4 ms·

Even science reporters are having a hard time keeping up with what materials science has been up to lately. With no disrespect to them really intended, they can

by jerf 5y ago

Even science reporters are having a hard time keeping up with what materials science has been up to lately. With no disrespect to them really intended, they can just about keep up with the semiconductor world's concept of tracking "holes" rather than electrons, but it seems like going any farther into the quasiparticle world is just too much for them. It's rare to see an article that doesn't have some sort of verbiage that indicates the reporter doesn't really understanding what's going on, if indeed I've ever seen one at all.

jacobolus 5y ago
Are there any recent summaries by materials scientists written for laypeople?
xondono 5y ago
I really wonder how much is willful ignorance for the benefit of clickbait
- mabub24 5y ago
  A lot of reporters don't get final say on the headlines for their articles. That could be the case here.
karaterobot 5y ago
I get that it's hard. Often, I'll read a science article in a blog, or local newspaper, or general-interest magazine. I'll see something obviously incorrect, and say "well, it's not a science outlet, they can't be expected to know the science that well, and they're just explaining it to lay people anyway, so it's good enough. I'll double check this with a reliable science news source." But you'd think if anyone could get it right, and trust their readers to care about them getting it right, it would be Nature! If Nature is going to start going to lower their standards to go after clicks, I dunno what reliable source I'm supposed to double check things with.
- all2 5y ago
  There's a quote about this that I rather like > “Briefly stated, the Gell-Mann Amnesia effect is as follows. You open the newspaper to an article on some subject you know well. In Murray’s case, physics. In mine, show business. You read the article and see the journalist has absolutely no understanding of either the facts or the issues. Often, the article is so wrong it actually presents the story backward—reversing cause and effect. I call these the “wet streets cause rain” stories. Paper’s full of them. > In any case, you read with exasperation or amusement the multiple errors in a story, and then turn the page to national or international affairs, and read as if the rest of the newspaper was somehow more accurate about Palestine than the baloney you just read. You turn the page, and forget what you know.” – Michael Crichton (1942-2008) Pulled from https://www.epsilontheory.com/gell-mann-amnesia/ https://www.epsilontheory.com/gell-mann-amnesia/
- TeMPOraL 5y ago
  > If Nature is going to start going to lower their standards to go after clicks, I dunno what reliable source I'm supposed to double check things with. Reddit. I'm serious. If you search for the discussion about the news article on a right subreddit, or HN, or spelunk Twitter enough, there's a good chance you'll find a domain expert - sometimes even the paper's author themselves, or someone who works with them - explaining the science correctly and/or pointing out the bullshit in the press report. (I wonder if it wouldn't be more efficient if scientists were writing press releases themselves, and the journalists/PR people would be chasing grants for them instead. It seems like a better match for their individual skills anyway.)
  - xnyan 5y ago
    >Reddit >I wonder if it wouldn't be more efficient if scientists were writing press releases themselves Agree, and I think everyone here has experienced the phenomenon where someone on reddit/HN/twitter has explained something far better than a media outlet. The thing to keep in mind when trying to understand this is that absolutely __everyone__ responds to incentives. With a news organization, no matter what that organization is or their goals, the chief incentive is readership, not accuracy or anything else. Not saying that the writers are anything other than well intentioned and honest or that they don't care deeply about the truth, but the reality of mortal existence is to maximize behaviors that you believe benefit you. A news org is benefited by people reading what they say, not by being right. Reddit/twitter/HN often is a better source of truth because people often post because they have a desire to be heard, be understood, share information, tell the truth or some other reason that does not involve selling ads against you reading what they say.
OJFord 5y ago
In undeserved fairness, I think it's 'just' a clickbait headline, and the author does have a better understanding than you suggest. The article quickly explains (even the caption on the lead image) that it's an arrangement within a normal solid sheet. I don't really understand in what sense the internal electron arrangement is 'a solid', but hey, as clickbait, it worked.
- pininja 5y ago
  I think this is the same argument made by Veritasium - poorly summarized: do whatever it takes to hook people in that have never heard the topic before, then teach them something new. https://youtu.be/S2xHZPH5Sng https://youtu.be/S2xHZPH5Sng
  - OJFord 5y ago
    But you make it sound like a good thing! I don't like it at all.

by jerf 5y ago

jacobolus 5y ago

Are there any recent summaries by materials scientists written for laypeople?

xondono 5y ago

I really wonder how much is willful ignorance for the benefit of clickbait

mabub24 5y ago
A lot of reporters don't get final say on the headlines for their articles. That could be the case here.

karaterobot 5y ago

I get that it's hard. Often, I'll read a science article in a blog, or local newspaper, or general-interest magazine. I'll see something obviously incorrect, and say "well, it's not a science outlet, they can't be expected to know the science that well, and they're just explaining it to lay people anyway, so it's good enough. I'll double check this with a reliable science news source." But you'd think if anyone could get it right, and trust their readers to care about them getting it right, it would be Nature! If Nature is going to start going to lower their standards to go after clicks, I dunno what reliable source I'm supposed to double check things with.

all2 5y ago
There's a quote about this that I rather like > “Briefly stated, the Gell-Mann Amnesia effect is as follows. You open the newspaper to an article on some subject you know well. In Murray’s case, physics. In mine, show business. You read the article and see the journalist has absolutely no understanding of either the facts or the issues. Often, the article is so wrong it actually presents the story backward—reversing cause and effect. I call these the “wet streets cause rain” stories. Paper’s full of them. > In any case, you read with exasperation or amusement the multiple errors in a story, and then turn the page to national or international affairs, and read as if the rest of the newspaper was somehow more accurate about Palestine than the baloney you just read. You turn the page, and forget what you know.” – Michael Crichton (1942-2008) Pulled from https://www.epsilontheory.com/gell-mann-amnesia/ https://www.epsilontheory.com/gell-mann-amnesia/
TeMPOraL 5y ago
> If Nature is going to start going to lower their standards to go after clicks, I dunno what reliable source I'm supposed to double check things with. Reddit. I'm serious. If you search for the discussion about the news article on a right subreddit, or HN, or spelunk Twitter enough, there's a good chance you'll find a domain expert - sometimes even the paper's author themselves, or someone who works with them - explaining the science correctly and/or pointing out the bullshit in the press report. (I wonder if it wouldn't be more efficient if scientists were writing press releases themselves, and the journalists/PR people would be chasing grants for them instead. It seems like a better match for their individual skills anyway.)
- xnyan 5y ago
  >Reddit >I wonder if it wouldn't be more efficient if scientists were writing press releases themselves Agree, and I think everyone here has experienced the phenomenon where someone on reddit/HN/twitter has explained something far better than a media outlet. The thing to keep in mind when trying to understand this is that absolutely __everyone__ responds to incentives. With a news organization, no matter what that organization is or their goals, the chief incentive is readership, not accuracy or anything else. Not saying that the writers are anything other than well intentioned and honest or that they don't care deeply about the truth, but the reality of mortal existence is to maximize behaviors that you believe benefit you. A news org is benefited by people reading what they say, not by being right. Reddit/twitter/HN often is a better source of truth because people often post because they have a desire to be heard, be understood, share information, tell the truth or some other reason that does not involve selling ads against you reading what they say.

OJFord 5y ago

In undeserved fairness, I think it's 'just' a clickbait headline, and the author does have a better understanding than you suggest. The article quickly explains (even the caption on the lead image) that it's an arrangement within a normal solid sheet. I don't really understand in what sense the internal electron arrangement is 'a solid', but hey, as clickbait, it worked.

pininja 5y ago
I think this is the same argument made by Veritasium - poorly summarized: do whatever it takes to hook people in that have never heard the topic before, then teach them something new. https://youtu.be/S2xHZPH5Sng https://youtu.be/S2xHZPH5Sng
- OJFord 5y ago
  But you make it sound like a good thing! I don't like it at all.