3 ms·

This book appears to be pretty poor: their main argument is that we need more PR people to 'inform' the public about science. Given that ridiculously exaggerat

This book appears to be pretty poor: their main argument is that we need more PR people to 'inform' the public about science. Given that ridiculously exaggerated press releases, written by PR people - which become the basis for overblown media stories with titles like 'cure for cancer discovered' or 'scientists find fat gene' - are probably a large factor responsible for the skepticism that a lot of people have for science, I'd say we actually need less PR people.

hughprime 17y ago
Or maybe we just need better PR people. A world with a few more Carl Sagans, Richard Dawkinses and others who are seriously scientifically literate but spend a great deal of their time working on explaining things to the public at large could hardly be a bad thing.
- skolor 17y ago
  I would not consider Carl Sagan or Richard Dawkins "PR people". While they do educate the public, "PR people" tends to refer to someone who has an active interest in a particular side of an issue, rather than a general interest in educating the public.
- whatusername 17y ago
  Perhaps not quite in the same league as those mentioned, but have a look at Dr Karl ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karl_Kruszelnicki http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karl_Kruszelnicki ) He does exactly that - and while not completely a household name, he is reasonably well known.
  - hughprime 17y ago
    Yes, I'm familiar with him -- his office used to be two floors down from mine, in fact! And yes, I kinda had him in mind too, when writing my comment. More Kruszelnickis as well as more Dawkinses would make the world a better place.
- billswift 17y ago
  I have read and enjoyed much of Sagan's later work, unfortunately I ignored him for a long time, largely because of his participation in the bogus and thoroughly politicized TTAPS study that invented "nuclear winter". If you want to be taken seriously as a scientist don't let your political beliefs run away with your brain, even temporarily. Stephen Jay Gould is worthless, I won't waste any time any more reading any of his work.

hughprime 17y ago

Or maybe we just need better PR people. A world with a few more Carl Sagans, Richard Dawkinses and others who are seriously scientifically literate but spend a great deal of their time working on explaining things to the public at large could hardly be a bad thing.

skolor 17y ago
I would not consider Carl Sagan or Richard Dawkins "PR people". While they do educate the public, "PR people" tends to refer to someone who has an active interest in a particular side of an issue, rather than a general interest in educating the public.
whatusername 17y ago
Perhaps not quite in the same league as those mentioned, but have a look at Dr Karl ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karl_Kruszelnicki http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karl_Kruszelnicki ) He does exactly that - and while not completely a household name, he is reasonably well known.
- hughprime 17y ago
  Yes, I'm familiar with him -- his office used to be two floors down from mine, in fact! And yes, I kinda had him in mind too, when writing my comment. More Kruszelnickis as well as more Dawkinses would make the world a better place.
billswift 17y ago
I have read and enjoyed much of Sagan's later work, unfortunately I ignored him for a long time, largely because of his participation in the bogus and thoroughly politicized TTAPS study that invented "nuclear winter". If you want to be taken seriously as a scientist don't let your political beliefs run away with your brain, even temporarily. Stephen Jay Gould is worthless, I won't waste any time any more reading any of his work.