Thread by @PnictogenHorses

none of us in the Pnictogen Wing is an expert in semiotics—that's the academic discipline pertaining to the study and meaning of *symbolism*. but we feel that we've been forced to take an amateur interest in the field mostly because *symbols* are much abused and exploited.

(1/x)

https://twitter.com/PnictogenHorses/status/1611247420272422912

right-wing frauds like @jordanbpeterson and @ConceptualJames have done a land-office business in pretending to be experts in symbolism.

political ideologues, particularly reactionary #conservative ideologues, know that symbols are powerful, and wish to seize that power.

(2/x)

consider that diagram of Peterson's, the one I cited earlier—the concentric circles on a grey field labelled "The Dragon of Chaos". I'll copy it here for convenience.

I perceive that Peterson is consciously imitating the style of a *scientific* or technical diagram.

(3/x)

contemporary Western society idolizes #science and #technology, without understanding either of these things very well; popular science communication has been debased by #capitalism and subordinated to the needs of #business and #marketing. "science" is a mere buzzword.

(4/x)

"science" content is mass extruded and mass marketed, in easily digestible—i.e. highly oversimplified, even crude and childlike—forms of "infotainment", stuff full of big words and photographs of impressive machinery, and diagrams that don't actually make very good sense.

(5/x)

this ghastly depiction of #DNA from @neiltyson's third-rate imitation of Carl Sagan's #Cosmos is a perfect example of a bad and nonsensical diagram. it's lovingly rendered and I'm sure the animators had a lot of fun making it, but DNA...looks a lot more like this:

(6/x)

obviously, real #DNA doesn't look like either diagram; real DNA is tiny, its chemical structure invisible to the eye and even to most forms of microscopy.

however, the second diagram, the "ball and stick" diagram, shows us DNA's precise structure; @neiltyson's *doesn't*.

(7/x)

why did @neiltyson's animators give us such a poor graphical representation of #DNA? I would hazard to guess that they wanted to do something novel, something different from "boring" science-book illustrations they were used to—and so they gave us something nonsensical.

(8/x)

and that's a telling decision to make; it's evidence that the general level of scientific understanding in the production of @neiltyson's #Cosmos was actually _questionable_. it's a bad sign that nobody caught this obvious, unforced error—an incorrect depiction of #DNA.

(9/x)

"oh but they'll get the general idea." "this is for unschooled audiences, they can't tell the difference." oh, is that so?

there's a reason that unscientific rubbish like @Docstockk / @bindelj gender theory, or @Quillette-style eugenics, is popular with the #STEM set.

(10/x)

there's *lots* of reasons, but one of the most important reasons is that thanks to #capitalism and stultified "infotainment" of the @neiltyson / cable channel / YouTube channel sort, the @ID_AA_Carmack / @antoniogm #STEM lords do not in fact understand #science very well.

(11/x)

"science", to them, is whizbang stuff in glossy magazine photos, or @elonmusk / @SpaceX / @Tesla press materials, or people blowing chemicals up for YouTube subscribers.

the situation is dire, and needs immediate remedy.

~Mona Drafter of Pnictogen

@threadreaderapp unroll