3 ms·

>If people don't understand stuff they can google it or just not read the article. Or if you are interested beyond an elementary level, you can Google for more

>If people don't understand stuff they can google it or just not read the article. Or if you are interested beyond an elementary level, you can Google for more complicated subject matter. There's more than enough out there to wet your whistle. Do you really think most normal people are going to look further into some random subject they didn't understand? Because that's who the mainstream media is appealing to. One of my pet peeves is coming into these very comment sections and someone criticizing an article for being "dumbed down". If you know the subject matter and find it "easy" then the article was probably not targeted at you. Why ask the author to write a "harder" article?

dredmorbius 10y ago
The reason to demand articles which push the limits of public understanding in discourse of complex topics is because that's the only way you get a more informed public, and more informed discussion. It comes down to basic communications theory -- Claude Shannon stuff (though this may be a comparison made by others, I need to check sources). An informative communication is based on both and established common understanding and new material. The common understanding provides the basis for contextualising the issue, the novel material, for extending the receiver's understanding. A communication which is completely novel simply won't be understood. A communication which is completely known conveys no new information. You need a balance. I think I first encountered this concept in Grammatical Man, a 1980s-ish book by Jeremy Campbell on information and chaos theory, exceptionally well written, and highly recommended. More recently, recalling as I write this, I've seen a plot of the level of understanding of an audience by different types of lecturers. Most start high and proceed low, though it's the specific plots they follow which provide the amusement value. Here we are: The Nine Kinds of Physics Seminar https://manyworldstheory.com/2013/10/03/the-9-kinds-of-physics-seminar/ https://manyworldstheory.com/2013/10/03/the-9-kinds-of-physi...
th0ma5 10y ago
Yes you do have a point. I do also like the other reply to your comment but I do think about your point as well.

dredmorbius 10y ago

The reason to demand articles which push the limits of public understanding in discourse of complex topics is because that's the only way you get a more informed public, and more informed discussion. It comes down to basic communications theory -- Claude Shannon stuff (though this may be a comparison made by others, I need to check sources). An informative communication is based on both and established common understanding and new material. The common understanding provides the basis for contextualising the issue, the novel material, for extending the receiver's understanding. A communication which is completely novel simply won't be understood. A communication which is completely known conveys no new information. You need a balance. I think I first encountered this concept in Grammatical Man, a 1980s-ish book by Jeremy Campbell on information and chaos theory, exceptionally well written, and highly recommended. More recently, recalling as I write this, I've seen a plot of the level of understanding of an audience by different types of lecturers. Most start high and proceed low, though it's the specific plots they follow which provide the amusement value. Here we are: The Nine Kinds of Physics Seminar https://manyworldstheory.com/2013/10/03/the-9-kinds-of-physics-seminar/ https://manyworldstheory.com/2013/10/03/the-9-kinds-of-physi...

th0ma5 10y ago

Yes you do have a point. I do also like the other reply to your comment but I do think about your point as well.