One of the ways I work against "gaming" discussion in my system is what I'd call "controlling for rhetoric". So 3 commentaries that say "this is stupid" and "this is dumb" and "this is ignorant" would be collapsed into 3 people saying "I don't like this". "Very vocal" would simply evaporate as a factor. One point made 42 different ways is not 42 points … it's 1.
There is a finite number of statements that can be made concerning any issue. However large that number, it's finite. My notion is that controlling for rhetoric allows even statements of the type "There's something about this I really don't like" to be accepted as valid. "I don't trust this speaker" should count … but not as evidence.
When the process of commenting is less "fun", the end product becomes more valuable and more meaningful. Or, at least, such is m theory.
What is and isn’t a scientific debate
The media need to understand the difference between a genuine scientific debate, and the fact that a very vocal minority can disagree with an overwhelming consensus of evidence
Post imported by Google+Blog. Created By Daniel Treadwell.