For the /lit/ anons that actually do/enjoy science, is there any fundamental difference between pop science shows(like Brain Games and the like) and actually reading the books/papers and investigations?
I mean, sure, if you read you'll be able to discuss it more thoroughly i guess, but with pop science you get the basics of everything to understand something without having to delve deep into searching and shit.
>>7377115
You answered your own question, pop science is made to make the subject closer to a layman understanding, but if you want the real shit you have to read the papers.
>>7377121
Maybe i worded it wrong.
I mean, is there anything bad in just relying in pop science if you don't want to skim through thousands of pages of papers to look for the results only?
>>7377138
if you want a decent understanding of scientific topics then just read textbooks for undergrads. only once you get the general knowledge of the topic and importantly vocabulary can you begin to understand scientific papers
>>7377138
Pop-science leads to dogmatism, misinterpretations, and smug pseudo-intellectualism.
It's the equivalent of being a dilettante.
If you want to understand scientific topics, then read some of the better-written textbooks (/sci/'s sticky is great for math, chem, and bio. I can't speak for others) and read research papers to understand how actual "science" is "done".
Of course, working in a lab is always better to understand scientific principles.
>>7377177
Pop-science from respectable sources is a great entryway into the further understanding of deep and multi-faceted concepts.
Is there anything wrong with reading summaries instead of delving into the obtuse language of Shakespeare?
>>7377219
I'm not entirely sure your analogy is correct. I mean, people read those books more for the way it's written than because it has a great meaning or nice story around them.
Unless you were talking seriously, which is hard to say.
There is a HUGE difference. Pop science is extremely simplified, not seldom to the point of being inaccurate (even if it gets the "gist" right). And even when it's completely accurate, it will give you an understanding of the subject that is far from complete.
That doesn't have to be a bad thing, of course. But one should be careful not to overestimate one's knowledge and understanding. If you give someone extremely simplified information and that person then starts making his own inferences and drawing his own conclusions, as people frequently do, those conclusions will often be COMPLETELY WRONG, even if the information he was given in the beginning was essentially accurate. It gets even worse when that person convinces himself that he's an expert and insists that he is right. Take anti-vaxxers, for instance, or those braindead "it's physically impossible for me to lose weight" fat activists. Or, for a less extreme example, people who go buy vitamin pills when they get a cold. They've heard that "vitamins are necessary for good health and important for the immune system," which is accurate, and based on that they make the inference "if I take vitamin pills when I get a cold, I will get well faster." That inference seems obvious and logical on the surface, but is actually erroneous, and it's exactly the kind of faulty reasoning one frequently finds amongst people whose only knowledge of a scientific (or otherwise scholarly) subject comes from watching television.
>>7377269
>implying anti-vaxxers aren't justified in their skepticism
Of course. This is like "is sparknotes the same as reading the book?"
>>7377256
>people read those books more for the way it's written than because it has a great meaning or nice story around them.
God this place is awful
>>7377306
Don't look at me like that, i'm a newfag here, and that's the general impression i get when somebody mentions those books.
If you're not studying anything STEM, then reading papers is basically useless in a practical sense since papers are written under the assumption that you have, at the very minimum, undergrad level knowledge of the common subject being discussed.
So "pop science" is totally valid for those not in the field, also those of us in the field still enjoy quality pop science because it can be fun or bring up a nice discussion.
Pop science due to simplification and being a "bridge" suffers from misinterpretations though, like the famous one of what a theory means for the layman and for the academic.
Another "risk" is being smug about a subject you actually don't understand, like STEMtards thinking they can discard philosophy after their first semester, or phiphags using pop science analogies as valid resources for theories.
>>7377269
Hate to call you out since I basically agree with you, but the person could've gotten sick due to vitamin deficiency, it which case taking vitamins would help. Also, due to the placebo effect, even if the vitamins don't do anything, the belief that they will recover faster may actually help.
