This article is within the scope of WikiProject Technology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of technology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Science, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Science on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Has anyone compiled a list of scientists who are especially notable as science communicators? Over the past 50 years there is a short list of people who have established themselves as communicators to the English-speaking public via mass media specifically to advance public familiarity with and understanding of the sciences. Here's my list. Many scientists have written books meant to educate the public about their area of study (as with Hawking's "A Brief History of Time". Then again, maybe Hawking should be on the list (?) as he may fit the criteria), but rather I am focusing on those who are known for their promotion of science or the scientific method, in general. I don't know if this merits the article or not, but I'll throw it out there for consideration. --Replysixty (talk) 09:19, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
I think that's really great. If we could get at least 10 people, along with reliable sources establishing them as "brilliant science communicators", then it would be worth making a list. For instance, look anywhere and you will find people prasiing Carl Sagan's science communication.
Instead of necessarily making some kind of List of notable science communicators, it might be cool to find passages from these communicators and write them into the article. E.g. "Carl Sagan says that science communication needs to be..." -Tesseract2(talk) 16:32, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
The words "science policy" really jumped out at me. That would be ethics and politics. Deciding what our ethical and political goals are going to be is not a scientific question - or at least not an empirical question. Is there some science experiment you can do which will tell you who to vote for? Of course not.
Another one that jumps out is "Rejected superstitious beliefs." Highly ambiguous. Are all religious views except atheism and all metaphysical views except naturlaism-materialism "superstitious beilefs?" That would not be science - that would be begging the question wearing the false cloak of "science." --2610:E0:A040:E0F5:41FA:3CB3:308E:C9BD (talk) 03:21, 18 July 2012 (UTC)