Dumbing down of science for the general population

[HankDorsett]

I've only recently started my journey into physics. While on this journey I realized quite a bit of the dumb down scientific information given to the public may not have been completely accurate or presented in a way that resulted in an inaccurate understanding. Lately I've been spending most of my time trying to figure out what beliefs I've built up over the years are wrong.

I have a question for those that possesses a high level of scientific knowledge. Have you seen information for the public that was incorrect or presented in a way the general public would easily misunderstand it?

 

[.Scott]

There are endless examples.

One that comes to mind is the notion of Quantum Computing "supremacy". There really isn't any "supremacy" involved.

All it means is the point where a quantum computer is able to make a computation that cannot be done by a conventional computer. It doesn't mean that they will be able to do all computations better. A century from now, if I could only have either a classical computer or a quantum computer, but not both, I would choose the classical computer. It's the one that would give me web-access, let me do my taxes, provide office functions like word processing, etc. And it would also provide me with a front-end (user interface, project data storage, etc.) to a quantum computer - should I ever get one of those.

 

[russ_watters]

In the engineering realm, the "equal transit time" fallacy of airfoil lift is something of a favorite around here. I'm taking flying lessons as a hobby and my instructor invoked it when giving a lesson on how airplanes work.

I'm sure scientists have a bunch, but a common one is the name "big bang" evoking an explosion.

There are also obsolete theories that remain common, but I'm not sure that's really the same issue.

 

[fresh_42]

I have a question for those that possesses a high level of scientific knowledge. Have you seen information for the public that was incorrect or presented in a way the general public would easily misunderstand it?

It would be harder to list the others.

You have to make many, I mean really many compromises in order to explain a subject to a normal audience, which actually takes you years of study! I recently saw a tv show in which a physicist explained W- and Z-bosons in a quarter of an hour. You bet he used many simplifications and comparisons which wouldn't pass a stress test.

Another example is something as trivial as Aspirin. I have met an internist who said: "I would not take the least of it!" A small percentage of people have an idea of what he meant: "Aspirin attacks the stomach." However, even this is a really big simplification. Aspirin does nothing like that. What it does is to change the biochemical processes in the stomach and as a consequence the natural acid damages the gastric mucosa. A bad location for a hole.

The list could be endlessly extended. Kaku is entertaining and there is nothing wrong with it. However, it is just this: entertainment! You must not think that you learned something.

 

[BillTre]

Kaku is entertaining and there is nothing wrong with it. However, it is just this: entertainment! You must not think that you learned something.

It would be hoped that cases like this would provoke people to look more into the subjects that tweak their interest, but I'm guessing that is not usually the case.
I like it when podcasts have links for more info on the subject at the end for those who are interested.

 

[Andy Resnick]

It would be hoped that cases like this would provoke people to look more into the subjects that tweak their interest, but I'm guessing that is not usually the case.
I like it when podcasts have links for more info on the subject at the end for those who are interested.

This is one of my pet peeves- 'general interest' science news stories often start with a sentence like 'a recent study showed...', yet very rarely is a link or citation for the published study ever presented. That's true even for respectable science journalism, and it's unfortunate.

 

[Klystron]

Some of the worst offenders remove a science term from proper context then create misleading pseudo-science that almost seems correct. Uncertainty comes to mind along with error measurement.

The pseud reinterprets uncertainty to mean that nothing is certain, nothing can be known from science with certainty therefor science is just someone's opinion and the pseud's opinion is as good as anybody's. Rigorous measurements include error estimates thereby proving this misrepresentation / misunderstanding. If measurements include error than nothing can be verified with certainty. Almost makes sense to a layperson.

 

[Vanadium 50]

I was at a collaboration meeting where the spokesperson meant to say "Let's keep the complete discussion of the uncertainties in the paper". However, what he actually said was "Let's keep all the errors in the paper.".