How good is Brian Cox as a science communicator?

[DarkloidNeos]

I think this is the right place for this since the other threads don't seem like a good fit. So I found this video with him and Tyson:



(PS: the electron thing in the title is only at the 17:55 mark and it's more a one off comment, the title seems like clickbait too)

But I was watching it and I'm not sure how good of a communicator he is. I mean it seemed ok with him describing a couple of the things we are doing here with science and space travel but I've also heard him mention stuff like alternate dimensions and string theory and other stuff that was kinda questionable. Tyson I thought was good here even though physics isn't his wheel house.

But what's the verdict on Cox?

 

[pinball1970]

I think this is the right place for this since the other threads don't seem like a good fit. So I found this video with him and Tyson:



(PS: the electron thing in the title is only at the 17:55 mark and it's more a one off comment, the title seems like clickbait too)

But I was watching it and I'm not sure how good of a communicator he is. I mean it seemed ok with him describing a couple of the things we are doing here with science and space travel but I've also heard him mention stuff like alternate dimensions and string theory and other stuff that was kinda questionable. Tyson I thought was good here even though physics isn't his wheel house.

But what's the verdict on Cox?

I have not watched the video but I have seen him on other programmes.

One thing I do not like is that the BBC and other network’s roll these people out because they have decided people will watch the program/series if they present them.

Perhaps they look cool, have charisma, the camera likes them and that means people will watch.

Unfortunately, this means presenters can end up presenting out of their lane, lanes they have no direct expertise in.

Brian Cox is a physics researcher and lecturer so it could be worse, sometimes the TV stations go for comedians and actors whose science education ended at high school.

 

[PhDeezNutz]

Tyson I thought was good here even though physics isn't his wheel house.

I agree with OP. It's clear that physics is not NDGT's wheel house despite him being the most popular outwardly facing "physicist" of our era.

 

[DarkloidNeos]

I agree with OP. It's clear that physics is not NDGT's wheel house despite him being the most popular outwardly facing "physicist" of our era.

This is more about Cox in the video.

 

[weirdoguy]

He is terrible.

 

[DarkloidNeos]

He is terrible.

Really? But doesn't he have a degree in the field?

 

[AlexB23]

Is he worse than Michio Kaku' popular physics? When I was young, both of those guys were on different science channels on TV back in the early 2010s. Looking back on that, both seem more like pop stars over actual physicists. For instance, Michio Kaku predicted that by the 2020s, the word computer will not be a thing anymore.

"Around 2020, the price of a
chip may also drop to about a penny, which is the cost of scrap paper. Then we will have millions of chips distributed
everywhere in our environment, silently carrying out our orders. Ultimately, the word computer itself will disappear from the English language."

- Michio Kaku in Physics of the Future

TLDR: Do not trust popular science. Read the papers, or find science textbooks.

 

[weirdoguy]

But doesn't he have a degree in the field?

He has, so what? His pop-science is terrible. Most pop-science is terrible.

 

[DarkloidNeos]

He has, so what? His pop-science is terrible. Most pop-science is terrible.

That includes the video I linked?

I know Michio Kaku is kinda...out there as far as people go. He's said some pretty wild things.

 

[Hornbein]

I once heard Michio Kaku hold forth on quantum computing on television. He spoke with confidence but it was totally wrong. He didn't know the most basic things.

 

[PhDeezNutz]

I once heard Michio Kaku hold forth on quantum computing on television. He spoke with confidence but it was totally wrong. He didn't know the most basic things.

I know this thread is about Brian cox so I’ll make a post about him soon. But Neil is even worse. In defense of trans rights he said “maybe we are gender qubits”.

regardless of anyone’s stance the science behind sex vs. gender identity is much more complex than making a stupid quantum analogy.

D

Graduate Thread 'A night with the stars (Brian Cox on telly)'

Dec 19, 2011

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b018nn7l

I did enjoy Brian Cox's program on quantum mechanics last night, but one bit left me thinking "no, that's not right!".

The gist of it was that all the electrons in the universe have to be in constant communication to ensure that no two of them are ever in the same state. If he changed the energies of electrons in a diamond, by heating it in his hand, all the other electrons in the world would have to adjust their energies too.

I think this may have been an attempt to show that entanglement follows from the Pauli exclusion principle...

• dgwsoft
• Stars
• Replies: 123
• Forum: Quantum Physics

Here’s a thread from 2011 in which Brian Cox actually posted. He was taken to task on Quantum Entanglement.

 

[DarkloidNeos]

Here’s a thread from 2011 in which Brian Cox actually posted. He was taken to task on Quantum Entanglement.

I've read that he's not very good at actually defending the things that he says.

I know this thread is about Brian cox so I’ll make a post about him soon. But Neil is even worse. In defense of trans rights he said “maybe we are gender qubits”.

regardless of anyone’s stance the science behind sex vs. gender identity is much more complex than making a stupid quantum analogy.

Yeah a lot of the popular science communicators for some reason are REALLY bad when it comes to understanding trans people.

As for Cox he said here that gravity is the weakest force and we should call it dark gravity instead of matter:



Though to be blunt the channel I got these videos from is just clickbait. IT starts with a shocking thumbnail and title but the description is so...banal. I'm suspecting it's AI generated videos. On a side note how does one deal with clickbait in science? I know physics tends to have more of a problem with it than other fields.

 

[vela]

I agree with OP. It's clear that physics is not NDGT's wheel house despite him being the most popular outwardly facing "physicist" of our era.

Can you point out specific instances where you think he doesn't understand physics? In what little I've seen of him discussing topics in physics, I don't recall any instances where I thought he was wrong.

Yeah a lot of the popular science communicators for some reason are REALLY bad when it comes to understanding trans people.

To be fair, I'd say that's true of almost everyone I've heard discussing trans issues.

Here’s a thread from 2011 in which Brian Cox actually posted. He was taken to task on Quantum Entanglement.

I briefly went through that thread, but I didn't see where "he was taken to task." Can you point out where that happened in that thread?

 

[PhDeezNutz]

Here’s a clip of Neil conflating the uncertainty principle with the observer effect.

And while it’s true that most people don’t correctly understand trans issues…….the public voice of science has a responsibility not to spout nonsense. He doesn’t get a pass on “gender qubits”

In regards to cox. Maybe he wasn’t “taken to task” but Quantum Entanglement across the universe as presented in the show……..is dumb.

 

[DarkloidNeos]

Here’s a clip of Neil conflating the uncertainty principle with the observer effect.

I mean even I know that's not right.

 

[bob012345]

Is he worse than Michio Kaku' popular physics? When I was young, both of those guys were on different science channels on TV back in the early 2010s. Looking back on that, both seem more like pop stars over actual physicists. For instance, Michio Kaku predicted that by the 2020s, the word computer will not be a thing anymore.

"Around 2020, the price of a
chip may also drop to about a penny, which is the cost of scrap paper. Then we will have millions of chips distributed
everywhere in our environment, silently carrying out our orders. Ultimately, the word computer itself will disappear from the English language."

- Michio Kaku in Physics of the Future

TLDR: Do not trust popular science. Read the papers, or find science textbooks.

Regarding the use of the word computer, I think he’s basically correct. Digital devices have exploded everywhere but we don’t call them computers. I mean smartphones, smart tv’s, tons of electronics in cars, servers, data centers ect. The definition of ‘computer’ remains narrow while computation is exponentially expanding into everything. Also, he said ‘ultimately’ which I take to mean in the ultimate future, not strictly in the 2020’s.

Consider if we call $\gamma$ the ratio of things we call computers to things that compute, then $\gamma \rightarrow 0$ at least asymptotically.

 

[DEvens]

My problem with Cox is that during any talk he gives you can pretty much count on him turning to the audience and confidently proclaiming that he has just proved the only solution is for you to give more money and power to the govt. Climate change? More money and power to the govt. Eduacation? MMAPTTG. Medicine? MMAPTTG. Astronomy to zoology it's always, MMAPTTG.

 

[sophiecentaur]

My problem with Cox is that during any talk he gives you can pretty much count on him turning to the audience and confidently proclaiming that he has just proved the only solution is for you to give more money and power to the govt. Climate change? More money and power to the govt. Eduacation? MMAPTTG. Medicine? MMAPTTG. Astronomy to zoology it's always, MMAPTTG.

(what's MMAPTTG.? Google didn't help me.)

And Cox is doing his job to help maintain promote Science funding. It may not satisfy you guys but we have to put up with it.

PF members may not be aware that the purpose of Broadcasters (and Governments too) is to maintain their own existences. If Science programmes were tailored to suit 'all experts' then the experts might be glued to their screens but Joe Public would soon turn off (or nod off) and the slots would be filled with Reality TV and Games Shows.

I'd be very surprised if more than a handful of PF members can look at a legit Science Prog without learning of something new. And many of us would not spot those 'glaring errors' which have been pointed out above.

Note; I don't include the popular junk which you can find online which is not moderated or based on facts. Steer clear of that stuff.

 

[Astronuc]

what's MMAPTTG.?

MMAPTTG = more money and power to the government, i.e., benefactor/sponsor.

 

[pinball1970]

Brian Cox went to our government fairly recently over concerns w.r.t. science research funding cuts.
Jon Butterworth, Chris Lintott and Becky Smethurst were also in the group.

So Prof Cox gets the thumbs up from me to fight for UK
science research.

 

[sophiecentaur]

MMAPTTG = more money and power to the government, i.e., benefactor/sponsor.

Cup half full cup half empty. People who complain about taxes as a matter of principle should be aware what life in very low tax communities can be like. Whilst the way the government spends 'our' money may not please us in detail, in high tax Westerns 'democracies' the roads and the sewers are in reasonable repair and education tends to be free; etc. etc.. So the tax the government 'takes from us' is not necessarily swallowed up in a black hole. hated.

 

[Ken Fabian]

I think Cox does okay, but what he does isn't for me. These kinds of presenters are primarily entertainers and I expect production costs and deadlines - and the final say being producer-not-scientist - makes compromises that mean they aren't as accurate or as well crafted as they could be or even as accurate as people like Cox might have wanted. If education, not entertainment is the point the critique and input of educators - not university level ones but primary/secondary school level - might matter more than seeking to satisfy the leading experts.

I personally find doco's filled with gushing awe filled commentary with over-dramatic music - for things I usually already know about - irritating and hard to watch but I am not the intended audience.

 

[Astronuc]

Brian Cox went to our government fairly recently over concerns w.r.t. science research funding cuts.
Jon Butterworth, Chris Lintott and Becky Smethurst were also in the group.

So Prof Cox gets the thumbs up from me to fight for UK
science research.

Some colleagues are looking at job cuts and funding reductions at UK NNL.
https://prospect.org.uk/news/propos...nments-lofty-claims-for-nuclear-says-prospect

https://eandt.theiet.org/2026/07/03...over-future-particle-physics-and-early-career

The funding of pure science and scientific research is a related but separate topic to Brian Greene's ability to communicate about science and scientific research to the general public. Greene probably does an adequate job with colleagues/peers. I don't know about his representations to the public.

I see an issue with 'celebrity' scientists who drift outside of their area of expertise and perhaps exaggerate some areas of science.

 

[WWGD]

Cup half full cup half empty. People who complain about taxes as a matter of principle should be aware what life in very low tax communities can be like. Whilst the way the government spends 'our' money may not please us in detail, in high tax Westerns 'democracies' the roads and the sewers are in reasonable repair and education tends to be free; etc. etc.. So the tax the government 'takes from us' is not necessarily swallowed up in a black hole. hated.

It's not viewed this way by companies that are leaving the higher- tax states like NY, CA in mass. Higher taxes , like just about any other variable, have a diminishing return.

 

[WWGD]

I think Mathematician Ian Stewart, from Warwick, last I checked , is one of the few who does a good job toing the line between actual Mathematics and popularization.

 

[bhobba]

As a famous pop-sci celebrity, he is par for the course. He does raise public awareness about science, which is a plus. This may be because he was once an actual pop star. However, he is not even in the same class as his hero Feynman, who was a master communicator of science. To be fair, few are.

Thanks
Bill

 

[bhobba]

People who complain about taxes as a matter of principle should be aware what life in very low tax communities can be like.

I don't know if it's cultural, but here in Australia I know of nobody who complains about paying taxes (we are a very high tax-paying nation). Everyone recognises essential government services need to be paid for. The complaint often heard is, are we spending and raising the money efficiently? This touches on politics, which we do not discuss here, but an interesting case study is our NDIS scheme. For those interested, much of the information about the NDIS is freely available on the internet.

Thanks
Bill

 

[pinball1970]

Some colleagues are looking at job cuts and funding reductions at UK NNL.
https://prospect.org.uk/news/propos...nments-lofty-claims-for-nuclear-says-prospect

https://eandt.theiet.org/2026/07/03...over-future-particle-physics-and-early-career

The funding of pure science and scientific research is a related but separate topic to Brian Greene's ability to communicate about science and scientific research to the general public. Greene probably does an adequate job with colleagues/peers. I don't know about his representations to the public.

I see an issue with 'celebrity' scientists who drift outside of their area of expertise and perhaps exaggerate some areas of science.

Brian (Cox ;) is a TV personality to the vast majority of people outside of the scientific community (and some inside)

 

[sophiecentaur]

I think Mathematician Ian Stewart, from Warwick, last I checked , is one of the few who does a good job toing the line between actual Mathematics and popularization.

MAths is not Science and it is not evidence based (based on axioms) There are some nice entertaining topics which can be presented to a lay audience but it's more like party tricks. Only a tiny fraction of a TV audience is able to understand (at best, they've forgotten) the most elementary Calculus or Algebra so how are they to get their heads round a fraction of what modern mathematicians are up to. Different types of infinity are baffling but fun. etc. etc.

There is no equivalent in Maths of the images from JWST or Hubble, or the CERN detection of new particles.

Let's face it, the best Science TV is Natural History. We all still love Sir David in his denim shirts and Chris Packham is manoeuvring to take his place. Great value and the image quality is fantastic.

 

[WWGD]

MAths is not Science and it is not evidence based (based on axioms) There are some nice entertaining topics which can be presented to a lay audience but it's more like party tricks. Only a tiny fraction of a TV audience is able to understand (at best, they've forgotten) the most elementary Calculus or Algebra so how are they to get their heads round a fraction of what modern mathematicians are up to. Different types of infinity are baffling but fun. etc. etc.

There is no equivalent in Maths of the images from JWST or Hubble, or the CERN detection of new particles.

Let's face it, the best Science TV is Natural History. We all still love Sir David in his denim shirts and Chris Packham is manoeuvring to take his place. Great value and the image quality is fantastic.

Well, his books have sold out well. Ultimately a matter of taste.