When it comes to decisions in my life, I tend to rely more on my gut than the facts that point me in a direction. I find that your gut will steer you in the direction that you truly want to encounter. Specifically, when decisions come up I like to follow my gut for two reasons. First, because I can live with a bad decision as long as did what I wanted or felt was right. And second, because facts will point you in a direction but if that direction is not the right one for you, then you have to live with following someone else's path for you. The consequences may be exactly the same, but decisions have repercussions and you are the individual that has to deal with them.
As a scientific writer, i tend to follow a different criteria. I will choose fact over a mere facts. As an amateur writer, writing about fact is not only easier but you have little room for argument. If something is proven, you have the print to back it up. I believe that scientific writers, in general, tend to lean toward the facts side. Mainly due to facts holding merit in the world of science. If something is not proven then readers will criticize the credibility. In my opinion, credibility is everything in scientific writing.
When the media decides to follow truthfulness rather than truth, credibility is definitely exposed. Similarly with scientific journalism, credibility is everything and if there is lack of credibility than the story is considered "not true".
The effect of the media is where truth and mere truth become widely different. The media has the ability to alter decisions, very similar to the way your gut and facts can alter your own personal decision. When people listen to the media, they may take that information as fact or fiction and further that in their own personal decisions. When you have the media portraying a half-truth, per say, and people taking it as truth, then you have a conflict.
Truth can be interpreted however the reader or viewer wants to. If that truth is handled loosely, you see a large difference between the effects of my personal decisions and those that media influence.
Wednesday, February 27, 2013
Thursday, February 21, 2013
Good Science or Good Science Writing?
When you connect Autism and Vaccine's, you can definitely say that they are scientifically incorrect. If studies show more harm than aid with vaccines, then the red flag must be raised. As some would say they are scientifically wrong, but more specifically they are scientifically illiterate. I could not disagree more.
Although you can not argue with the evidence, I believe you need to give credit where credit is due. When you think of what you hear about in scientific news, you only hear about breakthrough successes or detrimental failures. I do not consider the vaccine-autism connection to be a failure. In return, I do not consider these advocates to be scientifically illiterate.
It is made very clear that these advocates are doing extensive research and have some sort of credibility here. The results do not follow, but the research continues. As of right now there are no links between the two and evidence shows harm over aid. This does not mean that we won't be reading about a breakthrough in the future. We could very well be hearing about a breakthrough study connecting the two.
More importantly, I believe it is ignorant to label them as ignorant. These scientists or advocates are doing what they can to settle a problem/disease that we are all looking for answers to. Some may say it is a waste of time, but I believe this is no different than any other scientific study. We can not consider them scientifically illiterate if they are extensively searching for something we so desire.
When i think back to learning as a scientific writer, I think about giving the audience what they want to hear. As I stated before, we all seem to be a little confused and desperate for answers to autism. These scientists are only trying to gives us what we want. An ignorant scientific reader, as many can be labeled as, will be very satisfied with the word of vaccine-autism advocates. Although it may not be scientifically correct, it is worthy of scientific writing. It is accessible and newsworthy. This is a conflict between what people want to hear and what remains proven in science.
Thursday, February 7, 2013
Science, common good not common knowledge...
When you consider the knowledge that you gain, you must consider that it is not tangible to the naked eye of one who may pass you by. I learned from a young age that asking questions, whether it be simple or out of the ordinary, you will gain from that experience. As humans we all experience things and have a knowledge that can only be expressed and shared if evoked. Expressing interest is an option but the likelihood is very low. As Kathy speaks of in her talk, we are now spending roughly 10-13 hours in front of a screen. When we are curious we search through google or stumbleupon what we have interest in. We are shared information about whats new and hip in the news. I personally believe that we are no longer gaining from our own curiosity for this reason.
You must now consider science and how that relates to this situation. Science, as we continually say, must be simplified due to the fear that the word brings to people. Last week I spoke about how I do not believe science can be restored in people. I continue this week with the notion of what science and the knowledge we gain can do to those around us. More specifically our challenge of writing science to better the "common good". Science clearly has a bridge that separates the interested and the non-interested. I do not believe that we can "restore" the interest of people but I do believe that as writers we can give science away for the better of people. When it comes to science, I do have that curiosity that I learned as a kid, but it is my duty to connect to those who don't.
How do we do this? It is easy to say we must simplify it but I believe it goes beyond that. We need to write in a fashion that opens the eyes of the audience to the benefit that can come from it. Writing must be personal but also very connecting to many worlds. I will use the example that I learned in Marketing class. When asked what marketing does for someone who may become a banker or a scientist or a journalist, few understood what answer the professor was looking for. Until the concept of Marketing products in the business world was set aside. The benefit of the subject came from the various reasons marketing can help a human in the real world. Marketing oneself for a job, Strategies to make one's work relevant, etc. Rather than discussing the way to make a breakthrough product, we learned that marketing goes beyond the business world.
If we can transfer that concept to the curiosity and intentions of a reader/audience then we can capture the real benefit of science to the real world. People do not want to read about sickle cells if they do not understand them. But if we can bridge the gap with multiple connections to the outside world, I believe we may benefit that reader. Would a business man really benefit from sickle cell reporting in the newspaper? Maybe not directly, but that same business man may now have a step up on a client that has a similar background or interest.
This is a very complex challenge because science tends to be filled with very challenging topics that relate to very few. As writers we need to worry less about informing the reader about, using the same example, sickle cell research and more about how they can advance for reading it. If we are in a world that moves a million miles a second via monitor screens and handheld devices, we must make it known that reading is not a waste of time. Expressing that benefit to the average Joe is not easy, but I believe people are only as curious as the middle man (us) make them. No longer does one ask out of the blue to gain that random knowledge you may never experience or "stumble" upon. We certainly can do our best to change that!
You must now consider science and how that relates to this situation. Science, as we continually say, must be simplified due to the fear that the word brings to people. Last week I spoke about how I do not believe science can be restored in people. I continue this week with the notion of what science and the knowledge we gain can do to those around us. More specifically our challenge of writing science to better the "common good". Science clearly has a bridge that separates the interested and the non-interested. I do not believe that we can "restore" the interest of people but I do believe that as writers we can give science away for the better of people. When it comes to science, I do have that curiosity that I learned as a kid, but it is my duty to connect to those who don't.
How do we do this? It is easy to say we must simplify it but I believe it goes beyond that. We need to write in a fashion that opens the eyes of the audience to the benefit that can come from it. Writing must be personal but also very connecting to many worlds. I will use the example that I learned in Marketing class. When asked what marketing does for someone who may become a banker or a scientist or a journalist, few understood what answer the professor was looking for. Until the concept of Marketing products in the business world was set aside. The benefit of the subject came from the various reasons marketing can help a human in the real world. Marketing oneself for a job, Strategies to make one's work relevant, etc. Rather than discussing the way to make a breakthrough product, we learned that marketing goes beyond the business world.
If we can transfer that concept to the curiosity and intentions of a reader/audience then we can capture the real benefit of science to the real world. People do not want to read about sickle cells if they do not understand them. But if we can bridge the gap with multiple connections to the outside world, I believe we may benefit that reader. Would a business man really benefit from sickle cell reporting in the newspaper? Maybe not directly, but that same business man may now have a step up on a client that has a similar background or interest.
This is a very complex challenge because science tends to be filled with very challenging topics that relate to very few. As writers we need to worry less about informing the reader about, using the same example, sickle cell research and more about how they can advance for reading it. If we are in a world that moves a million miles a second via monitor screens and handheld devices, we must make it known that reading is not a waste of time. Expressing that benefit to the average Joe is not easy, but I believe people are only as curious as the middle man (us) make them. No longer does one ask out of the blue to gain that random knowledge you may never experience or "stumble" upon. We certainly can do our best to change that!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)