Nothing Is Unbelievable Anymore.
News1 min ago
Communicating Science With Clarity
1 Answers
https:/
"It’s easy to be discouraged by the apparently grim state of science communication. Politicians and charlatans are promoting conspiracy theories about everything from COVID-19 to climate change. Scientists are ignored by friends and relatives who would rather believe the pseudoscientific claims of a huckster with a podcast. Experts who enter the political and public milieu sometimes find themselves unable to communicate clearly, creating confusion and disdain."
Is is really so bad? If so what can be done about it?
"It’s easy to be discouraged by the apparently grim state of science communication. Politicians and charlatans are promoting conspiracy theories about everything from COVID-19 to climate change. Scientists are ignored by friends and relatives who would rather believe the pseudoscientific claims of a huckster with a podcast. Experts who enter the political and public milieu sometimes find themselves unable to communicate clearly, creating confusion and disdain."
Is is really so bad? If so what can be done about it?
Answers
Only 1 answer
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by ScienceNoob. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
I'd have thought there are more than a few on this site who have their own takes on how well science is communicated here...
I'll try to get back to this tomorrow, but the main point I'd like to make for now is that Science is a process, not an outcome. I think it's easy to overlook this when presenting or discussing a given topic. I don't mean that the present consensus isn't worth learning about, on some assumption that it's likely to be overturned, but what matters is the *method* of Science, and maybe more stress on that would help to challenge pseudoscientific ideas -- which are wrong, not because any given person says so, but because they simply don't survive scrutiny according to the Scientific Method.
I'll try to get back to this tomorrow, but the main point I'd like to make for now is that Science is a process, not an outcome. I think it's easy to overlook this when presenting or discussing a given topic. I don't mean that the present consensus isn't worth learning about, on some assumption that it's likely to be overturned, but what matters is the *method* of Science, and maybe more stress on that would help to challenge pseudoscientific ideas -- which are wrong, not because any given person says so, but because they simply don't survive scrutiny according to the Scientific Method.
Only 1 answer
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.