You're arguing for less transparency here? I think one of the side benefits to witnessing the LK-99 discussion is people from all walks (sure, Twitter/X isn't the end all/be-all of global communication) discussing/following/listening to actual science happen.
Do you know how much of that is worth to the world with knock-on effects? Maybe there were future material scientists sitting in the room with their parents listening to the discussion? I feel like that's equally as important as peer review/replication.
You cannot please these people, simply put. These folks STILL want the ESSENCE of a shared respect and excitement from the common man for scientific progression - and these folks are the same people, mind you, that speak loudly on the ignorance of the cluster groups within the "anti-science" big tent. But when these same folks see a glimpse of collective curiosity for science and methodologies among a lot of people, they long for the days of opacity and "mature handling of scientific consensus". Which, ironically, was the path in which almost ALL scientific progressions that spawned anti-science sentiments had taken.
I think a different way to frame this is that an Internet discussion will involve people with opinions across the spectrum.
I don’t think this is about pleasing “these people”, but about recognizing which attitudes are useful and which are not. Encountering some mix of all of the above is a product of the diversity of people involved in the conversation, and not necessarily “these people” wanting it both ways.
My framing is fine, in my biased opinion. Saying, "You can't please these people about this" is essentially the same as saying "Their attitude about this is not useful" - though one might be more polite.
Maybe I went amiss, maybe I need perspective, but I don't see why a consideration for a re-frame is necessary if one still gets their point across; albeit maybe with more "passion" than necessary.
> These folks STILL want the ESSENCE of a shared respect and excitement...But when these same folks see a glimpse of collective curiosity...they long for the days of opacity and "mature handling of scientific consensus".
You are claiming that it's the same group of people holding incongruous viewpoints.
My point was that this is likely an illusion caused by the communication medium, i.e. "these people" represent a myriad of individual viewpoints, which may not align because I think "A" and you think "B". Not because I think "A" and "B".
To frame it in this way doesn't allow for a useful exploration of the issue. It casts aside an entire group instead of examining the roots of the problematic behavior. It also creates a straw man - the person who believes both things incongruously, when this person doesn't seem likely to exist, or at least seems likely that this is a rare stance.
> Saying, "You can't please these people about this" is essentially the same as saying "Their attitude about this is not useful"
These are saying very different things. One discards the entire person on the basis of a view you disagree with. This is a road to nowhere. The other allows an examination of the actual behavior, which is arguably far more important if there's a case to be made that someone should change their behavior.
"Oh, you're one of those people" gets you nowhere. "The problem with this line of thinking/attitude is that it limits the potential for public excitement and involvement with the process..." gives you and the person who disagree something to work with.
This isn't about being polite. This is about choosing whether the point is to explore the nature of the problem, or to complain about a group of people.
Not-that-unpopular opinion: Some form of soft gatekeeping is required to keep a healthy signal/noise ratio, in a lot of contexts.
The issue is, what sort of gatekeeping, and how aligned is it with the desired effect? Even simply crudely throwing up all sorts of arbitrary obstacles (e.g. various forms of academic hazing) is sufficient to at least keep out people who aren't willing to put in some sort of effort. The problem is that has a lot of collateral damage - it also loses perfectly fine people whose only flaw is a low tolerance for institutionally imposed arbitrary obstacles. A perfect gatekeeping mechanism would exclude everyone who can't contribute while presenting minimal obstacles to those who can. I don't want to speculate here what that might look like, but it's not contradictory to want everyone to have access to science while simultaneously wanting ignorant loudmouths to be gently suppressed.
If I may mutilate a beloved Pixar film, "anyone can science". But not everyone can be a scientist. Everyone should just be given a chance.
Do you know how much of that is worth to the world with knock-on effects? Maybe there were future material scientists sitting in the room with their parents listening to the discussion? I feel like that's equally as important as peer review/replication.