/sci/ - Science & Math

[Anonymous No.10361982]

Is science communication a meme? Does it have any real effect on the quality/quantity of STEM students or the health of a democracy?

[Anonymous No.10361989]

>>10361982
Idk about that but it clearley makes people to give us more money

[Anonymous No.10362111]

>>10361982
>Does it have any real effect on the quality/
no idea
>quantity of STEM students
yes, positive
>or the health of a democracy?
yes, negative

[Anonymous No.10362331]

>>10361982
In my ideal democracy, they wouldn't even bother canvassing public opinion. Michio Kaku, or someone of a similar caliber (Tyson, Dawkins, Hitchens, Attenborough) would just make the best decisions available for public policy, based on the science that's available. Facts don't care about your feelings... oh sorry, I mean "popular opinion". Go ahead and sage me, snowflakes, but deep down you know I'm right.

[Anonymous No.10362354]

>>10361982
>quantity/quality of STEM students
Positive in terms of quantity, negative in terms of quality

[Anonymous No.10362359]

>>10361982
In the words of David Kellogg Lewis:
>It is not to be demanded that a philosophical theory should agree with anything that the man on the street would insist on offhand, uninformed, and therefore uninfluenced by any theoretical gains to be had by changing his mind. (Especially not if, like many men on the streets nowadays, he would rise to the occasion and wax wildly philosophical at the slightest provocation.)
As such, such texts are meant for scholars, and the scholastic language of that era was Latin (as it still is in some respects today).
That is why it wasn't written in English, because the layperson wasn't the intended audience. Nor should it be.

[Anonymous No.10364331]

>>10361989
In what way? Do politicians care?

[Anonymous No.10364384]

>>10361982

Science journalist for my uni's paper here. It's nice to give grad students and occasional undergrads recognition for their research (for winning a poster prize, publishing a paper, or w/e). Also nice to make their jargon-heavy research accessible, while keeping it fairly rigorous.

I like the work. Probably little impact, but I like talking to researchers. I like writing the articles. Nice to see them happy. Is it a meme? I don't know, but I like doing it.

[Anonymous No.10364441]

>>10364384
Also, you can create really wonderful experiences to read, like Amanda Gefter's "The Man Who Tried to Redeem th'e World with Logic." Not that useful, which is about as useful as most basic science research, and possibly more fun work to do.

[Anonymous No.10364450]

>>10364384, >>10364441 see >>10362359.
Also, filthy journos are the scum of the Earth.

[Anonymous No.10364475]

>>10364450
yah, but that quote is about philosophy not science. Also this guy's referring to heavy analytic philosophy. Easier stuff like Stoicism/Taoism/Confucianism is meant for the masses (like me)

[Anonymous No.10364480]

>>10364475
I'd honestly say it applies to science also, considering much of that is analytical philosophy has a lot of similarities with the hard sciences, and much of it isn't intuitive either.
So no, I'd say that sentiment still very much applies.

[Anonymous No.10364502]

>>10364475
>>10364480
To back that up:
Summary:
>As a philosophical practice,[1][2] it is characterized by an emphasis on argumentative clarity and precision, often making use of formal logic, conceptual analysis, and, to a lesser degree, mathematics and the natural sciences.[3][4][5]
From:
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Analytic_philosophy
Citations listed:
>Brian Leiter (2006) webpage "Analytic" and "Continental" Philosophy. Quote on the definition: "'Analytic' philosophy today names a style of doing philosophy, not a philosophical program or a set of substantive views. Analytic philosophers, crudely speaking, aim for argumentative clarity and precision; draw freely on the tools of logic; and often identify, professionally and intellectually, more closely with the sciences and mathematics, than with the humanities."
>Glock, H.J. (2004). "Was Wittgenstein an Analytic Philosopher?". Metaphilosophy. 35 (4): 419–444.
>Colin McGinn, The Making of a Philosopher: My Journey through Twentieth-Century Philosophy (HarperCollins, 2002), p. xi.: "analytical philosophy [is] too narrow a label, since [it] is not generally a matter of taking a word or concept and analyzing it (whatever exactly thatthat might be). [...] This tradition emphasizes clarity, rigor, argument, theory, truth. It is not a tradition that aims primarily for inspiration or consolation or ideology. Nor is it particularly concerned with 'philosophy of life,' though parts of it are. This kind of philosophy is more like science than religion, more like mathematics than poetry—though it is neither science nor mathematics."

[Anonymous No.10364532]

>>10364502
Interested to learn analytic phil. is more of a technique than a collection of theories.

I don't pretend to understand I'm teaching readers anything much about science. What is understandable is this common, basic story:
>Some guy in your uni made a discovery, and won fame/glory for it
>Here's how they did it (simplified explanation)
>Here's the interesting bit (they hit this psychological challenge of trying to get a grant, and solved it with science communication skills)
>Here are future next steps (that they may not use, but it closes the story off)

Simplification is a compromise. The actual science needs to be accurate enough for the interviewee/most experts not to be alarmed (e.g. this chemist created a filter to reduce carbon emissions).

The real story is the human one, of some guy at your uni achieving fame by overcoming an obstacle. Either by winning an award, forcing a big company like Microsoft to change its software, something like that. The human part's understandable.

Then again, maybe the narrative itself is a bit of artifice, and there's probably more nuance than it may seem. But it makes for good entertainment, and no one gets hurt (certainly, not the interviewee who gets to enjoy the spotlight. I also have more freedom to add more nuance, and not be as click-baitey/ask more personal questions).

Honestly, I don't have any illusions about the meaningfulness of this work. It's fun, I guess. My life might be more accomplished if I focused more on science, went all-in on research. At least, it would be more noble.

But I get to make friends (until they graduate and move away) and enjoy my undergrad more, and I think my life is fairly meaningless anyway, so I don't mind the human contact.

I guess you got me. Waxing philosophical. Either way, it's nice to think about this. I actually have been prioritizing journalism too much. Life might be better in the long-run if I do focus more on my studies.

[Anonymous No.10364597]

>>10362331
Remember to use leeches to cure your illness, its just a fact that they work!

[Anonymous No.10365464]

Bump.

[Anonymous No.10365999]

>>10362354
This, you can't fabricate the science autism unfortunately

[Anonymous No.10366018]

>>10364475
>>10364502
Why was this reply deleted?
Link:
>>>/sci/thread/S10361982#p10364532

[Anonymous No.10366023]

>>10364597
It is.

[Anonymous No.10366185]

>>10362331
You sound underage

[Anonymous No.10366216]

>>10361982
>the health of a democracy
It wasn't until the last decade that the average American felt the Apollo mission wasn't a waste of money.
Science communication is important because if the average citizen doesn't think science is important, they won't want their tax dollars going to it. People like Nye, Tyson, Kaku, etc play an extremely important part in swaying public opinion to be excited about science.
If you sit there in an echo chamber sniffing your own farts and refusing to interact with the unwashed plebeian masses, eventually those masses will not want to fund you anymore, that's where sci comm matters.

[Anonymous No.10366356]

it's very important for future generations to learn to worship science as infallible holy scripture, in order to press out religious zealots from within societies, forcing them to abandon their pagan gods and replace the holy reliquary with iphones, as is foretold by our lord and emissary, Sir Dawkins, the Ardent Militant, Keeper of Knowledge, and Blessed Defender. In His Light shall we Conquer.

[Anonymous No.10366962]

>>10361982
>science communication a meme
Lrn2meme fgt pls