You're viewing a single thread.
We really need to stop calling it a theory, because the lowest common denominator has no clue what it actually means.
I understand why you're saying that, but I would say that scientific terms shouldn't be changed just to appeal to the lowest common denominator. That isn't science, that's PR.
Now we do have a lack of good science communicators. A lot of people don't like Neil DeGrasse-Tyson, although there seems to be less hate for Bill Nye. We sure could use a guy like Carl Sagan these days though. I think what Sagan really understood and was able to do in a way that people who came after him just couldn't replicate was getting people to understand science through the wonder of it all. To show them that the real universe is a far more interesting place than anything they might read in any book of fiction from thousands of years ago.
The article that was posted earlier today about how oil and gas firms are twisting scientists words to make “uncertainty” (which is a confidence interval, not “we’re not sure”) I’m pretty sure we need to stop using certain words. At this point, PR is a major part of scientists jobs. Just like managing communications is a major part of programmers jobs, even though there’s a huge belief that programmers can’t talk to others. I won’t hire someone who can’t work with nor communicate with others. The same should apply to scientists.
Scientists' words will always be twisted, regardless of what words they use. I agree that some words seem to sow confusion even within research fields, but I worry that attempting to change things may lead to an
A book that has really stuck with me is "Merchants of a Doubt", which looks at how often the muddying the waters comes from a handful of scientists, who are presumably getting paid a bunch to do so, but not in a way that's easy to debunk. The problem is that science is muddy by nature, so scientists learn how to wade through mud (ideally) and work around and through it. I'm of the belief that the way forward will require for science in general to become more accessible to people in general, because I think the epistemically privileged nature of science is deepening distrust i.e. we are taught to trust science(TM) and only scientists are allowed to challenge other scientists. This makes sense, but I think it fosters a sense of distrust in people who I honestly can't blame for feeling like the system doesn't care about them.
I'm feeling like maybe blind trust in institutions might just be an untenably bad situation, because I'm a scientist and I don't know whether scientific education in the model of "scientific communication happens when the Scientists(TM) come down from their ivory towers and gift the common folk with knowledge, who are not allowed to question or add to this knowledge, unless they become a member of Science(TM) (or they are a person to whom science is done to
We sure could use a guy like Carl Sagan these days though
Much love to Sagan but I don't agree, Sagan would have had the same issue if FB was around.
An example he'd be all in on clinate change like he was even back when he was testifying to congress and you think the digital dipshits be "oh well, if Sagan says it color me convinced" ?
There are others eg Brian Cox, (UK) James Hansen (US and a boat load of others all ignnored.
“It has been said that astronomy is a humbling and character-building experience. There is perhaps no better demonstration of the folly of human conceits than this distant image of our tiny world. To me, it underscores our responsibility to deal more kindly with one another and to preserve and cherish the pale blue dot, the only home we've ever known.”
We do have a number of great communicators out there, many are Youtube channel creators. They just aren't as likely to get to the majority of regular people since someone would need to start looking for answers to trigger the algorithm.
Some of the best Sagan public moments were on the Tonight Show with Carson. And Carson being a great host knew when to shut up and let a guest talk, but I think when Sagan was on Carson shut up because he was fascinated with what Sagan would say.
Sorry, I meant a lack of communicators with the recognition of someone like Sagan. And we need to find a way to get those science communicators on the late night talk shows circuit like Sagan.
A lot of people don’t like Neil DeGrasse-Tyson, although there seems to be less hate for Bill Nye.
I wonder white the difference could be?
I'm sure that's it for some people and I personally like him, but he does have a bit of an ego on him and I think that turns people off.
Is Bill Nye's ego not at least as large, though?
(I feel like I should point out that I don't think either of them are wrong for having a bit of an ego. It's really hard to be right all the time and surrounded by a sea of idiots without turning into an exasperated jerk -- frankly, I think they should both be commended for resisting assholery as well as they do.)
I honestly barely pay attention to BIll Nye because I used to watch him on Almost Live, so it's basically impossible for me to take him seriously, so you're asking the wrong person.
Admittedly, I never watched Bill Nye Saves the World, so I don't know firsthand how egotistical (or otherwise) he was. But still, that title alone says something...
I did watch the obscure Planet Green show Living with Ed, however, in which Bill Nye was portrayed as the rival/antagonist and kind of an asshole. Who knows how much that was being played up for the camera, though.
Bill's TV career started in sketch comedy (hence me being unable to take him seriously), so I wouldn't be shocked if it was played up for the cameras.
Well, he's not just a science ambassador, he's an actual SCIENTIST. Imagine having all that knowledge and experience and doing the real work of being a scientist and then having to go out there on the daily and meet with people who tell you with full confidence the Earth is flat. How long could you keep up an unyielding pleasant demeanor?
I'm sure I'd come off egotistical too.
I probably would as well, but Sagan didn't and that's a skill that's very hard to master. Unfortunately, that's also a very necessary skill when trying to communicate science with people ready to attack you.
For me it's just his approach to talk about things. I had hope for him taking the reins of a new Cosmos, but he's not Sagan and it didn't work. As for Bill Nye, I always preferred Beakman for the same reason, personality.