Insights The Complexity of Modern Science - Comments

[gjonesy]

Quibbling over the scientific accuracy of the popularizations misses the point. Popularization is perhaps the most important part of a public relations campaign needed to convince the public that science is something that should be funded. Public statements (and private attitudes) by scientists that make them sound more like a priesthood or an over class, rather than public servants harm the cause of science.

Thank you, Its important to take science to the public, it helps to promote its virtue. Saying modern science is to difficult for laypeople or religious people or anyone is a back handed insult to the populous.

The thing is that mythbusters remains in the realm of "everyday, all around us" science.
They explain what they expect based on mechanics (including drag).

Yeah and the young people who like that show are probably going to grow up to be the next generation of scientist. That's a good thing.

 

[Hornbein]

That is completely wrong, at least for serious scientific disciplines. Science is all about checking results, most of the time is spent on this. And it works. In physics, nearly every experiment gets repeated, often multiple times, and reproducibility is very high.People thinking this should open their eyes.

You misunderstand me. What you are saying is completely true. But... did you personally drop weights to check Galileo's results? Have you set up a telescope and collected data to verify Kepler's laws? Did you perform your own version of the Stern-Gerlach experiment? Of course not. It is not practically possible to verify even 0.0001% of scientific results your self. The results must be accepted or rejected based on faith and consistency with what one already believes.

If someone else verifies the result then you may or may not have faith in that check. There is no getting out of this. One simply does one's best under the limitations imposed by nature.

 

[Hornbein]

Yeah and the young people who like that show are probably going to grow up to be the next generation of scientist. That's a good thing.

Kids in grade school could do experiments with magnets and rubber bands and stuff. I'd do it myself if it were convenient.

 

[mfb]

Thank you, Its important to take science to the public, it helps to promote its virtue. Saying modern science is to difficult for laypeople or religious people or anyone is a back handed insult to the populous.

The details are often too complex for anyone who does not want to spend years to learn them, which means all apart from scientists working on that topic. We cannot change that, science for the public (or even for other scientists working on different fields) has to get simplified. The question is how, and how can we make clear that the presented things are simplified descriptions of the underlying science.

But... did you personally drop weights to check Galileo's results?

Sure.

Have you set up a telescope and collected data to verify Kepler's laws?

No, but I derived them from Newtonian physics, and I know thousands of scientists checked both Newtonian physics and the derived Kepler laws in countless independent measurements.

Did you perform your own version of the Stern-Gerlach experiment?

No, but I saw someone doing it live.

I don't need faith to trust experiments verified by multiple independent groups, getting consistent results. Most of those scientists performed the experiments much better than I could.

 

[Hornbein]

The details are often too complex for anyone who does not want to spend years to learn them, which means all apart from scientists working on that topic. We cannot change that, science for the public (or even for other scientists working on different fields) has to get simplified. The question is how, and how can we make clear that the presented things are simplified descriptions of the underlying science.

I don't need faith to trust experiments verified by multiple independent groups, getting consistent results. Most of those scientists performed the experiments much better than I could.

I agree with you completely and I do things pretty much the same way myself. But we aren't talking about Us. We're talking about Them.

I don't think the complexity of modern science has anything to do it. Galileo had it much worse than do We and his experiments were simple enough. Complexity isn't the problem. Human psychology and the realities of politics with its vigorous pursuit of self-interest are the problem. These aren't going to go away any time soon.

You saw Stern-Gerlach live? I'm jealous. But this puts you in a microscopically tiny minority.

 

[gjonesy]

The details are often too complex for anyone who does not want to spend years to learn them, which means all apart from scientists working on that topic. We cannot change that, science for the public (or even for other scientists working on different fields) has to get simplified. The question is how, and how can we make clear that the presented things are simplified descriptions of the underlying science.

I was referring to science as a whole, sure certain fields can't be presented in a meaningful way without simplification. And even misinformation for those of us who are curious enough to ask "the right people" ...case in point ( Oklo-phenomenon )... can be very insightful and understandable for laypeople. Had it not been for you and others I'd still be wondering how a nuclear chain reaction could happen in nature without certain conditions being met. I understand it, and I learned from it. Surely you see the value in things of this nature.

 

[anorlunda]

The details are often too complex for anyone who does not want to spend years to learn them, which means all apart from scientists working on that topic. We cannot change that, science for the public (or even for other scientists working on different fields) has to get simplified. The question is how, and how can we make clear that the presented things are simplified descriptions of the underlying science.

I agree. But if science is growing more complex, that means that a growing portion of the scientific budget must be diverted to explanations. The duty to explain yourself to the public should be mandatory for anyone seeking public funding. That becomes very difficult when it means laying off a researcher to make room for a populist.

Wikipedia is an example. Here on PF and elsewhere, I hear numerous complaints and whining about Wikipedia's flaws. But if we had 100,000 scientists spending 5 hours per week on Wikipedia, they could overwhelm the 10,000 or so obnoxious WIki editors. They might be able to change Wikipedia's rules and hopefully improve the value of WIkipedia for the public benefit. Lawyers are expected to devote a non-trivial fraction of their personal time to pro bono work. Would it be so bad to establish an analogous ethic for scientists to devote 5 hours per week to public education or projects like Wikipedia?

 

[JorisL]

I just came across this article at forbes [Title: What Are Quantum Gravity's Alternatives To String Theory?].
It can use some simplification or expansion (e.g. quantization is hard to grasp for someone that hasn't heard much about QM).
I do think it's a good a start.

 

[jerromyjon]

I just came across this article at forbes.

I have no idea what that link was pointing towards... I did have to paste the link in edge to open it without pop-up blocker so I don't know if that affected it.

 

[jerromyjon]

Yeah and the young people who like that show are probably going to grow up to be the next generation of scientist

And the few who dislike the show because the "Laymen's Myths" focal point covers such a shallow, narrow fraction of science will be the ground-breakers. Don't get me wrong, explosions and projectiles up to the size of vehicles and such is cool and interesting but there is such a greater magnitude of sense of awe to be held for physics which most people might have had barely a brief acquaintance with very few points. For example how many people have seen an interference pattern of light with their own eyes? I can think of many such startling phenomenon which most people don't even know what is so amazing about it if you show them and you'll never see 99% of it of on "TV" if people continue to watch television.

 

[mfb]

For example how many people have seen an interference pattern of light with their own eyes?

Rainbows, soap bubbles and CDs all show interference effects (although it is not trivial to get a real spatial pattern there - it is possible with a CD) - but how many know the connection to interference?

 

[JorisL]

For example how many people have seen an interference pattern of light with their own eyes?

Almost of them, for example oil on a shallow puddle, soap bubbles, ...

Edit:
Ninja'd

 

[jerromyjon]

Almost all of them, for example oil on a shallow puddle, soap bubbles, ...

I mean a double-slit pattern... as simply an example as there are many. I prefer the optical effects of steep temperature gradients to soap bubbles any day, just saying.

 

[mfb]

I mean a double-slit pattern...

Take a CD, cover everything apart from some small part with something non-reflective, shine light on it, and you can see at least the central and the first side-maximum. The second one is tricky as the pitch is only 1.6 micrometers and the "slits" in the diffraction grating are quite wide compared to those 1.6 micrometers.

Anyway, we also made good double-slit patterns in school, and again in university.

 

[gjonesy]

And the few who dislike the show because the "Laymen's Myths" focal point covers such a shallow, narrow fraction of science will be the ground-breakers.

Just my 2 cents, the elitism attitude that some people display is astonishing. Where does this you can't because you are to simple attitude come from? Just exactly what is shallow and narrow about Newtonian physics? Which is what 99% of these Laymen's Myths are comprised of. Its the science that paved the way for everything else after it!

 

[S.G. Janssens]

Just exactly what is shallow and narrow about Newtonian physics?

This woke me up. I don't see where anyone said that?

 

[gjonesy]

And the few who "dislike" the show because the "Laymen's Myths" focal point covers such a shallow, narrow fraction of science will be the ground-breakers.

Correct me if I'm wrong, the implication I am reading here is that if you are interested in such science "Newtonian Physics" and anyone who has watched the show knows that the Mythbusters use tons of it, (plotting bullet trajectories, figuring out angles and speeds from slow motion footage ect.) then the "blanket statement" here is your mind is to simple for complex science. Reminds me of Sheldon lee Cooper talking down to Howard Wolowitz on Big Bang Theory.

 

[S.G. Janssens]

Correct me if I'm wrong, the implication I am reading here is that if you are interested in such science "Newtonian Physics" and anyone who has watched the show knows that the Mythbusters use tons of it, (plotting bullet trajectories, figuring out angles and speeds from slow motion footage ect.) then the "blanket statement" here is your mind is to simple for complex science.

Ah I see, thank you. Well, I did not read such a strong negative qualification of Newtonian physics in particular in that quote, but I would not have written something like that either. I agree very much that there is a lot of interesting science (and mathematics) hidden in everyday phenomena that can be understood using classical physics. (Indeed, a considerable fraction of the field of nonlinear dynamics was born out of the study of such phenomena.)

Reminds me of Sheldon lee Cooper talking down to Howard Wolowitz on Big Bang Theory.

Someone made me watch a piece of an episode of that show once. I found it boring and irritating.

 

[gjonesy]

Reminds me of Sheldon lee Cooper talking down to Howard Wolowitz on Big Bang Theory.

Someone made me watch a piece of an episode of that show once. I found it boring and irritating.

Then you will not get how funny and accurate that statement actually is...

 

[eltodesukane]

Reminds me of the book "String Theory For Dummies", which I read all in less than 1 hour.
One of the main goal of this book is "to avoid mathematics at all cost" (p.2).
To explain string theory to a non-specialist with an inquisitive mind is certainly a noble goal.
But when 1+2=3 is too much math already, not much can be done.

 

[Buzz Bloom]

I thought you might like to see a relevant comic strip.

http://www.gocomics.com/nonsequitur​

Regards,
Buzz

 

[Garlic]

I think the biggest problem is that people find it SO much easier to watch pop science on TV than to do any actual study of science, and you know how those shows get so much wrong. I think they do sometimes inspire young people to study but overall I'm not sure but what they do more harm than good and they certainly give those adults who are not likely to further pursue actual science a very poor view of actual science of the kind you talk about. The producers of the TV shows can't be blamed for this any more than McDonalds can be blamed for serving tasty junk food. People sell what other people buy and there are lots of buyers for junk food and junk science, especially since they LOOK so tasty, what with all the nifty graphics and tomato sauce and all.

The first thing we COULD do (and won't) would be to insist that people who teach science, at any level but particularly below the college level, be required to have at least some idea what they are talking about. Teachers below the high school level in particular have no idea, generally, what science is really all about.

If science videos on (for example) youtube diddn't just "feed" the audiance with easy information, and gave the overview as well as deeper informations on the subject, it would be much better. I personally hate youtube videos that are full of animations and tempting shallow sayings, instead I really prefer videos with talking and non animational, real life presentations (like numberophile, periodic table of videos etc.)
The shallow videos are a lot more tempting, because you don't have to do anything- you just sit in front of the computer and let the video entertain you.
Not only those tv shows, even the most belowed youtube science channels make videos with non-proven, or even theoretical and hypothetical informations and show them as if they were the absolute reality, because "it is" sounds more tempting than "scientists think this is probably like this".
This is not science, this is just making use of curiosity to get more watchers, make more money, or just sound cool (Which, indeed, works perfectly).
The fact that people prefer the effortless satisfaction of curiosity over truth, must be changed.
I'm glad other people are seeing what I'm seeing.

 

[phinds]

If science videos on (for example) youtube diddn't just "feed" the audiance with easy information, and gave the overview as well as deeper informations on the subject, it would be much better.

Sure, it would be better. So what? It ISN'T better and it isn't going to GET better, so actually, all the talking we do about it is just us talking to each other and has no effect on anything. I emphasize the "and won't" part of my original post. Yep, it's frustrating all right.

 

[anorlunda]

By some definitions PF could be define as pop science. People get mostly verbal answers here without much math, and without being told "take the whole course." I don't presume that to be lamentable, do you?

On the other hand, I do believe that many laymen spent far more time and effort to understand physics sans math, than it would take them to learn math and physics courses the conventional way.

 

[phinds]

I don't consider

By some definitions PF could be define as pop science. People get mostly verbal answers here without much math, and without being told "take the whole course." I don't presume that to be lamentable, do you?

On the other hand, I do believe that many laymen spent far more time and effort to understand physics sans math, than it would take them to learn math and physics courses the conventional way.

I don't consider PF to be on a par w/ the History Channel. We deal in facts, whether presented with the math or not. They deal in crap. But REALLY pretty crap.

 

[JorisL]

To add to phinds' last reply, I feel that in general even high level explanations come with the footnote that it is only an approximation (usually) on PF.

An example is the all-time favourite of representing spacetime as a rubber sheet with masses on that sheet.
While there is merit to this model its often shown in the relativity forum that people take it outside its region of application.
Not only do other members mention this, they try to explain why it doesn't work.
Depending on the level the poster requires this can include a more mathematical treatment.

That's the big difference with standard pop science on TV and other media, they pretty much deal in absolutes.

 

[anorlunda]

I don't consider PF to be on a par w/ the History Channel. We deal in facts, whether presented with the math or not. They deal in crap. But REALLY pretty crap.

That's my point. Blanket condemnation of popular science is far too broad because it sweeps up things like PF also. If you don't like history channel, say you don't like history channel, not that you don't like popular science.

 

[phinds]

That's my point. Blanket condemnation of popular science is far too broad because it sweeps up things like PF also. If you don't like history channel, say you don't like history channel, not that you don't like popular science.

I can only repeat: I don't consider PF to be on a par w/ the History Channel. If you do, then we'll have to agree to disagree.

 

[Hornbein]

I can only repeat: I don't consider PF to be on a par w/ the History Channel. If you do, then we'll have to agree to disagree.

Once on the History channel was a show about the US Navy teleporting a destroyer in the vicinity of New York City. We were told that this was a consequence of Albert Einstein's Unified Field Theory.

I thought that that was sinking very low.

 

[anorlunda]

I can only repeat: I don't consider PF to be on a par w/ the History Channel. If you do, then we'll have to agree to disagree.

Don't be so dense. Reread #114 and #117. It is clear that I do not consider them on a par. I object to overly broad speech that would lump them together.

I'll say it one more time in language that I hope penetrates. "History channel bad." "PF good." "The term popular science includes both."