I’m fairly optimistic about this. On the Origin of Species wasn’t really written, as far as I understand, for a general audience. It was written for other naturalists and “intelligencia”.
There’s probably been a shift towards putting grand theories in review articles rather than books (for example: https://www.nature.com/articles/nrn2787), especially in the sciences. But grand theories written up for other scientists certainly still happens, and it even still happens in books (university presses, as I understand them, tend to have imprints meant for their general audience books and different ones for their more academic ones. On the origin of species would likely have been considered an academic book, not a general audience one)
A lot of good sense here. I think you've nailed it in the point about incentives distorting the system. I'm surprised to hear that scientists are highly trusted by the public, and wonder whether it's the scientific method or the scientists that are being trusted.
I feel the scientific method, is not well understood by many writers/members of the public. The fact, hinted at in the article, that individual studies don’t give definitive answers is at odds with the public perception of scientists being “clever” - so they should know everything / be able to tell me what is true!
It’s the old …… is this 100% safe?
Scientist answer No, only 99.5% becomes “Scientist says ## is not safe!
There's a structural reason science hype is so persistent: the people producing it are optimizing for narrative closure, not epistemic accuracy. A story that ends with "we don't fully understand yet" doesn't travel. The hype machine isn't a failure of journalism — it's journalism doing exactly what it was designed to do, just for the wrong metric. What strikes me as a clinician is how the same dynamic operates in medicine: the diagnostic label that closes the loop too early, the treatment protocol that replaces thinking. The problem isn't bad actors. It's a system that rewards premature closure at every level.
Reminds me of an old headline from The Onion: “Funyuns Still Outselling Responsibilityuns.” 🤣
As you sagely point out: in the attention economy, ginned-up salience and apparent novelty—and above all, something that seems effortless to put into practice RIGHT NOW—are rewarded…appropriate reticence and sober-mindedness are not.
Given those incentives, where the heck do we think “science” journalism will go? Water seeks its level. For better or worse…humans gon’ human.
Case in point: several (absolutely exhausting) years now of bullshit “CEO-says-something (!!!)” style reporting regarding the “AI” (namely, LLMs/generative) industry. Never in my LIFE have I seen so many people who should know better fall instantly, hook, line and sinker, for bullshit designed to run up stock prices and build hype.
Those with even a *passing* technical knowledge of the systems involved, and who DON’T have a financial stake, instantly see through 98% of this shit. So why don’t journalists? Why doesn’t the public? People aren’t THAT scientifically and technically illiterate, are they? It goes against all of my instincts to believe it.
Specific example, from the last couple days: the Claude Mythos announcement about hacking abilities “so dangerous, it can’t POSSIBLY be released!” taken at face value (apparently) across the journalistic board. (Since then, underreported or not reported at all: turns out the benchmarks are bullshit, and it is really no different from other current models.) (NB: This is not in *any* way to understate the very real dangers of LLMs to facilitate hacking and other evil chicanery. But no… Mythos is not suddenly the big bad boss.)
But sheesh. After SO many instances—over years, now—of catastrophizing-as-marketing (“gosh, LLM chatbots may become sentient and destroy humanity! THAT’S HOW POWERFUL OUR TECH IS! GIVE US YR MONEY!“ 😝), you would think people would get wise.
Simultaneously the actual, happening-as-we-speak dangers and (often) horrors– some of them considerable – of LLMs are all around us. But for whatever reason, credulous consumers/readers and journalists alike raised on “the terminator” seem prepared to believe ANYTHING except the actual enshittifying truth unfolding before us every day.
Gah. Sorry… I am clearly getting carried away. Deeeep, cleansing breath. 🫠 But yeah.
Glad to see someone else checking behind the hype. You're right that the rot goes back to scientists and their need for funding. But I think that's fair, and only the nature of science. The real problem then is science journalism. This needs to be far more critically switched on and neutral.
The trouble is that, when you start looking behind most science news stories they almost all ending up being hype. The side effect is that you get this vast crowd of people who believe they're scientifically informed spouting junk and being very arrogant about it. Meanwhile, very few are actually aware of what's really going on in the science behind.
It's almost like a mass induced ignorance manufactured by science journalism
As a marketer and content writer, I wonder whether there were better ways to organize the book, Concentration. For example, offer the concrete, actionable information up front with the last part of the book containing the review of evidence. I've read other books such as Presuasion, that are organized this way.
Yeah, that’s an interesting idea. More generally I’m sure there are lots of things that could have been done to help the book be received better, and what I want to convey is just that it’s hard, not impossible, to write good science that is widely enjoyed, and we should encourage, admire, and support those that attempt it
Is the mindset of ‘publish or perish’ a forerunner of this trend? Not that this would lead to learning how to generate click bait but in hurrying a hollow paper. From there the marketeers take the reins.
"Is it just a paycheck for the author?" Often, yes. Too many writers are pressured to produce as much as possible, as fast as possible. Put words on page, hit publish, repeat, get paid. When I was a novice journo 40-odd years ago, it was normal to spend between a day and a week on each piece, sometimes significantly more. Now it's typically an hour or two, sometimes less. Word rates are lower now than they were a century ago: you've got to deliver the volume if you want to eat.
Fact-checking? Interviews? Research? Ain't got time for that. Just regurgitate the press release, add some clickbait & keywords, and move on. Slow down, and you'll find yourself replaced by someone faster and cheaper or an AI. Clickthroughs drop, you're out. Who cares anyway? Chances are most of what you write will only ever be read by bots and used to calculate your site ranking.
It's not work to be proud of, but it's a living. Gotta pay back those student loans somehow and justify that overpriced journalism degree. And maybe one day you'll attract the attention of someone who'll actually pay you to do the job properly... but in the meantime, just keep slopping it out.
Sounds bleak! But yeah, the incentives are totally understandable (as they are for scientists who are competing for funding dollars and recognition in a sea of other scientists and need to have their research stand out somehow, and so write things a bit more emphatically than is maybe justified by the research)
I feel a similar rage against the google deepmind crew and their starcraft 2 AI, the findings were massively overhyped in 2019 when upon further inspection the professional human players it was pitted against were on off races, and were limited to one specific map and strategy that severely constrained them.
Not a scientist. Could *On the Origin of Species* be written and published today, and if it could, would anyone read it?
I’m fairly optimistic about this. On the Origin of Species wasn’t really written, as far as I understand, for a general audience. It was written for other naturalists and “intelligencia”.
There’s probably been a shift towards putting grand theories in review articles rather than books (for example: https://www.nature.com/articles/nrn2787), especially in the sciences. But grand theories written up for other scientists certainly still happens, and it even still happens in books (university presses, as I understand them, tend to have imprints meant for their general audience books and different ones for their more academic ones. On the origin of species would likely have been considered an academic book, not a general audience one)
Just the facts, ma'am.
A lot of good sense here. I think you've nailed it in the point about incentives distorting the system. I'm surprised to hear that scientists are highly trusted by the public, and wonder whether it's the scientific method or the scientists that are being trusted.
The question asked is "Do you trust scientists to act in the best interests of the public?", so interpret that as you will
Ah. Fair enough.
I feel the scientific method, is not well understood by many writers/members of the public. The fact, hinted at in the article, that individual studies don’t give definitive answers is at odds with the public perception of scientists being “clever” - so they should know everything / be able to tell me what is true!
It’s the old …… is this 100% safe?
Scientist answer No, only 99.5% becomes “Scientist says ## is not safe!
There's a structural reason science hype is so persistent: the people producing it are optimizing for narrative closure, not epistemic accuracy. A story that ends with "we don't fully understand yet" doesn't travel. The hype machine isn't a failure of journalism — it's journalism doing exactly what it was designed to do, just for the wrong metric. What strikes me as a clinician is how the same dynamic operates in medicine: the diagnostic label that closes the loop too early, the treatment protocol that replaces thinking. The problem isn't bad actors. It's a system that rewards premature closure at every level.
Reminds me of an old headline from The Onion: “Funyuns Still Outselling Responsibilityuns.” 🤣
As you sagely point out: in the attention economy, ginned-up salience and apparent novelty—and above all, something that seems effortless to put into practice RIGHT NOW—are rewarded…appropriate reticence and sober-mindedness are not.
Given those incentives, where the heck do we think “science” journalism will go? Water seeks its level. For better or worse…humans gon’ human.
Case in point: several (absolutely exhausting) years now of bullshit “CEO-says-something (!!!)” style reporting regarding the “AI” (namely, LLMs/generative) industry. Never in my LIFE have I seen so many people who should know better fall instantly, hook, line and sinker, for bullshit designed to run up stock prices and build hype.
Those with even a *passing* technical knowledge of the systems involved, and who DON’T have a financial stake, instantly see through 98% of this shit. So why don’t journalists? Why doesn’t the public? People aren’t THAT scientifically and technically illiterate, are they? It goes against all of my instincts to believe it.
Specific example, from the last couple days: the Claude Mythos announcement about hacking abilities “so dangerous, it can’t POSSIBLY be released!” taken at face value (apparently) across the journalistic board. (Since then, underreported or not reported at all: turns out the benchmarks are bullshit, and it is really no different from other current models.) (NB: This is not in *any* way to understate the very real dangers of LLMs to facilitate hacking and other evil chicanery. But no… Mythos is not suddenly the big bad boss.)
But sheesh. After SO many instances—over years, now—of catastrophizing-as-marketing (“gosh, LLM chatbots may become sentient and destroy humanity! THAT’S HOW POWERFUL OUR TECH IS! GIVE US YR MONEY!“ 😝), you would think people would get wise.
Simultaneously the actual, happening-as-we-speak dangers and (often) horrors– some of them considerable – of LLMs are all around us. But for whatever reason, credulous consumers/readers and journalists alike raised on “the terminator” seem prepared to believe ANYTHING except the actual enshittifying truth unfolding before us every day.
Gah. Sorry… I am clearly getting carried away. Deeeep, cleansing breath. 🫠 But yeah.
The Gartner hype cycle.
Misaligned incentives in reporting.
The struggle is real.
🤷♂️
Great post, anyway.
Glad to see someone else checking behind the hype. You're right that the rot goes back to scientists and their need for funding. But I think that's fair, and only the nature of science. The real problem then is science journalism. This needs to be far more critically switched on and neutral.
The trouble is that, when you start looking behind most science news stories they almost all ending up being hype. The side effect is that you get this vast crowd of people who believe they're scientifically informed spouting junk and being very arrogant about it. Meanwhile, very few are actually aware of what's really going on in the science behind.
It's almost like a mass induced ignorance manufactured by science journalism
As a marketer and content writer, I wonder whether there were better ways to organize the book, Concentration. For example, offer the concrete, actionable information up front with the last part of the book containing the review of evidence. I've read other books such as Presuasion, that are organized this way.
Yeah, that’s an interesting idea. More generally I’m sure there are lots of things that could have been done to help the book be received better, and what I want to convey is just that it’s hard, not impossible, to write good science that is widely enjoyed, and we should encourage, admire, and support those that attempt it
Is the mindset of ‘publish or perish’ a forerunner of this trend? Not that this would lead to learning how to generate click bait but in hurrying a hollow paper. From there the marketeers take the reins.
I'm not sure if one necessarily came before the other, but certainly they are caused by similar incentive structures in science
Great post. +1 for mentioning Stephen Law's The Philosophy Gym.
Illuminating!
"Is it just a paycheck for the author?" Often, yes. Too many writers are pressured to produce as much as possible, as fast as possible. Put words on page, hit publish, repeat, get paid. When I was a novice journo 40-odd years ago, it was normal to spend between a day and a week on each piece, sometimes significantly more. Now it's typically an hour or two, sometimes less. Word rates are lower now than they were a century ago: you've got to deliver the volume if you want to eat.
Fact-checking? Interviews? Research? Ain't got time for that. Just regurgitate the press release, add some clickbait & keywords, and move on. Slow down, and you'll find yourself replaced by someone faster and cheaper or an AI. Clickthroughs drop, you're out. Who cares anyway? Chances are most of what you write will only ever be read by bots and used to calculate your site ranking.
It's not work to be proud of, but it's a living. Gotta pay back those student loans somehow and justify that overpriced journalism degree. And maybe one day you'll attract the attention of someone who'll actually pay you to do the job properly... but in the meantime, just keep slopping it out.
Sounds bleak! But yeah, the incentives are totally understandable (as they are for scientists who are competing for funding dollars and recognition in a sea of other scientists and need to have their research stand out somehow, and so write things a bit more emphatically than is maybe justified by the research)
banger
and a romantic ending
🌺
I feel a similar rage against the google deepmind crew and their starcraft 2 AI, the findings were massively overhyped in 2019 when upon further inspection the professional human players it was pitted against were on off races, and were limited to one specific map and strategy that severely constrained them.
When science is a product, then it will be marketed like a product.
Did you know that global warming destroyed the planet years ago?
right but had we not spiced up that story, do you think Gen pop would have cared as much as they did?