People who mattered in science this year

Post by eli_gottlieb » Sun, Dec 22, 2013, 8:10 PM UTC

javajosh wrote: post #9

mkingston wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I get the feeling you've considerably misinterpreted the article: "365 days: Nature's 10. Ten people who mattered this year." Instead of "The only ten things science accomplished this year". I actually find your comment so outrageous I'm starting to wonder if it's a joke?

Not a joke. Think of it from the perspective of a kid. Do they want to be a scientist? What is a scientist? (Or, equivalently, the parents of a kid might ask this question.) And they see this list. I'm sure everyone on it is smart, well-meaning, hard-working, and indeed their work is probably of more benefit to society than the vast majority of others. So far, so good. But with the exception of the cloning guy, I don…

Real science has almost nothing to do with science-fictional technology. This sounds irritating, until you think about the alternative.

Post by mkingston » Tue, Dec 24, 2013, 9:43 AM UTC

javajosh wrote: post #9

mkingston wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I get the feeling you've considerably misinterpreted the article: "365 days: Nature's 10. Ten people who mattered this year." Instead of "The only ten things science accomplished this year". I actually find your comment so outrageous I'm starting to wonder if it's a joke?

Not a joke. Think of it from the perspective of a kid. Do they want to be a scientist? What is a scientist? (Or, equivalently, the parents of a kid might ask this question.) And they see this list. I'm sure everyone on it is smart, well-meaning, hard-working, and indeed their work is probably of more benefit to society than the vast majority of others. So far, so good. But with the exception of the cloning guy, I don…

"And they see this list."

But why would they see this list in your proposed context? The list is not specifically intended for your theoretical audience, nor intended to contain your theoretical content, but you're railing against it like it is. If the article was entitled: "This article will inspire kids to do science", you might have a point. I will go further and argue that the type of youth reading Nature is actually probably going to be inspired by this article.

If you had wanted to discuss motivating kids into science, that's a great discussion to have, but inaccurately denigrating science/the article like this: 'I can't believe this is the what all of "science" achieved this year.' is probably not the most productive way to do it.

Re: People who mattered in science this year

Re: People who mattered in science this year