Flawed Artist's Renditions of Cosmological Events

  • Thread starter Thread starter ebos
  • Start date Start date
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the effectiveness and accuracy of artist's renditions of cosmological events, particularly in how they may mislead the public regarding scientific phenomena. Participants express concerns about the potential for confusion and sensationalism in these illustrations, as well as the implications for public interest in science.

Discussion Character

  • Debate/contested
  • Conceptual clarification

Main Points Raised

  • One participant expresses frustration with artist's renditions that lack resemblance to actual events, suggesting they can mislead viewers, especially newcomers to the field.
  • Another participant questions whether flawed artistic renditions serve to spark public interest, potentially likening them to clickbait.
  • There is a suggestion that increased public interest in science could lead to more funding and grants, with a call for greater transparency in scientific communication.
  • A later reply reiterates the idea that disclosure of scientific truths could significantly boost public interest in science.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants do not appear to reach a consensus, as there are competing views on the role of artistic renditions in public interest and the implications of scientific disclosure.

Contextual Notes

Participants express varying opinions on the effectiveness of artist's renditions without resolving the underlying assumptions about their impact on public understanding and interest in science.

ebos
Dearly Missed
Messages
136
Reaction score
48
So am I the only one or are others as bugged as I am with these useless artist's renditions of occurrences of cosmological events that either have absolutely no resemblance to the actual event or don't supply enough information in the title to clarify that the supplied illustration is even a rendition or a real photograph of the event. My latest is "Astronomers Glimpse Supernova Shockwave - March 22, 2016" whereby the reader is led to believe that the illustration is actually a photo of the rebound shock wave at the precise moment it breaks through the surface of the star. Come on...! Do we even have cameras that fast or telescopes that sensitive??
Although I believe artist's illustrations are sometimes useful, most of the time they are not and only serve to further confuse the viewer and sensationalize the event and lower it to the level of a cartoon especially if the viewer is a newbie.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Unbugged am I.
 
Reply
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: einswine
So your answer is:

1. flawed artistic renditions = spark public interest? Like click bait?

Or do you mean:

2. increased public interest = more money & grants?

If you really want interest in science and space-- just disclose the truth about science and space. The +70 years of stagnation on the truth (which is seemingly more and more about posturing for advantages on warfare) is why all those phds fight over the shrinking money/grant watering hole by not researching those interesting gaps in moden science.

Disclosure = more interest in science you'll ever see in the history of the world.
 
jimjones420 said:
Disclosure = more interest in science you'll ever see in the history of the world.
I wonder if anything has changed in the past 8 years since the posts you are responding to...

Every time you necropost, God kills a kitten. Please try to avoid this; I like kittens.
 
Reply
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: BillTre and nsaspook

Similar threads

Mathematica This Week's Finds in Mathematical Physics (Week 242)
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
4K