4 ms·

> Matt Levines of, say, chemistry or drug development Neil deGrasse Tyson, Sabine Hossenfelder, Brian Greene and many others cover astrophysics, quantum mechan

> Matt Levines of, say, chemistry or drug development Neil deGrasse Tyson, Sabine Hossenfelder, Brian Greene and many others cover astrophysics, quantum mechanics, particle physics, and other science topics. I think the challenge is that the sciences are hard and developments there are fairly slow as compared with financial stuff which moves a bit more quickly.

deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
bmitc 2y ago
> Neil deGrasse Tyson, Sabine Hossenfelder, Brian Greene None of those three "cover" any topics. They push their own topics and agenda, which can often be fringe or counterculture and highly personal pet preferences or topics. Tyson, in particular, just likes to hear himself talk above all else, took 11 years to get his PhD, was kicked out of the UT Austin PhD program, is often wrong, and is a living breathing example of "well, actually". These three are about as far from journalism as you can get and are actively hurtful, at least in the case of Greene and Tyson due to their popularity, to science.
- A4ET8a8uTh0 2y ago
  I don't want to pile on here, because Neil did do some good in popularizing science. He did not really manage to make it cool, but he did become a popular mainstream figure that the public was now allowed to associate with a mental image of a science nerd ( a big step given that previous media iterations were invariably a caricature straight from revenge of the nerds ). The problem.. as it often tends to be in instances such as this.. is that he did become a faux celebrity with all the benefits and drawbacks it brings. Unlike another celebrity in that realm however ( Hawking ), he did not manage to get the same level of recognition.
- The_Colonel 2y ago
  > Sabine Hossenfelder Check her YT channel - full of clickbait content outside of her expertise. Quite sad actually. https://www.youtube.com/user/peppermint78 https://www.youtube.com/user/peppermint78 Sean Carroll would be a better example, although his reach is limited.
  - bmitc 2y ago
    Physicists are in general the worst science "journalists" as they often think they know everything outside of their domain and confidently comment on such. Meanwhile, physics is actually the easiest science in a sense due to its ability to greatly rely on a broad set of simplifying assumptions in both theory and experiment, making them the least qualified for more complex science and systems, generally speaking.
NoboruWataya 2y ago
I suspect the sciences also aren't as "juicy" for want of a better word. Finance is a very human field and there is huge scope for interpersonal conflict and drama, which people love to read about.
- vlovich123 2y ago
  If you think there isn't interpersonal conflict & drama, you're not listening to the arguments between the proponents of string theory, quantum gravity, and people like Roger Penrose who are somewhat skeptical of both. More likely that because finance involves money, and huge amounts of it, and a lot of people are interested about things that involve huge amounts of money, especially if there's drama.
  - nsbshssh 2y ago
    That is the same drama on loop. It gets boring from a news point of view. Finance finds new suckers and schemers every day, so is a drama mill.
    - vlovich123 2y ago
      You just restated what I originally said: > I think the challenge is that the sciences are hard and developments there are fairly slow as compared with financial stuff which moves a bit more quickly.
ozzydave 2y ago
I’d say Matt O’Dowd of PBS Space Time is the closest to Levine’s role?

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]

bmitc 2y ago

> Neil deGrasse Tyson, Sabine Hossenfelder, Brian Greene None of those three "cover" any topics. They push their own topics and agenda, which can often be fringe or counterculture and highly personal pet preferences or topics. Tyson, in particular, just likes to hear himself talk above all else, took 11 years to get his PhD, was kicked out of the UT Austin PhD program, is often wrong, and is a living breathing example of "well, actually". These three are about as far from journalism as you can get and are actively hurtful, at least in the case of Greene and Tyson due to their popularity, to science.

A4ET8a8uTh0 2y ago
I don't want to pile on here, because Neil did do some good in popularizing science. He did not really manage to make it cool, but he did become a popular mainstream figure that the public was now allowed to associate with a mental image of a science nerd ( a big step given that previous media iterations were invariably a caricature straight from revenge of the nerds ). The problem.. as it often tends to be in instances such as this.. is that he did become a faux celebrity with all the benefits and drawbacks it brings. Unlike another celebrity in that realm however ( Hawking ), he did not manage to get the same level of recognition.
The_Colonel 2y ago
> Sabine Hossenfelder Check her YT channel - full of clickbait content outside of her expertise. Quite sad actually. https://www.youtube.com/user/peppermint78 https://www.youtube.com/user/peppermint78 Sean Carroll would be a better example, although his reach is limited.
- bmitc 2y ago
  Physicists are in general the worst science "journalists" as they often think they know everything outside of their domain and confidently comment on such. Meanwhile, physics is actually the easiest science in a sense due to its ability to greatly rely on a broad set of simplifying assumptions in both theory and experiment, making them the least qualified for more complex science and systems, generally speaking.

NoboruWataya 2y ago

I suspect the sciences also aren't as "juicy" for want of a better word. Finance is a very human field and there is huge scope for interpersonal conflict and drama, which people love to read about.

vlovich123 2y ago
If you think there isn't interpersonal conflict & drama, you're not listening to the arguments between the proponents of string theory, quantum gravity, and people like Roger Penrose who are somewhat skeptical of both. More likely that because finance involves money, and huge amounts of it, and a lot of people are interested about things that involve huge amounts of money, especially if there's drama.
- nsbshssh 2y ago
  That is the same drama on loop. It gets boring from a news point of view. Finance finds new suckers and schemers every day, so is a drama mill.
  - vlovich123 2y ago
    You just restated what I originally said: > I think the challenge is that the sciences are hard and developments there are fairly slow as compared with financial stuff which moves a bit more quickly.

ozzydave 2y ago

I’d say Matt O’Dowd of PBS Space Time is the closest to Levine’s role?