#SciComment Nice example of protecting ECRs from critiques that they had no power to avoid...
Nov 1, 2025 at 1:31 AM
Andreas De Block on Twitter / X
It took Nature three years to publish this rebuttal, which clearly demonstrates the fundamental flaws in the original paper. In the meantime, the paper's conclusions influenced scientific debate and policy decisions. Such delays in correcting flawed research do real damage. https://t.co/QI3Ei3PE70— Andreas De Block (@DeblockBlock) August 13, 2026
Guest post: If you’re going to critique science, be scientific about it
Loren K. Mell Editor’s note: This post responds to a Feb. 13 article in The Atlantic, “The Scientific Literature Can’t Save Us Now,” written by Retraction Watch cofounders Adam Marcus and Ivan Oran…
Escape-X - Let's take back control of our digital spaces!
With Elon Musk, X became an opinion manipulation machine. Let's refuse to be accomplices.Let's take back control by leaving X collectively for alternatives that respect freedom of expression.
A.I. Should Elevate Your Thinking, Not Replace It - Blog - Koshy John
Read about the hidden divide between self-inflicted irrelevance and real engineering leverage.
The web can be weaponised – and we can't count on big tech to stop it | Tim Berners-Lee
It’s dangerous having a handful of companies control how ideas and opinions are shared. A regulator may be needed
Ten Brighter Ideas? An Explorable Explanation
As with many areas of public interest, the common wisdom surrounding energy conservation consists of myths and legends, rules of thumb and superstitions. We're given guidelines as soundbites, catchy but insubstantial. We trust them blindly, not knowing whether our actions make any significant impact.
Breaking the silence
Research on science communication has largely focused on teaching scientists how to describe their studies in ways that interest the public while deepening their understanding of scientific exploration. However, there is another, often overlooked side to science communication—how scientists respond when questions arise about the integrity of their research. Often, the tendency has been to stay silent and wait for any controversy to pass or be resolved in professional forums. But in an age of growing, intense attacks on science, silence can be detrimental to both public trust and the careers of scientists who are under scrutiny. For better or worse, journalists, social media professionals, and the public may take a response of “no comment” as a concession that the critics are correct, so forthright communication about research questions is more urgent than ever.
Why Science Can't Settle Political Disputes
Attempts to scientifically “rationalize” policy, based on the belief that science is purified of politics, may be damaging democracy
Power: A Primer for Perplexed Economists
Let's Assume an Unfettered Marketplace of Ideas! Or Actually, Let's Not.
Alienation, Idealization, and Modeling
Models allow us to expose, explore, and excavate our assumptions. This is especially true for the sorts of assumptions that concern scholars of marginalization and resistance, who aim to show how ...
I am disappointed by the fact that so many seem tempted to share a "nonrigorous", unserious attempt at quantifying fraud in science because it passes some silly vibe check ("I asked others and they agree"). So in the name of good science, we're ready to produce bad science as a rhetorical tool.
one of the clearest gaps in the ecosystem - working against the lofty decentralisation goals - is how power concentrates in tools: lists/feeds/labellers the implicit decision by bsky rn is "don't let these things become powerful", which also means "don't let these things become *too* useful"
Baldemoto🇵🇸
Moderating @furryli.st always made me feel that something was missing from atproto. If we disappeared, so too would the community we built This feeling’s finally crystallized into this proposal: Composable Trust We created identities that survive platform failure. Lets do the same for communities!
Something I keep thinking about is whether/how it would be possible to construct something like "trusted reviewing circles" without (1) destroying peer review's egalitarian goals, (2) accidentally enabling collusion rings, (3) recreating the same system with same issues over time.
Maria Antoniak
We are caught in such a trap. Asking good-faith community members to volunteer more when we can plainly see so much bad-faith behavior without consequences... IDK where it ends. Probably not central source of the problem, but NO ONE should be listed as an "author" on 20, let alone 40, submissions.
