Comments on: Science can’t be fun? http://sciencejournal.thethunderbird.ca/2007/11/10/science-cant-be-fun/ News and opinions from UBC Journalism Students Tue, 13 Nov 2007 16:49:38 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: Terry » Archive » Wikipedia: Do you use it? Do you cite it? And, is it a good thing? http://sciencejournal.thethunderbird.ca/2007/11/10/science-cant-be-fun/comment-page-1/#comment-7 Terry » Archive » Wikipedia: Do you use it? Do you cite it? And, is it a good thing? Tue, 13 Nov 2007 16:49:38 +0000 http://sciencejournal.thethunderbird.ca/2007/11/10/science-cant-be-fun/#comment-7 [...] to the same Science Journalism conference that Dave S. spoke of in the previous post. One of the sessions, in particular, that resulted in a heated argument, was whether the internet and the whole Web2.0 [...] [...] to the same Science Journalism conference that Dave S. spoke of in the previous post. One of the sessions, in particular, that resulted in a heated argument, was whether the internet and the whole Web2.0 [...]

]]> By: MH http://sciencejournal.thethunderbird.ca/2007/11/10/science-cant-be-fun/comment-page-1/#comment-6 MH Mon, 12 Nov 2007 01:53:21 +0000 http://sciencejournal.thethunderbird.ca/2007/11/10/science-cant-be-fun/#comment-6 I think any media form of science is going to dumb it down to some extent, but that's not always bad. To take the main findings and present them in a way that anyone can understand is fine, but sometimes it goes a lot further than that... I am not sure that the internet VS printed material has much to do with that except maybe the competence of the people doing the writing, but you never know. Here are 3 problems I've found: 1) Perception of science: people view science as a sort of religion. Science isn't a mass of facts that people believe in. It's a method to look for facts. People do not all agree with each other in the scientific world. There are very few "laws" for that reason, and these are really basic things such as gravity. People need to understand that all scientific discoveries are open for debate within the scientific community and can also be open for debate within public discussion without having to resort to crazy religious alternatives. Usually, for any minuscule finding, there are people who disagree and eventually one side is accepted as more plausible. 2) Skewing of facts: This relates to the above point, because often scientific findings are presented as truths instead of just information that supports a possible truth. Ie "scientists prove that..." kind of statements is presenting false information to the public and makes me think that the author must have no clue what science is all about. 3) Missing underlying information: Often articles don't present what researchers actually did because it's perceived as too complicated. However, it's important that this is presented in at least a general way. For example, if someone supposedly found some new potential cure for cancer, the question is, what's new about it? What has this researcher done that makes him special? I think the people who read past the first few paragraphs in an article about science aren't going to be phased if you tell them some basic information about what cancer cells do and what the traditional approach to trying to kill them would be and how this one is different. I mean, you can't get really technical, but you can usually avoid using jargon and get to the point of what's going on... It's like explaining a concept to someone speaking another language, you just explain it in plain terms, but you don't have to really "dumb it down", it would just take too long to explain every detail, but it's not necessary. There's a huge step between training someone to be able to contribute to future research and avoiding information all together. I think any media form of science is going to dumb it down to some extent, but that’s not always bad. To take the main findings and present them in a way that anyone can understand is fine, but sometimes it goes a lot further than that… I am not sure that the internet VS printed material has much to do with that except maybe the competence of the people doing the writing, but you never know. Here are 3 problems I’ve found:

1) Perception of science: people view science as a sort of religion. Science isn’t a mass of facts that people believe in. It’s a method to look for facts. People do not all agree with each other in the scientific world. There are very few “laws” for that reason, and these are really basic things such as gravity. People need to understand that all scientific discoveries are open for debate within the scientific community and can also be open for debate within public discussion without having to resort to crazy religious alternatives. Usually, for any minuscule finding, there are people who disagree and eventually one side is accepted as more plausible.

2) Skewing of facts: This relates to the above point, because often scientific findings are presented as truths instead of just information that supports a possible truth. Ie “scientists prove that…” kind of statements is presenting false information to the public and makes me think that the author must have no clue what science is all about.

3) Missing underlying information: Often articles don’t present what researchers actually did because it’s perceived as too complicated. However, it’s important that this is presented in at least a general way. For example, if someone supposedly found some new potential cure for cancer, the question is, what’s new about it? What has this researcher done that makes him special? I think the people who read past the first few paragraphs in an article about science aren’t going to be phased if you tell them some basic information about what cancer cells do and what the traditional approach to trying to kill them would be and how this one is different. I mean, you can’t get really technical, but you can usually avoid using jargon and get to the point of what’s going on… It’s like explaining a concept to someone speaking another language, you just explain it in plain terms, but you don’t have to really “dumb it down”, it would just take too long to explain every detail, but it’s not necessary. There’s a huge step between training someone to be able to contribute to future research and avoiding information all together.

]]>