The only thing we can be sure of about the future is that it will be absolutely fantastic. So if what I say now seems to you to be very reasonable, then I have failed completely. Only if what I tell you appears absolutely unbelievable, have we any chance of visualizing the future as it really will happen.

- Arthur C. Clarke (h/t Brin)

Thursday, February 17, 2011

Google Science Communication Fellows

In an effort to foster a more open, transparent and accessible scientific dialogue, we’ve started a new effort aimed at inspiring pioneering use of technology, new media and computational thinking in the communication of science to diverse audiences. Initially, we’ll focus on communicating the science on climate change.
Well, okay, I'm a little jealous of the participants, but this is a good step.

I tried to get interested in this exact thing a few years back and they weren't talking to me. I guess they still aren't. Maybe that will change some day.

Just the same, congratulations are due to participants. I'd like to make a special shout out to Simon Donner and Andrew Dessler whom I can personally vouch for as excellent choices.


Paul said...

There are a number of names I am greatly relieved to see are not on the Google list. How could they have overlooked the honest broker and the sincere reconciler?

manuel "moe" g said...

Not a fan of Nisbet. What is good is trivial, what is original is not good.

The bad guys have their framing experts, and, on the good guys side, there are people who self-describe as faming experts. The alleged good guy framing experts constantly whine about their lower status compared to the bad guy framing experts.

It is like an honest cop demanding he get compensated to the exact same amount as a corrupt cop on the take.

Thank goodness scientists can communicate directly now, without rent-seeking middlemen.

I would love to see some straightforward evidence that is in conflict with my judgement above.

Greg said...

Eventually the right wing will need their own search engine just like they have their own 'pedia.

I'm partly serious. Just as the facts in Wikipedia prompted the alternative reality of Conservapedia, once search acquires the semantic power of Watson, then instead of searching "evolution" or "intelligent design" and getting a list of sites with random opinions, a semantically aware search tool would simply return an accurate precis of human knowledge on the topic. That will hurt those with more ... fantastical viewpoints.

Andrew Dessler said...

Thanks for the shout out. It should be an interesting experience. I hope to interest them in developing tools for remote lectures ... it's possible to do so now, but the process is indescribably painful.