A "not insignificant" defense of gleeful scientists


18 Responses to “A "not insignificant" defense of gleeful scientists”

  1. Gendun says:

    I like how you let us know what we should think and believe – it takes the guesswork out of it. 

    • Jerril says:

       … it’s a blog, of course people are sharing their wants and desires.

      • Gendun says:

        What I’m referring to, Jerril, is Ms. Koerth-Baker’s conspicuous tendency to tell her audience not only how scientific findings should be interpreted, which is already more help than I need, but also how they should be valued. I can only suppose that many people like her role as normative interpreter of scientific data, but personally I find it condescending.

        • wysinwyg says:

          Seems to me as though you’re creating a problem by interpreting Maggie’s intentions in science blogging to be something that they almost certainly aren’t.

          “more help than I need”? “Normative”?  Seriously?  Talk about condescending.

        • Antinous / Moderator says:

          Then why the fuck are you reading it?

        • Boundegar says:

          Perhaps you should be reading the scientific journals then, where opinion is kept to an absolute minimum, and let the rest of us enjoy Maggie’s charming, quirky journalism.

        • SHaGGGz says:

          Your irascibly freethinking mind is noted and admired with all the intensity your comment was so transparently designed to elicit.

        • Origami_Isopod says:

          Because everybody’s at your level of scientific expertise. Setting out some explanation for us n00bs is “condescending” to you.

  2. Christopher says:

    As an addendum to all this I think we should consider how many people grew up to be scientists because they met someone (often a teacher) who was enthusiastic about science, who “geeked out” about it, and whose enthusiasm was infectious.

    I don’t know that we’d necessarily end up with more scientists–in my own case I had some fantastic science teachers and always had an interest in science, but work in a library*–but I think scientists being enthusiastic about their work would get people interested enough that it could help promote a better-educated public. That may be a stretch, though.

    *In spite of the moniker I don’t think there’s that much that’s scientific about “information science”.

    • Andrea says:

       Absolutely! I’m not “in” science, but I’m fascinated by it, partly because of teachers who geeked out about science and a dad who does, too. The thing about people saying, “This is really cool, I’m so excited!” is that it can free you up to be excited about it as well. Being excited by something your teacher (and other people) treats as boring takes a lot more determination.

  3. hymenopterid says:

    I’m glad the scientists are excited  I’m excited too.  Now, can somebody please tell me what we are excited about?

    • Will Bueche says:

      When comets made of water impact on a planet, they leave water behind. Next up is whether a comet made of Obviousidium would leave Obviousidium behind.

    • Maj Variola says:

      All it takes for life is some chemicals, water, and ENERGY GRADIENT.    Well, if you’ve got ice on mercury, and its got organic goo on it, its frickin Harold Urey’s experiment, with more time.  In other words, Mercury is now as much a contender for exobio as some of the moons of the gas giants.  

      Life can live at the edge between heaven and hell.

  4. Well, some of us prefer our science news shaken, not stirred.

  5. SHaGGGz says:

    I usually end up in jail when I expose my humanity :

  6. Kelly Pratt says:

    I thought coal and tar only came from living materials?

  7. pdffs says:

    With all the anti-science and neo-luddite sentiment in the world, I can kind of understand why scientists may try particularly hard to present themselves as purely objective.

Leave a Reply