A lot of people lament the dearth of good scientific reporting. People seem to think that science wouldnt have such a bad rap in the US if we could only find some way to present science accurately. That is, people seem to think that science is mistrusted and maligned in the US because people dont have a good understanding of the scientific method or peer review. Thats not the problem with scientific reporting. The problem with scientific reporting is that its full of jargon, like the article above. What on Earth is an afterglow of the Big Bang? What does it mean for the universe to become transparent to light? And how, exactly, is this not some esoteric finding far removed from what non-physicists care about? The author says this borders on metaphysics, but even Heidegger managed to define his terms better than this. The reason people mistrust science is because articles like these are written and concluded with some brief jab at peoples worldview. Im all for challenging worldviews, but if youre going to do that you have to make an argument, and if youre going to make an argument you have to speak clearly. The above is a comment by someone under the article and makes a good point
Posted on: Wed, 19 Mar 2014 04:19:36 +0000