[a / b / c / d / e / f / g / gif / h / hr / k / m / o / p / r / s / t / u / v / vg / vr / w / wg] [i / ic] [r9k / s4s / vip / qa] [cm / hm / lgbt / y] [3 / aco / adv / an / asp / bant / biz / cgl / ck / co / diy / fa / fit / gd / hc / his / int / jp / lit / mlp / mu / n / news / out / po / pol / qst / sci / soc / sp / tg / toy / trv / tv / vp / wsg / wsr / x] [Settings] [Search] [Home]
Board
Settings Home
/sci/ - Science & Math



Thread archived.
You cannot reply anymore.




File: michio.jpg (923 KB, 2344x2344)
923 KB
923 KB JPG
Is pop-science good or bad for science?
>>
>>10061091
It's neither.
>>
>>10061096
and its both
>>
All pop science has done is trick dumb kids into thinking they "understand" science.
One does not simply understand science.
>>
>>10061117
"One does not simply understand science" you sound like someone who doesn't understand science.
>>
>>10061091

good because increases STEM popularity.

bad because it oversimplyfies stuff and people get wrecked when go to college.
>>
>>10061160
>increases STEM popularity.
>good
All it does is create a caste of redditors who think they know shit and use it to socially signal to each other
>>
>>10061091
Bad.
>>
>>10061091
It's a net positive but pretentious faggots think it's bad.
>>
>>10061103
20/80
>>
>>10061091
wizard hair, ergo genius
>>
File: horton hears a who.jpg (76 KB, 500x361)
76 KB
76 KB JPG
>>10061091
Bad. We get gay conventions like this.
>>
File: jimmy.jpg (93 KB, 637x779)
93 KB
93 KB JPG
>>10061091
>>10061252
wizard hair = the new PHENOTYPE
>>
File: 7.James_Gates_Nova.jpg (32 KB, 606x341)
32 KB
32 KB JPG
can't wait till i go grey and can get that wizard look
>>
>>10061091
I don't care if most people have a deep understanding of science, I just want them to know what it is. How it differs from religion.

Logic would be good too, but you can't have everything.
>>
>>10061091
you don't need to study math for 5 years to have general idea about things around us.
>>
>>10061091
It's just entertainment, people like to learn and them learning something which isn't the absolute truth is alright because they really don't care.
Also you people would've probably labeled Feynman as pop sci just because he liked to put a couple jokes in his lectures
>>
File: 1522231042066.jpg (30 KB, 500x500)
30 KB
30 KB JPG
>>10061325
>How it differs from religion
>>
>>10061406
most scientists don’t study math for 5 years, that’s not the issue. Its that the explainers are often narcissists and don’t think deeply about the topics they expound upon because it benefits them to be unrigorous. Politicians and the business community love positive results and “big eng” opportunities because they’re childish animals.
>>
>>10061091
I honestly think bad. I think it discourages people from actively pursuing science from making science look so boring and sterile. There are obvious many more factors than this, but in the early twentieth century, before pop science, the scientific fields were not seen as the drab monotony that they are today
>>
>>10061091
Science cannot give less of a fuck about it. Money and education is good for science. Actual education though not indoctrination.
>>
>>10061747
>Its that the explainers are often narcissists and don’t think deeply about the topics they expound upon because it benefits them to be unrigorous.
If the alternative is that people don't know what science is or how it can benefit them on a personal level, I am OK with the masses knowing a Nerf version and feeling smug about it.
>>
>>10061160
>STEM popularity increase is good

>t. Doesn't notice that the concept of supply and demand is also controlling the job market.
>>
>>10061259
I'm pissed about how skepticism has evolved.
>>
File: m'lady.png (92 KB, 400x400)
92 KB
92 KB PNG
>>10061325
>How it differs from religion
Ah, I see you're a fellow redditor aswell. Have an upvote.
>>
>>10061740
>>10062253
It's actually important that it's not treated like a religion. The redditors you're complaining about typically have plenty of "science" dogma.
>>
>>10062276
>It's actually important that it's not treated like a religion.
I suppose in fairness, most people would have difficulty defining what a religion is as well, but at least they have a general sense of it. They aren't even close to understanding what science is.
>>
>>10061091
Look at him. Look into his eyes. It's getting intense for him. He's been charged up. Don't put him down. He doesn't feel like talking. You can tell. He feels mean, but he feels okay.
He's been charged up, as with electricity. His anger is his power. He has all the power he'll ever need. Look at him. Look at him and tell me I'm wrong. You can't.
>>
File: Superquark[1].jpg (73 KB, 800x532)
73 KB
73 KB JPG
>>10061091
>Is pop-science good or bad for science?

I hate faggots like Michio Kaku. They are basically opportunistic, narcissistic fags who oversimplify things in the name of Science!!1!1.
Thank God we have based Piero Angela.
>>
>>10062411
>faggots like Michio Kaku
>opportunistic, narcissistic fags
Why the homophobia?
>>
>>10062418
It's okay, everyone is gay here.
>>
>>10062418
shut up fag
>>
A lot of people aren't logical at all. They think that what they like or agree with means something about themselves. It's just a fault of humans. We weren't built to have a "logical" view of the world.

What sucks about pop science really is that while it does increase the public perception of science as an interesting, inherently good thing, it also has a lot of people that assume that have a lot of knowledge on the world just from these pop science figures and surface level facts alone, and not through an actual understanding of topics. It also attracts a very large crowd of people (much like most of this board) that see pop science as a way to show off their intellect by liking things that make them selves feel smart.

So, I think that pop science is a double sided coin. Shows like "Cosmos" with Neil Tyson open the public up to knowledge that they wouldn't have gotten otherwise, albeit, through a narrow lens. Simultaneously, it's created a lot of the pseudo intellectualism and "know it all"-ness that many people have come to despise.

So, is having this accessibility to science and inspiring the general population worth creating many narcissistic neck beards that spout out Richard Dawkins shit?

Who fuckin knows at the end of the day. I mean shit, most of this board is composed of the pseudo intellectuals that we've grown to hate, it's just that many people on this board have such an ego, that they don't even realize that they themselves are the embodiment of what they hate.
>>
>>10062451
>So, is having this accessibility to science and inspiring the general population worth creating many narcissistic neck beards that spout out Richard Dawkins shit?
No, but now "science" is saleable so it's not going anywhere.
>>
>>10061091
i heard this prick give a lecture at my university a few years ago

it was literally just him saying "in the future, X will happen", but X was always retarded shit the average person would speculate on, like "in the future we'll have moving pictures in frames". which i'm pretty sure we already fucking have. waited in line for 45 min for nothing
>>
>>10061096
>>10061103
None of these, but the opposite.
>>
>>10062789
I predict that those that predict the future will be wrong.

I read a short book called 1936. It was written in 1886, and predicted the future in 50 years. The world of 1936 did away with poverty, disease, and racism. Heavier than air flight proved impossible, so everyone traveled by high speed trains.
>>
>>10061096
>>10061103
/thread absolute sage
>>
>>10062451
Perhaps if they did a better job of explaining that the more you know, the more you understand how little you know it would do a better job of conveying the nature of science.

The masses are never going to read technical journals, but they can understand what they are and why they are the way they are.
>>
>>10062276
You can't really explain the difference between science and religion to the average person. They are generally too dumb to even understand you would need to check and verify anything you "know". Knowledge is something handed down by authority figures
>>
good for many reasons
bad for many reasons
>>
>>10061981

maybe those stem grads will realize that they can't suck the academias tits forever and create new jobs, dunno.

or maybe they will stop flocking to get useless degrees and the cost of college will go down
>>
People like the flashy shit but are too willfully ignorant to absorb the actual lessons. Popsci puts such people firmly onto the peak of "mount stupid" which is definitely damaging.
>>
>>10061160
>increases STEM popularity
Why is that a good thing? There aren't enough jobs in STEM as is. All it creates is a generation of jobless graduates. This is doing real harm to real people and to the economy.
>>
>>10063209
>This is doing real harm to real people and to the economy.
No it isn't. Shitty grads will just do the same office jobs they always did. Good grads will get whatever legit jobs are available.
>>
>>10063273
They're not going to get these jobs or go into such careers, nor acquire the skills for them. I've seen plenty of students who would be better off being tradesmen. Deskjockey jobs are not the only kind there is.
>>
>>10061406
>you don't need to study math for 5 years to have general idea about things around us.
Yes you do, or at the very least, anyone who matters will not listen to the opinions of anyone who doesn't at least understand partial differential equations and multivariable calculus. That's like the bare minimum and not even a very high level, it only takes about a year of studying to get to, if you can't even do that shut the fuck up about anything STEM.
>>
>>10062801
>Heavier than air flight proved impossible,
Did they not have birds in 1886?

Pop sci is probably harmless: people think they know shit regardless, pop sci just gives a different justification for those that don't know better.
The real supposed good of it would be getting people to support real science either through funding or citizen data collection efforts
>>
>>10063443
>>you don't need to study math for 5 years to have general idea about things around us.
>anyone who matters will not listen to the opinions of anyone who doesn't at least understand partial differential equations and multivariable calculus.
We're talking about humans having a basic understanding of the world, not nerds at a water cooler. You don't know exactly how your computer/device works, and that doesn't matter to "anyone who matters".
>>
>>10063479
>We're talking about humans having a basic understanding of the world, not nerds at a water cooler.
If you don't understand PDE's and multi-calc, you do not have a basic understanding of the world. Not even close lol
>You don't know exactly how your computer/device works
>implying I don't
>>
>>10061091
It's obviously good.
It draws more people into actual science.
Yes, it also results to retarded plebs who end up thinking they know quantum mechanics, but who cares.
>>
>>10063501
>If you don't understand PDE's and multi-calc, you do not have a basic understanding of the world. Not even close lol

Please.

>>You don't know exactly how your computer/device works
>>implying I don't

You just trolling for fun or actually nuts?
>>
>>10063503
>It draws more people into actual science.
does it really? how many real scientists do you know that say they do their thing because some asshat had a half hour show on it, rather than a deep personal interest that they developed on their own, of which pop sci was only a very small part?
Further, science probably should be pursued by the masses. Not everyone has the faculties to be a scientist, because most people are, really, truly, frighteningly dumb when it comes to dealing with the abstractions and conceptualizations most sciences require
>>
>>10063831
>Further, science probably should be pursued by the masses.
fuck,
* should not be pursued
>>
What's a good level for Swamp Witch's Hut? The owlbears and hodag treants are quite tough.
>>
>>10061091
I agree with the general sentiment of this thread. When I was a kid I watched Cosmos and at the time it seemed like serious stuff, looking back it is, I guess, pop-science, but I still think it's leagues better than pretty much any today.

I also used to watch science documentaries, and given that I could understand them as a toddler I assume they would also be pop-science, and certainly when I was a kid I'd like to boast about how I knew stuff and act like a smartass. That's what it does to most people, since most people appear to have the brain function of me as a toddler, which is strange because I'm a retard myself. So that's the bad part, it creates a ton of """smart"""" r*dditors who go around acting like faggots.

For me, I grew past that phase and luckily I retained a lot of information. I coasted through, believe it or not, middle and high school science pretty much based on all the stuff I learned on TV when I was a kid.

So the good part is it does instill some information and encourage people to care about it, and it's better than some shitty reality tv or whatever pedo shit is on the TV nowadays. although pop-science now is utter trash, it's just s*yboys and diverse fucks yelling about things everyone should have learned in third grade.
>>
>>10063831
I said it "draws" them. I meant that it makes people view science as something cooler, so a smart kid may try to study more physics, while without popsci it might had not.
>>
File: kurisu.jpg (147 KB, 512x512)
147 KB
147 KB JPG
>>10061091
Define pop-science.
We have something like Sixty Symbols, which is a pretty popular YT channel, where actual professors explain actual physics to physics enthusiasts.
That's great, we need more of that.
We also have a wide variety of faggots pretending to be scientists to push an agenda and fool people into believing things like homeopathy.
That's bad, and I don't think anyone would argue with that. But those are a dime a dozen, most of them don't have any audience.
Popular doesn't mean bad, and vice-versa.
I think when most people think about problems with this stuff, they're talking about cosmology and quantum physics. Those topics are incredibly counter-intuitive for someone who only knows classical physics, and you can't explain them in a few words without oversimplifying things. You can say that entropy is about disorder, but that's actually wrong. You can say that electrons circle around the core, but that's VERY wrong. But if you get into antibonding molecular orbitals and wave functions, or talk about entropy in terms of energy - you will lose the audience (and you need that audience to pay for your research). So you have to oversimplify things.
But then the audience runs with those oversimplifications, and does shit like explaining their bullshit spirituality with quantum entanglement. That's where the issues begin.
How do we combat these issues? Come up with better analogies, I guess. But then again, in a battle with stupidity you will always lose.
>>
>>10064708
>faggots
Why the homophobia?
>>
>>10064727

Because a fag raped me when I was 11.

All fags deserve death.
>>
>>10064731
So why don't all humans deserve death?
>>
>>10064731
That's a good reason
>>
>>10064727
Because limiting your language with political correctness on an anonymous imageboard is beyond retarded.
>>
>>10064742

Because in all the therapy groups I took part in, I noticed that the one thing that linked most of our cases together was faggotry.

They deserve to b u r n
>>
>>10064750
>low IQ rant involving anecdotal evidence

The total state of /sci/
>>
>>10064753

You'll burn too.
>>
>>10062411
based Piero is the only reason to pay canone, the rest is a toxic wasteland
>>
>>10064756
If anyone here will burn it's the person spreading hate ;)
>>
>>10064572
> it makes people view science as something cooler, so a smart kid may try to study more physics, while without popsci it might had not.
And I am doubting the validity of that statement.
Most people, including smart people, take a piece of pop-sci once and then never again. I think there are few people that actually learn real science that were really driven to do so because of something on Cosmo or Bill Nye. They may suggest that when asked about how they got into science, but for most real scientists, there is much more to it and for casuals, well fuck causals
>>
>>10062418
It's not homophobia if you're gay like that anon
>>
>>10061091
IS BAD FOR GOOD SCIENCE AND GOOD FOR BAD SCIENCE
>>
>>10066464
WHY U NOT PEY THE RAI CANON
>>
>>10061156
'"One does not simply understand science" you sound like someone who doesn't understand science.' you sound like someone who doesn't understand understanding science
>>
>>10064750
Why do you post anime pictures?
You seem like the gayness rubbed off on you.
>>
>>10064708
This. At some point I actually stopped reading about cool physics until I advanced in my classes. None of it makes any sense until you see the math/experiments it was derived from.

Like wavefunctions. Literally mathematical functions that are solutions to equations. And from these you get corresponding eigenvalues, which is why some things are quantized.
>>
>hurr durr job market
Maybe look at the bigger picture? Surely if more people understand the IMPORTANCE of science, respect science, and have an interest in science, then it means more funding for research and more public support for scientific endeavours.

Pop science is always a good thing, and it doesn't matter that it's harder for some of you fucktards to get your job wanking over string theory.
>>
>>10062411
>>10066464

Absolutely A E S T H E T I C

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-EkQiBuQDJE
>>
>>10066790
>respect science, and have an interest in science
Is loving a bastardized version of science really respecting it or being interested in it?
>>
>>10062451
There's plenty of logic behind instinct, it's just not rational.
>>
Well exposing more people to science would mean more people would get interested in sciences which would be good. Even if its dumb shit like bigbangtheroy. More people do science more science.
>>
>>10066790
Society is founded on the division of labor, there's no reason to hold up science any higher. More people in science doesn't mean more funding, it means job saturation, even more competition, and either spreading funds so thinly nothing good will get done or having a bunch of grads who are bitter for "falling for the STEM meme". Pushing STEM is a strategic way to lower market cost of skilled labor, not because anyone actually believes the 8-year-old watching Bill Nye is going to cure cancer. Pop Sci is self-aggrandizement to make people hold glory driven scientists on a pedestal when in reality academia is filled with petty gossip, cheating, attention driven people just like the normal population.
>>
>>10061978
The alternative is quality popular science that focus on understanding more than sheer amazement, Connections or the everyday life of objects were a good example of that.
>>
>>10068989
But is it really getting them on track to do science, or putting them on an entirely different track without them knowing the difference?
>>
>>10063096
Lmao do you dumbasses actually believe that?
>>
Pop-science is not inheritly a bad thing because it is (or should be) about bringing science things closer to the general public. The problem is most pop-sci things are just trash. But not because they have to be. Especially true for TV. Those trash shows misrepresent science, oversimplify things, give people the false impression that they know about something and most importantly, make me angry

...

so yeah, most of the time pop-sci things are bad for science and in general just bad
>>
>>10061301
this guy is terrible
>>
>promotes scientism/anything that elevates science to anything besides a useful tool for understanding the physical world
>oversimplifies to the point of misrepresentation
>promotes the debunked "conflict thesis" and shits on religion
>perpetuate myths about the history of science
Making science and math accessible to general audiences is a good idea but the way it usually ends up in practice by people like Neil DeGrasse Tyson and Bill Nye just ends up being a net negative.
>>
>>10061091
good since you need public interest to support funding for most scientific endeavors nowadays
>>
>>10071529
>Making science and math accessible to general audiences is a good idea but the way it usually ends up in practice by people like Neil DeGrasse Tyson and Bill Nye just ends up being a net negative.
Is there an example of someone you believe has done it correctly?
>>
>>10071529
>a useful tool for understanding the physical world
>implying there's another way to understand the physical world
>>
Should pop-scientists push Nietzsche?
>>
>>10061091
It's overall bad. It's highly politicized and ideologically slanted shit with a Science™ seal-of-approval stamped on it when it anything but actual science.

Bill Nye used to be against GMOs but later changed his mind. I was glad that he did as a blanketed attack on GMOs as "frankenfood" is bullshit. But then, Nye had a representative from Monsanto on "Bill Nye Saves the World" to explain why GMOs were okay.

https://www.ecowatch.com/was-bill-nye-paid-by-monsanto-to-change-his-mind-on-gmos-1882068057.html

Made me wonder if Nye really changed his mind or he knew where the money was.

One thing he's still being stupid about is nuclear power.

https://atomicinsights.com/why-doesnt-the-science-guy-like-nuclear-power-yet/

I'm sure the anti-nuclear power episode of "Bill Nye Fucks Over The World" put him back in the good graces of Hollywood and Greenpiece (of shit) but it did nothing to help curb AGW.

It's like when Obama had a bunch of doctors on the White House lawn for a photo-op to promote his (Un)Affordable Care Act and he made the doctors wear lab coats because that means they're "book learn'd'" and "r smart".

https://nypost.com/2009/10/06/white-houses-botched-op/

Health insurance rose, on average, 80% right after it was past. It also resulted in the lost of many people's insurance plan and that the Obama administration knew this would happen but lied to the public. And now that the lies has been revealed, those 150 doctors in the lab coats standing on the front lawn of the White House don't seem all that impressive.
>>
>>10061096
This.

It's entertainment, and not really presented as anything else.
>>
>>10071077
yeah, how come?

i thought gates was cool af
>>
>>10074864
>It's highly politicized...

Wait, wait, wait, is that what everyone is complaining about? That these guys are liberals?

I thought the complaint was more integral to the understanding of science. What's the non-/pol/ objection to pop-sci? An example would help, not just "if you don't understand fluid dynamics, you can't really surf" stuff.
>>
>>10061091
All intuition aside I think it's bad from a educational point of view, because people think they understood the content of a topic when they only just understood the categorization of a topic

but it's good from a research point of view, because a lot more people around the world will be enabled to recognize and develop their scientific potential leading to an overall more educated humanity

I'm an optimist
>>
File: romeo juliet.jpg (519 KB, 1391x2048)
519 KB
519 KB JPG
>>10061091
Are movie adaptations bad for literature? I'd say no, because it leads people to the literature
>>
>>10066564
Have an upvote, fellow redditor ;)
>>
>>10075621
Is pop science ever used to supplement education in the lower levels?
>>
>>10061117
This, they don't actually understand the math or the physics behind most theories but they just nod and agree because someone who's an authority on the subject espouses it.
>>
>>10061301
Thank god that fuck went to Brown
>>
bad
since it invites disaster by introducing retards to concepts they would never really understand in the first place





Delete Post: [File Only] Style:
[Disable Mobile View / Use Desktop Site]

[Enable Mobile View / Use Mobile Site]

All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective parties. Images uploaded are the responsibility of the Poster. Comments are owned by the Poster.