Á Grím Hypotethical

[Virgil Showlion]

A Grim Hypothetical: Suppose these message boards (NMSNM) are a major news hub, and our participation on them was not anonymous.

You are the site editor-in-chief, and a staff writer (i.e. a poster) comes to you with an article that challenges what he calls "likely myths" surrounding the life of Mahmoud (who would become the prophet Mohammed). The article is well-written, and despite being notably one-sided, it does include some facts to support its main arguments.

You pride your board on being an open exchange for ideas, but when you consult your staff, several object. One points out that NMSNM is on a short list of organizations that Yemeni cleric Ussef Al Mandi has claimed is being monitored for "insults against Islam". Al Mandi claims that any snub meant to provoke will provoke, and has stated the penalty is the execution of American tourists, diplomats, and businessmen in Yemen. Al Mandi has issued—and carried out—such threats in the past.

Other staff members also express concern. Some fear, realistically, that NMSNM members may be subject to retaliatory attacks for an article they had nothing to do with. Some have been petitioned by Muslim friends and neighbours to please not pour gasoline on the fire, since many American Muslims have family over in Yemen. And still others question the value in printing an article that will at best be of minimal academic interest to NMSNM readership, but a grave insult to Muslims in the NMSNM audience and indeed the world over.

The decision ultimately lies with you.

Considering these facts, and knowing that you (and everyone) will need to live with the consequences of your decision, what do you decide to do?

[Deleted]

You don't live your life being controlled by bullies. In the free world, you print what you believe you can and should print. Let the chips fall where they fall.

[Virgil Showlion]

I wouldn't print it.

I guess that makes me a sell-out. But for what little benefit the article would yield, I wouldn't want to bear the repercussions on my conscience.

[Deleted]

When you act out of fear, in the long run you are actually perpetuating and fueling that fear. The MORE you kowtow to bullies, threats and intimidation, they MORE they will exert their bullying ways. Stand up to bullies.

[BeenThere...DoneThat...]

...depends upon how successful the publication is doing... ;D

[Virgil Showlion]

Stand up to bullies.

I see "bullying" as more unsolicited. This concerns an act of provocation.

That would be the main difference.

[fairlycrazy23]

Publish

[Green Eyed Lady]

Do the "beneits" of printing the article outweigh the possible consequences of printing the article? In your hypothetical? IMO, no.

[Deleted]

I voted for printing it.

[Deleted]

What are the basis of the 'facts' ? I would evaluate the credibility of the sources, attempt to confirm the facts. If the facts are confirmable, then I would re-write the article to include those facts, and also to include a balanced perspective of any facts which exist to the opposit position. Under those conditions, I would be inclined to print.

[Virgil Showlion]

What are the basis of the 'facts' ? I would evaluate the credibility of the sources, attempt to confirm the facts. If the facts are confirmable, then I would re-write the article to include those facts, and also to include a balanced perspective of any facts which exist to the opposit position.

The facts are that various historical texts written around the time of Mahmoud assert certain conditions that would seem to controvert claims about his life and his works. For example, the prophet was said to have walked the streets of a certain town in a certain year, but a medieval historian claims the city (which burned down in a massive fire at some point) had burned down before that date. Another text has the fire occurring a few years later, which would be consistent with the Muslim view.

You obviously haven't looked into history or archaeology deeply if you're talking about which "facts are confirmable", because two historians rarely agree, and the definition of "confirmable" changes yearly. It took until the 19th century until most historians believed that the city of Troy even existed and was not mythic, for example.

Some sources say yes, some say no, some have wrong dates, some are revisions of true history, some omit details, some are pure fabrications, some are easily misinterpreted, some have been changed while being copied down through history, and for a period like the Dark Ages there's precious little material to begin with. Hence in this case it's fair to say that the facts the writer has introduced are accurate to the best of his ability to find historical accounts that support his hypothesis.

He is not interested in providing the innumerable other facts that would go into a "balanced perspective" because a) it would bloat the article from 3 pages to 300, b) he is writing the article to make a point and persuade his audience of a hypothesis, not to publish a long, boring literature survey that makes no definite conclusions, and c) he claims that not every conflicting viewpoint can be right (which is true), he has selected one viewpoint that he believes is most consistent and credible, and you certainly can't prove him wrong beyond a shadow of a doubt.

[mmhmm]

Considering the caveat that said article would be of little real interest to the readership while being highly insulting to a group of people, some of whom might be amongst the readership, I wouldn't print it. I can't see that the value outweighs the harm it would do. If the article would actually enlighten people, or offer a solution to difficulties or a path to same, I might see it differently. Just to print an article that insults others and does little else doesn't seem particularly worthwhile, to me.

[Deleted]

No, that was kind of my point. If this piece is based on someone's opinions and their efforts to 'find accounts that support his hypothesis', and as such written in a biased manner, then no, i wouldn't print it as an article. There is no way I would consider such a piece to be 'well-written'...

An article which examined the documentation and support for and against a specific detail (walking down that street in that town) might be useful. However, one would have to be careful of the conclusions drawn from such an examination.

[Deleted]

Sept 22, 2012 22:01:47 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

This concerns an act of provocation.

This would not be a weighty concern for me. Firstly, the intention isn't to provoke, rather to provide an arena for the open exchange of ideas. Secondly, individuals do have some control over what they permit to provoke them and how they behave in response to that provocation. It's not your fault if somebody else behaves unreasonably.

[Deleted]

The idea that an editor would allow a staff writer to put forth an article with clear bias, in which it is obvious that the facts were cherry picked to support the writer's thesis, without respect for the general context or quality of the source, is what is WRONG with journalism.

[Don Perignon]

There's a cliché for that:
"Publish or be damned".

But make absolutely certain you follow it with a "smiley-face" emoticon.

Make damned sure.

[Virgil Showlion]

It's not your fault if somebody else behaves unreasonably.

True, but if you knew that a man had shot me, mmhmm, and oped in the head because you decided to publish the article, even though it was that man committing those murders, I imagine it'd still be tough to bear on your conscience.

If this piece is based on someone's opinions and their efforts to 'find accounts that support his hypothesis', and as such written in a biased manner, then no, i wouldn't print it as an article. There is no way I would consider such a piece to be 'well-written'...

You wouldn't publish much. The process you're poohpoohing is called "consensus building", and it's foundational to all controversial research today, including AGW, holistic medicine, economics, political science, and even the so-called hard sciences (for example: is solar "better" than wind).

Suffice it to say that you would never get a "well balanced" article (as you describe it) published in a peer-reviewed journal, and if you did, very few people would read it. Moving forward in research is about being committed to one viewpoint among numerous incompatible viewpoints, not languishing in a bloated, hypothetical netherworld where every major theory—or even a significant number of them—needs to be considered, analyzed, debunked, etc.

[Deleted]

I'm sorry, are you suggesting that peer reviewed research does not complete a thorough reveiw of the existing literature in which to context the current examination?

Are you suggesting that research is generally conducted by choosing your thesis, and then LOOKING only for things that SUPPORT that thesis ?? That's not research....

Concensus is not about who yells their opinion the loudest. Its all about the quality and consistancy of the available factual data...

[Virgil Showlion]

I'm sorry, are you suggesting that peer reviewed research does not complete a thorough reveiw of the existing literature in which to context the current examination?

I'm saying that an article about a computer-model predicted warming trend based on tree ring data doesn't include citations for models based on NASA satellite data that predicts a cooling trend over the next 20-25 years, or a British astrophysicist's compelling paper on how global temperatures correlate with sunspot activity, or a Norwegian statistician's discovery of a 50-year temperature cycle that has recently reached its apex, or ten thousand other credible yet conflicting theories.

It considers tree ring data, explains why it feels that's important and why we should care about tree ring data, presents the experiment, the results, and conclusions, and doesn't so much as mention the alternative theories.

Are you suggesting that research is generally conducted by choosing your thesis, and then LOOKING only for things that SUPPORT that thesis ?? That's not research....

It is called a hypothesis, and that is precisely the trap that most research falls into.

There is simply too much information out there for a researcher to avoid narrowing his/her focus at some point, and the higher up and more concentrated your research is to become, the narrower your focus must be. Unfortunately, the tradeoff is that you must ignore or discredit ideas and theories that don't mesh with your hypothesis. Looking into these theories is admirable from an academic standpoint, but it is enormously time consuming. It is very much a luxury, and one that relatively few researchers can afford.

Concensus is not about who yells their opinion the loudest. Its all about the quality and consistancy of the available factual data...

It's a combination of the two. And as much the former as the latter, in many cases.

[Deleted]

But that article would include information on other studies of tree ring data. And while it might suggest that tree ring data be considered, it would not draw larger conclusions on the topic of warming trends in general based solely on that study.

That is why I said an article looking at both sides of the documentation on the specific event / detail, could be instructive, depending on the conclusions drawn. That is analogous to what you are suggesting in post #18... post #18 is not analogous to your OP.

[Deleted]

You may try to discredit... you may not ignore and call yourself a researcher, or a responsible journalist. You also must evaluate the merit of the sources being used.

[Deleted]

Sept 22, 2012 23:01:43 GMT -5 oped said:

The idea that an editor would allow a staff writer to put forth an article with clear bias, in which it is obvious that the facts were cherry picked to support the writer's thesis, without respect for the general context or quality of the source, is what is WRONG with journalism.

You might well be right. Of course, there is also something wrong with the idea that people would react to this effort by executing 'American tourists, diplomats, and businessmen in Yemen'…

The bias is not a problem in itself, if handled correctly. For instance it could be diluted by extending an offer to somebody of opposing views, suitably qualified, that would afford them the opportunity to respond to the points raised in the original article. Indeed, any number of different views could be included in this way, aiding the integrity of the endeavour overall.

[Virgil Showlion]

And while it might suggest that tree ring data be considered, it would not draw larger conclusions on the topic of warming trends in general based solely on that study.

It absolutely would, because funding for research is based on need, and if the only justification given in the research paper is "We think this might possibly supplement other research that suggests a warming trend could potentially occur, provided...", I guarantee you the researcher is printing up his CV by the end of his/her term looking for a new position.

It starts off with "Global warming is the greatest threat to the continued health and prosperity of mankind. It has been conclusively proven [1-8,10,12,15-21] that human activity is a contributor to global warming, and tree ring data is the most accurate method for predicting future trends [17,23]. ..."

This is the premise. No futzing around in the alternatives.

Could it be "instructive" to not reject the alternatives so definitively, "depending on the conclusions drawn"? Absolutely. But you're missing the point that this is not how real research occurs.

As for the article in the OP, it presents a hypothesis, presents evidence to support it, defends the evidence. Maybe it mentions conflicting sources but dismisses them with a paragraph or two. "We hold that these sources are not as credible as [1,3], blah, etc." Most likely it won't mention these sources because it diminishes the impact of the article.

Conclusion: Facts X, Y, Z about Mahmoud are now in serious doubt. Further research is expected to provide even more conclusive evidence. This research is important. The conclusions are definitive and meaningful. Please continue to fund us.

Signed,

The Authors

You may try to discredit... you may not ignore and call yourself a researcher, or a responsible journalist.

It's a matter of degrees, Ms. oped.

We all need to ignore or discredit some things, and the higher up you go, the more you need to ignore and/or discredit.

It's an inevitable reality of the human condition. We are notably finite creatures.

[djAdvocate]

i think it really depends on what kind of journal i run. if it is sort of a middle of the road, play it safe place, i would probably not print it. if it were a more edgy publication, i probably would.

[Virgil Showlion]

i think it really depends on what kind of journal i run. if it is sort of a middle of the road, play it safe place, i would probably not print it. if it were a more edgy publication, i probably would.

Think of it as an editorial news magazine where the authors were the various P&M posters, and the content was posters' opinions on current affairs, only compiled into article format.

I dunno. Are we "edgy"?

[mmhmm]

LOL, Virgil! While "we" might be "edgy", I don't think anyone would make the mistake of calling ProBoards "edgy"! ;D

[djAdvocate]

Sept 22, 2012 23:52:02 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

i think it really depends on what kind of journal i run. if it is sort of a middle of the road, play it safe place, i would probably not print it. if it were a more edgy publication, i probably would.

Think of it as an editorial news magazine where the authors were the various P&M posters, and the content was posters' opinions on current affairs, only compiled into article format.

I dunno. Are we "edgy"?

again, it really depends. an editorial or opinion magazine often has focuses on certain issues. if our "pet issue" was religion, or it was something we spent a lot of time discussing, then i would probably publish it. if not, then i probably wouldn't.

it is too hard of a hypothetical for me to give a direct answer, Virgil. i think the easiest way to put it is that if it were something we would normally publish under less threatening circumstances, then i would publish it.

[Deleted]

Could you please point me towards a published study which follows the format you outline? Thanks.

[Virgil Showlion]

Could you please point me towards a published study which follows the format you outline? Thanks.

On what topic? Global warming? Most decent peer-reviewed articles are behind paywalls. I might be able to find some older ones in an online archive if you're genuinely interested.

it is too hard of a hypothetical for me to give a direct answer, Virgil. i think the easiest way to put it is that if it were something we would normally publish under less threatening circumstances, then i would publish it.

The answer is "yes".

If that influences your decision, consider that the article is up to the editorial standards of NMNSM and if there was no threat, you'd publish it like any other article.

[TonyTiger]

If the message board has 10 readers, plus the lurking Fatwa Clown, I'd be tempted to withhold printing, because making those 10 readers aware of the issue-in-question does not seem to outweigh the harm done to visitors to Yemen.

If the message board has 100,000 readers, plus the lurking Fatwa Clown, then, I vote for 'publish'.

Given the lack of qualifying choices on the poll, I hit the 'publish' button.