, but the number of its users make me go “bezirk” and I waist enormously, a lot of time fighting them instead of solving my genuine problems. Yes, in medicine, biology or in my narrow field of research, as I said before, it is fine. Alas, discussion on the philosophy threads is completely rubbish. All of a sudden all scientists want to be philosophers. Let it be, but, let us be fair. I caught some of our friends here who just copied from Wikipedia their comments without citing. If the comments were enlightening, O.K., but they just introduced confusion. But go and explain this to them!

Fine. The question remains. Let us have clear, sincere opinions about “googwik science”. May be some bright sides of it, some new bright sides, because I find it, if used with moderation, to be fantastic. Let us if we could find a way to make it available to all – but with moderation, as Aristotle wrote: “πάν μέτρον άριστον". (all the googwiks will find the meaning of the citation, I do not doubt).

Dragan,

when You are arguing with Barry, You are thinking intensivly, and it is interesting to public. Barry, as journalist, knows this very well.

P.S. To previous comment. Landau (and other classics) cited nobody. When it was necessarry, he simply rewrites.

Eugene

He, he, I could have cited this below, but I did not, so I am advancing?

"It would be a wonderful world if we could answer all questions by simply searching the scientific literature. Sadly there is just as much rubbish in the journals as there is on Google and Wikipedia. The rubbish is produced by the author (and sanctioned by the peer reviewers) not by the platform it is published on.

It is perhaps better if we do not try to artificially separate the 'real' scientist from the Google searcher. Science is a search for the truth, not a freemasonry. "

Cliff,

last week in Grodno (Belarus') child in kindergarten went to sleep (midday, in Russian тихий час) and did not wake up. Nobody knows why.

Dragan,

your question is the matter of free choice. Such things can not be regulated.

Regards,

Eugene.

Cliff

Please, define more precisely the problem in a couple of words.

Thanks, I knew this, but where is a philosophical problem there and does this examples show that "Googwik University graduates" would produce less problems?

Dragan,

it is everyday moral problem. Must we act, when we are not sure, or not?

Eugene

This question belongs to ethics and probably not here.

My personal theory (presented 2 years ago) is as follows.

if we do not have to act, there is no problem. The problem is when we have to, when we must act, but we do not KNOW what acction is better. In such casses I think we should not chose an option just by chance but must use instead of knowledeg (that we do not have) some other justifiable reason and I think a subjective, emotional reasons are then acceptable.

Similarly is in Wikipedia, Dragan. They all have only best wishes.

I do not understand what you mean. This was a part of my paper on the principles of ethics of concerns and relevant metaethical considerations.

Dear Colleagues,

Essentially bad are extreme beliefes and attitudes to science and knowledge or to their gurus. Please remember racial and/or pseudo-science theories of Soviet and Nazi professors...

Sincerely,

S.A.S.

Dear Stan

I am not aware of much of the negative effects of the Nazi (Mengele) or Soviet science (Lysenko). Those effects being short lasting or linked locally to some particular time (Germany 1941-1945) or region (Soviet Union, but for the longer period). They were the short lasting local episodes. I may be wrong of course. On the contrary, Francis Galton and Cyril Barth while they were the scientist that had other great merits, with their theories of Eugenics or inheritance of intelligence, probably were extremely influential and the damage they made by the above mentioned theories was enormous. Their theories are still not fully rejected!

Dear Dragan,

That is true. There are numerous similar examples in the history of science. Such theories should be criticized.

Anyway, my comment was to show that a philosophical caution is necessary to estimate research results. Not only those by Lysenko and Olga Lepeshynska or physicists/philosophers of the Soviet Union period who claimed Einstein theory to be false for ideological reasons etc. Some Western physicists had digressed from a right path apart from their good contribution to science. Moreover, we can admit the examples are numerous in other research fields, too.

By the way, one could not find the valuable note and discussion above without googlwix...

Regards,

Stan

Internet sources are a good repository of scientific information if the person looking at them already has sufficient knowledge to differentiate the information from the trash and nonsense that are also found on 'wikis'.

For an inexperienced student they are a minefield.

There is a vast amount of propaganda, pseudoscience and proselytising bunkum on the web. Some of it is very carefully structured into what look like peer reviewed papers and the Young Earth Creationists, as an example are very adapt at this deception.

Science is fertile ground for implanting ideology and for centuries pseudoscience has exploited publications of all kinds to propagate its message. The internet is only an exaggeration of this.

The golden rule is as it ever was, check the sources, check the references, scrutinise the theory. Look for the foundations of ethical and rigourous scientific research, Doxasticism, Empiricism and Epistemology.

Any publication, whether it is found on the internet or in a paper journal that is devoid of confounders is bogus.

Шчаслівае Каляды Усім!

You are speaking belarussian, Barry. It is so long story, that we ourselves don't understand it totally. Nevertheless, merry Christmas!

Barry

Minefield !!!

Yes, my dear Barry and Eugene.

Merry Cristmas!!!

To You, Barry, as to linguist.

What is common between russians and polens?

They both understand belarussian.

See our classic Adam Mitskevich, creator of modern polish language.

P.S. Today is his birthday.

Merry Christamas, Dragan.

Love and peace forever!

I can not understand the reason of blaming Google or Wikipedia for so called "pseudoscience". If such scientific reports are found, the journal or publishing authorities may be blamed.

But I have one more question. With advancement of technology, many old reports may appear as 'wrong' now. The result on same topic may vary between laboratories. But how these can be considered as 'pseudoscience' ?

Who will decide what is pseudoscience and what is actual science? What will be the criteria of such classification?

This is a very important issue, however it is not advisable to generalize, the problem is not pseudoscience but pseudo-scientists coupled with the absence of critical thinking. More dangerous is the deliberate act of deception for mercantile or other interests when true scientists inoculate pseudoscience in the society.

This is all true, the field of science is wider as we can imagine. Science was never a limited area but now nobody knows where and how it develops; most of the applications are done in secret laboratories. For most of the measurements there is a unique tool to handle, the old paradigm is gone for more than100 years and what is coming next? Unfortunately it flows where it doesn't always belong. The answer will come from nature itself.

I am glad that the old fighters are still around!

Merry Christmas to all!

And consume food and drinks with moderation!

https://vimeo.com/194201095

Eugene

I spent over 20 years in the Polish Community in Lincoln and about the same in the Ukrainian Community. I had some wonderful times drinking in those clubs and going to the festivals.

My Russian teacher was English but spoke Russian like a Muscovite and had a wild enthusiasm for all things Russian and I have friends in Russia. I also studied Serbo-Croat for a while and acted as a consultant for a media compnay in Zagreb a few years ago.

One of my colleagues at work is Russian.

I do wish I had more time to practice the beautiful Slavic languages.

It is said to speak another language is to possess another soul. There is plenty of soul in Russia!

I appreciate the variety of the aspects that people seem to propose in this discussion. The advantages of these two are enormous. But I wanted that we examine the problems.

Indeed, my concern was mainly about the apparent facility that a complete stranger to a field of some quite specific scientific enquiry can, with the help of Wikipedia and Google, find “relevant” articles and construct her/his text that defends apparently quite “well”, with an apparent full scale of references that can hardly be easily challenged, some point of view – that is completely false.

Or alternatively, what is here more relevant:

That a complete stranger to a field can, in a similar way, jump into a discussion as this one for example, and challenge well founded opinions and spoil completely the discussion.

Or even,

I had a paper on the use of some devices for pulmonary ventilation that needed some knowledge of physics and fluid dynamics. After submitting the paper to a top international journal I received one expert anonymous - a review where it was obvious that the reviewer had absolutely no clue of fluid dynamics, but was citing, to support his critique, with a lot of confidence, the passages – which I later found in Wikipedia! I had bitter fight with the editors and with a lot of effort managed to publish the paper.

And my last example is Wikipedia itself. I will avoid the concrete example and the smaller details.

So, there are issues in Wikipedia that are simply falsely presented, but may have some politically background. Yet often, as I found, such issues are defended by a small group of people that are very active and secretly connected between themselves. If you would try to correct something there, you will receive an avalanche of disapprovals and even if you insist, be “excommunicated”. So the error will persist.

Those are the issues that I find relevant to my question.

What is freedom, Dragan?

Freedom in economics makes rich richer and poor poorer.

Freedom in information exchange makes clever cleverer and stupid stupider.

It is life, Dragan.

Dear friend,

May be. Although I have a feeling that freedom means MORE: more chance to learn, more chance to achieve, more possibilities in life, "more"... But also more of the good things, more of the bad things… Aristotle thought that a balance between the two is the best. Therefore more freedom in everything but well balanced – is probably the best we can wish.

It is difficult to determine the effects of free access to information are but we can see clearly the effects of controlled access or no access.

It is true that there is a huge amount of nonsense on Wikis and the web generally. It is a challenge to separate what is and isn't true sometimes.

Free access to information is therefore problematic.

The opposite is of course far worse than problematic. Where information is restricted we are truly in the land of the despots. Where access to information is jealously guarded by elites they abuse it. Ignorance is a weapon used ruthlessly by those who wish to oppress.

In Umberto Eco's seminal novel The Name of the Rose the medieval church is portrayed as a censor and suppressor of heresies. It does this by hiding the books it wants unread in an impenetrable library guarded by homicidal monks. The book they wish to most conceal is in fact Aristotle's Second Book of Poetics: Comedy, the balance to Tragedy and Epic.

The story may be fiction but the controlling nature of the medieval church was not. Countless works were lost because of religious censorship and both art and science suffered as a result, not to mentions the thousands who were killed in the pursuit of knowledge.

Like the old saying goes "if you think education is expensive, try ignorance"

The problem, as I see it, is that most of the public take what they see on Wiki as the absolute truth. Many times it is not only incorrect, but outright wrong. The free dissemination of knowledge is good, but when it involves spreading false or misleading information, then it becomes a problem.

At one time Wikipedia enacted steps to verify the ability of authors to create and edit articles due to an outcry by the professional community on the rampant inaccuracies present in its pages. I, myself, had to provide proof that I had the knowledge, skill, and experience in order to become an editor/contributor of Wikipedia. After only a short while there was a public outcry at not being allowed to create and edit Wikipedia at will and Wiki changed its policy back to the free-for-all we now have.

Not only are some Wiki article wrong, but there is a revolving door of usage where inaccurate articles are taken from Web sites and posted to Wikipedia and those same articles are taken from Wikipedia and posted to other Web sites, thus propagating the untruths.

In the past few years doing professional research for archaeological projects I have found several problems with information about specific subjects on-line. One county tourist commission Web site had the official county history saying that Louisiana became a state two years before it actually did. When approached about it, they said that the county historian wrote it, so it must be correct. In another case, a town had on their Web site that the land that the town was built on was purchased from the US government by a real-estate developer and donated to build the town, when in fact government records show he did not. They refused to change their Web site after being shown irrefutable proof that it was wrong. I mention these because this false information not only shows up on those government Web sites, but has been posted to Wiki and copied to dozens, if not scores, of Web sites, propagating this misinformation.

I personally know of several school teachers who have used incorrect information gathered from the Web in order to provide lessons to their students. I also know of students who have used incorrect information from the Web that was accepted by their teacher as fact. Thus, I do not see this as a debate about whether the layman should be able to write any "fact" they see fit and post it to the Web. I see this as a rampant problem that is affecting the education of our children and the ability to responsibly sieve the true from the untrue. What we need is a "verified" icon that lets people know that the article has been subjected to peer review or otherwise deemed accurate.

As per old reports that got things wrong, like C.B. Moore stating that bones or antler tines carved with a hook were "net needles", when we now know they were atlatl hooks, everyone should recognize that with the advancement of knowledge, interpretations change. Those early reports were accurate given the information and thinking of the time. As professionals, we always look to the date of publication and whether that information is still valid based on more recent work.

JAG

Yes, Dragan and Barry. You are intellectuals.

Merry Orthodox Christmas!

Yes, James, professionals always recognize, where is truth or lie, because they are clever. Dragan worries about children. But any mass-media is the same, Dragan.

Eugene,

I worry about children too and that is why I try to correct inaccuracies when I encounter them. This is not about being "clever", this is about truth versus non-truth. Anybody who cares to invest the time can determine the truth. It is only through laziness that people accept the first explanation and don't bother to see if it is correct or not. Not long ago I had a client send me a photo of a massive offshore rig fire that had been posted on the Web with the caption "Explosion and fire engulfs rig in the Gulf of Mexico". Since I had not heard any news on this I investigated and found that it was fake news and had used a photo from the Bay of Bengal rig explosion many years before. He did not even question its authenticity.

JAG

Eugene

I fully agree with James!

I am worrying about the adults that are in a possession of the ideal trade: self confidence, power AND little knowledge.

Now, fake news is the weapon, James.

But, it seams to me, that it was always. Only different technics.

Eugene

May be. But now they have powerful means: Wikipedia introduced the method of "democracy", people vote what is the truth. All the people. Majority decides. Or finally, if cannot be decided on the majority votes, an administrator will decide - who is at best a former student in the field in question who failed at the first year at Harvard and who, although now being a barmen, later in life discovered again that he/she still had some interests in the boring subject of the intellectual ambitions of his youth. If in addition, those your opponents are linked directly or indirectly with each other, your chances to win against them are ZERO.

This is not always on Wikipedia as I am describing it, but often.

We had such commentators on the threads where we were commenting. Most of the time they obstructed the discussion or discouraged some other commentators.

This is however not really serious problem here on RG. The problem may be if this is on some larger scale. This is what I wanted to know with my question. Is this in "real" science too? I personally think that IT IS!

Where this could be found? For example in the structure of the scientific institutions. In Europe we do not have the positions of the “research manager” (as this is may be in the US) and those activities are taken by the chiefs of the research departments, by the persons on the highest research and teaching positions. Now the mechanism of the advancement in hierarchy is affected by those managing obligations, the managing function being the most important. So the recruitment will promote not real scientific background but managing background. AND HERE IT IS: That person will have to manage some large field and to use the fastest way of knowledge acquisition. Will manage everything and know - almost nothing. A high level Googwik Scientist.

Terrible.

We have a truly modern conundrum. Can we shut down Google? Can we censor Wikipedia? What kind of a world would that be?

Neither of these information sources represent any real threat to science, to honesty maybe but not to science. The real threats come from politicians because science represents a threat to their weltanschauung and perverse ideology.

The bureaucrat is a product of politics and politics is designed to be mediocre and banal. For all the wild rhetoric there is no 'revolutionary' or new politics, just the same second rate product repackaged. Why do we here so often from politicians their disdain for and disrespect of experts. Politicians want mundainity and mediocrity because they can only shine in such a world.

Scientists should rise above this. Scientists should counter propaganda wherever they can and wherever it is found. Educators should penalise students who use unreliable sources whatever they are. There is a lot of rubbish on the web but there is no shortage in the journals and in textbooks. They are not immune from bias and neither are they immune from mediocrity passed of as 'brilliance' because of trends and fashions.

Real scientists look for truth real science is a search for the truth. In any search you have to dig through all the garbage to find the valuable.

Barry

Of course you are right. But I do not have a solution for how to eliminate “GoogWik Science”.

May be we should spontaneously, as soon as we see that somebody is a "GoogWik Scientist" on the thread, express some solidarity with one of us who has a dispute with such a person.

Or, may be the "pseudonyms" should be abandoned. Indeed, here we do not have them, but Wikipedia operates only that way and it is really wild and ridiculous what you can read sometimes there. Luckily, the great majority of the texts on Wikipedia are really good.

Yes, Barry, Google and Wikipedia are excellent in general, but some problems that persist should be solved. The problem of the GoogWik is one.

Dragan

We can always check the credentials of a scientist ( I have just been doing so after reading another thread) It is something I tell my students they must do when researching any subject on which they intend to write.

I do not think however that individuals who are lacking a scientific background are therefore excluded from the debate. How much credence we give to their contribution can vary of course but most contributions are of value.

I also think we need to distinguish scientists who have political or ideological agendas from those who are neutral. Bias affects science just as every other walk of life. Indeed one of the biggest dangers of sourcing matererial on science from the internet is that much of it is contaminated by ideological bias.

If a GoogWik scientist does appear on RG, or for that matter an ideologue we should challenge them of course. We should also challenge consenus where it acts in the absence of evidence. An RG colleague put a great diagramme up critcising the current debate in cosmology and I have already adapted it to use in teaching science ethics. You will see that it makes a very good point and gives us an insight into what is science and what perhaps, is not.

Dragan, Barry,

may be you don't know, because it is not your field, but apopheosis of all this is LIGO's "gravitational waves" this year. No one professional believes this, but they are totally ignored by Nobel committee.

We are faced with new social phenomenon -- culture of show business. Artistic persons, like my friend Sergey Zhadan in Ukraine, recognized this. If you want to know, what is happening in post-soviet countries, read his books.

Dear Barry, dear Eugene,

This is general phenomenon, Eugene.

Your scheme is nice, Barry, but this is just one of possible scenarios. And it does not really refer to my question. I am sorry, I was not clear enough. May be a simple metaphor will be clearer, or some other kind of question would better point out at the problem I was interested in.

So… I do not agree with you, Barry. But this is exactly why I asked the question: to hear other opinions. You have always been maintaining that the freedom is if ANYBODY can discuss EVERITHING. I am sorry, You may, for example, then like to hear what I think of the following:

“the Amendments (Textual), F51S. 38 repealed (3.2.1995) by 1994 c. 33, s., in particular: 38A Execution in different parts of United Kingdom of warrants for imprisonment for non-payment of fine. I.E. (1)Subject to subsection (6) below (in the same text), a person against whom an extract conviction is issued in Scotland for imprisonment in default of payment of a fine may be arrested”.

Would you?

Well, I think you will be wasting your time, because what I think about the above – is scientifically certainly "miserable". I do not have a clue what this is about. Believe me I can write an essay on this – with the help of Google and Wikipedia – which will be perfect (!) – but also irrelevant!

Barry, I do not want to discuss the mechanisms of muscle contraction with some sociologist who has no clues about muscle. May be we can do this in a pub, if he would like to LEARN what I THINK about his passion for weight lifting. This will be probably all that we may have hoped to have about this.

Please do not confuse freedoms and competences. I see RG as a unique place where I could discuss some issues with the people who have similar education, similar expertise, are interested in the similar problems – and have some different judgment. I want to learn.

If we would take RG to be just a platform for some free communication as any other forum on the Internet is – fair well then.

And I think, Barry, that your permanent returning to “freedom of expression” is just obstructing this very discussion. The question is simple: how to protect the expert discussion from non- expert intruders who misuse the Internet (Google and Wikipedia) pretending knowledge and who misguide the discussion. How to protect us from GoogWiks.

(So I think this will, as it was the casein the last and in some precedent years at this fantastic Sylvester times, bring some fire to the discussion and prepare us quite well for the New Years Eve…).

Best.

D.

Dragan, Barry,

I am sure, that you understand russian, therefor, it will be easier for me to speak russian.

На самом деле RG -- это уникальное, может быть единственное место, где профессионалы могут обсуждать проблемы, на которые наложено официальное табу. Да, Драган, тут в основном пенсионеры, и это хорошо, потому что это компетентные люди, не обремененные официальными обязанностями. Они ни от кого не зависят (как говорят в России, им не чего терять) и поэтому могут открыто высказывать свою точку зрения. Но обрати внимание, Драган, эти разговоры ни на что не влияют. На нас на всех официальные структуры заблаговременно навесили ярлык "чудаков", то есть для них мы не существуем. Они заблаговременно отвели нам такое место, в котором мы не мешем им делать их бизнес. Это известный прием, до совершенства отработанный в Советском Союзе.

Но, Драган!

Вспомни, как Владимир Высоцкий сломал эту стену, как во все времена это делали одиночки. Машина не может победить человека, Драган.

Not only there is a lot of pseudo-science on the web but there is even pseudo-debunking-of-pseudo-science. Pseudo to the power two,

This video ''Here Be Dragons''

http://herebedragonsmovie.com/

alleges to provide us with tools to allow us to be critical thinkers, to help discover fraud and rip off, to distinguish pseudo-science versus serious science. I do not see this video doing that. I do not think that anybody that has a sufficient education and a good common sense would have difficulty doing what the video is supposed to help. Lets evaluate this video. One does not need to be told that one basic check is to check who is the author. A five minute search on Brian Dunny reveals that he is FBI convicted fellon that scammed eBay of 5 million US dollars in the years that he was doing this video.. So maybe a part of this money actually was used to create this video. Who knows

.https://the-orbit.net/lousycanuck/2014/03/04/fraudster-skeptic-brian-dunnings-shell-game/http://skepchick.org/2014/02/the-worst-thing-brian-dunning-has-done-for-

skepticism/https://theethicalskeptic.com/2017/07/09/denial-and-pseudo-skepticism-are-not-the-same-thing/

A bit more search reveal that the guy has some degree in computer science. So maybe he learned all his science throw his own reading.. Ok.. The guy is a fraud, do not have much a scientific background but this does not constitute a judgement on his video.

First comments is that it said nothing that common sense and a minimal education would not tell you.. The video put in the basket of pseudo-science all ancient traditional practices without any real discussion. In one video, a huge number of ancient practices are not even discussed seriously and condemned without a real trial as pseudo-science.. A lot of this video is itself pseudo-science or pseudo-critical thinking. All along the video, official science is put a pedestal and out of its critic while it is well known that a lot of official science is fraudulent.I could have written a lengthy debunking of the many claims of this videos that are false.

Thanks Louis.

But I cannot read those texts. I simply do not understand them. The video is too long for the Sylvester days to watch.

Or if you wanted to say something else (?) with "Dragon"... Alluding on my name for example?

Still, I cannot follow.

My question is very simple and has not much to do with what Barry wrote (although his point of view is relevant) or what some other people wrote.

I tried to explain repeatedly. People who do experiments and write articles reporting their results, understand very well my question. The other people may be do not understand my question.

What else can I say?

Dear Dragan,

I thought that the question of elimination of speudo-science on the net was relate to your question. This video is even viewed in school for teaching students to be critical of internet content, to help them identify pseudo-science. But I am claiming that this video and his creator are speudo-debunker themself and that the video is an example of speudo-critical-thinking.

A lot of the greatest name of science were amator scientists in the sense that they did not spend a lot of their life about doing science but still made some contribution. Einstein was such amator and I wonder if I would have succeed publishing his relativity paper nowadays. One of my paper on visual analysis of forms of the human body was refused. No scientific reasons were provided. I receive an accusation of child pornography by a New York Attorney. Even the renaissance pope understood that not all nudes are pornography.

The boundary between speudo-science and real science is rather very fuzzy. Some work are clearly pseudo-science, by simply being totally ridiculous or even fraudulent where results are totally invented. Yes it is armfull to have this on the internet because some people will not be able to see it is bogus and may be wrongly influenced. I do not think that pseudo-science is limited to unreviewed content. I suspect that there is a huge problem of corruption of science at the level of certification of drugs. You know that domain and I don't but this seem obvious just from the fact that opioid drugs were certified with a claim of not being addictive. Any moron knows that all derivative of opium are addictive and here are drugs that claimed otherwise and were certified and now we have a oipoid crisis because these opoid drugs were in fact addictive. A lot of scientists and professional have not done their dam job for that to happen. It is not scientific mistakes. You can say much more about this than I can. But here the problem is not limited to a bunch of googwik scientists but A whole lot of properly certified ones, to the whole scientific institutions and certification of drugs. Money is usually behind all these corruptions. It is not incompetence, it is usually greed or the fear to loose your job.

Regards

Евгений

Мы не стремимся влиять, а только обсуждать. Мы узнаем больше об этом мире, даже если мы не согласны. Мир был бы очень скучным, если бы мы все согласились, и мы ничего не знали бы о ценности !.

Dragan

An interesting example of legalese jargon!

• “the Amendments (Textual), F51S. 38 repealed (3.2.1995) by 1994 c. 33, s., in particular: 38A Execution in different parts of United Kingdom of warrants for imprisonment for non-payment of fine. I.E. (1)Subject to subsection (6) below (in the same text), a person against whom an extract conviction is issued in Scotland for imprisonment in default of payment of a fine may be arrested”.

I can analyse this in several ways, two of them related to formal academic study, I studied law at university and recognise it as an extract from a practice manual referencing statutory legislation.

I also studied lingusistics at university and can analyse this linguistically as to style, grammar and use of language, but I will leave that for another day.

I did not study social policy or sociology in any formal educational structure but I can interpret an issue of sociology here out of which I could construct an essay without visiting Wikipedia or any web source.

I fully take your point that access to Wikis does not make one an expert. My work with many European Judges, lawyers and Scientists makes me aware that sometimes apparent expertise does not make an 'expert' either.

I agree with your premise that casual access to scientific material unchecked by scientific discipline can and often does lead to pseudo-science. You only need to look at the complete perversion of science employed by Young Earth Creationists to see that.

Dragan

Last night I watched the movie Denial for the second time. The movie is about the Irving v. Lippstadt libel trial in which Irving sued Lippstadt for calling him a liar and a holocaust denier. It is of great interest to me as a lawyer and amateur historian of the Hitler period also*.

Like all movies it is full of artistic license but makes one or two points that would be interesting to you. One of the lines “not all opinions are equal” struck me as pertinent to your question.

David Irving has spent over 50 years (30 years at the time of the trial) researching the 3rd Reich, just about all of it from original archive material. He wrote a number of books some considered of historical merit at the time of publishing in spite of being controversial in some of the content. There can be no doubt that Irving is an expert on Hitler and the 3rd Reich and even though he was not university educated in history (he dropped out of a physics degree) he was at one time a respected historian who welcomed others to use his vast archive.

Irving is also a confirmed holocaust denier having been convicted and imprisoned for it. He was a regular speaker at neo-Nazi and far right rallies and an admirer of Hitler as a military leader (remarkably when you consider the abject failings of his leadership)

The Professor of Modern History at Cambridge Sir Richard Evans destroyed his work and confirmed that it was a tissue of distortions, fabrications and outright lies designed to sanitise Hitler. They spent many days sparring with each other in the court and Evans wrote a superb book about it called Telling Lies for Hitler.

Irving, a fluent German speaker manipulated translations of documents and when caught out pretended that he had misread the Sütterlin script. Evans also a fluent German speaker destroyed that argument and demonstrated clearly that he had deliberately lied.

Perhaps the most interesting point is that Irving's lies were facilitated by his expert knowledge. He wasn't simply making up stories he was manipulating them from complex arguments and historical archive material. He is the worst kind of deceiver because he knows that he is telling lies.

The fascinating element of this story is that Irving is an undoubted expert in this period of history as is Evans who is also very well published. While both are experts no one will ever trust Irving again (except his far right fellow travellers)

When carrying out research we should always check the sources whether it from Wikipedia or an experienced and respected academic. “not all opinions are of equal value”

PS. I rarely use wikis or web sources for my historical research on Germany. I have over 300 books on it and I am old fashioned.

Barry

You produces a remarkable answer! The central point are the "original sources". This really extremelly well illustrates my question. I can hardly improve on this, so I can just repeat (and add it also above to the original question).

In short my question is:

When trying to increase our knowledge (and also when discussing with other people about some particular subject) does an approach of avoiding to consult the primary sources (original works) and relaying only on the secondary sources (various review articles offered on Google or on Wikipedia sites) carry a risk of misinformation and false illusions of ‘knowledge’ - and leading to what I call “GoogWik Science”?

It is essential when conducting quality research that original sources are examined. Secondary sources are useful signposts to knowledge but they must be followed to the source.

I always tell students that they may not cite Wikipedia as a research source but they can use it to direct them to the original, which they may then examine.

I teach science journalism and I tell students that they must track stories back to their origin before publishing commentaries on them. This involves what we refer to as filters. A newspaper strory on science is packaged in 'news values' which often render it misleading to useless. We frequenly see stories declaring that a breakthrough has been made in cancer research. It is often the case that this is one study (unverified) in one university and that even if it was accurate it would still be many years before it had clinical application.

The story is often processed through a number of filters, for instance. The research scientists talk to a science journalist in a dedicated science magazine like Scientific American or the New Scientist (where the journalists are scientists) They then get reprocessed again by the newspaper journalist who may not have a science degree (all my students do, many in biomedical science)

When the story goes to press it is misleading and occasionally unethical (false hope stories) People who get their 'knowledge' from these sources are mislead.

The golden rule for the science journalist is check the original source. Without that the story is utterly unrealiable.

Dear colleagues,

any source (also observation) is nothing without it's interpretation.

Dear Barry,

As advice to your journalist student should be ''Do not do science journalist'' If you do not have a solid scientific background. The vast majority of what I read in the general press about scientific discoveries is usually badly reported. The exceptions are when a journalist has a solid scientific background and is specialized into one branch of scientific report. Most popular scientific magazine don't do a good job in scientific vulgarisation. Most are there to sell papers, to make profits in a low profit sector and so exagerate, hyper hyphenate every little findings.

But as I said the googwik scientists are only the little fraud, a significant number of pharmaceutical scientists are the real professional fraud.

A number of days ago I read a laughable article on Wikipedia about a site that I worked on and helped write the report. The article was entirely wrong. It was written by someone who lived half a continent away and had never been to the site, only read about it. I attempted to make corrections to the story using our official report, but those corrections were rejected by the Wikipedia author (see my answer above about having editing rights). When I informed him that I worked on site and was one of the authors, I was told that he controlled the article and would not change a thing about it.

Another article was about how there were very few fossils or fossil sites in Louisiana (absolutely not true). The article was written by a fossil enthusiast in Minnesota or Wisconsin. Most of the article is completely inaccurate based on my knowledge and my in-state geologist friends, one who works for the Louisiana Geological Survey. However, once again the article cannot be corrected.

This is one of the problems with "information" Web sites like this. Some people feel empowered in creating these articles and refuse to admit that they are wrong. This was why it was so important for Wikipedia submissions to be vetted by people with the credentials to know whether the information is true or accurate, or if controversial, that a statement to that effect was included.

The general public cried out that Wikipedia took away their play-toy by enacting such Draconian measures and Wiki bowed to public pressure. Now it is the Wild, Wild, West.

JAG

Until now, nobody knows the division between science and pseudo-science. The field of science is not strict limited and the science of art is still not understood. It's good to bring together all different theories and see what will become the result of all that research. Important is also what it means for society and the living planet.

James:

For me, Wikipedia is useful if I wish to get some general information "for my curiosity only" or for preliminary orientation ("starting point") for further search - but not much more than that, and the situations described by you brilliantly illustrate this conclusion! But in my opinion more serious problem is that "renowned" journals (the more so, the more "renowned" they wish to be considered...) follow very similar policies. My paper on DNA-barcoding (see below attached as "Mediocrity"), pointing out to many untruths published in Molecular Ecology Resources, has been rejected by the editor Mol. Ec. Res. as... not fitting the profile of the journal [sic!]; the editors of other two rejected it without any explanation (beyond arrogant "no because no"), the fourth with some other evident subterfuge, and only after some half a year of trials the fifth editor had at last sent it to reviewers and - receiving very good, virtually enthusiastic reviews... - accepted the paper; the story of "Fallacies" (see the attached "Open letter") and several others were similar, and even rectification of evident slander (see "Reply") proved impossible. So, don't be surprised that Wiki- (or GoogWik-) scientists do the same...

Roman

Don't get me wrong, like Sofia, I too use Wiki as a shortcut to quickly find references I can then look up. Its a good place to start to look for authors on a subject, but then one should always read the original works and cite those, not Wiki, when absolutely possible.

As far as I know, James, citation of Wiki is forbidden in respectable journals.

Eugene

Dear friends, one of the problems is that people (me too, sometimes) are trying to avoid the « royal road to geometry » so they grab Wikipedia and then, armed with the “Wiki knowledge” go in the World and preach. Remember our discussions about the innateness of mathematics and some stubborn comments? I even exposed, discreetly though, some people… People like quick knowledge. Who does not, in fact!

Well, since I am here… let me tell you one of my experiences. I submitted a paper that contained some mechanics of fluids to a top journal (Anesthesiology). On the first go the paper was rejected, what is normal, but a review surprised me: there was a large paragraph that I managed to localize in Wikipedia articles, reproduced word by word. The paragraph should demonstrate my superficial knowledge of fluid mechanics. And the argument was just wrong! I complained to the journal director and to the journal board (!). After couple of weeks the editor designed new reviewers and the paper was accepted after a normal expert reviews. The entire procedure lasted instead of couple of months, more then 6 months or even longer. So the “Googwiks” are everywhere and I think they just make life and science difficult.

Much of the climate debate is fuelled by the Wikipedia phenomenon. It is an ideal platform for the hysterical disaster predictions and nonsensical conflation of multiple sets of data from unrelated and incompatible sources into the invented 'discipline' of climate science.

During the 1970's there was a debate about a forthcoming Ice Age. It did get some media attention but nowhere near on the scale of the current cycle of climate babble.

The difference of course is the ready access to 'scientific information' on the web that was no available in the 70's. Everybody from zoologists to economists, computer modellers to epidemiologists are now 'climate scientists'.

I sympathise with Dragan's observations here. The invention of 'scientific discipilnes' and the re-allignment of an expert in one subject to being an 'expert' in the climate is partly a product of Wiki Science.

Sofia

It is refreshing to hear you say that the changing climate is not the end of the world. Of course it is not, but there are plenty suggesting it.

Of course climate change is happening, it has been for the last 4 billion years or so. We can see evidence of it but that is not, as some would suggest the impending doom of the planet.

Climate change is definately happening, but it will not be a real terrible problem if we learn to adapt to the changes it will bring.

For example, if we change the way we construct houses so that they are not anchored in place, but can float upward about 50 feet during a flood event, and then as the flood passes settle back down to its original position, reconnecting itself to the various utilities like water, sewer, gas and electrical. You might loose your cars, and lawn furniture, but the sum

of the economic losses per storm would be a small fraction of the current losses.

Of course there would be these 4 to 6 ugly metal poles sticking up at the

corners of each house. Basements would still be a problem.

Sorry, Michael, but the dangers are real whereas your proposed solution is a [science?-]fiction!

50 feet high floods!, that terrifying. Does anyone know where could find information about that happening? (wikipedia and social netwroks excluded)