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