Chemistry, and science in a broader sense. When you hear ‘woah a new medicine has been found that could cure cancer’ it’s most likely 'we have developed a new gadolinium based compound that has shown efficiency in penetrating cancer cells and could be used to deliver drugs to these areas, however it has not been tested in humans because it kills rats faster that it cures cancer"
Almost every science headline was written by someone who never understood science. They just translate some foreign language into words that suits them.
Medical science or research in general, it’s all spun around to get clicks.
When people think there’s a new “superfood” or “recommendation” from doctors every week, they stop trusting doctors. In reality, the processes and recommendations are very robust and take lots of time and research to change. A study will say that “we might want to look into X” and news will run with “groundbreaking study: x is the sole cause of y”.
I’m not even an expert. Like you said “Almost every science headline was written by someone who never understood science”
PopSci is tricky because on one hand, it’s great that there’s a lot of interest in learning about science and it should be promoted, but on the other, the vast majority of research is so complex that you literally cannot explain it to the layman without making it wrong in some way.
That’s why Bill Nye, Neil DeGrasse Tyson, etc are such treasures. They know science, but also are able to explain shit to laypeople. Scientific breakthroughs need to do press releases that the scientists themselves sign off on. Unfortunately, the misunderstood sensationalism gets clicks which makes money, so there’s absolutely zero incentive for these journalists to get the story straight since they’re profit motivated.
Both of those people have fallen off hard. Tyson’s head is so far up his own ass that he will talk over you to explain why its actually healthier that way.
Bill Nye was a mechanical engineer, then a comedian, then a TV presenter. Unlike (say) Carl Sagan or Neil DeGrasse Tyson, he was never a research scientist.
You’re not wrong in general, but in the specific case of “X against Y”, it’s simply bad journalism. Every half decent journalist should be able to tell that the original research article might be of relevance for the field, but not the public.
Especially adding anything cancer-related to the headline is just pure evil. They knew exactly, that it will get many people’s hope up and they’ll click.
I had to do an assignment in college about news report headlines vs what was said in the abstract vs what was said in the conclusion. Basically finding out how many news reports just skimmed the abstract. Kinda shocking tbh.
Corsets. They were not uncomfortable or restrictive, and they did not make women faint. Only the Victorian equivalent of the Kardashians were into dangerously tight lacing – for regular women, they were just a fitted support garment, no worse than spanx. I’ve worn them for 25 years as a late-Victorian reenactor. They’re actually really nice for back pain.
On the other hand, hoop skirts were immensely dangerous, and women were burned to death when their skirts caught an open flame (of which there were many), were dragged to death when their hoops caught in coach wheels as they disembarked, and fell to their deaths when the wind caught their hoops and sent them flying Mary Poppins style from rooves and balconies.
On the same note, knight’s armour was hot but not hard to move in. IIRC is weighed about as much as a modern soldier’s gear does all together.
I have an adage that “the locals are never stupid”; all historical things are going to have been well-adapted for the person who commissioned them, given the available materials and techniques. Even hoop skirts were I imagine comfortable enough when not on fire or caught in something. (And if an accident happened, well, she was lucky to have survived that far)
Eh. The problem is that the way they work is by taking strain off muscles. In the long term, that ends up weakening the muscles that you need to support your torso. In most cases, the best thing you can do for back pain is physical therapy.
Not necessarily, if your back pain is caused by your breasts. Imagine wearing a school backpack on your chest all day every day, and how that would strain your back and shoulders. Then try wearing a hiking backpack instead with a hip belt. It redirects where the weight is resting on your body. The average women’s corset in the 1800s was strengthened with paper or cording or sometimes whale balleen, a material similar to heat sensitive plastic, which are not really materials rigid enough to limit your movement much. Historical corsets were designed to redistribute the weight of breasts to the hips, for most women it was meant to provide support to the breasts first and foremost, and smoothing a tummy roll or giving a smidge more definition in the waist was just a bonus. Working women who wore corsets in kitchens and laundries and schools or farms had no issues with weaker core muscles.
Chemistry, and science in a broader sense. When you hear ‘woah a new medicine has been found that could cure cancer’ it’s most likely 'we have developed a new gadolinium based compound that has shown efficiency in penetrating cancer cells and could be used to deliver drugs to these areas, however it has not been tested in humans because it kills rats faster that it cures cancer"
Almost every science headline was written by someone who never understood science. They just translate some foreign language into words that suits them.
Medical science or research in general, it’s all spun around to get clicks.
When people think there’s a new “superfood” or “recommendation” from doctors every week, they stop trusting doctors. In reality, the processes and recommendations are very robust and take lots of time and research to change. A study will say that “we might want to look into X” and news will run with “groundbreaking study: x is the sole cause of y”.
I’m not even an expert. Like you said “Almost every science headline was written by someone who never understood science”
https://xkcd.com/882/
https://xkcd.com/1217/
Relevant xkcd.
PopSci is tricky because on one hand, it’s great that there’s a lot of interest in learning about science and it should be promoted, but on the other, the vast majority of research is so complex that you literally cannot explain it to the layman without making it wrong in some way.
That’s why Bill Nye, Neil DeGrasse Tyson, etc are such treasures. They know science, but also are able to explain shit to laypeople. Scientific breakthroughs need to do press releases that the scientists themselves sign off on. Unfortunately, the misunderstood sensationalism gets clicks which makes money, so there’s absolutely zero incentive for these journalists to get the story straight since they’re profit motivated.
Both of those people have fallen off hard. Tyson’s head is so far up his own ass that he will talk over you to explain why its actually healthier that way.
The same Bill Nye that aired the episode “My Sex Junk”? Yeah, please no. That guy isn’t even a real scientist.
Bill Nye was a mechanical engineer, then a comedian, then a TV presenter. Unlike (say) Carl Sagan or Neil DeGrasse Tyson, he was never a research scientist.
Perfectly suited to explain basic science concepts to children.
Bill Nye has lost my respect recently, but Professor Dave FTW.
You’re not wrong in general, but in the specific case of “X against Y”, it’s simply bad journalism. Every half decent journalist should be able to tell that the original research article might be of relevance for the field, but not the public.
Especially adding anything cancer-related to the headline is just pure evil. They knew exactly, that it will get many people’s hope up and they’ll click.
Things that kill cancer include:
Of course, they also kill everything else.
That’s what radiation + chemotherapy does too. The whole goal is for the treatment to kill the cancer faster than it kills the human.
I had to do an assignment in college about news report headlines vs what was said in the abstract vs what was said in the conclusion. Basically finding out how many news reports just skimmed the abstract. Kinda shocking tbh.
Sadly I can only upvote this once
Corsets. They were not uncomfortable or restrictive, and they did not make women faint. Only the Victorian equivalent of the Kardashians were into dangerously tight lacing – for regular women, they were just a fitted support garment, no worse than spanx. I’ve worn them for 25 years as a late-Victorian reenactor. They’re actually really nice for back pain.
On the other hand, hoop skirts were immensely dangerous, and women were burned to death when their skirts caught an open flame (of which there were many), were dragged to death when their hoops caught in coach wheels as they disembarked, and fell to their deaths when the wind caught their hoops and sent them flying Mary Poppins style from rooves and balconies.
Corsets were fine; hoop skirts were a death trap.
I was thinking of gettingy ex-wife a hoop skirt for her birthday.
On the same note, knight’s armour was hot but not hard to move in. IIRC is weighed about as much as a modern soldier’s gear does all together.
I have an adage that “the locals are never stupid”; all historical things are going to have been well-adapted for the person who commissioned them, given the available materials and techniques. Even hoop skirts were I imagine comfortable enough when not on fire or caught in something. (And if an accident happened, well, she was lucky to have survived that far)
Eh. The problem is that the way they work is by taking strain off muscles. In the long term, that ends up weakening the muscles that you need to support your torso. In most cases, the best thing you can do for back pain is physical therapy.
Not necessarily, if your back pain is caused by your breasts. Imagine wearing a school backpack on your chest all day every day, and how that would strain your back and shoulders. Then try wearing a hiking backpack instead with a hip belt. It redirects where the weight is resting on your body. The average women’s corset in the 1800s was strengthened with paper or cording or sometimes whale balleen, a material similar to heat sensitive plastic, which are not really materials rigid enough to limit your movement much. Historical corsets were designed to redistribute the weight of breasts to the hips, for most women it was meant to provide support to the breasts first and foremost, and smoothing a tummy roll or giving a smidge more definition in the waist was just a bonus. Working women who wore corsets in kitchens and laundries and schools or farms had no issues with weaker core muscles.