[–] bikergang_accountant 1 points 24 points (+25|-1) ago 

Are any of you guys interested in "not so new science?" Let's face it, most of science doesn't change and what's new is actually likely wrong, and worse likely described inaccurately by some science communicator.

One thing that bugs me about science entertainment especially as it relates to kids is that it's not teaching any fundamentals. If I were to post something that people knew 50 years ago but still holds true today, but the majority of people lack complete knowledge of the subject, would you all like that kind of material?

That is textbooks > popsci. Do people agree?

[–] aaronC 0 points 9 points (+9|-0) ago  (edited ago)

Are any of you guys interested in "not so new science?"

Yes, people assume that just because they've seen it, that everyone else has seen it. I've seen plenty of older submissions to various places that were really good that I missed out on the first time.

One thing that bugs me about science entertainment especially as it relates to kids is that it's not teaching any fundamentals.

It bugs me too. Everything is being dumbed down and simplified to appeal to the largest audience. Part of why I like voat is because we don't get that that much. But /v/science has a problem with it.

That is textbooks > popsci. Do people agree?

Yes, if I wanted to read some bullshit, lightweight article I'd go read reddit or facebook. Voat reminds me of reddit back when it was the little start up and Digg dominated. It has/had far higher quality articles that are actually worth reading.

/v/science really needs that. I'm not versed enough on the scientific side of the internet to contribute enough. I have a feeling a lot of people here are like me, they have a great interest in science and they appreciate it, but it's not their main thing. I'm mostly a programmer personally.

One of the best things I would like to see here would be some longer, well thought out articles that defy the common scientific opinions, but are legitimate science. I might be asking for too much, but that niche is a really good one and it has potential.

[–] Draewa 0 points 6 points (+6|-0) ago 

I feel like this is a good opportunity to do a "show of hands" kind of thing - if there was a subverse that enforced academic standards for submissions and focused on long-form scientific literature rather than science journalism & science entertainment, would you contribute?

If there is enough interest in a thing like this (and judging by the comments in this thread, there's at least some interest) it should be no problem at all to set up a new subverse that caters to this particular audience.

[–] Draewa 0 points 5 points (+5|-0) ago 

In principle I would enjoy "not so new science", but I would prefer it in a separate subverse. Ideally, I would like to have one verse that focuses on aggregating current research coverage, and one that focuses on science in general (including your "textbook science" approach).

/v/science sorta kinda used to function as a research aggregate, but at the moment it's doing a pretty shitty job of it. If there was a subverse like /v/AcademicScience or /v/Journals (or something similar) which enforced academic standards, I would happily switch over to it and leave /v/science to the guys who enjoy pop-sci and science entertainment.

[–] corsairio 0 points 1 points (+1|-0) ago 

Totally agree. Bring in the classics.

[–] PotatoFarm 0 points 0 points (+0|-0) ago 

I love the idea, specially if it's brilliantly explained concepts/theories that remain relevant today.

After all, we are all here to learn.

[–] reeperpill 6 points 8 points (+14|-6) ago 

We have had this discussion about a year ago. /v/science is a free-speech subverse for the general population, where everyone can post diverse and interesting links related to science. [Don't you leftist control freaks love diversity?]

The elitist snobs can go to /v/truescience, which was created for the exact purpose of being an elitist cirklejerk, and post nothing but journal articles there.

[–] dellcos [S] 0 points 8 points (+8|-0) ago 

Am I a leftist control freak?

Did I suggest any "rules"?

No. I commented on this board being pathetic for something called "science." Which is it. Then a added some links to something that more closely resembles science.

A community can improve itself without rules or control.

[–] Broc_Lia 0 points 3 points (+3|-0) ago  (edited ago)

I agreed with your post and upvoted it, but at the same time I can see how someone might have thought you were calling for curation.

[–] MoonMansWay 0 points 1 points (+1|-0) ago 

OP is suggesting a culture change within the sub, and is looking for more participants to help get it off the ground. He may not like the current content but he isnt calling for removal or censorship of content.

[–] CantStandHumans 0 points 0 points (+0|-0) ago 

For me is fine how it is now.

[–] The_Cat 0 points 8 points (+8|-0) ago  (edited ago)

I was planning to do a series of posts on physics fundamentals as soon as I have a little more time to actually write them. I'll move it a little up the schedule if there seems to be great interest. (Especially if there's a popular topic.)

[–] SlappyHo 0 points 0 points (+0|-0) ago 

Will this get into details about QM? Or will it be a light introduction to the craziness?

[–] The_Cat 0 points 1 points (+1|-0) ago 

I prefer explaining fundamentals that apply broadly, and not focus on weirdness. While the pop-sci approach of "isn't this weird" grabs attention, it really doesn't educate at all. I also think it hurts the image of quantum mechanics as some magical free-for-all where you can make up whatever, instead of the rigorous and reliable theory it is.

[–] Womb_Raider 4 points 3 points (+7|-4) ago 

I'm with @dellcos. To be honest, our science community sucks. We do politics and tech well, gaming too, but science... not so.

I'd be happy to spend some time to help but I'd like to know there are others making an effort to improve it as well.

p.s. I do appreciate the anti-Monsanto articles though. RoundUP is pure poison.

[–] Dortex1 2 points 0 points (+2|-2) ago 

We do politics [...] well

Unless it has to do with Venezuela for some reason. At that point most people forget that there's a dictatorship and blame everything on Socialism.

[–] MoonMansWay 1 points 1 points (+2|-1) ago 

Its really not socialism's fault - its the marxist ideology coupled with it.

Socialism is just a buzzword for economic and political modes that have been in use for thousands of years. Monarchies, ancient republics, etc all employed practices that for whatever reason we now call socialist.

Sidenote: the "YOU USE ROADS HURR DURR THATS SOCIALISM" infuriates me to no end.

[–] goatsandbros 1 points 3 points (+4|-1) ago 

I'll submit a link or two to get it started

There you go.

[–] [deleted] 0 points 3 points (+3|-0) ago 


[–] dellcos [S] 3 points 6 points (+9|-3) ago 

Yes, I appreciate that he does that and have commented in reply to his bot several times to show my appreciation.

People would click links more if they expected to learn something by clicking them. With posts from ABC, NPR, etc. there likely is nothing more to know than the bullshit headline they post.

[–] Womb_Raider 0 points 4 points (+4|-0) ago 

Agreed. I don't think the @derram bot is responsible for people's laziness.

[–] vandilx 0 points 2 points (+2|-0) ago 

Let's be thankful that this subverse is actually alive and not one of the many that's a ghost town with the occasional tumbleweed post that blows by every few weeks.

[–] dellcos [S] 0 points 0 points (+0|-0) ago 

Hey, I run a couple of those verses! lol

Yea, it's just a lot easier to get a board that is generalized and something people actually look for like "science" for instance than it is to get a secondary one going.

I think we can just improve this one if the regular readers will just go find and post something legit.

Too many lazies/shills posting MSM stuff.

[–] Turn_Coat 0 points 1 points (+1|-0) ago 

Agreed, let's see some papers.

load more comments ▼ (14 remaining)