Sign in or 

People just like you can add or edit the content on this site. If you want to try editing, but aren't ready to add to this site, try our demo area.
Read more about editing pages at Wetpaint Central.
)
|
sciwrite |
Latest page update: made by sciwrite
, Feb 17 2009, 9:57 AM EST
(about this update
About This Update
No content added or deleted. - complete history) |
|
More Info: links to this page
|
| Started By | Thread Subject | Replies | Last Post | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| smccravey | Question assignment | 0 | Feb 21 2009, 5:59 PM EST by smccravey | ||
|
Thread started: Feb 21 2009, 5:59 PM EST
Watch
1) Chris Mooney states that most Americans rarely think about science which has therefore "undeserving" of increased funding. How do you feel publicly funded scientific research should change in order to garner more support from the general public.
2) When one political party heavily supports a certain type of scientific research on its agenda, such as the Democratic Party's stance on Global Warming, the party risks alienating the other party based on party line voting. Do you believe scientific research should be politicized? Or do you believe, as Thomas Easton does, that no political party can resist inserting political agenda in policy concerning science research? |
|||||
| Anonymous | Question Formation Alexander Wilson | 0 | Feb 20 2009, 12:02 AM EST by Anonymous | ||
|
|
Thread started: Feb 20 2009, 12:02 AM EST
Watch
In “Mission Accomplished,” Chris Mooney alludes to an “immovable core” of anti-intellectual Americans who avidly refute Big Bang Theory, Earth’s age, and Evolution. Mooney’s posits that scientific activism must be a people’s revolution, even during the science-friendly Obama Administration. What is the political reality of religious institutions whose large constituencies wield considerable political influence?
By Mooney’s count, 18% of the polled American public knows a scientist, and roughly half in a second survey take no living scientist role model (I would’ve named Bill Nye). If it does take iconic public figures to raise both public interest in and awareness of scientific issues, in today’s media-saturated culture, is it within our power to create a cult of personality by marketing and personable journalism? Are we doomed to await the birth of the next Einstein? Mooney considers the blogosphere’s potential to reach public audiences, as newspaper science writing dies. However, he doubts that the most popular bloggers, idiosyncratic personalities incorporating controversial positions (mainly New Atheism vs. organized religion), can reach the wide audiences of traditional outlets. Others blogs practice bad science. Can internet blog awards sites like the one mentioned play a successful role in aggregating the best writing for a wide audience? And what’s more, can such sites effect a more objective style of blog reportage? Who should be responsible? |
||||
| k1james | Question Formation 1 | 0 | Feb 19 2009, 6:30 PM EST by k1james | ||
|
Thread started: Feb 19 2009, 6:30 PM EST
Watch
Kristen James
February 19, 2009 1) In the article "Mission Accomplished," Mooney mentions that, in today's society, science and religion seem to have been placed in opposition, that "Americans are repeatedly being told that science represents an assault on their core beliefs and values." Given that modern science has a strong aversion to commenting on or relating specific findings to religion in any official way, what can scientists, and those who represent them to the larger world, do to help ease the relationship between science and religion? 2) Mooney also discusses the lack of scientific coverage in the traditional media today, and the problem of helping non-traditional science communication - mostly blogs - reach the general public. With the understanding that people tend to search out blogs that support viewpoints they already hold, is there an effective way for this type of media to reach lay-readers in a way that avoids extreme bias? 3) Mooney exhibits a great deal of passion about the topic of science communication, but in this article he fails to mention specific ways to actually engage the public in science. In the past, projects such as NASA's moon missions excited a lot of public interest - are there many projects running today that could illicit similar reactions if properly presented? |
|||||