There are several. One is the gene-centric theory of biology, which carries less weight in biology itself than it does in how biological sciences are communicated to laypersons - eg the Selfish Gene, which I could rip on for pages - and others include ideas that are considered contentious within biology, such as multilevel selection theory that extends beyond kin selection. I can’t begin to tell you about the number of arguments I’ve gotten into on that subject alone. I will frequently bring up that there is confusion as to what a “gene” actually is, and how it’s really determined by the context in which we’re using the word. There’s really just so much that needs to be re-evaluated.

[–] kalkulat@lemmy.world 5 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago) (1 children)

" the Selfish Gene, which I could rip on for pages "

Please put me on the list to read that!

[–] speck@kbin.social 1 points 9 months ago

Ditto!

[–] pupbiru@aussie.zone 7 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago) (2 children)

i believe the article suggests that the current way of communicating biology - that genes are the code that runs the machinery of life - is dogmatically adhered to by science communicators

it also suggests that when we communicate our new understandings that we are careful not to fall into another dogmatic theory, because it’s complex and we just don’t know

this is language used in the article, i don’t have enough information or understanding to know whether it’s true or not

[–] kalkulat@lemmy.world 2 points 9 months ago (3 children)

Really good science news communicators (including many teachers because how are admins to judge?) are too rare ... on YTube there's ... a half-dozen, maybe, at best?

[–] TempermentalAnomaly@lemmy.world 0 points 9 months ago (1 children)

I linked to this in another comment, but figured you'd dig it.
https://www.subanima.org/veritasium/

[–] Donjuanme@lemmy.world 3 points 9 months ago (1 children)

Sure large proteins have multiple forms and functions, but we do know the exact makeup shape and function of a lot of the smaller ones, like the ones that are small enough to get between either strand of an opened helix to read, transcribe, and send for translation the code for the larger proteins (anything inside the nucleus). Saying all proteins are inherently not understandable because there are large proteins that we don't have full understanding of, is just as incorrect as saying we know every function of every synthesized protein.

Also I can't stand veritasium, he gives over simplified, easy to latch onto, "explanations" of questions and misses out on a lot of minutia that would actually lead to a better understanding of why these questions exist. But people on the Internet love that stuff because they get an answer and are enabled to say "well actually" next time the topic comes up even though they've barely gotten any of the details of the problem itself. Pop science at it's worst. Him and numberphile both

[–] pupbiru@aussie.zone 1 points 9 months ago

veritasium has also had some controversy around misleading half truths for click bait right?

i think it’s worth knowing the creator so you can appreciate it for what it is: not a source of truth, but a source of entertainment that if you find something fascinating you can look for other sources on… he does do entertaining videos with a science twist quite well, and uncovers some interesting topics… just not the be all and end all

[–] Donjuanme@lemmy.world -1 points 9 months ago

There are way more than half a dozen, they're just too dry to get the algorithm's/communities attention. Most Internet viewers want an answer in x minutes or less, they don't care to understand what the details of the questions are. If an answer is able to be given in a few minutes, why would the question exist for centuries?

[–] jahashar@sopuli.xyz 1 points 9 months ago

It's published in Nature or Science. Which means it's better than the thruth (which we don't have access to!), it's high quality science.