That's the ticket. Promote "science" by relentlessly repeating the same thing over and over again and refusing to engage in a meaningful argument.
Many, many people believe what they hear first and what gets shouted loudest. Not liking that fact, and therefore refusing to engage in those tactics, doesn't make it any less true; it simply cedes a large segment of the population to anti-science proponents who are willing to do what it takes to get their message heard.
I don't want science to die, I don't want it to be replaced with some new ideology or religion which can trace its roots to some sciency origin.
Perhaps you can claim that in the short run you've improved things, but in the long run you've drowned out the vital dialog that keeps the process of science alive, you've killed the goose that lays the golden eggs. Meanwhile, someone else figures out how to shout even louder and more convincingly than you and we're back to square one, or the dark ages.
People aren't accepting what you believe to be scientifically provable facts? Argue more persuasively, provide better evidence. Don't just shout louder.
P.S. Yeah, it's a tough and frustrating process. Nobody said it'd be easy. It took millenia for human civilization to pull itself out of the morass of uncritical and superstitious thought. People, many people, suffered and died for that achievement, and the results have been spectacular so far. Giving up on science just because convincing other people of something is a frustrating and difficult process is the height of immaturity.
I don't think this is true. Science is a means of building knowledge via testable predictions. It's not a promotional tool.
It's unrealistic to expect that effective techniques for performing science will be at all effective for promoting science; in fact, we have ample evidence that trying to promote science via reasoned engagement doesn't work very well. Anti-scientific proponents of vaccine-avoidance or evolution-denial continue to gain the mindshare of a significant and powerful segment of the voting population that "better evidence" has been unable to sway.
How many people believed in evolution in 1500? How many people believed the Sun was powered by nuclear fusion in 1900? It's possible to convince people of the value of scientific inquiry and the truth of the results of scientific research, but sometimes it takes a lot more time and effort than anyone would wish.
On the plus side, we have it a lot easier than Galileo did. Our lives aren't in immediate danger merely because we challenge the dogma of powerful institutions.
He put himself into trouble by using the Pope's views in the form of his bot Simplicio, embarrassing the Pope. He was in trouble, but not in physical danger.
The irony is that the Church was open to heliocentrism, but demanded more scientific proof before teaching it.
He was under house arrest for those years at the house of the Archbishop of Siena. It was a fairly nice life in those times. Galileo and the church got along very well, but they had to do something to save face for the Pope. I don't think it's ridiculous.
He's also using some set of content matching algorithms, and may introduce other deeper learning algorithms. That's computer science.
Seems like science to me :P
Since you used the word "Denialists" I already know you deny the scientific method and actually know nothing about the science of this issue. You're just repeating the Global Warming Faith (one of whose tenants is that anything that disagrees with the faith is not science) and attempting to shout down someone accurately pointing out the spam your ideology is resulting in.
However, I did refer to AGW followers as denialists. Not because I follow the "Global Warming Faith" [1], but because AGW followers' tactics of argumentation (or lack thereof) typically follow the Denialist Deck of Cards: http://www.denialism.com/Deckofcards/deck.html
The vast majority of arguments I've heard from AGW proponents can be categorized into one of the following: * No Problem * No Harm * Wait and See (we don't have enough proof, so let's wait and see if something changes - this argument is made quite often by AGW proponents, and is even referenced in the deck of cards) * Stifles Innovation (pushing money into clean energy stifles non-clean energy innovation - this claim was made with regards to California Proposition 23) * Already Highly Regulated (made by auto companies and oil companies) * Jobs (hello prop 23 proponents again) * Red Herring (claims of Neptune's warming is a red herring) * Federal Issue (AGW-funding companies claim that California's tougher emission standards are illegal) * Duh! (AGW proponents saying that they understand the science better than the scientists who are writing the papers, even claiming that the few papers that they have read make them better experts than people who have been studying the issues for decades) * Nit Pick (this is what you are doing, right now) * Muddy the Waters (and again with prop 23) * Poison the Well (this is also what you are doing, right now) * Exploit Others' Ignorance (hello prop 23 again) * Temper Tantrum (this is what targets of the bot do when chatted into a corner) * You're a Ninny (you are doing this) * Big Government (any regulation is big government) * We'll Lose Money (hey, back to prop 23 again)
[1] Actually having examined the evidence at Nasa, from climate scientists, etc., to the best of my ability (I'm not a climate scientist, I am a applied theoretical computer scientist with experience in distributed systems, search, and simulation), the evidence supporting global warming is orders of magnitude more compelling to me than the lack of evidence offered by AGW proponents. Others with differing experience and expertise are welcome to disagree with my judgement of who to believe, as you have. And a healthy dose of skepticism is great for science. But the behavior of AGW proponents is not skepticism, it's denialism.
Regards.
AGW stands for 'Anthropogenic Global Warming' and 'AGW proponents' are those people who actually support the thesis that industrial CO2 emissions are causing catastrophic warming. It looks like you would have a very confused bot on your case if you went on twitter with comments like the above.
People who make arguments that can be refuted in 5 mins are not contributing to "vital dialogue". They're noise-makers.
People who won't change their opinions when confronted with evidence aren't playing the same game you're playing.
I'm reminded of a friend's story back in undergrad. His lab TA told everyone "See that stuffed bear of there? That's Mr. Cuddles. If you have a question, ask Mr. Cuddles first. Then if he can't help you, ask a real TA."
What the AI_bot is dealing with is automatic handling of a large number of pre-canned, pre-debunked arguments, which appropriate reply _is_ "This has been debated before, check it out." Understanding other people's arguments is also part of the scientific process. Furthermore, the author of the bot is reviewing the activity, to ensure that arguments are not being inappropriately applied.
(Also, Leck's chatbot actually avoids repeating itself when talking to any particular person. I don't see anything wrong with repeating the same arguments when responding to different people.)
That most of the people he's replying to are unable or unwilling to engage doesn't detract from what he's doing.
Just like you are unwilling or unable to engage in debate here.
If I disagree, I disagree by writing a counter argument. You may not like it, it may not be persuasive, but I write it.
As to whether this guy is a "scientist" or not, I don't think it is relevant as your movement commonly mischaracterizes people according to their ideological purity.
EDIT: Now I understand why you accused me of blindly downvoting. Projection.