Do you even science bro?
I can’t tell you how much I f#!&ing love this article from The Allium. I even read the title.
Thanks to Rajini Rao for pointing me to The Allium.
ETA
I should mention the Do you even science bro? joke is from Nic Hammond from this post.
June 23, 2015
Gnotic Pasta, thank Wonder Woman.
It’s amazing how many people don’t read the post and/or linked article. On my post about the dog meat eating festival, one guy said ‘but it’s their culture,..” I asked if he read my post, because I state that my post is about torture, not about culture. He went back and read the post and read the link and said sorry. That doesn’t happen often. Most of the people I call out for not reading the post or link, just don’t comment again.
June 23, 2015
I love this site and didn’t know about it. Thanks for sharing
June 23, 2015
Speaking on behalf of the “Often Awkward” contingent, is it possible she was attempting to invoke a sort of self-deprecating humor in her posting?
I often don’t understand the full content of articles summarizing advanced concepts, particularly those involving physics jargon and math.
But I understand enough to be able to say, “If you understand it, this looks very interesting…”
I don’t really understand humor; that’s my biggest challenge… 🙂
June 23, 2015
I often share scientific stories I don’t fully understand.
June 23, 2015
rare avis, I’m an engineer. I don’t know what humor is.
June 23, 2015
Rugger Ducky, but you don’t get mesmerized by stupid GIFs and say, IFLS because science is hip now.
June 23, 2015
Chad Haney and you just opened it to one of my wife’s favorite jokes.
How do you tell if an engineer is an extrovert?
He’s staring at your shoes.
June 23, 2015
Banter Maestro
Being an Allium, I’d think so 😉
June 23, 2015
The Allium is on G+, and even occasionally shares posts
June 23, 2015
Thanks Steve Esterly. You never know what pages are active in the ghost town.
June 23, 2015
Ah, such a true story. All of it – this story, people not reading posts, ect. If I include a pretty picture, it usually guarantees share without reading it.
Also love the site’s name.
June 23, 2015
Do you even do science outreach, Carissa Braun ? I bet you just post cool GIFs. 😛
June 23, 2015
Only the coolest most science-filled gifs, Chad Haney. I’m not sure what that last one I posted was but it had a beaker in it so it was definitely sciencey.
June 23, 2015
I wonder how many pluses and re-shares you got with your sciencey GIFs without people reading the actual science.
June 23, 2015
Chad Haney
What, we’re ‘upposed to read?
What good is a darn videoscreen for? ;p
June 23, 2015
rare avis, I bet you don’t really f#!&ing love science.
June 24, 2015
Well it was colorful and said something about loving science so that’s all that matters, right?
On a more serious note, yeah, too many. Sure a nice picture can be helpful, but sometimes the shares focus only on that (and the following comments) and the meaning of the post is completely lost. I’m pretty sure many of us can relate to that issue.
June 24, 2015
Yep. Sadly, no picture often means no interaction.
June 24, 2015
I forgot to mention that the do you even science bro? was a joke from Nic Hammond. I edited for those that missed my earlier rant about IFLS.
June 24, 2015
http://blog.sfgate.com/smellthetruth/2015/06/23/marijuana-is-medicine-journal-of-the-american-medical-association-concludes/
I fucking love science.
June 24, 2015
“Yeah bro…Science rocks dude! I am all like, F..yeah Science..”…
Give me a break, what a ridiculous state of affairs when the word “Science” (and in some ways by proxy science itself) has nowadays pretty much become nothing more than some sort of a joke in many circles, or as my good friend Lacerant Plainer puts it, “a fad”, an internet meme, a frat and spring break cool thing, like “it’s cool to like science”, without even knowing what science really is. What an insult to those that spent years studying and doing real science…
Is it bad in it and of itself that Science is being looked at as being “cool”? Of course not, if that would translate in all of the people considering science “cool” studying for degrees in Science or STEM in general, that is. Or, at a minimum, if that would translate in all of these people minimally educating themselves in the significance of the proper scientific method and what real science is all about.
Unfortunately and sadly I am afraid that for the overwhelming majority of those waving the “Yeah, Science” flag, this is not really the case..
June 24, 2015
Also, anyone who wants to post about how much they love science with my link above, all yours. 😉
June 24, 2015
Ciro Villa I figure if the dumb masses reshare because the picture looks cool, they might still find someone who would view it as inspiring. Instilling a love of science comes first.
June 24, 2015
Rugger Ducky Absolutely, inspiration is important, and it is a first important step in getting young generations attracted toward science. But, as mentioned by others, there is lots of “exploitation” of Science these days, which is not really that good of a thing at all…
June 24, 2015
Ciro Villa
I think the other way. I think ‘Science’ benefits from popular adulation. It directly impacts spending and research grants: It funds science.
There but for the grace of fandom, goes Real Science…
June 24, 2015
Joking aside, I’m all for people being interested in science. As Lacerant Plainer describes it, I don’t like the fad aspect of the IFLS crowd. I enjoy science outreach to get people interested in science. That includes being interested in how science is done. One indicator that IFLS isn’t interested in real science is their history of not giving credit to the images they use and not using references to peer reviewed articles.
June 24, 2015
Chad Haney
By any chance, have you ever read my tongue-in-cheek (sorta) essay anent pop-sci fandom?
June 24, 2015
Ciro Villa I don’t think the exploitation of science is a new phenomenon. Not by a long shot.
June 24, 2015
Rugger Ducky Certainly, it just seems to have reached new, interesting and troubling dimensions these days, especially in the age of internet..
June 24, 2015
rare avis, that’s true to some extent. However, the level of ignorance is pretty high and a lot of people (mostly politicians) are too short sighted. It can take decades to translate basic science into something recognizable in everyday life.
June 24, 2015
Chad Haney
Right. I agree. But Science is just like anything else: it’s an ‘Art’ , when it comes down to it: Culture.
It’s not, “Bread and Butter.”
As such? It requires public support.
And good PR is the frontline against funding freezes…
June 24, 2015
rare avis, but basic science funding is terrible. Biomedical research funding is bad but better than basic science funding because people understand that we need research for cancer treatment and Alzheimer’s disease, etc. The IFLS fad hasn’t helped funding yet.
June 24, 2015
Chad Haney
O gosh. can we leave IFLS out of the entire conversation?
June 24, 2015
rare avis, IFLS is what I have a beef with. It is the conversation.
June 24, 2015
Chad Haney
Very well. I’ll out.
I’m interested in a conversation about Science and exploitation/pop-sci if you’re ever game.
They’re just so far beyond the margins I can’t imagine any dialogue which acknowledges their existence as being fruitful.
June 24, 2015
rare avis, that’s a separate conversation that I’m happy to have. IFLS is a pet peeve that really gets under my skin, so it’s hard to exclude from the conversation.
June 24, 2015
I see it as a necessary evil. Because if you don’t have anyone excited about the research, no one is going to support funding it.
And if someone learns something from a pretty gif they didn’t know before, they have still learned something. Even better if it piques their curiosity to learn more.
June 24, 2015
Rugger Ducky, my beef is that they aren’t learning anything because most of those posts are ‘gee whiz look at the cool GIF’. If they engage and learn something, then that’s exactly why I spend hours writing my science posts. I guess that’s the other rub. Very few people understand that it takes hours to write a good science post.
June 24, 2015
Chad Haney
I do! And I read every word of yours… Your hard work, time, and thoughtfulness do not fall on deaf ears… 😉
And thank you !
June 24, 2015
Thanks rare avis.
June 24, 2015
I get it, Chad Haney, you might notice some of my better posts take awhile to research and lay out. Different areas of interest, but the hook is still the same. You’ve got to have an interesting picture. 😉
June 24, 2015
Ciro Villa thanks for the mention. Yes, as Chad Haney has succinctly put it, IFLS gets under my skin. Really does.
As Gary Ray R is well aware, I carried out this experiment to see their quality. I actually got promoted to moderator without giving any info to them. The sad part is there are a lot of people interested in science who read their stuff. Without appropriate discernment, it is hard for anyone to read their articles and know if it is good research or not. Misleading people about science and muddying the waters is the worst thing one could do, since there is so much amazing about it, one doesn’t need to sensationalize stuff.
June 24, 2015
Lacerant Plainer, that’s another key point. Rajini Rao, Buddhini Samarasinghe, and I (among others), go out of our way to break through the hype or misleading headlines from mainstream media. IFLS makes no effort to say, hey this is great news but now here’s the pinch of salt.
June 24, 2015
Protip: Don’t drink the Kool Aid. In fact, #realscientists hold out for the good stuff from the Loire valley, where they just spent a hard (!) week debating all things calcium 🙂
Glad you enjoyed the sciencified Onion, Chad Haney. They crack me up.
June 24, 2015
Rajini Rao, enjoy your fancy grape juice. I require the fruits of the labor of Saccharomyces cerevisiae.
June 24, 2015
I too am not at all impressed with anything IFLS does. They might say they F**** love science but they sure as heck don’t love writing a decent article about it.
June 24, 2015
I was probably harsh toward the “uninitiated crowd” in my prior comment. There are of course degrees of growth in the acquisition of the knowledge and the development of properly poised passion for science. There is also certain elements of “light” or “popularized science” that if done right, are indeed appealing and even entertaining, again if the facts presented are not a distortion but rather a simplification of complex theories, to make them appealing to the public at large and encourage/excite the young generation and indeed the public at large at wanting to dig up and know more about various scientific disciplines.
However what is troubling is the glorifying of a culture of excessive shallowness and superficiality at the expense of a more poised approach toward scientific news (indeed also many other things in life). Even worse are those elements that exploit this age of glorified shallowness and superficiality for their own gains, thus promoting those traits and perpetuating facts and factoids that have little or nothing to do with science at best and that are pseudoscience passed for science or myths and fantasy/falsehoods at worse.