Les bookmarks de Clem
2369 shaares
189 results
tagged
science
À garder sous le coude sci-hub miroirs.
marrant
rigolo
intéressant
Intéressant
Très bonne explication
Intéressant : construction d'une carte de la terre en forme de papillon. Tout le processus est décrit, et la carte peut être récupérée.
Très intéressant, et très clair.
De l'usage responsable des drones pour filmer la faune.
Sur l'introversion en science.
Intéressant, sur la difficulté de communiquer de façon impartiale en journalisme et science. Extraits choisis. Le gars bossait dans la section communication scientifique à la BBC, et a commencé à remettre en question sa façon de bosser en bossant au Winston centre:
"Officially we were supposed to ‘inform, educate, entertain’ and we thought we knew how to do all three. Now, though, I am beginning to question what exactly science communication is doing.
(...) Evidence presented purely to inform — balanced and not trying to persuade a person to agree or disagree — does not make for entertainment, almost by definition.
(...) in order to make a good decision, researchers believe that we first need to make ourselves imagine more than one potential future scenario. We need to open our minds to the possibility that things could turn out well or badly. We need emotion.
(...) We all have a right to be ‘informed and not persuaded’ — an ethical right and often a legal right. And yet training in communication focuses almost entirely on how to grab attention and how to manipulate emotions to tell a story — how to be persuasive. There is very little training on how to use emotions more subtly, in a way that opens minds to possibilities constructively, but is not designed to persuade (I’m certainly still learning how it might be done).
Of course in a competitive environment it is important to get your voice heard, and I often hear people say their objective is to persuade people to ‘do the right thing’. But who is defining ‘right’? If you as the communicator are — if you are defining the story — then you are not simply informing.
When people are making really important decisions — decisions about their health, their finances, about policies that will affect millions, or about someone’s guilt or innocence — I would now argue that a different kind of communication is needed: the skill to engage and be clear and to allow the audience to form their own story through the information, and to make their own decision at the end as to how to react to it."
"Officially we were supposed to ‘inform, educate, entertain’ and we thought we knew how to do all three. Now, though, I am beginning to question what exactly science communication is doing.
(...) Evidence presented purely to inform — balanced and not trying to persuade a person to agree or disagree — does not make for entertainment, almost by definition.
(...) in order to make a good decision, researchers believe that we first need to make ourselves imagine more than one potential future scenario. We need to open our minds to the possibility that things could turn out well or badly. We need emotion.
(...) We all have a right to be ‘informed and not persuaded’ — an ethical right and often a legal right. And yet training in communication focuses almost entirely on how to grab attention and how to manipulate emotions to tell a story — how to be persuasive. There is very little training on how to use emotions more subtly, in a way that opens minds to possibilities constructively, but is not designed to persuade (I’m certainly still learning how it might be done).
Of course in a competitive environment it is important to get your voice heard, and I often hear people say their objective is to persuade people to ‘do the right thing’. But who is defining ‘right’? If you as the communicator are — if you are defining the story — then you are not simply informing.
When people are making really important decisions — decisions about their health, their finances, about policies that will affect millions, or about someone’s guilt or innocence — I would now argue that a different kind of communication is needed: the skill to engage and be clear and to allow the audience to form their own story through the information, and to make their own decision at the end as to how to react to it."
La suite.
Sur les biais liés au caractère non-anglophone, à l'âge ou au sexe des auteurs.
Dommage que ça reste quand même très centré sur l'occident, et que ça ne cause pas trop Afrique ou Asie. Mais c'est intéressant.
Dommage que ça reste quand même très centré sur l'occident, et que ça ne cause pas trop Afrique ou Asie. Mais c'est intéressant.
Intéressant.
Un article cosigné par des chats dont un mort.
L'article est encore plus chtarbé.
L'article est encore plus chtarbé.
Wikipedia pas recommandé pour l'autoapprentissage en stats.
A suivre !
C'est pas la première fois que je vois ça : la suggestion d'une loterie pour attribuer les financements. À suivre.
Six fois plus de dépressifs chez les thésards/post-doc que dans le reste de la population.