dailytech | But it is Ms. LaBarre's use of the phrase "scientific doctrine" which should is most
interesting, and perhaps telling. The root word of indoctrination --
brainwashing with a rigid set set of beliefs -- is "doctrine". Indeed
the Wikipedia entry for "doctrine" states:
Doctrine (from Latin: doctrina) is a
codification of beliefs or a body of teachings or instructions, taught
principles or positions, as the body of teachings in a branch of
knowledge or belief system. The Greek analogue is the etymology of
catechism.[1]
Often doctrine specifically connotes a corpus of religious dogma as it is promulgated by a church, but not necessarily: doctrine is also used to refer to a principle of law...
Often doctrine specifically connotes a corpus of religious dogma as it is promulgated by a church, but not necessarily: doctrine is also used to refer to a principle of law...
And Google Inc.'s (GOOG) built in dictionary describes doctrine as:
a belief or set of beliefs held and taught by a church, political party, or other group.
Science has little to do with beliefs.
Science is the process of observation, of collecting hard, repeatable
evidence. Belief is unnecessary to a scientist who does their job
right, as they are simply studying reality.
The phrase seems decidedly odd as coming from a science publication:
after all isn't open, informed debate the root of all science? Since
when has indoctrination -- peddling of a set of rigid, unquestioning beliefs, most often associated with religion -- become part of the scientific process?
Perhaps lack of critical feedback, user bickering, and spam may indeed improve the perception of PopSci.
But it's hard to imagine Socrates or Plato, were they alive today,
shutting the door to public commentary. After all, as journalists we
all have to remember we aren't actually doing science -- at
least not at our news jobs -- we're simply trying to represent it in a
clear and concise form that the public can understand and enjoy.
While PopSci writes "we have many
delightful, thought-provoking commenters," it's hard to escape the
impression that its editors think themselves greater science minds than
their readership. Perhaps that's why they're so eager to "indoctrinate"
readers (quite literally what Ms. LaBarre says is the site's goals)
with their superior wisdom (i.e. interpretations) of science.
But here at DailyTech we take a different view. We reject censorship and believe in free expression.
We welcome all opinions from the novice to the professional. We welcome respectful criticism of our authors, our articles, and the material therein, in a public place for all to see. We don't believe doctrines and indoctrination have a place in open scientific discussion.
At the same time we acknowledge that comments -- criticism, trolling, and more -- are a painful burden at times. But it is a burden we choose to bear because we must. Perhaps it will hurt our readers' impressions of our site. But journalism and science are founded upon open discourse and a receptiveness to feedback. Once you lose that, you risk rapid loss of your accountability and credibility.
But here at DailyTech we take a different view. We reject censorship and believe in free expression.
We welcome all opinions from the novice to the professional. We welcome respectful criticism of our authors, our articles, and the material therein, in a public place for all to see. We don't believe doctrines and indoctrination have a place in open scientific discussion.
At the same time we acknowledge that comments -- criticism, trolling, and more -- are a painful burden at times. But it is a burden we choose to bear because we must. Perhaps it will hurt our readers' impressions of our site. But journalism and science are founded upon open discourse and a receptiveness to feedback. Once you lose that, you risk rapid loss of your accountability and credibility.
