Also I'm reading over my posts in this thread since page 1, and I've been mostly constructive and nothing like how you haters have tried to paint me on the last two or three pages. I got a little annoyed. Big deal.
I don't deserve the flak I got, you're wrong about me, and I can't be bothered to correct you.
Well this definitely doesn't help your image at all.
To be perfectly honest I find your manner of speaking on topics like this as pretentious, haughty, snobbish, and needlessly stubborn. To my knowledge you have said you are a high school drop out who ended up working in the dotcom startup industry years back. As such, not involved or well versed in the scientific community. Based off that, and your approach, I have a difficult time taking you seriously even if I agree. It's largely why I have ignored posts you make on this stuff and just let others deal with it.
As such, I can not fault anyone for reacting the way they did to you, and if anything this post of yours justifies their responses
The point I was trying to get across is that anyone can do science and that it isn't actually pretentious, but people make it so.
You either dedicate to understanding it or you don't. There really is no 'field'. Where were the scientists before there were scientists?
I can be pretentious, overbearing, nasty and rude. I admit it. But when people accuse me of things I did not say, and put words in my mouth, they go too far.
Also more to the point, I gave that private information mainly to prove that if I can get into this stuff, then anyone can. But I see how you judge me now for being honest (and I'm the one who is pretentious? seriously?) TBH I don't think understanding science gets any easier than it does now.
If I hadn't been honest people would probably still be liking my posts and kissing my ass. But suddenly now I'm a nobody, and that's how people work, and that is why I don't need you. As far as I'm concerned you prove my points.
Sprinkles said:And not taking me seriously is a real hoot when I've been tolerating the hell out of some of you for ages now.
Actually, I don't agree here. Not everyone can do science, and there are points and times where people should not over-involve themselves in matters where they do not have the ability or comprehend what is going on at the levels that are required. The reason for this is it can result in misinformation spreading which, for me and a lot of scientist anyway, is one of the major issues we feel must be combated with. There absolutely is a scientific field. To deny such a thing is actually rather asinine. People can learn to become part of it if they put in the effort and contribute to it in a meaningful manner. I.E. by working in the profession, working as a professional advocate, etc. Outside of those sorts of realms is merely a public position. As has been discussed it is their responsibility to stay educated. Or, stay out of it and not try to battle something they do not understand.
As far as being rude, being pushed against is not an excuse for doing so. It ultimately ends up appearing like a temper tantrum a lot of the time.
I understand you gave that information to prove a point. The only time I will judge someone for their credentials (or lack their of) is when their behavior, knowledge, arguments and what not back up what they have/don't have. In your case, it appears to me like you are more informed than most would with your level of knowledge. However, as I said it does appear somewhat out of touch and your lack of being in the scientific field explains why that it is. I'm not judging you in a good or bad way in that regard, it simply explains what is observed. If you want to take offense from that then that's your prerogative.
If I like a post, it's because I like a post. It's as simple as that and it seems like most people here follow that notion. You've said things that I occasionally agree with, at other times I don't. With that said, you approach this topic so aggressively with a lot of underboiled anger that I really have just been unable to make sense of. It think that is what some people might be getting upset with.
But as far as tone. If you come across like a butthurt jerk, then people are going to treat you like a butthurt jerk, and you shouldn't expect anything else from that. In a way it's ironic; one of the issues brought up as the basis for this thread is the manner in which science and information needs to be communicated. It's really important. The way in which you converse with others, matters as well. If it comes across wrong, it won't be taken in by others properly or the ways in which you want, no matter how correct or incorrect it is.
Ok this is just pathetic. Just because you "tolerate" us, means we have to tolerate you? Nuh uh, that's not how it works, and this sort of guilt tripping actually works against what you would be trying to seek. No one's gonna take you seriously. Besides, no one is a mind-reader and is not able to divine if someone is tolerating another person or not. It's therefore illogical to expect such a thing in which they can not see or know without being informed.
Why? Just take a vacation if you don't want to stay with us...You're speaking to me with sense and I can totally appreciate that. You make valid points here.
However it may or may not matter as I've just requested a ban for myself.
Why? Just take a vacation if you don't want to stay with us...
I'll be glad to welcome you back when you are ready.
To find the bit which cannot be broken by pecking.As for the rest of this thread, seriously, wtf? It's like watching woodpeckers peck a tree to death. Is there really a point?
That depends on how accurate the science part is. SF can certainly inspire interest in science, and I think that is the hardest job since once interested, a person will look for more information and not be satisfied with drivel and error. People who indulge in "recreational science" do things like launch rockets in their backyards, observe the night sky with a home telescope, play around with arduinos, or even get into the chemistry of things like cooking or winemaking.No. Sci-fi is entertainment and is a lot of times damaging to science.
Science certainly is technical, but if it is dry, that indicates a poor communication style on the part of the person describing it. Sadly much of technical writing is like this, but it needn't be, and the fact that it is so is not a commentary on the subject matter itself. As for conversations, I find science provides an endless supply of enjoyable, stimulating, and informative conversations. That is one of the everyday joys of being a scientist. You are right about the "nerd cred", though.No. Science is not about enjoyable conversations and showing intelligence (scientists don't actually care about nerd cred all that much)
It's supposed to be dry and technical. And besides, this thread is about difference in opinion, not about being included in the scientific community. Being more inclusive does not necessarily solve the issue.
As for conversations, I find science provides an endless supply of enjoyable, stimulating, and informative conversations. That is one of the everyday joys of being a scientist. You are right about the "nerd cred", though.
That depends on how accurate the science part is. SF can certainly inspire interest in science, and I think that is the hardest job since once interested, a person will look for more information and not be satisfied with drivel and error. People who indulge in "recreational science" do things like launch rockets in their backyards, observe the night sky with a home telescope, play around with arduinos, or even get into the chemistry of things like cooking or winemaking.
Science certainly is technical, but if it is dry, that indicates a poor communication style on the part of the person describing it. Sadly much of technical writing is like this, but it needn't be, and the fact that it is so is not a commentary on the subject matter itself. As for conversations, I find science provides an endless supply of enjoyable, stimulating, and informative conversations. That is one of the everyday joys of being a scientist. You are right about the "nerd cred", though.
That's why I wrote, "People who indulge in 'recreational science' do things like launch rockets in their backyards, observe the night sky with a home telescope, play around with arduinos, or even get into the chemistry of things like cooking or winemaking." Sci-Fi, medical dramas, etc. are more to motivate interest and set people on the path to learning more. Ideally, though, they will be well-researched enough that the technical or medical content is at least accurate, so viewers or readers don't learn things wrong.Or to make a parallel: it's ok to watch a medical drama and be inspired and appreciate what surgeons do, and strive to be a surgeon yourself one day. It is not ok to watch a medical drama and think you're somehow in on it. That is very dangerous.
Science is at least more forgiving in that there are a lot of experiments that you can try without killing people, especially in computer sciences and electronics if you have the dosh for things.
I disagree. Scientific inquiry, or put more simply, figuring out how things really work, is part of human nature. Small children generally exhibit it spontaneously. Then grown-ups and schools extinguish it with rules, requirements, procedures, and "how things are supposed to be done". All science education should have to do is get students (or adults) to rediscover their original childhood curiosity.It's easy to forget that Science is very non-intuitive. Even with all of this education on the sciences, on reasoning and maths, I suspect that most people only get out of it what they manage to find useful in everyday life. Everyday people on the whole need to know pretty much nothing about scientific method, physics and logic.
No. Efficient information is concise. Part of what makes technical communication dry and boring is that it is needlessly verbose and convoluted, NOT efficient or concise. When the ideas leap from a page, unencumbered by needless verbiage and presented with the minimal, exact vocabulary, it is stark in its significance, and far from dry.Additionally I would argue that dry information is efficient information and I could trivially back this up based on computational requirements.
How much 'salt' a person thinks they need in their information in order to digest it comes down to personal preference, but when it comes to the information itself, straight up is the best way to transmit it.
Edit:
Also most of you guys appear to be intermingling science into life and the social circus, and meanwhile I'm separating it from the same.