pull down to refresh

Ph.D. candidate Ashli Wright knows science has a problem – and she doesn’t mean the actual problem that someone studies and tries to solve using the scientific method.
Rather, she recognizes that potentially revolutionizing, even life-impacting science often does not resonate with the public. Worse, it sometimes is ignored or even distorted.
Modern science journalism: when you sniff so many farts you start to believe it prevents cancer
196 sats \ 4 replies \ @freetx 7 Dec
Richard Feynman had a great tidbit about journalism.
He described it, "....sometimes when I'm home and reading the newspaper I will see an article about some new breakthrough in science. Since this is my area of specialty, I'll of course read it, but won't make it 2 sentences before I start spotting the errors. Sometimes the journalist completely reverses cause and effect of the experiment they are describing -- a wet streets cause rain scenario. Other times the journalist will simple draw the complete opposite conclusion from the stated results. Normally I will get so frustrated I will abandon the article an angry flip the page and then read a seemingly thoughtful and insightful article on the Israeli - Palestinian conflict."
His quip highlights the truth. When you don't know much about a subject - say the Israeli - Palestinian conflict - then mainstream articles can appear insightful and well researched. When you are an expert, you spot the glaring errors and oversimplifications.
reply
75 sats \ 2 replies \ @ek OP 7 Dec
Gell-Mann Amnesia Effect
reply
11 sats \ 1 reply \ @freetx 7 Dec
Yes, it was Gell-Mann not Feynman!
reply
Plus Michael Crichton who was friends with Gell-Man
Relying on television news is worse than print media
reply
This is true in tech. I have witnessed it for years. It's one of the things that woke me up.
reply
I find my truth by sitting in silence. No body outside of myself can tell me anything that I know to be true.
reply
Ultimately, she says, “I think the people with the most influence are the scientists themselves. The publications, the journals are going to do what they do to fill subscriptions. Consumers are going to do what they do to get bite-sized information quickly. It’s on the scientists to communicate in a way that will resonate with everyone, which is hard.”
This hits home. When talking about my own science, i try to make sure to be as accurate yet accessible as possible. However, when reading other people's stuff, i rarely go towards the original article. And i do sometimes fall prey to the temptation of sharing the clickbaity article here as it'll yield more engagement and sats. Even when i know the clickbaity stuff is full of shit. Can't blame the journalists who need subscriptions, so the only one to blame is myself.
reply
Holy shit man you cracked the code!
We need to get everyone together to sniff cow farts in order to save us from the climate apocalypse!
reply
Who needs peer review when you’ve got flatulence based breakthroughs? 😂
reply
This isn’t about science itself, this is about how science is communicated
reply
Was just messing around lol
I get what you’re saying journalism these days has hit such a low that half the articles out there sound so ridiculous you regret even clicking them.
reply
50 sats \ 5 replies \ @ek OP 7 Dec
I just read about Schrodinger’s asshole
reply
😑
reply
👀
reply
😵‍💫
reply
Use Reddit and X
reply
Why though?
reply
Since journalism today is a joke
Too many incompetent and unqualified journalists today
For science topics you get more feedback on social media
reply
Makes sense! Thank you
reply
I've always thought that journalists are notable for their arrogance. They think they know everything. He has an opinion about everything, but most of the time in a very simple way
"The doctor thinks he is God. The journalist is sure"
reply
it doesn't differs from Inca's human sacrifice "science"
reply
It was always there, so easy, so available
reply