1/ I never fully appreciated how weird public science intellectuals were until halfway through #phdlife. Like, in high school and college I'd read something Gladwell- or NNT}-esque and think,
1. Wow, this is so clear;
2. How can anyone disagree; and,
3. What an absolute genius!
-
Show this thread
-
2/ That clarity (i.e., good scicomm) actively sweeps complexity as well as countervailing evidence and theories (disagreement) under the rug, because of course it does -- those things aren't salable. People buy popsci for that feeling of wonder *and* the resolution uncertainty.
1 reply 0 retweets 6 likesShow this thread -
3/ I don't think that's inherently a problem. Science popularizers are great -- they popularize science! It's that third step that does the real damage. When the communicators become more like heroic Oracles for [reasons].
1 reply 0 retweets 10 likesShow this thread -
4/ I don't really have a point, more like a nascent thought stream I'm trying to follow but can't because I have to attend to last minute edits on my defense slides. But I wanted to bookmark this idea.
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likesShow this thread -
Replying to @generativist
Thanks for sharing the starting point. Will read with interest if you get back to it. Also good luck with the defence!
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.