• Kecessa@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    1 month ago

    I don’t agree, there’s a reason why we need people like Carl Sagan and Neil DeGrasse Tyson explaining things in simpler terms and that they’re not the people doing the research itself…

    • lunarul@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 month ago

      and that they’re not the people doing the research itself…

      I don’t think that’s relevant. People like Stephen Hawking and Brian Greene have also done great at explaining science to the general public.

      • Kecessa@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        edit-2
        1 month ago

        Sure, but not being able to explain it in layman’s terms doesn’t mean you don’t understand what you’re working on and in fact the majority of scientists and engineers and programmers and highly specialized individuals aren’t very good at vulgarization for the simple reason that they don’t need to do it when they’re accomplishing the work and outside of that they’re not required to explain their work to laymen since there are people specialized in doing just that.

        • lunarul@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          5
          ·
          1 month ago

          I also disagree with the original comment you replied to. I was just responding to the part I quoted. I agree most specialists in a field don’t know how to explain things to non-specialists and I agree it’s important to have people who know how to explain things in layman terms, I jusy don’t think it’s relevant if those people are also the ones doing the research or not.