/sci/ - Science & Math

>>15415791
so basically they just told the AI exactly what to look for?
lol pic related

The relationship between "science journalist" and their readers does appear to be an abusive one at times.
Someone would write a paper about it.

They're not anti-science.
Everyone is anti-perversion of science for personal agendas.


Also there's the problem of trust by association, as I'll call it cause I don't know what else to name it. Basically if you are not a trust worthy person, all you need to do is stand next to someone who is trust worthy, get them to say they vouch for you, and all the trust that person once had is now your own. Politicians barter and trade their trust like a commodity this way. Celebrities do this when they endorse a product in an advertisement. There is no central body of science, and pretty much anyone can appropriate the trust that's been earned by science over the years for their own ends. I think people have figured out they can abuse science this way, so there's been a feeding frenzy on the trust associated with science, but more importantly and tragically everyone knows this is the game now and the only solution people can come up with is destroy science. Really, the problem is the people misappropriating the trust in science for their own ends. They are the real problem, and if you destroy science, those people will remain, and move onto the next scam.
People need to learn to pick their battles wisely.

>>12402108
There is: Because when a result is initially publicized, journalists go full retard and exaggerate it. If all the facts are gathered first (Which does in fact take years if not decades if it's absolutely anything to do with biology, paleontology, or chemistry), then it's a lot harder for journos to sensationalize. This shitty webcomic is actually relevant for once in its sad life.

https://nypost.com/2020/05/19/nasa-finds-evidence-of-parallel-universe-where-time-runs-backward-report/?utm_source=reddit.com

FUCK YOU POP SCIENCE AND SENSATIONAL JOURNALISM!!!

>BRAVE YOUNG BILLION IQ WOMAN SINGLE HANDEDLY DISCOVERS BLACK HOLES

>>9625393

This.

>>9437494
The cartoon pretty well sums it up.
Popular media is in the business of grabbing your eyes (and your wallet) and "informing you" comes in a poor second.
How often do you see "One Weird Trick which does Something Miraculous:?

Even Scientific American has been "dumbed down" somewhat from what it used to be.
If you want non-sensationalized reporting, try Quanta, which is free on-line.
https://www.quantamagazine.org/

>>8617749
I'm a freshman in uni. I recently switched from a meme degree to civil engineering. I'm very behind on math due to the poor quality of the public education system of the Deep South.

Am I being overly ambitious? The only math class I'm taking right now is pre-calc. I'm studying a few hours a day using khan academy and so far I'm making good progress, but I'm not sure how steep the learning curve is. My plan is to spend the rest of this semester and all of summer studying every day. If I stick to this, will I be adequately prepared by the start of my Fall semester?

Should scientists get more media training?

Speaking from personal experience, I think they should. A while back I authored a high profile paper, and was subsequently approached by journalists. In interviews I didn't want to sacrifice accuracy for simplicity, which resulted in a few newspapers publishing things that completely missed the point of the article or were simply wrong. I've learned from this experience, of course, but I think a little bit of media training could have prevented the whole ordeal.

Moreover, as is quite clear at the moment, scientists are simply not vocal enough when it comes to important issues. For instance, if many scientists would openly speak out in the press against Trump's stance on climate change, it'd be harder for him to get away with blatantly denying what is scientific consensus.

We need to be able to communicate our findings to the public, so it seems strange that we never formally learn how to do that most effectively.

>>7934158
Here's how it probably went down
>so you work at nasa?
>yeah
>do you think our universe is a simulation
>I guess it technically could be, but it's most likely n-
>"NASA SAYS UNIVERSE IS SIMULATION"

>>7228879
It's not unconfirmed. Someone just said it in passing and now it's being taken as fact.

This comic has never been more true.

>>7169450
pic very related

>>7143614

>>6298033

>>6030080
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KCuq1DNGzQw

Pic is kinda related.

Which non-proprietary programming language is the best for pure mathematics .

It's true but media is taking the words out of context and out of proportion.

>>5539402