On a more personal level, though, oncologist ought to be on the far right, with obstetrician not far behind. When your cancer or your pregnancy makes the local news,
time to panic.
Pharyngula
Evolution, development, and random biological ejaculations from a godless liberal
But they won’t understand what anyone of the scientists say, not understand at all.
Most of my interviews as an astronomer have been pretty mundane but also more for human interest than breaking news. We can see solar eclipses coming after all.
Oncologist interviewed about new experimental treatment: generally good, but don’t hold your breath until it’s through trials.
Oncologist interviewed about incident at chemical plant: very very bad.
They might just interview an oncologist if a famous person got sick… so, no personal threat.
Not according to the History Channel. There’s not a Megapedologist on the list.
Good thing climatologists & meteorologists never get asked about current events.
Are economists considered scientists? They don’t as a rule abandon failed hypotheses.
Unless it’s good news, like a ‘miraculous’ remission or birthing healthy septets.
A frightened xenobiologist might be the most worrisome.
@6 Pierce R. Butler
that’s numberwang
What, no theologists?
I hope that before my cancer will be mentioned in the local news, I’ve been told the horrible prognosis already.
Put psychologists and sociologists on the left margin.
Physicists, hmmm…
I wrote@#13:
Put psychologists and sociologists on the left margin.
Oh, wait, it said “scientists.” Never mind.
Are nutritionists so low because they don’t affect us much, or because everyone assumes now that they’ll reverse themselves every decade or so? I swear, they give all the rest of the sciences a bad rep.
Yeah, I hear you on that. To me it seems strange that both a low carbohydrate diet (prediabetes), and a low saturated fat diet (Mediterranean for cardiac health), seem remarkably the same except for “Crisco” vs. Virgin Olive Oil. I was losing weight on a higher saturated fat diet (more Aktin’s, high protein), than the lower fat diet with virgin olive oil….I’ll figure it out. I don’t simply want to blame it on the change in meds, which shouldn’t make a difference in weight change *snicker*.
yeah, because understanding the threat authoritarianism poses to society isn’t at all relevant.
nope, nosirree.
this used to be a place where science was actually discussed.
now, I see it becoming less and less so, and more and more bullshit.
guess what? psychology is science. sociology is science.
get the fuck used to it.
I’ve no idea why astronomy is so high, the only things you’re likely to hear in such an interview are:
a) Earth is going to have a near miss event soon; and by ‘near’ miss we mean perhaps three times further than the moon.
b) Something arcane and incredibly remote to everyone’s lives is happening. No one will notice.
c) A major solar flare! This means polar regions will have intense aurorae, and your tv / radio / phone transmissions will have some extra crackle. Oh and there is the possibility that within the next century, there will be another Carrington Event level flare, which will actually be bad depending on the state of the nation’s electrical grid.
Ichthyic@#17:
It’s about how seriously we should take what reporters say about those fields. Now go tell me all about how credible the reporting on the social sciences are – and don’t mistake credulity for credibility.
Yeah, they’re sciences. So are cargo cultists. The social scientists used to be worse but now are definitely better – better than cargo cultists, I mean.
well, if they are featuring a whole lot of differing economists that would indicate that something is going on that no one expected and it looks bad and or someone is planing some new shit that will likely fuck everything up worse than it is “normally”.
but I am so low in the order of things there is likely not much I can do about it any way! so I may not get too worried :-(
uncle frogy
Me: “A frightened xenobiologist might be the most worrisome.”
https://youtu.be/ufaDurSCKOk