An observation regarding pop sci books

[robertjford80]

I've read a lot of pop sci books, paul davies, lawrence krauss, leonard susskind, stephen hawking and in just about all of them the first few chapters start out real easy, almost too easy, say on a 10th grade level, then they jump up rapidly to say a 3rd or 4th year college level towards the end. Has anyone else noticed this?

 

[NewtonianAlch]

I don't believe you.

 

[patrickd]

I believe that the more advanced topics require math for a deep level of understanding. The language in which the concepts exist is, after all, mathematics. Since pop-sci authors are nearly always dissuaded by their editors from including math, they are left to use human language to explain that for which human language is insufficient.

 

[nitsuj]

I believe that the more advanced topics require math for a deep level of understanding. The language in which the concepts exist is, after all, mathematics. Since pop-sci authors are nearly always dissuaded by their editors from including math, they are left to use human language to explain that for which human language is insufficient.

I'll never grow tired of calling that mind set none sense.

It is merely concepts. Yes with language, in particular English, it is difficult to introduce new concepts. It is, as evidenced by lack of math in the "easier to understand" pop sci books better to use language, as opposed to using math to convey the concepts.

Easier still is to identify commonly known concepts and use an analogy to extend that to the new concept being introduced. Ability to do this in my opinion demonstrates a [STRIKE]strong[/STRIKE] deep understanding of whichever concept is being "reduced". By what other means do we "deeply understand" any particular concept. Such as the term understanding (wanna try and strictly define "understanding" without any other concepts?).

lol "deep level of understanding"