What is the Role of Social Media in Determining Scientific Integrity?

 

 

What is the Role of Social Media in Determining Scientific Integrity?

Yesterday, Oct 8, 2021, a link to my blog, Blacklisted, was taken down by LinkedIn claiming the blog post, “Dark Matter is a Scam”, contained misinformation. An appeal was entered and acknowledged by LinkedIn. Details are as follows:

The Appeal:

Please provide as much detail as possible about the reason for your request.:

The article is accurate. Everything posted is true and is supported by direct evidence. The article examines a paper by Zwicky which contains serious errors. These errors are pointed out to the public in this post.

These errors are:

1. Zwicky is wrong in stating that galaxies have only a billion stars having the same mass of the Sun. In fact galaxies have 100 times more mass than that excluding dark matter.
2. Zwicky is wrong in stating that the Coma Cluster is only 2 million light years across. That is impossible and a conservative estimate of ten times that amount is more accurate.
3. Using the Virial Theorem, Zwicky proves that the Coma Cluster contains no dark matter if correct values are used.
The cited paper by Zwicky and his incorrect values he uses for the Coma Cluster is a major cited reason for a belief in the existence of dark matter. Therefore, if someone claims to use this paper without correcting the values used in the calculations, namely that galaxies have masses of about 100 billion solar masses and that the Coma Cluster is at least 10 to 20 Megaparsecs in size, means that this someone has not read the paper by Zwicky, or they have no idea about galaxies and galactic clusters, or they are out and out lying.
Please read the paper by Zwicky. Investigate if galaxies do have masses of 100 billion solar masses (about), if the claim by Zwicky that the Coma Cluster is only two million light across is preposterous.
At least read the paper, section 5. If you want a copy, I can send you one.
If you are upholding false scientific statements, then please inform me how this falls within your professional criteria or policies.
Thank you.

Result:

After taking a second look, we confirmed your content goes against our Professional Community Policies, https://www.linkedin.com/
We understand that this might not be the response you wanted, but we work to apply our policies in a fair and consistent way for all of our members.
Thanks again for being part of the LinkedIn community.

Auto Response (10/08/2021 18:31 CST)

We received your request to take a second look. If we find your content doesn't go against our Professional Community Policies, https://www.linkedin.com/, we'll put it back on LinkedIn.

Thanks for your patience while we look into this.

This is now a test of LinkedIn’s integrity. The platform belongs to LinkedIn and they can do whatever they like with it. They can promote dark matter, anti-vaxxing and the denial of climate change being the result of human activity all they like. But there are consequences in doing so.

It doesn’t seem like LinkedIn is actually promoting anti-vaxxing; it appears that they are supporting a “balanced” discussion. Also, regarding climate change denial, LinkedIn is not actually promoting the denial of climate change being caused by human behaviour; but is supporting a “balanced” discussion. However, regarding the existence of dark matter, LinkedIn has definitely taken the side of dark matter promoters and have abandoned promoting a “balanced” discussion. There can be no “balanced” discussion regarding dark matter on LinkedIn since links and posts will be taken down. This prevents open and balanced discussion.

But is this OK?

There is an unwritten law of the universe that everyone suffers the consequences of their actions. Everything comes back on you. You rip someone off and there are consequences to that. Either for the individual or for society at large. If you lie and promote falsehood you may get away with it for a while, but sooner or later the truth will out and there are consequences now or later for the individuals involved or for society at large. The Spanish Inquisition is a primary example, although no one expects the Spanish Inquisition.

So it is fascinating that a social media platform such as LinkedIn is taking a place in the arena of scientific review. Remember, this is not an open and balanced discussion. LinkedIn has denied the appeal with a complete lack of transparency. And very quickly too. I have no faith that a fair review of this post has occurred or that the reasons for taking it down, as per professional-community policies, will ever be revealed. The post was correct and did not misrepresent scientific evidence; Zwicky’s paper did.

This now brings us to look at peer review and the crisis therein. Basically, things are being published which should not be published and there are things that are not being published which should be published. Usually the publication of articles is left to the discretion of editors who are being accused of abusing this discretionary power. This is the crisis in peer review.

However, scientific journals are not the reading mainstay of the general public. A scientist has the moral responsibility to present scientific truths to the general public even in the face of the threat of death. Examples include Giordano Bruno and Galileo Galilei.

There are three truths that represent the flagships of scientific criteria in social media today. They are:

1. Vaccinations against Covid-19 save lives.

2. Human behaviour is causing an environmental crisis that will kill us all.

3. Dark matter as a scientifically defined entity does not exist.

In all of this there now arises a new crisis: that of a philosophical crisis. This conflict, or crisis, is between religious belief, such as anti-masking and the like, and scientific belief, such as “grow up and wear a mask you complete dolt,” are excellent examples. A religious or scientific belief can be discerned very easily in the face of evidence. Evidence critiquing a religious belief will result in greater denial of such evidence; evidence critiquing a scientific belief will result in more inquiry and a possible change in belief. A religious belief cannot be changed; a scientific belief can. LinkedIn has taken its position on the religious side of the fence.

Now to return to the arena of social media. Does Twitter, FaceBook, LinkedIn, Twitch or any other social media platform have the right or social responsibility to police things on its respective platform? Of course they do! But there are consequences to their actions. Perhaps a discussion in philosophy, not ethics, may guide and enlighten those who control such media.

Plato asked: “Who will police the police?” in The Republic. His conclusion was that personal and individual integrity should be the ultimate guide and that truth itself is the ultimate master.

But we live in a post modern world wherein truth itself is denied to actually exist. So where is social media, or society at large, to find and hold to personal and individual integrity?

The question of integrity is really a question of accountability. To whom or what shall social media be accountable? Eventually, and in the end, ultimate accountability rests with the general public or society at large. In other words, the ignorant, unwashed and misinformed public who are easily swayed by social media. But there are consequences to society’s actions. If society, or the general public, has no integrity, (in the classical sense assuming there are such things as truth, justice and goodness), the entire society will collapse either from a global uncontrolled pandemic or a global environmental holocaust. So society ends with a whimper: a lack of integrity within society’s social structure. I think this should be obvious to everyone.

Philosophically, where is social media to find accountability?

1. In experts who paid money to have letters after their name?

   - answer: Perhaps and to an extent. But there is a problem with conflict of interest in such a plan. An example is that some academic whose primary research funding comes from looking for dark matter is charged with reviewing evidence that dark matter does not exist. Bad idea. This path ended up with the holocaust of the Second World War and genocide.

2. The public good?

- answer: Very dangerous. Once you convince everyone to commit to the public good, you end up with the holocaust of the Second World War. Bad idea.

3. Epistemology?

- answer: Again, this was the dream of Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel in which the cauldron of debate hosting the conflict of thesis and antithesis would reveal truth which in turn would enlighten humanity to a better future. This philosophical structure ended up with the holocaust of the Second World War. It is the result of rejecting metaphysical entities such as truth and goodness and promoting the public good. See previous point #2.

4. Existentialism?

- answer: Not a bad idea and one I think is the best of the lot. However excluding expertise, the public good and epistemology for existentialism would result in a dead and lifeless form, perhaps a life not worth living.

In light of the existential dilemma and angst which surely must follow, the path to be trod by social media is to simply step back and grow up. Treat these various social and philosophical crises with some semblance of maturity.

1. Yes, social media has the right and responsibility to police its content. Individuals and not algorithms must be in this ultimate role. Algorithms do not have access to moral integrity; people do.

2. Examine facts and data one step at a time. Zwicky, whether intentionally or not, misrepresented data in the Coma Cluster and using correct data reveals that there is no dark matter in the Coma Cluster.

3. Dark matter does not cause x-rays. Dark matter has nothing to do with x-rays.

4. Allow and even promote evidence and discussion regarding global existential threats. It’s your job and responsibility.

5. Don’t put up with bullshit.