The authors note that Oreskes» methodology is further flawed because it also surveyed the opinions and writings of «
nonscientists who may write about climate, but are by no means experts on or even casually familiar with the science dealing with attribution — that is, attributing a specific climate effect (such as a temperature increase) to a specific cause (such as rising CO
The authors note that Oreskes» methodology is further flawed because it also surveyed the opinions and writings of «
nonscientists who may write about climate, but are by no means experts on or even casually familiar with the science dealing with attribution — that is, attributing a specific climate effect (such as a temperature increase) to a specific cause (such as rising CO2 levels).»
And I think it's absolutely wonderful because when scientists let's say, tweet, or on Facebook chat with each other, there's a lot of
nonscientists who are privy to their conversation and they find often the science stories fascinating.
VTG, What I see here is
a nonscientist who knows far less about this «dispute» than Judith.
Not exact matches
If you would answer «yes» to these questions, and you're someone
who enjoys explaining research to
nonscientists, bringing people together from diverse professional backgrounds, and acting as a facilitator, then a career in an emerging area — knowledge brokering — could be an excellent choice for you.
That's why there are science advocates, people
who explain to
nonscientists why we matter.
Instead of peer review, for the most part, these other magazines hire
nonscientists as gateway keepers
who decide if a paper is trendy or not before it is peer - reviewed.
I have actually had science writers
who are
nonscientists say that they felt their status as laymen made it easier to relate to their audience, while I have had science journalists
who are scientists claim they don't see how one could be effective without experience as a scientist.