Scientists and pop sci

[Squawk 1200]

Do people with solid background in science (physics and math) enjoy pop-sci books, tv shows etc. or do they have a "oh my head hurts so much from that BS/oversimplification" type of reaction?

 

[swansont]

There is a certain amount of gag suppression that goes on when the explanation is poor. For me, at least.

[CharonY]

22 hours ago, swansont said:

There is a certain amount of gag suppression that goes on when the explanation is poor. For me, at least.

I think the main reason being that pop sci is more about providing an interesting narrative so that people have fun reading it. The educational part often feels like a poorly made add-on. Far too often the writing also betrays the lack of knowledge of the writer. In some ways topics that are far from one's area pf expertise are easier to stomach.

[swansont]

5 minutes ago, CharonY said:

I think the main reason being that pop sci is more about providing an interesting narrative so that people have fun reading it. The educational part often feels like a poorly made add-on. Far too often the writing also betrays the lack of knowledge of the writer. In some ways topics that are far from one's area pf expertise are easier to stomach.

I agree — they go for sensationalism, in a sense. I assume they get just as much wrong overall in articles on other topics, but I just don't know any better.

[studiot]

I don't think you can generalise about the subject at all, some are good, some are bad. Though I do think CharonY has nailed the basis of a good popsci book.

Authors are like the general population at large. A percentage have a good grounding in Science, others offer second hand knowledge from what they ahve been told, yet others just bullshit along.

Whatever their background some naturally want to tell a story ( the narrative of CharonY) and these provide many examples of superbly interesting and entertaining tests.

Others just churn the handle, and it shows. Very often the publisher relies on heavy promotion to boost this brand of author so these are unfortunately the ones in the public eye.

 

Most of us will have a main area of expertise, and may then welcome something a bit lighter in scientific areas that are peripheral to us individually.
I know I do. Geology is such a subject for me and I find that unless I am actually working to BS CP 2001 (Site Investigations) the dry pedantry of the geological language tiresome.

But I also like to be able to trust the author and I find that popularising books by recognised professors such as Mike Benton can bring the subject alive.

But it is also true for fiction that Jane Austen leaves me cold but i have read and reread C S Forrester books many times.
Yet others find that Austen was a great author.
So, I imagine, it also goes with popsci.
Others will have a different opinion

 

Edited October 3, 2017 by studiot

[Itoero]

I heard the science told in 'The Big Bang Theory' is +/- correct.

[Phi for All]

On 10/3/2017 at 10:41 AM, CharonY said:

I think the main reason being that pop sci is more about providing an interesting narrative so that people have fun reading it. The educational part often feels like a poorly made add-on. Far too often the writing also betrays the lack of knowledge of the writer. In some ways topics that are far from one's area pf expertise are easier to stomach.

A recent example was given in a black hole thread. "We can't observe what happens past the event horizon" was sensationalized as "Physics as we know it breaks down inside!" There's a bunch of misinformed implications in this, but there's also an assumption that the average pop-sci reader is driven to material that implies scientists are equally clueless about these things, and I find that sad. 

[pavelcherepan]

On 10/4/2017 at 8:35 PM, Itoero said:

I heard the science told in 'The Big Bang Theory' is +/- correct.

A lot of it, but as far as I remember on more than a few occasions explanations given for some science phenomena made me cringe.

[Itoero]

This reminds me of an episode in Friends where Phoebe talks with Ross about evolution.