Science Unseen

Grace Conyers

Grace is a soil scientist, researcher, educator, and science communicator. She spends a lot of her day alternating between teaching, dancing in a lab while waiting for chemical reactions, reading, and plotting business adventures. She is the owner and a co-founder of Insanitek Research and Development. Grace can be found on social media on Minds, Google+, and Vid.me. She invites you to meet up with her on any of these platforms.

You may also like...

3 Responses

  1. Van Damme says:

    This is a doubled edge sword, it means that qualified academics are the go to people for opinions, knowledge etc…rather than someone who “googled” something! Rightly so?

    It has always been tough to breakthrough into politics and, in general, the populace mindset.
    Science has a strength in the political world since it is a basis for logical thought and rationale, ideally.
    In other words, my political beliefs are based upon said scientific method but also crucially logic and a grasp of nature itself.

    The difficulties to address to the general populace and its interaction with science is in part the scientist’s fault, by not recognizing the human nature. As the instant gratification need, emotions and short attention span of the human.

    Science conveying an important topic does not stimulate the average person, as it is requires discipline of the subject and hard work. The gratification and lack of interest, as you pointed out in your good article, is even more so in the internet/news 24 cycle we have.

    We also have to address, that even I as a scientist has sometimes lost “faith” in the scientific method. Not the method itself, but the politicization of certain subjects, e.g. global warming…These scientists are human just like us and they too have their own human vices. The scientific method claims to eliminate this but the method itself is reliant upon “policing by mere mortals”.

    If I have dubious doubts about a scientific claim why should an “average person” give anymore extra time into these subject matters?
    They simply defer to the “experts” opinion, and we have come full circle regarding my first statement of being a double edged sword!

    One of the last great public educators (that is worldwide renowned) was Carl Sagan, look at the flak he had from “proper” scientists about speaking to the public! Again, the internal “clique” that wants to remain at the top of the knowledge tree so they are the “go to experts”, another example of scientists exhibiting mere mortal and human characteristics! Mind you Sagan has also been proved wrong about his nuclear winter analysis, another full circle!

  2. GrimsbyHeritage says:

    Too many Science Journalists have a dangerously small amount of Scientific understanding. They can see that a good grounding in English Literature (which many have 🙂 ) often leads to greater appreciation of English literature, plays and films, yet appear oblivious to similar mechanisms in Science and Engineering.
    Why else do we suffer Climate Change Delusion Syndrome? Given that halving wind speed reduces the available kinetic energy to turn into electricity to ONE EIGHTH (because of the cubic relationship inherent in fluid flow, which is common knowledge among Scientists and Engineers), why not just build gas/coal power stations?
    The problem is that our electricity supply is very high quality (with little variation in frequency, peak voltage and wave form), and has to be, and windmills cannot provide this.
    Why not develop fracking (with good regulation as is the norm in Britain) to reduce or dependence on the Middle East supplies? Why not discuss the process instead of using Green Party sound bites (from Dr Caroline Lucas, for example) that are so misleading.
    Philosophy may appear a bit of a useless subject, yet understanding that fitting facts to an agenda is not Science would stop so much wealth from being wasted. Corrupt papers only mislead researchers into more wastful endeavours.
    Jordan Peterson (the Univ. Toronto prof) states that, in some areas of the Humanities and Social Sciences, 80% of papers are not cited elsewhere – which shows how useful they are, even to colleagues! They are generated just to prolong employment in so called universities.
    I have come to the reluctant conclusion that trying to educate the public in Science and Technology is a multi-purpose process that involves them understanding some basic principals: principles that are too easy to accept, yet not understand to allow them to proceed to the next step.
    Anyone who has learnt to dance more than a couple of different dances reasonably well will know that, once you have the beat, once you can just move in time without thinking, the intricate steps are much easier than you think. Yet moving onto another dance that is less ingrained in you, say Waltz to a Samba, the steps, which are far simpler, are ‘amazingly’ more difficult. It is like that progressing in the Scientific world.
    We need un-politicised, journalists with a good grounding in the subject matter under discussion and, for that, we need organisations where they can pursue their craft. And the BBC isn’t one of them. Neither are most of the Scientific Magazines: unquestioning acceptance of Climate Change is a good indicator.

    • GrimsbyHeritage says:

      ‘educate the public in Science and Technology is a multi-purpose process’

      Should be:
      educate the public in Science and Technology is a multi-step process

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *