<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	
	>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Alternative Facts Are The Norm In Public Understanding Of Science</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.epanorama.net/blog/2017/05/31/alternative-facts-are-the-norm-in-public-understanding-of-science/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>https://www.epanorama.net/blog/2017/05/31/alternative-facts-are-the-norm-in-public-understanding-of-science/</link>
	<description>All about electronics and circuit design</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Sun, 19 Apr 2026 10:41:12 +0000</lastBuildDate>
		<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
		<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.9.14</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Patty Black</title>
		<link>https://www.epanorama.net/blog/2017/05/31/alternative-facts-are-the-norm-in-public-understanding-of-science/comment-page-1/#comment-1865850</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Patty Black]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 24 Nov 2025 21:02:47 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.epanorama.net/newepa/?p=55897#comment-1865850</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The idea that alternative facts have become normal in public discussions about science worries me, because it blurs the line between real evidence and personal belief. I’ve found that using tools like unicheck.com https://uniqecheck.com/ helps with text clarity and keeps me focused on grounding my writing in verifiable information rather than noise that spreads so easily across social media today online.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The idea that alternative facts have become normal in public discussions about science worries me, because it blurs the line between real evidence and personal belief. I’ve found that using tools like unicheck.com <a href="https://uniqecheck.com/" rel="nofollow">https://uniqecheck.com/</a> helps with text clarity and keeps me focused on grounding my writing in verifiable information rather than noise that spreads so easily across social media today online.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Tomi Engdahl</title>
		<link>https://www.epanorama.net/blog/2017/05/31/alternative-facts-are-the-norm-in-public-understanding-of-science/comment-page-1/#comment-1565504</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Tomi Engdahl]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 04 Oct 2017 11:15:55 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.epanorama.net/newepa/?p=55897#comment-1565504</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Scientific Papers Are Getting Less Readable
http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/neuroskeptic/2017/09/16/scientific-papers-less-readable/#more-9116

“The readability of scientific texts is decreasing over time”, according to a new paper just out. Swedish researchers Pontus Plaven-Sigray and colleagues say that scientists today use longer and more complex words than those of the past, making their writing harder to read. But what does it mean?

What’s driving the change? These readability metrics are based on a combination of the average sentence length and the average word length (Flesch) or word ‘commonness’ (Dale-Chall). 

In particular, Plaven-Sigray et al. point to increases in the use of what they call “general scientific jargon” or “science-ese”

‘Science-ese’, they say, includes words like “moreover”, “underlying”, “robust”, and “suggesting”. While not scientific terms per se, these are rarely used outside scholarly discourse today.

Overall, the authors conclude that:

We have shown a steady decrease of readability over time in the scientific literature… Lower readability implies less accessibility, particularly for non-specialists, such as journalists, policy-makers and the wider public… decreasing readability cannot be a positive development for efforts to accurately communicate science to non-specialists.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Scientific Papers Are Getting Less Readable<br />
<a href="http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/neuroskeptic/2017/09/16/scientific-papers-less-readable/#more-9116" rel="nofollow">http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/neuroskeptic/2017/09/16/scientific-papers-less-readable/#more-9116</a></p>
<p>“The readability of scientific texts is decreasing over time”, according to a new paper just out. Swedish researchers Pontus Plaven-Sigray and colleagues say that scientists today use longer and more complex words than those of the past, making their writing harder to read. But what does it mean?</p>
<p>What’s driving the change? These readability metrics are based on a combination of the average sentence length and the average word length (Flesch) or word ‘commonness’ (Dale-Chall). </p>
<p>In particular, Plaven-Sigray et al. point to increases in the use of what they call “general scientific jargon” or “science-ese”</p>
<p>‘Science-ese’, they say, includes words like “moreover”, “underlying”, “robust”, and “suggesting”. While not scientific terms per se, these are rarely used outside scholarly discourse today.</p>
<p>Overall, the authors conclude that:</p>
<p>We have shown a steady decrease of readability over time in the scientific literature… Lower readability implies less accessibility, particularly for non-specialists, such as journalists, policy-makers and the wider public… decreasing readability cannot be a positive development for efforts to accurately communicate science to non-specialists.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: maryjane</title>
		<link>https://www.epanorama.net/blog/2017/05/31/alternative-facts-are-the-norm-in-public-understanding-of-science/comment-page-1/#comment-1550773</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[maryjane]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 13 Jun 2017 07:36:23 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.epanorama.net/newepa/?p=55897#comment-1550773</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[great information.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>great information.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
