Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Umbran" data-source="post: 6643016" data-attributes="member: 177">All true.&nbsp; But...(there is always a but)You (the general you, not freyar, here) shouldn't by any means expect *every* practitioner to be engaged in public outreach.&nbsp; The skill and talent set for actually doing the work of science is a pretty specific one.&nbsp; It is not the same skillset as is used for marketing, or even education.&nbsp; There are tons of spectacular researchers out there who should never be allowed in front of a lecture hall full of undergraduates!We are slowly building out the ranks of scientists who also have the charisma and communication skills to do proper public outreach - folks like Phil Plait, and other science-literacy writers, bloggers, and the like.&nbsp; Neil deGrasse Tyson took Star Talk to TV for a good reason.Communications are always tailored to the expected audience.&nbsp; As Morrus noted, I'm speaking here just as a guy who knows about a topic, speaking to an audience already known to be mostly interested in what I have to say on the matter, and positively engaged.&nbsp; This is entirely casual, and I'm not really engaged in &quot;convincing&quot; anyone that the science in question is valuable - for the most part, I've been given sufficient evidence to think the audience already thinks so.&nbsp; If you need to be convinced that physicists know how to do their jobs, that's really a different discussion than we are having here.&nbsp; Yes, science is done by humans, and humans have flaws and foibles, and certainly social trends impact science.&nbsp; But, we have processes and mechanisms that combat this - this is what peer review and reproducible results are about.&nbsp; In the long run, science filters out the flaws and foibles.&nbsp; It can take a little time, but it does so consistently.&nbsp; The computer you are currently using owes its existence to that fact.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Umbran, post: 6643016, member: 177"] All true. But... (there is always a but) You (the general you, not freyar, here) shouldn't by any means expect *every* practitioner to be engaged in public outreach. The skill and talent set for actually doing the work of science is a pretty specific one. It is not the same skillset as is used for marketing, or even education. There are tons of spectacular researchers out there who should never be allowed in front of a lecture hall full of undergraduates! We are slowly building out the ranks of scientists who also have the charisma and communication skills to do proper public outreach - folks like Phil Plait, and other science-literacy writers, bloggers, and the like. Neil deGrasse Tyson took Star Talk to TV for a good reason. Communications are always tailored to the expected audience. As Morrus noted, I'm speaking here just as a guy who knows about a topic, speaking to an audience already known to be mostly interested in what I have to say on the matter, and positively engaged. This is entirely casual, and I'm not really engaged in "convincing" anyone that the science in question is valuable - for the most part, I've been given sufficient evidence to think the audience already thinks so. If you need to be convinced that physicists know how to do their jobs, that's really a different discussion than we are having here. Yes, science is done by humans, and humans have flaws and foibles, and certainly social trends impact science. But, we have processes and mechanisms that combat this - this is what peer review and reproducible results are about. In the long run, science filters out the flaws and foibles. It can take a little time, but it does so consistently. The computer you are currently using owes its existence to that fact. [/QUOTE]

Verification