What's wrong with pop science?
Nothing with the thing itself, it's only that the people who like it defend it too much
Nothing. /sci/ is just full of edgy pretentious elitist.
Four letters
I F L S
/sci/ takes everything too seriously sometimes
>>7683876
Nothing. The problem is with the idiots that watch an oversimplified show intended to get people interested in science and motivate them into further study, but insted they think they're an expert on every topic covered, no further study required.
>>7683876
Because it doesn't teach shit.
>>7683880
Why are they shaking so much!
Nothing, if it gets the general population excited about science that means there will be more funding for it.
The only problem is pop science gives an overly simplified representation if not outright incorrect view of the idea.
So you have people who think they understand something but they don't.
>>7683880
because i have to listen to my uncle talk about time dilation at thanksgiving dinner after he watched a 2 minute youtube clip of niel degrasse tyson
>>7683904
gl
>>7683876
First trivializes science. Then gives a higher status to scientists which in the case of pop scientists is used to discuss matters they are utterly ignorant (politics, philosophy, social issues), trivializing humanities.
Pop scientists are characterized for talking about controversial themes they know nothing about. That's what makes them popular.
>>7683911
I can fap to these dubs
Does /sci/ agree with le black science man, lawrence krauss, dawkins etc. that philosophy is utterly useless and unnecessary?
It's simplified so that everyone could understand it. There is so much more to learn, and because of the lack of information pop science spouts, conspiracyfags often find "holes" in theories.
>>7683995
Pretty much nobody in the scientific community agrees with them except undergrads, so yes, /sci/ probably agrees with them.
>>7683995
Although I'm not happy with religion, even their criticism of religion is fucking retarded.
They're only worth listening when they talk about a very specific matter on their field of study.
>>7683995
about 80% of it is.
you're pop-sci a shit
>>7683995
Nah. Pop phil fans aren't any less obnoxious than pop sci ones though.
>>7683876
Popsci is about spamming buzzwords, not building (abeit small/qualitative) understanding of the subject.
Watch some documentaries from the olden days back when people valued education to see the difference from today's junk.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yPmf_JylLQ0&list=PL640F3D167563B9AA
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sKOlfR5OcB4
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BFdq6IecUJc
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qxoNq2K7B78
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NMxoGPKLv-U
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u6wUvMtKi2A
>>7684009
decent pop sci is more about generalities than it is about shitty stories on phys.org
Would things like computerphile, sixty symbols, ect be considered pop sci according to you? They generally take their care in saying what conditions are needed for a conclusion to hold or saying that edge cases exists.
>>7684039
This is saddening, but unsurprising.
>>7684039
just watching the first video, that's way more in depth than anything i've ever seen. neat
>>7684009
more of a tree than a cycle
it's extreme left-wing political ideology mixed in with very little actual science
it's just perpetuating the SJW cult disaster
>>7683880
I like how Vincent kept these sequences despite the fact that its obvious he made her cry before they started filming.
>>7683880
What show
The problem with Pop-science is that Black Science man, who's area of expertise is observational astronomy, gets brought on TV to talk about the Higgs boson.
Then you have a public that thinks a boson's most important job is giving mass to particles, instead of a field that actually allows electrodynamics to exist as its own unique entity in our universe, separate from the complicated dynamics of nuclear physics.
The problem is that real experts don't participate in pop sci very much. And too many of them are string theorists.
>>7684522
I'm gonna assume you don't recognize Christina Richi, conclude that you're not even 20yo and ignore you.
>>7684592
Not that poster, but I'm 22 and don't have the slightest who you're talking about.
I'm just going to assume you're either a child inside, or an actual child, because anyone over 18 not understanding the difference between their idea of common knowledge and the probable actual clustering of knowledge in a given population, clearly hasn't interacted with many people outside of a very small area. Probably their hometown.
Not everyone gives a shit about the things you give a shit about, and therefore, not everyone knows what you know. Now inform that poster about what material this originates from, for I (as well) have decided the female in question's breasts et al are of interest.
>>7684602
...
Thanks for your "/sci/ is calm and mature" counterculture tone (I've used it before myself, I'm here for almost a decade now), but it's a basic meme on 4chan to just talk down on the non-90's kids if you're a 90's kid, so don't get all worked up.
And 22 is the same for me, desu, if you don't know the Adams Family movie for example, it's odd.
And regarding that particular movie, I think there are enough clues ITT to find the movie using imdb.
To contribute to the thread, I want to say that this answer >>7683891 is better than my first responder one.
>>7684625
Don't you make me reverse image search. I'll have you know it's only ~2 clicks away.
You're two clicks away from this happening, bud.
>pop "science"
Mfw
>>7684628
pretty sure it is Buffalo 66, Vincent Galo film
>>7684631
also called "the answer"
>>7684631
that is what happens when you work in objective field like science
What is defined as Pop Science?
The majority of it is shit. Its just "a million earths could fit inside in the sun" type bullshit. No actual knowledge or attempts to explain difficult concepts
>>7684625
>90s kid
Fuck off with this nostalgia bullshit mate. You people are the worst
You were fucking 7 in 1999.
>dude comes into my store
>i tell him im taking physics w/calc 1
>"do you know anything about quantum entanglement?"
>i say very little, im not a particle physicist
>"well, if you pair two electrons, if you look at one of them, the other one instantly starts spiining in the same direction."
>mfw
>mfw i said "I don't believe in spooky action at a distance" to shut him up
>mfw he didnt get the refrrence
>>7683876
Nothing inherently. It's meant to inspire and not educate. But they often underestimate how easily influenced the masses are and they're mistaken for being educators.
No, Planck’s length is not the smallest length in the universe.
No, entropy is not disorder.
No, the sum of natural integers is not [math]-\frac{1}{12}[/math].
No, quantum mechanics is not a New Age bullshit about consciousness.
No, Einstein and Hawkins are not the brightest spirits ever.
No, homosexuality does not make you a better or worse scientist.
No, you can’t learn real mathematics by watching someone scribble in MS Paint or on a sheet of brown paper.
No, 1000 cancer cells killed does not mean the end of that disease.
No, time travel is not confirmed by quantum mechanics.
No, you can’t create energy with magnets.
No, Jacob Barnett is not a genius.
No, genetic anomalies making you a different sex than what your genes tell is not relevant enough to change the definition of male and female.
No, mathematics is not the study of numbers.
Nothing wrong with popsci, buddy. :^)
>>7685028
>No, Jacob Barnett is not a genius.
I think technically he is.
>>7685028
How to compute a sum of infinitely many numbers?
>>7683995
They're retarded. I don't know why people even listen to them.
>The subject that spawned math and science is stupid.
Yeah, go tell Leibniz and Godel philosophy is stupid.
>>7685028
>Because HOW DARE THEY ever present anything even semi-scientific on public television that you don't need years of study and research to comprehend!?!? If anyone had even the slightest interest in pursuing a scientific education, they would already know ALL of science!
>>7683906
kek. really though, the alternative to simpletons spouting off pop sci is:
"what are scientist studying anyway? its not like theyre feeding the homeless or bringing world peace. who needs science!"
and that conclusion might be twice as annoying.
>>7685028
>Jacob Barnett is not a genius
Someone's a little jelly, ain't he?
>>7683882
i.e., people actually getting a STEM degree
>>7685054
Well, it wasn't stupid back then. It was pretty much the best way that we had at understanding the natural world before we had the technology to test our theories effectively. It has, however, been gradually made outdated by superior methods of understanding the natural world to the extent that it is now totally useless.
>>7685239
Philosophy is doing the same things it was doing centuries ago.
>>7685287
Saying she that doesn't matter or isn't true?
>>7685237
whats wrong with a "STEM" degree?
You can't possibley be implying studying communication or liberal arts is superior?
>>7685578
It depends of the stem degree and of the liberal arts degree.
>>7685565
*shit
>>7683880
/thread
is minutephysics pop science?
>>7683876
Nothing wrong with popsci, it's just when a faggot like Tyson charges people $60k for him to show up and speak (while a nobel laureate usually just needs travel/food/housing expenses covered) that makes me mad.
They're not doing it because they like science, they're doing it because they can make a shit ton of money.
>>7684522
buffalo 66
>>7683876
When you sensationalize and misrepresent research findings to the public, you work to damage public confidence in science as a method and the institution itself.
http://thelastpsychiatrist.com/2011/02/the_decline_effect_is_stupid.html
The line between pop science and pseudoscience is awful hazy.
>>7686049
>complaining about pop sci
>links to the last psych
>>7683880
that bitch is so fucking overrated
low test boy males
It leads to Liberal Arts students and similar people with little-to-no background or education in science believing they have highly informed opinions on complex matters. In short, you get obnoxious shits prancing about thinking they know all there is to know about topics that take years of study to truly understand.
It also in many ways demeans science by dumbing it down, often resulting in inaccuracies.
>>7686052
Do you have anything to say about the substance and content of his critique, or do you just want to bitch vaguely about who he is like a little faggot?
>>7686072
not that particular one, though the last psych sees everything a narcissism and reference all sort of bullshit continental philosophy in his other posts. Shit thinker, don't pollute /sci/ with his sort.
>>7686073
Odd, I think he's almost always on point. He has a great interpretation and explanation of SJWs.
>>7685896
its always about popsci topics
but its still pretty rad, that and veritasium are the only popsci channels i can deal with and are pretty fun
>>7683876
It contributes to saturating the Maths and Physics fields.
>>7686058
this
>>7686058
but anon, low test boys are the cutest
>>7686347
they make good traps
>>7684039
>Degrees Kelvin
them nostalgia
>>7684039
>tfw seeing an explanation on tunneling that doesn't end up with shitty metaphors or memes
>>7685929
Is this worth watching?
>>7683876
Too many are being taught what to think as opposed to how to think. And some of these beliefs taught as fact will be flipped in a decade. Not unique, it happens to every generation. Which means many of those that were taught 'what' instead of 'how' will not trust 'science' because they never learned what real science is. And the next group will dismiss them as crazy when they share their doubts. Then the cycle will repeats.
One of the side effects is the science turning into new age bullshit, just like QM.
>>7683876
It's not conducive to revolutionary scientific study
>>7683876
Everything. Everyone has to be a math machine at all costs.
>>7683995
People who say that philosophy is useless don't understand it.
I don't mean in the sense "WELL THEY JUST ARNT SMART ENUFF TO READ NITZCHE"
I mean that Philosophy should be taken as any sort of pleasure writing. We read philosophy as a subjective discovery, not a series of logical conclusions. No serious philosophy professor would ever defend philosophy as a scientific endeavor.
Would you ask for proof when Fitzgerald critiques the American Dream in Gatsby? It's the same thing for philosophy.
>>7688808
Get into anglo-saksian school. Not everything we do is continental stuff. Nietzsche Bietzsche!
>>7683999
nIcE TrIpS
>>7683876
It leads to personality worship instead of understanding of science.
>>7688974
personality worship is a problem, but that is not just an issue with pop science. It happens at the higher levels also and in many other fields where genius is celebrated.
>>7688974
>Musk
But that guy isn't a popsci product, is he? I thought the twitter crowd loved him because he says he can make the American space effort great again.
>>7685036
Anyone can make a kid cram mathematics aimlessly and young kids probably have an easier time cramming when you can get them to focus and deal with them 1 on 1.
I just think it's repulsive to do such a thing to a child.
>>7689010
Famous figures are rarely products of popsci. Popsci changes how others VIEW said figure i.e. an infallible messiah of logic and progress.
>>7683876
your pic related
>>7685899
>Tyson charges people $60k for him to show up and speak
Source?
>>7685239
Dumbass doesn't realizing he's doing philosophy while he claims philosophy is useless.
>>7685028
>No, the sum of natural integers is not −112-\frac{1}{12}.
but it is ,by out most commonly accepted definition of the sum of an infinite series .
it is kind of a meme-sum at this point .
