Are you seriously saying that if scientific papers contain parts that lets us visualize their contents interactivity human being will lose the ability to think creatively?
What I am saying is that the intended audience of those scientific papers rarely need the interactive diagrams (the equations & math are enough - most of us for example can visualize logarithms quite trivially).
But those who do not have the necessary math background - this will not really help them at all. Sure they might have some understanding of this particular algorithm - but when it comes to abstraction and extending that knowledge to other problems I do not believe it will scale. You do not have the fundamentals to think creatively (in a mathematical sense).
The circuit for example. They might now understand how that circuit behaves. But if I show them a completely different circuit can they infer how it behaves? Likely no, they were not able to pick up on all the non-linear behavior that occurs within circuits.
It seems unlikely this would be generalizable in much of a useful way. "We conjecture that this phenomenon is universal for a class of complex dynamical systems and discuss implications." the paper says, I'd like to see more on why they think it's reasonable to conjecture that.
It's not an inability to understand you're seeing, it's a rejection of it because it misleads people. Pendants attack such language precisely because it's misleading without cause. There's no reason to personify random processes and doing so actively misleads people.
Where's your evidence that people are mislead? I don't have any data either, but I suspect exactly zero people came away thinking that bacteria have conscious desires, just like zero people believe that wind actually bites or people actually get butterflies in their stomach.
Yea, like zero people believe water has memory or zero people believe the earth is 6000 years old. Open your eyes, people believe shit they hear that's absurd constantly and in my anecdotal experience maybe 1 in 8 people I've met understood evolution. But maybe you don't live in a red state.
That's your opinion, not mine; however it's exactly talk like this that has led to most laymen not understanding evolution. They don't get that it's being dumbed down for them and that's not their fault, it's the fault of people who casually anthropomorphize things because they wrongly think it helps to clarify; it does not.
Understanding comes from truth, not casual simplifying lies.
You place a large hindrance on discussion if you require every discussion that mentions natural selection to give an entire introductory lesson on evolution. It's a ridiculous notion, especially when there is unlikely to be any misconceptions taken from this article. The purpose of the article was to explain why bacteria become resistant to antibiotics and how our use of antibiotics has led to this, and it does a fine job of that even if some uneducated people still can't describe the modern evolutnary synthesis.
I require no such thing, it is possible to have the same discussion without the unnecessary personification of bacterial wants. It adds nothing to the conversation to say bacteria wants rather than the fit survive.
The lack of anonymity and pseudonymity on Facebook is definitely a factor. Facebook works under the assumption that we have one unified "identity" to which we can and want to tie everything we do. In reality, we share different parts of ourselves with different people at different times.
I think that's probably a large reason along with two others:
They're more content focused. Twitter is about what people write, Instagram is about the pictures people take. Facebook is about... the network? Facebook is more muddled, and clarity is valued today.
Asymmetry. Yes, I know you can "like" things and get updates and you can join groups, but ultimately the relationship between two users on Facebook has to be agreed to by both.
