My Vision
Communicating science, mathematics, and technology, has always been a great passion of mine. A passion I pursued for many years in many ways and forms. Since I am striving to become a community-driven educator, it is important to me to coalesce the observations collected from these many joyous and insightful experience into a clear statement of intentions. Make it clear what I am all about and what I am trying to do.
So here are my principles.
Layer the Challenge
Mitigating complex ideas to a general audience is an experience of consistent conflict between accuracy and approachability. Most popular-science outlets are of the “for dummies” ilk, circumventing all the technicalities and nitty-gritty by ensconcing them in pretty but vague metaphors, avoiding quantitative discussions (and god forbid, mathematical notation) like the plague, fearing they would drive away the audience.
I do not believe in that.
Obviously, in most cases, a completely formal treatment is unreasonable for the passionate amateur. However, in my experience I found that with enough guidance and patience, a non-technical crowd can appreciate and enjoy some extent of formal treatment, and experience true insight of understanding.
I believe that popular science should not just survey the Apocrypha of the field, but also act as a stepping stone, providing the reader with the means to deepen their abstract reasoning and mathematical insight, providing precious and deeply enjoyable a-ha! and eureka! moments. But only for those who choose to make the effort.
For this purpose, I am trying to classify sections of my content according to difficulty, providing a layered experience that could appeal to many readers, from casual light readers, through self-studying amateurs willing to rack their brains against exercises and formal arguments, through initiated readers with formal background and up to professional researchers, colleagues and peers.
Separate Fact, Interpretation, and Opinion
Metaphors are by far the didactic tool most ubiquitous in popular science. To me, the main difference between good and bad popular science is that the latter forgets about the subject and leans into the metaphor. Many common misconceptions about science can be traced back to the abuse of metaphors (maybe most famously, the metaphoric description of the quantum measurement problem as “the observer affects the system” that was extrapolated to any forms of quackery that somehow combine the words “quantum” and “consciousness”, or anthropomorphizing evolution as “seeking survival advantage” leading to many people believing random mutation is a kind of directed and guided process).
“Analyzing” the metaphor instead of the actual subject is the mother of all misunderstandings.
Witnessing this chronology reoccurring in virtually any realm of knowledge, it became a core principal of mine to always constraint my metaphors, and explain to what extent they hold, and when and how they break down.
An even worse cardinal sin some authors make is to present the established and widely accepted theory in the same standing as their own theories, opinions, and ideas. In the best case, they are just sloppy writers, but there are authors who intentionally blur the line between the two, possibly deceiving the reader to accept their theories, no matter how fringe, as consensus in the scientific community.
Personal interpretations and opinions are an important part of writing. I like to think that my readers don’t just enjoy my didactic style, but also value and seek my perspective. To provide it without causing any misleading optics, I am committed to framing my opinions and interpretations as such.
Value Integrity Above All
Science is about seeking truth. Sometimes truth is unpleasant, especially when there is money involved. Sometimes, the conclusions falling out of an independent analysis could be uncomfortable for certain teams and communities. Finding and reporting vulnerabilities in theory that is relied upon by a project that is already in, and has a community of investors, can lead to stubbing some toes.
Seeking conflict is not a virtue, but neither is censoring valid critique for the sake of diplomacy. Especially when the critique applies to an initiative that compels people to invest their money in it.
So while I do not actively seek to poke holes in anyone’s work, if a project hits my radar and, upon inspecting, I find a reason for concern, I will report it (in compliance with responsible disclosure guidelines) and if I see fit, I will include it in my writings and use it as a didactive example.
Communicate
I don’t know how many of you had the pleasure of giving a recorded lecture to an empty classroom. I have. I do not recommend it. It is a dreadful experience. What makes it dreadful is not the awkwardness of performing to no audience (if Pink Floyd could do it in Pompeii then I can do it in a Zoom call from the comfort of my own home), but the lack of feedback.
Even the greatest educators cannot adapt to their audience without any pushback. Questions, inquiries, corrections, counterarguments, those are all crucial for an attuned learning experience. It is the only tool an educator has to tweak and adjust their approach.
The one thing that excites me most about community funded education is that it removes many barriers between me and my audience and community, allowing me to be more receptive and responsive, and receive feedback from the community that eventually results in better content. Teaching is always two-sided, and that reciprocity is easily lost when writing in desolation.
This is why it is of key importance to me to use the community funding platform to accommodate as much as possible of this back-and-forth, creating an end product that is truly community work.
Make Knowledge Free
Knowledge should not be privileged, and I will never create content that is paywalled or in other ways limited.
There are many ways to reward and extend a gratitude to supporters and benefactors of my initiatives: hand-on sessions, early access, more direct access to discuss my work and affect it, extended versions of the knowledge that is publicly available (such as a printed hardcover version including solutions to exercises).
The one thing that will never be a privilege of paying contributors is fundamental knowledge. Any content made with an educational purpose, and includes original topics that are not covered in current similarly approachable literature, will be made freely available. This includes written materials, lectures, and workshops.
Be Transparent, Cooperative, and Reliable
A community-funded project means that I, the person materializing the project, answer to the community. To me, this means three things:
The community deserves to know what is going on, how contribution money is used, and how the work is progressing.
Pledgers and supporters should participate in decision-making, and have the option to weigh in on how I spend the resources afforded to me by the community.
It is my responsibility to deliver any content I promise and stick to any schedule I commit to, to the best of my ability. Sometimes things don’t pan out the way we expected and in this case, it is my responsibility to communicate the reasons for that to the community (which could be as simple as “today’s lecture is delayed because I caught a flu”).
In summary, I see pledges as your money, not mine. Funds the contributors trust me to apply to creating content and documentation and promote Kaspa, crypto space, and science as a whole.
I promise to do every single thing in my power to treat your contribution respectfully and as intended.