Open question for y'all

Absolutely, on all fronts.

I would make use of such a resource.

I have found myself doing some targeted self-education via Wikipedia from time-to-time and there are times in both that and news where a paper is used as a reference and that paper is not available without subscription.

Paulou, yes, I agree, that's a big difficulty! And I really do not want to go in that direction.

I've been batting this around the past week at the office, and people have suggested that American Scientist and Nature already do that, with their articles about new papers, condensed into 3 pages for a wider public. But I'm bothered by that in the sense that you describe, because much of that is about making it "sexy" and giving it a spin it really doesn't need (also, in my opinion, they dumb it down, despite claims to the contrary).

What I was thinking of was more along the lines of, for any given scientific journal, as well as the full paper (because, fair enough, for academics in that field, having a "standard" format, of dry passive language, probably makes it easier to repeat somebody else's experiment), there could additionally be the option of reading a "laymans" version without need for subscription (after all, a lot of research is funded by taxpayer money). I don't mean dumbing it down to pointlessness or buzzwords, or, as you quite accurately described it, "redditification", but the public should have at least the option of accessibility.

And I agree, you shouldn't expect to become an expert without time and a concerted effort, but I think there's ways to effectively communicate ideas that we can't do with the current format. Most journals have a word count, and a limit to the number of figures and tables you can use, each with their own limitations. What if this layman's version could have as many diagrams as is necessary to get the point across? Or could include embedded gifs, or videos? (a colleague presented her work on friday about predicting disease patterns, and instead of trying to explain cellular automata [it's awesome, look it up!], she had an 8-second gif that made it super-clear).
We've got all this technology and mediums available with which to present novel ideas and concepts, and we're sticking with "10,000 words max, no more than 6 figures, with a limit of up to 2 tables"?

I mean, basically, our way of presenting stuff is like the way Euclid presented his proofs, because, hey, that's the way it's always been done e.g. Pythagoras Theorem:

SPOILER Show

SPOILER Show

I truly believe anyone can understand anything, given enough time and with the right flow of logic. I'm not talking about a shortcut, but I am talking about showing non-specialists the path, which, if they're willing to spend their time on, they can surely follow.

Last edited by Herc (2014-12-16 07:41:26)

Disclaimer: if you dislike the tone of a post I make, re-read it in a North/East London accent until it sounds sufficiently playful

Science cannot give up its extremely specific terms. They're simply required for a succesful communication inside the perimeters of univocity and precision. What you suggest would require for all or most of the concepts on that text to be substituted by its definition. And that's not practical.

However, not everything is lost. Because what you need to understand that tricky word is but a quick wiki search away. In fact, I think the wikipedia is the best gateway into any new topic for a layman - scientific or not. The English wikipedia is very accurate and has a lot of content that can go quite in depth while giving you instant access to the explanation of this or that concept you don't seem to be able to grasp right away.

What's the key to get the general public to learn about science? Their own natural curiosity. And I think nowadays Youtube is doing an amazing job at spurring it. You can watch short videos with a lot of info crammed into them that will get your brain started on certain topic. Then you only need to get that person used to looking for the answers to the questions that they'll eventually get and that's it. Now we have a better educated citizen. They even found it enterteining, which means that they'll come back next week for a new video, and then start on that new topic and... The ball just keeps rolling.

Of course, this isn't enough to get a person to the highest level of any science. But I think it fulfills what you were asking for.

P.S: I'm going to post a few links to channels I think are good examples of what I'm talking about. Feel free to browse them, all are worth your time.

https://www.youtube.com/user/destinws2
https://www.youtube.com/user/CGPGrey
https://www.youtube.com/user/scishow
https://www.youtube.com/user/crashcourse

P.P.S: I hope my sleep deprived brain hasn't made an ass out of me in this post. I really wanted to contribute ^^

Yes.
The world needs (at least, and among other things) a middle road between reading the online pop-science accumulators, or trying to parse the jargon in an Arxiv publication.

Please define "important science."

Your example from pop-psychology supports the assertion that high-quality science journalism is both lacking and of high net future value. Education of the grossly misinformed public in the proper application of skepticism is the solution.

The day-to-day pursuit of science seems fairly boring compared to my ideal career, but the totality of the results can and should be presented in engaging ways. I'm sure we can all name several science popularizers with intellectual integrity, charisma and showmanship. They are simply too few, and concentrated in longer-than-YouTube-clip formats.

Yes, this. One of the greatest problems with access is quite literally access. There's been a move towards making scientific papers open access (i.e. free) but it's limited and inconsistent. I definitely think the expense of some articles is a barrier to exploration into fields that are unfamiliar, even I bet across academic fields. People aren't going to be inclined to read a paper if the price tag is $50 and there's a high risk that most of it would fly over their heads, people generally don't like to be made to feel stupid. Granted, publishers and authors should receive revenue, but does a PDF clipping from an issue published in the 70s still warrant a price tag? I work in the pharmaceutical industry and look at papers quite often, and I'm surprised at how often key papers (like guidelines) are on a subscription model. Like with many things, I think a better balance could be had with this.

Similarly, a delicate balance is needed when it comes to simplying complicated concepts for the layman audience. Personally, I'm very wary of second-hand interpretations of studies, as these can be, and often are, misunderstood (either deliberately or accidentally). Papers have a substantial section dedicated to discussion of the results and there's another smaller section for the conclusion - both are key in giving context to both the results and the study in the wider literature - and yet neither are especially fascinating. They're far from the 'definitive headline' that neatly wraps up everything. I've read some studies which essentially discount their results. Given the rise in internet preaching, the source is your best chance of getting the actual data, unfiltered through someone else's agenda.

And yet we have to reconcile this with the necessity of second-hand interpretation. As you guys have said, it's sometimes impenetrable. We need the translation but often, academics cannot write for the layperson (or just don't have the time). People who can make the words more understandable and engaging are a vital link in the chain.

I don't know... ideally the 'popsci vectors' would kickstart the pursuit of the real science and want to learn how to 'read' the academic form of the information. The specialism of knowledge is pretty amazing when you think about it, we've collected so much information that no-one can be expert in it all.

Holy crap. Good discussion, thanks! Which is great, 'cause I know there's aspects I haven't thought about it in depth.

Re: dumbing down, I know that's a concern. Dry, impenetrable articles are one extreme. The other extreme is bullshit popscience. However, I really think that most researchers are capable of writing more openly, but are limited by the tone/style-guide of journals.

I do think there's a happy middleground (or at the very least, a more accessible one). I will try and clarify this later (I am currently busy simulating evolutionary trees and species traits on those trees, so I'm pressed for time), but for now, what I'm talking about is not second-hand interpretation. There's plenty of that already.

What I meant (sorry, should have been clearer) is if a person or group of people write an article, they themselves would have the additional option of also submitting a "layman" version, which could be accessed for free.
I know it seems like a drag on researcher time (thus making it optional), but, really, given how much time they already spend on papers (there's usually about 6-months between submitting an article and getting notes back and redrafting and resubmitting and getting published), writing a layman version is a tiny fraction of that.

Quick points, in bulletpoints:
*physics (and chemistry) have a lot of math and fine, fine detail, so I think that would be super-difficult to do. I'm mainly focused on Biology, which we can express in words, and even though there's a lot of math, there's a way to express it in words without needing math, and also without losing the point or misleading anybody
*we'd need to solve the problem of where to draw the line, because obviously, the layman version should reference other papers, which would be traditionally written academic articles.
*and then there's the "turtles all the way down" problem, because of math.

I have more to say, will try to say it more clearly later.

Disclaimer: if you dislike the tone of a post I make, re-read it in a North/East London accent until it sounds sufficiently playful

I absolutely did!

I re-watched a few episodes recently and was sort of shocked at just how stereotypically "New Jersey Italian" that character felt.