"And now, for something completely different!"
I want to return to the "education" theme that the author actually wrote about, partly because of my interest in it, and I'm partly making this effort because so often, at least on this website (and another I used to frequent, /. ), any topic that even mentions climate turns into a great big "yes it is / no it isn't" and despite the fact that maxwells is absolutely right:
"It may also behoove the sober among us... to bone up on paleo behavior of methane, its clathrates, and north Atlantic conveyor, particular around the 65 Myear mark - if such past events have any bearing on our future. Frankly, I don't know enough to say anything confidentl
I look forward to that, but simultaneously, I want to discuss what we can learn about communicating what we do know.
ABSTRACT
Science should be reported to the public with fewer figures (especially summary statistical data like confidence intervals) converted to fluffy adjectives and less jargon transliterated to gooey vernacular terms. "Dumbing down" of the kind that is standard has two drawbacks that are immediately apparent to me.
(1) It implies elitism by the speaker. Even though in fact that is the journalist, it is attributed to the scientist.
(2a) It conveys less information.
(2b) The only "advantage" is the illusion of communicating the "whole story" to lazy readers who don't understand or don't care that they're getting only a *vague* thus inherently inaccurate
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost
No comments:
Post a Comment