= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
Thomas comments on Open Thread, September 23-29, 2013 - Less Wrong Discussion
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (261)
Just thinking... could it be worth doing a website providing interesting parts of settled science for laypeople?
If we take the solid, replicated findings, and remove the ones that laypeople don't care about (because they have no use for them in everyday life)... how much would be left? Which parts of human knowledge would be covered most?
I imagine a website that would first provide a simple explanation, and then a detailed scientific explanation with references.
Why? Simply to give people idea that this is science that is useful and trustworthy -- not the things that are too abstract to understand or use, and not some new hypotheses that will be disproved tomorrow. Science, as a friendly and trustworthy authority. To get some respect for science.
Imagine, you have something like this back in 1900.
Do you remember how settled was that the Universe is slowing down at its expansion? The only thing wasn't settled was the slowing rate - is it big enough to stop one day and reverse. 20 years ago.
Just now, they discuss Big Bang. Settled long ago.
I am not saying your idea isn't good. It is, but the controversy is imminent.