Since I'm not an English native speaker, I've been thinking a lot before of posting something like this. My English is tailored on my job, so that is not what people is used to listen at. I beg pardon for my English. Nevertheless, at a certain point I started feeling some urge to write this piece.
Cause, yes, I am flagging down any article about STEM, written by people which is not entitled to write about STEM.
I love science. STEM in general. STEM is my passion, my work, and my hobby (at some extent). I totally love it. So I love to read about it.
Where is the problem?
The problem comes when people which is incompetent starts to write "cosmological" (or whatever kind of buzzword) , mentioning STEM concepts they cannot really understand, because of their (poor) studies. Usually they take issues which are not mainstream (to minimize the risk to find a real expert) which is why they usually talk about "quantum physics", "artificial intelligence", Chaos theory", "cosmology", and other things where the amount of experts is little.
Of course this phony people needs to behave like this: if anyone talks about i.e. a car engine, writing "here is why a car engine can go faster than light", then he will find TONS of people able to debunk their fake science.
Now suppose someone writes, "Artificial Intelligence with quantum physics may Talk with God, because Big Data matches Big Bang".
How many people could debunk such a bullshit?
Well, I could debunk some part of "Artificial Intelligence" being my job, but AI is quite a wide field, so I cannot cover it completely. Sure I could help you with Kohonen SOM optimization, but is very unlikely this incompetent writers will go that deep: they will just mention Artificial intelligence here and there. So to cover the whole field, we need (let's say) one or two dozens of "vertical" experts.
Now we go with Quantum Physics. I studied the basics at university, I understand the maths , I had a test for that, I can read (and I like it) about it, but I am not saying I could have a conversation , let's say, "state of the art". And since this kind of phony articles are never mentioning which area of "Quantum Physics" they address, we will possibly need another dozen of experts if we want to discuss "Quantum Physics" together with Artificial Intelligence. At this level, you need very good experts.
Then again, we have Big Data together with Big Bang. Well, about "Big Data" (which is quite a huge field today) I could somehow help you when it comes to some "vertical" technologies I need for my job, still is unlikely that a single expert will accept to cover the entire field, at such a level (of debate) to relate it with cosmology.
Then we have the Big Bang: when you go deep, you feel so many fields (and dilemmas) tied together that, if you want to relate it seriously with the 3 mentioned topics, you need quite another expert.
Of course, those experts are existing: imagine you are a top scientist at LHC, in Switzerland. So you did Big Data (quite a big, even a very unusual kind) to process all the data. You know about the meaning of data in relation to Big Bang (which is why you look for the Higgs Boson).Plus you know Quantum Physics and you made use of some "artificial intelligence" to process the data: not exactly the mainstream one, still kind of AI.
Here we are: there is almost ONE team of people on Earth which is ENTITLED to discuss something like: "Artificial Intelligence with quantum physics may Talk with God, because Big Data matches Big Bang".
Good news, isn't it?
Sure: I hope some of them will write on Steemit in the future. I will read it for sure. I'm hungry for that.
The issue is, many peoples which are NOT entitled to write about it, are writing about specific STEM issues.
The economy , and I repeat the ECONOMY of bullshit is terrible.
An incompetent person just needs a keyboard and half an hour to write down a pile of bullshit, which needs at least 30/40 different specialists to be debunked. This is the economics of bullshit: to write bullshit is cheaper than debunking it.
Sure, this is their opinion. Sure, anyone is allowed to speak and write about everything. If I enter a pub and I ask an opinion about Henry Markram's job ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_Markram ) , almost everybody will have an opinion: it is everyone's right to have. Nevertheless, none of that opinions will be worth a shit.
Because of "competence": the very reason when you need a doctor you actually go to a doctor, instead of a banker.
Sure, my position is very unpopular:
There is a cult of ignorance in theUnited StatesWest, and there always has been. The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that "my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge." (I. Asimov)
Nevertheless, I give a damn. Because science is not about democracy. At all. In STEM people is not "all equals": there are competent people and incompetent people. There are people entitled to write about something and people which is not. Your like or not, science has nothing in common with democracy nor equality, and the fact many scientists are supporters of human rights and equality doesn't means they would accept a peer review by someone which is not "a peer".
"Whale" or not, I will flag down any article about STEM, any phony writing about "science sounding" issues, because I love science. And science requires competence. Competence requires studies AND achievements. Which are hard. I admire who achieved so much. I love them. (I admit being a little sapiosexual : https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/sapiosexual )
I want to read better articles about science and STEM in general. To write good articles about STEM you do need to be competent. Being a journalist is not enough. Being a blogger is not enough. Having "common sense" is not enough. No, you need to be competent: studies plus achievements.
Again: I will flag down any article which is "science sounding" , written by incompetent people, for the very reason to compensate the "economy of bullshit": the block chain allows me to compensate the winning economy of bullshit (where writing bullshit is cheaper than debunk it), and I will do it.
I ask you, IF YOU LOVE SCIENCE, to do the same.
Because we need to read of better science, not "science sounding" bullshit.
I repeat: to be a "journalist" is NOT enough. I know you. I am sick and tired to read every week (usually Wednesday) about "the new protein which will defeat breast cancer". Sick and tired to read (usually Monday) of scientist finding why you cheat your partner into your DNA. The same for the (usually Saturday) article about the new nanotechnology which will make you lose weight: this is when "a bachelor in journalism meets science".
Now there is the blockchain. Now we can fight the bad economics of bullshit with a god economics of quality. So , I repeat: I am going to flag any incompetent writing about STEM, because I love science.
PS: no, Einsten was never bad at school. This is why he was accepted by the Eidgenössische Technische Hochschule, ETH. He was rejected the first time he tried, because he tried BEFORE of the end of high school: so , despite of incredible results in the math test, people at ETH just suggested him to finish high schools and try again. Which happened. Do not illude yourself, if you are bad at school, you are not "like Einstein", you are just lazy.
