Opinions on science communicators?

In summary, the conversation discusses the issue of people on social media labeling themselves as "scientists" or "doing science" without any academic qualifications or use of numbers and mathematics. This often leads to posts with interesting pictures and lengthy explanations mixed with unrelated philosophy. There is a debate about whether this should be considered a problem or just ignored, with one person comparing it to eating uncooked dog meat when there are better options available. The conversation also mentions a quote by Lord Kelvin about the importance of using numbers in scientific knowledge, and the personal experience of the speaker in valuing mathematical explanations.
  • #1
TRB8985
74
15
Good morning all,

I wanted to get some opinions on the following situation. Feel free to share.

I often encounter pages on social media such as Facebook where channel owners/moderators label themselves as "scientists" (without any kind of academic degree) or as people "doing science" without using any kind of numbers or mathematics or anything with any *real* explanatory power whatsoever. Usually posts on these channels involve sharing interesting pictures and writing 10-20-30 paragraphs of a cliffnotes-like explanation with a smörgåsbord of unrelated philosophy thrown in for good measure.

I used to ask these channel owners/moderators why they considered themselves as such, whereas a label of "science communicator" seems much more highly appropriate. However, I learned that doing so is somehow tantamount to an insult (which I don't understand why), so I don't frequent them as often as I do my textbooks.

I guess I'm curious as to whether I'm just splitting hairs, or there's actually a problem on these social media channels. As for myself, I was particularly influenced by the following quote in the beginning of my undergraduate career:

"I often say that when you can measure what you are speaking about, and express it in numbers, you know something about it; but when you cannot express it in numbers, your knowledge is of a meagre and unsatisfactory kind; it may be the beginning of knowledge, but you have scarcely, in your thoughts, advanced to the stage of science, whatever the matter may be."
- Lord Kelvin

I've come to completely agree with Lord Kelvin's words (and also, Richard Feynmann's), as I've noticed in my own life that scientific explanations without numbers/mathematics are like stringed instruments without strings. But perhaps this comes from my own underpinnings as a theoretician-in-training.

What do you guys think?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
TRB8985 said:
What do you guys think?
I think that in general the "science" present by such moderators should just be ignored. There are plenty of places to get real science. If you have the option of going to a nice steak house, why would you want to eat rotten, uncooked dog meat?
 
  • Like
Likes Drakkith and TRB8985
  • #3
^ This. In spades.
 
  • #4
TRB8985 said:
I guess I'm curious as to whether I'm just splitting hairs, or there's actually a problem on these social media channels. As for myself, I was particularly influenced by the following quote in the beginning of my undergraduate career:

It's the same reason why people talk about cars and label themselves as car experts, even though they may actually know very, very little about cars overall. They just don't know any better. Or they don't care. Or both.
 

FAQ: Opinions on science communicators?

1. What exactly is a science communicator?

A science communicator is someone who specializes in translating complex scientific information into accessible language and formats for the general public. They use various methods, such as written articles, videos, podcasts, and social media, to share scientific knowledge and engage with non-scientific audiences.

2. How important is the role of a science communicator?

The role of a science communicator is crucial in bridging the gap between scientists and the general public. They help make science more approachable and understandable for people from all backgrounds, which ultimately leads to better-informed decisions and a more scientifically literate society.

3. What skills are necessary to become a successful science communicator?

Some essential skills for a science communicator include strong writing and communication skills, the ability to understand and simplify complex scientific concepts, creativity, and a passion for science. It is also helpful to have a good understanding of different forms of media and how to use them effectively to reach a wider audience.

4. Are there any challenges that science communicators face?

One of the main challenges for science communicators is finding a balance between accuracy and accessibility. They must ensure that they present scientific information accurately while also making it understandable and engaging for non-scientific audiences. Additionally, navigating controversial or polarizing topics can also be challenging.

5. What impact do science communicators have on society?

Science communicators play a critical role in increasing public understanding and awareness of scientific issues. They have the power to influence public opinion and decision-making, which can lead to positive changes in areas such as policy-making and public health. They also inspire and engage future generations of scientists and promote a culture of curiosity and critical thinking.

Back
Top