Marketer. Photographer. Husband & dad. Lego, Minecraft, & Preds hockey fan. Movie buff, but pls #NoSpoilers!

Also @[email protected] Also @[email protected] Also @pwnicholson.bsky.social Used to be @pwnicholson on IG, FB, TW, etc

  • 0 Posts
  • 53 Comments
Joined 2 years ago
cake
Cake day: June 19th, 2023

help-circle

  • I don’t, really. But my field is also kinda niche (it’s not like some popular field like genetics or infectious diseases. There aren’t many journalists covering us at all, yet. I work in marketing for an industrial exosuit company (think practical, assistive, biomechanical wearables). Most of the journalists that are covering us at this point are used to covering news about forklifts or warehouse automation, so they aren’t used to reading peer reviewed scientific publications at all. Their exposure to papers on biomechanics and injury risk factors is more rare, and they might as well be Latin (well, sometimes they do have a lot of Latin).

    But it’s also something of a joke. When I was back taking journalism classes for my communications and marketing degree, the professors would joke about how journalists covering either legal summaries or scientific summaries would say that 1 + 2 = 5 all the time, leaving out important details that were critical to the conclusions because they weren’t interesting. I think the scientists put up with it because as long as the conclusion is correct, they’re just happy to have anyone paying attention.














  • You have to see the huge logical leap you’re making in your main point, right?

    Just because some of Jesus’ disciples believed they saw a resurrected Jesus isn’t scientific proof that he was resurrected. It just means they believed he did.

    You’re searching for facts in a realm of faith. Either you believe or you don’t. If you only believe in something that is proven, then you don’t have faith, just conviction.

    “Now faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen.” Heb 11:1