What is so "wrong" about Popsci?

>>7945075
>What is so "wrong" about Popsci?
Most of their statements

nothing. as long as it doesn't get mixed with real science.
thats why we desperately need a board called >>>/pop/. but the mods dont give a cuck

>>7945100
will that be just for science, or for literature, music, games and fasion as well? because utherwise we need more than one >>>/pop/.

>be retard
>want to make my opinions seem not retarded
>find shit "popsci" clickbait article which has a title that espouses my beliefs
>get to say that science agrees with me and that I am a rational person

Is popsci a gateway to becoming a real scientist?

>>7945109
Sounds like internet arguing 101 to me.

File: 10390415_1453096451603385_2535668771456260161_n.jpg (37KB, 500x500px) Image search: [Google]

37KB, 500x500px

Science is the new religion, and popsci is the new way to "preach to the masses". Do you think the highest theologians and religious philosophers just sit around all day listening to babbys first sermon? No, they're working out any kinks or issues their system has and contemplating the abstract and divine nature of god. But they have to water everything down to plebian tier IQ level so that when people pack into the pews on sunday wanting to know about god, they can try to convey to them these ideas without handing them a copy of aquinas and laughing at them for not understanding it a fucking word of it, saying fuck it, and burning everything to the ground.

The problem isn't with popsci, it's with faggots who read popsci then think they're an authority on the subject or grasp any understanding of it at all.

>>7945381
> experimentation is religion
no its not

>>7945389
the people taking in popsci more often then not have no idea what experiments were done, or even if any were at all.

>>7945381
>Science is the new religion

u w0t m8?

>>7945398

Scientism is a blind appeal to authority prefaced on the supposed primacy of logic in argumentation. If you've ever seen a clickbait article titled "Science proves that..." then you know what I mean.

>>7945075
In principle, nothing. In practice it gives a group of people who know literally fuck all to either:
>Be dangerous
>Think they're as knowledgeable as someone who's spent years studying some subject.

File: NewImage-198.png (1MB, 853x1317px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 853x1317px

OP here.

/sci/ seems to be confusing "broscience" with "popsci". Stop that.

File: 157english.jpg (3MB, 7749x1732px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 7749x1732px

>>7945411

File: buff.jpg (351KB, 600x4123px) Image search: [Google]

351KB, 600x4123px

Broscience.

it cannot be understood methodologically, therefore it requires faith.

File: Screenshot 2016-03-20 at 20.41.21.png (166KB, 1020x445px) Image search: [Google]

166KB, 1020x445px

>>7945411
m8

Broscience is just a step away from popscience

Pop-sci is dumbing down science for the masses. But, as others have said, reading it makes them think they have any substantial amount of knowledge on the topic.

Now pop-sci isn't bad on its own. The bad part is plebs who read pop-sci, then come on /sci/ and start threads.

Here is an example of a pop-sci plebian

https://warosu.org/sci/thread/S7596209

If the OP knew anything substantial about physics, he would know that he is trying to apply Newtonian mechanics inappropriately

>>7945405
Yes, logic is so overrated in arguments. People who use appeals to emotion are so much more intelligent.

File: popsci.png (111KB, 1797x515px) Image search: [Google]

111KB, 1797x515px

>>7945075

>>7945525
And youtube comments affect you because...

>>7945494

Neglecting the human experience and how we interact with and interpret the world through lenses that are assuredly not perfect crystalline logic is a great way to really miss the point on a lot of things.

>>7945534
because people here are bitter autists, don't pay them any mind

>>7945534
Why do you obsess over the youtube comments part? The rest of the post concerns the topic perfectly. The point is that popsci most of the time is downright misinformation.

File: method.jpg (51KB, 600x260px) Image search: [Google]

51KB, 600x260px

>>7945389
>>7945396
And these days "experiments" can mean ideologically or economically biased "Scientists" carrying out poorly designed experiments and only publishing the ones that come out the way they want.

>>7945378
>No the gateway to real science is doing real science, no amount of popsci crap can preapre you for the real deal

>>7945381
Yes, science is the new religion.

One aspect of this is that it is so insofar as a large proportion of the uneducated but euphoric masses think that science can answer all questions, or that scientific truth is absolute.

File: triggered.gif (1MB, 371x209px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 371x209px

>>7945465
I have never been more mad on this board than after looking at that pic. Thanks. I think pop science has it's place, gets kid interested in science. The problem is they never move on from the medium of 'pop sci' due to the amount of crap on facebook.

Lets be real, we're all most likely 20-30 year olds. I for one grew up with books on the planets and chemistry, I didn't have a social media account until 2010.

>>7945574
Not really. I got into physics because of Star Trek.
I'm doing research. I'm publishing.

>>7947291
Preferable to the masses believing all existence is due to a magical sky dude making a man from blood and clay then a woman from one of his ribs.

Oh, and no meat on Fridays. Don't forget that G-d cares intimately about the intricate details of your digestive tract.

Remember friends, you can't be moral without a celestial dictator threatening you with eternal torture if you don't do exactly as He says.

>>7949047

Hey, no one is saying that science-as-religion isn't still a step up from religion-as-religion. But it's important to remember that viewing science in a religious light is still a shit way of interpreting the world, even if "I believe this on faith because a scientist said it" is generally better than "I believe this on faith because a priest said it"

its clickbait bullshit that misinforms people

>>7945381
This is true. Say what you want about religion but the bible was clearly put together by literary and philosophical geniuses. The clergy is really fucking smart.

>>7949047
>bearded, white-coated guy in ivory tower says everything is made of invisible strings
>has zero experimental proof but if you refuse to believe you are a tinfoil.

>>7949116
It's a more educated guess that rumor and superstition, but a less educated guess than proper science. On the whole it's a win.

>>7949119
Why don't you try learning some maths and proving string theory is wrong then?

>>7949163
>"You can't prove string theory wrong!"
>"You can't prove god does not exist!"

>>7949047
>Don't forget that G-d cares intimately about the intricate details of your digestive tract.
A-are you Jewish?

>>7949210
Not the guy you replied to but Jews, at least most of us, really do not give a flying fuck about what people eat or if its kosher as long as its respectably healthy/clean

>>7949171
>>What if both right?
>>What if... Both WRONG?!?

>>7948339
I'm 19, grandfather..

File: 178150.jpg (37KB, 480x297px) Image search: [Google]

37KB, 480x297px

Pop sci is just as bad as religion. In fact by some definitions it actually is religion. Which would make black science man the Pope.

>>7945075
Nothing, we're just angry that all the work we put into learning is invalid.

>>7949171
You can't prove that I don't have proof and I'm keeping a secret all to myself.

Also you can't prove I'm not a space lizard posting on 4chan from the 7th dimension.

To be fair, if I'm working as, say, an actuary, and suddenly decide I want to learn higher math, I'm not going to go take courses in differential topology and such. I'm going to find a book that's accessible and read it in my spare time, for me.

It's not inaccurate, it's just dumbed down. That's the whole point. I'm not going to pretend like I'm doing research in the field, just that I could explain the general picture to a layman if asked.

tl;dr: popsci doesn't devalue your Phd.

>>7949119
There is no such thing as scientific proof for a theory.

There is only scientific disproof or the lack thereof.

So far, there is no scientific disproof of general relativity, so it is accepted. But there is literally no experimental proof of it.

>>7949522
wait wait wait.... so a theory is literally anything that you can't disprove or prove? Does that mean creationism is a valid theory? And if Natural selection is an equally valid theory that directly contradicts it what do you do then? They can't both be true, and if only 1 can be true then the fact that both can't be true is proof that the other one is invalid.

You see the fault in this logic here? What constitutes a theory needs to be redefined IMO or else all theories become invalid and meaningless.

>>7949544
Good theories make falsifiable predictions, like string theory and GR.

>>7949544
Yes, only one of them can be true, but strictly speaking neither has been falsified.

As the other poster said, good theories make falsifiable predictions, so by this metric creationism is not a good theory.

One could also perhaps argue that therefore natural selection has greater statistical support for it, as it actually has been tested, but I am not sure how this argument could be made mathematically rigorous.

File: 1458457276022.jpg (57KB, 785x800px) Image search: [Google]

57KB, 785x800px

>>7949550
>Good theories make falsifiable predictions, like string theory

>>7949580
Yeah, I noticed that. Cheeky.

>>7949550
>string theory
>good
pick one

>>7945075
>What is so "wrong" about Popsci?

made for dumb women

>>7949608
>>>/r9k/

Lack. Of. Rigor.
(And poor-to-no understanding of falsifcationism and the philosophy of science)

>>7945573
The latter method might be more common in fields that have some sort of commercial application, but "pure" fields are not so influenced by these sort of funding shenanigans - why would a businessman care about knot polynomials or supersymmetric scattering amplitudes?
As your picture explains, somebody fudging numbers and doing dodgy experiments is not really applying the scientific method and their results cannot then be called science. You couldn't use flat earther "science" to prove that scientists are essentially religious nutjobs because the "theories" published on their flat earth websites clearly do not follow the scientific methods - nobody but the flat earthers consider it science.
One can make the exact same criticism of the commercial science described in the bottom half of that picture. Real science is still science, even if there are imitators out there who do not behave ethically.

>>7949591
Nice shitposting. I said they make falsifiable predictions, which all good theories do. I never claimed either was a good theory.

>>7949210
Catholics technically aren't supposed to eat meat, save fish on fridays during lent. Some people don't eat it all year long. Most ignore it, except during lent. And some others just ignore it entirely. It's just tradition, a year-marking thing like "oh hey it's Lent I guess that means fish dishes".

Treating the bible literally is a lot like reading popsci and taking everything out of it and just treating yourself as an authority, as someone said earlier. We have clergy for a reason, they serve as spiritual guides. I guess that's why I stayed Catholic instead of jumping over to Protestantism or some other more decentralized religion.

>>7949047
See, you can believe in science and religion at the same time. Science describes the universe that God created. We don't know how that happened, so we dig deeper and figure out the methods that it happened in.

Believe me, I get where you're coming from, I know some people who just adamantly deny evolution, and it's confusing, the logical hoops you have to jump through to discredit it.

Basically please don't lump us Catholics, who believe in evolution/the big bang/etc with the religious community's equivalent of a conspiracy theorist who believes that God would make a universe that doesn't make any sense.

And yeah, I had a popsci subscription as a kid. It was kind of cool when I was like 10 or 11 because it was "SCIENCE" and that was cool but then it got really boring when I started reading anything about actual science rather than what was basically a tabloid. It's meant to excite and get people talking about it, but not actually create scientists. To be fair though, there's no tabloid that's going to do that for anything. Religion was a good metaphor but too polarizing. Try making a magazine about anything for broad appeal and you'll find yourself dumbing everything down.

>>7945494
Why do people like you comment on subject matter you don't even understand the context of lol

People are still confusing "broscience" with "popscience".

Broscience = incorrect science (dude, smoking weed before lifting will help your gains because ur muscles will be all chill as fuck)
Popsci = correct yet extremely watered down science (Volcanoes really HOT and that's kool.)

>>7945465
What makes you think she got her misunderstanding of Newton's 3rd from pop science and not a half-remembered high school class?

>>7945100
We already have a popscience board, /x/