What does /sci/ consider to be pop science? Is it strictly those

>>7628189
anything that focuses purely on innovation and not at all on evidence

Anything that doesn't have an integral in it.

>>7628189
Retarded shit based in speculation without a deep understanding of the concepts behind it.
It is the trivialization of the knowledge, now you can find assholes doing degrees that are more interested in share memes than spend their time in real study.

I consider popsci to be anything where non-scientists explain things (hiding all the technicalities and details) to other non-scientists.

I don't like popsci cause the former will almost always stretch the truth because the "real" science isn't "interesting" to their audience. Then the audience gobbles up the half-truths and pretend that they know science, then teach their half understandings to other non-scientists.

The big bong theory is a big culprit of this.

>>7628189
Popsci tier: Biology, Geology, environmental science, & any education major with any subject.

>>7628264
This. Pop sci is anything that changes the actual science to make it more interesting to non scientists.

For example people who only look at the theoretical FTL situations of relativity and walk away going "DUDE TIME TRAVEL LMAO" even though the theory also says FTL is likely impossible.

Or people who think quantum mechanics say "anything can happen at any time for any reason!!! Universe is so le randumb!!! Hahaha xD" when what it really says is subatomic particles behave in probabilistic ways.

You can bitch about it, but the truth is any field you don't graduate in will be pop* to you. Physics, mathematics, literature, history, theatre, music you name it. Even within your field you will remain on some undergrad level of understanding in most parts.

People have an interest in lighthearted entertainment about these subjects and it's okay that other people provide that. Sure, some are better than others, and it's important that the facts stay facts, but ultimately there's nothing wrong with it, and people on /sci/ just like to be snobs about it because they have the upper-hand in this particular part of pop-culture.

Personally I don't really like most of the more famous youtube science stars, but more on a personal or performance level than that of actual content.

>>7628273
I disagree, having a rudimentary understanding of a subject and being presented factoids about complex fields are different animals. Most people who have rudimentary knowledge are aware of how much they don't know.

It's hard not to be a snob when some guy comes along presenting theories about concepts they don't fully understand - but think that they do. You try and address their misunderstanding, but it's not easily digestible like the YouTube stars make it, and they disregard you entirely. It's kind of a slap in the face to the people who do understand.

>>7628273
it doesn't need to be hard to be proper science
if you learn euclidean geometry it's very basic, but actual math
if you read about muh black holes in a hawkings book its popshit

>>7628286
>It's kind of a slap in the face to the people who do understand.

i.e. your ego is hurt

Most of /sci/ is just insecure.

Stop wasting your time caring, if anything pop-sci helps build interest in your fields.

Who the fuck is going to fund you if everyone bored to death by the rigors of science (most people) aren't given some sort of exposure to it.

Be happy popsci is getting a good amount of the votebank on your side, while making sure it doesn't affect your career since most people you will deal with won't be affected by said popsci.

If you aren't willing to reap those benefits because you feel hurt when someone fails to realize how "smart" you are you need to reevaluate how committed you are to your field.

Think about it for a second, as a researcher actually trying to learn (which most of you try to look like) are you more hurt or helped by channels like SciShow hyping people about your work.

>>7628308
It's not about my ego being hurt, I couldn't give two shits about whether or not someone cares. I do care how people who consume popsci have no real interest in science, and when presented with something to further their understanding they just dismiss it.

Popsci builds false interest, people badger scientists looking for things that can't exist because their popsci tells them "it's coming!". Look at FTL travel, non-scientists are heralding quantam entanglement as they key to FTL when they don't even know what quantam entanglment really is.

Results get funded, not someone's interest in science. Academia will fund science until the end of humanity.

I bet most researchers would rather have genuinely interested parties asking about their research than some jackass who's only knowledge has been scraped from YouTube.

>>7628338
Yeah pretty much this.

I personally like Vsauce videos and other "popsci" YouTube channels and such, even though I have studied and researched the natural-physical sciences (and some physical theory as well) my whole academic career. It's like being a major league baseball player, but still enjoying a wiffle-ball game on the weekends. It doesn't make me mad until it fosters illegitimate interest/attention.

>>7628338
This.

I don't care about pop-sci
I just want a 4chan board where I can discuss science with out pop-sci memefaggots derailing the conversation

>>7628273
I disagree as well. Sorry anon, but a proper scientific education (even for an engineer) covers a lot of knowledge and mathematical tools that are usable cross-field.
I'd be more interested in the math than in saying "did you know that energy bends spacetime like a ball bends a trampoline, but in 3D?"

This is why in some countries, you can afford having all students have the same intensive first 2 years of common background, with most of the necessary math and a lot of physics covered.

>>7628189

Is transhumanisum the ultimate pop science?

Videos or articles designed to cater to ignorant plebians who "FUCKING LOVE SCIENCE " . Topically it doesn't matter. What matters is the target audience.

If you can't read a scientific article from a journal, if you don't understand calculus, you don't deserve to discuss science. The only thing you're good for is to work your nine to five, provide us with services, and pay your taxes so we can have funding. Stop asking science questions, it's all entertainment to you anyway and you don't deserve the knowledge.

>>7628634

Videos or articles designed to cater to ignorant plebians who "FUCKING LOVE SCIENCE " . Topically it doesn't matter. What matters is the target audience.

If you can't read a scientific article from a journal in English, Mandarin and Latin, if you don't understand interuniversal Teichmuller theory, you don't deserve to discuss science. The only thing you're good for is to work your nine to five, provide us with services, and pay your taxes so we can have funding. Stop asking science questions, it's all entertainment to you anyway and you don't deserve the knowledge.

>>7628200
Explain?

>>7628266
No Psychology?

File: 1446306958370s[1].jpg (9KB, 250x250px) Image search: [Google]

9KB, 250x250px

What does /sci/ think of Vsauce?

>>7628634
Is that sarcasm?

Defunded.

>>7629550
Pretty cool

5000TH VSAUCE THREAD LEL xD

>>7628269
>quantum mechanics say "anything can happen at any time for any reason!!! Universe is so le randumb!!! Hahaha xD"
Hey guise QM is awesome and easy.
>DUDE TIME TRAVEL LMAO
Topkek, they forget about time dilation and so many other things. Even though FTL is impossible.

>>7628355
>>7628461
Hey guys when can I travel the stars with my FTL ship and nuclear fusion engines?

>>7628189
>What does /sci/ consider to be pop science?

This guy puts it very well. Anything that works to undermine science itself or the public's confidence in science through a set of closely related disingenuous, self-serving, careless, or irresponsible (though possibly well-intentioned) mechanisms.
http://thelastpsychiatrist.com/2011/02/the_decline_effect_is_stupid.html#more
This is broadly descriptive of IFLS and all science journalism, as well as apologists of the seralini and wakefield affairs and other undesirables.

>>7629550
entertaining if you keep in mind that it has very dumbed down explanations for sub tier iq plebs that aren't in stem.

If you say you like quantum bit haven't worked through Bose–Einstein distribution.

>>7628189
>What does /sci/ consider to be pop science?
anything without explicit and rigorous definitions along with a verifiable metric for quantitative comparison.

>>7628189
People who like popsci tend to focus on memorising trivial shit and ~interesting factoids~, rather than understanding the fundamental concepts. It's the same with people who learn a bunch of aeroplane model numbers and think that makes them interested in engineering.

>>7629933
The Last Psychiatrist?

My nigga

File: 1444074862137.jpg (232KB, 538x785px) Image search: [Google]

232KB, 538x785px

>tfw watch Sixty Symbols and Numberphile
Am I a plebian?

>>7630946
so, basically, everything?

Do you guys consider watching Stanford Lectures popsci?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JzhlfbWBuQ8&list=PLQrxduI9Pds1fm91Dmn8x1lo-O_kpZGk8&index=10

Because I hope not.

File: scishow.jpg (173KB, 1438x810px) Image search: [Google]

173KB, 1438x810px

What do people think of SciShow?

>>7631028
>>7629933
this

the guy is a genious even when rambling

>>7628266
My chem degree to teach high school requires the same math chem and physics as chemEs

>>7629933
>>7631028

What the fuck is up with all of these ads..

>>7631398
I'm wondering more about whats up with these endless Vsauce spams going on here lately

>>7631377
I like it well enough, but only Hank. Other guy annoys me, can't place why.

>>7631403
Is it because of the dyed hair?

>>7630809
Why are stem faggots always so god damn pretentious?

>>7631458
Because that's all we have going for as anon, because that's all we have going for us.

>>7631479
I like your humility. You're ok.

>>7631499
it's called "false modesty", anon

this board is so cancerous, i'll visit once a week and 90% of it is just people comparing their degrees lmao

>>7631507
that's pretty much every board on the site

>/fit/ comparing their height, lifts and "aesthetics"
>/lit/ comparing who can fap over david foster wallace the most
>/mu/ comparing the obscurity of their musical "taste"
>/v/ comparing who is the least casual
>/sp/ comparing flags and "bantz"
>/pol/ comparing who's the most right-wing

etc

Anyone watch Numberphile, Periodic element and computerphile?

>>7631643
>Numberphile
It's fine, some topics and people they invite are quite interesting, but there are bad ones too.
>Periodic element
Never heard of.
>Computerphile
Subjects of their vidoes are way too simple for me and I'm not interested in history of information technology that much.

>>7629550
Pretty entertaining.

>>7631757
Its fun, its about chemistry.
Love the professor
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ISfIT3B4y6E
They explain a little about the science and do experiment.

>>7632011
Looks cool, but I'm not interested in chemistry at all.

>>7628189
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=92B1JCT5jjQ

>>7631643
Vi hart

>>7629550
He's not CrashCourse so I like him

Are you people really this butthurt about people trying to educate others in a more educating way
No one except total autists is gonna start with professional thick science books

Popsci is synonymous with science dilettante.

>>7631643
Watch numberphile, Periodic Videos and Sixty Symbols as well as some other stuff like CGPgrey and Smarter Every Day.
I've actually met Matt Parker from numberphile, Professor Poliakoff from Periodic Vids and also Professor Moriarty from sixty symbols. Pretty awesome fellas.

>>7631168
Not really since that stuff is explained by actual scientists and mathematicians.

File: science_bulging4.jpg (166KB, 1414x841px) Image search: [Google]

166KB, 1414x841px

>>7628189
Thoughts on horrible science series? They are obviously meant for children, but they really helped with my interest in science and it helped me get good grades through whole middle and high school, once I got to uni I obviously started to study a lot more, but I think they are great entry points.

File: 1126549.jpg (68KB, 318x465px) Image search: [Google]

68KB, 318x465px

>>7633044

>They redesigned the covers

I certainly enjoyed them and they were a key part of my childhood library.

>>7633044
Nothing wrong with pandering to children. The problem is when you have to pander to adults.

>>7628266
>Popsci tier: Biology, Geology, environmental science

fu

>>7632990
No, it's more entertaining way, not educating way.
But I don't mind them doing though, I enjoy some of them as well.
>No one except total autists is gonna start with professional thick science books
Except that most of these people will never read any professional book. It wouldn't be that bad if they didn't claim how much they love science and how smart they are, which is pretty obnoxious. This people make pop-sci so shit, not the ones who make vidoes.

>>7631512
This tbqh senpai (to be quite honest family)

>>7628269
>Or people who think quantum mechanics say "anything can happen at any time for any reason!!!

this shit infuriates me to no end

>>7634550
No end?

>>7628266
Nutrition is probably the biggest meme science there is.

>>7633016
Cool, I'll watch those also.

>>7628202
Did you mean a triple integral, didn't you?

>>7637345

Integrals are for faggots with too much time on their hands! :D

>>7635669
>Says so a neckbeard

>>7629550
Compared to other channels that go for the same niche; it's good.

>>7629550

I bet that's actually the Michael guy asking. I mean, how else does he have the picture?

>>7637929
>"nutritionist" detected

>>7628189
I find VSauce to be alright.

Who here can't stand Minutephysics/ASAPscience? I hate their smug voices and their dumb presentation by drawing everything. One of them really overdoes assertions.
Vsauce on the other hand is more philosophical and is not just "le quoting facts, i am so smart xD"