3 ms·
RE: the argument that the scientific process forces headlines to be better aggregated than delivered immediately, because it takes a long time for the public to
by irollboozers 14y ago
RE: the argument that the scientific process forces headlines to be better aggregated than delivered immediately, because it takes a long time for the public to digest and analyze the findings of a paper.
I x-posted this question on 4chan:
"Science news articles and headlines don't really exist. I mean, you can always subscribe to Science or Nature or what have you and get your news that way, or through some other peer-reviewed journal's online offerings, but because of the nature of scientific publications, "Oh fuck some new things is out", followed a month later by, "Those fucks didn't do their experiment correctly", you'll generally get better and more accurate information by following news aggregators.
The only reason I'd recommend following the as-it-happens scientific literature is if you're a PhD in the field and can understand the pedantry that they'll discuss at length, all while trying to find where they fucked up. If you just want to see the occassional bit of cool shit, just subscribe to /r/science or something on reddit"
- irollboozers 14y agoMy response on 4chan: "two contradictions: 1) higgs boson one of the most live streamed events ever, and hugely viral outside of the physics community. people were streaming directly into the presentation at cern. 2) mars curiosity arguably the largest scientific event to have happened on the internet. people were watching a livestream at NASA, and also watching a direct simulation of the landing. twitter hashtags and facebook shares, galore. other events like the lunar eclipse are showing that the general public want to be in on the scientific action, as-it-happens."