“Popular Science” is completely ending comments because they were determned to be counterproductive to the mission of the magazine: “A politically motivated, decades-long war on expertise has eroded the popular consensus on a wide variety of scientifically validated topics. Everything, from evolution to the origins of climate change, is mistakenly up for grabs again. Scientific certainty is just another thing for two people to “debate” on television. And because comments sections tend to be a grotesque reflection of the media culture surrounding them, the cynical work of undermining bedrock scientific doctrine is now being done beneath our own stories, within a website devoted to championing science.”
How does this reconcile with the suggestions that the blogosphere is a means to make science more democratic? Is the blogosphere as a means of (popular - and sometimes not so popular) scientific discussion merely a transitory 'post-normal' misconception?