281–285 of 285 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There's a bunch of millionaires who have broken off from legacy news to make written and/or podcast style news content. We're willing to pay for quality work, but the legacy news isn't creating it.
Who pays for podcasts?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
About once a century is all you need.
So, we only need science news one time in century. Kinda hard to develop proficiency at that rate.
There's 2 huge huge problems not mentioned in the article: 1. Take Taleb's piece on IQ[0]. Which journalists have the mathematical background to understand it? None. Most of the psychologists who reponded to Taleb didn't understand his math either (some did). So how do you know if Taleb's bullshitting? McClure tried to dumb it down in a great article[1], but even if you understand those arguments, practically no jour…
It's such a bizarre argument to simultaneously acknowledge that The Science is often wrong yet double down on manipulating the public with this idea that scientific consensus equals Truth. In my view, this practice adulterates science into a technical sophistry that serves as a fifth column for a political agenda. But the root cause here is that science itself is corrupted by the desire to effect change. That is the realm of politics and if scientists want to stop losing trust, they will get out of the business of "ought".