On Peer Reviewed Science

[Cosmik]

I think the important question is not whether it *needs* to be communicated to a non-expert audience, but that it *is*.

Given that is the case, the question becomes one of how.

How do architects or engineers communicate their work to non-experts? Answer: they don't, directly. And yet, believe it or not, their work is also important to society at large. If a charismatic entrepreneur wants to weave a story about how his electric cars will soon have a range of 1000 miles on an AA cell, he can do that in a press release and talking to journalists. The views of his engineering employees (who may potentially make the battery breakthrough) may be less interesting to the wider public and, indeed, have no relevance at all.

Similarly the owner of a science-based company or the head of a publicity-minded academic institution can release publicity material saying that plastic bags are causing earthquakes, but the views of his individual scientists may (should) be of very little interest. No one's stopping them from blogging, chatting on forums or Tweeting, however.

Is it that scientists' work is routinely 'published' that gives them delusions of grandeur?

 

[dc655321]

How do architects or engineers communicate their work to non-experts? Answer: they don't, directly.

IMO, this tendency is a cultural aspect (engineering profession): they are not encouraged to publish.
On the flip-side, scientists are often judged/ranked on the quantity and quality of their publications.
It's an odd metric (to me)...

Is it that scientists' work is routinely 'published' that gives them delusions of grandeur?

You may be right about this.
It is that image that similarly leads to engineers' development of an ill-founded inferiority complex.

 

[andreasmaaan]

How do architects or engineers communicate their work to non-experts? Answer: they don't, directly. And yet, believe it or not, their work is also important to society at large. If a charismatic entrepreneur wants to weave a story about how his electric cars will soon have a range of 1000 miles on an AA cell, he can do that in a press release and talking to journalists. The views of his engineering employees (who may potentially make the battery breakthrough) may be less interesting to the wider public and, indeed, have no relevance at all.

Similarly the owner of a science-based company or the head of a publicity-minded academic institution can release publicity material saying that plastic bags are causing earthquakes, but the views of his individual scientists may (should) be of very little interest. No one's stopping them from blogging, chatting on forums or Tweeting, however.

Is it that scientists' work is routinely 'published' that gives them delusions of grandeur?

What makes you think scientists have delusions of grandeur?

 

[SIY]

What makes you think scientists have delusions of grandeur?

We're above that sort of thing.

 

[Cosmik]

IMO, this tendency is a cultural aspect (engineering profession): they are not encouraged to publish.
On the flip-side, scientists are often judged/ranked on the quantity and quality of their publications.
It's an odd metric (to me)...

You may be right about this.
It is that image that similarly leads to engineers' development of an ill-founded inferiority complex.

You get my drift, though.

Scientists do often seem to be saying something along the lines of "My work on the acidity level of the centipede upper digestive tract is terribly important; it is essential that it is communicated to the wider public most effectively - in the context of global warming research. And this ignorant anti-science, anti-expert, fascistic government should not even think about cutting the funding. Think of the children."

 

[andreasmaaan]

It's more than just a cultural tendency. Science purports to be fundamentally universal in a way that engineering does not.

 

[Cosmik]

It's more than just a cultural tendency. Science purports to be fundamentally universal in a way that engineering does not.

Maybe - as I was saying earlier, science is (meant to be) special. But scientists are no more fundamentally universal than the rest of us, yet their far from objective views and opinions are very often in The Guardian, for example. They're not politicians and they're not objective in their views and opinions. Why do they think the wider public should be interested in, and subjected to, their "stories"?

(Nothing against any of the scientists here present, of course )

I have no objection to views and opinions being in the Guardian, BTW. I just don't like them prefaced with "I'm a scientist, so my political views are better than everyone else's". Or "I'm a scientist, so everything I say is scientific".

 

[Wombat]

IMO, this tendency is a cultural aspect (engineering profession): they are not encouraged to publish.
On the flip-side, scientists are often judged/ranked on the quantity and quality of their publications.
It's an odd metric (to me)...



You may be right about this.
It is that image that similarly leads to engineers' development of an ill-founded inferiority complex.

As an engineer I haven't noticed the profession having an inferiority complex with regard to scientists. Where did you find that idea?

 

[SIY]

As an engineer I haven't noticed the profession having an inferiority complex with regard to scientists. Where did you find that idea?

I treat them as almost equals.

 

[Wombat]

A re-post because it is particularly relevant to this thread. Telling the Story:

 

[Wombat]

I treat them as almost equals.

They do have a penchant for insisting that an individual buy cakes for everyone on his/her birthday.

 

[SIY]

They do have a penchant for insisting that an individual buy cakes for everyone on his/her birthday.

You might be screaming "No, no, no" and all they hear is "Who wants cake?" Let me tell you something: They all do. They all want cake.

 

[Wombat]

Scientific story. Kid level.

How The Clouds Stay Up

 

[Wombat]

You might be screaming "No, no, no" and all they hear is "Who wants cake?" Let me tell you something: They all do. They all want cake.

And then there is our Thomas and horse doovers.

Strine for hors devours.

https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/strine

 

[Cosmik]

Stepping back, my question is: why are scientists writing advice pieces addressed to other scientists in the pages of the highly partisan and political newspaper, The Guardian? Answer: science can be used for political propaganda.

 

[Wombat]

Stepping back, my question is: why are scientists writing advice pieces addressed to other scientists in the pages of the highly partisan and political newspaper, The Guardian? Answer: science can be used for political propaganda.

In this anti-science period, science has to put its case forward where it can with meagre spare resources. It has been drawn into a marketing-based credence-defending situation to counter the political/corporate($$$$$) manipulation of unwelcome truth. The Guardian is prepared to publish the scientific community views.

P.S. The Guardian is more revealing than the mainstream media. It stands on toes across the political spectrum.
Right-wingers seem to have more sensitive toes, it seems to me.

Is this satire lefty or just opportunistic humor? Depends on whom you ask.
Double negative

 

[SIY]

Stepping back, my question is: why are scientists writing advice pieces addressed to other scientists in the pages of the highly partisan and political newspaper, The Guardian? Answer: science can be used for political propaganda.

Begin rant:

That guy isn't a scientist, he just calls himself one. And of course, we're in an era where everything is politicized. My wife and I have massively cut down on the number of concerts we go to because so many musicians have turned them into political rallies cum virtue-signalling platforms. When someone does that, we stop supporting them.

I admit that it's always a source of annoyance to me when people think of entertainers like Bill Nye as scientists, or lionize third-rate administrators with a good screen presence like Neil deGrasse Tyson. Or quacks like Dr. Oz.

For contrast, it's fun to see YouTube videos of Richard Feynman giving public lectures. Real scientist (I would argue at the level of an Einstein), real science, brilliant communication, no propaganda.

/rant

 

[Wombat]

Here is a guy who straddles the world of science and the public:

https://theconversation.com/brian-cox-is-a-world-record-holding-rockstar-scientist-heres-why-86834

This guy further inspired me to be an Electrical Engineer:

Julius Sumner Miller - story teller

On science and story tellers:

https://www.britishscienceassociation.org/blog/why-science-needs-storytellers

These sorts of guys are still out there but have to compete with the cheap thrills of celebrity and reality(mundane versions) programming. Cox seems to be succeeding, somewhat.

 

[Cosmik]

In this anti-science period

Do you have any direct evidence that this period is anti-science? I know a lot of people are saying it is, but I think that's just a political ploy, or scientists moaning about their lot.

Can you suggest a time when society was noticeably more pro-science? Could it be that people aren't anti-science, but some are possibly sceptical of scientists' motives?

In reality, I don't think anyone is more anti-science than they used to be - if they even had a view either way. Pick up any tabloid and there are science-based stories reported all over the place. People are not becoming anti-science.

...science has to put its case forward where it can with meagre spare resources. It has been drawn into a marketing-based credence-defending situation to counter the political manipulation of unwelcome truth.

So you do think there's something in what I am suggesting? That scientists are talking to other scientists about how to use science to create/counter propaganda or promote their 'case'?

If so, this is scientists and their attendants, without any consultation with 'society', arbitrarily taking it upon themselves to change the way science is done - and the results of these tactics will propagate down the ages within the science itself.

I would say that if politicians misrepresent science or fail to give the scientists the amounts of tax payers' money they desire, this is a problem for politics, society and scientists to deal with, and should not be tackled by changing the science itself.

 

[Wombat]

Do you have any direct evidence that this period is anti-science? I know a lot of people are saying it is, but I think that's just a political ploy, or scientists moaning about their lot.

Can you suggest a time when society was noticeably more pro-science? Could it be that people aren't anti-science, but some are possibly sceptical of scientists' motives?

In reality, I don't think anyone is more anti-science than they used to be - if they even had a view either way. Pick up any tabloid and there are science-based stories reported all over the place. People are not becoming anti-science.

So you do think there's something in what I am suggesting? That scientists are talking to other scientists about how to use science to create/counter propaganda or promote their 'case'?

If so, this is scientists and their attendants, without any consultation with 'society', arbitrarily taking it upon themselves to change the way science is done - and the results of these tactics will propagate down the ages within the science itself.

I would say that if politicians misrepresent science or fail to give the scientists the amounts of tax payers' money they desire, this is a problem for politics, society and scientists to deal with, and should not be tackled by changing the science itself.

Your knowledge of history is obviously deficient.