How good is Brian Cox as a science communicator?

[sophiecentaur]

Well, his books have sold out well.

That's great - a double whammy, in fact and a win win situation. However, that doesn't address the problem which some posts on this thread have brought up - namely the accuracy of the Science on very popular media outputs.
One could argue that the fact that a lot of published and transmitted information about Science is dodgy is irrelevant. It's only at the level of Peers that this matters. Given a few years, the corrections will diffuse through. Very few people would sit through a set of lectures at PhD level.

 

[WWGD]

That's great - a double whammy, in fact and a win win situation. However, that doesn't address the problem which some posts on this thread have brought up - namely the accuracy of the Science on very popular media outputs.
One could argue that the fact that a lot of published and transmitted information about Science is dodgy is irrelevant. It's only at the level of Peers that this matters. Given a few years, the corrections will diffuse through. Very few people would sit through a set of lectures at PhD level.

Yes, it keeps the flame of interest alive, and may lead them to the next level of actually taking a college level class? But, yes, I get the Pope ( I think it was), quote, about a little knowledge being a dangerous think, and Dunning - Krieger , but, hey, in an imperfect world, not such a bad option.

 

[FactChecker]

MAths is not Science and it is not evidence based (based on axioms)

If you have any counterexamples to the accepted mathematical axioms, please let us know.

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.

Pure math is pure until it is used; then it is suddenly appreciated. A lot of math was motivated by the need to understand physics. These days, a lot of modern physics theories are motivated by the mathematics.

 

[sophiecentaur]

then it is suddenly appreciated.

i.e. when we have found a working model

A lot of math was motivated by the need to understand physics.

We really don't need an apologist for Maths but, as it's based on axioms, it doesn't need measurements to 'prove' that it applies. Anything that crops up in Maths is part of Maths.

But Maths is much too hard for most of us and most of us just have to accept the results of a clever bit of maths, bearing in mind that our maths is not 'everything' because it has to be b ent to fit what we observe. (Though what about the idea that if you go in deeper and deeper, you arrive at a load of Qbits which could be when maths actually ties in with our world. (I think I got that from one of those TV shows that the thread started with - so don;t hold me to it.)

 

[pinball1970]

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.

They roll him out for pretty much everything.

 

[bhobba]

MAths is not Science

That's an old discussion. Feynman certainly agreed with you.

My counterexamples are that mathematical physics is a branch of mathematics, and Witten did get a Fields Medal.

Thanks
Bill.

 

[pinball1970]

There are worst people taking about science on TV than Brian Cox is my conclusion.
He is also a good sport.

 

[bhobba]

They roll him out for pretty much everything.

Just for context, Malcolm Roberts here in Aus is well known as a bit of a loose cannon. Surprisingly, he actually is a qualified engineer. Another interesting 'character' is Professor of Geology Ian Plimer:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ian_Plimer

That said, I can assure everyone that climate change deniers are actually rare in Australia. The discussion is one of the economics of how to tackle it.

Believe me, that leaves plenty of room for lively 'debate'.

Thanks
Bill

 

[FactChecker]

our maths is not 'everything' because it has to be b ent to fit what we observe.

I disagree. Mathematics is based on logic derived solidly from the axioms and stated assumptions. The logic is not "bent" to fit observations. Neither are the axioms. Math is intentionally made agnostic of the applications, so that it is abstract enough to apply to anything that fits the stated assumptions.

ADDED: I suspect you are referring to the math models of physical properties, whereas I was thinking about the mathematics itself. In that, I agree with you. The math models are often loose approximations of the truth.

 

[bob012345]

They roll him out for pretty much everything.

One of the things that sparks public skepticism is when scientists with expertise in one area use their authority to make pronouncements in another area where they are not experts.

 

[FactChecker]

One of the things that sparks public skepticism is when scientists with expertise in one area use their authority to make pronouncements in another area where they are not experts.

If their "pronouncements" are just relaying the best knowledge of experts in the field, is that OK?
If so, they should just make it clear where their statements are coming from (and not misquote).
Unfortunately, experts are trained to use accurate terms like "theory", "indicates", etc., which are not definitive and leave room for skeptics.

 

[Herman Trivilino]

In general I find Brian Cox unimpressive and boring.

 

[Muu9]

Climate change? More money and power to the govt. Eduacation? MMAPTTG. Medicine? MMAPTTG. Astronomy to zoology it's always, MMAPTTG.

Well this makes sense to me since the government is largely responsible for and leading the way on these issues. If I wanted a better iPhone, for example, naturally that would require more money and power to Apple.

 

[berkeman]

Thread has pretty much run its course, so it will now be closed. Thanks folks.