Discussion of PF Policy on Valid References

  • Thread starter AndreasC
  • Start date
In summary, the conversation revolves around the topic of pop science books and their validity as a basis for understanding science. One person argues that pop science is not a reliable source and suggests reading textbooks or peer-reviewed papers instead. Another person points out that not everyone has the background knowledge to understand these sources and defends the use of pop science as a starting point. The conversation also touches on the issue of asking questions about advanced topics and the importance of understanding the actual science rather than relying on simplified versions. Ultimately, the consensus is that while pop science can serve as an introduction to certain topics, it is not a substitute for studying the actual science through primary sources such as peer-reviewed papers.
  • #71
Are we "there?"
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #72
StandardsGuy said:
How many times in the history of science has the current understanding been wrong, only to be changed by future discoveries? Take the Big Bang theory for instance. The recent JWST discoveries have challenged that.
First, no it hasn't.

But PF's mission is not to teach The Truth. It's to teach science at is currently practiced and constituted. In 1986 had we been around, we would have said "supernova progenitors are thought to be red". In 1987 we would have changed our mind., So what?

But allowing crackpot sources is not going to fix that.
 
  • Like
Likes vanhees71

Similar threads

  • Feedback and Announcements
Replies
1
Views
693
  • STEM Career Guidance
Replies
12
Views
2K
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • Feedback and Announcements
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • Feedback and Announcements
Replies
3
Views
1K
  • Feedback and Announcements
Replies
31
Views
3K
Replies
3
Views
793
  • General Discussion
Replies
14
Views
1K
  • STEM Academic Advising
Replies
22
Views
4K
  • STEM Educators and Teaching
Replies
31
Views
4K
Back
Top