I do agree with a lot that you just said. However, the one limitation that science has it that it is fact based and should not be appealing to emotions or public opinion. That does extend somewhat into science blogging. For example, if somebody makes some "pseudo-scientific" (PS) claim, a science blogger will answer with dry data (because that is what science is based on). The PS will heavily rely on non-factual emotional and vague language and maybe a vast amount of information, that may not even be applicable. However, a science blogger still has to argue based on data, with sources that are carefully selected. If not, it is not scientific. It is a bit of a disaster and I think as a science writer you always have a bit of an disadvantage.
Do you have any suggestions how to possibly overcome this dilemma? Cheers!
You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
Write from the heart, but cite from the head.
Don't let the facts get in the way of the flow of the argument. Ground the argument in facts, but do not make the writing unapproachable or unattractive to read. It should be easily understood and very digestible by those with basic reading skills.
I'm not saying make up nonsense and nonfacts, I'm just saying that there is already a clear abundance of material that reads like stuff out of poorly written textbooks, so why should we be emulating what's been shown to not work as far as engagement of normies goes?
I really like this!
Thank you for your input. Cheers!