Hot take: Popular science reporting is a good reason to distrust science. If you randomly sampled some articles at any point in the past twenty years — having never read any popsci before — you'd assume we're weeks away from hot fusion, cold fusion, jet packs, and a cancer cure.
Yea. Like scicomm is great. The stuff on PBS is my favorite example. But how much popsci feels like that. I’m not sure where I would draw the boundary but it’s got something to do with the communication of uncertainty...maybe?
-
-
I think one can diff high quality content like classic PBS, BBC stuff vs newer things on several planes: - aesthetic: narrative voice, authority vs curiosity, etc - topic: everyday accessible world, or inaccessible theoretical domains - call to action: how is viewer changed
-
A lot of the popsci I detest ends up feeling like communications from High Church of Theory. The feeling it tries to induce is primarily one of "inaccessible wonder", eg "this shit is so complicated, worship the brainiacs that think about this all day".
- 1 more reply
New conversation -
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.