#science vs

[beemovieerotica]

A group of teenagers and college kids were fed up with the lousy healthcare in their New York neighborhood. So they came together as a group, calling themselves the Young Lords, and fought the system head on — a fight that still resonates today. Sid Davidoff, Mickey Melendez, and Cleo Silvers share their story.

Highly highly recommend this episode if you're interested at all in the history of direct action versus the healthcare complex, especially as it affects people of color.

[todaysbat]

Have we crossed the Climate Tipping Point? || Science Vs

[feministfandomforever]

These women are amazing and I had never heard their story before. Please listen

[odinsblog]

Science Vs

Listen to Science Vs episodes free, on demand. There are a lot of fads, blogs and strong opinions, but then there’s SCIENCE. Science Vs is t

Reparations, how could it work?

The idea of paying Black Americans reparations for slavery has been around for a long time, but it’s starting to get more support than ever. So we ask: If the country does agree to pay up, how do you calculate the bill? And how could the U.S. come up with that kind of cash? To find out, we talk to historian and farmer Leah Penniman, economist Prof. William Darity Jr., public policy scholar Assistant Prof. Naomi Zewde, and Ebony Pickett.

https://www.stitcher.com/podcast/gimlet/sciencevs

[antivanruffles]

SHARKS!!!

Are sharks the super-predators we think they are? Or have we been baited with great white lies? To find out, we interviewed shark researcher

Sharksssssss

[thatqueerpodcastfan]

Science Vs.

Title: Science Vs.

Person Responsible: Wendy Zuckerman, Gimlet media

Genre: Non-fiction, Scripted, Educational

Rating: 3.5, Meeh

How far did I get: I’ve listened to ~10 episodes between 2016 and 2018

Warnings: Frank discussions of topics that listeners may find disturbing, flippancy

Notes: Science Vs. makes a point of discussing polarizing topics (e.g. abortion, fracking, artificial sweeteners) through the lens of peer-reviewed scientific literature and interviews with experts and/or people affected by the topics at hand. Episodes contain an accessible breakdown of a given topic, possible opposing views on debates around said topic, and a good deal of well-intended ribbing. 

There are a lot of good things that this podcast has going for itself in terms of scientific literacy and journalism. Episodes remain fairly impartial to topics until there is significant evidence to make an informed decision. An impressive amount of research goes into each episode, evident in that the finer points of a given topic often come up, interviewers ask informed questions, and multiple viewpoints on a given topic are usually represented. There is the ongoing acknowledgement that while there might be a significant body of scientific evidence supporting or denying an opinion, no topic is as clear cut as we would like it to be. The audio quality is good-- which can be a bit touch and go in interview situations-- and the parts of the show that are not wading through research are littered with either humor or anecdotes. Finally, all interviewees are fully introduced, journal articles referenced are sourced, and show notes often contain recommendations for additional readings or resources useful to the listener.

However where I have second thoughts on this podcast is how science is often represented as somehow outside of societal influence. Don’t get me wrong, the writers will often note if a cited study is founded on Bad Science or if there are limitations to a current body of research. I’m more concerned about the viewpoint best crystallized by the episode intro hook “...but then there’s science” followed by a synthesizer choir cord. Believing that published scientific research is the end all for any debate is ill-advised, as academic research can be bogged down by conflicts of interest, bias, and an inability for credible research to reflect the reality of a situation. The pitfalls of relying on inaccurate data can be stemmed by providing sources and comparing studies-- as these creators do-- but there’s a quasi-smugness in the writing that cannot be mitigated with thoughtful uptake of research data. The narration of this podcast can be thoughtful and funny and pokes fun often, but the air of almost-superiority that the host speaks with about science can be off-putting at its most benign and actively discredit personal anecdotes and/or contrary evidence at its most harmful.

All in all, if you want a well-grounded primer into a given issue, this podcast is a good resource. For instance, before going home and engaging with my environmentally-driven sister, I might listen to episodes on fracking, GMOs, and climate change to make sure I have at least a few facts straight. However, I would not rely on this podcast for all of your information (which is part of being a responsible learner but I digress) and would recommend in 1-3 episode chunks.

Score Breakdown

Quality: 1

Concept: 0.5 (expandable and well-intentioned, but limited in scope)

Execution: 0.75

Interaction: 0.75 (sources, trigger warnings, and resources are great, but see smugness comment.)

Miscellaneous: 0.5 (episode titles can be very clickbaity)

[todaysbat]

High as in height.

Video is not captioned.

Episode originally posted july 20, 2023

Btw, The next post in queue is the episode teased at the end of video

[feministfandomforever]