sprinkles
Mojibake
- Joined
- Jul 5, 2012
- Messages
- 2,959
- MBTI Type
- INFJ
There's nothing wrong with that.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.
My main concern is the rogue elements all over YouTube and other places which are doing real damage. And yes they are, because I've seen it, and can bring up too many examples of it happening. Of course there's often someone there to challenge it too, but this constant battle is getting old. (And it is a constant battle and is a huge part of the reason people end up with a wrong opinion instead of no opinion)
Well this comes down to a difference in word choice, but I agree.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.
However part of the point still stands - many would consider minimal and exact vocabulary to be 'dry and boring' perhaps even more so than information which is verbose and convoluted. I mean if it's complicated it must be worth something right?
Edit:
And actually no, on second thought I don't entirely agree. Whether the words leap off the page for you is more dependent on you than on the words, so my point that it is preference still stands.
This is ironic considering the fact you could keep the same words yet get different emotive results from different people.
Science is a part of life but that doesn't mean we can't isolate it for discussion. Sleeping is a part of life too. I could even argue that sleeping is important for doing science. That doesn't mean it is necessary to include it.Moreover, science is part of life, and should be. See comments above.
I only said what I said because it describes how I'm approaching it and that there may be a difference in our views. That was it. I don't see why there had to be more than that.