Recent comments in /f/science

henryptung t1_jdvs53v wrote

>Since when did science, the act of acquiring knowledge through a step by step process to be able to validate that knowledge, become a problem...

It's not really that hard to fix. Not everyone learned English as a first language, and guy has more of a point to make than you do.

−1

MpVpRb t1_jdvrlxj wrote

Reddit comments tend to be negative and pessimistic about everything. This may often be the case because they are responding to an article, based on an overly optimistic press release. Science and tech press releases tend to use the word "breakthrough" when the work being reported on is actually a small, incremental advance at best. The press releases are intended to raise funds or increase buzz. They get published, almost verbatim, buy the tech press. Skeptical redditors, like me, respond

98

SoNonGrata t1_jdvpgvh wrote

And most don't understand your disaster of a sentence. Did you have a stroke?

"Since when Science, the act of acquiring knowledge trought a step by step process to be able to validated that knowledge became a problem..."

"Some peoples do not understand the concept..."

Not when you write it like that.

5

slickhedstrong t1_jdvn6a2 wrote

the amount of cynicism here, where anything can be posted, is a healthy gate and a good inoculation for more casual audience.

science is an abstraction. r/science is a portal into a tiny fragment of that abstraction

and vigilance against accepting all posts to this sub as "truth" is not only healthy, but necessary for this sub's health.

18

dumnezero t1_jdvjc7d wrote

Very meta.

>A new study examined comments given on the Reddit forum “r/science” to discover how commenters express negative attitudes towards science. Results showed that these views are most often expressed by describing scientists as corruptible, poor communicators, and misleading. Commenters particularly negatively evaluated social sciences, especially psychology, calling it pseudoscientific. The study was published in the Public Understanding of Science.

...

Batchelor, Jordan. "Just another clickbait title: A corpus-driven investigation of negative attitudes toward science on Reddit." Public Underst. Sci., 12 Jan. 2023, p. 09636625221146453, doi:10.1177/09636625221146453.

>The public understanding of science has produced a large body of research about general attitudes toward science. However, most studies of science attitudes have been carried out via surveys or in experimental conditions, and few make use of the growing contexts of online science communication to investigate attitudes without researcher intervention. This study adopted corpus-based discourse analysis to investigate the negative attitudes held toward science by users of the social media website Reddit, specifically the forum r/science.

>A large corpus of comments made to r/science was collected and mined for keywords. Analysis of keywords identified several sources of negative attitudes, such as claims that scientists can be corruptible, poor communicators, and misleading. Research methodologies were negatively evaluated on the basis of small sample sizes. Other commenters negatively evaluated social science research, especially psychology, as being pseudoscientific, and several commenters described science journalism as untrustworthy or sensationalized.

And the mods should've removed all of those. Press that Nuke button, mods.

38

AutoModerator t1_jdvhcu4 wrote

Welcome to r/science! This is a heavily moderated subreddit in order to keep the discussion on science. However, we recognize that many people want to discuss how they feel the research relates to their own personal lives, so to give people a space to do that, personal anecdotes are allowed as responses to this comment. Any anecdotal comments elsewhere in the discussion will be removed and our normal comment rules apply to all other comments.

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

1