Science being abandoned as traditional media reduce staff?
Summary: Here's an opinon piece arguing that scientists themselves must get involved in getting the information and research results to the public. And the authors have some unflattering comments about the level of discourse on many "science" blog sites.
Here's an opinon piece arguing that scientists themselves must get involved in getting the information and research results to the public. And the authors have some unflattering comments about the level of discourse on many "science" blog sites. [poll id="168"]
Kick off your day with ZDNet's daily email newsletter. It's the freshest tech news and opinion, served hot. Get it.
Talkback
Science . . .
A hammer isn't going to tell me the meaning of life, but it does a great job at driving nails.
I'm fine with science as a tool. I'm not fine with science becoming a new religion.
Ahh,
Anyone notices the fantastic job modern economics has done
Science is a process
1. Develop a theory based on observations and calculations
2. Test the theory against new observations.
3. Examine results. If the theory predicted the results to a satisfactory degree of accuracy, it's OK. Keep working on it to make it better. If the results were outside the required tolerance, keep working on the theory or ditch it and try again.
4. Keep improving the theory, or make a better one (start from step 1 again).
If a theory fails to accurately predict the outcome of events it is intended to model, then it's junk. If a better theory arises (i.e. one that more accurately predicts the outcome of events), then it will likely replace the old theory.
The problem with theories is that they can be very difficult to test. Some of Einstein?s theories have only been shown to be accurate in the last few years.
The problem with global warming is the lack of accurate long term data. Anyone who doesn't believe the Earth has warmed significantly over the last 100 years either hasn't read the facts or doesn't understand them.
[b]Why[/b] the Earth is warming, whether we are a significant factor in that warming and whether we can do anything about it are subjects of much scientific study.
The [b]politics[/b] of global warming are that we should do whatever we can to reduce our [b]possible[/b] influence as much as we can until we have enough data and sufficiently accurate theories to predict what we should be doing.
Whether the current warming trend is "natural" or "man made" is really irrelevant. Either way, we have to deal with it.
And if, in dealing with it, we significantly reduce pollution and consumption of global resources, isn't that a good thing? Even if it turns out we don't have any influence anyway?
action to reduce greenhouse is like insurance.
a religion
Why is that? Is it not just as valid as the current established religion.
If it perfectly valid for historical holy text, saints and tradition to be basis of religions, is it not equally valid for a religion to form around science?
What about discovery channel
I watch these with my child.
The amount of science he is learning at a young age far far exceeds what I, an avid newspaper reader, learned.
Sayonara traditional media. Maybe only one paper will have staff and they will license content to everyone else.
How many reporters do you need to cover one story. One reporter for every metropolitan area or one reporter.
It'll get worked out.
Now ideally they'd reduce coverage from sports but it's a business and ...
There is not money $$ in science for the average "junk" media outlet.
Makin science a religion is as absurd as meking the "great spaghetti monster" a diety.
Science can be a tool for religion, but religion needs to be much more than just science. For example, science without scrupples or morals is the very antithesis of religion.