4 ms·
No, we're debating whether we should listen to the charlatans that present us our science. Every time I read a pop-sci article and then go check the original re
by malandrew 7y ago
No, we're debating whether we should listen to the charlatans that present us our science. Every time I read a pop-sci article and then go check the original research paper I find out that the pop-sci journalist completely misrepresented the research they are writing about, usually due to a mix of trying to get more clicks and Hanlon's Razor (incompetence).
Most people don't have the skills to be able to listen to science. They don't know how to read and interpret and abstract and then dig in further and read an entire scholarly peer-reviewed paper. That's just part of the problem. The other part is that most people are completely innumerate.
- ryacko 7y agoBased on what I’ve read from old library archives, quality changed for popular science type magazines after the 1950s. Everything becomes closer to being ads, or just glosses over the basic details. I doubt it is intentional, the journalists now aren’t capable of understanding, but they know how to write things in a way to get as many clicks.
- pier25 7y ago> No, we're debating whether we should listen to the charlatans that present us our science. I'm sure some do, but considering the huge number of deniers and their effect on government policy humanity's biggest issue is not understanding the facts (established by science) of climate change.