Sick young ants release a smell to tell worker ants to destroy them to protect the colony from infection, scientists said Tuesday, adding that queens do not seem to commit this act of self-sacrifice.
Figurative speech is not equal to what we have here, my dear.
And if you can’t even imagine how to explain yourself without avoiding those embarrassing sentences in the article then we have here a tangible example of why this is dangerous and feeds ignorance.
And you are also in bad faith now, because you said in your very first comment that this is just to make science “accessible”. Now it turns out you think it is not possible to communicate in a scientifically accurate way?
Nice try, but you have to put more effort here if you want to defend such a shitshow.
Just analyzing this mechanism as it is, a biological response for both the pupae and the adult ants, would be already enough to be accurate and clear.
Saying pupae are making an “altruistic act” is laughable and it’s like assuming the target audience is made of mentally challenged people. Which we are not, I think.
Just analyzing this mechanism as it is, a biological response for both the pupae and the adult ants, […]
This is exactly what I’m talking about. Do you really believe the average person would understand this? This is already scientific jargon which most people wouldn’t understand correctly. Well, let me be truthfully I had to look up the scientific definition to verify if it is accurate.
So what is wrong with making it accessible?
Your hate-speech is just pointing at inaccuracy and the entertaining way of that online magazine. And I kept stating it is okay and they have their right to exist. And do you really understand why? Because they make science accessible and interesting.
If you really work in science, what made you work in science? The money? I hope not. I bet a curiosity that is rooted or at least was expanded by consuming exactly these inaccurate, false, but entertaining articles and documentaries. If it’s not you, what I would doubt, then ask your colleagues why they ended up in science.
So in my eyes, organizations like sciencealart and their way of rewriting scientific publications, are playing their part in the science world, even when it is inaccurate and aspects are false.
No, what I’ve said is well thought and my hate against pseudoscience is motivated.
This article is still full of unscientific bullshit, no matter if you were triggered or not by that.
If you disagree or don’t understand where the problem is that’s ok, but your “reaction” doesn’t change the facts I’ve stated and that I would loudly state again.
Do not tell others to be objective if you can’t see objectively.
Figurative speech is not equal to what we have here, my dear.
And if you can’t even imagine how to explain yourself without avoiding those embarrassing sentences in the article then we have here a tangible example of why this is dangerous and feeds ignorance.
And you are also in bad faith now, because you said in your very first comment that this is just to make science “accessible”. Now it turns out you think it is not possible to communicate in a scientifically accurate way?
Nice try, but you have to put more effort here if you want to defend such a shitshow.
Just analyzing this mechanism as it is, a biological response for both the pupae and the adult ants, would be already enough to be accurate and clear.
Saying pupae are making an “altruistic act” is laughable and it’s like assuming the target audience is made of mentally challenged people. Which we are not, I think.
This is exactly what I’m talking about. Do you really believe the average person would understand this? This is already scientific jargon which most people wouldn’t understand correctly. Well, let me be truthfully I had to look up the scientific definition to verify if it is accurate. So what is wrong with making it accessible? Your hate-speech is just pointing at inaccuracy and the entertaining way of that online magazine. And I kept stating it is okay and they have their right to exist. And do you really understand why? Because they make science accessible and interesting.
If you really work in science, what made you work in science? The money? I hope not. I bet a curiosity that is rooted or at least was expanded by consuming exactly these inaccurate, false, but entertaining articles and documentaries. If it’s not you, what I would doubt, then ask your colleagues why they ended up in science.
So in my eyes, organizations like sciencealart and their way of rewriting scientific publications, are playing their part in the science world, even when it is inaccurate and aspects are false.
I feel like any answer I can give you by now it is going to be something I already explained and my use of English has its limits too.
Let’s just agree to disagree. To each their own and no hard feelings.
Have a nice day.
Yes, we should stop here.
Based on what I’m reading here, our little conversation really shouldn’t have reached this point…
Please rethink before posting. Starting of with a hateful post is never good. With a more objective approach I wouldn’t have reacted.
Anyway,
Have a nice weekend!
No, what I’ve said is well thought and my hate against pseudoscience is motivated.
This article is still full of unscientific bullshit, no matter if you were triggered or not by that.
If you disagree or don’t understand where the problem is that’s ok, but your “reaction” doesn’t change the facts I’ve stated and that I would loudly state again.
Do not tell others to be objective if you can’t see objectively.