Conversation

It also struck me reading your thing why I find some approaches to science popularization just... bad. Like Neil DeGrasse Tyson style. They mystify the thought processes and fetishize the latest version of the “facts”. Shock-and-awe scientism. It might as well be religion.
1
5
Your style is to clarify the methods even if it doesn’t get you to the leading edge of facts. Thus is superior. The edge can shift/backslide, but methods of thought, like “model classically and quantize” create patterns of thought that I suspect are the actual content of science.
2
3
Show replies
I’m not any sort of expert here, but my understanding is not quite this. Maybe you are thinking of the “good reasons for bad records” paper? The generalization of this is not that the official version is wrong but that it’s often different, & looking @ differences is illuminating
1
3
Show replies