Happy New Year.
This week's Economist carries a blog [ A less dismal debate ] on the positive influence of blogs. Amongst the things it says are:
... whatever you think about the impact of blogging on political, scientific or religious debate, it is hard to argue that the internet has cheapened the global conversation ... . On the contrary, it has improved it. Research ... suggests that academic papers cited by bloggers are far more likely to be downloaded. Blogg[ers] ... are regarded more highly than non-bloggers with the same publishing record. Blogs have given ideas that failed to prosper in the academic marketplace ... another airing.
The back-and-forth between bloggers resembles the informal chats, in university hallways and coffee rooms, that have always stimulated ... research, argues Paul Krugman, ... . But moving the conversation online means that far more people can take part.
Admittedly, for every lost prophet there is a crank who is simply lost. Yet despite the low barriers to entry, blogs do impose some intellectual standards. Errors of fact or logic are spotted, ridiculed and corrected. Areas of disagreement are highlighted and sometimes even narrowed. Some of the best contributors do not even have blogs of their own, serving instead as referees, leaving thoughtful comments on other people’s sites and often criss-crossing party lines.
Anyone who follows particular blogs, as I do, knows the merits of this argument.
The Economist is, of course, writing about blogs about economics – as would have been clear had I not missed phrases out of my selected quotes. Sadly, it was not (and could not have been) writing about blogs and ESD. Blogs offer opportunities which a Rachel Carson, a John Disinger or a Philip Neal would surely have recognised and seized. What a great pity, then, that there are not more bloggers in our field.
Why is that? Is there really so little to say?
Respond