Is popularization actually bad for fields/disciplines?

>>135008815
Yes, it is all those modern "scientists" are in really agent of subversion,They are not propagating science , they engage in disinformation of the masses, they are celebrity, their involvement in science is only to make their opinion "respectable"

"Look it is this science guy, he must know everything!"

All of their are politicly correct, bill nye in now propagading transgenderism, and Dawkins is against brexit

they are jewish pawns, don't have regard for them

>>135010747
All of their opinions are politically correct

>>135008815
good thread, but /pol/ is going to shit, you only see now women/nazism/trump threads

/pol/ is no longer great

>>135008815
Bump
Anti-religious left is, consciously or unconsciously, trying to destroy civilization, and these faggots are at the forefront of keeping people thinking they are "smart" while they are in fact emotionally addled dunces.

>>135008815
Modern science is nothing more than replacement religion for atheists. It has no validity. No proof. They protest against philosophy in an attempt to distract grin the fact that everything they peddle amounts to nothing more than philosophy. Their philosophy fails with even a basic understanding of history. This is why you find such flagrant attacks on history through afrocentric revision and wild alien theories being presented as factual. Christ, help them.

>>135008815
It's not inherently bad, but often it is popularized in such a manner that it does become bad. Should something be made popular, spread wide across the masses, while minimizing its decay or even increasing it's effectiveness and purpose, then it is beneficial to all parties involved.
So long as the original message is being spread, with no additional subtext that directly counters it, then popularization is a good thing.
Naturally, as we can see within our world, this isn't the case. Most people point to the sciences, much like what you do in your picture, yet even the closest opposite to science, religion, isn't immune. Just look at Christianity; what was once a force of good, used to keep the ignorant masses in line and bolster some sense of strength among a community, now has devolved and fractured into a conclave of greed, lust, and lack of discipline. This downfall came, oddly enough, as more people took up the title of Christianity (partly because of population growth, partly because of a need for spreading the religion).
However, the final nail in the coffin for Christianity was its letting go of the concepts of discipline among the masses; no longer are there any inquisitions or crusades to take back the holy land. Instead there is the accepting of groups previously seen as sinful or heretical.
In a way, this makes Christianity a dead religion; it no longer exists in the same form it did ages ago. All that remains is a watered down version. And why was it watered down? To be more easily digestible to the masses.
To be popularized.
Sorry if this doesn't make sense, might clarify in a later post.