Soleron said:
Yes. It is important to communicate to the public though, that our "we have no idea" is a very definite and informed understanding of the world, while deniers' supposed certainty on it not existing isn't based on anything. At the same time scientists need to not let the news media call every warm spell or hurricane a surefire sign of climate change. Science in general is really poorly communicated right now. When I look at actual paper behind such articles as "Tea prevents cancer" I find it's a tiny effect from thousands of automated tests on a dataset the scientists didn't even collect themselves, and they didn't make a single claim about the mechanism that tea might do so, or even if the effect would show up again if re-tested. Yet it spawned some big and certain-sounding headlines. The really sad part is that the general public can't even check, because the original (despite being publicly funded) is behind a journal paywall. |
I agree with all that 100%. The Journal's thing being the biggest thing.
Scientific Journals are really pretty good reads too... it'd suck if i ever lost access to them.
it's great to, because once you learn how to read a scietnific article you can read anything from brain surgery, to physics, to psychology, and it's all pretty easy to understand.
