Science - An important, yet underrated subject

in Proof of Brain3 months ago

Science as a subject might not have developed until thousands of years after the evolution of man, but man has been practicing science for as old as his existence. For example, man accidentally discovered fire and found out that cooked foods are more palatable than raw ones and decided to adopt the former, not knowing that the ability to extract more nutrients from foods comes as a result of cooking them and this significantly aided the evolution of man.

The continuous quest for man to understand his natural environment, which science is essentially all about, led to the emergence of science as a subject. Since then, several advancements and discoveries have been made and more are still being made. The bulk of what makes life easier for the common man today is in no thanks to the application of scientific knowledge. Unfortunately, science, and sometimes scientists, seem not to be appreciated by many.

It is not uncommon to find many people looking down on science, scientists, and science content (even here on hive). Several scientific phenomena are labeled a hoax. Examples are the anti-vaxxers and climate change deniers. They believe that vaccines are unnecessary and have sinister motives behind them while the phenomenon of climate change is seen as an avenue to control people and launder money in the name of research. Even when the positive effects of vaccines and the detrimental effects of human-induced climate change reverberate around us, conspiracy theorists will rather wave them away by the most ridiculous of excuses.

In developing countries like ours, science courses, perhaps excluding medical courses, are massively underappreciated and the professionals in the field underpaid. I have 2 degrees in Botany, a Bachelor of Science, and a Master's degree with a specialization in plant ecology. I have worked a shitty job mainly with the qualifications and nothing more. I actually fare better working full time on hive, creating and curating content. I have been stuck on my Ph.D. for a while now largely due to finances as there is zero support/funding from the government nor the private sector. My education has been 100% self-funding. Recently, my interest in the Ph.D. and academics, in general, has waned a great deal and I really do not see myself in that field anymore. Perhaps I'll be better off being an owner of a small business, who knows!

As a curator to one of the science communities on hive (stemsocial), I have been confronted several times about why posts that are not original are rewarded. According to them, unless you are publishing about your research that has not been published before, your content is rewritten at best and recycled at worst. To them, if you are not traveling to places or making delicious meals and taking awesome pictures (among other things) to post them on hive, you are not creating value. They simply do not see reasons why a post about headache should be rewarded when there are hundreds of similar posts on the Web.

Are they right with their assertions? The answer is N O. Every content is original in their capacity as long as they are not plagiarised and rewritten. A well-researched stem post is probably one of the most difficult content to create, I can say this anywhere. If you are in doubt, ask folks like @agmoore, @oscurity, and @alfonsoalfonsi how many hours or even days it takes them to create their stem contents.

source: public domain pictures

Personally, my content style has evolved with time, with no thanks to what people perceive to be original content on the platform. I have tried to move away from literature review-based stem posts to creating content around real-life, day-to-day, scientific issues. They are not only easier to put together but also seem to be more relatable and acceptable to users on the platform. I mean, I can easily discuss a food poison I suffered from consuming food from a fast food outlet than trying to read tens of scientific publications because I want to write on diarrhea, causes, symptoms, and treatments.

I understand that it is important for one to create content that others can relate to but not all science posts can be written in such a manner. I mean, how low would you have to drop without losing the scientific element in order to write an article on the black hole that would be 100% relatable to the layman. Even many scientists are still yet to come to terms with the topic. If we will only reward original research science content, what we are saying is that 99.9% of the stem content here on hive does not deserve to be rewarded.

The bottom line still borders around the fact that science is not given the necessary respect and recognition it deserves. Hive is fast becoming a repertoire of contents around different topics and if Web 3.0 eventually becomes mainstreaming, here will most likely be the Wikipedia of everything. We shouldn't look down on content just because we cannot relate to them or they do not serve our interests.

Thank you all for reading my rant.

Posted via


Hello @gentleshaid,

A few thoughts ran through my head as I read your blog. I'll share them in no particular order.

One thought has to do with the career path you have taken (not taken). I have a nephew who went to an Ivy League school. He graduated with a degree in mathematics. Nothing he does today uses that degree. He runs his own business (as you suggest you might) and deals with computer hardware. He is quite successful (I have such a clever nephew), but the education did not lead to a career.

Then, about writing science articles. You're right it takes days, or weeks for me to put together a Stem article. I try to think of something that is not only interesting, but is also useful in some way. A Stem blog, for me, is always an investigation. I never know where a blog will end until it is finished. Thanks for the mention.

Finally, I love Hive and the blockchain because of what you describe. This platform offers opportunity when it may not exist elsewhere. Hive is a door that, with effort, can be opened by anyone. Go Hive !! 🎈🎈

The continued deterioration of academics around here is what's making to have a change of mind. I still love science, no doubt, but not in the academic sense. With PhD here, you are 99% certain to end up in the academics if you are lucky enough to get a job.

Like I said, I've deviated away a bit from writing core science articles because very few can relate to it on the chain. Nowadays, I just try to simplify topics in a way that it will be relatable to everyone. I mean, only a few people will enjoy reading articles about how blue light is good for photosynthesis ahead of red light. That might be too technical for many.

I think hive remains massively undervalued in terms of blog2earn opportunity as well as being a repertoire of information. I'm certain it will take its place with time.

I think science is vital, since I was a child I have been interested in science related topics. I think that the fact that it is not highly valued is due to the fact that it is not usually transmitted in a proper way.

If there is one thing I have realized over the years, it is that science is much easier to learn and more highly valued when it is associated with something practical. Many teachers base their teaching method on boring and tiresome ways, when it is possible to do it in a more attractive way.

Let's say you learn physics through a song or a game. Not only do you assimilate it better, but that inspires you to even go further, research on the internet or read books, with a greater motivation for the subject.

I learned more about history through Age of Empires than I did in school, for example.

On the subject of science in developing countries, it is a matter of bad policies that do not promote the development of companies and technology. If that were the case, there would be more demand for scientists in developing countries, and there would be better salaries and conditions.

I agree with you to an extent but you should know that the method described is only applicable at the elementary levels. Advance science cannot be approached in the same without losing the vital contents.

I remember spending half a day to a full day, and sometimes even more, to create posts in the past. Too bad I have no more time to do this at the moment (at least now I answer some posts since this morning ;) ).

The good thing is you still find time to check on things on discord and sometimes on the chain. I am hopeful things will eventually get back to the old times, one day.

 3 months ago (edited)

I still hope to write a post (explaining why I was barely present for 18 months)... soon.... and also help you in curating. In fact, I am more present on discord as I started to use it for lecturing last year :)

It would be nice to have you back :)

Posted via

I want to be back! I just cannot that easily as days are only made of 24 hours... ;)

I think my approach to working with HIVE and science at the same time is to do something (FUN) !! IF YOU DO SCIENCE WITHOUT enjoying it, it is boring and this platform is not work! But it is an excellent hobby!

People have different approaches that seem to work for them. I enjoy science with fun but will never look down on the strict science, borderline boring, stuff. Not adding fun to science does not make it less of science.

!discovery 20

This post was shared and voted inside the discord by the curators team of discovery-it
Join our community! hive-193212
Discovery-it is also a Witness, vote for us here
Delegate to us for passive income. Check our 80% fee-back Program

The rewards earned on this comment will go directly to the person sharing the post on Twitter as long as they are registered with @poshtoken. Sign up at

Thanks for your contribution to the STEMsocial community. Feel free to join us on discord to get to know the rest of us!

Please consider supporting our funding proposal, approving our witness (@stem.witness) or delegating to the @stemsocial account (for some ROI).

Please consider using the STEMsocial app app and including @stemsocial as a beneficiary to get a stronger support. 

Your content has been voted as a part of Encouragement program. Keep up the good work!

Use Ecency daily to boost your growth on platform!

Support Ecency
Vote for Proposal
Delegate HP and earn more

Buen post. muy instructivo, gracias por compartir, te dejo mi voto y te sigo, saludos.

I love science, especially natural science, but am always unsure if it would be counted as original or even read should I write about it. What are the standards for the Stem community?

original content (no copy/paste, rewriting. Literature review is fine), copyright-free images, references. That's basically all there is

Posted via

Basically almost anything said about science is a rewrite? But I will try to dip my toes in sometime :)...


Saying it is rewrite is saying the writer didn't put in any research. We call it literature review in science. Reproducing someone's work even if you are using your own words is a rewrite. Juxtaposing different people's work on similar issue and putting your own thoughts is what we call literature review

Oh, then I should be fine :) Hopefully you can give me some pointers if my post is off the mark in any way, please?

Sure. Why not. I'm always glad to help anyone out on this chain.

You Are Alive and have been rewarded with 0.1 ALIVE tokens from the We Are Alive Tribe, and it's paid for by the earnings on, swing by our daily chat any time you want.

 3 months ago Reveal Comment