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!
Thursday, January 31, 2013
Kids and Science
When kids are young, it is no surprise that they have a distinct interest in science. As stated in the prompt, it can be insects, rocks, dinosaurs etc. I believe that this sparked interest has to do with the high ambition and energy that kids exemplify. When you consider science, especially to those who have little interest in it, the common theme is that it is too complicated and too hard to understand. In its most simplified state, science is the gathering of testable knowledge and study of how things in the universe work. Children, around the preschool age, are in the early development of defining themselves and figuring out the world around them. In a sense, children and science can be defined in a similar way when you consider the developments.
So what is it that makes kids shift away from science? In my opinion, the key ingredient is the fact that kids continue to define themselves and increase their worldly knowledge as they develop. As that development continues, the knowledge surrounding science proceeds to be more complex. Side by side, humans cannot keep up with the complexity of science. We can only attempt to understand the complexity and make the choice of whether furthering the knowledge is for us or not. People do not lose ambition or energy in science, but as we develop as humans we learn to cope with the world around us surrounding our interests. When you consider when exactly a child loses that interest in science, I believe there is no number or age you can associate with it. People find ways to survive in this world and as that complex issue develops, the interests tend to shift elsewhere. Kids find things to be interesting whether it may be tangible or not but as a child develops, I believe the lack of a grasp on science tends to deter the crowd.
The lack of interest is the issue that drives scientific writers crazy. I like to call it the "million dollar question". If you could grasp the interest of a child in the general public's view, you would have it all solved. I believe that scientific writers just are not capable of restoring that interest or solving that mystery. Although the development of a human and science is my theory, I believe that the distinct lack of interest is too much for a writer to solve. As I said before, people learn to cope and engulf their time with that. Fitting science into a person's life is something that people do not see tangible results in. Without science resulting in something we can grasp, a writer cannot use his words to spark the interests we once believed in.
So what is it that makes kids shift away from science? In my opinion, the key ingredient is the fact that kids continue to define themselves and increase their worldly knowledge as they develop. As that development continues, the knowledge surrounding science proceeds to be more complex. Side by side, humans cannot keep up with the complexity of science. We can only attempt to understand the complexity and make the choice of whether furthering the knowledge is for us or not. People do not lose ambition or energy in science, but as we develop as humans we learn to cope with the world around us surrounding our interests. When you consider when exactly a child loses that interest in science, I believe there is no number or age you can associate with it. People find ways to survive in this world and as that complex issue develops, the interests tend to shift elsewhere. Kids find things to be interesting whether it may be tangible or not but as a child develops, I believe the lack of a grasp on science tends to deter the crowd.
The lack of interest is the issue that drives scientific writers crazy. I like to call it the "million dollar question". If you could grasp the interest of a child in the general public's view, you would have it all solved. I believe that scientific writers just are not capable of restoring that interest or solving that mystery. Although the development of a human and science is my theory, I believe that the distinct lack of interest is too much for a writer to solve. As I said before, people learn to cope and engulf their time with that. Fitting science into a person's life is something that people do not see tangible results in. Without science resulting in something we can grasp, a writer cannot use his words to spark the interests we once believed in.
Thursday, January 24, 2013
The work of a Scientist can always improve...
In the ASA article, there is a clear goal set forth for scientific
writers. In its simplest form, it is to question everything and do everything
in your power to eliminate biases within ourselves and others. This is a taller
task than words make it seem. As people we are raised and developed into biases
and typically scientists are pushed into a more particular bias. This bias is
that all that is scientifically proven is “correct”. This article insists that we must drop that in order to become better scientific pioneers/writers. Although it is relatively impossible to drop all biases in writing, it benefits us to consider the popular belief or public consensus. The goal of a journalist is to convey a relevant, interesting, and useful piece of work, but as scientists we want to find the happy medium. Our writing thrives on the factual evidence but our words are only as good as the reader allows it to be.
By allowing ourselves to be open to the general public, we make ourselves better writers and scientists. As we know from history, we progress through dissecting a subject and improving that matter. It is the simple science of innovation. While writing scientifically and considering those who may contest the sciences, we must set a goal for the reader to choose to pursue. We need to set forth information but in a manner that is confrontational, factual, and open for the reader to decide their views. Rather than portraying our biases in the information we have dug out and pouring it on the reader, we can better ourselves by opening up and connecting to our reader. As scientists as well as citizens, these are basic concepts that can help our everyday lives. Confronting an issue and testing the truth allows us to further our own understanding and allows us to better those around us. It is a concept as humans that we are introduced to as young kids. Who has not heard, "Share with your friends" or "Be nice" or "wait your turn"? The concept of opening up, connecting, and being considerate of others, is something we can continue to learn from...AND YES! EVEN A SCIENTIST CAN KEEP LEARNING AND BE CONTESTED!
By allowing ourselves to be open to the general public, we make ourselves better writers and scientists. As we know from history, we progress through dissecting a subject and improving that matter. It is the simple science of innovation. While writing scientifically and considering those who may contest the sciences, we must set a goal for the reader to choose to pursue. We need to set forth information but in a manner that is confrontational, factual, and open for the reader to decide their views. Rather than portraying our biases in the information we have dug out and pouring it on the reader, we can better ourselves by opening up and connecting to our reader. As scientists as well as citizens, these are basic concepts that can help our everyday lives. Confronting an issue and testing the truth allows us to further our own understanding and allows us to better those around us. It is a concept as humans that we are introduced to as young kids. Who has not heard, "Share with your friends" or "Be nice" or "wait your turn"? The concept of opening up, connecting, and being considerate of others, is something we can continue to learn from...AND YES! EVEN A SCIENTIST CAN KEEP LEARNING AND BE CONTESTED!
Monday, January 21, 2013
Prompt 1: Scientific Literacy
For the first prompt, I will look into the importance of scientific literacy in a healthy democracy. I like to look at Scientific Literacy as the way to most simply bring important terms of everyday life to more understandable and compatible material. In other words, make important yet applicable terms feasible to the average person. Democracy, in general, thrives in the hands of the people and if scientific literacy is irrelevant, than the power is in the wrong hands. For instance, if "we" the people vote on the passing of climate controls, it is our duty to actually understand the concept. That task is easier said than done. The average Joe can attempt to pick up a book or turn on the news to become educated, but the scientific literacy of that person will handicap their ability to fully understand. What I am trying to get across is, Scientific Literacy and Democracy come hand in hand.
The question is how and why? As I said before, we the people have the power. And the average Joe will not be able to decipher the 15 letter words and millions of viruses that we see flashing all over the TV. The majority of people do not have access or have the desire to further that knowledge. The answer is simplicity. Simplicity in the large, confusing terminology in hope to increase knowledge and awareness. Then you must consider why? If we can make those with the power educated and aware of those scientific constructs, then we are surely benefiting society through our knowledge. A basis of information will create awareness, but may not create interest.
The solution here to a lack of interest in these "15 letter words" is not just educating. It is a educating in a broad, more basic fashion. By following this method, we can allow people to adapt and understand to different information rather than be narrow minded in certain areas. The result here is the turn off of topics that people cannot understand. That spark of interest combined with understanding, allows the advancement Democracy needs.
A Democracy is looking to constantly progress and give the best product from the people. If people are responsible for proposing, developing, and creating the components of living, then the combination of Scientific Literacy increasing and interest increasing, will have a positive effect. The advancement must take place in order to open democratic citizen's eyes to important subjects they might otherwise surpass.
The question is how and why? As I said before, we the people have the power. And the average Joe will not be able to decipher the 15 letter words and millions of viruses that we see flashing all over the TV. The majority of people do not have access or have the desire to further that knowledge. The answer is simplicity. Simplicity in the large, confusing terminology in hope to increase knowledge and awareness. Then you must consider why? If we can make those with the power educated and aware of those scientific constructs, then we are surely benefiting society through our knowledge. A basis of information will create awareness, but may not create interest.
The solution here to a lack of interest in these "15 letter words" is not just educating. It is a educating in a broad, more basic fashion. By following this method, we can allow people to adapt and understand to different information rather than be narrow minded in certain areas. The result here is the turn off of topics that people cannot understand. That spark of interest combined with understanding, allows the advancement Democracy needs.
A Democracy is looking to constantly progress and give the best product from the people. If people are responsible for proposing, developing, and creating the components of living, then the combination of Scientific Literacy increasing and interest increasing, will have a positive effect. The advancement must take place in order to open democratic citizen's eyes to important subjects they might otherwise surpass.
Thursday, January 17, 2013
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)