We need science communicators, at least that’s what my professor says. I’m pursuing a M.Ed in Science And The Public, a program offered through the University at Buffalo and sponsored by the Center For Inquiry. It is the same program that Sharon Hill used to create Doubtful News a few years ago.

The point is that scientists-as-communicators often make intellectual arguments with facts and figures that do not address the most important question, WHY THE READER SHOULD CARE.

We need to speak plain english, and I’m extremely frustrated by the impenetrable lexicon of unnecessary terminology in scientific journals. Anti-science is doing well because they use accessible language to score emotional points with poorly constructed but appealing arguments. Scientists and skeptics lose arguments by default at their first pedantic quibble.

We need science communicators.

↓ Transcript
SCOTT
This article has personal anecdotes, emotional appeals, even humor! This is what we want.

ROB
There's science in there too.
SCOTT
And I hardly even noticed!
ROB
You don't want science then?

SCOTT
I want a writer! I don't care what you write about in your column.

ROB
You're giving me a column?

SCOTT
Just don't promise not to be such a scientist.

Share on Facebook0Tweet about this on Twitter0Share on Google+0Share on TumblrPin on Pinterest0