Popular Science: Comments Can Be Bad For Science

[drthmik]

bedrock scientific doctrine
LOL

DOCTRINE: a belief or set of beliefs held and taught by a church, political party, or other group.

Everything my science teachers taught me in school about what science is contradicts the idea of a "bedrock scientific doctrine"

Before Pasteur the "bedrock scientific doctrine" was that maggots spontaneously generated from dead meat
"bedrock scientific doctrine" used to be that the earth was the center of the solar system
"bedrock scientific doctrine" used to be that disease was caused by an imbalance of Humors and fluids in the body
"bedrock scientific doctrine" used to be that "Blacks" were subhuman and inferior to "Whites"
"bedrock scientific doctrine" used to be that it was impossible to travel faster than sound
"bedrock scientific doctrine" used to be that heavier than air planes couldn't fly
"bedrock scientific doctrine" used to be that cells were nothing but tiny bags full of "protoplasm"

I could go on for hours because the list is endless
but now
NOW we have our "bedrock scientific doctrine" as presented by Popular Science! and people DARE DISAGREE?!
the CONSENSUS HAS SPOKEN and it cannot be wrong!

well... except for all the times listed above where the CONSENSUS was wrong
But lets ignore that, Stifle debate, listen ONLY to the PROFESSIONALS and march in lock step with the all knowing CONSENSUS which can NEVER BE WRONG!



...
except when they are

 

[KennardKId5]

I don't care about PopSci. But banning comments isn't a bad thing in my view. If people really feel it necessary to discuss an article, make a post on the Escapist about it.

For some reason, magazine and news websites always attract the worst commenters. I hate to generalize, but the quality of discourse is not high.

 

[Ihateregistering1]

Don't let the name of the magazine fool you, "Popular Science" is not the end-all, be-all publication for all things science related, and it's definitely something I wouldn't take as Gospel.

But honestly, even if it was, I think this is a bad idea. The idea that people don't like having their beliefs challenged, and will fight tooth and nail to maintain said beliefs even in the face of overwhelming evidence, is nothing new to humanity and human history. Sure the internet may have given a larger pulpit to many of these people, but it's not as if people were more open-minded 50, 500, or 5000 years ago.

As someone who has gone through several changes in their ideological make-up through their life, and knowing others who have done the same, I can say with some level of certainty that essentially saying "well we tried to debate you idiots, but you are simply TOO STUPID to understand" is NOT how you win converts. Further, for those who insist on conspiracy theories, by not even letting them voice their opinions you only further cement their conspiratorial beliefs ("See!? They won't even debate us because they're being paid off by the ____________ industry!!")

As an aside, I noticed in the article that they linked to this NYT article:
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/22/opinion/welcome-to-the-age-of-denial.html?_r=0
Although there are some good parts in the NYT article that I definitely agree with, some of it rubbed me a little wrong. For example:
"In that era of the mid-20th century, politicians were expected to support science financially but otherwise leave it alone."
Does anyone else find that a little...off? I mean, what the author is basically saying is "give us money, but don't you dare ask us what we're spending the money on. It's for science, so you wouldn't understand".

 

[deathjavu]

bedrock scientific doctrine
LOL

DOCTRINE: a belief or set of beliefs held and taught by a church, political party, or other group.

Everything my science teachers taught me in school about what science is contradicts the idea of a "bedrock scientific doctrine"

Before Pasteur the "bedrock scientific doctrine" was that maggots spontaneously generated from dead meat
"bedrock scientific doctrine" used to be that the earth was the center of the solar system
"bedrock scientific doctrine" used to be that disease was caused by an imbalance of Humors and fluids in the body
"bedrock scientific doctrine" used to be that "Blacks" were subhuman and inferior to "Whites"
"bedrock scientific doctrine" used to be that it was impossible to travel faster than sound
"bedrock scientific doctrine" used to be that heavier than air planes couldn't fly
"bedrock scientific doctrine" used to be that cells were nothing but tiny bags full of "protoplasm"

I could go on for hours because the list is endless
but now
NOW we have our "bedrock scientific doctrine" as presented by Popular Science! and people DARE DISAGREE?!
the CONSENSUS HAS SPOKEN and it cannot be wrong!

well... except for all the times listed above where the CONSENSUS was wrong
But lets ignore that, Stifle debate, listen ONLY to the PROFESSIONALS and march in lock step with the all knowing CONSENSUS which can NEVER BE WRONG!



...
except when they are

All of those things were indeed "common knowledge", but were never "bedrock scientific doctrine". In fact, it was the application of scientific principals that eventually overturned these beliefs.

I could go on about how outmoded beliefs that were actually arrived at scientifically based on the best available evidence are rarely overturned completely; generally they are refined or expanded. Or how ridiculous and fallacious it is to assume that the fact that we can have more accurate and detailed scientific models in the future somehow invalidates the conclusions of thousands upon millions of tests that form the current "consensus". Or the idea that the current "consensus" can be challenged with no opposing scientific studies other than the effects of a bottle of whiskey on humans leads people to continue to accept ridiculous and dangerous beliefs, such as the continued denial of climate change.

Thank you for proving my point about the value of this kind of "debate".

 

[Psychobabble]

Finally someone understands the dangerousness of the idea of free speech!! I vote that from now on this is how all information should be conveyed. One person speaks and no one else is allowed to question or answer back. I find that's the cornerstone of any free and rational society.

"Mein Fuhrer!, I can walk!"

 

[Something Amyss]

I think the point being made is that these comments are taken, on some level, to be as valid as the expert's scientific opinion- a trend definitely mirrored in cable news.

Yes, everyone has an opinion. Lots of people will have opinions contrary to the experts (readeople who spend their entire lives doing this stuff) in a given field.

Does that make their opinion valid? Not really.

Does it make it equally valuable, such that they deserve to be sitting across from an actual expert on a TV show? Fuck no.

Honestly, I never, ever liked the comments section on news articles. For intelligent articles it discourages thinking about the content ourselves in favor of seeing if someone said something that makes sense to you (or to be less charitable, offers you the chance to find a comment that allows you to keep your same views, i.e. confirmation bias). For dumb articles it allows you to argue back, but the flame war traffic just encourages the posting of more shitty articles. It serves no good on any site, I think.

I was so dismayed to see the "comments" sections spread from yahoo news to every other news site ever. I know it brings in page views but by god is it a useless cancer.

(I've seen some obvious "troll bait" articles even here on the Escapist, which is kind of sad for a news site. Witness that "sexiest female characters" that a lot of people laughed at as trolling, but I think it's pretty unprofessional and news-damaging for a news site to troll. Of course if I'd posted that opinion in that particular article I would have just contributed to its traffic, so that was a lovely catch-22. This is a perfect example of why the comments section is useless garbage.)

Don't you know anything? Reality operates on consensus! By shutting down the comments you are closing the debate and letting the sane peopleenemy win!

Science is like a fairy. If you don't believe in it, it dies. And yet we have all these liberal elites with their empiricism and their evidence, clapping it back to life!

...I feel dirty.

 

[Imp_Emissary]

Finally someone understands the dangerousness of the idea of free speech!! I vote that from now on this is how all information should be conveyed. One person speaks and no one else is allowed to question or answer back. I find that's the cornerstone of any free and rational society.

"Mein Fuhrer!, I can walk!"

Freedom of speech doesn't cover being able to comment on a website.

A website is owned by individuals, and organizations. Thus they are not part of the "public". If the owners want to not let people comment, or just moderate the comments. That is within their legal rights, and not in violation of free speech.
Also;

"Freedom of speech is not absolute in any country and the right is commonly subject to limitations, as with libel, slander, obscenity, sedition (including, for example inciting ethnic hatred), copyright violation, revelation of information that is classified or otherwise."

Just like how you can't go onto your neighbor's property and start yelling whatever you want, you can't go on a website and say whatever you wish without permission.

Also, nice job at the end with the bring up Nazis. Kind of proving the point of why the action was needed in this case.

0w0 p

 

[saintdane05]

Well, you know what they say. If you can't take a little bloody nose, maybe you ought to go back home and crawl under your bed. It's not safe out here. It's wondrous, with treasures to satiate desires, both subtle and gross. But it's not for the timid.

 

[Cid Silverwing]

Shame the real world isn't more like the internet, if we could shut up all the people talking about subjects they don't have any real clue about the world would be a better place.

Certainly would stop Fox and other anti-video game mongers out there.

We wish, right? Of course it's quite easy to say that as we actually know wtf happens on this whole Internet thing.

 

[Psychobabble]

Finally someone understands the dangerousness of the idea of free speech!! I vote that from now on this is how all information should be conveyed. One person speaks and no one else is allowed to question or answer back. I find that's the cornerstone of any free and rational society.

"Mein Fuhrer!, I can walk!"

Freedom of speech doesn't cover being able to comment on a website.

A website is owned by individuals, and organizations. Thus they are not part of the "public". If the owners want to not let people comment, or just moderate the comments. That is within their legal rights, and not in violation of free speech.
Also;

"Freedom of speech is not absolute in any country and the right is commonly subject to limitations, as with libel, slander, obscenity, sedition (including, for example inciting ethnic hatred), copyright violation, revelation of information that is classified or otherwise."

Just like how you can't go onto your neighbor's property and start yelling whatever you want, you can't go on a website and say whatever you wish without permission.

Also, nice job at the end with the bring up Nazis. Kind of proving the point of why the action was needed in this case.

0w0 p

Replace the phrase "freedom of speech" with "rational discourse" then. What they've done is to let a small minority of assholes disallow anyone from participating in the intellectual process. It's the lazy method of policing their own comment section. Plus it's also a great way to make sure no one can ever counter them on information some might not agree with. The best way to create intellectual stagnation is to remove the possibility of debate.

Also the quote I used is from "Dr. Strangelove or: How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb", it has a bit more depth to it than just "bringing up the Nazis". Though I tend to doubt you'd be able to grasp it's meaning.

 

[Imp_Emissary]

Finally someone understands the dangerousness of the idea of free speech!! I vote that from now on this is how all information should be conveyed. One person speaks and no one else is allowed to question or answer back. I find that's the cornerstone of any free and rational society.

"Mein Fuhrer!, I can walk!"

Freedom of speech doesn't cover being able to comment on a website.

A website is owned by individuals, and organizations. Thus they are not part of the "public". If the owners want to not let people comment, or just moderate the comments. That is within their legal rights, and not in violation of free speech.
Also;

"Freedom of speech is not absolute in any country and the right is commonly subject to limitations, as with libel, slander, obscenity, sedition (including, for example inciting ethnic hatred), copyright violation, revelation of information that is classified or otherwise."

Just like how you can't go onto your neighbor's property and start yelling whatever you want, you can't go on a website and say whatever you wish without permission.

Also, nice job at the end with the bring up Nazis. Kind of proving the point of why the action was needed in this case.

0w0 p

Replace the phrase "freedom of speech" with "rational discourse" then. What they've done is to let a small minority of assholes disallow anyone from participating in the intellectual process. It's the lazy method of policing their own comment section. Plus it's also a great way to make sure no one can ever counter them on information some might not agree with. The best way to create intellectual stagnation is to remove the possibility of debate.

Also the quote I used is from "Dr. Strangelove or: How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb", it has a bit more depth to it than just "bringing up the Nazis". Though I tend to doubt you'd be able to grasp it's meaning.

Oh don't worry, I completely follow what you're trying to do. ;p

As for the discourse? Just because they can't comment under the articles doesn't mean they can't talk about it.

Just look around the forums of the Escapist. There are hundreds of examples of people starting conversations over articles form other sites, and sometimes threads about articles on this site.

Also, it is pretty common that sites have contact methods open to the public. So, if people are so inclined, they can most often send emails [sub](or letters if you wish to be old fashioned)[/sub] directly to the staff of the site.

The reason they are getting rid of comments on their site is because that [sub]to them at least[/sub] the "rational discourse" was being outnumbered by rampant trite arguments with little tested intellectual ground to stand on. All that was lost was a place for some people to cause a raucous.

All actual rational discourse can be moved to other areas, and those who have issues with the articles can direct them straight to the staff themselves.
If they can't just moderate their chat, then this is better then just leaving it the way it is.

 

[Psychobabble]

Finally someone understands the dangerousness of the idea of free speech!! I vote that from now on this is how all information should be conveyed. One person speaks and no one else is allowed to question or answer back. I find that's the cornerstone of any free and rational society.

"Mein Fuhrer!, I can walk!"

Freedom of speech doesn't cover being able to comment on a website.

A website is owned by individuals, and organizations. Thus they are not part of the "public". If the owners want to not let people comment, or just moderate the comments. That is within their legal rights, and not in violation of free speech.
Also;

"Freedom of speech is not absolute in any country and the right is commonly subject to limitations, as with libel, slander, obscenity, sedition (including, for example inciting ethnic hatred), copyright violation, revelation of information that is classified or otherwise."

Just like how you can't go onto your neighbor's property and start yelling whatever you want, you can't go on a website and say whatever you wish without permission.

Also, nice job at the end with the bring up Nazis. Kind of proving the point of why the action was needed in this case.

0w0 p

Replace the phrase "freedom of speech" with "rational discourse" then. What they've done is to let a small minority of assholes disallow anyone from participating in the intellectual process. It's the lazy method of policing their own comment section. Plus it's also a great way to make sure no one can ever counter them on information some might not agree with. The best way to create intellectual stagnation is to remove the possibility of debate.

Also the quote I used is from "Dr. Strangelove or: How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb", it has a bit more depth to it than just "bringing up the Nazis". Though I tend to doubt you'd be able to grasp it's meaning.

Oh don't worry, I completely follow what you're trying to do. ;p

As for the discourse? Just because they can't comment under the articles doesn't mean they can't talk about it.

Just look around the forums of the Escapist. There are hundreds of examples of people starting conversations over articles form other sites, and sometimes threads about articles on this site.

Also, it is pretty common that sites have contact methods open to the public. So, if people are so inclined, they can most often send emails [sub](or letters if you wish to be old fashioned)[/sub] directly to the staff of the site.

The reason they are getting rid of comments on their site is because that [sub]to them at least[/sub] the "rational discourse" was being outnumbered by rampant trite arguments with little tested intellectual ground to stand on. All that was lost was a place for some people to cause a raucous.

All actual rational discourse can be moved to other areas, and those who have issues with the articles can direct them straight to the staff themselves.
If they can't just moderate their chat, then this is better then just leaving it the way it is.

And I get where you're coming from. But, and I honestly hate to play the "what if" game, but what will happen to rational discourse if more venues for intellectual discussion follow suit?

As you said "if they can't moderate their chat", well I have to ask why the heck can't they? Surely they can afford to do so. Why should other sites have to take up the slack for their own disinterest or inability?

I don't know. As I said before you may not grasp why this so annoys me, not because I feel you lack the mental ability mind you, just that I feel it's a cultural thing. I grew up in a dictatorship and whenever I see people willingly give up their right to speak freely and openly it sends cold chills down my spine.

 

[Imp_Emissary]

Spoiler: 0.0 I hid it.

Finally someone understands the dangerousness of the idea of free speech!! I vote that from now on this is how all information should be conveyed. One person speaks and no one else is allowed to question or answer back. I find that's the cornerstone of any free and rational society.

"Mein Fuhrer!, I can walk!"

Freedom of speech doesn't cover being able to comment on a website.

A website is owned by individuals, and organizations. Thus they are not part of the "public". If the owners want to not let people comment, or just moderate the comments. That is within their legal rights, and not in violation of free speech.
Also;

"Freedom of speech is not absolute in any country and the right is commonly subject to limitations, as with libel, slander, obscenity, sedition (including, for example inciting ethnic hatred), copyright violation, revelation of information that is classified or otherwise."

I see what you're saying, and that is a legitimate concern. I don't think it's likely to actually become an issue, but it is something to think about.
Just like how you can't go onto your neighbor's property and start yelling whatever you want, you can't go on a website and say whatever you wish without permission.

Also, nice job at the end with the bring up Nazis. Kind of proving the point of why the action was needed in this case.

0w0 p

Replace the phrase "freedom of speech" with "rational discourse" then. What they've done is to let a small minority of assholes disallow anyone from participating in the intellectual process. It's the lazy method of policing their own comment section. Plus it's also a great way to make sure no one can ever counter them on information some might not agree with. The best way to create intellectual stagnation is to remove the possibility of debate.

Also the quote I used is from "Dr. Strangelove or: How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb", it has a bit more depth to it than just "bringing up the Nazis". Though I tend to doubt you'd be able to grasp it's meaning.

Oh don't worry, I completely follow what you're trying to do. ;p

As for the discourse? Just because they can't comment under the articles doesn't mean they can't talk about it.

Just look around the forums of the Escapist. There are hundreds of examples of people starting conversations over articles form other sites, and sometimes threads about articles on this site.

Also, it is pretty common that sites have contact methods open to the public. So, if people are so inclined, they can most often send emails [sub](or letters if you wish to be old fashioned)[/sub] directly to the staff of the site.

The reason they are getting rid of comments on their site is because that [sub]to them at least[/sub] the "rational discourse" was being outnumbered by rampant trite arguments with little tested intellectual ground to stand on. All that was lost was a place for some people to cause a raucous.

All actual rational discourse can be moved to other areas, and those who have issues with the articles can direct them straight to the staff themselves.
If they can't just moderate their chat, then this is better then just leaving it the way it is.

And I get where you're coming from. But, and I honestly hate to play the "what if" game, but what will happen to rational discourse if more venues for intellectual discussion follow suit?

As you said "if they can't moderate their chat", well I have to ask why the heck can't they? Surely they can afford to do so. Why should other sites have to take up the slack for their own disinterest or inability?

I don't know. As I said before you may not grasp why this so annoys me, not because I feel you lack the mental ability mind you, just that I feel it's a cultural thing. I grew up in a dictatorship and whenever I see people willingly give up their right to speak freely and openly it sends cold chills down my spine.

I see what you're talking about. That is a legitimate concern. I don't think it's one that will become a serious issue, but it is something to think about.

As for why they can't moderate their chat? Well, it could be that they can't because of funds/finding people to do it for them like on the escapist. Or they could think it's just not worth the time/resources to do it, and in the end it is nice to have but it isn't needed.

As I said, there are other places where people can have the conversations(not just online either), and it's because there are places who are more then willing to moderate their comments.
Plus there are actually a few more sites around who are planning to start moderating now. So I don't think we really need to be that worried about it.

Aware of the possibility, yes, but I don't think there is much of a real threat.

 

[PainInTheAssInternet]

Finally someone understands the dangerousness of the idea of free speech!! I vote that from now on this is how all information should be conveyed. One person speaks and no one else is allowed to question or answer back. I find that's the cornerstone of any free and rational society.

"Mein Fuhrer!, I can walk!"

Freedom of speech doesn't cover being able to comment on a website.

A website is owned by individuals, and organizations. Thus they are not part of the "public". If the owners want to not let people comment, or just moderate the comments. That is within their legal rights, and not in violation of free speech.
Also;

"Freedom of speech is not absolute in any country and the right is commonly subject to limitations, as with libel, slander, obscenity, sedition (including, for example inciting ethnic hatred), copyright violation, revelation of information that is classified or otherwise."

Just like how you can't go onto your neighbor's property and start yelling whatever you want, you can't go on a website and say whatever you wish without permission.

Also, nice job at the end with the bring up Nazis. Kind of proving the point of why the action was needed in this case.

0w0 p

Replace the phrase "freedom of speech" with "rational discourse" then. What they've done is to let a small minority of assholes disallow anyone from participating in the intellectual process. It's the lazy method of policing their own comment section. Plus it's also a great way to make sure no one can ever counter them on information some might not agree with. The best way to create intellectual stagnation is to remove the possibility of debate.

Also the quote I used is from "Dr. Strangelove or: How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb", it has a bit more depth to it than just "bringing up the Nazis". Though I tend to doubt you'd be able to grasp it's meaning.

You lost me at "rational discourse" being in the same sentence as "internet" without being dismissive.

If someone's able to refute a scientific article, they will likely do so on another publication or even the same one. and any valid discussion is likely only going to happen between people with actual knowledge on the subject. You can argue until you're blue about how one can post links and therefore back up their research, but how many are willing to participate? Go through any comment section and you will see just how brain-dead, offensive, obtuse, inflammatory and ultimately useless commenters are. Hell, how would any of them know the difference between a peer-reviewed article and some random facts listed without context?

The internet has an extremely bad reputation in regards to intellectualism for a very good reason; there is 1% of good content that must be found after digging through 99% garbage or various sorts (that is guaranteed to be more popular because it's typically easier to read) and/or irrelevant (outdated) data. That's being very generous, probably far more than the internet deserves.

TL;DR: when people are stupid, they deserve to be treated as such. Internet comment sections on news or scientific websites are of little use anyways.

 

[deathjavu]

Look, the issue here is that people thought their comments on science articles had value.

The overwhelming majority didn't. They just...didn't.

By christ has the age of everyone having their own platform and megaphone given people the wrong impression. About the only upside is that the sheer volume of data makes it slightly harder for it to be used against us.

*shakes walking stick* And stay off of my lawn, ya damn whippersnappers!

 

[Bara_no_Hime]

I am not kidding. Popular Science claimed to have found someone who cured cancer. I am going to dig in the trash (where I immediatly threw the magazine after reading the article) for that article so I can get a picture to edit into this post.

Um... there is a cure for cancer. Discovered several years ago. There's even an old article on the Escapist about it, and why it isn't being used outside of Universities. Seriously, do a search on "cancer cure" - it should still be in the archives somewhere. I commented on it at the time.

It has to be custom tailored to a given cancer (so each person individually) and is massively not profitable. It is only being pursued by various Universities as thesis projects, because it is a technique that is impossible to copyright (or patent, whatever the proper term is, you know what I mean), so drug companies won't touch it and (because no one will pay to have it approved by the FDA) hospitals can't use it.

Pro Tip: If you get cancer, do NOT go to a cancer specialist or hospital. Go to a University that's doing cancer research.

 

[username sucks]

Um... there is a cure for cancer. Discovered several years ago. There's even an old article on the Escapist about it, and why it isn't being used outside of Universities. Seriously, do a search on "cancer cure" - it should still be in the archives somewhere. I commented on it at the time.

It has to be custom tailored to a given cancer (so each person individually) and is massively not profitable. It is only being pursued by various Universities as thesis projects, because it is a technique that is impossible to copyright (or patent, whatever the proper term is, you know what I mean), so drug companies won't touch it and (because no one will pay to have it approved by the FDA) hospitals can't use it.

Pro Tip: If you get cancer, do NOT go to a cancer specialist or hospital. Go to a University that's doing cancer research.

Did you read the headline? It says "The Cancer Virus Cure".

Also,

Spoiler: some highlights from the body

" As one University of Berkeley student said: 'The normal bond angle of hydrogen is 113.4 degrees, but they have found a way to change the bond angle to 114 degrees without adding anything! This way, it gives the water the ability to cure any disease (even the cancer virus!) with just a few drops!!!!!''"

Anyone with one year of chemistry would know that not only is the listed bond angle wrong, but that changing it without changing the solution is impossible, and that a slight change would not miraculously cure anything. Also, cancer is not a virus.

"Mexicans have constantly prevented this FDA certified and approved product from being patented anywhere in the world."

"Read the JEWISH BIOTERRORISM folder on our website to read about how the muslims from University of Pacific have been using secret jet planes to contaminate our water by dropping poisonous chemtrails! But we have saved over one third of the population in America by putting our water with a bond angle of 114 degrees into reservoirs to decontaminate it and cure diseases everywhere! Help us stop these muslims!"

(One more, from the top left picture of a mansion) "This is our beautiful custom built mansion built on a 484 acre plot of land that we own in Oregon. All profits from our water go directly towards renovating the mansion!".

I think those last three passages explain their faults by themselves. Sorry that my camera sucks too much to read it in the picture.

Now I know that this is an ad, but you would think that in a SCIENCE magazine that they would actually check something like this. Actually, it is almost certain that someone would have had to read this before it got put in the magazine.

Racism, conspiracy theories and miracle cure scams with false information is permitted in the actual magazine, yet reader comments are banned due to disagreement with what they claim. Popular Science has absolutely no credibility with me anymore.

 

[Bara_no_Hime]

Did you read the headline? It says "The Cancer Virus Cure".

Well, first of all, several viruses are known to cause cancer. Also several fungi. It goes something like this:

1) Subject gets viral or fungal infection of the correct type.
2) Subject is sick for a while, then recovers.
3) Subject's cells are damaged in a specific way by the infection - those cells have a significantly increased chance to become cancerous.
4) Subject is far more likely to develop a specific type of cancer after such an infection.

Thus, the headline does make a sort of sense - they're talking about a cure for one of the viruses that causes cancer, and wanted to make the headline snap.

... of course, it doesn't hurt that I misread the title and thought it was talking about a "Virus Cure" for cancer - ie, a Retrovirus, which is actually something that is being developed.

Racism, conspiracy theories and miracle cure scams with false information is permitted in the actual magazine, yet reader comments are banned due to disagreement with what they claim. Popular Science has absolutely no credibility with me anymore.

**blinks** Wow. That's some awful text all right. Yeah, your photo was too blurry to read anything but the title.

Although, you say it's a paid advertisement? That might be the reason there - the people who write the articles and the people who sell the ad space at a magazine (or newspaper) are not only entirely different people, but often don't even work in the same room (or sometimes in the same building). So the people with credibility might not have had any say about the awful advertisement.