5 ms·

I have, for a long time, dismissed Scientific American as a pointless work of marketing. This article, on the other hand, makes me think I may be missing some t

by tocs3 2y ago

I have, for a long time, dismissed Scientific American as a pointless work of marketing. This article, on the other hand, makes me think I may be missing some things. The problem is stated in an interesting way that might be broadly understood and enjoyed. It gives some results that are explained well and easily understood. It also leaves some open questions that can be explored, letting the explorer dream about settling some famous open problem. The perfect sort of thing for high school math (and an old guy killing some time). Thank you Manon Bischoff (author), Daisy Yuhas (editor), and Scientific American for giving me this to think about.

deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
tombert 2y ago
I've never really done it at any advanced level, but I think good "science communication for the masses" is just a really hard problem. I say that because it seems like there's an overwhelming amount of really bad science communication out there. You have creators like Veratasium on YouTube, who I think do really great jobs making a lot of science and mathematical topics interesting to nearly everyone, but there's also a lot of articles that are either very boring, incorrect, overpromising, or some combination of the three.
- dylan604 2y ago
  My main issue is when the author assumes the reader knows much more about a topic and just glosses over salient details on that assumption. It's not necessarily intentional by the author, and is more of an editorial problem. When you're speaking with someone or a group, you can see the looks on people's faces if you're losing them, or they interrupt asking for more details. In a written piece, that is not possible and a target base level needs to be set with details for that level to follow along. It's up to the editor to go back to the author for that information if things are being glossed over.
  - ziddoap 2y ago
    https://xkcd.com/2501/ https://xkcd.com/2501/
  - tombert 2y ago
    It's a fine art; if you were to go into detail about every single thing mentioned by your article, your article would be hundreds of pages long and probably a pretty boring and dry read, but if you don't go into enough detail you risk it being difficult for most of the population. I agree it's up to the editor to figure out where to draw that line, and a lot of them aren't terribly good at that.
- JTbane 2y ago
  > I think good "science communication for the masses" is just a really hard problem. Not only is it hard, but there are tons of examples of hoaxes that spread like wildfire. The latest I can remember were the room-temperature superconductor papers.
  - tombert 2y ago
    Yeah, I'm still disappointed by that one. I was super excited by the LK99 stuff; I don't know if that was a "hoax", but it was definitely bad science that took the media by storm. I think that the problem is that there's effectively an infinite amount of science and it changes and updates all the time, so it's impossible to be truly "caught up" with everything, and most studies are already in pretty specific niche subjects that require a lot of understanding on that niche subject. Most people doing science communication can't possibly learn it all, and most certainly aren't equipped to call out fraud of bad science in a paper, so they have to take the papers at their word. I mean, before I dropped my PhD, I was studying formal methods in computer science. I got reasonably good with state machine models in Isabelle, so you'd think I'd be competent with "formal methods" as a concept, but not really. If I were try and read a paper on, I don't know, "Cubic Type Theory with Agda", I would have to do a lot of catching up, almost starting from scratch, and I think I'm probably better equipped than the average software engineer for that. Even if I got to a state of more-or-less understanding it, I would certainly not be equipped to call out bad science or math or fraud or anything like that.
2muchcoffeeman 2y ago
I used to be a subscriber for years a long time ago. I’m not sure where you got this opinion unless you are basing things on recent years. There was always something interesting in them.
- kelipso 2y ago
  It's kind of the default opinion in academia. Same goes for most popsci stuff I guess.
- tocs3 2y ago
  I used to enjoy the magazine and am basing my negative opinion (expressed above) on reading experience on more recent readings. I used to enjoy the amateur scientist and mathematical recreation the most. Then those sections disappeared. I have not been reading it recently so maybe things have changed some.
  - wrs 2y ago
    You are not wrong. Check the archives before the 2000s and it’s a very different magazine. A while back, the editorial direction changed. It used to be aimed at scientists who might be in a different field from the article, or amateurs/nonscientists who were at that level. Then it became more for nonscientists who are somewhat interested in the topic. The new editors seemed to wish it was Discover magazine, and now it basically is. Bear in mind this is a magazine that published complete plans for building an argon laser in your garage. Including the glassblowing.
    - 2muchcoffeeman 2y ago
      I only had a subscription during the early 2000s. I think it was still a good magazine. There were still some interesting articles and things to learn.
  - 2muchcoffeeman 2y ago
    Yes, I fully agree. It’s 2025 now, so it’s actually been bad for a while. I do sometimes wonder if I should get a current subscription to get access to the archive though.
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
fastball 2y ago
Eh, this is kinda blogspam. It's been well-covered by others in the past.

by tocs3 2y ago

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]

tombert 2y ago

I've never really done it at any advanced level, but I think good "science communication for the masses" is just a really hard problem. I say that because it seems like there's an overwhelming amount of really bad science communication out there. You have creators like Veratasium on YouTube, who I think do really great jobs making a lot of science and mathematical topics interesting to nearly everyone, but there's also a lot of articles that are either very boring, incorrect, overpromising, or some combination of the three.

dylan604 2y ago
My main issue is when the author assumes the reader knows much more about a topic and just glosses over salient details on that assumption. It's not necessarily intentional by the author, and is more of an editorial problem. When you're speaking with someone or a group, you can see the looks on people's faces if you're losing them, or they interrupt asking for more details. In a written piece, that is not possible and a target base level needs to be set with details for that level to follow along. It's up to the editor to go back to the author for that information if things are being glossed over.
- ziddoap 2y ago
  https://xkcd.com/2501/ https://xkcd.com/2501/
- tombert 2y ago
  It's a fine art; if you were to go into detail about every single thing mentioned by your article, your article would be hundreds of pages long and probably a pretty boring and dry read, but if you don't go into enough detail you risk it being difficult for most of the population. I agree it's up to the editor to figure out where to draw that line, and a lot of them aren't terribly good at that.
JTbane 2y ago
> I think good "science communication for the masses" is just a really hard problem. Not only is it hard, but there are tons of examples of hoaxes that spread like wildfire. The latest I can remember were the room-temperature superconductor papers.
- tombert 2y ago
  Yeah, I'm still disappointed by that one. I was super excited by the LK99 stuff; I don't know if that was a "hoax", but it was definitely bad science that took the media by storm. I think that the problem is that there's effectively an infinite amount of science and it changes and updates all the time, so it's impossible to be truly "caught up" with everything, and most studies are already in pretty specific niche subjects that require a lot of understanding on that niche subject. Most people doing science communication can't possibly learn it all, and most certainly aren't equipped to call out fraud of bad science in a paper, so they have to take the papers at their word. I mean, before I dropped my PhD, I was studying formal methods in computer science. I got reasonably good with state machine models in Isabelle, so you'd think I'd be competent with "formal methods" as a concept, but not really. If I were try and read a paper on, I don't know, "Cubic Type Theory with Agda", I would have to do a lot of catching up, almost starting from scratch, and I think I'm probably better equipped than the average software engineer for that. Even if I got to a state of more-or-less understanding it, I would certainly not be equipped to call out bad science or math or fraud or anything like that.

2muchcoffeeman 2y ago

I used to be a subscriber for years a long time ago. I’m not sure where you got this opinion unless you are basing things on recent years. There was always something interesting in them.

kelipso 2y ago
It's kind of the default opinion in academia. Same goes for most popsci stuff I guess.
tocs3 2y ago
I used to enjoy the magazine and am basing my negative opinion (expressed above) on reading experience on more recent readings. I used to enjoy the amateur scientist and mathematical recreation the most. Then those sections disappeared. I have not been reading it recently so maybe things have changed some.
- wrs 2y ago
  You are not wrong. Check the archives before the 2000s and it’s a very different magazine. A while back, the editorial direction changed. It used to be aimed at scientists who might be in a different field from the article, or amateurs/nonscientists who were at that level. Then it became more for nonscientists who are somewhat interested in the topic. The new editors seemed to wish it was Discover magazine, and now it basically is. Bear in mind this is a magazine that published complete plans for building an argon laser in your garage. Including the glassblowing.
  - 2muchcoffeeman 2y ago
    I only had a subscription during the early 2000s. I think it was still a good magazine. There were still some interesting articles and things to learn.
- 2muchcoffeeman 2y ago
  Yes, I fully agree. It’s 2025 now, so it’s actually been bad for a while. I do sometimes wonder if I should get a current subscription to get access to the archive though.

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]

fastball 2y ago

Eh, this is kinda blogspam. It's been well-covered by others in the past.