I received an email telling me I'm number 20 on the list of influential science blogs, according to Wikio, a European site that ranks according to links and readership, I gather.
The irony of a philosopher being a high ranked science blogger is not lost upon me, I can tell you. Even moreso given that I have no science qualifications (but that matters not in journalism, so why here?). But Mashable seems to think this is a good alternative to Digg and other such sites, so who am I to dispute it?
- Log in to post comments
More like this
At the ScienceOnline 2010 conference next month, I'm going to be on a panel about "Rebooting Science Journaiism," in which I'll join Carl Zimmer, Ed Yong, and John Timmer in pondering the future of science journalism. God knows what will come of it, as none of us have the sure answers. But that…
This Thursday's issue of Nature ranks the top 50 science blogs on the internet and, somewhat surprisingly, The Scientific Activist lands in the #5 spot. The top 5, with their Technorati ranks in parentheses, are as follows:
Pharyngula (179)
The Panda's Thumb (1,647)
RealClimate (1,884)
Cosmic…
Yes, I owned this album when it first came out in 1978.
A recent post by Prof Matt Nisbet raised some Saturday night reflections for me as to how one measures one's impact as a blogger if one is so inclined to do so. But does this apparent impact or "influence" actually mean anything?
I've got…
The New Scientist, The Open Laboratory, the journos who just don't get it....those things make me want to write something on this blog!
Slow blogging...like slow food. These days, if something cannot wait, I put it on Twitter - from which it automatically goes to FriendFeed and Facebook where I may…
Proof positive that you don't need a swag of degrees to understand a field? Or just the exception that proves the rule? I hope it's the later, or PZ will loose it when the next ID proponent uses you as evidence that you don't need a PhD to comment on evolution.
Does someone truly need a PhD to comment on evolution?
Is it that complicated?
Would a PhD in media studies be acceptable?
Apologies if you were attempting humour :o)
Myrrh rightly looses it when IDists open their mouths and spout inanities (he has a down on religion as well for some reason), I don't think that will change by Cthulhu.
http://www.johncoulthart.com/images/cthulhu2004.jpg
http://www.phobos-deimos.com/Cthulhu/cthulhu.jpg
Congratulations, just goes to show that clear writing and well thought out posts are appreciated by many.
Yes Chris, that was my attempt at humour. I don't think you need a PhD (in biology, specifically evolution) to comment on it. But if a non biologist (PhD or no) claims something that the general consensus of biologists disagree with, especially those with PhDs then I'll go for the general consensus......
I come in at a desultory 72, but then they include fake science blogs too, so I don't know the real value of their listings.
I think the best systems should have a mixture of computer and human algorithms for judging. Linkage or popularity or whatever have little to do with actual quality, especially when it comes to science.
Nah, you don't need a Ph.D. to comment on evolution.
I know 8 year olds who have a better grasp of the scientific method than the wankers with Ph.D.s who populate the ID ranks, too.
I don't disagree as a first choice, however consensus (majority rule) hasn't always worked in the sciences.
We need the eccentrics and those willing to make a stand, as long as they have the data to buttress their claims and a working hypothesis that makes predicitions that better match what we observe than the existing hypothesis.
The arguements against evolution as a model fail because those argueing against it have no working hypothesis that is testable, make no predicitions and have no data to back up their claims. So not science at all.
Oh yes, they aren't very good at doing sums either :o)
That isn't to say that scientific consensus is always correct as history shows us.
I should mention that my PhD was jointly awarded by the Faculty of Science, Department of Botany. However, that would be inappropriately claiming to be a science PhD (it was philosophy and history), so I am no better than a dilettante when it comes to biology.
Eight year olds have a better grasp than me on most matters. When I was 8, I knew more than my parents. When I was 16 I knew everything. When I was 25 I knew less than everything and now I'm 52, I know almost nothing...
I possess one of those PhD thingies. Indeed, I have supervised others to PhDs of their own.
I am extremely unimpressed by arguments from authority based on the possession of a PhD. Firstly, even if the PhD is in the right general area, it doesn't act as an automatic guarantee against stupidity or just being plain wrong about a given topic - even if the PhD itself was of high quality. I've met plenty of people with very detailed knowledge of one particular part of an area of research, and yet a very gappy knowledge of the remainder of the broad area it lies within (and sometimes astonishing ignorance of other areas).
Secondly, in almost any area I can think of, a sufficiently motivated amateur can pick up a good knowledge fairly readily (it might take a couple of years, but it can be done). [Here I use amateur in the sense of "not actively publishing research in the area".] The ideas are what matters, and a motivated amateur is perfectly capable of understanding and arguing them.
Even when the amateur is substantially less knowledgeable than someone with a PhD in the area, if the person with the PhD cannot cogently present their case to the amateur, it often means that the supposed expert needs to carefully think about why they're having trouble explaining things.
PhDs - even good ones - don't necessarily indicate much more than a certain doggedness (indeed that may well be true in my case). I don't think they should be thought of as automatic "expert" tags. {IDists seem to think that they should be. That should be warning enough.}
If an argument is good, it's good. The qualifications of the person making it shouldn't have much effect on the evaluation of it.
Hi there John, it's Miles from Wikio.
Thought you might like to know that at Wikio, the category of Philosophy fits best under Science than any other topic. Hence, Evolving Thoughts's ranking under Science.
(Is philosophy a science? This makes for a rather philosophical question in and of itself!)
Happy holidays,
Miles
Technically, philosophy is a humanities subject, although as it happens I work in the philosophy (and history) of science, and in particular of biology. I'm certainly not offended.