Are Pop Science Sources Reliable for Scientific Debates?

[Dadface]

When anyone on PF gets involved in a debate and uses pop science to back up their argument their opinion is usually immediately rejected on the grounds that pop science as a source is unreliable and lacking in the necessary detail. Only peer reviewed works are accepted and in general that's probably quite right.

But in my opinion pop science sources are useful. Certain skilful authors are able to convey principles in an interesting and non complicated way. And pop science can provide lay persons, and experts a quick way of keeping up to date and getting a rough idea of what's going on in the wider world of science.

One characteristic of pop science sources is that they have not gone through the rigorous peer review demanded by mainstream journals. But many Arxiv papers have not gone through vigorous peer review and in that respect they are similar to pop science sources. So why are Arxiv papers accepted as suitable sources when pop science sources are rejected?

Any views on the reliability of Arxiv papers, particularly the old ones where it is easy to assume the author(s) have found it difficult to get their papers accepted elsewhere? And any views on the pros and cons of pop science?

 

[fresh_42]

But in my opinion pop science sources are useful.

They are not. They are a single, giant source of trouble: for the science, for those who have expectations and so for the reader.
99% of them explain in 80% of an article the terms they use - over and over and over again. Of course they never match scientific standards, not even on the definition level. Meanwhile I don't read most of them anymore, because

• it makes no sense to learn something wrong
• it is far harder to correct a once learnt fact, than it is to do it right from the start
• it gives the false impression, that science isn't hard
• it contributes to the fact, that in many modern societies, it is hip among students at school to be bad in math or other natural sciences
• instead there should be more emphasis on the basics (learnt at school), upon which such articles should be written and read
• there is no gain in confusion and misconceptions
• such articles make their readers think they understood something whereas simultaneously they did not
• for those readers who know what the article is about, they are in almost all cases completely useless
• they use a catch phrases when a closer look usually reveals the nonsense of them

All in all pop science reminds me of a tv show, where they commented chess matches, e.g. from the candidate tournaments or the world championships. It had been broadcast late at night. Nevertheless, the moderator, himself a grandmaster in chess, explained over and over again how a double threat or restraining works. It was simply annoying and I thought more than once: Who ... do you think watches here?

• Those who those articles address rarely read them and to all others they are a torture

So why are Arxiv papers accepted as suitable sources when pop science sources are rejected?

Arxiv requires a minimum standard of reliability by the fact that it isn't open to everybody. Usually we accept preprints of publications or decide on a case by case basis. It is more an "o.k., we will see" as Wikipedia articles are, not a general rule. And often it is an article which already had been published in a journal. So there is no general exception for Arxiv, only a modus operandi.

 

[Nugatory]

"Pros and cons" depend on what you're trying to accomplish. Reading a pop-sci article because a new subject interests you is one thing. You're reading because you're curious about the subject, and if the article entertains and engages you, it's served its purpose. Using it as the starting point to develop a deeper understanding of the subject is a different purpose.

When anyone on PF gets involved in a debate and uses pop science to back up their argument their opinion is usually immediately rejected on the grounds that pop science as a source is unreliable and lacking in the necessary detail...

...and also that the specific source is either wrong or so incomplete that it might as well be wrong. Either way, it doesn't back up anything, and the problem is that it's being used for a purpose for which it is neither intended nor suited.

 

[anorlunda]

When anyone on PF gets involved in a debate and uses pop science to back up their argument

Don't you see the contradiction in your own statement? As @Nugatory said, a pop sci .article can serve a purpose. But that purpose does not include using the pop sci to back up an debate about "real" science.

I should point out that not all forums on PF are equally hostile to pop sci. In the electrical field, we (reluctantly) tolerate pop-sci analogies such as current through a wire is like water flowing in a pipe. It is the most difficult concepts, such as quantum mechanics, relativity, and cosmology, where pop-sci writers are forced to do the most drastic simplifications to make the pop-sci understandable.

When you ask someone to teach you, it is only fair to allow them to explain in their own words. It is unfair to expect them to help each student unlearn misunderstandings they got elsewhere or to show each student why they are wrong. That is especially true in a volunteer setting like PF. The scientists here are not obligated to answer your questions or to spend their time debating. If you bring pop-sci simplifications into the discussion, it may demotivate them. The wise online forum participant takes the motivations of others into consideration.

 

[Ophiolite]

Fresh_42's objections in black. My counterpoints in blue

• it makes no sense to learn something wrong
• In my experience the greater part of pop sci articles and books is correct.
  
• it is far harder to correct a once learnt fact, than it is to do it right from the start
• It is far harder to get someone hooked on science by having them jump in the deep end.
  
• it gives the false impression, that science isn't hard
• See previous point
  
• it contributes to the fact, that in many modern societies, it is hip among students at school to be bad in math or other natural sciences
• Undemonstrated assertion
  
• instead there should be more emphasis on the basics (learnt at school), upon which such articles should be written and read
• Almost all scientific publications would benefit from improved quality. This is not a reason to reject them.
  
• there is no gain in confusion and misconceptions
• Confusions and misconceptions are more readily generated in the scientific illiterate by reading primary sources
  
• such articles make their readers think they understood something whereas simultaneously they did not
• Warning- Approaching Anecdote: I kick started the growth in my daughter's reading ability by telling her she was improving when she wasn't.
  
• for those readers who know what the article is about, they are in almost all cases completely useless
• Irrelevant. "If I already know where the railway station is then I don't need a map".
  
• they use a catch phrases when a closer look usually reveals the nonsense of them
• Such as that epitome of catch phrases, "Survival of the fittest"?

I have little doubt that the negative, often disparaging, attitude to pop-science in this forum will have turned off a number of individuals who were taking their first tentative interest in science. That seems, to me, unnecessary and disappointing.

 

[berkeman]

I think PopSci articles are useful for getting young kids interested in science. Once they get closer to high school, though, they should be ready to start learning what is misstated in PopSci and what the current understanding of the real science is.

Since we do have some youngsters here on the PF (posting "B" level questions), we need to be able to help to build on and correct the misconceptions that they have and start pointing them to better sources of information, IMO.

 

[fresh_42]

Ophiolite's objections in black. My counterpoints in blue.

• In my experience the greater part of pop sci articles and books is correct.
• Not in mine. Sometimes it's not only grotesque, but even ridiculous; e.g. black holes, dark matter, QM.
• It is far harder to get someone hooked on science by having them jump in the deep end.
• A bad pedagogical approach must not be the excuse for nonsense.
• See previous point (Science is hard.)
• You don't learn diving by jumping off a cliff, right, but that doesn't mean you shouldn't learn to swim.
• Undemonstrated assertion (math is unsexy)
• Experience. Plain good old experience. Turn into an arbitrary quiz show, where a simple "mathematical" question occurs. My last experience was: What's the cubic root of 27.
• Almost all scientific publications would benefit from improved quality. This is not a reason to reject them.
• It is a reason to object over simplifications. IMO ( caution: exaggeration) we first make school kids stupid before we try to bring them back to curiosity.
• Confusions and misconceptions are more readily generated in the scientific illiterate by reading primary sources
• You definitely need better recommendations. Have a look on ours here.
• Warning- Approaching Anecdote: I kick started the growth in my daughter's reading ability by telling her she was improving when she wasn't.
• That's a pedagogic measurement, not an argument.
• Irrelevant. "If I already know where the railway station is then I don't need a map".
• I might be interested in the architectural details and history of a railway station, although I know where it is. It's not helpful to explain the thousandth time what a railway station is, especially not on an airport.
• Such as that epitome of catch phrases, "Survival of the fittest"?
• I guess, you know what I mean. It's more a general critic on modern journalism, than specifically for author's of pop science article. It's just that given my assumed average reader of those articles, it's especially insulting to them. I still do not believe, that people will read those articles, who otherwise would never get in contact to real science. And if, such catch phrases do more harm than good, because they spread through bars and small talks.

I have little doubt that the negative, often disparaging, attitude to pop-science in this forum will have turned off a number of individuals who were taking their first tentative interest in science. That seems, to me, unnecessary and disappointing.

That's not really the question. There is indeed a difference between facebook and PhysicsForums. You'll have to ask whether you want to scare away all others, who are not interested in the hundredth website of superficial gibberish but in actual insights instead.

 

[anorlunda]

Since we do have some youngsters here on the PF (posting "B" level questions), we need to be able to help to build on and correct the misconceptions that they have and start pointing them to better sources of information, IMO.

Agreed. But the OP put this thread in a very different context when he used the word debate. As I read it, he wants the students to debate with the teachers what the correct science is.

 

[Nugatory]

It is far harder to get someone hooked on science by having them jump in the deep end.

I expect that most people will agree with that - I certainly do. But are we talking here why popularizations are valuable as a way of getting people interested in physics, or about the proper role of popularizations here at Physics Forums? These are different questions - the forum membership is self-selected for people already hooked on science. Thus, our role is closer to:

Since we do have some youngsters here on the PF (posting "B" level questions), we need to be able to help to build on and correct the misconceptions that they have and start pointing them to better sources of information, IMO.

My sense is that we're pretty good at that, and at linking to better sources that an enthused kid can build on. It's not always comfortable; there's no completely comfortable way of saying "I'm sorry, but you have been misled and you are going to have unlearn some of the things you thought you knew" but also no honest way of not saying it. Getting through this is a necessary step on the way from "enthused" to "enthused and knowledgeable".

 

[pinball1970]

Can we define what "pop science" is? Do you mean general readers books? Jerry Coyne? Dawkins? Or is this physics mainly?

 

[Dadface]

Agreed. But the OP put this thread in a very different context when he used the word debate. As I read it, he wants the students to debate with the teachers what the correct science is.

I didn't use the word debate and I wasn't implying that I wanted "students to debate with the teachers etc". I suggested one thing against pop science sources in my first paragraph and one thing in favour of them in my second paragraph.

I take it back. I did use the word debate in the opening sentence. What I was trying to put across is that pop science sources are not accepted here and "in general that's probably quite right" But I don't think it's all bad and there's a lot that can be said in favour of pop science sources.

 

[Dadface]

Can we define what "pop science" is? Do you mean general readers books? Jerry Coyne? Dawkins? Or is this physics mainly?

I think that's a relevant question. When I think of pop science sources some of the first things that come to mind are magazines such as Focus, New Scientist and Scientific American and certain books by authors including Hawking and Feynman.

 

[Dadface]

They are not. They are a single, giant source of trouble: for the science, for those who have expectations and so for the reader.
99% of them explain in 80% of an article the terms they use - over and over and over again. Of course they never match scientific standards, not even on the definition level. Meanwhile I don't read most of them anymore, because

• it makes no sense to learn something wrong
• it is far harder to correct a once learnt fact, than it is to do it right from the start
• it gives the false impression, that science isn't hard
• it contributes to the fact, that in many modern societies, it is hip among students at school to be bad in math or other natural sciences
• instead there should be more emphasis on the basics (learnt at school), upon which such articles should be written and read
• there is no gain in confusion and misconceptions
• such articles make their readers think they understood something whereas simultaneously they did not
• for those readers who know what the article is about, they are in almost all cases completely useless
• they use a catch phrases when a closer look usually reveals the nonsense of them

All in all pop science reminds me of a tv show, where they commented chess matches, e.g. from the candidate tournaments or the world championships. It had been broadcast late at night. Nevertheless, the moderator, himself a grandmaster in chess, explained over and over again how a double threat or restraining works. It was simply annoying and I thought more than once: Who ... do you think watches here?

• Those who those articles address rarely read them and to all others they are a torture

Arxiv requires a minimum standard of reliability by the fact that it isn't open to everybody. Usually we accept preprints of publications or decide on a case by case basis. It is more an "o.k., we will see" as Wikipedia articles are, not a general rule. And often it is an article which already had been published in a journal. So there is no general exception for Arxiv, only a modus operandi.

There's certainly a lot of cons here. Do you have any pros? I think I would agree with the bullet points you make if the sources you refer to are crackpot or poor quality sources. But I think there are lots of what I think are good quality sources as well. One of the things that triggered my interest in certain areas of science at an early age was "the Boys Book of Science and Invention"- pure pop science.

 

[fresh_42]

Do you have any pros?

Not really, as I actually gave up to read them. I check what they are about and in case it is interesting, I'm looking for the sources. Good magazines have them, e.g. ScienceAlert - often papers on arxiv. If they are really interesting, chances are high I'll find them sooner or later here with far better background information and still relatively easy to read.

I think I would agree with the bullet points you make if the sources you refer to are crackpot sources ...

I meant usual sources as newspapers, serious magazines or online feeds, not crackpot sources. It is simply a waste of time. I wonder how people would react, if the reporter explained each time why it was a false start or an incomplete pass during the coverage of a football game. It would very certainly be outrageous. This is nothing else. I don't want to read anymore for three quarters of an article, what a science journalist thinks a black hole is. Thanks, but no thanks.

... but I think there are lots of what I think are good quality sources as well. One of the things that triggered my interest in certain areas of science was "the Boys Book of Science and Invention"- pure pop science.

I sometimes do read them, however, more often I only run over it, resp. watch Kaku on tv. In any case, entertainment is all that can be expected. Everything else is an illusion. In the same time I'd better read a book or study one of the many, many references I gathered since I've became a member of PF. In the end it is the question how you value your spare time. I once have been told by my mentor that his mentor once said to him: "How old are you? How many books do you read a year?" He then made a simple calculation and finished: "Time to make a selection!" This may be more obvious to the elder than the younger, but it is true for all of us. Make your selection! It won't get easier to learn and the promise by popular science that I might be so, is a marketing lie.

 

[Nugatory]

There's certainly a lot of cons here. Do you have any pros?

I cannot find our last thread on this topic, but I remember that we had a long discussion about this some years back. One conclusion was pretty much what we're agreeing about in this thread - that one of the pros is that they create and feed interest and enthusiasm. That's also consistent with your experience quoted below. Another pro is that they provide an outlet for people who lack the time, energy,or mathematical experience needed to seriously study the real thing. It would be silly to say that if you can't play world-class football (soccer to the Americans here) you don't need an opportunity to play - that's why we have pickup games at the local park. However, it is not at all clear that either of these advantages are relevant to Physics Forums (and this is everyone's cue to go read the PF mission statement again).

I would agree with the bullet points you make if the sources you refer to are crackpot sources but I think there are lots of what I think are good quality sources as well. One of the things that triggered my interest in certain areas of science was "the Boys Book of Science and Invention"- pure pop science.

Agree, of course, about triggering interest - that's what brought me and probably just about everyone else reading this thread to physics in the first place. However, I think you are very mistaken in thinking that the problems @fresh_42 and others describe are limited to outright crackpottery.

For example... The popular explanation of Hawking radiation (virtual particle pairs in which one falls into the black hole and the other escapes to infinity) is not crackpottery; in fact it's Hawking's attempt at a non-mathematical explanation. But if you settle for that explanation, no matter how understandable and intuitive it feels, you've limited your understanding right there. You might ask why it is that the negative energy is always the one that goes into the hole and the positive energy particle the one that escapes, or why the radiation is black-body; but you won't get any answers from the virtual particle model.

 

[Dale]

So why are Arxiv papers accepted as suitable sources when pop science sources are rejected?

Not all arxiv papers are accepted. Papers in arxiv that are also published in a professional journal are acceptable. Papers on arxiv that are textbooks or class notes for courses at professional academic institutions are generally acceptable. Papers that are only on arxiv are only acceptable if they are consistent with the professional literature, same as Wikipedia and other similar sources. Some fields use arxiv as a standard pre-print publication service as part of the routine professional process, and other fields do not, so the acceptability also depends on the field of study.

 

[Dale]

a pop sci .article can serve a purpose

Yes, and that purpose is entertainment, not education.

 

[Nugatory]

Can we define what "pop science" is? Do you mean general readers books? Jerry Coyne? Dawkins? Or is this physics mainly?

Speaking for myself here, and not necessarily with any great precision...
It's a popularization if the intended audience are neither experts nor students on their way to becoming experts (note that this is a statement about the intended audience, not the actual audience - the Internet is a very powerful tool for democratizing access to knowledge). This definition will cover a very wide range, in terms of both accuracy and how much is demanded of the reader. At one extreme you'll find Einstein's "Relativity: The special and general theory", and at the other you'll find (if you must) the drivelous "Dr. Quantum" videos on youtube.

 

[pinball1970]

At one extreme you'll find Einstein's "Relativity: The special and general theory", and at the other you'll find (if you must) the drivelous "Dr. Quantum" videos on youtube.

I just checked the double slit by Dr Quantum. There is no maths in there but this is aimed at youngsters yes?

 

[Nugatory]

I just checked the double slit by Dr Quantum. There is no maths in there but this is aimed at youngsters yes?

Yes, but that's no excuse for being grossly inaccurate.

 

[russ_watters]

When anyone on PF gets involved in a debate and uses pop science to back up their argument their opinion is usually immediately rejected on the grounds that pop science as a source is unreliable and lacking in the necessary detail. Only peer reviewed works are accepted and in general that's probably quite right.

But in my opinion pop science sources are useful. Certain skilful authors are able to convey principles in an interesting and non complicated way. And pop science can provide lay persons, and experts a quick way of keeping up to date and getting a rough idea of what's going on in the wider world of science.

I agree, both are problems:
1. People learn wrong things from pop-science.
2. Scientists (on PF or otherwise) denigrate or dismiss it even (to my shock) when it comes from respected scientists (See: A Brief History of Time). I think this is a huge mistake. It is counterproductive to our mission (more on that at the end).

I have little doubt that the negative, often disparaging, attitude to pop-science in this forum will have turned off a number of individuals who were taking their first tentative interest in science. That seems, to me, unnecessary and disappointing.

I have no doubt you are correct, and I share your disappointment at our sometimes failure to engage on a level that people can deal with.

They are not. They are a single, giant source of trouble: for the science, for those who have expectations and so for the reader...

• it makes no sense to learn something wrong
• it is far harder to correct a once learnt fact, than it is to do it right from the start

We should probably define what we mean by "pop science" because I get the impression sometimes here that it is defined as anything not state of the art, phd/professional level. Is there *any* room for simplification or teaching something wrong, but close? How do we square this with teaching Newon's Laws (re: the oft-cited "Relativity of Wrong") or the Bohr model? Can I give a 5th grader a bunch of styrofoam balls and sticks or am I teaching them something wrong (atoms are little spheres)?

And I'll repeat: I really can't reconcile this attitude with the fact that Stephen Hawking wrote "A Brief History of Time" and it is pretty negatively perceived here. Steven Hawking! But at least that tells me that not all scientists have such a negative view of pop-science.

 

[Nugatory]

And I'll repeat: I really can't reconcile this attitude with the fact that Stephen Hawking wrote "A Brief History of Time" and it is pretty negatively perceived here. Steven Hawking! But at least that tells me that not all scientists have such a negative view of pop-science.

Doing great science and writing good popularizations are different skills, and it is possible to be good at one without being good at the other. Some scientists are also good explainers (Feynman's "QED: The strange theory of light and matter" comes to mind, and Einstein's "Relativity: The special and general theory" is sadly dated but still accessible to a motivated high school student), others not so much.

 

[fresh_42]

In my personal view, the actual problem starts far earlier. I think we widely underestimate children and say things like: "too complicated", "will explain if you're older" and similar nonsense. If we continue to treat children / students as too stupid to learn it better, we're stuck with virtual particles, one for the hole and one for the universe. Instead we should develop better methods to teach the truth. Of course we will need simplifications, but they depend on age and education of the audience, not on the facts themselves. The difficulty in media as websites or magazines is, that one usually doesn't know anything about the audience, so some assumptions have to be made. I claim that many of them are wrong. As in my example with the chess coverage, people who do not know what a fork is, will not watch the program. People who do not know what the reason and properties of dark matter is, will not read those articles. Those who watch or do read them are tortured by the way they are presented. Take my example of a football match: who wants the reporter explain a false start over and over again, or the offsite rule in soccer or hockey? The quotes would seriously be damaged. But this is how those subjects are presented in popular science articles. It is simply ridiculous, or caused by the fact, that the journalist doesn't know it better. In either case not a reason to read them. Stop taking children for dummies and readers of science articles for complete laymen. Until then, I don't see a reason to waste time, except for entertainment. I also watch Kaku from time to time and he is entertaining, but I don't take his shows for physics. I also have read a brief history and I think it wasn't that bad, but when I remember Hawking correlating quantum physics and free will, sorry, then he is (was) just another ordinary human like all of us. His reputation doesn't cover everything he's said.

 

[Dale]

I don't see a reason to waste time, except for entertainment. I also watch Kaku from time to time and he is entertaining, but I don't take his shows for physics.

This is the point, IMO. The primary purpose of pop sci is entertainment. There is nothing wrong with entertainment, it is economically valuable.

Many people find mental engagement to be entertaining, and that is the target market. These pop sci shows and books are designed to be engaging, rather than challenging. Education is inherently challenging.

I think the problem is when people mistake the purpose of these books and shows and try to obtain education from them. Watching ER is entertaining and may even spark someone’s interest in medicine, but it does not qualify you to operate on someone. People seem to understand that about ER, but not about A Brief History of Time.

 

[russ_watters]

Doing great science and writing good popularizations are different skills, and it is possible to be good at one without being good at the other.

This is of course true, but I don't think that has anything to do with my point -- unless the reason scientists are anti-ABHOT is that they aren't as good at writing popularizations? Jealousy? I don't think that's why professionals on PF don't like ABHOT: I've always heard they don't like it because they think it is counterproductive.

 

[russ_watters]

This is the point, IMO. The primary purpose of pop sci is entertainment. There is nothing wrong with entertainment, it is economically valuable.

Many people find mental engagement to be entertaining, and that is the target market. These pop sci shows and books are designed to be engaging, rather than challenging. Education is inherently challenging.

I think the problem is when people mistake the purpose of these books and shows and try to obtain education from them. Watching ER is entertaining and may even spark someone’s interest in medicine, but it does not qualify you to operate on someone. People seem to understand that about ER, but not about A Brief History of Time.

ER is fictional; pop-science is supposed to be non-fiction.

I'm seeing a distinction being made here without a real difference: people read pop-science because they enjoy it. Yes, that's true. But a quick peruse of our academic guidance forum tells me people learn physics (especially physics) because they enjoy it too. So what is the real difference? People get physics phds because they want to learn how the universe works - and they enjoy it. I read ABHOT because I wanted to learn how the universe works - and I enjoy it.

What's the difference? Depth. Practicality. Time commitment. Effort level (difficulty).

Now, this is fundamentally different than pop-science in the news media (or lower level schooling), which is why I requested a definition before. The news media profits by selling advertising space, which means they need to draw eyes by any means necessary. This can create a fundamental conflict of interest that Bill Nye, Neil Degrasse Tyson and others must navigate if they want successful media careers that are still informative. And I'm ok with their producers "sexing-up" their shows to gain a wider audience because I've come to trust that those guys will push back if it gets too off the mark.

Those are news-adjacent shows (news magazine type shows) and sometimes articles. But the *actual* news is where I see the biggest problem. That's reporters trying to write (for print or TV) something about science when they know nothing at all about what they are reporting. Even sports reporting is better: generally the sports reporting is by people who are students of the game and in many cases former players themselves. People who know about what they are reporting. But a general beat reporter might one day report on a shooting, the next day on a crane collapse and the next day on a space telescope. They know very little about any of these subjects and can't even navigate low-end scientific/technical stories. And that's a big problem that the news media isn't interested in fixing. Why have good sports reporters and not good science reporters? Because the average watcher of sports is well informed, so the reporting needs to be accurate (caveat: there is a little bit of "shock jock" reporting going on these days, purposely trolling the viewers). But since the average person knows very little about science, the science reporting doesn't need to be accurate because few people will notice/care if it is wrong.

 

[russ_watters]

In my personal view, the actual problem starts far earlier. I think we widely underestimate children and say things like: "too complicated", "will explain if you're older" and similar nonsense. If we continue to treat children / students as too stupid to learn it better, we're stuck with virtual particles, one for the hole and one for the universe. Instead we should develop better methods to teach the truth. Of course we will need simplifications, but they depend on age and education of the audience, not on the facts themselves...

Stop taking children for dummies and readers of science articles for complete laymen.

On PF we have difficulty with this because we often don't know the level of people asking the question. Or the level of homework questions. It's fine to say kids can handle more depth, but what they most need is to get their homework questions correct and get A's on their tests. We can't fix the societal problem by choosing not to answer the question asked or driving them away.

I'm less concerned about adults asking pop-science questions and opening-up a rabbit hole, because there is less at stake for them. But at the same time we should be aware that the writer of pop-sci may not be a scientist, so when a person comes here and asks a stupid question it may not be their fault.

 

[Dale]

ER is fictional; pop-science is supposed to be non-fiction.

D’oh! Bad analogy on my part.

 

[Nugatory]

This is of course true, but I don't think that has anything to do with my point -- unless the reason scientists are anti-ABHOT is that they aren't as good at writing popularizations? Jealousy? I don't think that's why professionals on PF don't like ABHOT: I've always heard they don't like it because they think it is counterproductive.

Whether it's counterproductive or not depends on how its being used.

As entertainment, to hear about the sort of unanswered questions cosmologists are wrestling with, or just to understand why people are willing to devote a lifetime to the subject, ABHOT is good. However, the PF critics have a different purpose in mind: a layman-friendly popularization that explains the topic without inviting too many misconceptions, and from that point of view studying ABHOT isn't so productive.

Is there *any* room for simplification or teaching something wrong, but close?

Some examples of popularizations that (in my somewhat idiosyncratic opinion) do that, and do it well:
- Einstein's "Relativity: The special and general theory", now sadly dated but outstanding for its time
- Ghirardi's "Sneaking a look at God's cards"
- Feynman's "QED: The strange theory of light and matter"
- Lindley's "Where does the weirdness go"
All of these are popularizations in the sense of being written for laypeople as opposed to physicists or serious physics students, all are well within the grasp of a motivated high-school student, and all are (again, in my idiosyncratic opinion) better at what you're asking for than ABHOT.

 

[DennisN]

And any views on the pros and cons of pop science?

I also think there are pros and cons, which I think have been covered thoroughly already by the others in this thread, so I have nothing to add about that. But I could not resist expressing something I wonder about:

How many people, including experts, amateurs and newbies, are currently members on this forum because of pop science? And how many chose a science career by being inspired by pop science in their youth, like let's say the original tv series Cosmos or some popular science book(s)? Personally, I did not, since I did not choose a pure science career, and also, my science interest is due to early education (I really liked physics). But I would not be surprised if popular science has initially had a significant impact on some of us. Maybe I should stop wondering and start to go semiscientific and start a poll?

EDIT: I just remembered a book I read when I was about 16 years old, Quarks - The Stuff of Matter (a non-technical introduction to particle physics) by theoretical physicist Harald Fritsch. I remember I found it very fascinating and inspiring.

 

[nuuskur]

Pop science is, in my humble opinion, for entertainment. In my tiny world of mathematics I have learned from professionals and taught myself, I have encountered popular accounts on some things of interest.

\begin{rant}

A few examples:
Youtube videos that tell you trisecting an arbitrary angle with compass and straight edge is possible (and their proof is just a few examples DRAWN ON THE PAPER?!) (however, it's disproved long ago)
The ever so undying sum over $\mathbb N$ is equal to $-\frac{1}{12}$?!
In serious material, it is clearly stated the series representation of $\zeta (s)$ is valid only for $Re(s)>1$.

Then there is the famous misconception about ex falso quodlibet: from falsehood one may deduce anything. The statement $P\implies Q$ is trivially true if $P=0$, but then they go on to argue that $Q=1$. NO!
In every single textbook that touches on mathematical logic, at some point a certain deduction rule modus ponens is mentioned. Explicitly: $P, P\implies Q \models Q$. True statements may be inferred only from true statements.

Ah but this is so boring, there is no intrigue. It's much better to create controversy with false statements and have people believe sciences are a joke.

\end{rant}

 

[pinball1970]

How many people, including experts, amateurs and newbies, are currently members on this forum because of pop science?

I became interested in science because my mum bought me a chemistry set- there was no "pop science" in the 70s (that I was allowed to watch) Horizon a little later on.
I have been surprised at the bad press New scientist has been given but that’s one of the benefits of reading appraisals of this sort of thing on forums like this.
I am interested in physics, not a professional (scientist) and my critical thinking skills have been sharpened a little bit even in this short time posting on here.
Dr quantum (which I had never heard of) apparently is bad, I watched the double slit and did not hear anything Jim Al Kalili did not write in Quantum a guide for the perplexed so either I either I missed something, or “Pop science” has dumbed something down, just the sort of limitation or misleading information you are all talking about.

 

[ZapperZ]

Despite my trepidation, I'm going to go into this thread head on.

Let's get a few things straight here right off the bat:

1. Pop science books, at least the ones that I have read, can be an invaluable source to the general public to give them an idea or an overview of science in a particular field or area;
2. What is conveyed is NOT necessary what is received or understood. A source may be conveying something, but the person or audience receiving, reading, or hearing the message may actually get something different. Pop-science books, by their nature, have to explain concepts in physics often via examples or analogies. Because of this, what they are trying to convey often are misinterpreted or misread by the audience. Often times, the audience either understood something different, or missed the main point entirely. So here, the source is fine, but what is understood is faulty.
3. There are people who somehow have the impression that these pop-science books or sources are the FINAL WORD, i.e. there aren't anything deeper or requiring further understanding. They often have this delusion that they have fully understood these concepts and are thus able to "apply" them. Example: Deepak Chopra. He bastardizes QM without understanding the physics, simply based on the WORDS he read describing various aspects of QM. Again, in this case, the source is fine, but the audience misuse and misrepresent the completeness of the source.

So no, I often do not vilify pop-science books. I vilify people who misuse them, or using them for what they are not meant to.

Zz.