2011-09-21 12:04:57Need a handful of comments from SkSers for our blogging experiment
John Cook

john@skepticalscience...
123.211.208.191

BUMP: am bumping this thread, just a reminder, need about 6 more comments per condition so just need a few SkSers to get in there and engage with each other. Links below:

I've been conducting a psychological experiment with UWA cognitive scientists testing for the effects of blog comments on readers' comprehension. The first stage of the experiment was live on SkS and we've analysed the data and found that for a warmist blog post, there was no difference in reader comprehension when the reader was exposed to all warmist comments or no comments. However, when the reader was exposed to all skeptic comments, their comprehension dropped.

So it's officially been quantified - reading the comments threads on denier blogs will make you stupid.

Anyway, we're now moving onto stage 2 of the experiment - they're going to conduct a similar experiment in the lab at UWA but with a twist - they're going to have 4 conditions:

  1. Warmist blog post, all warmist comments
  2. Warmist blog post, all skeptic comments
  3. Skeptic blog post, all warmist comments
  4. Skeptic blog post, all skeptic comments

You've already seen and been horrified by my hideously evil skeptic blog post. I'm now asking SkSers to perform duties even more arduous - I need you to embrace your inner-climate-denier and post skeptic comments avidly supporting the denier post. Specifically, we need 10 comments for each condition. So it only really requires a handful of SkSers going into the 4 conditions (linked above) and interact with each other, either wholeheartedly embracing and endorsing the post or vigorously criticising and nitpicking it. We will then take the 4 conditions into the lab and see what impact they have on reader comprehension, see if it confirms our first result.

Note: we'll of course change the names in the lab experiment so your comments will be anonymous and it won't be shown as an SkS post either.

So many thanks in advance for helping us out with our experiment :-)

2011-09-21 13:05:53
logicman

logicman_alf@yahoo.co...
86.177.54.84

Ok, I'm chilled out.  Where should I post my endorsement of this masterly riposte to CAGW propaganda, here in the forum , or under the article ?

[JC EDIT - click on the 4 links in the bulleted list above and post your comments in the forum threads]

Edit - thanks, I get it now.  I'll carry on tomorrow.  Time for some ZZZZZZs.

I think here would be safer, as would be changing the date of posting to April 01.  Not that I would publish it, even on April 1st.

 

edit - horrid thought: are there comments there already and have you hidden them?  Is this some totally unethical 1950s style experiment to see if SkS authors will obey the commands of the Grand Poobah and become deniers?  If I refuse to comply, will I start getting electric shocks from my keyboard?

 

Prefered denier pseudonym: Gunpowder

That's the horse in Sleepy Hollow that has no sense of direction.

2011-09-21 13:06:24
Alex C

coultera@umich...
67.194.26.176

>>>reading the comments threads on denier blogs will make you stupid.

Well we know that from intuition, but can it be demonstrated in the case where the antecedent is not fulfilled?  i.e.,

A = it's a denier article

B = there are denier comments

C = you get stupider

To demonstrate (A^B)-->C you have to assume the contradiction and prove it false:

(A^B)-->~C

~(A^B)v~C

~Av~Bv~C

If you make it so A is false (i.e. it's a warmist article) then doesn't that mean:

~(F)v~(T)v~(T)

= T, QED (A^B)-->C is not demonstrated.

 

So, you've demonstrated that reading denier comments on a warmist blog will make you stupid, sure, but it is up to scenario 4 to prove that reading denier blogs makes you stupid (assuming, of course, that denier blogs are filled with denier comments only, which they often are).

 

Anyways, I'll post comments, but will you take requests for names?  I'd like Gulliver if that's ok, it can't be traced back to me it's just that I like Jonathan Swift's work (as people from Y!A would know from my username "A Modest Proposal").

2011-09-21 13:09:49
Alex C

coultera@umich...
67.194.26.176

Sorry about the bout of classical logic there, we're just covering that topic in my Calc class right now... need to get out of this mode if I'm going to be commenting as a denier ;-)

2011-09-21 13:13:38
Alex C

coultera@umich...
67.194.26.176

BTW, I still think it's a bit unfair with the skeptic article being so so pale in comparison to the pro-AGW one link-wise, have you given consideration to the idea of referencing some more sources, at least giving links?

2011-09-21 13:16:11
nealjking

nealjking@gmail...
84.151.29.19

Alex,

In that case, you may need to create your own facts.

2011-09-21 13:22:35
logicman

logicman_alf@yahoo.co...
86.177.54.84

Alex: in Boolian logic:

IF (A AND B)  THEN C

IF (it is a denier blog AND you read the comments) THEN er, sorry, where was I?  The last thing I remember is reading some comments at WUWT.  After that it's all blurry.

2011-09-21 13:33:37
Alex C

coultera@umich...
67.194.26.176

Neal,

I had brought up the suggestion in the earlier thread, there are several figures for instance given but not many hyperlinks to where they came from.  I tend to, myself, trust an article more if it gives me sources - not just a small citation, but some way to get to it.

No need to make up facts (per se).

2011-09-21 13:43:42No links in denier article
John Cook

john@skepticalscience...
123.211.208.191

That was intentional, didn't want the lab rats clicking off to other places while reading the article. Will remove the links from the warmist blog post too.

2011-09-21 13:45:13
Alex C

coultera@umich...
67.194.26.176

OK, that sounds like an even better idea.

(In case you don't check the denier article, there is still the link to Evans 2006...)

Edit: Oh, sorry you beat me to it.

2011-09-22 01:00:37Job done
logicman

logicman_alf@yahoo.co...
86.177.54.84

OK, I've posted 4 comments.

 

Gunpowder - giving you the straight goods.

 

(In the 1999 TV version of Sleepy Hollow, the horse Gunpowder is described as having no sense of direction.)

2011-09-23 14:02:25Bump
John Cook

john@skepticalscience...
130.102.158.12

Just bumping this thread to the top of the forum. Got about 4 comments for each condition but need 10 in total for each so if a few SkSers could jump in and engage with each other, get blatantly warmist or blatantly denier, would be great:

  1. Warmist blog post, all warmist comments
  2. Warmist blog post, all skeptic comments
  3. Skeptic blog post, all warmist comments
  4. Skeptic blog post, all skeptic comments
2011-09-23 14:39:54
dana1981
Dana Nuccitelli
dana1981@yahoo...
69.230.106.125

I'll try to remember to contribute tomorrow.