“Are errors acceptable in science communication?” seems like a simple question at first with a simple answer, but let’s look at a case study before we settle on an answer. On September 4th, 2025 the well known science communication channel SciShow posted a Youtube video titled, “Physicists Don’t Understand Why Knitting Works” which received backlash for having a “misogynist” tone and having errors such as calling knitting stitches “knots” at several points in the script, showing an image of woven shirts when the voiceover specified “knitted shirts”, and mislabeling a well known stitch pattern. In response to the critical comments under the video SciShow pinned a comment from a producer (seen below) and I’ve taken the liberty of bolding some of the message that stood out to me:
[Block quote] Hi SciShow viewers! My name is Jess! I’m one of SciShow’s producers and like a lot of you, (to our delight!), a knitter. It’s been exciting to see the engagement on this video. Since we do have a couple knitters on the team (including the video’s script editor), we wanted to take the opportunity to talk through some of the gaps in the video that viewers have identified. This response comes to you in two parts: me as a knitter responding to the video’s mistakes and clarifying where I can, and me as a SciShow producer talking about expertise, trial, and error…Every video SciShow makes is worked on by numerous people. The team who worked on this episode are tireless, skilled, and dedicated, but most of them aren’t knitters, so some technical mistakes did make it through to posting. In the same way that a missed yarn over doesn’t make a garment unwearable, so too a mislabelled visual of reverse stockinette doesn’t invalidate the trustworthiness and value of the science lessons in this video. …we didn’t know how knitting as a topic would land with our audience or if the video would be seen by knitters who didn’t already watch SciShow. Turns out our first error was thinking we wouldn’t reach the audience of knitters who are also excited about science. We’re grateful for the people in that venn diagram who’ve given it a watch!…In every video SciShow makes, we take scientific expertise and make it accessible to a general audience – in many ways, as general an audience as possible, because we believe everyone has a right to learn. Where we added caveats and simplifications, we weren’t intending to alienate knitters or misrepresent the craft. Rather, we were intending to engage and invite non-knitters to learn about this craft that’s got way more going on than they may have imagined. To mention a couple specific choices: – At a few points we use the word “knot” to refer to the places in fabric where two yarns touch. Knitting doesn’t produce knots to create fabric; we kept “knots” in a few places as a stand-in for “places in fabric where two yarns touch.”… The goal of this video was to demonstrate that though knitting and knit fabric might seem simple and ubiquitous, their versatility, complexity, and beauty have far-reaching applications. I want to finally touch on the line at the end of the video that says knitting was developed via intuition, practice, trial, and error. The experienced knitter in me can see how that line leaves out the mathematical complexity and skill that knitting can employ. The hobbyist knitter in me is grateful that knitting doesn’t have to be complex to be worthwhile. The SciComm producer in me knows that intuition, practice, trial, and error are exactly the way science happens, and it really can be as simple as that. Thank you so much to everyone for watching! -Jess [end of quote]
Interesting. So, according to the SciShow production team errors ARE permissible in Science Communication because the ultimate goal is to reach a “general audience” and that requires “caveats and simplifications”. SciShow DID consult subject experts on their team before posting the video, but that doesn’t actually absolve the piece from criticism.
There have been several reaction videos posted in response to the SciShow video including Kristine Vike, Parkrose Permaculture, and artlust just to name a few.
Some viewer comments that stood out to me include:
@Megminime: Honestly, as a knitter, the video gave a lot of vibes of unintentional misogyny. The language used implied that knitting was a simple, women’s craft, and scientists were going to MAKE IT COOL. As if these women didn’t know what they were doing, but now that the physicists were here, it MIGHT be useful…
@maggiewade3811: if this SCIENCE video needs this many amendments to make it accurate, maybe rework the video and come back when its factually correct
@annmc3878: A simple knitted sock said no knitter ever.
@livinginthenow: Damn. This video has really shaken my trust in this channel. If they failed so miserably with their fact checking and are so oblivious to their own biases in THIS video, how many other topics have they butchered before? It’s really disappointing.
It’s clear that the majority of the comments are critical of the video. I couldn’t even find a positive comment to use as an example. Several of the comments called the video “misogynist” and were asking “who let this happen?” So, while SciShow is saying that errors are permissible because the goal is to draw in a “general audience”, said audience is clearly saying “no!”
The presence of errors in the SciShow video is eroding the trust of the audience in real time. I think as an audience member it’s a fair question to ask, “What errors have believed/missed because I’m not a subject expert?” Once that audience trust is gone, it’s very difficult to get back. And brings us back to the original question, “Are errors acceptable in science communication?”
Knowledge Communication 