I think popular science is ruining science

[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.

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

 

[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 the 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.

 

[Nereid]

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.
[snip]

There's a real quandry lurking here ... how do you keep with weak math abilities informed (and, if possible, engaged) in modern physics?

Sure there's still some new stuff in classical physics, and one can appreciate (special) relativity at some level without the math, but general relativity is tough, and no one 'gets' quantum weirdness without the math (well, if Feymann said he didn't/couldn't, ... ).

So are there ways to provide some insights, without actually doing the math (and also doing more than just say 'well, if you do the math, you'll see that it all comes out right = matches what we observe')?