31 ms·

Intersting, however, there is something about this format of headline that always makes me twitch a bit inside. There should be a law of scientific headlines, s

Intersting, however, there is something about this format of headline that always makes me twitch a bit inside. There should be a law of scientific headlines, something along the lines: Whenever a reporter writes, "Scientists finally discover why...." you can be sure to interpret as "Scientists have even more questions about why...". The phrasing confuses the understanding of the general public about how sciences and scientists actually work.

endymi0n 4y ago
Interestingly, that's my main gripe about scientists. Rarely does any of them actually dare to find anything out and settle a case. You can bet your aunt that the conclusion ends with "further research is warranted"... how better to secure your job!
pvaldes 4y ago
The main problems is that hides the name of companies and laboratories under an anonymous goop. Is not different than saying: "programmers invented a phone called i-phone" or "politicians gave an speech". Is stupid. The second problem is that gives the false feeling that science works like a religion, where everybody has the same ideas and moves in the same direction as in a priesthood following divine rules. Couldn't be more wrong and damaging. Saying "scientists" does not add relevant info. "We finally figured out why..." or using the passive voice would be the same, but less insulting. "A team in the university/company X" would be even better. Is the right way to show a minimum respect by all the hard work of this people. Journalists don't do this by inertia because science was never in their pool of potential customers paying for advertisement, so they traditionally "don't deserve" the right to be treated as individuals. And when they pay, here comes the overcompensation. The equally annoying opposite effect, where entire articles are centered around worshiping the person. Building a polished public image of TV celebrity. All his bullshit about their epic journeys and how they managed to help everybody despite everybody putting obstacles in the path. If you are lucky, you can find a couple of lines about the real discovery, placed between a photo of somebody eating ramen and another doing surf.
GuB-42 4y ago
One analogy I like is to imagine our scientific knowledge as on a land map. We have a large sheet of all there is to know. There is a small area in the middle that is mapped, that's what we know, it is surrounded by blank space, that's what we don't know. As we explore further, the small area expands, but by doing so, its border also expands, meaning that the more we know, the more unknown we are exposed to. We expanded the area a little on the tardigrade side, so as expected, it revealed more areas to explore than what we discovered. As a general rule, science more often expands our borders than fills up holes, meaning that the more we know, the more we realize the extent of what we don't know.
- Kaijo 4y ago
  "Knowledge is like a sphere, the greater its volume, the larger its contact with the unknown." – Blaise Pascal
- shagie 4y ago
  The illustrated guide to a Ph.D. - https://matt.might.net/articles/phd-school-in-pictures/ https://matt.might.net/articles/phd-school-in-pictures/ > Every fall, I explain to a fresh batch of Ph.D. students what a Ph.D. is. > It's hard to describe it in words. > So, I use pictures.
sarreph 4y ago
Not the same but analogous to Betteridge's law of headlines[0]: "Any headline that ends in a question mark can be answered by the word no." [0] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Betteridge%27s_law_of_headlines https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Betteridge%27s_law_of_headline...
giantg2 4y ago
Yep, it's the same pattern of thinking generally in the media and populous. Some law or politician 'solved' some problem. Then you dig deeper and see they changed how they count the stats to hide it, or just shifted the problem to some other part of the system that isn't really any better. Or eating eggs will kill. Next they're healthy so eat as many as you want. No, let's go back to them being unhealthy.
stronglikedan 4y ago
I think it's a fair headline, since they did find out why. It's just that, in science at least, every answer opens up a new set of questions, indefinitely IMHO.

endymi0n 4y ago

Interestingly, that's my main gripe about scientists. Rarely does any of them actually dare to find anything out and settle a case. You can bet your aunt that the conclusion ends with "further research is warranted"... how better to secure your job!

pvaldes 4y ago

The main problems is that hides the name of companies and laboratories under an anonymous goop. Is not different than saying: "programmers invented a phone called i-phone" or "politicians gave an speech". Is stupid. The second problem is that gives the false feeling that science works like a religion, where everybody has the same ideas and moves in the same direction as in a priesthood following divine rules. Couldn't be more wrong and damaging. Saying "scientists" does not add relevant info. "We finally figured out why..." or using the passive voice would be the same, but less insulting. "A team in the university/company X" would be even better. Is the right way to show a minimum respect by all the hard work of this people. Journalists don't do this by inertia because science was never in their pool of potential customers paying for advertisement, so they traditionally "don't deserve" the right to be treated as individuals. And when they pay, here comes the overcompensation. The equally annoying opposite effect, where entire articles are centered around worshiping the person. Building a polished public image of TV celebrity. All his bullshit about their epic journeys and how they managed to help everybody despite everybody putting obstacles in the path. If you are lucky, you can find a couple of lines about the real discovery, placed between a photo of somebody eating ramen and another doing surf.

GuB-42 4y ago

One analogy I like is to imagine our scientific knowledge as on a land map. We have a large sheet of all there is to know. There is a small area in the middle that is mapped, that's what we know, it is surrounded by blank space, that's what we don't know. As we explore further, the small area expands, but by doing so, its border also expands, meaning that the more we know, the more unknown we are exposed to. We expanded the area a little on the tardigrade side, so as expected, it revealed more areas to explore than what we discovered. As a general rule, science more often expands our borders than fills up holes, meaning that the more we know, the more we realize the extent of what we don't know.

Kaijo 4y ago
"Knowledge is like a sphere, the greater its volume, the larger its contact with the unknown." – Blaise Pascal
shagie 4y ago
The illustrated guide to a Ph.D. - https://matt.might.net/articles/phd-school-in-pictures/ https://matt.might.net/articles/phd-school-in-pictures/ > Every fall, I explain to a fresh batch of Ph.D. students what a Ph.D. is. > It's hard to describe it in words. > So, I use pictures.

sarreph 4y ago

Not the same but analogous to Betteridge's law of headlines[0]: "Any headline that ends in a question mark can be answered by the word no." [0] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Betteridge%27s_law_of_headlines https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Betteridge%27s_law_of_headline...

giantg2 4y ago

Yep, it's the same pattern of thinking generally in the media and populous. Some law or politician 'solved' some problem. Then you dig deeper and see they changed how they count the stats to hide it, or just shifted the problem to some other part of the system that isn't really any better. Or eating eggs will kill. Next they're healthy so eat as many as you want. No, let's go back to them being unhealthy.

stronglikedan 4y ago

I think it's a fair headline, since they did find out why. It's just that, in science at least, every answer opens up a new set of questions, indefinitely IMHO.