cadres vertueux

[update] : une liste des blogposts qui discutent le sujet chez Borra.

Il ne s’agit pas ici des cadres vertueux des laboratoires, mais il y a une relation très proche.

Comme un des potes des CVDL essaie ces jours-ci de de-crédibiliser les publications sur le Web (parce qu’elles font mal à ses sophismes) et notamment mes critiques, je trouve intéressant de noter cet épisode de la discussion scientifique.

Peu importe ici quel est le contenu de la lettre que Janszky & Ljung ont adressée à NEJM. Isis critique le contenu dans un de ses posts. Et les auteurs de la lettre se pointent. Non pas pour défendre leur point de vue, mais pour pleurnicher 🙂

La partie la plus ridicule de leur commentaire est certainement celle-ci (emphasis mine) :

We would actually encourage you to write a comment to NEJM. NEJM is well known for its devotion for scientific debates on recently published papers. That would be a normal way to debate and discuss scientific findings. We would also have a possibility to answer on an « equal ground ».

A mon avis la façon normale de discuter est de se concentrer sur les critiques et y répondre. Toute autre tentative de normaliser une discussion est risible. Et ils ont beaucoup fait rire.

L’existence même de ce commentaire valide l’intérêt du post d’Isis. Si (même inconsciemment) il ne lui attribuaient pas de valeur ils ne se seraient pas dérangés pour y laisser un commentaire, n’est-ce pas ?

Ils ne se rendent pas compte qu’ils se contredisent ? Peut-être pas. Répondre on an « equel ground » leur est offert sur un plateau, dans les commentaires d’Isis. Mais ils ne veulent pas répondre en fait, ils veulent juste pleurnicher. Et puis, si « equal ground » signifie que els commentaires ne leur convient pas ils n’ont qu’à s’offrir un blog, n’est-ce pas ?

Bora Zivkovic les chope gentiment en finissant par leur demander d’aller s’excuser auprès d’Isis, après avoir repris les mêmes critiques qu’elle, sur un ton franchement différent.

Janszky semble se rendre compte que leur réponse chez Isis et sa réponse chez Bora signifie l’intérêt des blogs et en parle dans la deuxième partie de ce commentaire :

Dear Bora, you really wanted to write « fake-insulted, haughty and inappropriate way/tone »

An anonymous blogger, with her background not clear for us, neither her real thoughts apart from being very negative on our paper, mocked us in a very sarcastic style. Now, instead of completely ignoring her – I can assure you the very vast majority of the authors would do so -we stood up with our real names, with everything what it implies and answered.[1]

What was so wrong with our answer? I can imagine that you may have disliked two things:

1. We somewhat sarcastically invited her to an epidemiology class. Do you think that questioning the background of an anonymous blogger is more offensive, « haughty » or « inappropriate way/tone » than what you just did in this post concerning persons with real names?[2]

« But what they wrote betrays that even if they are familiar with the circadian literature, they do not really understand it. »

I think we had full right for sarcasm as much as she had full right to write anything she wished in her blog.[3]

2. We encouraged her to write a comment letter on our work. I think comments to journals and blogs can be equally important forums (am I not proving my interest to blogs communicating with you right now or with the fact that we reacted on the very first blog? [4]). Was that so wrong that we invited her to that forum as well? Yes, we called a comment letter as « a » (but NOT the « only » as the ) normal way. A blog can be normal, too. Like yours. Her original post simply did not qualify. It was a mixture of mocking, jokes and some scientifically sound arguments[5]. It was impossible to disentangle her real opinion as well her background and level of knowledge. Again, no one questioned her rights to do it for a moment. But do you really want science blogging in the style of Dr.Isis used concerning our study? I can assure you that the vast majority of authors will just run away from these blogs and never ever return or ever consider them as a forum where they want to discuss their findings.[6] Do you have statistics on how many authors do actually enter to blogs concerning their work? (I mean with real identity). I would guess extremely few for blogs like that of Dr. Isis. If so, what do you think what is the reason? Do you think it is a smart way to promote open science and real discussions?

J’ai noté quelques points [x] :

1. Qu’est-ce qu’ils ont à foutre qui critique et quel est son niveau dans le domaine de la critique ? Le vieil argument d’autorité ressorti pour se justifier ? Personnellement leur noms me sont aussi inconnus que le pseudo de Isis. Doit-on leur demander de publier copies de leurs diplômes pour accepter leur lettre à NEJM ou leurs commentaires ?
2. C’est ça, ils se sont plantés magistralement concernant la critique qui leur a été faite, ont voulu se la pèter experts et faire semblant que leur contradictrice ne s’y connaissait pas en épidémio et maintenant c’est à qui va sauver les meubles 😀
3. Full right au sarcasme, certainement, mais répondre à la critique aussi, sinon le sarcasme tombe à plat
4. Oui, une fois que la blogosphère s’est émue et les conséquences ont dépassé ce qu’ils pensaient, il est de bon ton de se replier au plus vite
5. Oui, de la bonne critique (du peu que je comprends et de l’avis de Bora qui est un spécialiste du domaine) et ils n’ont pas été foutus de s’en rendre compte ? Merde !
6. OK, il y en a beaucoup qui n’aiment pas ce mode de communication/discussion ? Qu’ils n’y viennent pas, ça sera ça de gagné, n’est-ce pas ?

Le mode de discussion change, non pas seulement pour les sujets scientifiques, pour tout. Ceux qui ne sont pas capables de s’y adapter ne feront pas partie de ce nouveau domaine. Franchement, je préfère ça aux pleurnicheries et sophismes que les mal adaptés nous servent.

Quoique, il est toujours utile de disposer de ce qui a été dit pour faire des liens 😀 Ce qui n’est pas possible vers les cadres vertueux dont les auteurs changent le contenu à leur guise, sans horodater, effaçant les traces de leur prises de position, ce qui fausse irrémédiablement les discussions.

[addendum]
To please Comrade PhysioProf, a pseudonymous science blogger, well, if science can be blogged anyway, I add the translation of the post below. It lost all the flavor! Anyway, here it is and suggestions by people more fluent in english are welcome to improve it :

This is not about « the virtuous frames of the laboratories », but there is a very close relationship.

As one of the « the virtuous frames of the laboratories » guy buddies is trying these days to de-credibilize Web publications (because they hurt his sophistry) and especially my critics, I find it interesting to note this episode of scientific discussion.

The content of the letter Janszky & Ljung sent to NEJM isn’t really important for my argment. Isis critics this content in one of his posts. And the authors of the letter show themselfs. Not to defend their point of view, but to whine.

The most ridiculous part of their comment is certainly this one (emphasis mine):

We would actually encourage you to write a comment to NEJM. NEJM is well known for its devotion for scientific debates on recently published papers. That would be a normal way to debate and discuss scientific findings. We would also have a possibility to answer on an « equal ground ».

IMO, the proper way to discuss is to focus on the critics and respond. Any other attempt to standardize a discussion is laughable. And they have made a lot of people laugh.

The very existence of their comment validates the interest of the post of Isis. If (even unconsciously) they didn’t attributed any value to it, they wouldn’t have bothered to leave a comment, right?

They don’t realize that they contradict themselves? Maybe not. Respond on an « equal ground » is offered at the comments section of Isis. But they don’t want to answer, they just want to whining. Then again, if « equal ground » means that the comments section doesn’t suit them, they should go on a have blog of their own, right?

Bora Zivkovic critic them gently, ending by asking them to go and apologize to Isis, after displaying the same criticisms, using a frankly different tone.

Janszky seems to realize that their response to Isis and his response at Bora’s showcase the interest of the blogs and talk about it in the second part of this comment:

Dear Bora, you really wanted to write « fake-insulted, haughty and inappropriate way / tone »

An anonymous blogger, with her background not clear for us, neither her real thoughts apart from being very negative on our paper, mocked us in a very sarcastic style. Now, instead of completely ignoring her – I can assure you the very vast majority of the authors would do so-we stood up with our real names, what with everything it implies and answered [1].

What was so wrong with our answer? I can imagine that you may have disliked two things:

1. We somewhat sarcastically invited her to an epidemiology class. Do you think that questioning the background of an anonymous blogger is more offensive, « haughty » or « inappropriate way / tone » than what you just did in this post concerning persons with real names [2]

« But what they wrote betrays that even if they are familiar with the circadian literature, they do not really understand it. »

I think we had full right for as much sarcasm as she had full right to write anything she wished in her blog. [3]

2. We encouraged her to write a letter on how our work. I think comments to blogs and journals can be equally important forums (am I not proving my interest to blogs communicating with you right now or with the fact that we reacted on the very first blog [4]). Was that so wrong that we invited her to that forum as well? Yes, we called a comment letter as « a » (but not the « only » as the) normal way. A blog can be normal, too. Like yours. Her original post simply did not qualify. It was a mixture of mocking, jokes and some scientifically sound arguments [5]. It was impossible to disentangle her real opinion as well her background and level of knowledge. Again, no one questioned her rights to do it for a moment. But do you really want science blogging in the style of Dr.Isis used concerning our study? I can assure you that the vast majority of authors will just run away from these blogs and never ever return or ever consider them as a forum where they want to discuss their findings. [6] Do you have statistics on how many authors do actually enter to blogs concerning their work? (I mean with real identity). I would guess for extremely few blogs like that of Dr. Isis. If so, what do you think what is the reason? Do you think it is a smart way to promote open discussions and real science?

I noticed some points [x]:

1. What’s the fucking point to know who is criticizing and what is her level in the field of criticism? The old argument of authority used to justify them? For me their names are unknowns as much as the pseydonyme of Isis. Should we ask them to publish copies of their diplomas to accept their letter to NEJM or their comments?

2. That’s it, they masterfully failed to answer to the critics made by Isis, wanted to display their expertise, faking that their contradictor wasn’t fluent in epidemiology, and now he tries to save their face.

3. Full right to sarcasm, certainly, but respond to the critics also, else the sarcasm falls flat

4. Yeah, once the blogosphere reacted and the consequences exceeded what they anticipated, it was fashionable to retreat ASAP

5. Yes, good critic (as much as I understand and according to Bora who is a specialist of the field) and they didn’t realize that? Crap!

6. OK, are there many people who don’t like this kind of communication/discussion? They don’t have to come to it, it will be a gain, right?

The modes of discussions change, not only for scientific subjects, for everything. Those who can not adapt will not be part of this new domaine. Frankly, I prefer that to the whining and sophistry that ill-adapted people offer us.

Although, it is always useful to have available what was said, to link to it 😀 Linking, which is not possible to do for « the virtuous frames » who’s authors change the content as they please, without time-stamping, erasing the traces of their previous positions, thereby irreparably distorting discussions.

[/addendum]