What is Digg?29 Comments
- redcolumbine, on 07/14/2009, -0/+16The trickier thing is reminding people that science really is more interesting than conspiracy theories, wild guesses, and what you half heard somebody say at the water cooler. Science has gotten a bad rap the past eight years, and people are less likely to consider it a viable way of looking at the world.
- mdelling, on 07/14/2009, -2/+9That might true if science journalists hadn't passed on pseudo-science and bad science in the first place... but they always have.
- Hetman, on 07/15/2009, -0/+4Thats not going to happen. How about people read peer reviewed scientific journals and make up there own mind.
- AnthoMacP, on 07/15/2009, -0/+4Great idea in theory but it's hard enough getting Joe Public to sit down and read a 5 paragraph summary article on ScienceDaily or in their local news paper these days, let alone a 12 page article from PNAS. I'm all for public science education but some of that reading is fairly intense and assumes the reader has enough background knowledge on the topic/previous research to understand the article. Throwing those in front of the average person to peruse through could possibly do more harm than good in terms of their interest in anything science related.
- SirBruce, on 07/15/2009, -0/+3Good luck with that.
- pacerx, on 07/15/2009, -0/+3Unfortuantely Carl Sagan is dead. He was one bad dude.
- PlanBeast, on 07/15/2009, -0/+3I really couldn't agree more and it is a major issue as the public pay the taxes that pay for scientific research. If people knew what they are paying for and what it can lead to massive strides would be made in human progress and development.
- pattyme, on 07/14/2009, -0/+2People make-up their own science. If it tugs at their heart strings or gives any kind of recognition to their personal experiences, it is put in the "fact"column in their minds. It is marketing at its worst (or best) and the growth of the internet makes it exponentially easier for misguided "science" to spread. good article
- ai52487963, on 07/15/2009, -0/+2Or you could just put Neil deGrasse Tyson on Fox's primetime linup
- anklesnap, on 07/15/2009, -0/+2It's also a way to perpetuate 'bad science' and have one shoddy study of the day trump years of good science in the minds of the public, who often believe the most recent study must be the correct and most valid study.
More dangerous than anything... - Yage2006, on 07/16/2009, -0/+2The sad thing is though. The crowds that read science blogs are not the same crowd that falls into pseudo science.
When those people go online they only look for information to confirm their beliefs never anything that might conflict.
The exact same thing can be said about conspiracy nuts of any flavor. - davewelsh79, on 07/15/2009, -0/+1Dr. Gene Ray - Cubic and Wisest Human - is never shown in the MSM either! It's a conspiracy by the evil academic establishment to keep the real truth from enlightening the public!
If only the MSM would be more fair and balanced by having such luminaries as Dr. Ray on their shows, we could all have more faith in journalism. - brianhatch, on 07/15/2009, -0/+1That's exactly what I was thinking when I wrote that.
- sihayakara, on 07/15/2009, -0/+1um, if you read the article -- it says SCIENCE bloggers.
"This is where science bloggers are flourishing. In fact, science blogging is almost like the Internet’s immune system (that’s an analogy, not scientific ‘proof’), and because bloggers can knock out articles very quickly, they can often be the first on the scene to fight off the next flawed conspiracy theory or crackpot ramblings. Of course, you don’t have to be a scientist to blog, but there is a huge, wonderful infrastructure of skeptical websites that make a very healthy existence debunking false claims and pseudo-science."
i think this is a fairly important point. i often see things in the media concerning issues such as evolution and it's like WTF? that is such a misrepresentation of the facts.
and more recently with ID rearing its ugly head, the need for scientifically informed voices amongst the general population is definitely needed. - pacerx, on 07/15/2009, -1/+2You know, I don't know why people even say there's 'another side' to the climate change debate as though
Pumping a large amount of CO2 into the atmosphere WILL affect the climate of the earth. One of the physical properties of CO2 is that it absorbs IR radiation at certain wavelengths and holds this energy in the atmosphere. If there is more CO2, it will absorb more energy. There is no debate about whether CO2 absorbs portions of the spectrum. There is no debate about whether more CO2 absorbs more energy.
The 'other side' of the debate is obfuscation of these facts.
There may be other factors that temporarily lower the temperatures, but more CO2 will ALWAYS absorb more energy*. It's just physics.
There has also been comparisons of the amount of energy that gets radiated back to space from the Earth since the late 70s over the spectrum of wavelengths. There is noticeably less energy getting radiated back. This means that more energy is being absorbed in the atmosphere.
Quite frankly, it's not the job of science journals to report junk science.
*the only case is if CO2 reaches the saturation point where the entire range of wavelengths that CO2 can absorb is already fully absorbed, which is not already the case. - brianhatch, on 07/15/2009, -0/+1How much of the public's buying into junk science is due to the increasingly vast gulf between the forefront of science and the common man's understanding of the world? In the early to mid 20th century scientific advancement occurred on a macro scale and in every area, particularly areas that were clearly visible to the average person--medicine, space travel, energy, electronics. That made science something easy to relate to, but those big advancements in everyday lives were built on and came from a coalescence of basic research done in the late 19th and early 20th centuries.
In the present, I think we have shifted back to a period emphasizing fundmantal research in chemistry, physics, nanotechnologies, and a host of other fronts. We're building up the knowledgebase for future leaps in technology. In the mean time, however, science has become an esoteric pursuit seemingly outside the reach and understanding of the common man. Naturally, interest in something the public doesn't understand is going to wane over time. And in the vacuum the kind of junk and pseudoscience steps into fill the void in the minds of the public, a process probably exacerbated by our culture of celebrity worship.
Science needs a charismatic and likable personality to act as an intermediary between the bleeding edge of research and the living room of the public. It needs a person who can explain in the simplest terms allowed by the subject what is going on in science. It needs a person that give the world of modern science a face with which the publican can identify. Science needs a rockstar. - gbv23, on 07/15/2009, -0/+1Gimmee the bleeding-edge where even "the committee" can't even seem to agree on the implications.
- sihayakara, on 07/15/2009, -0/+1if you are a science blogger and you actually give a ***** about the misinformation spread everywhere, you wouldn't get your panties in a knot over the title of this article.
you sound like a /b/tard :P - fabkebab, on 07/15/2009, -1/+2The blind leading the blind
- brisketplease, on 07/15/2009, -0/+1you're right of course, but what does this have to do with what i wrote?
- Angostura, on 07/15/2009, -0/+1Yes. Nice cheap jab, though.
- 4AntiStupid, on 07/15/2009, -0/+1That doesn't appear to be the case. Conspiracy theories are far more popular than science. If you write a good conspiracy theory book, you can make millions. Write a science book and you can make tens.
- 4AntiStupid, on 07/15/2009, -0/+0For many things, you simply can't make something understandable to someone that doesn't have the background. There's just too many things you have to understand first to even start.
- VitriolAndAngst, on 07/15/2009, -1/+1When they say "bloggers have helped" -- I'm guessing they are thinking about SlashDot.
- brisketplease, on 07/15/2009, -1/+1as a blogger, i resent being told what i MUST do. so, now it's time for an insane and unchecked tirade against astroengine.com, whoever they are.
- sinrtb, on 07/15/2009, -1/+1"any reputable editor " Do we still have these?
- Angostura, on 07/15/2009, -2/+1"They always have".
Ironic.
That, ladies and gentlemen is the sort of statement that wouldn't have got passed any reputable editor who would have scribbled "You are claiming that no science journalist ever filtered out bad science or pseudo science - cut this, or stand it up with concrete facts" - tman84, on 07/15/2009, -3/+2"As old media struggles to keep up with the tide of free and fast online media"
Too bad one is a schill for the government (old) and the other is a joke when it comes to actually being considered journalism (new) - superkendall, on 07/15/2009, -5/+3The problem is that science journalists are becoming just as discredited as any other group, by doing things like blindly reporting only one side of the global warming debate. How can we trust a science journalist that cannot remain truly open minded and consider all sides of a scientific debate?
Public blogging can fill that role but it's REALLY easy for a blogger to get caught up in the same trap and also lose credibility. Bloggers alone cannot solve a fundamental problem that people doing reporting need to understand reporting should differ from crusading for a cause.
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is