Are Pop Science Sources Reliable for Scientific Debates?

[nuuskur]

Pop science is, in my humble opinion, for entertainment. In my tiny world of mathematics I have learned from professionals and taught myself, I have encountered popular accounts on some things of interest.

\begin{rant}

A few examples:
Youtube videos that tell you trisecting an arbitrary angle with compass and straight edge is possible (and their proof is just a few examples DRAWN ON THE PAPER?!) (however, it's disproved long ago)
The ever so undying sum over $\mathbb N$ is equal to $-\frac{1}{12}$?!
In serious material, it is clearly stated the series representation of $\zeta (s)$ is valid only for $Re(s)>1$.

Then there is the famous misconception about ex falso quodlibet: from falsehood one may deduce anything. The statement $P\implies Q$ is trivially true if $P=0$, but then they go on to argue that $Q=1$. NO!
In every single textbook that touches on mathematical logic, at some point a certain deduction rule modus ponens is mentioned. Explicitly: $P, P\implies Q \models Q$. True statements may be inferred only from true statements.

Ah but this is so boring, there is no intrigue. It's much better to create controversy with false statements and have people believe sciences are a joke.

\end{rant}

 

[pinball1970]

How many people, including experts, amateurs and newbies, are currently members on this forum because of pop science?

I became interested in science because my mum bought me a chemistry set- there was no "pop science" in the 70s (that I was allowed to watch) Horizon a little later on.
I have been surprised at the bad press New scientist has been given but that’s one of the benefits of reading appraisals of this sort of thing on forums like this.
I am interested in physics, not a professional (scientist) and my critical thinking skills have been sharpened a little bit even in this short time posting on here.
Dr quantum (which I had never heard of) apparently is bad, I watched the double slit and did not hear anything Jim Al Kalili did not write in Quantum a guide for the perplexed so either I either I missed something, or “Pop science” has dumbed something down, just the sort of limitation or misleading information you are all talking about.

 

[ZapperZ]

Despite my trepidation, I'm going to go into this thread head on.

Let's get a few things straight here right off the bat:

1. Pop science books, at least the ones that I have read, can be an invaluable source to the general public to give them an idea or an overview of science in a particular field or area;
2. What is conveyed is NOT necessary what is received or understood. A source may be conveying something, but the person or audience receiving, reading, or hearing the message may actually get something different. Pop-science books, by their nature, have to explain concepts in physics often via examples or analogies. Because of this, what they are trying to convey often are misinterpreted or misread by the audience. Often times, the audience either understood something different, or missed the main point entirely. So here, the source is fine, but what is understood is faulty.
3. There are people who somehow have the impression that these pop-science books or sources are the FINAL WORD, i.e. there aren't anything deeper or requiring further understanding. They often have this delusion that they have fully understood these concepts and are thus able to "apply" them. Example: Deepak Chopra. He bastardizes QM without understanding the physics, simply based on the WORDS he read describing various aspects of QM. Again, in this case, the source is fine, but the audience misuse and misrepresent the completeness of the source.

So no, I often do not vilify pop-science books. I vilify people who misuse them, or using them for what they are not meant to.

Zz.