3 ms·
You're right that reviews and textbooks do valuable distillation, but I'd claim we can do much much better. I think we can distill things massively better -- c
by colah3 10y ago
You're right that reviews and textbooks do valuable distillation, but I'd claim we can do much much better.
I think we can distill things massively better -- create massively better explanations and ways of thinking about ideas -- if only we invested more in it. It isn't just when the distillation happens, it's the quality.
That's a really bold claim and all I can do is point to the occasional example where someone put effort into distilling and did something wonderful. My intuition is that these aren't one-off miracles, but are the expected result when the community takes this really seriously.
The problem is that distillation is requires focused energy. Reviews and textbooks give us a bit, but it's diffuse. I think we can do much better, and I hope we'll be able to demonstrate that with Distill.
- mncharity 10y ago> distillation [] requires focused energy As well as an underappreciated magnitude of expertise. You might like my "Scientific expertise is not broadly distributed - an underappreciated obstacle to creating better content" http://www.clarifyscience.info/part/MHjx6 http://www.clarifyscience.info/part/MHjx6 . > create massively better explanations and ways of thinking about ideas Agreed. My hobby project this month is: assuming it's possible to teach size down to atoms in early primary school [1], could we then leverage that to do a multi-scale interdisciplinary "nucleons-up" introduction to atoms and materials. Current content is so notably incoherent, and leaves both students and teachers so very steeped in misconceptions, that there seems an opportunity for supplemental content, if it can be shaped to work. [1] http://www.clarifyscience.info/part/RBigE http://www.clarifyscience.info/part/RBigE "Remembering Sizes 2015" - the approach seemed promising... the videos didn't.