Maintained by Seed's editors, web editors, and the other people who make Seed tick, Page 3.14 points you in the direction of some of ScienceBlogs' finest offerings, plus the tastiest tidbits of science news and opinion from around the web.
Of the 83 bloggers currently featured on ScienceBlogs.com, 20 write under pseudonyms. Since many of our bloggers frequently write about highly scientific and/or highly controversial topics, some wondered: But but...Can anonymous bloggers be trusted?!
On a non-ScienceBlog (gasp!) Greg Laden commented that "The cost to the anonymous blogger is that they should expect to be taken less seriously than they may like under certain circumstances... Yes, arguments can stand on their own and in an ideal world that sometimes happens. But no, not in real life. We are cultural beings and interactive beings. Also, the value of authority and experience are only lost on those without either."
DrugMonkey disagreed, arguing that in science, "depending on the 'authority' of a relative few is an inferior way to arrive at the closest approximation to the 'correct' interpretation."
So let's settle this already! What do you guys think?
Want to know the results? We'll publish them exclusively in next week's ScienceBlogs Weekly Recap—the fun e-newsletter that brings you the top posts, quotes, photos and videos from the previous week on ScienceBlogs. (Click here to subscribe to the newsletter.)
Comments
You will notice that DrugMonkey's retort is irrelevant to my argument, which by the way is not an argument against pseudonymous writing. It is part of a larger argument about what writers should expect based on how they present themselves, in many regards, not just whether or not they identify themselves.
Posted by: Greg Laden | April 21, 2008 9:28 PM
Oh, and here's a link to my actual post on the topic:
Some of my best friends are pseudonymous bloggers
No need to leave the Scienceblogs.com domain!
Posted by: Greg Laden | April 21, 2008 9:30 PM
I do think that writing under a pseudonym carries a significant, though not overwhelming, cost in terms of credibility; but not in terms of actually being worthy of credibility. I still choose to be pseudonymous for personal reasons of my own; though it's not that hard to track down my real name if you work at it. I used to be regular on talk.origins under my own name.
Posted by: Duae Quartunciae | April 21, 2008 11:15 PM
For people whom I know solely from their blogs, I see zero difference between calling themselves "Greg Laden" and "GrrlScientist." In either case, it's just a label. There's a bit of a difference when it comes to people like Chris Mooney, who has an existence so far as I'm concerned outside of his blog (specifically, I have one of his books). But other than that, what difference does it make?
Posted by: Kevin W. Parker | April 21, 2008 11:27 PM
I'm sorry if this has been asked before, but: is there a reason, beyond marketing concerns, that I have to sign up for a newsletter that I don't want to read to see the results of the poll?
Posted by: Winawer | April 21, 2008 11:39 PM
Winawer-
The newsletter's not so bad, really. I know because I write it. Plus it's short and the poll results are always at the top. Why not sign up? You're obviously interested in the results...
Posted by: Ginny | April 22, 2008 6:28 AM
I have explained in detail why those who obsessively complain about pseudonymity SUX0RRZ!!!1!11! and why those who blog pseudonymously KICK FUCKING ASS!1!11!!!11!
http://physioprof.wordpress.com/2008/04/03/blogging-while-pseudonymous-blogging-while-female/
Posted by: PhysioProf | April 22, 2008 6:46 AM
Why no linky to our discussion of the issue? Is it because we didn't come to a firm conclusion? Because that's philosophy for you ...
Posted by: Dr. Free-Ride | April 22, 2008 10:14 AM
Missing option: Depends on the blogger. There are bloggers who use their real name who have no credibility whatsoever (DI bloggers, for example) and bloggers who are anonymous who have tremendous credibility (Orac, for example). I think the only way to determine credibility is to look at what they post and judge on that basis. Someone using their real name doesn't automatically confer credibility, nor does a pseudonym automatically reduce it.
Posted by: Rev Matt | April 22, 2008 10:27 AM
Ginny, I'm sure that the newsletter is fascinating, but I really don't like e-mail newsletters. I already have enough incoming e-mail congesting my inbox that I am actively avoiding any more.
Of course, I just discovered that there's a tiny link in the poll box to show me the results, which is all that I was really interested in anyways (the small underlined >> below the question). Why didn't you mention that instead of - or at least in addition to - the sales pitch? I would have been happy with that and gone away.
Posted by: Winawer | April 22, 2008 10:42 AM
Makes me wonder what Albert Einsteins pseudoname would have been?
E=MCSquared?
Maybe just E. McSquared? Would it have made a huge difference whether he was pseudononymous WRT to his theory of relativity?
I judge by content, let me give you an irrefutable example, DRUDGE.
Thank you for your time.
Philip Paul
Posted by: Bustednuckles | April 22, 2008 12:20 PM
The poll neglects time and experience with blogs. At first reading their blogs, anonymous bloggers have (slightly) less credibility for me. But I read a wide variety of blogs, mostly on science, and blog myself (as part of the Panda's Thumb crew) under my real name. Whether a blogger has "credibility" for me depends on my early experience with reading the blog and assessing the blogger's views against some research, usually easily performed, on what they say about factual matters. There are bloggers who post under their real names who I don't trust at all (say, William Dembski) and those to whom I give a fair amount of credibility on scientific matters (say, PZed Myers). There are anonymous bloggers to whom I give no credibility (say, "Professor Smith's Weblog") and those to whom I give a good deal of credibility (say, Afarensis). Those judgments are based on experience, not on the value of the anonymity variable.
So in the end I voted for equally trustworthy since that's the only alternative that even hints at the irrelevance of the anonymity variable for me.
Posted by: RBH | April 22, 2008 4:14 PM
Yeah, we know. If writers don't present their lips on your ass, then they can expect you to blow a fucking gasket and ignore the content of their writings.
Posted by: PhysioProf | April 22, 2008 4:35 PM
Yeah, we know. If writers don't present their lips on your ass, then they can expect you to blow a fucking gasket and ignore the content of their writings.
I can't believe how long it has taken you to finally get this!!!!
Posted by: Greg Laden | April 23, 2008 1:19 PM
Wow.
Greg, I don't remeber ever kissing your ass, butt thanks for tolerating all of my pseudonymity, flameworthy shenanigans, and plain ol' vitriol...and also, why exactly IS IT that you never blew a gasket over my nonsense( and/or occasional salient or salacious point?) much less banned me from your blog?
Posted by: the real cmf | April 24, 2008 12:35 AM
Non-pseudonym blogging comes in handy when the blogger wants to rely on the fallacy of argumentum ad verecundiam. Rather, I prefer to blog based on my own opinions, without poisoning the well with the entirety of my credentials.
Posted by: TomJoe | April 29, 2008 8:32 PM
By their fruits you shall know them. Or something. If a blogger writes about science, makes sense, and links to external sources such as peer-reviewed papers or the popular science press, then I'm quite happy to learn from them. With some university departments declaring, "I wouldn't give tenure to a blogger," i can understand the impulse.
Posted by: Monado, FCD | May 7, 2008 9:41 PM
Rev Matt, in that case they are equally authoritative, whether it's "I trust them" or "when pigs fly."
Posted by: Monado, FCD | May 7, 2008 9:43 PM