Artificial intelligence is more than just a technology; it acts as a new tool reshaping how humans perceive themselves and society. During this transformative process, how much do we truly understand AI, and what meanings do we attach to it? In this interview, where we examine not only AI’s functions but also its impact on us and seek answers to many compelling questions, Communication Scientist and Academic Ufuk Eriş responded to our inquiries.

Mustafa Burak Avcı: Welcome, Professor Ufuk Eriş. Your recent contributions to the field of communication, particularly your research on artificial intelligence, have gained recognition. Could you share a bit about yourself?

Ufuk Eriş: It wouldn’t be entirely accurate to say recent times. Because when I suggested that topic for my PhD, it was 2002. I wasn’t born into a computer-equipped home. My first encounter was in 1996 at the Computer Research and Application Center. There, I had a chat via IRC (Internet Relay Chat) with someone living in America, and I never believed that the other person was a real human. Then years passed, and I saw how technology changed people’s perspectives and thinking patterns. In 2002, I wanted to address the topic of hacker culture in Türkiye for my doctorate proposal. At that time, there were very few hackers in Türkiye, and the only well-known one was Tamer Şahin. He was featured in newspapers as the “Pajama Hacker.” It was written that he hacked the Ottoman Bank, but back then, even if hackers existed, there weren’t many places to break into. That’s why we faced a lot of difficulties with the jury.

Finding someone related to this topic was quite difficult. There was a sociologist, someone from human resources, an industrial engineer, and a communicator. It was very hard to explain my problem to them. There are people called hackers, and when I said they could break into here, they would say, “So what if they do?” Our laws weren’t even prepared for this. When you connect remotely to someone’s computer, it is considered theft. In theft cases, you take a piece of property, and that property is no longer there, but if you copy it from a database, it remains there you’re just making a copy. I have also witnessed such a significant transformation in the law.

Deniz Benzer: When you announced your doctoral topic 20 years ago, the situation you experienced is happening today with artificial intelligence. With the same sense of unfamiliarity and excitement you felt when writing your doctoral thesis, what similarities or differences do you see between that and the excitement people have towards artificial intelligence today?

U.E: Every new technology excites thinkers or those pondering this issue. The reason is always our troubles. Looking at Karl Marx, he examined the society he lived in and said something wasn’t going well. He saw that people were unhappy, researched the cause, and proposed a method to analyze societies. But what is his concern? We are not very happy in life, and the environment isn’t happy either. Nowadays, people who write and talk about every new technology wonder if it could be a cure. I think, unlike the hacker discussion era, in the age of artificial intelligence, people are only interested in its sensational aspects. No one asks which of our problems it could solve. They only care about what more artificial intelligence can do. For example, if an A.I. can do ballet, why would someone who has nothing to do with ballet culture get excited? The sensational approach is misleading. I can say for sure that in no period of history have people been so hopeless about future generations and linked their hopes to something non-human. Think about it: they said Jesus would come, and he was human… They said future generations would do this, and they were human too… We always believed that our own kind would do something good in the future. Now, that belief is gone; we talk about what artificial intelligence will do in the future, how it will be. We tend to project solutions to our life problems onto technology, which reflects a techno-chauvinist attitude.

“First, we see the word ‘robot’ in Karel Čapek’s play Rossum’s Universal Robots. The word literally means slave or forced labor in Slavic languages. In the story, robots rebel and suppress humans. The question ‘Will robots take over humans?’ actually stems from the concept of rebellious slaves.”

M.B.A: There’s also an effort to alienate artificial intelligence tools. Strange philosophical questions arise, such as whether AI could be smarter than humans as individuals, or whether it would be considered human if it were on par with a person.

U.E: At a time when the possibility of humans competing with artificial intelligence is being discussed, and while such advanced technologies are being produced, a world where news is still about men who kill their divorced wives should make us think: Should our real concerns be what artificial intelligence can do? This is the culture’s surrender to technology. In the past, culture dictated and limited the use of technology. We can give the example of the samurai sword. Not everyone can wield it, and when you do, you must adhere to certain ethical codes. One of our folk songs beautifully says: ‘The invention of the rifle ruined the virtue.’ Because to use a rifle, you don’t need years of samurai discipline and culture.

When you buy a rifle, just pulling the trigger is enough. Every profession has its own cultural codes, but such things are no longer in place. You don’t need education or an ethical code to pick up a pen. When you pay, you get your computer and use it as you wish.

M.B.A: Today, you don’t even need talent; you just prompt and can have anything drawn.

U.E: It seems like we don’t really know much about what we call artificial intelligence. There are the powerful and the powerless. What we talk about is like a utopia. I always say, “Utopias turn upside down and tell the stories of the problems we face today.” Let’s say you ask the housekeeper who comes to clean your house, “If you had the means, what kind of life would you imagine, what is your utopia?” Her answer would be, “I wish I had a husband who doesn’t drink, and that he wouldn’t hit my children, for example.” At that moment, you immediately understand her everyday worries about her life. Now, if you look at the utopian narratives about artificial intelligence and read them in reverse, and see what people expect from it, you’ll realize the real problems they face today. If someone is curious about whether artificial intelligence will do this or that, they have a problem in their daily life related to it. In the past, wars would start and end, but now we experience prolonged, low-intensity conflicts that never seem to end. People still die. We are in the digital age; today, the AI robot Sofia is granted citizenship in Saudi Arabia. It won’t be given to you or me. So, the question that should be asked is, “Will artificial intelligence provide a solution to inequality among people?” When we evaluate the moral panics developed around robots, you also understand whose fear this is. First, we see the word “robot” in Karel Čapek’s play Rossum’s Universal Robots. The word literally means slave or forced labor in Slavic languages. In the story, robots rebel and suppress humans. The question ‘Will robots take over humans?’ actually stems from the concept of rebellious slaves. The main issue is that those who manage these things whether under the image of a robot or not force certain people to work for much less pay, and they fear rebellion. The core motivation behind thoughts like a robot uprising or artificial intelligence turning humans into this or that is this fear.

M.B.A: There is always a current agenda regarding artificial intelligence. So, what are its cultural impacts?

U.E: Culture is no longer something naturally produced by people as it used to be. The term “degeneration”, which we refer to as cultural decay, comes from the fact that animals in Anatolia that have lost their reproductive ability are called “Yoz” (biggot). A degenerated culture loses its ability to renew and produce itself. So, what happens then? It’s like a diabetic person who can’t produce insulin and starts getting insulin

“Nowadays, all of this is considered outdated. But what is new doesn’t stay in the air; it comes from the ground. Did the bourgeoisie, the working class, and class confl icts emerge when Karl Marx spoke about them? Even during the cave era, there was a conflict between the strong and the weak.”

injections from outside. After a while, they become dependent and lose their ability to produce it themselves. Everyone used to sing folk songs, good or bad, or write poetry for the girl they loved. But now, as people start to import poetry and songs from outside, they begin to lose their ability to express themselves. The reason for this, according to the Frankfurt School, is the Culture Industry. Before the rise of the internet, this was all lost.

M.B.A: Today, habits have changed, consumption has accelerated, and production methods have evolved. What do you think about this?

U.E: Society has changed, and the social approach has changed. For example, Yusuf Atılgan’s work Aylak Adam (The Loiterer) entered a competition. At that time, there were very famous novelists like Yaşar Kemal on the jury. However, the work did not win the competition. As socialist writers, they said, ‘This bourgeoisie’s self-concern, they’re not talking about a problem or poverty.’ Today, almost everyone knows Yusuf Atılgan’s Aylak Adam. It became popular after the 1980s. Because now individuality begins to take shape, and, in a way, the individual becomes a customer. After Turgut Özal’s presidency, even our purchasing mindset changed. In the past, people would save money for a while to buy a television; they didn’t know the concept of installments. Now, people might wonder how they don’t know the concept of installments, because we quickly get used to the way we live, and it feels as if it’s been like this for a very long time.

M.B.A: Actually, with the rapid acceleration of consumption, we also lost the habit of saving cumulatively.

U.E: People now think there’s no need to accumulate things. They ask, “What’s the point of saving?” I used to download songs from the internet and listen to MP3 players. Now, my nephew tells me, “Why are you downloading these? They’re already in the cloud.” In the past, when you bought a car, it was considered a lifelong purchase, and people would give it a name. Now, it’s said that you need to change your car frequently. But this widens the gap between us and objects. People renting homes don’t even want to hammer in a nail because they don’t accept it. If you accept it, it’s hard to let go, so you end up buying something new right away. For example, you throw away every soda can you drink immediately, but you can’t easily throw away the last soda can you shared with a friend or a loved one. Someone has touched that can, and you can’t throw it away. But this situation is dangerous for the system; if you can’t throw it away, you won’t buy a new one. In short, while there are such problems in life, it’s important to see how artificial intelligence responds to them. We don’t see this in the market; people in daily life genuinely think that A.I. has a human-like intelligence.

D.B: Professor, actually, Alan Turing’s test is very important in this context. Could you tell us a little about it?

U.E: In the Turing test, a human participates, and on the other side, an artificial intelligence or robot is placed. The human asks the machine questions. If the responses make it seem like the machine is not artificial intelligence, then it passes the Turing test. But there is also John Searle’s Chinese Room example as a counterpoint. In that scenario, there is a closed room with only one window. Inside, there are some signs and instructions. You are told to look at whatever sign is shown through the window and find the corresponding instruction. Outside, a Chinese man is showing the Chinese Kanji words to the participant. The person inside the room, who does not know Chinese, finds and removes the sign that matches the question. Does the person inside the room who removes these signs know Chinese? No, they are just following instructions. Nowadays, all of this is considered outdated. But what is new doesn’t stay in the air; it comes from the ground. Did the bourgeoisie, the working class, and class conflicts emerge when Karl Marx spoke about them? Even during the cave era, there was a conflict between the strong and the weak.

D.B: After all, artificial intelligence provides us with information, and we try to measure how intelligent it is. What do you think is the level of intelligence of that artificial intelligence? Why do we consider it to be intelligence? Where does the information provided by artificial intelligence stand in the hierarchy of knowledge?

U.E: There is no zero point in IQ, which is referred to as intelligence, for example. In an IQ test, it measures how quickly a person can solve a problem or how quickly they can find the optimal timing and compatibility between purpose and means. The Frankfurt School calls this “subjective reason” or “instrumental reason.” It is a characteristic of human intellect but not the whole thing. Instrumental reason only looks at establishing a relationship between goals and means. There is also objective reason, which not only establishes the relationship between purpose and means but also questions the purpose itself.

Instrumental reason appears, for example, during Hitler’s era. When officers who inflicted various tortures on people were tried at the Nuremberg Trials, they said, “We only followed orders.” There was both means and purpose involved there. You did what was told, but isn’t the choice to do or not do it yours? Did you ever question its purpose? Currently, the most sought-after type of reason is instrumental reason, which can do what it is told very quickly and efficiently, but we do not elevate the reason that asks, “Why am I doing this?” In fact, questioning reason is what makes humans understand and interpret reality, and it helps us position ourselves accordingly.

D.B: So, should we define artificial intelligence as instrumental reason?

U.E: Of course. We constantly talk about artificial intelligence, which is a very sensational word for those who don’t know. In reality, there is a huge gap between the way artificial intelligence is described and its state in the laboratory. Every new technology can make us ask, “What is a human?” again and push us to take a step forward. Nietzsche also refers to the “Übermensch,” meaning a person who struggles with themselves. Like the phoenix, first burning and then rising anew from its ashes. Objective reason is only concerned with how fast and how many goals it can score in a game. But winning a rigged game is very difficult. The referee is biased and bribed. Since you don’t think about the game itself, you don’t notice these things, and when you fail, you blame yourself. Just as you think the problem is personal.

M.B.A: Actually, the data that artificial intelligence feeds on is a product of societal production. There is already a data algorithm that develops from what people produce. They seem to be getting their nourishment from an invisible source, as if drawn from nothingness.

U.E: Never. In fact, artificial intelligence largely feeds on garbage, on free data from the internet. This means that A.I. can think, but it can only do one task at a time. Then it can move on to another task. Because we now see life this way, we are losing the other side. Deep Blue beat Kasparov in chess, but it can’t get up and bring a glass of water. Yes, maybe it would beat you at backgammon too, but when it wins, it’s happy, and when it loses, it’s sad. We are trying to get A.I. to solve the world’s problems. To end wars, to solve inequality, to prevent crimes. But the thing is, don’t fight, don’t hit. Why don’t you take responsibility yourself? While living with the idea that we can make it do everything, we lose our human side. Recently, they asked A.I. Sophia, “What do you think about the future of the world?”

So, humans are no longer confident about their intelligence. People are becoming increasingly anxious. We fear that artificial intelligence will take away what makes us who we are. That’s why we keep asking it, “Will it do this too?” To put it simply: you have a lover, and they are unique because of a distinguishing feature. If you take that feature away, they become just like everyone else. Even if that lover remains physically present, they are no longer truly theirs. The existence of that lover is gone. That’s why one of the fundamental questions technology poses to us is: “If they take away what makes us us, will we cease to be?” On the other hand, because we’re so curious about this, we constantly try to make it do the things we do. We keep trying to understand “What is the natura humana?” and instead of thinking of it as a tool that can solve our main problems, we sit and discuss its sensationalist aspects.

D.B: Today, when we look at the internet and artificial intelligence, do you think the realm of freedom has disappeared?

U.E: I think it mostly gets lost. But it will be what we make of it. For example, the last word used for social media is “brain rot,” meaning brain decay. Fifty years ago, they called the television “the idiot box.” It’s the same old story. They say, ‘Old wine in a new bottle.’ Basically, nothing changes. We used to call social media “the Fifth Power,” the fifth force after the Fourth Estate, which is the media. It was supposed to improve the quality of so-called democracy. But I think it still has the potential if we use it properly. We need to look at why people delegate tasks they themselves are responsible for to artificial intelligence. Why do people retreat from decisionmaking mechanisms? Because it’s believed that A.I. will make better decisions. Maybe even in investments, and perhaps in political choices in the future… Why? Because it chooses the more efficient and profitable option. But for humans, truth, efficiency, and profitability don’t always align. This is true even in the founding of our country. Atatürk and his comrades wouldn’t have relied on A.I. for their efforts. It’s not feasible. The shoes are worn out, and they have holes. There’s no food, no weapons. How many places have they been attacked from? Ignorance is present. Most of the educated have died. The army is exhausted. If it were up to A.I., accepting a mandate from America would have been the most logical, efficient, and profitable choice. But we didn’t choose that. To give a personal example, the person you love so much probably wouldn’t be recommended to you by A.I. Most likely, they are the person you shouldn’t be around. Let’s identify our true problems and avoid relying solely on artificial intelligence to solve them, risking failure. Instead, the new generation should ask, ‘How can we eliminate inequality among people? How can we undo the damage affecting our environment? How can I contribute to the benefits of others beyond myself?’

M.B.A: Thank you very much for coming and providing us with valuable information, sir.

U.E: Thank you very much, everyone. It was a pleasure for me too. Kasparov against IBM’s Deep Blue computer, 1996 ai & society

Artificial Intelligence: The Alienation of Society yazısı ilk önce Context Dergi üzerinde ortaya çıktı.

When it comes to science communication in Türkiye, one of the most prominent platforms is undoubtedly Evrim Ağacı. This organization, which began as a student initiative at Middle East Technical University years ago, has since evolved into a trusted, comprehensive science communication platform reaching millions of people. From the story of Evrim Ağacı’s emergence and content creation processes to science communication and sustainability models, Çağrı Mert Bakırcı, one of Türkiye’s leading figures in making science understandable to the public, shares insights on many topics.

Mustafa Burak Avcı: Can you tell us the story of Evrim Ağacı? What motivated its creation, and how has its journey unfolded?

Çağrı Mert Bakırcı: Evrim Ağacı traces back to my years at Middle East Technical University (METU). I was raised in a middle-class, enlightened, and progressive family, which was advantageous for me. My family supported my interest in reading by buying the books I liked and fostering a strong reading culture. Many relatives, including my brother-in-law, who often brought TÜBİTAK books and took me to science fiction films, were also educated and enlightened. Growing up in such an environment, I considered evolution a straightforward scientific concept when I started at METU in 2007. I was unaware of the debates surrounding it. While it was clear within science, I observed that it was highly controversial publicly, and I encountered anti-evolution sentiments for the first time.

This realization prompted me to act. After some initial attempts to create and lead communities, my friends from the Department of Biology at METU and I established Evrim Ağacı. I was studying Mechanical Engineering at METU, but my passion for biology led me to take courses in the biology department. Our student group, initially called Evrim Ağacı, began by preparing for biology exams together. Over time, it grew into a platform that offers free high school education across Türkiye and provides clear answers to science questions on social media. Essentially, we aimed to bridge a gap in scientific knowledge.

Evrim Ağacı has always been part of my life. During my PhD in Texas, I expanded our website. After meeting my wife here, we faced a choice: finish our doctorates and stay in academia, leaving Evrim Ağacı behind, or make Evrim Ağacı our profession and leave academia. Because I had dedicated eight years to this project and knew its impact in Türkiye, we chose to continue with Evrim Ağacı and both work to grow it. Today, after 15 years, it is Türkiye’s most visited, most well-known, and most trusted science communication platform. Of course, this is a highly condensed summary; throughout the process, we wrote countless books, organized events, and took our branches to places no one else could reach. We are trying to continue on this path by adapting to changing global conditions.

M.B.A: Nowadays, it is becoming difficult to access scientific research for free. What methods do you use to collect scientific data?

Ç.M.B: I’m trying to reach them through all the ways I know. Sometimes I need to access them through my friend’s academic email. I can also read many of them through my own Google Scholar account. I haven’t paid for any articles so far, and I never will. Such an academic exploitation system should not be allowed to take a single penny. There are other ways.

Alper Akkaya: Is it ethically appropriate to use sources that fall into gray areas, such as Sci-Hub, Libgen, and Unpaywall? What are your thoughts on piracy and intellectual property rights?

Ç.M.B: Yes, that’s appropriate. There’s a saying: “If you can’t own what you buy, you’re not a thief for using pirated things.” That’s somewhat valid here, but it’s also influenced by other factors… Because the absurd amounts journals charge per article provide only digital access rights to that article. It’s impossible for individual researchers to pay these huge sums out of their own pockets. Look, I’m not saying it’s hard; I’m saying it’s impossible. At Evrim Ağacı, we benefit from about 500 articles a month. If we paid $40-50 for each of these, we would go bankrupt in a month. If someone thinks, ‘Well, those articles don’t come easily, of course they need to be paid for,’ don’t think that way. First, more than 50% of those research projects are funded by taxes we pay. I can say this comfortably because I also pay taxes in the U.S. Therefore, hiding behind paywalls is illegal. Second, if the money went to the researchers or the peer reviewers who evaluate those articles before publication, I would understand. After all, when tools like Netflix offer a reasonable price for a rich content collection, everyone moves away from piracy and accepts monthly payments because the average person can understand the value of this transaction. But the money paid to academic journals doesn’t go to the researchers or reviewers; it goes to the publishers of those journals. These publishers have many apparent responsibilities, but their main role is to artificially restrict access to articles, creating this financial paywall.

“At Evrim Ağacı, we strive to fulfill our responsibility to communicate academic research to the public as accurately and clearly as possible, even beyond global standards.”

M.B.A: Does simplifying technical language when communicating scientific knowledge to the public result in a loss of quality?

Ç.M.B: Our view of quality depends on what we mean by quality. If by quality we mean the scientific depth of what is being explained, then yes. Popular science entails a loss of quality compared to academic science. But after you understand what academic science is saying, what value does it have for the public? Therefore, if quality means, on average, that more people can grasp that information and that it serves as fuel to turn young people into the next generation of scientists, then no. On the contrary, popular science enhances the quality of academic science. If we see popular science as “imprecise academic science,” then all pre-university education is wasted, because more than 90% of what is taught in high school and over 30-40% of what is taught at university consists of imprecise explanations.

M.B.A: How do you overcome the algorithm barrier? Does being a well-established platform have any effect in this situation? Does the algorithm create a barrier for new science communication platforms to reach audiences?

Ç.M.B: If you ask someone who is obsessed with social media, they will talk about algorithm all day. But the number one rule for producing quality content on social media is not to overthink about algorithm. Because there is a motto like: “Content is king.” The story you tell and how you tell it determine about 95% of the outcome. The remaining 5% depends on the specifi c needs of social media platforms. For example, on YouTube, whether you make proper thumbnails and titles. Also, the biggest point that people don’t understand or can’t follow even if they understand is consistency. Evrim Ağacı didn’t suddenly become rooted; it became rooted because it was consistent.

My guiding star in this matter is not a science communicator but a vlogger; even more, a videographer who largely invented and mainstreamed the concept of vlog: Casey Neistat. The most important message Casey gives is just three words: ‘Just keep uploading.” That applies to this article and to videos as well. If you keep obsessing over ‘Why wasn’t it read? Why wasn’t it watched? Why did they leave such bad comments?’ Or worse, if you get discouraged just because a few simple metrics suggest so, you will lose. I see the algorithm from this perspective. The so-called algorithm has nothing to do with content creators. It is a software specialized in fi nding the content that best fi ts the user – whether the viewer or reader. Therefore, the matter ends with the user. As content creators, our job is to produce the highest quality product and wait. Eventually, the algorithm will deliver it to that niche audience. Although science might sound like a “niche,” if you’ve been watched 500 million times a year and you’re one of Türkiye’s most-visited sites, I think you can say you’re not in a niche.

“As content creators, our job is to produce the highest quality product and wait. Eventually, the algorithm will deliver it to that niche audience. Although science might sound like a ‘niche,’ if you’ve been watched 500 million times a year and you’re one of Türkiye’s most-visited sites, I think you can say you’re not in a niche.”

If these numbers come from work done without regard for the algorithm, maybe it’s worth paying attention to this advice. Ask yourself with every piece of content: Is this the best I can do for this content? If the answer is yes, you’re done. If not, you know what to do.

A.A: The agenda in Türkiye is constantly changing. You also produce content related to this evolving agenda. Does producing content about the constantly changing agenda pose practical problems?

Ç.M.B: That’s true. But it doesn’t affect us very much because our relationship with the agenda is more about the “topic idea.”In other words, we don’t feel the urge to say, “Oh, this is on the agenda, let’s cover it and write about it.” Instead, we think, “When I look at the agenda, I see that there’s such a topic, and people are interested in it. Maybe it would be good to inform them about this.” So, we don’t follow the agenda that closely. Of course, the agenda is also one of our source topics.

M.B.A: While Evrim Ağacı presents current scientific developments, how does it contextualize these events within their theoretical background? How does it distinguish between science journalism and science communication in practice?

Ç.M.B: Science journalism can be compared to entertainment journalism: there’s not much difference between “so-and-so celebrity was spotted somewhere!” and “so-and-so particle was observed at such-and-such energy level!” But what makes science journalism a form of science communication is the context information that should be inherently present in journalism. For example, if I understood entertainment, I would provide contextual information that would fully convey to the reader or viewer what it means for that celebrity to be seen somewhere. I believe some content creators do this. There are also many of these issues in our newspapers. When you look at Western and Eastern counterparts, you see that the background details of the news are as deep as the news itself, but since we lack a solid journalistic culture and, on top of that, the modern world’s easy-consumption urges, a terrible form of agenda-setting emerges. The most common negative criticism I hear about my content is that I drag out the topic too much. Everything I tell is like the arteries that feed the “By the way, this also happened” sentence I will mention in those 2-3 minutes.

When the reader or viewer takes this path with me, it goes beyond a news headline they’ll forget in two minutes. They understand how that newly discovered thing was discovered, why it’s important, and what its relationship might be to them. This is what learning is; it’s not about memorizing facts.

“If you ask someone who is obsessed with social media, they will talk about the algorithm all day. But the number one rule for producing quality content on social media is not to overthink the algorithm. There is a motto like: ‘Content is king.’”

M.B.A: Does Evrim Ağacı develop a separate content strategy for each platform, such as YouTube, Instagram, and podcasts, when communicating science? Which platform is most effective for each type of scientific content?

Ç.M.B: Honestly, content should be tailored to each platform, and we should pay close attention to that. But we have a serious shortage of staff. Within the current scope of Evrim Ağacı, it would comfortably require a team of around a hundred people. But we are a team of only ten people, including four core members. Even famous science communicators who produce only videos have teams of 30-60 people, including videographers, editors, research writers, and technicians. We produce videos with just two people. Think of it that way. Still, we try to adapt our content to each platform as much as possible. Video is currently the most popular platform, but learning is only possible through reading. Therefore, humanity is not heading in a very good direction. We are moving toward a place where knowledge is infinite, but very few people know much.

M.B.A: Do you have data about your target audience? Which audience is following you?

Ç.M.B: Of course. We don’t follow this very closely, but since you asked, I looked at our YouTube statistics. In the past year, 70% of our viewers are male, 83% are between the ages of 18-44, and 85% are from Türkiye. Of course, this doesn’t give us a lot of detailed information, but it can provide a general overview.

M.B.A: Do viewer comments, questions, and feedback affect your broadcasting policy and production process?

Ç.M.B: It affects us a little, but it’s limited. Because, ultimately, we try to run Evrim Ağacı according to our own principles and policies. For example, the principles we follow have not changed at all in the last fifteen years. This provides us with intellectual stability. But of course, when certain topics are requested or when recurring criticisms arise at certain points, we think about how we can improve those areas. However, in 99% of the cases, we identify and solve these problems before any feedback comes in, or the feedback we receive often comes without a proper understanding of the causes or without proper evaluation, so it doesn’t trigger change.

“Our job is to effectively communicate what’s happening in academia to the public; if we don’t do this through primary and highly reliable secondary sources, we can’t say we’re doing a proper job.”

M.B.A: Do you promote participatory science or mainly explain the scientific method and inference in your videos?

Ç.M.B: There’s no point in fooling ourselves. While this percentage might be slightly lower among readers, over 99.99% of video viewers don’t care about sources and don’t even bother to open or read one. Citing sources is more of an academic reflex, and it should be. If someone is curious and wants to check the source or read more in-depth, the source should be accessible. Our articles on the website are always fully sourced. Since our videos are mostly based on our articles, we include sources more sparingly in the videos. However, we have a database where we can provide all sources upon request.

The reason we use reliable sources is not just to have them ready if someone asks, but out of respect for our work. Our job is to effectively communicate what’s happening in academia to the public; if we don’t do this through primary and highly reliable secondary sources, we can’t say we’re doing a proper job.

M.B.A: Is the “small donors” model and YouTube revenue sufficient to ensure sustainability?

Ç.M.B: The donation model is not enough for sustainability. It only serves as a safety net for fluctuating advertising revenues. YouTube earnings have become our biggest resource for growing Evrim Ağacı. This is largely due to changes in consumer habits shifting from reading to watching, as well as YouTube’s producer-friendly policies. However, a multi-source model is essential for sustainability, especially for channels of our size. For smaller creators, a model of small donors combined with sponsored content can work quite well. But as we grow, we need to diversify our income sources. Being able to do this without deviating from our principles is critically important. We pay close attention to this. Our supporters, thankfully, do their best as well. In other words, Evrim Ağacı is the result of a large collective effort.

M.B.A: How is it determined whether potential sponsors are compatible with your scientific publication policy? Is this a criterion? What portion of the economic revenue model do potential sponsors represent?

Ç.M.B: Yes, we have specific criteria. We reject more than half of the sponsors that come to us because they don’t offer the products we use or because their products could harm our readers and viewers. That doesn’t mean that all the brands we accept are completely flawless. Is there such a brand, or has there been? But as you know, some brands, even if issues inevitably arise when you scrutinize them, are now accepted by the public. We try to secure sponsorships from them whenever possible. The key is the message they are trying to convey.

If a hotel, instead of promoting its vacation services, tries to send a message about how it is fighting against climate change, meaning it can’t show us its actions with reliable metrics and only talks about it in words, we reject their messages, no matter how trustworthy the hotel seems. Since we are not a typical entertainment-oriented influencer, we don’t receive many offers. Therefore, sponsored content makes up only a small part of our income. That’s why we don’t have to bow to anyone’s money.

M.B.A: How much does user support through Kreosus influence content planning on Evrim Ağacı? Are there shifts in content focus, such as evolution, climate, and quantum, based on supporters interests?

Ç.M.B: No, not really. Only those who support us at certain levels can request video content, and we also give these requests limited priority. At this point, we have a very special bond with our supporters that differs from profit-driven models like Patreon; we built Kreosus entirely on this bond. 99.9% of our supporters do not support us expecting something special from us.

“Science journalism can be compared to entertainment journalism: there’s not much difference between so-and-so celebrity was spotted somewhere!’ and ‘soand- so particle was observed at such-andsuch energy level!’”

They support us because they value Evrim Ağacı’s principles, mission, vision, and work and want to be part of this process. As a result, the benefits we offer our supporters are quite superficial and symbolic. We make an effort to preserve this special bond.

M.B.A: In the Kreosus model, what kind of belonging strategies are implemented to ensure users remain longterm supporters? Does the sense of community contribute to this strategy?

Ç.M.B: Of course. As I said, we’re not doing anything very special. The overwhelming majority of our supporters are satisfied just by helping the Evrim Ağacı. We use their support to do our best work even better, giving them exactly what they want. There’s one thing we always say: for us, the financial health of our supporters comes first. If supporting us would harm someone’s financial well-being, we never want that support. They can watch the video or read the article, share it, or like it. That’s enough for us. But we also know there are many among our readers and viewers who can comfortably support us and strengthen our efforts. If our content motivates them to support us, that’s wonderful. If not, that’s perfectly fine. We continue to do our best.

M.B.A: Almost everyone who becomes a member on the website can produce content and interact with content, right? Did the participatory science perspective influence the website’s emergence?

Ç.M.B: Yes, all members can start interacting with each other and with our content on Evrim Ağacı Social. We are following a modern and progressive social media philosophy there. We are building a social platform based on value creation, knowledge, and culture, not on debate, tension, or negativity. We are just at the beginning of this journey, and if artificial intelligence doesn’t completely shut down our system, we have a long way to go. But like everything we do at Evrim Ağacı, we are not short-distance runners; we are marathon runners in this regard. We will continue to produce. Thank you.

The Leading Voice of Popular Science Evrim Ağacı yazısı ilk önce Context Dergi üzerinde ortaya çıktı.

We listened to Şenol Ayla’s story of how he started in radio, including his biographical account of Freud with Neuro-Psychiatry specialist Serol Teber, the still-listened-to Didik Didik Freud program that aired years ago, psychoanalysis, and Apaçık Radio, all from Şenol Ayla’s perspective.

Zülaysu Altındal: Firstly, hello and welcome.

Şenol Ayla: Hello. Thanks for inviting.

Ş.A: I’m happy to be having this conversation with you. I am a medical doctor. I’ve been working as a medical director in health communication for a long time. However, you know me from the program Didik Didik Freud (Freud Under The Microscope).

Z.A: While mentioning Didik Didik Freud, I would like to ask about Serol Teber. How did your paths cross, and in your words, what kind of adventure was it to set out for India and end up in America?

Ş.A: Serol Teber has been a psychiatrist I’ve known since my youth, and a writer. I loved his books very much and read them, underlining passages. We first met in 2002 when he came to Türkiye. He was living in Germany. After finishing his university education, he went to Germany, and when we met, he was 64 years old. He had written two books: one about Freud and the other about Tevfik Fikret. He had returned to bring these two authors to Turkish readers. I also met him on this occasion. At that time, I was working at a publishing house, and we wanted to publish his books. Serol Teber was happy that his books would be published by a house specializing in psychiatry. I had the chance to read his books and work together on preparing them. During the period when we were doing research and working on the books, he told me that he had a proposal for a radio program about Freud on Açık Radyo and wanted to do it with me. This made me very excited, but also quite scared. What can I possibly talk about regarding Freud? Could I be the person to discuss with someone like Serol Teber, who will soon publish a book about Freud?

I experienced this fear and told Serol Teber: “This is not something I can do, it’s a very good idea, I support you, but I am not the person to speak in front of.” Serol Teber was a very polite person and said to me, “No, you can do this, you are familiar with the subject. You read the book; you roughly know what we will discuss. I want you to do this.” I hesitated for a few weeks, feeling ashamed, and stalled him. I couldn’t do it, and I would find someone else. He finally convinced me. He said, “You might be the one to do this because I want us to talk.” I also finally agreed, albeit nervously. I wish I hadn’t upset him for weeks and had accepted right away. Because it wasn’t as terrifying as an exam. Throughout the program, I was someone who asked questions to learn more about his deep knowledge of topics I knew somewhat about. That’s how we started this program in 2004. There wasn’t a huge preparation period. I had already read his notes. Even though I wasn’t completely familiar with the subject, I had an idea of it.

Açık Radyo’s studio at that time was in Harbiye (Istanbul). It was a multi-story building. They showed us the studio where we would do the program and talked about the process. “There will be a break every nine minutes and the music playing is about to start.” Serol Teber had given lessons to an audience, spoken, and participated in seminars, but radio was a different place.

We were talking to each other in a studio. There were a glass window and a technical desk across from us. It wasn’t a live broadcast, but it gave us a very different kind of excitement. Especially because we had to be silent every nine minutes, which made us quite nervous. We even prepared our timer and wrote down the minutes to keep track. Now I understand how important that nine-minute interval was for us as a barrier. Because during the first program, we focused more on how to manage those nine minutes than on what we would talk about. When the ninth minute came, we discussed making a move and acting accordingly.

We had previously discussed how we would make the program, but it wasn’t a days-long preparation. When we met in Harbiye headquarters for the first episode, we immediately agreed at the door, saying, “We’ll talk about why we’re making the program.” The questions I would ask and the introduction to Freud, our main topic, were already decided. We also brought the music to be included. Since there was no digital music back then, we brought records and CDs, and would hand them over to the technical team, saying, “This is the third track, this part here…” The pieces were played in between. I remember we finished the first program and left, not knowing how it turned out. They hadn’t given us the recordings right away either. Completely unaware, we came back to the studio the next day for the second program.

“What do Tevfik Fikret and Freud have in common? People might ask why these two. I also asked. He said, ‘I explained the common points of these two melancholic people.’”

The radio show was supposed to be broadcast every week, but since Serol Teber was living in Germany, we tried to record five or six episodes during the weeks he was here. That’s why we also went back to the studio the next day for more recordings. Speaking consecutively required a clear mind and good mental state. On the other hand, because no significant time passed between recordings, it felt like we were continuing the previous day’s conversation, which was more beneficial for us. However, during the recordings, some things happened; even though it was summer, I caught a cold. Since we recorded back-to-back, I had a blocked nose for five weeks while doing the show. There were funny things like this too, but we focused on what we were talking about ourselves, thinking, “Look, we skipped this topic, should we mention this in the next one?” and gradually built the content along the way, resulting in a very wonderful 26-week recording process. Our program was published as a book by Açık Radyo and Can Yayınları after many years. The most important part of what we did with this program, regarding why we did it, is explained by Serol Teber in our first episode. I also emphasized this in the preface of the book, and with your permission, I would like to read it: “This program is not just about psychiatry and Freud. It will be a program about life, death, and everything else, and we will embark on a Columbesque adventure. It’s like setting out for India and ending up in America. That’s a beautiful illusion. But setting out for India and arriving in India is a bad thing”. When I first said this, I didn’t understand it very well. It was a nice thing, but I came to understand it as we progressed through the 26 weeks. We started talking about Freud, but within that, there was so much more – life, death, depression, melancholy, excitement. Following Freud, we investigated archaeology and literature, then jumped into cinema. We discussed many things. Honestly, on the path we took with Freud, I felt like we didn’t go to India but to America. I think the listeners may have felt the same way.

Mustafa Burak Avcı: Do you have any information about how Serol Teber’s special interest in Freud and Tevfik Fikret developed and how he decided to study them?

Ş.A: I had said I wanted to press. One was Bilimsel Bir Peri Masalı (A Scientific Fairy Tale) about Freud, and the other was Aşiyan’daki Kahin / Tevfik Fikret’in Melankolik Dünyası (The Oracle in Aşiyan Tevfik Fikret’s Melancholic World). What do Tevfik Fikret and Freud have in common? People might ask why these two. I also asked. He said, “I explained the common points of these two melancholic people.” He was also a melancholic person. He shared some traits with them. The things he saw in them that made him angry, the habits and behaviors he scrutinized, the experiences they had, he had those too. While preparing his books, he visited the places where these people lived. He repeatedly visited Tevfik Fikret’s house in Aşiyan, read his paintings and books, and took notes. He sat there trying to connect with him. He prepared his books after intense journeys. I realized that Tevfik Fikret wrote a book about these two melancholic people when I saw that he was also melancholic during the program process.

“Back then, we didn’t know who listened, what they said, what they thought, or how they felt… A few friends of Serol Teber and mine would say, ‘It turned out really well, great job, congratulations.’ We also thought, ‘They love us so much, they don’t want to hurt us.’ We didn’t know how many people were listening. There were no podcasts, no digital recordings.”

Ama Serol Teber was never a closed-off, unhappy person who looked at everything negatively. He was very lively and full of life, but he was also affected by the negative situations he encountered. The reason he could see these things was that he was an open-minded and sensitive person. After reading these books and meeting him, I also gained a better understanding of what melancholy truly is.

So, in this program, it wasn’t just Freud, but you also got to know Serol Teber. From what I saw during those two short years, he was someone who opened doors of curiosity for the listeners and me, guided us, and shared things about himself. I realized this over time. I started out without knowing exactly what we were getting into, but it was a very happy process for me.

M.B.A: When looking at the phrase “We are atomizing Freud” inside the book, one might expect to encounter dense theoretical knowledge. However, when you get into it, you come across a more everyday narrative that touches on life. Being able to present this without delving into scientific explanations or methodology is very nice.

Ş.A: We started out not to explain any theoretical stuff. That was also what comforted me because I could never master theories. No matter how many books I read or how many bread and butter I earned, I couldn’t argue with that. The person we discussed on the program was Freud. His shortcomings, his dislike of music, his admiration for literature, his socks, his strange attitudes in human relationships… All of these made him a real person. For example, when we discussed the Oedipus Complex, we talked about the path he took to uncover it. We didn’t do this by just explaining theories; instead, we talked about what he experienced at the time and what he read to make it easier to understand. Maybe some theoretical insights can be drawn from it, but they weren’t dry sentences. Since it explained how Freud thought, how his ideas came to him, and what his experiences revealed, I think the program became easier to understand. After all, even people who know nothing about psychology listened to this program.

Of course, we made this program in 2004. Back then, we didn’t know who listened, what they said, what they thought, or how they felt… A few friends of Serol Teber and mine would say, ‘It turned out really well, great job, congratulations.’ We also thought, “They love us so much, they don’t want to hurt us.” We didn’t know how many people were listening. There were no podcasts, no digital recordings. Unfortunately, I don’t remember the exact time, but I do recall that the program started at 11:00 on Monday. If you didn’t listen to the episode at that time, you missed it. If you caught up the next week, you listened. Those were very nice times for us. When we ended the show, we couldn’t really understand who was listening or how they felt, but we were very happy with this project. Because we loved sharing stories and enjoyed the process so much, we decided to continue. That was also Serol’s idea. We considered a program called Didik Didik Stanley Kubrick (Stanley Kubrick Under The Microscope). This time, I accepted immediately, without saying no at all. In fact, during our last few recordings, we took notes about it and made plans on which movies to watch first

As you also know, unfortunately, a few weeks after the program ended that same year, we lost Serol Teber. We scrutinized other people thoroughly because of him. We were so eager and hungry that we even started thinking about who to scrutinize after Stanley Kubrick. For us, scrutinizing someone was also a way to scrutinize ourselves. Because I know that during that journey, we learned many different things about ourselves. I found a lot about myself. I also know it was for Serol…

Z.A: So why Freud and psychoanalysis? Why is he such a complex and self-examining person?

Ş.A: I realized quite late how much Freud has influenced, cast a shadow over, and played a role in many parts of our lives. Jealousies, the dreams we see, slips of the tongue, psychoanalysis, and even the surrealist movement in art, all these branches extend from him. Freud is not just the serious-looking man we see in photographs. He is someone who makes jokes, has characteristics, and whose work has permeated culture. For Serol, talking about him was very enjoyable.

Following the paths we take, ruins in Rome and Pompeii, sculptures, findings from the Rosetta Stone, interpreting dreams, slips of the tongue… All of these are everyday experiences in our lives,things we find funny, some that cause us panic, situations where someone is inside us, but we don’t really know it, moments when we encounter that inner person. If we learn to look at these, we can uncover many things about ourselves.

And if there’s someone else who knows how to see these things, it’s very beautiful and exciting to realize that a person can be someone other than the person they think they know themselves to be. You can’t really define yourself as “this is who I am,” and even if you try, it’s incomplete. There are things that happen unconsciously, suppressed emotions that appear in our dreams, unspoken desires, and our ongoing search to understand what our true self is like-things that don’t always lead to successful results. I believe those listening to this program also have curiosity about these topics, enjoy examining themselves and others. We didn’t know how many people listened when it first aired, but ten years later, it was re-broadcast digitally. This time, everyone could access Açık Radyo recordings whenever they wanted. It was a huge luxury. I was finally able to learn how listeners felt, their feedback, how many people listened, and whether it attracted interest. Unfortunately, Serol couldn’t find out this information, but I was very surprised that so many people listened to it. Just like the question you asked, “Why Freud? Why do people listen to Freud?” I asked myself the same thing. Yes, Serol Teber spoke sweetly. Maybe we were in good communication, but in the end, we were talking about Freud; we were discussing the Oedipus Complex, psychoanalysis. Why do hundreds of thousands people listen to this? I also thought about it a lot and debated internally. After the digital records were released, many people reached out to me, and all of them said they found something in themselves. Maybe the answer to your initial question, “Why Freud?” is hidden here. People start to understand things about themselves. Even if they don’t fully understand, they begin to ask questions. This is like setting out to India and discovering America. It’s a very exciting and enjoyable journey. It doesn’t always end happily. It can also cause pain, but once someone sets out on this path, they don’t turn back, and they follow the doors of curiosity. They go across that sea, with that ship, trying to cross those roads.

If Serol Teber had heard this feedback, I guess he would have said: “Oh, come on, that’s not true.” Because he was a very polite and modest person. When you told him a compliment, he would always take it humbly, feel embarrassed, and be uncomfortable. If I had told him that so many people have listened and are saying these things: “Oh, really? What did we do? Truly?” I am sure he would have been happy. Because knowing that others had gone down the same path he did pleased him. That was the purpose of writing these books. For someone to read, draw conclusions, and reach a destination. I think Freud also had a melancholic personality that served these purposes. Similarly, Tevfik Fikret was the same. We were about to finish the Didik Didik Freud program, and we were talking about, “Next week we will kill Freud. What will we do then?” The dear Ömer Madra, the General Director of Açık Radyo, had asked, “Could you also talk about Tevfik Fikret?” So, we started the program to talk about him for a few hours, and it ended up lasting six hours. He shared many points in common with Freud; Tevfik Fikret was also sensitive, a very honest and melancholic person who was deeply affected by evil and suffering.

I think that analyzing these and talking about them was also good for Serol Teber. It didn’t really improve his melancholy, but there are people like me who do these things, and that made him feel better. I’m not a melancholic person, but I got to know them closely. Serol was a very nice, friendly person with great conversation skills. He was one of those rare people who always told you the truth but did so politely without ever hurting you. They say a friend tells you the painful truth, but he could do it without causing pain. Serol was someone who could tell the truth without hurting.

“Wilhelm Jensen’s work Gradiva was a topic we discussed at length on the program. The book tells the story of a man who, driven by a subconscious impulse he doesn’t fully understand, goes to Pompeii and is deeply influenced by a wall relief called Gradiva’s Walk.”

Z.A: How did the idea of approaching Freud not as the father of psychoanalysis but as someone like us with vulnerabilities come about? What kind of awareness does it create to consider such historically significant people not as icons but as human beings?

Ş.A: Of course, people don’t think Freud was like us. Serol Teber knew this and thought about it. As I read more, talked with Serol, and delved deeper while making this program, I came to understand better. When we reveal certain pathologies, psychological states, or aspects of normal psychology that belong to us, he could do so from himself, because he is a human. He’s not an icon; he’s a human like us. That’s why he has dreams and slips of the tongue… He doesn’t see everything in his clients and patients; he also experiences some of these things himself.

A person who has spent a lot of time analyzing and scrutinizing their dreams, past, and subconscious. Because of that, these things have come to light. He is just an ordinary person; he doesn’t like music, doesn’t want music played at home, and even hates phone ringtones. The person we see in the photo on this wall is not Freud. This is a person. Freud gets angry at his children. A very strict father.

In fact, his children say years later, “Yes, we were free, but our only freedom was being terrified of our father to death.” Such a strange person. When I say strange, I mean someone we wouldn’t love. Maybe we wouldn’t want to sit and have a chat with him – or maybe we would, I don’t know – but he is a person. We understand that. Even when they become scientists or writers, they are still people. It was nice to see that.

In my opinion, especially starting from the dreams he sees, revealing some impulses he doesn’t understand, and peeling back his life layer by layer while analyzing psychoanalysis… These are very exciting things like detective stories. In fact, when you say detective stories, he even gives examples from Sherlock Holmes. He draws a lot of inspiration from literature, Hamlet, Sophocles, and theater plays, and from looking at them, he derives insights. This also shows us that he is a human being, not just a scientist to be put in a box, but someone who lives in life.

M.B.A: He loves Shakespeare very much, and the phrase “a scientific fairy tale” also comes from his fondness for him, doesn’t it?

Ş.A: He loves Shakespeare very much. In fact, he says that Shakespeare and many other artists and scientists sensed and revealed things before others did. He is more impressed by Hamlet’s father being killed by his uncle and waiting to act until he is sure, rather than just suspecting. Freud spends a lot of time thinking about this, and he has drawn many conclusions from it. We see these in the program as well. There, we go to Hamlet, talk about Shakespeare, or discuss Father and Sons. All of these are essentially the possible human stories that writers and artists have drawn from real life and told through real people. One of Freud’s differences is this. He derived many things by looking at them. During the program, I also realized there was another Freud besides the one I knew. He read more literature, archaeology, theater plays, and writings about art, and these played an important role in his life; each one served as a reminder to develop his theory.

M.B.A: I think there was also a saying that goes, “Artists and writers see the truth first.” Can we elaborate on that a bit?

Ş.A: I don’t remember the entire sentence, but what he said was Freud’s: “Artists see things before scientists do, and they are the first to bring them into their works.” They do not reveal why this developed this way, the impulses that lead to it, or its consequences. Instead, they express this human condition through their art sculpture, painting, literature, theater plays, and poetry. After all of this, scientists say, “There is something here,” and it can be grounded in scientific evidence. Freud did the same. Wilhelm Jensen’s work Gradiva was a topic we discussed at length on the program. The book tells the story of a man who, driven by a subconscious impulse he doesn’t fully understand, goes to Pompeii and is deeply influenced by a wall relief called Gradiva’s Walk.

Freud then goes to Pompeii and sits in front of the relief. The woman named Gradiva lifts her skirt, extends her foot, and tries to connect the events in the novel to reach our subconscious. Based on this, yes, this artist saw this and wrote about it in the novel, but it is a scientist like me who uncovers it. The artist has already revealed it. He has great respect for them. He draws clues from all of this and works like a detective. We also talked about these. That’s why the program flowed like a series or a film. We told a story and then discussed its theory.

Z.A: I think these days we’ve lost the ability to see great authorities as human. We know Freud as an authority to some extent, but what is he like at home? What does he enjoy? If he were in this room, would we want to sit and chat with him?

Ş.A: Yes, you’re right about our view of authority, but I think authority wants this a little bit. I don’t think they want to be seen as humans. They want us to think that they don’t eat, don’t go to the bathroom, don’t sweat. But when you lift that up and look underneath, you can see the reasons that drive them to this. Maybe when we know their childhood, we see different reasons as well. In my opinion, it’s very important to talk about things that broad audiences will be curious about and understand when discussing a scientist or a scientific topic.

The reason we were able to do this successfully in “Didik Didik Freud” is that both of us looked at the subject like normal people and were curious. We talked about the things we’re curious about. We didn’t speak like authorities. We broke Freud down into detail. That’s probably why it was an easy and surprisingly engaging program to listen to.

“There’s a caricature of Freud that everyone knows. Shakespeare is the same way. When you make a comment about him, people think you’re saying something very heavy. But Shakespeare is very much involved in life-jealousy, love, scheming, negotiations…”

M.B.A: Freud is a name that even people who have no knowledge about the subject talk about. At times, he has become a symbol of fake intellectualism. In your opinion, how did this happen? How does everyone know Freud?

Ş.A: There’s a caricature of Freud that everyone knows. Shakespeare is the same way. When you make a comment about him, people think you’re saying something very heavy. But Shakespeare is very much involved in life-jealousy, love, scheming, negotiations… I mean, unless you get into it, they just remain icons, and it’s easy to make such fancy statements. I think Freud’s presence as a figure, unknown and exalted, stems from his thoughts on sexuality and what he revealed. He’s a person with mysteries. When you say something about someone who is unknown and inaccessible, I think it also comes across as heavy.

M.B.A: Freud is a highly debated figure both during his lifetime and afterward. There are those who completely reject psychoanalysis in a very radical way. For example, we don’t see the same heated debate about Lacan. In your opinion, what might be the reasons behind these discussions about Freud?

Ş.A: The psychoanalysis put forward by Freud, along with his theories about dreams and the unconscious, was dismissed by some scientific circles as nonsense, a fairy tale, and lacking a scientific basis, so much so that, as Serol puts it, they devalued psychoanalysis. However, many theories have been developed based on his work. Today, it’s not possible to say that Freud is entirely correct or entirely wrong.

There are many different points of view, starting with Freud: numerous theories, many psychoanalysts and psychotherapy experts, their studies, and the approaches they have developed. Of course, as in all sciences, there is no situation where it can be said that everything is finished, and this is the final word. Over the years, many things have developed beyond his work, and development continues. Opposing theories are also evolving, but there is a consensus that it is not a fairy tale; many truths have been uncovered, and everyone accepts this. The reason people can approach with aggression may be because Freud has become a figure. When Lacan is attacked, how many people know about it? Attacking Freud might bring more ratings.

Z.A: We also want to look at it from a publishing perspective. What we are listening to is not just a collaboration, but also the blossoming of a friendship. Did you have any disagreements with Mr. Serol during this process?

Ş.A: In this process, we started as teacher and student and ended as friends. It was a huge gain for me. He is still a friend I look for. I would have loved to consult about some things. We didn’t have disagreements because I was like his assistant. At most, we might have said, “Let’s play this song instead of that one.” He was considered a migrant here. His home was in Germany. He was also here, but he didn’t have the kind of musical background to bring music here. That’s why I was bringing the music. At most, there might have been things like, “Should we play this instead of his sonata?” but he already handled those very sweetly. Everything went very well, and we never had any disagreements.

Z.A: If I’m not mistaken, your first program in publishing was Didik Didik Freud. When you think about this experience, how do you position radio and podcast broadcasting? What do you think are the main differences between the two platforms?

Ş.A: Radio and podcasts are very different places for me. I am a radio person. I have only a few podcasts that I enjoy listening to. I listen to them, but when I have free time, I don’t think, “Let me listen to a podcast,” I think, “Let me turn on the radio.” Because I don’t choose the flow on the radio, it feels nice. Someone is playing something for me. It’s like going to a nice restaurant and having your order taken for you. I like that. If I don’t like it very much, I can change the channel, but with a podcast, you open it knowing what you’re going to listen to. I think the magic of the radio is that whether it’s music or talk shows, someone prepares something for you, and you don’t have to choose.

This feels comfortable and luxurious to me. With a podcast, you have the freedom to listen anytime you want, even in places where radio doesn’t reach, like the subway, plane, or car. I find those parts useful, but I am always a radio person. I am a member of a generation that grew up with radio.

Television had entered our lives later. Our house was one where the radio was always on. Whatever played there, that was what we listened to, and that was a good thing. It played fairy tales; it played folk songs. We also listened to Turkish music and pop music, and we enjoyed it. I still love this now.

Z.A: Didik Didik Freud is not only making its way into the podcast world recently but is also finding a place in literature. Publishing is progressing within the flow, but putting the discourse into writing stabilizes the moment. Like our previous question, what is the most noticeable difference for you between print media and audio broadcasting?

Ş.A: This podcast was turned into a book after many years. Once again, dear Ömer Madra really wanted it. In fact, for many years, I thought there was no point in transcribing the audio recordings into text. But I was convinced later.

I’m glad we did it. Because this time, the listeners became readers. When they told me they followed the authors in the book because they couldn’t understand or remember certain words, or because they couldn’t take notes, and that they underlined, folded the pages, and valued the book, I realized we were doing the right thing.

The book is always permanent, but the voice is not. The reason I wanted my voice to be recorded back then was because it was a program, and I thought, “Let’s not put this into writing, it happened and it’s over.” But later, I realized that having it as a book was more useful. People who read the book shared photos with me. I also informed Serol about each of these; I told him, “Look, this is happening, people are reading it, they are highlighting parts.” I wish he could have seen all this too.

Z.A: It would make us very happy to see both of you here today.

Ş.A: He would have liked me too. It should have been him. I mean, I’m speaking on his behalf, but the program was Serol Teber’s. We were like Kavuklu and Pişekar. I was just helping him. Everything came from his mind; I wish he had been the one, of course.

Z.A: Actually, when we look at it, you must take on a kind of legacy in the absence of Serol Teber. I’m sure this is challenging for you.

Ş.A: There is such a great legacy, and I am carrying it. When you invited me, I came running because I can’t make that decision. I assume Serol would have wanted it that way. Z.A: There is a strong music selection that fuels the program. So, has there ever been a time when a part of a music piece changed the flow of the segment? Ş.A: It didn’t work out because, as I said, the questions we would talk about were already known. Based on that, I was selecting suitable pieces from my not-so-extensive music archive. CDs were preferred at the time, so I would bring them to the technical desk. Of course, it also created some emotion for us, but it didn’t change the flow.

Z.A: One of the most beautiful parts of Didik Didik Freud is when, after listening to an exciting story, music suddenly intervenes and calms you down. For a few minutes, it feels like a moment of tranquility, then it starts to rise again and then calms down once more.

Ş.A: I think these nine minutes mean something. Even though they stress us out at first, you really don’t get to rest much longer. Like on a roller coaster, when you reach the top, you want to relax. I realized later that those breaks are helpful. If I skip the music and just listen, the flow doesn’t seem smooth. You can go from one intense topic to another, even more intense one. Putting music pieces in between really makes sense.

Z.A: So, let’s also talk about Açık Radyo. How did the spirit of Açık Radyo shape the atmosphere of the program? Do you think the same program would have the same feel if it were on a different platform?

Ş.A: I think being inside Açık Radyo completely changed your whole spirit. We were given a wide freedom there. Aside from the nine-minute segments I mentioned, we had no other restrictions. We talked about whatever we wanted, and no one interfered with us. We were never told to “add this” or “remove that.” The only request came from Mr. Ömer; it was Tevfik Fikret, whom we enjoyed talking about for hours. We initially decided on two hours, but we couldn’t finish in that time and ended up spending six hours discussing him.

The freedom we are given was very liberating. We asked each other if there was anything we needed to say, but no one told us anything. That’s why it’s very important to me that it happened on Open Radio. Didik Didik Freud also became an iconic program for Open Radio. People still call it a legendary program. That means a lot to me. Now that I think about it, I would never want it to be on any other platform.

Back then, there weren’t such opportunities. In 2004, there were almost no options besides music radio stations. There was no platform to speak like this, especially not one that would say, ‘Come here and talk about Freud for 26 hours.’ Maybe there are different places today, but the same spirit wouldn’t be there. These things can be explained to Açık Radyo listeners, but not necessarily on every platform. Because their audience is curious, detail-oriented, serious, and professional listeners. If you make a mistake, they’ll tell you right away and say you’re wrong. That’s why they deserve such a deep conversation, to spend hours of effort on it.

Z.A: Today, despite having dozens of channels, the intellectual freedom provided by Açık Radyo at that time looks different. Do you think Apaçık Radyo was able to fulfill the same function?

Ş.A: I think the radio continues to serve the same function. The only change is that terrestrial broadcasting has been cut off. For example, when I’m driving, I started listening through the app instead of terrestrial broadcast. Of course, terrestrial broadcasting also has a separate mission; it’s a special space accessible to everyone, even functioning during earthquakes. But now, it’s not just a radio; it’s a cultural hub. It sponsors some exhibitions, publishes books. Apaçık Radio is also expanding its mission and growing.

Z.A: So, Didik Didik Freud, if he started from scratch today, what do you think would change?

Ş.A: I hope nothing has changed. The process developed very beautifully and spontaneously. We knew what we were going to talk about, but since we didn’t read from a written text, it felt more relaxed and easier to understand. When they restarted digital publishing in 2015, I opened a Twitter account and shared visuals. The feedback was very positive. Maybe I would have liked social media platforms to exist back in 2004 as well. It would have been great if there was a platform where people could see the photo of Lou Andreas-Salomé, whom we talked about during the broadcast. However, I would have hoped that our conversation wouldn’t change. I also received some feedback here today; I heard that it was discussed in classes. Being used as a reference, being cited, and having people listen and understand is very gratifying.

Z.A: The Didik Didik Freud program is like a wonderful conversation I listen to quietly in a house filled with the people I love. At the same time, it’s a product that nourishes me greatly. So, among the feedback you received, what was the most memorable for you?

Ş.A: There are many responses that make me very happy. However, one of the most impactful was: “I came across this during a very difficult time. I was depressed, withdrawn, and not going outside at all. Then I found your program, and it helped me get back to life.” I was very surprised when I first heard this. Afterward, I was even more surprised to see that it was possible. One listener also said: “It was winter, it was snowing, and I was very unhappy. I was thinking about how I might die. I went outside for a walk, and I came across this program, and it brought me back to life.” This is something that still brings tears to my eyes when I think about it. If this program has provided such individual kindness, I believe it is lifesaving and very valuable.

Z.A: Thank you very much for coming. It was a great pleasure for us to host you here today.

The Anatomy of a Scientific Fairy Tale: Didik Didik Freud yazısı ilk önce Context Dergi üzerinde ortaya çıktı.

The angel numbers (777, 111) we frequently encounter on social media and phone cases, promotions earned on days when your energy is high, finding the love of your life during full moons, friendships ended as a result of eclipses… While these planetary events, to which so much meaning is attributed, occur almost every week, they constantly claim to bring about transformation or change in our lives. People are told when to start a diet, when to find love, and what day “that day” will be. Does it really seem believable that everyone on this planet with a population of nearly 8.5 billion can find love on a single day?

Astrology and the Planets that Determine Destiny

When it comes to belief, one of the first things that comes to mind is astrology. Astrology, which appears everywhere and every day and is interpreted differently by everyone, claims that the movements of stars and planets in the universe affect a person’s character and destiny. And because it involves stars and planets, it is often perceived as scientific.

However, astrologers do not base their predictions on falsifiable phenomena, nor do they provide analyses grounded in objective data that can be tested through observation and experimentation. Instead, they categorize individuals according to the twelve zodiac signs, each corresponding to a particular period of the year, and make predictions based on the symbolic relationships between planets and these signs.

For example, the Cancer sign is often described as home-loving, sensitive, unwilling to leave their comfort zone, and inclined towards parenthood. One astrologer might say that Cancers will have a very bad period in that same month, while another might claim the opposite, that Cancers will experience their luckiest period. If a person’s characteristics or events do not fit the zodiac sign description, new justifications are given, such as “look at your rising sign” or “look at your moon sign.” These predictions are also supported by long, complex charts based on the time of birth. Astrology is so widespread today that some people even end their relationships using zodiac compatibility as an excuse. However, scientific research has seriously questioned the propositions of astrology.

For example, an experimental study conducted by Carlson in 1985 showed that astrologers personality analyses did not differ statistically from random predictions. Similarly, Dean’s large-scale meta-analysis in 2007 revealed that the personality descriptions provided by astrologers were not grounded in a consistent, repeatable scientific foundation. All these findings clearly show that the claim that astrology determines human character or destiny is not scientifically supported.

Fortune Tellers and Objects That Show the Future

There is a fortune-telling practice for almost everything you can come into contact with in life. Show me something, and I’ll tell you your future. Coffee grounds? Why not? A deck of cards, salt divination, foot divination, cream divination, nail divination, and so much more… Fortune tellers claim that they can predict your past, present, or future by using the tools and objects they examine. “I can tell you how long you’ll live from the palm of your hand, have you heard of the life line?” This system of prediction, grounded in interpretations and forecasts, is often perceived as credible, largely because it relies on vague, highly generalized statements that can be applied to a wide range of individuals and situations.

A young person going to university can be given as an example of this irrational practice. Already filled with great anxiety and high expectations, they go to a fortune teller to ask about their school life, the difficulties they will face, and the friendships they will form. In response, they encounter overly general statements about difficulties that anyone might experience in life, such as “There are people around you who are jealous of you,” or “You might struggle in a few courses this year.” To increase credibility, they may even base these statements on unscientific concepts such as energy or aura, which appear scientific. In fact, this effect has a scientific basis.

This is called the Forer Effect. In 1948, Bertram Forer decided to conduct an experiment with his students. He gave them all a personality test but did not evaluate the results. He distributed the same prepared text to all the students. The text briefly states: “Sometimes you are extroverted, and sometimes introverted. People may find it difficult to understand you. It takes time to gain trust, but when you love someone, you are very loyal.” The teacher asks her students to rate this text on a scale of 1 to 5 based on their own personalities, and the class receives a very high score. This experiment tells us that fortune-telling and irrational predictions are based on general life experiences. Just because one out of 50 fortune tellings come true doesn’t mean the fortune teller saw the future.

Tarot and Predicting the Future

Tarot, with its complex system and semiotic foundation, gives people a more realistic feeling. These cards that predict the future fundamentally contain several drawings, symbols, and names. However, tarot originated as a card game created for the entertainment of the nobility in Northern Italy during the late Middle Ages. Known as Tarocchi in courtly circles, the game was played by two to six participants, and its objective was to accumulate points by defeating opponents with stronger cards.

This can be likened to how Monopoly, in its current form, eventually served to forecast future trends centuries later. The figures on tarot cards are based on icons. These icons, representing death, lovers, stars, and the devil, are associated with the collective unconscious and Jung’s theory of archetypes.

For example, the Empress Card represents the mother archetype, while the Tower Card signifies destruction, chaos, and renewal.

According to Jung, the collective unconscious is not directly accessible. It reaches us through dreams, myths, symbols, and art. In this context, it is argued that the tarot cards selected by an individual serve as a mirror to the unconscious mind, bringing latent images and symbols into conscious awareness through visualization. Accordingly, the cards are believed to provide answers to questions such as: “What are you feeling? What are you thinking? And what should you do as a result?” However, the flexibility of these interpretations, their lack of empirical grounding, and their inability to generate falsifiable or verifiable hypotheses prevent them from being tested scientifically.

Science and the Pseudo-Energy of Metaphysics

However, energy has never become something that makes decisions about our lives, changes our destiny, or communicates with us. Unfortunately, the definition of energy has shifted in a completely different direction today, moving into an unreal, metaphysical realm. When people hear the word “energy,” they often interpret it metaphorically or spiritually, and even dream of specializing in this field. Many people associate energy with cosmic forces such as chakras, Qi/ Chi, auras, or Reiki, and believe it can only be felt because it is invisible. The acceptance that this understanding of “energy,” which is claimed to vary from person to person, is abstract and intuitive, reveals how unscientific the subject is. These individuals argue that energy must be balanced and flowing, believing they can maintain this balance through meditation, chakra opening, or rituals performed during celestial events such as full moons and eclipses.

They think they nourish their energy or protect it from harm in this way. However, the concept of energy, which is studied by the positive sciences such as physics and mathematics, is perceived by them almost like a pet that needs to be looked after, fed, and protected. Even hormonal changes that occur when we feel tired or weak can be explained by people who attribute them to energy or the evil eye. These people, far from having a scientific basis, shape their lives according to the state of their energy, believing that even others’ negative thoughts can affect them by emitting “negative energy waves.” Therefore, they frequently resort to meditation, chakra opening, and similar practices to supposedly cleanse their energy or feel reborn.

Cosmic Quantum at the Center of the Universe

They might try to influence you by saying that the energy within us contains a quantum field and that this quantum energy will experience a surge during periods of transformation. However, the quantum field, as we understand it in physics, is a dynamic, fluctuating physical system that exists at every point in the universe and gives rise to particles. While the fact that these microscopic particles are measurable and controllable supports the scientific aspect of the subject, these individuals try to convince people of the validity of metaphysical systems such as energy and meditation by turning the unknown nature of quantum mechanics into an advantage.

We can visualize quantum mechanics with an example: imagine a stone thrown into water; here, the water creates a quantum field, while the waves caused by the stone are particles.

It is, unfortunately, not surprising to see a spiritual connection being made under the heading of energy, even though this is the foundation of modern physics. Thinking that any invisible and immeasurable energy within us can guide our lives by detaching it from the quantum context of physics, coaching people on this subject, claiming that everything has unlimited potential, and saying that thought can transform into matter doesn’t sound very convincing. Furthermore, people who use quantum in a spiritual sense believe that when they enter this field, they can heal, attract everything into their lives in the best way through energy therapies and manifestations under the name of the law of attraction. There are even many people who specifically coach in this field. As you can imagine, these coaches have neither received physics-based training nor do they proceed based on scientific reality. Coaching under the name of quantum comes with claims that one can reprogram their life, rewrite it at the quantum level by going into the subconscious. Especially the idea of changing things at the quantum level by going into the subconscious. I hear about it a lot. I’ve witnessed people using this method to quit smoking, change their eating habits, forget traumas, and alleviate heartbreak. They believe it’s effective for a while because, for these indecisive people searching for something to hold on to in life, it becomes a source of motivation and a propaganda tool for effortless change.

But how did quantum theory come to occupy such a central place in spiritualist thought? The uncertainty surrounding quantum concepts can open the door to interpretations that nurture belief and, consequently, lead individuals into misconceptions. People often wish to believe that they possess a profound connection with the universe. Compared to the positivist reality grounded in the clear and well-defi ned principles of science, the flexibility offered by spiritual interpretations of quantum theory may appear more appealing because it seems easier and requires less intellectual effort.

Göbeklitepe: The Gateway to Aliens

Göbeklitepe, described in some popular sources as the “zero point of history,” is a structure built approximately 12,000 years ago, during the Neolithic Age, and contains multiple temples. Göbeklitepe, which carries archaeological data in religious and social terms, contains human hands and arms carved into T-shaped pillars, abstract symbols, and three-dimensional animal figures. It is also claimed that Göbeklitepe, with its monumental stone pillars, served as an energy gateway supporting ritual and social organization. Some astronomical studies suggest that these pillars may have been aligned with celestial bodies, including the Sirius comet. Such views have led to various speculations on the subject. The acoustic harmony created by the spiral corridors is thought to symbolize the structure’s sacredness, suggesting that various rituals were performed there.

Some people consider the consumption of animals such as gazelles and deer, which were eaten at that time, as part of the ritual. Perhaps this is indeed the case. But does this prove that Göbeklitepe is a quantum field encompassing spiritual energy? While acknowledging that Göbeklitepe is an archaeological site of great importance to world history, some 2024 news reports claimed it was an “energy center” and an “alien airport.” These sessions were offered for exorbitant fees, such as 69,000 TL for a three-day program. Participants were offered sessions titled “Opening a 21-Story Secret Dimension Gate via Sirius Connection,” “Upgrading a Higher Version via Light Language,” or “Breaking the Fear Protocol,” followed by group crying sessions. People were told they would connect with their past selves and embark on an inner journey through Göbeklitepe. After the session, they were expected to gather around Göbeklitepe and release their pent-up emotions. These practices drew criticism from the scientific community and were extensively covered in news reports in Sözcü Newspaper on September 20, 2022, and Cumhuriyet Newspaper on September 21, 2022, which emphasized the exploitation of cultural heritage for commercial purposes.

Unable to remain silent any longer about these events, the head of the Patara Excavation, archaeologist Prof. Dr. Havva İşkan Işık, stated, “If you are seeking healing, it is not found in the stones of Göbeklitepe, but in psychiatrists.” Considering statements that clearly demonstrate how such beliefs hinder access to science, she added that these beliefs harm scientific excavation sites, causing even the smallest stone in the area to be considered sacred. She further noted that people who believe in these beliefs, if given the opportunity, go to these areas and carry out illegal excavations and dynamite explosions, thus destroying the sites. Another popular culture element that believes in the power of words supporting energy, quantum fields, and inner journeys is the concept of the manifest. While the word manifest literally means a clear, distinct, and easily understandable expression, it takes on a completely different meaning in the context of belief. Proponents of manifest believe they can request something from the universe by expressing it as if it has already happened and “spreading its energy.” In this process, there is an acceptance of a kind of “law of attraction” created by thoughts. However, the concept of the law of attraction is based on a physical law, such as electromagnetism. Therefore, it is impossible to ground manifest thinking in real scientific laws.

Individuals who adopt manifesto thinking believe that maintaining a consistently positive attitude increases the likelihood of desired events occurring. However, it is necessary to draw attention to a fallacy called Positive Fantasy. Research shows that merely having positive fantasies makes individuals passive and weakens their motivation to act. This is also problematic from a science communication perspective. Because messages based solely on positive imagery, not planned to lead to behavioral change, can reinforce a passive waiting culture at the societal level. Science communication, on the other hand, It is not only about instilling hope, but also about guiding people to action with realistic, evidence-based information. A simple “imagine and wait” approach contradicts the fundamental principles of behavioral science. Manifest statements often consist of impressive, simple, and all-encompassing sentences. For example, statements like, “You are able to recognize the signs the universe is giving you and you are attracting the abundance you deserve,” instill a strong belief in people. While such statements can be persuasive, from a science communication perspective, they can weaken critical thinking skills. People are more inclined to accept such claims without questioning them.

When the manifest belief doesn’t materialize, it is justified with explanations such as, “You sent the wrong energy,” “You didn’t want it enough,” or “The universe has better plans for you.” Thus, the manifest concept transforms into a belief system that cannot be falsified no matter what is done, which clearly contradicts the principle of falsifiability, a fundamental principle of scientific thinking. While some people try to use manifests as a goal-setting tool for planning, they often expect results simply by saying the right words, as if they have found a magic formula. This situation leads to passive expectation without effort. This risk is particularly important in terms of science communication. Because when realistic goals, behavioral plans, and evidence-based information are not presented, there is a danger of weakening society’s connection with scientific thinking.

Lack of Science and Uncertainty

People’s vulnerability to uncertainty leads them to belief systems that promise false hopes but lack a scientific basis. Concepts such as astrology, fortune telling, tarot, energy, quantum leaps, and manifestos are systems embellished with an attempt to appear scientific, but because they are based on general and personal interpretations, they do not produce real knowledge. Such beliefs offer people the illusion of control while simultaneously overshadowing scientific thinking and questioning. Science, on the other hand, is a system that progresses through observation, experimentation, and logic, open to doubt and change. It is not the position of the stars or the openness of chakras that determines life, but decisions made with reason and knowledge. Instead of being captivated by the allure of pseudoscience, equipping oneself with real knowledge is the healthiest path to individual development and societal progress.

Manifest, Energy, Quantum: Fake Science yazısı ilk önce Context Dergi üzerinde ortaya çıktı.

“By arguing that ‘the medium is an extension of the human body or mind,’ he described the wheel as an extension of the foot, the book as an extension of the eye, and clothing as an extension of the skin.”

For those less familiar with his scholarly work or theoretical writings, Marshall McLuhan is often recognized by that famous photograph of him standing before a wall of television screens. In the public imagination, he remains a prominent media figure and one of the founding fathers of New Media theory. With the concept of the Global Village he introduced in the 1960s, he foresaw that the internet would become an infrastructure technology; at a time when everyone was focused on content, that is the message he pointed to the tools, or more accurately, the “medium.” Through his provocative ideas, television appearances, lectures, and presence in mainstream media, he elevated his fame far beyond the typical sphere of influence for an academic. He succeeded in reaching a wide audience; with his media critiques, cultural analyses, and distinctive aphorisms woven into his compelling style, he became a well-known figure. Thus, he is recognized as one of the most influential media theorists of his time and as one of the early science communicators, successfully opening up his ideas for public debate. Discussions on how mass media influences human senses and the balance between them continue to follow the path McLuhan pioneered. The media theories and analytical framework he established remain a powerful conceptual tool for studies aiming to interpret new media.

McLuhan is particularly remembered for concepts such as The Medium Is the Message and The Global Village; for this reason, he has faced harsh criticism from academic communities. However, the fact that the internet and social media have evolved into a fundamental communication technology worldwide, as he predicted, serves as proof of how accurate his predictions were. Moreover, McLuhan’s ideas were not limited to books; he reached out to the public through his unforgettable interview with one of the most popular magazines of his time, Playboy (1969). By distilling his media theories down to their simplest terms and illustrating them with examples relevant to everyone’s daily life, he used the very medium through which he communicated his ideas as a tool in the process. Indeed, by stating that “The medium is the extension of man”, he described the wheel as an extension of the foot, the book as an extension of the eye, and clothing as an extension of the skin; he defi ned technology as a natural part of humanity’s process of enhancing its own capabilities. In this interview, he elaborated on one of his most memorable statements, “The medium is the message,” by saying, “Television is not just an entertainment box; it reshapes the way people see, hear, feel, and think,” and he engraved his theory in people’s minds using examples from everyday life. Another medium through which McLuhan continued his efforts to popularize science was television. After his books made it onto the bestseller lists, McLuhan was featured in the episode titled The Medium is the Message from NBC’s documentary series Experiment in Television. Produced with an experimental approach, this episode visualizes McLuhan’s theories through colored lights, rapid editing, and a pop-art aesthetic. The documentary describes McLuhan as the “high priest of pop culture” and a “trendy intellectual.”

“‘Television is not just an entertainment box; it reshapes the way people see, hear, feel, and think,’ and he engraved his theory in people’s minds using examples from everyday life.”

He employed the same strategy in his lectures, conveying his theories through examples that resonated with students’ lives. Rejecting traditional lecture formats, he used everyday details from advertising slogans to newspapers and from popular songs to street signs as examples. He analyzed Coca- Cola’s Things go better with Coke slogan and examined the poetic narrative of advertisements. In this way, he produced theoretical approaches using data gathered from everyday life, translating abstract analyses into understandable language. Through this, he brought academia’s closed discourse into everyday life in a way that the average person could comprehend. While explaining how even typography shapes human thought, he illustrated how every detail from the layout of newspaper pages and street posters to the arrangement of lines in store windows shapes perception. He emphasized that writing shapes the senses not only through its meaning but also through its form.

In his lectures, he effectively put on a stage performance; through humor, irony, and theatrical gestures, he aimed not only to have the audience listen but also to surprise them, make them think, and encourage them to question. From time to time, with unexpected phrases like “Today I’m not speaking to you, but to this microphone,” he conveyed the impact of the medium directly to those watching in that very moment. He described the massive live broadcast Our World in 1967, featuring twenty-four countries, as a communication miracle in which the world had transformed into a Global Village. He characterized The Beatles’ performance of All You Need Is Love as a collective rhythm in which millions of people could share the same emotion simultaneously. In this way, he defi ned a technological revolution as a process that resonates with the public’s senses. Similarly, in that unforgettable scene from Woody Allen’s Annie Hall where a character brings McLuhan into the, his intervention in the characters’ discussion with the line “you know nothing of my work” served as a way to infuse his theory into popular culture. In this way, he brought even an academic debate to the public using the language of humor and everyday life, thereby taking science communication beyond its traditional boundaries. One of his most remarkable works is the book The Medium Is the Massage. Like his other works, this book is based on his own theories, as he explains them.

Unlike standard theoretical texts, McLuhan crafted this book using collage aesthetics, typographic play, visuals, and short passages, thereby embodying the image that form is an integral part of content. He also collaborated on this book with Quentin Fiore, one of the most important graphic designers of his time, producing a visually appealing work that brought it recognition. While the word “Massage” in the book’s title, may appear to be a mistake, he explained that he chose to use “massage” instead of “message,” implying that communication tools stimulate and shape human senses like a massage. Thus, even the book’s title has become an example reflecting McLuhan’s theoretical horizon.

During the years when McLuhan was developing his theories, the prevailing perspective in communication studies was an approach that focused on the content of messages and drew on models of propaganda and attitude change. In contrast to this content-centered approach that took shape after World War II, McLuhan placed the medium at the center, opening a discussion of the transformative role of the medium’s carrier in human senses and social order, thereby distinguishing himself from his contemporaries. Structuralist and language-centered theorists generally found McLuhan’s emphasis on the determinism of media to be reductionist (oversimplifying a complicated issue by trying to explain it using only one single cause), prioritizing the analysis of symbolic orders and cultural codes. Sociological critiques, meanwhile, viewed his positioning of technology as the sole key to social change as incomplete, arguing that he overlooked the cultural context.

Despite all these ideological differences, McLuhan opened up a space for public discourse not only through his conceptual vision but also through the way he shared these concepts with society; he succeeded in popularizing his theory by establishing a broad repertoire of communication, ranging from television programs to radio interviews, and from magazine columns to theatrical performances on stage. He embraced television, the rising medium of the era, before his peers, going beyond merely describing its transformative impact to letting people experience it firsthand. This is because television, especially from the mid-1950s onward, took its place in homes and became the center of daily life.

“McLuhan’s concepts of ‘cool’ and ‘hot’ media among his most important conceptual tools provide a significant framework by explaining the interaction between the user and the medium.”

Television transformed the social steering power that radio and cinema had maintained for many years by offering moving images, sounds, and live broadcast capabilities. With its diverse content ranging from news bulletins to entertainment programs, from series to sports broadcasts, it shaped the daily routines of the masses, transforming people’s agendas and even the way they perceive life. While bringing individuals together around a shared visual culture, it has reshaped the advertising industry from top to bottom, serving as a pillar for the spread of consumer culture on a mass scale. With this effect bringing family members together in front of the same screen in daily life and reorganizing the flow of life, it has also provided a powerful example to support McLuhan’s distinction between “hot” and “cool” media.

McLuhan’s concepts of “cool” and “hot” media among his most important conceptual tools provide a significant framework by explaining the interaction between the user and the medium. Examples of these include radio, cinema, and printed books. These media are defi ned as “hot” tools because they feature high resolution, dense data, and closed meanings. This is because these tools leave no room for the viewer to think, thereby creating a passive perceptual process. In contrast, “cool” tools are media that offer low resolution, incomplete data, and force the viewer to complete the meaning, thereby requiring active participation.

However, McLuhan places television in a very different category within cold media. He compares the viewer’s data flow in a “cool” participatory medium to a mosaic. To understand this method of data transmission, first understanding “what a mosaic is and why he equates television with it” is important.

In its most basic sense, a mosaic is a visual art form in which small, colorful pieces (stone, glass, ceramic, etc.) come together to form a whole. While each piece may not carry meaning on its own, when placed side by side, they create a large and meaningful composition. McLuhan uses this aesthetic structure to describe the modes of perception and thought in the media age. According to him, modern communication media -particularly television, advertisements, magazines, and later the internet- present information not in a sequential and linear manner, but in a fragmented, polyphonic, and simultaneous way. This requires the viewer to do more than just watch; it demands the ability to actively “fi ll in” the missing pieces. Social media feeds are one of the most prominent examples of this mosaic structure today. An Instagram Explore page or a TikTok feed creates a mosaic-like transmission experience where independent fragments are arranged randomly yet form a coherent whole in the user’s mind. Here, the mosaic is not merely an aesthetic element but is regarded as a new form of thinking, seeing, and constructing meaning in the media age.

McLuhan’s mosaic narrative form is directly intertwined with the concept of “cool media.” Just as a mosaic presents a fragmented and incomplete whole to be completed in the viewer’s mind, cold media also expects active participation from the viewer. Such media do not present everything “readymade” in high resolution; rather, they provoke perception, leave gaps, and make the viewer a part of the process. Mosaic structures such as newspaper layouts, advertising collages, or social media feeds do not transmit information directly; instead, they create chains of associations in the minds of their audiences. Thus mosaic aesthetics aligns closely with the fundamental characteristics of cool media. Low definition encourages high participation and, consequently, the production of multiple meanings. Television’s “two-dimensional mosaic” narrative, the constantly shifting content of social media, and postmodern designs constructed through collage techniques all establish a relationship in which the audience is not merely a consumer but also a producer of meaning. In this context, the mosaic structure can be understood as the visual and structural counterpart of McLuhan’s concept of cool media.

Within all these television programs and the institutional frameworks used to communicate with the masses, one of the most symbolic examples of McLuhan’s rise to international prominence was his feature in Time Magazine in 1969. Appearing in such a prestigious publication was an almost unimaginable sign of popularity for a communication theorist. The magazine described him with striking phrases like “the high priest of pop culture” and “the metaphysician of media,” emphasizing that he was a figure capable of speaking to the broader public’s search for meaning in a rapidly changing world of communication. He did not limit his influence to print and visual media; in connection with his work The Medium is the Massage, he recorded an audio album (LP) composed of music, sound, and fragmented narratives, thereby extending his theory into an auditory experience. McLuhan’s influence was not confi ned to North America; his ideas were widely discussed in intellectual circles across Europe, particularly in the United Kingdom and France, and are considered to have inspired the media theories of later thinkers such as Baudrillard.

Marshall McLuhan was not only one of the most influential media theorists of the 20th century but also a powerful science communicator who could convey his theories by bringing them directly into everyday life. His media theory opened a new paradigm in understanding communication by arguing that the medium is more powerful than the message; by viewing technology as a natural extension of humanity, he redefi ned the relationship between humans, the senses and technology. By appearing in popular media, he succeeded in bringing academic thought into the lives of ordinary people; through his conferences, television programs, magazine interviews, and stage performances, he transformed his theory into a spectacle, thereby making science accessible to the masses. McLuhan’s predictions have been largely validated by the rise of the internet, social media, and globalized communication networks, and the concept of the global village has become a reality in today’s world.

Despite all criticism, the analytical framework he developed regarding media remains a fundamental reference point in media studies. His legacy is an intellectual he approaches communication not merely as the transmission of information, but as a dynamic process that transforms human senses, modes of perception, and social structures.

In this regard, McLuhan is remembered as a theorist who continues to shed light on modern communication studies and whose ideas stand the test of time.

Marshall McLuhan: The Mastermind Behind the Media yazısı ilk önce Context Dergi üzerinde ortaya çıktı.