Mein Kollege Jens Foell zu Gast beim Podcast Fakt ab mit Sina Kürtz. Ich musste ein paar Mal laut lachen
https://www.swr.de/swr2/wissen/podcast-fakt-ab-eine-woche-wissenschaft-100.html

BOOM! :D Wir hatten schon länger ein Video zum Starship von Space X vorbereitet und es dann für diesen Anlass aufgehoben. Das Warten hat sich gelohnt, finde ich.

https://youtu.be/XFXhGQgM0p8

#spaceX #Starship

Für dieses Video zu "Insterstellar" habe ich mir extra das Buch des Nobelpreisträgers Kip Thorne gekauft. Doktor-Whatson-Fans lieben den Film. Ich habe aber nicht erwartet, dass das Video den Rekord für die meisten Aufrufe in 24h absolut zerstören würde.

https://youtu.be/xs0cUMYo7IQ

#Relativität #Interstellar #wissenschaft #wisskomm #youtube #SciFi #science #sciencefiction

@Perowinger94 Hat sich der individuelle KFZ-Verkehr denn verringert? Oder sind sie von Bus und Bahn umgestiegen?

@cadenza @ian
It's "legit" in the sense, that people are actually trying it. I never said Musk ran it. Another egomaniac is running it.

@baddadda @chad if you clean God from these burdens, there is nothing left.

@Neurograce @NicoleCRust sadly, it also drives the 'scientists admit they don't know everything, so no reason to take their warnings serious about this issue'-argument from doubt merchants. One needs to be thorough in telling people that we do know many things with high confidence.

@ian TMK he's supporting a project to genetically engineer indian elephants into something that resembles the wooly mammoth and call it de-extinction.

@pillepalle @janboehm typisches Kreationistenargument. Dass das Leben kein geschlossenes System ist, wird da einfach ausgelassen. Laien mit gefährlichem Halbwissen über Entropie kann so etwas schon verunsichern.

@janboehm Dass man seine Leser ungestraft hinters Licht führen darf, ist wohl leider vom Zensurverbot gedeckt (zähneknirschend muss man das wohl hinnehmen). Aber, dass Hotels antiwissenschaftliche Propagandalügen offen unterstützen, sollte verboten werden. Dann lieber keine Bücher auslegen.

@jason_ritt @NicoleCRust Also, because there needs to be a new video weekly, there is barely enough time to research a topic as intensely as one should. As a scientist who moved into science journalism, this can be really nerve-wrecking.

@jason_ritt @NicoleCRust Working for a privately run science webvideo firm, this is a core issue. You need to get as many clicks as possible to find sponsors to cover the production costs. So, entertainment is key, which is why we put a lot of work in post-production. You also need to keep production cost low, which means the videos need to be brief. Very little space for methodology discussions.

@NicoleCRust Thanks for the question, Nicole. I got a little carried away...

A lack of self-awareness of the communication goal is sometimes an issue. One way I see "getting excited about science" go bad is when there is a clandestine switch of the topic of discussion, hiding a goal shift from increasing scientific understanding to increasing psychological reward.

Someone starts with a show on "The Science of Canine Cognition", which explains currently known "facts" about behavior, neuroscience, history, and so on, with equal emphasis on the process by how these facts were determined, including their uncertainty. Excitement, sure, and relating things to people's everyday experiences with their beloved pets, and keeping the scientific process in the forefront. Motivation and Method gets equal screen time with Result and Discussion. It is a show about a cool area of scientific study.

But people resonate with the doggy facts more than the explanations of experiments. So the show becomes "How Dogs Think", and the description of process gets reduced to "Scientists at Prestigious University have determined..." and everything is "explained" by videos of cute dogs doing things. The essential concepts of uncertainty and empiricism get thrown out, and the narration now contains fewer passages of questions ("How might one figure out if a dog understands English? What does it really mean to understand a language in the first place?"), and more blanket statements ("Dogs know so many words! Look at this adorable dog operate a pedal board that plays words."). It is a show of claims about dogs.

And we might keep going. The show is "Your Dog's Incredible Inner Mind". Claims are selected with a strong "excitement" bias, and explanations are stories that seem to make sense and aren't obviously wrong; maybe a scientist somewhere is willing to say on camera that it might be true. Watch this dog get over the loss of their favorite plushy by "singing" along to Taylor Swift lyrics, just like you might. This other dog writes poetry (remember that pedal board?) in an innovative Romantic-Absurdist style. No questions, no process, just examples with just-so narration. It is a show of our fascination with and emotions about dogs.

And if that last show spurs someone's curiosity and makes them want to learn more about science, great, except that the show didn't actually get them excited about science. It got them excited about dogs. The process by which we come to know things isn't part of that deal.

I'm reminded of a critique from the ancient Internet that the website "I F*cking Love Science" was better named "I F*cking Love Trippy Pictures of Multicolored Fluorescent Stuff".

To me "getting excited about science" means getting excited about the applied process, not the particular list of conclusions best supported by evidence we happen to have at the moment. I see the clandestine switch from Process to Fact behind a lot of the arguments people have over what is "good" general audience science explanation.

As scientists, we don't accept blanket statements of fact, unmotivated and unjustified by evidence, from our colleagues. We should not feel comfortable making those kinds of statements to the public. Popularizing carries the additional burden that you have to explain process at the same time as you explain the subject, because your audience in general has not been trained on the relevant conceptual toolkit. To me that is the core thing that makes it hard. To avoid the failure mode I tried to exemplify above, it's critical at the outset to be clear on what you are actually trying to communicate: Scientific Process, Subject Matter Fact, Emotional Connection, ...?

@Nephele Das ist ganz klar mutwillig, wie die Zahl ohne Kontext angegeben wird. So kann man mit Auslassung Stimmung machen.

@dittrich_lars @ThorstenBoiger @grimm
Vielleicht auch ein Faktor in dem Ganzen: auch Parteien bewegen sich im links-rechts-Spektrum mit der Zeit.

@HeptaSean @bpaassen @grimm
Generation X hat in der letzten Bundestagswahl alle Bundestagsparteien mit 12-18 Prozent gewählt, wenn ich mich recht erinnere. Wären alle wie wir, wäre das eine spannende Regierungsbildung geworden. 💁‍♂️

@PessoaBrain @hsalis @jason_ritt @neuralreckoning @WorldImagining @NicoleCRust @matthewcobb @WiringtheBrain

Classical cytoarchitectonic work of reptile cerebral cortex is wrong. Tosches and Laurent (2018) https://www.science.org/doi/full/10.1126/science.aar4237 demonstrated that not only all inhibitory neuron types are there except for Chandelier cells, but also the layering is far more elaborate and much closer to mammals than ever known before.

@albinmeyer Der technische Wandel ist durchführbar, der ideologische nicht. Wenn Sie tatsächlich eine harte, ideologische Wende erzwingen wollen, dann geht das nur mit einem totalitären Diktaturregime. Und das wollen wir ja hoffentlich alle nicht. Fokussieren Sie auf die notwendigen Rahmenbedingungen, nicht auf die Ideologie.

@ennopark Sie haben politische Ideologie gar nicht aufgezählt. Die werden auch in der Familie weitergegeben und von der Gesellschaft indoktriniert, usw. Sie sind also gegen Meinungsfreiheit?

@ennopark bis auf den Punkt mit der Religion stimme ich zu.