Opinions on science communicators?

  • Context: Undergrad 
  • Thread starter Thread starter TRB8985
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Opinions Science
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the role and labeling of science communicators on social media platforms, particularly focusing on individuals who identify as "scientists" without formal academic credentials or rigorous scientific methodology. Participants explore the implications of such self-identification and the quality of scientific discourse in these contexts.

Discussion Character

  • Debate/contested
  • Conceptual clarification

Main Points Raised

  • One participant expresses concern about social media users labeling themselves as "scientists" without academic qualifications or substantial scientific content, suggesting that "science communicator" would be a more appropriate title.
  • This participant cites a quote from Lord Kelvin emphasizing the importance of numerical expression in scientific knowledge, indicating a belief that explanations lacking mathematical rigor are inadequate.
  • Another participant suggests that the science presented by such moderators should be ignored, comparing it to choosing between high-quality and poor-quality food.
  • A third participant agrees with this sentiment, reinforcing the idea that the quality of information is paramount.
  • A later reply draws a parallel between self-identified car experts and science communicators, suggesting that some individuals may lack the necessary knowledge or care to accurately represent their expertise.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants generally express disagreement regarding the appropriateness of self-identifying as a scientist without formal credentials, with some advocating for the importance of rigorous scientific standards while others emphasize the need to disregard low-quality science communication.

Contextual Notes

There are underlying assumptions about the definitions of "scientist" and "science communicator," as well as the expectations for scientific discourse on social media platforms. The discussion does not resolve these definitions or the implications of labeling.

TRB8985
Messages
74
Reaction score
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
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   Reactions: Drakkith and TRB8985
^ This. In spades.
 
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.
 

Similar threads

Replies
3
Views
1K
  • · Replies 16 ·
Replies
16
Views
6K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 25 ·
Replies
25
Views
3K
  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
3K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
3K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 31 ·
2
Replies
31
Views
8K