   Popular presentation of science is getting worse and worse.
This blog post totally sums up what I think on the topic.The popular science that explained why sky is blue (something which majority of people don't know) seem to be long gone from mass media; now it just talks about highly advanced stuff (string theory for instance and curled up dimensions), and talks with such complete lack of science that there is never a single scientific statement which would be falsifiable, would make some sort of prediction, about universe, or would at least explain something. In my opinion, the first touch with science, for geniuses whom would turn into new Einsteins (or not), happens long before school, and the influence of various crap in mass media could be rather significant, both directly (right from tv screen) and indirectly (through teachers, parents, and so on). So the impact from BS can be quite significant.What do you think about it and implications on the future of scientific progress?edit: no, i'm not referring to popsci.com, i'm referring to popular view of science in general.[Edited by - Dmytry on March 11, 2009 11:56:33 AM]
  Not just about science. Every day I think more and more that the media cannot be trusted anymore on anything. They are paid to say what the powerful wants, they make up false news if they have none.This days, a person goota be well informed to get itself properly informed. If lucky!   ;  I don't agree with that blog post at all. All that new-age crap aside (which is fortunately not as widespread as the blog author implies), I don't see a problem with trying to explain to the interested layman how quantum physics or string theory works. Of course you are going to use analogies. Analogies are a good way to explain the basic principle of something to someone who doesn't have the mathematical prerequisites for a 'real' scientific explanation. I recall an occasion where my GF asked me how our microwave oven works. Of course I used a quick analogy to explain molecular resonance, and she got it. Do you really think I would've gone very far if I took out a piece of paper, some physics books, and started to derive the equations for electromagnetic dispersion and energy transfer ? She would've gave me that "stupid nerd" look and walked away.That author should get down from his elitist high horse and stop whining, if you ask me. Yes, Joe Average is interested in how our universe was created, because it concerns all humans. And no, he doesn't want to study physics to understand the mathematical concepts behind quantum field theory first.;  Isn't the point of popular science to take difficult topics and make them accessible to the general reader by replacing highly technical or mathematical content with inherently less precise metaphors and linguistic explanations?I agree that there is a certain unfortunate tendency these days to mix a little too much spirituality into modern quantum mechanics and string theory. Honestly, though, this doesn't seem very common. Certainly many metaphors are used--but that's what the books are for. That's why people buy them. People who buy popular science introductions to, say, quantum mechanics just want to get an overall impression of what the experts are thinking about the subject right now; they don't want to study the Schrodinger equation and complex probability amplitudes.For people interested in the mathematics, there are plenty of serious introductions to the subject as well; there may be just as many of those as there are popular science introductions. And then there is, of course, The Road to Reality by Roger Penrose; it's marketed as a popular science book, and it sold very well, but it uses graduate-level mathematics.   ;  Im not going to say anything about how string theory is not science. OhAnyways I dont think its a big deal really. There are so many variables that influence if one becomes a great scientist and this is but a small one.Also I would wager that many of todays scientist were motivated strongly by Science Fiction and comic books in their early days. So science fiction in the form of string theory or what not can still be a positive force for good.   ;  I agree with Yann. I think "Assaf Tal, age 28. I am a physics Ph.D. in the field of Nuclear Magnetic Resonance (NMR) and Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI)" has outgrown popular science. It no longer speaks to him. And given his level of expertise it shouldn't. There's nothing wrong with that. Does it warrant a rant? If it makes him feel better, that's great. And having followed Michio Kaku's progression in the media for the last 15 years, I bet he would say the same thing in response. What I would like to see from Assaf instead of a rant, however, is a formalized criticism of what he sees as errors in Kaku's book. Isn't that one way that science operates, going back to Leibniz and Newton?  Off the top of my head, it seems that popularized science has two primary audiences: gifted children and curious adults. For gifted children the purpose is to inspire their interest in science. For curious adults the purpose is to inform them of advances in science. Neither group needs to know the exact technical details so long as they get a sufficiently accurate picture. For incurious adults the purpose might be to assuage their fear of science, their fear of the potential social disruptions brought about by new advances (e.g. stem cell research and abortions and how they don't have anything to do with each other). Another thing, science fiction often presents plenty of bad science as science. Even shows that tend to get the science mostly correct (e.g. Stargate, Numbers, CSI), tend to heavily stylize their presentation of science and then eradicate whatever science they've presented with convenient deus ex machina trickery to save the heroes before the hour ends [Note: those shows don't get it always correct, just mostly] I've encountered a few excellent websites debunking "movie physics" before. They take their rants to the next level by soundly debunking the target of their ire. At any rate, science fiction also serves to popularize science without as much complaint it seems. Perhaps the difference is that science fiction is recognized upfront as fiction, where popularized science writing aspires to a claim of accuracy. I think the state of science education has a far greater impact on the future of scientific progress than popularized science. If popularized science is able to get the kids in the classroom interested in science then more power to it.  ;  I don't feel like pontificating, so when you see this post, go back and read Yann and LessBread again. I agree with that.   ;  Im on the fence WRT this topicas that great brain bart simpson said youre dammed if you do dammed if u dont   ;Quote:Original post by Yann LI don't agree with that blog post at all. All that new-age crap aside (which is fortunately not as widespread as the blog author implies), I don't see a problem with trying to explain to the interested layman how quantum physics or string theory works. Of course you are going to use analogies. Analogies are a good way to explain the basic principle of something to someone who doesn't have the mathematical prerequisites for a 'real' scientific explanation. I recall an occasion where my GF asked me how our microwave oven works. Of course I used a quick analogy to explain molecular resonance, and she got it. Do you really think I would've gone very far if I took out a piece of paper, some physics books, and started to derive the equations for electromagnetic dispersion and energy transfer ? She would've gave me that "stupid nerd" look and walked away.That author should get down from his elitist high horse and stop whining, if you ask me. Yes, Joe Average is interested in how our universe was created, because it concerns all humans. And no, he doesn't want to study physics to understand the mathematical concepts behind quantum field theory first.Disagreed. I think you misunderstood the point entirely. (ditto goes for LB)The whole point of blog post is that there is a shift away from explanations similar to how you explained microwave oven, to things that don't even attempt to explain but just mystify.Lemme make an example. Explaining special relativity. You can either1: tell about invariance of speed of light, Michalson-Morley experiment (draw a picture with points of lights racing through interferometer), and such, how all of relativity including e=mc^2 was derived from this. You can use metaphors and analogies while at it, as appropriate. That makes a *great* popular science video. 2: Go mystical about four dimensions, and flash e=mc^2 on screen a lot, perhaps even flash chalkboards covered with equations, or pages of original Einstein's manuscript. That makes a *shitty* popular science video.Popular science that I tend to come across is shifting more and more to type 2. I (and blog author) have no problem whatsoever with various sorts of analogies and metaphors. In fact the whole point is that analogies and metaphors, which are supposed to be understood, are disappearing from popular science. Them are replaced with things that are not supposed to be understood (pages of equations shown for few seconds, jargon, and so on). It is the mysticism that is a problem.Same with microwave oven. With layman, you can either 1: try to explain resonance (which is btw wrong - microwave is not tuned at water resonance frequency. If it was, microwaves practically wouldn't penetrate into food). Or you can 2:go all mystical and talk about maxwell's equations and electromagnetic waves and speed of light etc, throwing in a lot of physical jargon and mystifying your GF. The point of blog post is that popular science is shifting from first type (attempt to explain something) to second type, to mystery books, which one is supposed to read to feel mystified. Not attempt at explanation in layman terms - quite the contrary. Loads and loads of jargon, perhaps even *equations themselves* put entirely out of context and with no explanation as of meaning.[Edited by - Dmytry on March 10, 2009 5:32:52 AM];Quote:Original post by LessBreadI think "Assaf Tal, age 28. I am a physics Ph.D. in the field of Nuclear Magnetic Resonance (NMR) and Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI)" has outgrown popular science. It no longer speaks to him. And given his level of expertise it shouldn't. There's nothing wrong with that. Does it warrant a rant? If it makes him feel better, that's great. And having followed Michio Kaku's progression in the media for the last 15 years, I bet he would say the same thing in response. What I would like to see from Assaf instead of a rant, however, is a formalized criticism of what he sees as errors in Kaku's book. Isn't that one way that science operates, going back to Leibniz and Newton?  Let me outline what is wrong about modern pop sci (in Assaf Tal's opinion):It is not trying to explain. It is not trying to make statements that are understood. It is not trying to link statements to real world. It is trying to fut-fill desire of reader to feel mystified. It is among other things using physics jargon without explaining its meaning.See my example about special relativity and the two kinds of pop sci video. It is not fictional example. I seen a lot of pop sci that just talks about four dimensions and flashes chalkboards with equations on the screen briefly (with no explanation and no context). On other hand a good science video that draws you Michalson-Morley experiment (simplified and idealized) and shows how speed of light is invariant, and how the Michalson-Morley interferometer (thingy with mirrors) has to be distorted to account for this, is conveying a lot of information both for adults and gifted children.I myself did explain bits of special relativity to interested people on occasions. I did always draw michalson-morley experiment and tell that it found speed of light to be constant despite earth's motion, and how this is very strange and makes light be totally unlike sound. Then i did draw classic 'light clock', and explained time dilation. No equations, no jargon at all, yet it was to some extent understood, with "aha that's how time goes slower".edit: by the way, science fiction is very relevant here. Note how in science fiction (especially b and c level science fiction), there is typically heavy use of jargon. Why, because the purpose is to convey impression that there is some science, rather than to explain something. Same goes for bad popular science.[Edited by - Dmytry on March 10, 2009 5:09:56 AM]