How do we get normies to read papers instead of news making bad summaries of said papers?

How many papers do you know, that do not require you to have at least ~12 hours of study in the field?

you jump directly to Conclusions. Easy.

Perturbations of chromatin structure due to passage of the transcription elongation
complex (TEC) carry the inherent risk of inappropriate access by initiation factors.
Accordingly, enzymes and factors that directly regulate elongation also work to suppress
cryptic initiation of both sense and antisense transcripts through their influence on
chromatin structure in gene coding regions (29). Here we have shown that antisense
suppression at most RNAPII-transcribed genes in S. pombe requires either Cdk9 activity
or H2Bub1 to promote the function of the Clr6-CII HDAC complex in coding regions.

I don't think that Mac the Lumberjack needs to know about the newest discoveries in quantum mechanics. What I do think is that even Mac the lumberjack should be protected from misinformation. To this end, I think all popular magazines and newspapers should be shut down by the government.

After that then I believe the government should aid fund scientific publications so that they may put the archives online for free for everyone to read. This way any common citizen who wants to know what is up could read, but as no article will have clickbaity titles that literally exploit your psychology for clicks, they won't be forcefully fed misinformation.

Fuck the common citizen. It is our duty to teach Mac McDummy science.
"by the way, while your daughter is dying of cancer, remember that there is just one person in the world authorized to manipulate the human genome, apart for that, the UN calls this a crime against humanity and you think they are right because you are an illiterate faggot"

You think the government should shut down all popular magazines and newspapers?

That isn't throwing the baby out with the bath water. That is drilling out its eyes - not with a regular bit, but with a masonry bit set to low - filling them with shit, skull f---ing it, and then drowning it right there in the tub. Which is exactly what the gestapo would be doing across the country shortly after.

>Fuck the common citizen
Great! None of your ideas will ever be acted upon in reality. I hope you are enjoying jerking yourself off by sharing them on the internet because there is literally 0% chance that anything you say or think will ever actually impact the world.

>You think the government should shut down all popular magazines and newspapers?
Yeah, at the very least when it comes to science. I don't like it but I suppose we can give them the right to write about whatever Kim Kardashian did on the weekend. I just think it is too dangerous to have people who need to make money off of their publications writing about science.

Capitalism is good, but the problem with capitalism is that it forces you to make money. Detailed research articles with nuance and care do not make money, and that is okay because academia supports those writers. But your typical Buzzfeed academic NEEDS to make money out of whatever he writes so:
>The bones of a female viking found in Norway
becomes
>VIKINGS WERE WOMEN? FIND OUT!
>TOP 10 REASONS WHY MEN CAN'T BE VIKINGS
>TAKE THIS TEST TO FIGURE OUT WHICH KIND OF VIKING YOU ARE

and what exactly is wrong with your example? Making stories appealing to the stupid masses are not bad because they wouldn't get exposed to it any other way (and they're gonna forget about it after reading anyway).
As long as a publication is not flat out lying I don''t really have a problem with dumbing it down.

>and what exactly is wrong with your example?
That they turned a scientific truth into a falsehood. If you want a more clearer example just look into any right-wing publication that talks about global warming, or any liberal publication that talks about gender and sex.

The sad reality of life is that many facts are not appealing. And if we try to morph them into something that is appealing we inevitably have to modify the fact itself.

>As long as a publication is not flat out lying
Well, you are so lucky. No publication in modern history has ever lied! But you know, all I am saying is that maybe that day could come. Fortunately every reporter is an angel with perfect morality so this has never happened. Specially not in 2017. 2017 was the year in which no one told a single lie :)

>The sad reality of life
I don't think you're at all qualified to comment on the "realities" of "life," Mr. Neckbeard.

get academics to write better. seriously, most academics can't write for shit.

How about actually being approachable for once, instead of assuming that everyone lives, breathes, shits, and dies by the scientific method?

Also not everyone's sole purpose in life if to use rational debate to test the strength of each other's will.

Can you show an example of what you mean? I've never read a paper that made me think "Boy, is this author bad at writing". Just link to what you think is a good example of this, please.

What's the website where you can make these pictures again?

papers arent trying to be a literate masterpiece, they should be objective and get the facts across.

The issue is that "news" write in such a way that selects some half-truth and runs with it as "revolutionary" or meaningful. This happens with everything, you don't get a nice summary of a paper or event, you get some shallow facet of them, stretched out into hyperbole. Less information, yet longer article. """"""journalists"""""" and over-bearing corporations need to be eliminated.

I think that a paper should include a layman summary as a requirement

It all evolves man. Sure, they are conforming to some kind of profit principle or crony capitalism or any other kind of thing, but it is the policy that is the problem. Killing journalists and "over-bearing" corporations isn't a meaningful response at best. At worst, it is conformity to the power principle via majority rule which becomes fascism in less than one generation.

Besides, what do you mean by over-bearing. Walmart in every town is profitable because its responsive to customers, but it certainly is literally an over-bearing corporation.

A lot of them do

..PNAS does

bring back patronage for scientists

>How do we get normies to read papers instead of news making bad summaries of said papers?
You can't.

First, most papers are paywalled. Changing that would be great, but it's not going to happen soon.
Second, most papers are written with an incredibly high assumed level of knowledge about the topic. They're written for other researchers, and use lots of field-specific jargon.
Third, researchers often just suck at writing clearly.

What we need is better science journalism, not for every scientist to become their own journalist.

salesforce.com/products/einstein/ai-research/tl-dr-reinforced-model-abstractive-summarization/

This, and people should be taught how to properly write papers.

>salesforce

salesforce papers are memes

you're gonna end up with beautifully crafted, easy to understand scientific papers with very little science in them
scientific journal articles are supposed to be the opposite of that
if that's what you want then there's textbooks and other stuff

There is also the fact that many papers use terminology that lay people aren't familiar with.

We can't

you sound like a retard

Bur that's just it: the content matter of most papers really isn't that complicated, but it's just buried under ten layers of bad notation, excessive formalism, and unnecessary bullshit. People are hiding from reviewers by making their papers as difficult to understand as possible so that their submissions can't get rejected.

You must angle the science in a fun, colorful, engaging but informative way. Apply scientific method and mathematical prowess to the right hemisphere of the brain, take as much from the fundamentals as possible in the logia and turn it into magia that the public loves so much.

Tl;dr Turn everything into cute anime girls.

You're completely wrong. Study something and you'll see.

I mean I haven't read a lot of papers but from what I've read it all seems necessary to stay unambiguous and objective
it would be unnecessary to make it sound nice or easy to understand

Focus only on the upcoming generation, realize that kids nowadays are the only ones that want to know the truth or at least consider it. Tell kids how to determine which website is credible and how to check it themselves (checking who collected the data, why they did it, what their conclusions were, and who opposes it). Finally just get them used to reading scientific articles in science classes (this will probably never happen, but worth a shot).

Not even scientists read papers, they just read the abstract.