I think popular science is ruining science

[Pengwuino]

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 !

 

[Integral]

I have made the distiction in the past. In Pop Sci books you learn ABOUT physics. This is not the same as learning Physics, which must be done in a real physics text.

Many crackpots come out of the Pop Sci books thinking that they acutually know physics.

 

[Mk]

I like to read popular science. Am I evil?

 

[Pengwuino]

I like to read popular science. Am I evil?

very, hold still while i fetch a priest

 

[Smurf]

The reason I decided not to study physics was because I didn't think I could handle the math parts.

*shrug*

 

[recon]

Well, a good pop sci book could inspire you to learn Physics. :)

 

[arildno]

I don't think the situation would have been any better if there weren't any pop sci books at all.
In that case, science would have appeared to the general public even more strongly than today as magical, incomprehensible mumbo-jumbo.

I'm not sure if that would have been more preferable than the current situation.

 

[inha]

Pop. sci. is a necessary evil. The popularization is needed to justify the funding we get. Unfortunately it usually goes wrong and implies that all there is to physics is cosmology and focuses more on the why part, which we know nothing of, instead of the how part which we know very thoroughly. In addition this leads me to losing my nerves very often since every time some half friend finds out that I'm a physicist they start going off about black holes and the deep mysteries of the universe and ignore every other field of physics.

 

[tribdog]

If it wasn't for popular science books we wouldn't have that amazing physics movie "What the bleep do we know?" Which really tells is like it is.

I know a girl who claims to love physics and quotes that movie as her favorite. She also loves David Blaine the magician. I told her I could levitate just like Blaine and she wanted to see. I showed her and she was amazed then I told her how to do it. She got mad and said "That's just a trick, I'm talking about REAL levitation" When I also told her that her favorite movie is just about the biggest load of crap I've ever seen she quit talking to me altogether.

 

[marlon]

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.

Well, let's eliminate such lack of knowlegde and join us to write the Physics FAQ-thread. Inthere, we try to answer some of the most common questions about physics (what is energy, what is a photon) in a very easy language.

Go check out the If i get one $ (or a Euro)"-thread in GD to see the list of questions we are tackling right now.

Let's make the world a better place...

regards
marlon

 

[Pengwuino]

Did you at least get it on with her before you broke her heart?

 

[Pengwuino]

The girl i was talken about... I am already incommunicado with her :P

 

[tribdog]

lol, no pengwuino, I did not "get it on" with her. While I do enjoy having sex with crazy or handicapped people I draw the line at stupid.

 

[Gale]

how do you levitate?

 

[zoobyshoe]

In addition this leads me to losing my nerves very often since every time some half friend finds out that I'm a physicist they start going off about black holes and the deep mysteries of the universe and ignore every other field of physics.

That's funny, cause I met a guy last year who'd read about black holes and was eager to explain them to anyone who'd listen. People are really attracted to, and hung up on, any aspect of physics that proposes spectacular effects. It's a sublimated desire to believe in magic and mystical things.

 

[Treadstone 71]

The reason I decided not to study physics was because I didn't think I could handle the math parts.

Funny, the reason I decided to study math instead of physics was because I can't handle the labs. I HATE the labs.

I read "popularized" math books, though most that fall into this category are biographies, like "The Man Who Loved Only Numbers". I just got my hands on "God Created The Integers" which is a collection of original papers by some great mathematicians of all time, with commentary by Hawking. Fun read.

 

[scott1]

We need to have Physics Fourms the Magizine it whould be a perfect for somthing in between real physics and popular science

 

[SpaceTiger]

It was a popular science book (Cosmos) that was my primary source of inspiration for becoming an astronomer. Although they can clearly do damage, as several folks have already pointed out, I think the gains outweigh the losses. Perhaps if the popular science writers went out of their way to explain the purpose and utility of their books, their role as a source of crank science could be mitigated.

 

[Astronuc]

It was a popular science book (Cosmos) that was my primary source of inspiration for becoming an astronomer. Although they can clearly do damage, as several folks have already pointed out, I think the gains outweigh the losses. Perhaps if the popular science writers went out of their way to explain the purpose and utility of their books, their role as a source of crank science could be mitigated.

Ah! I presume that would be Carl Sagan, Mr. Billions & Billions. I remember his show (1980) and how he got people fired up about astronomy and space exploration.

https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0345331354/?tag=pfamazon01-20

I think the problem is that pop sci writers avoid any math, since the majority of people seem to recoil at having to understand physics in terms of formulas.

Perhaps if scientific journalists and pop sci writers wrote books along the lines of Richard Feynman's lectures in Physics, that might work, but I have strong doubts.

 

[-Job-]

It's common for people to downplay/ignore/be-unaware-of the difficulty of a given scientific field. It's a trap, and i think it's positive. Eventually people realize that it's not all as simple and pleasant as they once though but by then they may be in too deep and so they might continue to become respected professionals. In my opinion it's not about whether you come into physics because you are attracted to some of its most popular concepts, but whether you choose to continue and go farther once the going gets tough.

 

[SpaceTiger]

Perhaps if scientific journalists and pop sci writers wrote books along the lines of Richard Feynman's lectures in Physics, that might work, but I have strong doubts.

Although I loved those books, I think it's a bit of a stretch to expect to reach a wide audience with that much formalism. People want something they can read casually as a break. They want us to tell them stories, not explain to them concepts.

That's my impression, anyway. I know the majority of PFers don't fit this mold, but I doubt this forum would represent an unbiased sample of pop. sci. consumers.

 

[SpaceTiger]

In my opinion it's not about whether you come into physics because you are attracted to some of its most popular concepts, but whether you choose to continue and go farther once the going gets tough.

I don't see your point. I'm saying many folks wouldn't even have started were it not for popular science. I don't think any reasonable person would claim that these books are a solid foundation for a career in real science.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Ah! I presume that would be Carl Sagan, Mr. Billions & Billions. I remember his show (1980) and how he got people fired up about astronomy and space exploration.
https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0345331354/?tag=pfamazon01-20

I think the problem is that pop sci writers avoid any math, since the majority of people seem to recoil at having to understand physics in terms of formulas.
Perhaps if scientific journalists and pop sci writers wrote books along the lines of Richard Feynman's lectures in Physics, that might work, but I have strong doubts.

If pop science writers wrote like Feynman they wouldn't be pop.

I agree with Space Tiger. And not only pop science, in fact we have a space shuttle name Enterprise. Pop science inspires people to take an interest - both as a career and for public support. If the public didn't take an interest, much of the money that pays for science would disappear. So it can reasobably be argued that science depends on pop, and even bad science, in order to continue. So it is a bit like biting the hand that feeds you to wish this all away.

There is another aspect to all of this. Not everyone agrees on what is and is not credible or real. In fact, much of so called pop science is written by leaders in the field, while lesser mortals pull out their hair in protest.

Edit: My first Chem professor believed that some pop science books allows real scientists to exchange and explore new ideas - that this has replaced the fireside cigar and brandy.

 

[-Job-]

I don't see your point. I'm saying many folks wouldn't even have started were it not for popular science. I don't think any reasonable person would claim that these books are a solid foundation for a career in real science.

I think you misunderstood. I was saying that IMO it's all right for people to start physics with popular literature as long as they take it farther and go past the stage of speculation.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

In fact, although driven as much by practical concerns as anything else, I think PF has gone too far in this respect. I believe that there has always been a role for math-free, dreamy inspiration, for young, soon to be scientists. In fact I have wondered what the result of this will be; that is, the social and intellectual impact that the internet now has on the world of science. Many young people now seem immersed in an analytic, sterile, deductive cynicism that was once reserved for older people. And dreamers do play an important role in science.

 

[SpaceTiger]

I think you misunderstood. I was saying that IMO it's all right for people to start physics with popular literature as long as they take it farther and go past the stage of speculation.

You're right, my mistake.

In fact, although driven as much by practical concerns as anything else, I think PF has gone too far in this respect. I believe that there has always been a role for math-free, dreamy inspiration, for young, soon to be scientists. In fact I have wondered what the result of this will be; that is, the social and intellectual impact that the internet now has on the world of science.

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.

 

[turbo]

Many young people now seem immersed in an analytic, sterile, deductive cynicism that was once reserved for older people. And dreamers do play an important role in science.

Thank you! Unquestioning acceptance of long-held and long-taught beliefs is very unhealthy. Rote learning does not encourage independent evaluation and reaffirmation of old ideas, and there is a real danger in telling kids "You've got to learn all this 'by the book' until you get to this level, and then maybe you can contribute something." The danger, in the vernacular, is "If you keep doing what you've been doing, you're going to keep getting what you've got." Every once in a while, we have to review long-held beliefs and see if they are supportable, or if perhaps they were once useful, but perhaps not set in stone.

http://www.physicstoday.org/vol-58/iss-12/p34.html

And look at the bottom of this page for Einstein's thoughts on epistemology, as a memorium to Ernst Mach.
http://open-site.org/Science/Physics/Modern/

 

[SpaceTiger]

Rote learning does not encourage independent evaluation and reaffirmation of old ideas, and there is a real danger in telling kids "You've got to learn all this 'by the book' until you get to this level, and then maybe you can contribute something." The danger, in the vernacular, is "If you keep doing what you've been doing, you're going to keep getting what you've got." Every once in a while, we have to review long-held beliefs and see if they are supportable, or if perhaps they were once useful, but perhaps not set in stone.

How does one review long-held beliefs without first understanding them? A "dreamer" is not necessarily lazy or uneducated in mainstream science. If one wishes to challenge the establishment, they should first learn how it works. That means, basically, learning things "by the book" until you have a deep enough understanding to challenge it. Trying to do so before you have this understanding is simply a waste of everyone's time.

I fully agree with what Einstein says in the links you give, but I certainly don't see him as advocating uneducated speculation. Quite the opposite, in fact, I read it as a request that scientists learn more about the theories they propose. Specifically, understanding and questioning the philosophical underpinnings of a theory can guide one in testing, modifying, or extending it.

 

[Astronuc]

My first Chem professor believed that some pop science books allows real scientists to exchange and explore new ideas - that this has replaced the fireside cigar and brandy.

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.

 

[Astronuc]

How does one review long-held beliefs without first understanding them? A "dreamer" is not necessarily lazy or uneducated in mainstream science. If one wishes to challenge the establishment, they should first learn how it works. That means, basically, learning things "by the book" until you have a deep enough understanding to challenge it. Trying to do so before you have this understanding is simply a waste of everyone's time.

I fully agree with what Einstein says in the links you give, but I certainly don't see him as advocating uneducated speculation. Quite the opposite, in fact, I read it as a request that scientists learn more about the theories they propose. Specifically, understanding and questioning the philosophical underpinnings of a theory can guide one in testing, modifying, or extending it.

Hear, hear! Exactly!

One needs to understand the fundamentals in order to move in the right direction and to move the state-of-the-art ahead.

One of the biggest challenges in engineering and applied science/physics is pushing the limits, working within the 'natural' constraints.

One can be a very practical realist, yet also be a dreamer.

 

[turbo]

How does one review long-held beliefs without first understanding them? A "dreamer" is not necessarily lazy or uneducated in mainstream science.

I did not suggest that anybody who is imaginative is lazy or uneducated. Why did you say that?

If one wishes to challenge the establishment, they should first learn how it works. That means, basically, learning things "by the book" until you have a deep enough understanding to challenge it. Trying to do so before you have this understanding is simply a waste of everyone's time.

Really! Where do you draw the line? Do you insist that everybody accept everything positied by Maxwell, or everything posited by Mach, or everything posited by Einstein, or are there some evolutionary branches that you might be willing to lay open to interpretation?

I fully agree with what Einstein says in the links you give, but I certainly don't see him as advocating uneducated speculation. Quite the opposite, in fact, I read it as a request that scientists learn more about the theories they propose. Specifically, understanding and questioning the philosophical underpinnings of a theory can guide one in testing, modifying, or extending it.

"Uneducated speculation"? Are you willing to admit that someone outside conventional cosmology might have a clue about what is driving the universe?

 

[Evo]

Really! Where do you draw the line? Do you insist that everybody accept everything positied by Maxwell, or everything posited by Mach, or everything posited by Einstein, or are there some evolutionary branches that you might be willing to lay open to interpretation?

I think you are over-reacting to what Space Tiger said. He said

If one wishes to challenge the establishment, they should first learn how it works. That means, basically, learning things "by the book" until you have a deep enough understanding to challenge it. Trying to do so before you have this understanding is simply a waste of everyone's time.

How do you jump to your conclusion that he suggested "that everybody accept everything positied by Maxwell, or everything posited by Mach, or everything posited by Einstein"? I don't see that.

"Uneducated speculation"? Are you willing to admit that someone outside conventional cosmology might have a clue about what is driving the universe?

Again, you are not listening to what he said

Specifically, understanding and questioning the philosophical underpinnings of a theory can guide one in testing, modifying, or extending it.

I love cosmology and perhaps I know the secrets of the universe, however, with nothing more than a casual knowledge of the subject, the likelihood of me guessing correctly is "astronomical".

 

[SpaceTiger]

I did not suggest that anybody who is imaginative is lazy or uneducated. Why did you say that?

You said:

...there is a real danger in telling kids "You've got to learn all this 'by the book' until you get to this level, and then maybe you can contribute something."

Not learning what the books have to say would seem to be the definition of "uneducated".

Really! Where do you draw the line? Do you insist that everybody accept everything positied by Maxwell, or everything posited by Mach, or everything posited by Einstein, or are there some evolutionary branches that you might be willing to lay open to interpretation?

Nothing in the passage you quoted made reference to acceptance of past theory, only to understanding of it.

"Uneducated speculation"? Are you willing to admit that someone outside conventional cosmology might have a clue about what is driving the universe?

That depends on what you mean by "outside of conventional cosmology". If you mean they haven't learned anything about conventional cosmology, then they almost certainly don't have a clue. If they've learned it (and understand it) but have alternate theories about the universe, then that would seem to be exactly the kind of dreamer both myself and Einstein are supporting.

In my experience, the majority of "alternate theories" come from people who don't understand the conventional ones. 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.

 

[SpaceTiger]

...I love cosmology and perhaps I know the secrets of the universe, however, with nothing more than a casual knowledge of the subject, the likelihood of me guessing correctly is "astronomical".

Exactly. Thank you, Evo.

I just don't like the idea of treating scientific theories as a matter of preference. If one gets the idea to challenge the establishment before they learn about it, then I would wonder about the basis of their objection. If the basis for it was a matter of preference, philosophical prejudice, or personal vendetta, then from the scientific point of view, they really would be guessing.

 

[zoobyshoe]

How does one review long-held beliefs without first understanding them? A "dreamer" is not necessarily lazy or uneducated in mainstream science. If one wishes to challenge the establishment, they should first learn how it works. That means, basically, learning things "by the book" until you have a deep enough understanding to challenge it. Trying to do so before you have this understanding is simply a waste of everyone's time.

Exactly. If you don't understand what someone has said, you aren't in a position to know if you agree or disagree with them. There's no point in trying to dream up improvements to physics until you have a solid understanding of where and why improvements might be warranted.

 

[Pengwuino]

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

 

[Aether]

How does one review long-held beliefs without first understanding them? A "dreamer" is not necessarily lazy or uneducated in mainstream science. If one wishes to challenge the establishment, they should first learn how it works. That means, basically, learning things "by the book" until you have a deep enough understanding to challenge it. Trying to do so before you have this understanding is simply a waste of everyone's time...That depends on what you mean by "outside of conventional cosmology". If you mean they haven't learned anything about conventional cosmology, then they almost certainly don't have a clue. If they've learned it (and understand it) but have alternate theories about the universe, then that would seem to be exactly the kind of dreamer both myself and Einstein are supporting...In my experience, the majority of "alternate theories" come from people who don't understand the conventional ones. 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...I just don't like the idea of treating scientific theories as a matter of preference. If one gets the idea to challenge the establishment before they learn about it, then I would wonder about the basis of their objection. If the basis for it was a matter of preference, philosophical prejudice, or personal vendetta, then from the scientific point of view, they really would be guessing.

This sounds biased toward incrementalism. What if a new cosmological theory originates from someone "working" at a particle accelerator? They may not start out with much knowledge of conventional cosmology at all, but they have an equation that works within their lab and they want to extrapolate it to primordial nucleosynthesis, for example. 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.

 

[ZapperZ]

This sounds biased toward incrementalism. What if a new cosmological theory originates from someone "working" at a particle accelerator? They may not start out with much knowledge of conventional cosmology at all, but they have an equation that works within their lab and they want to extrapolate it to primordial nucleosynthesis, for example. 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.

But in my experience, when another physicist tries to make a contribution into another field other than his own expertise, it is usually done very respectfully. This means that that person already has done his/her homework in that area, and that the area that he is doing research in already has a built in overlap. Cosmology IS already done in particle collider experiments and theory. Lisa Randall, for example, does cosmology, particle physics, and string theory. And Bob Laughlin has published papers regarding emergent phenomena of elementary particles and cosmology. No one would walk up to either of them and say "Hey look, you only read pop-science books on cosmology. Why don't you do your homework first before sticking your noses into this?"

That, to me, is the major difference between professionals in this field making incursions into another area, versus that done by amateurs. We respect the field and each other areas way to much to do things out of ignorance, and we also spent almost a lifetime building our own reputation to be taken seriously by our peers. It doesn't take much to ruin that.

Zz.

 

[Aether]

Cosmology IS already done in particle collider experiments and theory.

Yes, and the folks at Argonne National Lab (ANL) just happen to be the ones who generated the "standard code" for primordial nucleosythesis; way to go ANL!

No one would walk up to either of them and say "Hey look, you only read pop-science books on cosmology. Why don't you do your homework first before sticking your noses into this?"...That, to me, is the major difference between professionals in this field making incursions into another area, versus that done by amateurs.

I'm not defending anyone who is armed only with pop-science books on cosmology.

We respect the field and each other areas way to much to do things out of ignorance...

Do what "things" out of ignorance? Think? Motivated exploration?

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

how do you levitate?

http://www.free-card-tricks.net/blainelev1.html

 

[turbo]

Not learning what the books have to say would seem to be the definition of "uneducated".

Not true. The ability to read the books and spout the contents of such on demand does not demonstrate an understanding of the material. Such a student may be "educated" by your standards, but memorization and obedient acceptance is rather antithetical to the goals of science.

That depends on what you mean by "outside of conventional cosmology". If you mean they haven't learned anything about conventional cosmology, then they almost certainly don't have a clue.

Right now, conventional cosmology requires you to believe six impossible things before breakfast every day (thanks to L.C.). If you think that one must become an expert in that arcane puzzle factory before questioning its validity, you are missing the point of epistemology entirely. When a theory becomes very complex, highly constrained, and requires lots of fine-tuning, that should be a sign that there are some problems. When the problems stretch back for decades (like DM), that is a sign that flaws in the theory predate the discovery of the problem, and that the resolution of the problem requires re-examination of earlier assumptions.

In my experience, the majority of "alternate theories" come from people who don't understand the conventional ones. 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.

Ah, yes - pay your dues, learn the secret handshake, cross Pons Asinorum, and then you are qualified to have an original thought. Have you reviewed the history of the sciences? If you have, you know that breakthroughs have come from all quarters, and from people with a wide variety of backgrounds. It is probably convenient to dismiss out-of-hand any ideas that come from someone out of the mainstream, but you might miss some good opportunities to learn something that way. Even proving an idea wrong can give you a better understanding of what is likely to be right.

 

[tribdog]

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

Ahh, the cockroach approach. Lay a billion eggs and hopefully one of them will actually survive

 

[ZapperZ]

Yes, and the folks at Argonne National Lab (ANL) just happen to be the ones who generated the "standard code" for primordial nucleosythesis; way to go ANL!

I don't see what is the relevance of this thing to the thread.

I'm not defending anyone who is armed only with pop-science books on cosmology.

No, but your question on some particle physicist doing cosmology and starting out not having "... much knowledge on conventional cosmology..." seems to make comparison with everyone else who also do not have such knowledge - that, after all, is the original premise of the OP, no? I make a distinction between those two camps and say that there IS a difference in approach and respect, even if that particle physicsts didn't start off being a cosmologist. And we're ignoring the fact here that many aspect of physics are interrelated and have explicit connection.

Do what "things" out of ignorance? Think? Motivated exploration?

No, doing work in another field of study.

Zz.

 

[tribdog]

Popular science books are not ruining anything. They give enjoyment to everyday people and they let people get a better understanding of the world around them. So what if they don't have the math, Joe Blow isn't going to be working on a unification theory in his spare time anyway. Most pop sci books are at least giving a true version of theory even if they don't give the entire story. My grade school science classes didn't stimulate me into learning more nearly as much as Kip Thorne's Black Holes and Time Warps.

 

[Moonbear]

Not true. The ability to read the books and spout the contents of such on demand does not demonstrate an understanding of the material. Such a student may be "educated" by your standards, but memorization and obedient acceptance is rather antithetical to the goals of science.

SpaceTiger said someone needs to learn the material. That's quite different from rote memorization and regurgitation of material. He has also stated already that understanding is NOT the same thing as acceptance. As others have pointed out, if you do not know what the current theory really says, and understand it fully, how do you know where the problems are in it to challenge it?

Right now, conventional cosmology requires you to believe six impossible things before breakfast every day (thanks to L.C.). If you think that one must become an expert in that arcane puzzle factory before questioning its validity, you are missing the point of epistemology entirely. When a theory becomes very complex, highly constrained, and requires lots of fine-tuning, that should be a sign that there are some problems. When the problems stretch back for decades (like DM), that is a sign that flaws in the theory predate the discovery of the problem, and that the resolution of the problem requires re-examination of earlier assumptions.

Well, I know nothing of cosmology, but if what you say is true, then understanding those assumptions is what gives you the power to question them. If you don't understand them, how do you know to go back and re-examine them?

Ah, yes - pay your dues, learn the secret handshake, cross Pons Asinorum, and then you are qualified to have an original thought. Have you reviewed the history of the sciences? If you have, you know that breakthroughs have come from all quarters, and from people with a wide variety of backgrounds. It is probably convenient to dismiss out-of-hand any ideas that come from someone out of the mainstream, but you might miss some good opportunities to learn something that way. Even proving an idea wrong can give you a better understanding of what is likely to be right.

Why are you so bitter here? SpaceTiger didn't say anything to indicate formal education was the ONLY way to reach that goal, just that it makes it easier to gain acceptance because you've already gone through a documented process to show you really have learned what you needed to learn. If you haven't taken that route, then you're going to need to put more effort into proving yourself. It doesn't mean you can't learn a theory well enough to challenge it, it just means you're probably going to take a lot more time to do it and will have to spend more time convincing others you have the necessary background to propose what you do.

 

[Aether]

I don't see what is the relevance of this thing to the thread.

It is only relevant because I gave an example of "cosmological theory originates from someone "working" at a particle accelerator", and "they have an equation that works within their lab and they want to extrapolate it to primordial nucleosynthesis", and then you (an employee of ANL) said "Cosmology IS already done in particle collider experiments and theory". That was simply meant as a pat on the back to the good folks at ANL, but I'll have to take it back anyway (sorry)...I just checked and it was Fermilab not ANL.

No, but your question on some particle physicist doing cosmology and starting out not having "... much knowledge on conventional cosmology..." seems to make comparison with everyone else who also do not have such knowledge - that, after all, is the original premise of the OP, no?

Cosmology probably intersects every other discipline at some point, and it's OK if someone having skills in a different area approaches cosmology from such an intersection.

I make a distinction between those two camps and say that there IS a difference in approach and respect, even if that particle physicsts didn't start off being a cosmologist. And we're ignoring the fact here that many aspect of physics are interrelated and have explicit connection.

"Those two camps" being: 1) those skilled in something/anything which intersects cosmology, and 2) those skilled in nothing (yet)?

No, doing work in another field of study.

Do you mean trying to publish something in another field of study? If/when your work/skills intersect another field of study, then surely you're entitled to pursue that wherever it might lead.

 

[Astronuc]

Before anyone posts anything else - please reflect on what Evo and Moonbear have mentioned.

Also, I think Integral put it succinctly

In Pop Sci books you learn ABOUT physics. This is not the same as learning Physics, which must be done in a real physics text.

I wouldn't say that Pop Sci books/literature has 'ruined' science, because science and the scientific method are what they are, regardless of what anyone 'believes'.

In my profession, having gone through the basics, and having done loads of calculations and analyses, I know where the holes are - and there are a lot. But people inside and outside the nuclear industry have either lofty ideas about nuclear energy, or quite the opposite, skepticism and even deep cynicism. I find that somewhat frustrating - but I don't let that ruin it for me.
I love what I do!

 

[ZapperZ]

It is only relevant because I gave an example of "cosmological theory originates from someone "working" at a particle accelerator", and "they have an equation that works within their lab and they want to extrapolate it to primordial nucleosynthesis", and then you (an employee of ANL) said "Cosmology IS already done in particle collider experiments and theory". That was simply meant as a pat on the back to the good folks at ANL, but I'll have to take it back anyway (sorry)...I just checked and it was Fermilab not ANL.

1. ANL is a multi-displinary laboratory. It has a particle accelerator, but no particle collider. So someone from here involving in astrophysics and cosmology is not unusual. In fact, we have frequent seminars on cosmology in just my division alone.

2. It has a large portion of the high-energy physics division member that do work at Fermilab

3. It is run by U. of Chicago, and many of its scientists having adjunct position as faculty members there. And I'm you know that U of C is THE top school in astrophysics and cosmology - the legacy of David Schram.

4. And this is my pet peeve, particle accelerator is not equal to particle collider. I work at a particle accelerator, but we get no where near anything resembling cosmology. Particle collider are what high energy physicists use.

Cosmology probably intersects every other discipline at some point, and it's OK if someone having skills in a different area approaches cosmology from such an intersection.
"Those two camps" being: 1) those skilled in something/anything which intersects cosmology, and 2) those skilled in nothing (yet)?
Do you mean trying to publish something in another field of study? If/when your work/skills intersect another field of study, then surely you're entitled to pursue that wherever it might lead.

I don't think I've said anything to the contrary. However, if I am trying to contribute something that I think is "new", then I must first go look at the literature on the subject matter and verify that (i) no one has done it already (ii) it is something silly (iii) it isn't something "important" (remember, just because something is interesting, doesn't mean it is important) and (iv) it hasn't been falsified.

In other words, *I* have to do my own homework! I will have to scour through the literature, talk to people who are expert in the field, etc... etc. I don't just read pop-science books, or even intro textbooks to accomplish this!

I come from a condensed matter background, and about 3 years ago, I was hired but in a different field of study - accelerator physics. I spend almost 2 years catching up on it, studying stuff that I need to know in this new field, and even attending a couple of accelerator physics schools that is offered all over the place periodically. So *I* am living through the very thing most people simply describe via analogy or speculation. I know what it takes for someone from a different background to make a meaningful contribution in another field. This isn't a theory for me. It is real life. And I will state without hesitation that if someone wish to not look silly, it is imperative to put in the effort to understand the subject matter first before trying to sell something.

Zz.

 

[Aether]

However, if I am trying to contribute something that I think is "new", then I must first go look at the literature on the subject matter and verify that (i) no one has done it already (ii) it is something silly (iii) it isn't something "important" (remember, just because something is interesting, doesn't mean it is important) and (iv) it hasn't been falsified.
In other words, *I* have to do my own homework! I will have to scour through the literature, talk to people who are expert in the field, etc... etc. I don't just read pop-science books, or even intro textbooks to accomplish this!

Yes, but even before you would ever get to steps (i-iv) there would have to be some incubation period within your own mind during which you would try to gather together every conceivably relevant notion (to be sorted through in due time). Nevertheless, I'm only talking about science, not pop-science.

I know what it takes for someone from a different background to make a meaningful contribution in another field. This isn't a theory for me. It is real life. And I will state without hesitation that if someone wish to not look silly, it is imperative to put in the effort to understand the subject matter first before trying to sell something.

OK, but you seem to be only talking about the "back-end" of the scientific process where someone steps up to a microphone to tell everyone like it is. I'm thinking of the entire process from start to finish.

 

[turbo]

Popular science books are not ruining anything. They give enjoyment to everyday people and they let people get a better understanding of the world around them. So what if they don't have the math, Joe Blow isn't going to be working on a unification theory in his spare time anyway. Most pop sci books are at least giving a true version of theory even if they don't give the entire story. My grade school science classes didn't stimulate me into learning more nearly as much as Kip Thorne's Black Holes and Time Warps.

True, and books by Paul Davies, James Gleick, and other talented authors may inspire people to dig much deeper once they appreciate the sense of wonder that the authors have regarding their subjects.