I applaud your decision to be forthright about your policies even if I lament the actions and attitudes of a limited number of poor blogosphere citizens that motivated the post.
Ah ha, I caught a bit of this from the DM blog, but I had no idea as to the extent of the conversation. @#$%^#@ hell, serious stuff.
It is certainly lamentable, because the issue of pseudonymity (or anonymity for that matter) should not be a particularly contentious ethical conundrum in this context. It is one that's surely adequately settled through basic reasoning: the the argument leveled against pseudonymity being difficult to describe as anything other than an appeal to authority (unless I missed something). Given that we're all in the business of science, the application of formal logic to the rules of argumentation should be universally accepted one would hope.
You're right, and I find it pretty troubling as well. It seems to me that the only thing one loses when adopting a policy similar to what I put up here, or one that Dr. Isis recently added to her own, is a path to further a personal vendetta. It has nothing to do with interacting with ideas and arguments.
i actually adore all your posting kind, very exciting, don't give up and also keep writing simply because it just simply good worth to read it. excited to find out much of your current writing, kind regards :)
8 comments:
What brought this on?
I applaud your decision to be forthright about your policies even if I lament the actions and attitudes of a limited number of poor blogosphere citizens that motivated the post.
See here and here for a start into the burgeoning morass.
Actually, it is something I have been thinking more deeply about for some time. I want there to be as little ambiguity on my position as possible.
@DM - The only benefit has been the crystallization of my thoughts on these subjects, which had previously been inchoate.
One can hope that the science blogosphere as a whole can grow from this exercise as well. Maybe? Possibly? Ok probably not but we gotta try right? ;)
Ah ha, I caught a bit of this from the DM blog, but I had no idea as to the extent of the conversation. @#$%^#@ hell, serious stuff.
It is certainly lamentable, because the issue of pseudonymity (or anonymity for that matter) should not be a particularly contentious ethical conundrum in this context. It is one that's surely adequately settled through basic reasoning: the the argument leveled against pseudonymity being difficult to describe as anything other than an appeal to authority (unless I missed something). Given that we're all in the business of science, the application of formal logic to the rules of argumentation should be universally accepted one would hope.
Rev. Dr. Incitatus
To the Right Reverend Dr!
You're right, and I find it pretty troubling as well. It seems to me that the only thing one loses when adopting a policy similar to what I put up here, or one that Dr. Isis recently added to her own, is a path to further a personal vendetta. It has nothing to do with interacting with ideas and arguments.
i actually adore all your posting kind, very exciting,
don't give up and also keep writing simply because it just simply good worth to read it.
excited to find out much of your current writing, kind regards :)
Post a Comment