Why does /sci/ hate popsci? Whats wrong with educating the public

>>8705307
there's popsci and there's popsci

>>8705307
>Why does /sci/ hate popsci?

I mean it's good for getting people into an extremely basic level of science. Beyond that it's just awful awful. Too much hand waving to be useful yadayada.

The general public is not gonna read a book on science and say, "Oh shit creationism IS retarded". Overall it's just useless circlejerking for comp sci undergrads who got a c in calc I cause they forgot the quotient rule on the final exam.

>>8705524
>The general public is not gonna read a book on science and say, "Oh shit creationism IS retarded".

You don't know that. Theres a correlation between education and creationism.

>>8705531
>Theres a correlation between education and creationism.
Except that's not true....

>>8705534
http://www.gallup.com/poll/114544/darwin-birthday-believe-evolution.aspx

>>8705586
You just posted a graph that disproves your point. The higher education someone has the more likely they are to believe in evolution.

>>8705595
Ah, I meant correlation between education and believing in evolution. My mistake.

You can't do anything applicable with popsci-tier knowledge. Don't tell me that it helps to make better voting decisions because that's BS. Look at OP, he claims popsci made him interested in physics, whatever that means, but he's here making this shitty thread and that's what popsci does to you. Popsci is a marketing ploy in this capitalist society, and you fell for it. There's better things to do than learn trivia[spoiler]emphasis on trivia[/spoiler].

Popsci is more pretentious than a fresh stem grad on /sci/

File: chlorophyllll.png (10KB, 225x225px) Image search: [Google]

10KB, 225x225px

>>8705870
>You can't do anything applicable with popsci-tier knowledge
So? Its still interesting to read about.

>Look at OP, he claims popsci made him interested in physics, whatever that means
I'm doing my phd.

>Popsci is a marketing ploy in this capitalist society
pic related, its you

Popsci is written by scientists for the general public. Why do you want to keep them in the dark? Why do you want science to be some super secret club that only a handful can understand?

>>8705896
My gripe is that people understand that it's popsci and what that means. It's not a substitute for a textbook but I see people treat at as such all the time and the authors tend to encourage that belief subtly, so they can generate more customers. Popsci is mostly trash, is liable to spread misinformation as it's not required to be peer-reviewed, etc. It's mostly written for cash rather than the love of knowledge and spreading that to others, though there are few gems, but this is something encouraged from capitalism. Note that I don't have a problem with capitalism or popsci otherwise. The most popular popsci tends to be trash while the good ones are obscured, and this is because the greedy scientists market to popular demand. I just want quality popsci.

>>8705929
I'm completely unfamiliar with this world that you're describing. Nothing I've ever read in a popsci book has contradicted anything I've come across in my studies.

>Popsci is mostly trash, is liable to spread misinformation as it's not required to be peer-reviewed, etc

Actually, most of it IS peer reviewed.

Why would a scientist destroy his professional reputation by publishing misinformation? Your post is fully of rambling assumptions that bare little to no resemblance to reality.

>>8705940
http://errata.wikidot.com/0767908171

The corrections from the book you posted isn't nearly as much as I've seen from other popsci. A Short History of Nearly Everything is an example of a good popsci book, I admit, though it still has more errata I've seen from any textbook. I'm not a PhD but I read PhD professors opinions on popsci books and they tend to be rather negative with very few exceptions such as the one you posted.

>>8705977
You'll find mistakes in text in almost any kind of publication, even in journal articles and textbooks. This is very different from spreading misinformation.

File: 4 forces.png (53KB, 1200x600px) Image search: [Google]

53KB, 1200x600px

>>8705307
I don't hate it. there are ppl in the field that write accessible books for those in the field or interested in the field, and other who write in a way so every single person can understand. With ultimate accessibility you sacrifice the minutiae to understand most scientific concepts. Also many scientists read primary lit. and popsci does nothing for them. It's like shooting dope vs popping percs.

>>8706016
I agree with you. Just to let you know, I was testing you the whole time. Popsci is really great, especially Kaku and de Grass. Do you ever go on /r/askscience? Maybe you could help answer some physics questions.

>>8705586
>believe in evolution
popsci morons at Gallup can't into theory,
so they frame Evolution as a belief

>>8705896
>Popsci is written by scientists
L0Lno fgt pls

>>8705940
>most of [popsci] IS peer reviewed
L0Lno fgt pls where do get this shit?

>>8706016
>You'll find mistakes
...but not such major fckn blunders as in popsci,
Sir White Knight Defender of the Press

>>8705307
Because tricking plebs into thinking they "get" science only leads to ignorance and chaos. Its better if retards believe theyre retards.

File: Kaku.jpg (13KB, 208x208px) Image search: [Google]

13KB, 208x208px

>>8705307
>>8705307
Theres overviews of scientific topics that average people can understand, like your pic, then thres
>OMG PURE QUANTUM ENERGY UNIVERSE IS A MAMMOGRAM t. Miku Cucku
that we hate