I’m trying to figure out where this is going. For my taste much of this thread seems severely over intellectualized and quite discordant. Those “10 Commandments” can basically be assessed as fundamental to organizing content in basic website design. There simply aren’t a lot of scientists participating in online social media. Why? They are not understood and ‘They’ know it:
He’s right. It is their fault and there is a perfectly natural reason that ‘They’ are not understood. When the ‘socializing’ aspect is handed off to journalism where an attempt is put forward to make findings palatable to the public some of the resulting articles can leave a lot to be desired. The stone has been set. It may be said that there exist a general disposition that ‘we the public’ aren’t ‘qualified’ to understand, let alone dialog, in the ‘deeper’ aspects of scientific gnosis and obviously journalism can sometimes fail to convey. There still exists an even more fundamental problem even when the attempt to communicate is accurate. We're being inundated with cantilevered contradictions piled high one atop the other.It’s not that non-scientists are too stupid to get science. Far from it. The average person simply doesn’t have the specific vocabulary to understand a scientific paper. I’m not stupid, yet when I take my car in to the mechanic, I don’t have the specific vocabulary to understand exactly what is making my check engine light keep turning on.
This jargon wall breeds distrust. Do I overall trust mechanics to know how to fix my car? Sure. But when one starts going on and on about how my timing belt needs adjustment, my fuel injectors need to be replaced, and there’s an oil leak in my engine that needs fixing, do I fully trust that he’s not just making up problems to get me to pay more for repairs? Not for a second.
Even worse, scientists pass the buck when it comes to communicating science. We write the papers, but then hand them off to journalists and say “here, explain this to everyone else.” We hand what we’ve committed years of our life to over to a writer that may have little to no science training and even less passion for the discipline as a whole. Then, we gripe and moan when the science is shottily explained or, worse, completely misinterpreted.
Guess what? As scientists, that is our fault.– Scientific American
Interestingly, the EU did science a favor in my humble opinion. It not only piqued interest in an existing aspect of astrophysics (electrodynamics and plasma) it explained some basic principles in such ways that the laymen and Citizen Scientist alike can easily understand, relate to, and further pursue if desired. The flip side is that now one has officialdom balking because the EU hasn’t explained its qualitative hypothesis in the language that “science” relates to: technical papers and such mathematically elaborating the hypothesis with reproducible experimentation. Any attempt to induce communication will have to resolve the communication gap; not point fingers.
“Science” doesn’t seem to be able to bridge the communication gap it has with the public despite “public outreach” and media programs while conversely the EU (easily recognized and understood by the public) is characterized by science as not having bridged the gap that “science” demands (“rigor”). It seems that there exists a type of ‘inverted’ relationship that centers on the ability to communicate effectively. I find it difficult to believe that scientist have a problem with communication considering the technical prowess demonstrated in many of the papers that I’ve read over the years. The problem is elsewhere.
Generally speaking it seems to me that your quest is actually much larger than facilitating communication solely with regard to the EU. As the above referenced article suggest there may be little to no understanding between science and its public overall. It is a known issue that is being pondered over in many ways:
Social Networking for Scientist: The Wiki
I think most of the references provided in this thread are coming at this from the wrong angle. It’s not about delving into the subjectivity of how the mind might work. It’s about re-establishing the ‘bridge’ that was torn down once theoretical physics commandeered the ship of state and took astrophysics into the realm of speculative dimensions such as the article referenced (here). If you read that article the problem becomes rather obvious. What is the problem?
Assuming that the above referenced article has conveyed the basics properly the mind is perfectly capable of the immediate recognition of contradictions and tires when trying to resolve them. The end result of trying to resolve a contradiction can simply be ‘rejection’, you just walk away because there exist no Understanding. That is why the “jargon breeds distrust”; the “jargon” is presenting ideas and concepts that are contradictory and inconsistent regardless of ‘Who’ is trying to convey them and no matter the venue. It would then be inaccurate to point the finger of blame at journalism when (ideally) it is just doing its job; it only conveys what it was given to convey. It’s the concepts themselves that are the root the problem; not how the mind works, or doesn’t, in trying to rationally resolve something intended not to be resolved or understood.
Therefore, I think Plasmatic is correct in pointing to this fundamental problem. It is a mistake to ‘label’ this fundamental as “Objectivisim” to only then place it on a shelf out of sight as a 'thing' doing away with what is the essential cause of *ALL* of the communicative problems between the public, the unwitting ‘middleman’ of journalism, and some aspects of the sciences. If you strip the Objectivist ‘label’ off the problem of contradictory ideas and concepts the result is still the same; confusion, and the very lack, if not the complete failure, of ‘Understanding’. To me the case is not simply that the “Emperor has no clothes”; it is also the case that I feel as if ‘someone’ is trying to induce me into thinking that what I witness with steady streams of contradictory ideas and concepts from astrophysics is “A king who’s innocent of the things of which he’s guilty?” - Kristin Cashore, Graceling
Without including the ability to foster identification of the ‘back-reaction’ that a reasonable Mind **naturally** has when encountering contradictions; communication, owed to the lack of Understanding that contradictions induce, will always fail. Does it really need to be called “Objectivisim” for this to be recognized? No; it doesn’t. Unless this fundamental is addressed the title alone of "commandment" number eight ("Do Not Ramble") will be violated because contradictions induce ceaseless rambling; not 'Understanding'.
What are your efforts doing to eschew contradictions and therefore foster a reasonable "Understanding" of consistently integrated concepts and ideas?