I think popular science is ruining science

[Ivan Seeking]

PF is very fact-driven. Given the medium, I think it was inevitable that it would turn out this way. For an academic, being right is like the ultimate status symbol, so many posts turn into a banter about the details of a particular point. This is not so good if you're looking to be inspired, but it's an excellent place to go if you're looking for the hard facts. I suspect this type of competition is exactly what makes the scientific method so successful in the first place.

I think PF fills a niche that can be useful to professionals and amateurs alike, but it would be unfortunate if we actually discouraged many of the dreamier folks. I suppose that's why we have moderators like yourself to keep people in line.

Yes, I didn't like the way that sounded. There are practical considerations that make it so; that is, that we can't allow wild speculation and imagining, etc. If I could figure out a better way to manage the reality of internet science and keep things under control, I would certainly speak up, but I do fully support what PF has done. We have tightened things up a lot over the last few years, many valuable new members like you have joined, and I for one am proud of everyone has accomplished.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

I am more of a beer and frisbee with Mexcian food at the beach person, although a nice dinner followed by some nice single malt Scotch, say an 18 or 25 yr old Macallan and 10 or 15 yr Glenmorangie, would be excellent!
Perhaps some young folk may seem immersed in an analytic, sterile, deductive cynicism, but I don't think that is necessarily the case.
When I was in grade school, besides reading encyclopedias for fun, I read real science books devoted to topics in physics and mathematics. I seem to remember one equation on general relativity, which I probably read when I was 10-11, and rather than be initimidated by it, I was inspired to try to understand it, and that meant learning calculus. Unfortunately, no one around me could help, not my parents and not my high school teachers. I finally got to study calculus in grade 12, but I had wasted a lot of time by then. I also read texts on cosmology, astrophysics, particle physics, plasma physics, etc., but I had no guidance.
I also read biographies of physicists, many of whom were Nobel prize winners, and I was inspired by their curiosity and tenacity at tackling problems.
By the time I finished high school, I found pop sci literature rather irritating.

I did much the same thing. I started reading my dad's college physics books around age ten or so... I used to watch Star Trek, and I guess Lost in Space might be included, but I guess Cosmos might have been my first exposure to so called pop science as well. But I think we need to clarify what we mean by pop science. Do we mean books by Hawking...Sagan...Kaku...Gleick...Wolf? I find that the definition tends to float according to personal preferences. Or, do we mean anything that is not purely academic material. Or, do we mean anything that is based on personal opinion rather than experimental results? By some standards, one might argue that the philosophical prologues in my QM books are pop science.

 

[SpaceTiger]

If I dig up some rare dinosaur bones while weeding my garden, does that make me a "dreamer"?

That depends on you, doesn't it?

Yep. Thus,

Penzias & Wilson had no aspirations to change cosmology when they made their observations, so it would seem to be irrelevant to what turbo and I were talking about.

Penzias & Wilson are just an example of how someone can be led to a frontier of cosmology by questions arising within their own seemingly unrelated field.

As best I can tell, nobody is or was disagreeing with this point. What exactly is your goal here?

Had they not hooked-up with Dicke, Peebles, Roll, & Wilson, they might just as easily have gone to a research library and inquired into cosmology for themselves. A cursory literature search should have turned up Dicke, Beringer, Kyhl, and Vane, Phys. Rev., 70, 340, 1946. I don't have that paper, but (Dicke et al., 1965) seems to suggest that everything may have been laid out in there if Penzias & Wilson had simply bothered to look.

That's right, they would have to have learned about the subject, exactly what I've been saying all along. The point of my posts was to discourage "scientific" debates based on philosophical prejudice and pure opinion. There are many folks who, believe it or not, feel the need to attack theories that, sometimes by their own admission, they don't understand. I don't see any relation between this and the accidental discovery of Penzias and Wilson.

 

[Aether]

As best I can tell, nobody is or was disagreeing with this point. What exactly is your goal here?...they would have to have learned about the subject, exactly what I've been saying all along.

You said:

If someone demonstrates that they do indeed have a thorough understanding of mainstream theory, then I will lend an ear. The nice thing about going through the traditional academic route is that one doesn't have to do much convincing. By getting a degree and a good job, they've already validated themselves...

And I said:

This sounds biased toward incrementalism. What if a new cosmological theory originates from someone "working" at a particle accelerator?

Since then we have agreed (I think) that a "thorough understanding of mainstream theory...a degree and a good job" aren't a prerequisite to making a meaningful contribution to a field, particularly if someone approaches the field with knowledge (or data) gained from some other field. The amount of understanding required depends on the circumstances.

The point of my posts was to discourage "scientific" debates based on philosophical prejudice and pure opinion. There are many folks who, believe it or not, feel the need to attack theories that, sometimes by their own admission, they don't understand.

OK. I am not encouraging ""scientific" debates based on philosophical prejudice and pure opinion" or the "many folks who, believe it or not, feel the need to attack theories that, sometimes by their own admission, they don't understand" in general; although adversarial debate isn't always bad.

I don't see any relation between this and the accidental discovery of Penzias and Wilson.

I pointed specifically to "someone "working" at a particle accelerator" as an example:

This sounds biased toward incrementalism. What if a new cosmological theory originates from someone "working" at a particle accelerator?

rather than to the " many folks who, believe it or not, feel the need to attack theories that, sometimes by their own admission, they don't understand". Penzias & Wilson are real-life examples to discuss instead of the anonymous "someone "working" at a particle accelerator".

 

[tribdog]

wow, I just don't have the energy or in inclination to do multiple quotes like all these posts. does that make my tiny comments look insignificant? Or is insignificance pretty much implied by my being the poster?

 

[Aether]

wow, I just don't have the energy or in inclination to do multiple quotes like all these posts. does that make my tiny comments look insignificant? Or is insignificance pretty much implied by my being the poster?

No, I'm still trying to figure out what you mean by a "white, dielectric material".

 

[tribdog]

lol, thanks for asking.
that's what Penzias and Wilson called the pigeon droppings they thought was causing the noise that turned out to be the CBR

edit:see how well that fit into the conversation, AND you learned something new and interesting. I keep telling everyone my posts aren't simply for my own entertainment. They have a value all their own.

 

[Aether]

lol, thanks for asking.
that's what Penzias and Wilson called the pigeon droppings they thought was causing the noise that turned out to be the CBR

Ohh, good one!

 

[SpaceTiger]

You said: And I said:Since then we have agreed (I think) that a "thorough understanding of mainstream theory...a degree and a good job"

Ok, first of all, that's an extremely unethical use of quotations because it implies I said that "a degree and a good job" are necessary to make a contribution. This is clearly not what I said or meant.

Second of all, no, I haven't agreed that people can make a meaningful contribution to a field without "a thorough understanding of mainstream theory". We already agreed that Penzias and Wilson would have to have obtained an understanding of Big Bang Theory in order to write the paper describing the meaning of their results. The observations in of themselves do not represent a development of cosmological theory. I thought we had already agreed on that as well.

If all you're saying is that people with no knowledge can make discoveries that end up being significant, then you're pushing a triviality. If that's all that is important to your argument, I think you're missing the point of this thread. A responsible (and, generally, a successful) scientist does not submit a theoretical paper without first understanding its context.

 

[Aether]

Ok, first of all, that's an extremely unethical use of quotations because it implies I said that "a degree and a good job" are necessary to make a contribution. This is clearly not what I said or meant.

How is it "extremely unethical" when the same quote in full context is presented immediately before? I'm merely trying to narrow down the precise issue that prompted my first post (and what I thought we were in agreement on) since you keep asking about that.

Second of all, no, I haven't agreed that people can make a meaningful contribution to a field without "a thorough understanding of mainstream theory". We already agreed that Penzias and Wilson would have to have obtained an understanding of Big Bang Theory in order to write the paper describing the meaning of their results. The observations in of themselves do not represent a development of cosmological theory. I thought we had already agreed on that as well.

Penzias & Wilson would have to have obtained something of an understanding of CMB, not including density perturbations, not nucleosynthesis, etc.. The material contained within (Dicke et al., 1965) summarizes everything that they would have needed to know in about four pages! That is the distinction that I am drawing between a "thorough" understanding of mainstream theory (e.g., all of cosmology), and a subset of all cosmology. I agree that they would have needed to have a thorough understanding of that subset of mainstream theory that they were presenting in a paper had they chosen to do so; but not a thorough understanding of all of mainstream cosmology, not a degree in cosmology, and not a job in cosmology. My apologies if I haven't made this clear before now.

If all you're saying is that people with no knowledge can make discoveries that end up being significant, then you're pushing a triviality. If that's all that is important to your argument, I think you're missing the point of this thread. A responsible (and, generally, a successful) scientist does not submit a theoretical paper without first understanding its context.

That is not all I am saying, but my point is a simple one that I think we can agree on.

 

[Aether]

Finally, one of my babies has grown into an adult thread :)

We now return you to your regularly scheduled adult programming...

 

[FeynmanMH42]

Popular Science books are cheap, but textbooks are expensive.
Most pop sci books are around £10. The average textbook is around £30.
The best pop sci book I've seen (Roger Penrose's The Road To Reality) is something like £40.
I don't think that textbooks are greater than popular science though!
At school I'm being forced to "learn" things from textbooks that I learned from popular science books at about six years old.
And textbooks are strict, they tell you what to learn and how old you should be on learning it. You have a wide choice of popular science books to read at any age at all. I find it sick that I'm not supposed to know what quantum mechanics is.

And physics education is getting worse. Nowadays science in schools is getting vocational, based on "real life." Fair enough if you want to be a cook or something, but you need physics if you actually want to be a physicist!
Science education is not progressing as fast as the other subjects, it's sick, wrong, and evil.
Students should be taught physics, not how to keep your home warm.

 

[ZapperZ]

Popular Science books are cheap, but textbooks are expensive.
Most pop sci books are around £10. The average textbook is around £30.
The best pop sci book I've seen (Roger Penrose's The Road To Reality) is something like £40.
I don't think that textbooks are greater than popular science though!
At school I'm being forced to "learn" things from textbooks that I learned from popular science books at about six years old.
And textbooks are strict, they tell you what to learn and how old you should be on learning it. You have a wide choice of popular science books to read at any age at all. I find it sick that I'm not supposed to know what quantum mechanics is.
And physics education is getting worse. Nowadays science in schools is getting vocational, based on "real life." Fair enough if you want to be a cook or something, but you need physics if you actually want to be a physicist!
Science education is not progressing as fast as the other subjects, it's sick, wrong, and evil.
Students should be taught physics, not how to keep your home warm.

I don't know how old you are, or what you are majoring in. But in case you end up going to college and, heaven forbid, end up with a degree in physics, I would like to suggest you copy what you have written here, save it, and then look at it THEN to see how SILLY you were when you wrote this.

Zz.

 

[FeynmanMH42]

I don't know how old you are, or what you are majoring in. But in case you end up going to college and, heaven forbid, end up with a degree in physics, I would like to suggest you copy what you have written here, save it, and then look at it THEN to see how SILLY you were when you wrote this.
Zz.

... OK, I haven't got a degree in physics in the past few hours :tongue2: but I do see that that was an incredibly silly thing to post, I'm sorry. I probably didn't express myself well.
If I wasn't planning on going to college or getting a degree in physics I wouldn't be here.
I think I'm out of my depth on these forums... everyone's older than me and they all seem to have a degree in physics...
Can anyone suggest any books for someone who wants to learn physics,
rather than learn about it?
Or do I have to wait four years?

 

[Plastic Photon]

I do not have a degree of science, I am a freshman at a junior college going for a BS in chemistry. I have read two popular science books completely, but I never read them for any pursuit of knowledge about science or to learn science. I read them to better understand the history around two events. One book was Making of The Atomic Bomb and the other Leon Foucalt's Pendulum. There was information about science, but like others have stated no formulas. IN fact of the two books I can only remember something about sin0 something or another in the book about Foucalt.

WHy I read them? I always enjoy watching HC specials on the Manhattan Project so I figured why not and I read the book on FOucalt because the museum in my town has such a pendulum and I thought why not. Plus it was summer and I was bored.

I also read pop sci magazines such as Popoular Science and Scientific American. I try to read some journals such as the editor's choices in Science, but much of the reading in the journals is above my head.

 

[Aether]

Can anyone suggest any books for someone who wants to learn physics, rather than learn about it? Or do I have to wait four years?

There isn't anything at all wrong with learning about physics as long as you realize that it isn't the same thing as learning physics per se. Even after you learn physics, you will probably still want to watch tv programs, read pop-sci books & magazines, etc. to learn about biology, the brain, UFOs, volcanoes, earthquakes, tsunamis, dinosaurs, etc...see?

To learn physics, all you have to do is take physics and math in school and do your best. If you're not ready for a class, you can still get the book for a future class that you think that you might want to take in the future and skim through it on your own if you want.

 

[Plastic Photon]

My bad, I didn't give feedback to the statement...

Hard to say, many of my friends are not very interested in science. Many are focused on BBA, Law and Pharmacy. In fact I helped a friend out to pass Intro to IngChem. Besides, those with a pursuit and an interest in science should be able to distinguish the differences between pop sci publications and science publications.

I am a member of a forum (ATS) where people frequently post information on their latest permanent magnet motor concepts, free energy devices they want to buy, how Newtonian mechanics is flawed, how to achieve FLT, etc. My best guess tells me that many of these folks have read pop sci publications and feel they have received an education equivalent to a modern physics class. Then again a lot of it is just good ole layman discussion.

Maybe people not pursuing and education in sciences like to read and learn about science but do not like reading and learning science. Learning science would mean learning math, and 'math is hard' according to certain Matel toy products.

 

[Mindscrape]

Well, on one hand it may be good if popular science refashions science into a more accepting light. Still, popular science seems to ignore large chunks of what makes science our most viable form of truth, including the scientific method, and a distinction between theory and law.

I'm new by the way, hello all.

 

[SpaceTiger]

How is it "extremely unethical" when the same quote in full context is presented immediately before? I'm merely trying to narrow down the precise issue that prompted my first post (and what I thought we were in agreement on) since you keep asking about that.

It's very poor form to piece together a quote in a way that makes it appear to have an alternate meaning. I'm sure the majority of forum-goers don't even read these pointless debates, let alone go back and review all of the proper context for quotations.

Penzias & Wilson would have to have obtained something of an understanding of CMB, not including density perturbations, not nucleosynthesis, etc.. The material contained within (Dicke et al., 1965) summarizes everything that they would have needed to know in about four pages! That is the distinction that I am drawing between a "thorough" understanding of mainstream theory (e.g., all of cosmology), and a subset of all cosmology.

So you really thought that, by "thorough understanding of mainstream theory", I was referring to everything in mainstream science? I find that a little hard to believe. In fact, in one of my first responses to you:

People need to understand whatever it is they're trying to challenge.

Yet you continued to push. Why?

 

[tribdog]

Well, on one hand it may be good if popular science refashions science into a more accepting light. Still, popular science seems to ignore large chunks of what makes science our most viable form of truth, including the scientific method, and a distinction between theory and law.

I'm new by the way, hello all.

actually I don't think there is much of a difference between theory and law, other than semantics. The theory of Evolution is just as true as Boyle's Law neither of which are as good as the Theory of Relativity.

 

[Aether]

It's very poor form to piece together a quote in a way that makes it appear to have an alternate meaning. I'm sure the majority of forum-goers don't even read these pointless debates, let alone go back and review all of the proper context for quotations.

Perhaps. No harm intended.

So you really thought that, by "thorough understanding of mainstream theory", I was referring to everything in mainstream science? I find that a little hard to believe. In fact, in one of my first responses to you: Yet you continued to push. Why?

I agreed with you by saying that "At some point they need to come to an understanding of this", and added "but this doesn't necessarily have to be a starting point. Penzias & Wilson had data, and then figured out what to make of it." Is that what you mean by "continued to push"? My intention there was simply to recognize that a person may need to challenge something as part of the process of their coming to an understanding of it.

 

[SpaceTiger]

My intention there was simply to recognize that a person may need to challenge something as part of the process of their coming to an understanding of it.

I'm not sure what you mean here. I'm not saying I necessarily disagree with you, but I wonder if you could clarify what you mean by "challenge". I do think that it helps understanding to consider how things would be if the accepted explanation were not true, but that's more of a personal thing. Surely you must agree that a public challenge is inappropriate at this stage in the learning process.

 

[Aether]

I'm not sure what you mean here. I'm not saying I necessarily disagree with you, but I wonder if you could clarify what you mean by "challenge". I do think that it helps understanding to consider how things would be if the accepted explanation were not true, but that's more of a personal thing.

I think that you introduced the word "challenge" when you said:

People need to understand whatever it is they're trying to challenge.

So bear in mind that I had to guess at what you meant by that. To me the word encompasses everything from initial skepticism, to active probing/testing, to debates with peers (and others), and finally to "formal and public challenge".

Surely you must agree that a public challenge is inappropriate at this stage in the learning process.

I stipulated to that in my first post with respect to a "formal and public challenge":

If what you mean by "challenge the establishment" is a formal and public challenge, then I agree that it is better if one comes to an understanding of what they are talking about first. Otherwise, people have to be generally free to explore in the mean time.

What I intended by limiting this to "formal" and public challenges is simply to recognize the value of open debate, including informal discussions at PF of course.

 

[SpaceTiger]

I think that you introduced the word "challenge" when you said:So bear in mind that I had to guess at what you meant by that.

The fact that I used the word "challenge" in a previous post is largely irrelevant to your intended meaning here. I already know what I meant by it (and I'll be happy to elaborate if you so desire), but you weren't quoting that passage of my post. The question I was asking is what you were trying to communicate. Your explanation is...

To me the word encompasses everything from initial skepticism, to active probing/testing, to debates with peers (and others), and finally to "formal and public challenge".

...What I intended by limiting this to "formal" and public challenges is simply to recognize the value of open debate, including informal discussions at PF of course.

That sounds an awful lot like you aren't saying anything. Your definition of challenge seems to include everything anyone could have meant by the word, and yet you say you don't agree with "formal and public challenge" in the early stages of learning. Do you have any other caveats to your support of "challenges" to mainstream theory?

If you have a deeper meaning here, I'm genuinely curious to know it, but all of your explanations so far have been either vague or trivial. Of course I value "open debate". Who doesn't? Of course people can make accidental discoveries that turn out to be significant. Of course you don't need to know about mainstream molecular biology to make an advance in galactic dynamics. Nobody was disputing these things and I don't see how you could have read our posts to be doing so. If you think you have a genuine disagreement, please make it known. Otherwise, I don't see the point of this discussion...

 

[Pengwuino]

Grrrr there's more of these people coming in and arguing with only popular science knowledge!

I think we need to standardize a response for these people that basically tells them to go away until they read a BS degrees worth of physics and math textbooks if they are trying to argue against the appropriately studied members of the board.

 

[Moonbear]

Grrrr there's more of these people coming in and arguing with only popular science knowledge!

I think we need to standardize a response for these people that basically tells them to go away until they read a BS degrees worth of physics and math textbooks if they are trying to argue against the appropriately studied members of the board.

We do have a standardized response. We tell them to submit to the Independent Research forum if they are trying to argue things that are non-mainstream. If they are just here to learn, then we have no problem with people of any educational background joining in.

 

[Pengwuino]

We do have a standardized response. We tell them to submit to the Independent Research forum if they are trying to argue things that are non-mainstream. If they are just here to learn, then we have no problem with people of any educational background joining in.

No no, its not people who have actual real theories... its these people who read 2 or 3 popular science books but can barely spell 'electromagnetic' who just knoooooooooow they're right about special relativity being wrong.

 

[Moonbear]

No no, its not people who have actual real theories... its these people who read 2 or 3 popular science books but can barely spell 'electromagnetic' who just knoooooooooow they're right about special relativity being wrong.

Yes, that's why the IR forum is moderated and threads need to be approved.

 

[Pengwuino]

Yes, that's why the IR forum is moderated and threads need to be approved.

:uhh: :uhh: you need to hop around the physics area more often to see what I am talken about :tongue2:

 

[Aether]

So you really thought that, by "thorough understanding of mainstream theory", I was referring to everything in mainstream science? I find that a little hard to believe. ...Of course you don't need to know about mainstream molecular biology to make an advance in galactic dynamics. Nobody was disputing these things and I don't see how you could have read our posts to be doing so.

No, not at all. I said:

That is the distinction that I am drawing between a "thorough" understanding of mainstream theory (e.g., all of cosmology), and a subset of all cosmology.

 

[ComputerGeek]

I think we've all noticed this on this forum and I swear I'm noticing this in real life! I'm finding these people who have read all these popular science books where equations are not at all used and try to act like they really understand or know or like physics. For example, this one girl I use to talk to... 1st semester in a classical mechanics intro series class... 1st calculus semester.. etc etc... would try to argue with grad students over various subjects...when even after a whole semester of CM, could not do projectile motion problems and really did not even understand the actual equations being used. I have a feeling she's going to drop the major once she hits (or in this case, it hits her) upper division e/m and I really do think its because she does not appreciate the mathematical aspect of physics and I think popular science books can be to blame! Or at least, the way people read them as if they were what physics majors read in classes.
These people make me nuts !

All through HS I read nothing but Pop Physics books (Kaku got me started) and that got me wanting to be a theoretical Physicist :-)...

Well, I then found out in College all the crappy physics classes I had to take in order to even have a chance to become a TP... screw that, I decided Math was a faster rout because I would have the mathematical knowledge to apply to teh pop sci books then and could look at some of that stuff.

I have come to realize that Math is the only true way however :-D

 

[Nereid]

Well, on one hand it may be good if popular science refashions science into a more accepting light. Still, popular science seems to ignore large chunks of what makes science our most viable form of truth, including the scientific method, and a distinction between theory and law.

I'm new by the way, hello all.

And a warm welcome to Physics Forums, Mindscrape!

Perhaps there are some popsci books that do justice to the scientific method? Certainly most, in my experience, convey at least some aspects, if only indirectly (the need to ground theories in good observations/experiments, for example). Personally, I think a greater 'gap' in popsci is math - how does the urban myth go? "for every equation in the book, the expected sales will fall by 50%"? I'm all for wildly successful good popsci authors (and there plenty, not only wrt physics - anyone ever read a book by Steven Jay Gould?), but the glossing over of the math that's a core part of today's physics is problematic (IMHO). After all, there are also quite successful 'popsci' books on math, so it must be within the realm of possibility to creatively convey the awe and wonder of physics and astronomy while at the same time inspiring readers concerning math.

Just my €0.02's worth.

 

[Aether]

If you have a deeper meaning here, I'm genuinely curious to know it, but all of your explanations so far have been either vague or trivial...If you think you have a genuine disagreement, please make it known. Otherwise, I don't see the point of this discussion...

There is no deeper meaning here. When you said:

If the particle physicist wanted to go and apply it to cosmology, they would have to learn a few things about primordial nucleosynthesis, crunch the numbers, and give us a new helium abundance (again, for example). If it turned out that this new number was inconsistent with measurements, then we might require fundamental modifications to cosmology. If the same experimenter wanted to do this, they would have to continue studying, developing a more complete picture of standard cosmology. Then maybe they could write a paper with a new theory of the origin of the universe.

and I agreed with you, then my original question was answered.

 

[Mattius_]

Didn't get a chance to read all seven pages, but...

Please do have sympathy for those of us who cannot understand the mathematics needed to be a physicist. The only way I satisfy my curiosity is by reading about conceptual physics. I don't read mags or watch movies or read fiction on science, but I do read conceptually based physics books. Basically all of the non-math books that famous scientists publish.

On the other hand, I do see your point for the reason that I have to deal with the same stuff in my philosophy field. When I took Metaphysics, the non introductory class, 60% of the class time was devoted to the "what ifs" of popular movies like The Matrix. I was a freshman then so I didnt have the courage to appeal to the instructor about it, but basically, our time could have been much better spent talking about less ridiculous and more logically based theories.

 

[Mk]

When I took Metaphysics, the non introductory class, 60% of the class time was devoted to the "what ifs" of popular movies like The Matrix. I was a freshman then so I didnt have the courage to appeal to the instructor about it, but basically, our time could have been much better spent talking about less ridiculous and more logically based theories.

Hah a ha, well you signed up for metaphysics, not physics.