@GravityWithHat You response is a good place to start to talk about the nitty-gritty.
First off, to read science better, we don't need advice. We need evidence-based methods. This is what I work on.
First off, to read science better, we don't need advice. We need evidence-based methods. This is what I work on.
@GravityWithHat First, a mini-rant!
So very tired of reading advice pieces from everyone and their great uncle george, published everywhere from the glossy journals to the university news letter, on how to read science articles. We have the science telling us how we learn. >
So very tired of reading advice pieces from everyone and their great uncle george, published everywhere from the glossy journals to the university news letter, on how to read science articles. We have the science telling us how we learn. >
@GravityWithHat Yet we insist on treating arguably the most crucial skill in science training as something that can be taught with an advice column. It is a complex skill that can & must be taught explicitly using tested methods. Can we please start giving it the respect it deserves? (end rant)
@GravityWithHat There is growing scientific evidence, as well as anthropological and historical evidence that we are narrative creatures. We make sense of our environment by interpreting the world largely as events, things that happen. This likely why children are so fascinated with stories.
@GravityWithHat In many ways, stories are our cognitive life-blood.
I'm going start a new thread because replying won't let me add more tweets. Then I'll come back to this one and add the link.
I'm going start a new thread because replying won't let me add more tweets. Then I'll come back to this one and add the link.
