Should popular physics books be banned or come with a disclaimer?

[ice109]

or at least print them with a disclaimer on the front : these do not actually teach you anything.

I don't understand why people think they have any idea what abstruse theoretical physics is about after reading one of those.

 

[Pythagorean]

give me a few examples of the books you're talking about.

If you're list includes Brian Greene's "The Fabric of the Cosmos" then say no more.

(Ok, I will admit his discussion about Newton's bucket in the beginning is very interesting)

 

[mcknia07]

Let's ban my Physics book for college

It sucks!

 

[WarPhalange]

It definitely teaches them about physics or astronomy, but it doesn't teach you how to do it.

In the situation where you have someone mouthing off about physics which is clearly BS that they misinterpreted from a pop-sci book, it is your duty to knock them down a peg with "Can you derive that for me?" or something similar, like "But those operators don't commute!" That will surely incite the fight or flight response in the person. And since that person happens to read pop-sci books, it's probably not the fight response.

Bonus points if you **** blocked the guy too.

 

[humanino]

Why do people read love stories ? They are so tasteless compared to real life !

 

[ice109]

Why do people read love stories ? They are so tasteless compared to real life !

depends which ones

 

[cristo]

I don't think you should make such general sweeping statements. Some popular science books are actually very good!

 

[ice109]

I don't think you should make such general sweeping statements. Some popular science books are actually very good!

such as?

 

[cristo]

such as?

Big Bang by Simon Singh, The trouble with physics by Lee Smolin, to name but a few of my favourites. I think popular science should be encouraged, at least popular science written by real scientists. There are many people who are not able to get into physics or any other science, for several reasons, but who are still interested in the subject. Such popular science books provide a way for the layperson to find out what is going on in the world of science. In my opinion, outreach should be encouraged as a way to try and make scientists less disjoint from society in this sense.

I note you haven't actually told us which books you are talking about...

 

[Art]

such as?

Cosmos - Carl Sagan; Asimov's New Guide to Science - Issac Asimov; Does God Play Dice - Ian Steward. To mention a few.

These books all give a good general overview of the subjects they address.

It seems the OP is suggesting that it is somehow wrong to tell someone falling from a cliff will kill you without the listener knowing how to perform calculus, which imo smacks of rather silly intellectual snobbery.

Many people have a passing interest in science with no interest in the details. They just 'want the baby not the labour pains'

 

[flatmaster]

At Auburn, we have an introductory course without labs, or any math whatsoever. We call it "physics for poets". I don't think these books are all bad. I could think of worse books that could be burned.

 

[neu]

I remember reading about relativity when I was 8, obviously it was RE the twin paradox and very simple and half nonsence, but I loved it.

 

[George Jones]

such as?

The Cosmic Frontiers of General Relativity by William J. Kaufmann; Deep Down Things: The Breathtaking Beauty of Particles Physics By Bruce A. Scumm.

These books are not substitutes for real, introductory books like Hartle and Griffiths, but they're meant to be. Art and literature can be appreciated by people who are not art and literature critics; (at least some) scientists should write books for a non-science audience. Also, banning science books for the educated public could have real consequences, i.e., it could lead to a reduction in funding.

 

[Joskoplas]

If you get rid of popular physics, then physics won't be popular. No future physicists. And . . . no future funding. Reckon the folks who funded the LHC knew the basics of string theory?

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

OK, you can ban QED by Feymann even though I wish you wouldn't. But keep your celebrated mits off of https://www.amazon.com/dp/1589880447/?tag=pfamazon01-20.

 

[Pythagorean]

such as?

In Search of Schrodinger's Cat, by John Gribbin

 

[Enjoicube]

It's pretty petty to consider intellectuals as part of an elite club. With the alarming decline of intellectualism in America, we need to do everything we can in order to encourage people to think about reality. I don't think of these popular science books as presuming to teach people science, but rather as a subset of philosophy, and I hope that the people who read them think of the books this way also.
This debate is quite similar to the ones about guitar hero vs. real guitar or wii sports vs. real sports. When I play wii tennis, I never have a moment of doubt that I am playing a video game, yet it also encouraged me to start playing real tennis; Certainly not a bad thing.
This is not to say that there don't exist people who do believe that they are learning rigorous science; just the other day when we were learning about conceptual relativity I heard someone remark "were learning all of relativity in this class and it's real hard and mathematical". But, as people have said before, these people will delusion themselves regardless of what field they "study", and if you wish to be rude, you can stop them easily by asking them what a contra variant vector is.
If you have pride in what you do, you will have it regardless of whether people choose to delusion themselves or not.
Also, some of these books are very good for those learning about a subject; for example, the book the heart of mathematics is very non-rigorous, yet it taught me some really useful problem solving techniques and so when learning about the fundamental theorem of arithmetic (and the irrationality of sqrt(2)), which my teacher presented in a different manner, I had a conceptual basis and two methods for proving these theorems. Conceptual preparation can be half the battle in learning a subject; I would be willing to wager that a person who had read a conceptual science book would be quite a bit better prepared for a subsequent rigorous course in the subject.

P.S. WarPhalange: I think there is a quote which may apply to your "game": "Praise in public, correct in private" Publilius Syrus.

 

[jreelawg]

We watch the news even though it is mostly a bunch of BS opinions. This nation depends on public illusion. The public doesn't need to be accurately informed so long as they are satisfied. When the public starts demanding more mathematics in popular physics books, then someone will provide it.

Otherwise, if people get a kick out of using their imagination, whether or not they are focused in reality or are going to contribute anything to society, let them have there fun.

It isn't like real physics grads are always right. How many used to think there was no quantum vacuum and now we know there is. Even those who relied on no math at all had the idea that there was, and yet those who felt they were superior acted like gods and belittled the very idea.

 

[moe darklight]

Yea, there are some terrible pop-sci books; there are terrible textbooks too. there are terrible books on anything.

but unless you've got a PhD in every subject matter that remotely interests you, or are working towards one, you've most likely read a simplified version of something... medicine, biology, history, geology, music, politics, the news, literature, etc. etc.
Either that, or you have no interests outside your field of study.

Some books are stupefied instead of simplified, which irks me too, or use magical Disneyland sort of language. But there are excellent ones out there too.

 

[_Tully]

Ban popular-science books? Where does that even begin to you, OP? With anything other than 'text books'?

So complete ignorance amongst the general public is something to strive for?

Are you so advanced in all topics that you would snicker at those silly plebeians reading about cetacean communication in a paperback? How about pre-historic plants?

Do historical science books count as "popular science books" if they attempt to include some sort of summery of the subject they are covering? IE: A book covering the development of the atom bomb through WWII discussing physics in brief? The reader is interested in history, but has learned something new about physics at the same time. How is this a bad thing?

EDIT: Holy crap I just became a thread-necromancer of the highest degree, I didn't realize. Sorry!

 

[Mech_Engineer]

Haha, you got me too.

 

[Danger]

In Search of Schrodinger's Cat, by John Gribbin

And the sequel: "In Search of Multi-Dimensional Mice", by Schrodinger's Cat.

 

[_Tully]

And the sequel: "In Search of Multi-Dimensional Mice", by Schrodinger's Cat.

In the works: 'Coming to Terms With Me and Myself', by Schrodinger's Cat.

 

[Danger]

In the works: 'Coming to Terms With Me and Myself', by Schrodinger's Cat.

Something about reading that brought a thought to me. Shouldn't that scenario be called "Schrodinger's Cats"? After all, the whole thing is predicated upon the realization that that there are multiple cats in the box.

 

[_Tully]

Something about reading that brought a thought to me. Shouldn't that scenario be called "Schrodinger's Cats"? After all, the whole thing is predicated upon the realization that that there are multiple cats in the box.

Haha, well the title works to Mr. Schrodinger's advantage anyways as it makes the whole thing all the more absurd. Damn Cheshire cats.

 

[The legend]

Big Bang by Simon Singh

I just bought that yesterday!
Seems to be very interesting.

 

[Borek]

Big Bang by Simon Singh

Is this really type of book that we should discuss at PF?

 

[epenguin]

Is this really type of book that we should discuss at PF?

Why ever not?

Even if it is bad which it is not.

The worst I personally can say about it is that it retells a very oft-told story. (Actually the bit about formation of the elements has not been told so oft as the rest of it.) So I learned fairly little from it personally. But to read the reviews it was a total revelation to many people so has been useful.

 

[Borek]

Ah, so it is about physics?

 

[epenguin]

Ah, so it is about physics?

As I was not sure what that is I had to look it up. On the first thing I came to

"Physics (from Ancient Greek: φύσις physis "nature") is a natural science that involves the study of matter[1] and its motion through spacetime, as well as all related concepts, including energy and force.[2] More broadly, it is the general analysis of nature, conducted in order to understand how the universe behaves.[3][4][5]"

Yes it seems to be broadly physics. Even if an atypical branch. But allow that

"in some subject areas such as in mathematical physics and quantum chemistry, the boundaries of physics remain difficult to distinguish[citation needed]."

And even if it is not physics, as the physicist Feynman would have said, that does not make it bad.

Or unscientific.

 

[Chi Meson]

Ah, so it is about physics?

He didn't get it, Borek. Give him a few moments to review...

 

[epenguin]

He didn't get it, Borek.

You don't know that.

 

[Chi Meson]

You don't know that.

What is this, a dead-pan face-off?

 

[epenguin]

What is this, a dead-pan face-off?

 

[nobelium102]

what about " a brief history in time" by Stephen Hawking and "Cosmos" by Carl Sagan

 

[Evo]

what about " a brief history in time" by Stephen Hawking and "Cosmos" by Carl Sagan

Why? They promote interest in science. They're not meant to teach.

 

[nobelium102]

Why? They promote interest in science. They're not meant to teach.

They are not meant to teach but don't deserve to be banned

 

[nismaratwork]

Banning books of any kind makes me physically ill (not a pun). If people read, 'The Secret' and live by it... so much for those rubes. It's worth it for the one who reads it, throws it away and picks up the Feynman lectures, or something else.

 

[Energystrom]

I would contend that the OP's original statement is in itself intrinsically false. They actually do indeed give the layman a general idea of "what" is being researched/studied. Naturally, they fall short in the department of "how" and "why." However, as others have noted, this was never the purpose. For example, I can know that black holes are a widely acknowledged phenomenon, but I do not need to have an intimate understanding of the math demonstrating this to still contemplate the actual possible instantiation of the theory. Much of the beauty/wonder inspired in the reader of popular science comes from the very fact that the science itself is so mysterious and foreign in nature. It's unlike anything else in their lives, and for this reason, gives a unique pleasure.

If what you purport is that a layman cannot have any fruitful knowledge regarding theoretical physics without an understanding of the math substantiating the claims, then this is similarly foolish. For I could just as easily begin to point at the most mundane of objects and demand that you need a deep understanding of the object's mechanics to understand it's purpose/qualities. For example, I am sure that most people know that a car engine has pistons that, through some vague process, causes the car to move. However, they do not need to know all of the different mechanical bits in between the pistons and wheels to grasp this concept and be able to have some level of fluency in the general qualities of cars.

To categorically reject the worth of popular science seems silly, and hurts yourself than anybody else. The layman is generallmy only tolerant of science when he comprehends some perceived benefit. Since (correct me if I'm wrong) pure theoretical physics yields few practical benefits for the average person, popular science is one of the few things justifying the support of the field in his eyes--it satisfies the philosophic impulse of the "why" in many people. How do you expect anybody to endorse your continued research if you retreat to your ivory tower and disdain those whom make your inquiries possible in the first place?