When Pro Scientists Explain Using Pop Science

[fresh_42]

Table of Contents
ToggleAbstractMotivation – The PublicMotivation – The PublisherMotivation – The ScientistGood Luck, Bad Luck, and SuperpositionThe...

[url="https://www.physicsforums.com/insights/opinion-when-pro-scientists-explain-using-pop-science/"]Continue reading...

 

[PhDeezNutz]

“but not even scientists in one field have insights into other fields of science.”

Very true. And I don’t think I’ve heard the phrase “infotainment” before but I’m going to use it from now on.

Edit: I bet a lot of PF members (including myself) originally got interested in and pursued science because of popularizations so Pop Sci is useful to that end. However it does have many downsides like the ones mentioned on your article.

 

[George Jones]

Impossible to prove, but Sagan's efforts at popularization probably did hurt him, e.g., the National Academy off Sciences affair. From
https://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/why-carl-sagan-truly-irreplaceable-180949818/

"Sagan’s emergence as the country’s top science popularizer ruffled many of his colleagues. Much of science is, as Sagan himself noted, prohibitive in nature, setting limits on what is and is not physically possible—thou shall not go faster than the speed of light, and so on. Beyond that, the scientific community as a social and even political entity has a number of clear and well-enforced, if unwritten, rules, including, Thou shalt not speculate, thou shalt not talk about things outside your immediate area of expertise, and thou shalt not horse around on late-night TV talk shows.

The scientific community’s divided opinion about Sagan came to a head in 1992, when Sagan was on the verge of being elected, as part of a larger pool of 60 nominees, to the National Academy of Sciences. A rump caucus of scientists within the Academy made a fuss, saying Sagan hadn’t accomplished enough in his research. After a hot debate, with Sagan supporters defending his hard-science achievements, the frowners prevailed, and Sagan’s name was flicked from the list of the newly anointed. Sagan received condolence letters from outraged colleagues; in an interview with me a few years later he shrugged it off, saying he’d always assumed he’d never get in. But Druyan told me, “It was painful. It seemed like a kind of unsolicited slight.” The Academy tried to salve the wound in 1994 by giving Sagan an honorary medal for his contributions to public understanding of science."

 

[symbolipoint]

“but not even scientists in one field have insights into other fields of science.”

Very true. And I don’t think I’ve heard the phrase “infotainment” before but I’m going to use it from now on.

That in bold, simply not true. You will find graduates of a science who have significant education and experience in another science.

 

[malawi_glenn]

Much of fundamental science research is funded by tax payers. Pop sci is one way to give back / inform them what their money goes to

 

[PhDeezNutz]

That in bold, simply not true. You will find graduates of a science who have significant education and experience in another science.

I can see your view point. A lot of research is interdisciplinary.

 

[fresh_42]

That in bold, simply not true.

It is true. A few counterexamples are insufficient to disprove the trend. The trench between applied mathematics and pure mathematics, or physics and mathematics is deeper than you apparently think, let alone chemistry, biology, or non-STEM fields. Some knowledge in physics does not make a mathematician someone who has insights into physics.

... or what can you tell me about a von Neumann universe that cannot be found on Wikipedia?

 

[malawi_glenn]

What counts as a "field" here? We can for sure say that physics and biology are two separate fields, but say surface physics and solid state physics have many things in common.

 

[fresh_42]

What counts as a "field" here? We can for sure say that physics and biology are two separate fields, but say surface physics and solid state physics have many things in common.

No, that's not the point. The crucial point is the word "insight" which in my opinion goes beyond general knowledge.

 

[malawi_glenn]

Perhaps an elobaration of "insight" is in place then?

 

[symbolipoint]

It is true. A few counterexamples are insufficient to disprove the trend. The trench between applied mathematics and pure mathematics, or physics and mathematics is deeper than you apparently think, let alone chemistry, biology, or non-STEM fields. Some knowledge in physics does not make a mathematician someone who has insights into physics.

... or what can you tell me about a von Neumann universe that cannot be found on Wikipedia?

Much too vague

 

[fresh_42]

Much too vague

Well, I have written a comment, not a pamphlet. It reflects my experiences and does not aim to provoke.

Criticism first and asking second would be a suitable method to answer a pamphlet. It is, however, rude in case of a comment. See, there are a lot of fine lines to draw!

An example: A mathematician I knew well has written a book about Virasoro algebras, but it didn't make him a string theorist - although he tried!

 

[symbolipoint]

Well, I have written a comment, not a pamphlet. It reflects my experiences and does not aim to provoke.

Criticism first and asking second would be a suitable method to answer a pamphlet. It is, however, rude in case of a comment. See, there are a lot of fine lines to draw!

An example: A mathematician I knew well has written a book about Virasoro algebras, but it didn't make him a string theorist - although he tried!

Still too vague. Look at least to yourself. You have insights into other sciences than in which you earned your degree. Or is this not true? No. Almost certainly it must be true. Other than that, maybe if you 'feel' you do not have insights of other sciences, you know other people in Sciences. You can check with them about what insights they have in other sciences. Some of these people must have those other insights. Further - people who were your professors? Knew any who earned degree in one field and later a degree in a DIFFERENT field? Certainly you knew some.

 

[fresh_42]

Still too vague. Look at least to yourself. You have insights into other sciences than in which you earned your degree.

Yes.

Or is this not true? No. Almost certainly it must be true.

Would you mind stopping

a) your accusations
b) answering a pamphlet I did not write
c) your ad hominem arguments
d) your ramblings

and start instead

d) to use a politer language
e) actually read what I wrote instead
f) to find back to a serious reasoning

Thank you.

Other than that, maybe if you 'feel' you do not have insights of other sciences, you know other people in Sciences. You can check with them about what insights they have in other sciences. Some of these people must have those other insights. Further - people who were your professors? Knew any who earned degree in one field and later a degree in a DIFFERENT field? Certainly you knew some.

How can you even dare to judge what experiences I have or not?

 

[fresh_42]

Since member @symbolipoint's answers were rude and ad hominem, I banned him from replying in this thread.

 

[swampwiz]

As a precocious lad (no, not in THAT sense ), I had an inquisitive & empirical mind about science, and so when I would be taking a test or doing homework in science, I had always felt that I had to give an answer in keeping with the level of abstraction that the course was about. E.G., in middle-school physical science, there was the topic of the conservation of energy, which really was about the conservation of mechanical energy presuming perfectly elastic collisions, so when I got to the test, I had to remember to "dumb myself down" and forget about the extra DOF with respect to inelastic collisions. As my teacher had the moniker "Coach", I wondered about whether he even knew about collision inelasticity.

 

[PhDeezNutz]

As a precocious lad (no, not in THAT sense ), I had an inquisitive & empirical mind about science, and so when I would be taking a test or doing homework in science, I had always felt that I had to give an answer in keeping with the level of abstraction that the course was about. E.G., in middle-school physical science, there was the topic of the conservation of energy, which really was about the conservation of mechanical energy presuming perfectly elastic collisions, so when I got to the test, I had to remember to "dumb myself down" and forget about the extra DOF with respect to inelastic collisions. As my teacher had the moniker "Coach", I wondered about whether he even knew about collision inelasticity.

In middle school……not likely.

 

[Benjies]

Apologies if I use too many vague examples below, but I see similarities to the question you pose here, and other activities we all partake in on a day-to-day basis (in my case, music).

In my opinion, both the criticism of, and the praise of, "pop sci" is valid. I'm a musician and I hang out with jazz purists who feel that musicians who explore other arts and "dabble" in jazz are only taking away from the art, rather than adding to it. Wynton Marsalis (who won a grammy in both classical AND jazz at age 22) labeled MILES DAVIS, "a general who has betrayed his country" for choosing to play alternative genres which were more accessible to American audiences. Miles. Davis. Does Miles deserve this criticism because he no longer heralded jazz as "something we must preserve"?

I got a masters in aeronautics and propulsion because I saw Saturn V launch footage on Adult Swim. Literally made up my mind from a YouTube video. I like to say 'never ignore a dumb reason to do something great'. If the "pop sci" content adds nothing to your life in STEM other than having some supposed "fanboys" hovering around you while you work in your field, so be it. Who cares. I believe we deprive otherwise effective and efficient thinkers from entering STEM when we start caring about whether or not Apollo 11 references should've been in a Pop Tarts ad, Or Neil Degrasse Tyson should've started TOURING with a science show (even I think that's overkill!).

HOWEVER, I make an observation at my work. The greatest technical minds are oftentimes the worst communicators. Should we impose on them ideals of inclusivity and force them to "leave their corners" so as to impart their knowledge to everyone? I'd argue not. Let genius minds work as they do, and let the communicators in STEM continue breaking down barriers and hinderances, including the illusion of "STEM is impossible for me to do, I only got a 3.3 GPA in high school", which must be broken not for the sake of science, but for the sake of the welfare of mankind!

"Pop sci" is a contributing factor to enabling young minds to flip the odds on the casino, say "yes, I can do this", and reap the benefits of a career in STEM. I have coworkers, fellow artists, and people on a day-to-day basis who are welcoming of people new to activities. I also know people who are critical of these people, so as to nurture the already thriving sessions of (insert-your-activity-here) they already have going with their controlled group of experts in their activity. A matter of personality, and I'd argue "live and let live" comes into play here.

End word vomit. I hope my views challenge and are appreciated.

 

[PhDeezNutz]

I have to come back to this thread. The insight article started with a mention of “money for nothing” (awesome song btw). And that’s true. Yes the objective is to get people interested in science BUT also go beyond mere interest into technicality. The only person I know doing this currently is Leonard Susskind…..almost everything else is “infotainment”.

I recall @bhobba making a thread about a Leonard Susskind book and he said “this is progress for science beyond its banal popularizations” (paraphrasing)

 

[MidgetDwarf]

Im all for it. I just hate the know it all group who thinks they know everything about physics by reading by Pop Sci.

 

[bhobba]

I recall @bhobba making a thread about a Leonard Susskind book and he said “this is progress for science beyond its banal popularizations” (paraphrasing)

His books are far from polarisations in the sense of being the real deal; including the math. Yet are popularisations by being on the best seller list. Very unique. All you need is a smattering of calculus.

Thanks
Bill

 

[Wes Tausend]

Interesting article, thanks. Considering Pop Science, it makes one, again ponder a quote attributed to Einstein.
“If you can't explain it to a six-year-old, you don't understand it yourself.” ― Albert Einstein

--wes

 

[wrobel]

“but not even scientists in one field have insights into other fields of science.”

but there are a lot of odd scientists
who had: Kolmogorov started from philology ; Nash and Kantorovich obtained Nobel for economics

 

[fresh_42]

but there are a lot of odd scientists
who had: Kolmogorov started from philology ; Nash and Kantorovich obtained Nobel for economics

Clifford was known as an excellent teacher, and for his essays on the philosophy of science. He also wrote a book about fairy tales for children The little people. And he was a philosopher, and he seems to have been quite quarrelsome in his short life.

 

[PeroK]

Much of fundamental science research is funded by tax payers. Pop sci is one way to give back / inform them what their money goes to

Giving them the Covid vaccine is an even better way!

 

[PeroK]

Interesting article, thanks. Considering Pop Science, it makes one, again ponder a quote attributed to Einstein.
“If you can't explain it to a six-year-old, you don't understand it yourself.” ― Albert Einstein

--wes

How can that possibly be the case? The words of Einstein cannot be taken as gospel. If it's nonsense it's nonsense, no matter who says it!

PS from reading the post below, it seems Einstein never said this in the first place.

 

[fresh_42]

How can that possibly be the case? The words of Einstein cannot be taken as gospel. If it's nonsense it's nonsense, no matter who says it!

Those "quotations" tend to become autonomous especially if they are not equipped with a clear reference.
Here is a link where someone tried to narrow it down, and - how surprising - found a different picture:
https://history.stackexchange.com/q...of-these-quotes-are-actually-einsteins-if-any

 

[PhDeezNutz]

I don’t know if this is the thread for it so apologies if this post is misplaced and delete it if so.



I believe there are different classes of popularizers

1) those who are active in science research and want to reach people and slowly push them in the direction of actual science

2) those who are completely ego driven and do nothing to push people in the direction of studying actual science. But rather feed their ego about understanding the most trivial facts.

I believe the most egregious example of the latter is Neil DeGrasse Tyson.

In the clip referenced he says that dead bodies feel cold because they are no longer giving off heat as a byproduct of energy breakdown.

While this sounds fascinating it’s essentially equivalent to

“Touching a car engine that’s on will burn you while touching a car engine that’s been off for awhile won’t”

How does this reveal anything new or get viewers to study deeper intricacies (such as the virial theorem)?

It does nothing but enable NDGT to stroke his ego by revealing middle school facts.

 

[WWGD]

I don’t know if this is the thread for it so apologies if this post is misplaced and delete it if so.



I believe there are different classes of popularizers

1) those who are active in science research and want to reach people and slowly push them in the direction of actual science

2) those who are completely ego driven and do nothing to push people in the direction of studying actual science. But rather feed their ego about understanding the most trivial facts.

I believe the most egregious example of the latter is Neil DeGrasse Tyson.

In the clip referenced he says that dead bodies feel cold because they are no longer giving off heat as a byproduct of energy breakdown.

While this sounds fascinating it’s essentially equivalent to

“Touching a car engine that’s on will burn you while touching a car engine that’s been off for awhile won’t”

How does this reveal anything new or get viewers to study deeper intricacies (such as the virial theorem)?

It does nothing but enable NDGT to stroke his ego by revealing middle school facts.

De Grass is not Greener when Neil explains the afterlife
;).

 

[WWGD]

De Grass is not Greener when Neil explains the afterlife
;).

Tyson recently advertised an online show in which he stated he will ( paraphrase) teach people to think. Thanks, Neil, how would I manage without you.

 

[PhDeezNutz]

Tyson recently advertised an online show in which he stated he will ( paraphrase) teach people to think. Thanks, Neil, how would I manage without you.

Oh man!! By dispelling things no one actually thinks?

 

[fresh_42]

I have tried to avoid any bashing of specific persons in my article. Of course, I, too, had the usual suspects in mind and named some of them - hopefully without any judgments. One has always to keep in mind whom they address, by which media channel, and at what time of the day. All these factors are normally disregarded when it comes to discussions like the one that evolved here right now. It is easy to criticize those who actually do something instead of taking action instead. I had to learn this myself recently. I drew the personal consequence of reducing my activities at PF drastically. If they are considered "meaningless" then it's time to stop them. Fortunately, none of the mentioned scientists are members here AFAIK.

This thread is closed now.