EMBRACE POP SCIENCE

whats the problem with pop science?

File: Live_long_and_prosper.jpg (140KB, 533x365px) Image search: [Google]

140KB, 533x365px

DO IT
\begin{align*}
sheldon + cooper &= bazinga!! \\
\end{align*}

>>8799660
pop science never really did anything for me
maybe if they combined it with porn, I'd be able to "learn" something while jacking off

VSAUCE Michael here.

What is a fetish?

>>8799660
Hey guys vsause here. I would like to talk to you about black holes. You see black holes can actually be used as euphemisms for asshole. Take your mums asshole for instance. It's gape reaches across the galaxies. Galaxies are actually a collection of a bunch of stars. Collection coming from Latin word collectus meaning "to collect". You know what else is fun to collect? Stamps. Originated in England they actually were first used in France by Napoleon to order mail brides from Russia. In Russian empire there are these things called babushkas. They are dolls with many layers, each containing a smaller version of itself. According to a new study, the universe could also be made up of such layers. In one layer I could be cock juggling clown having a cock for a penis and you could be straight. But how do we define straight? What Is a line in mathematics? A line goes on forever. Forever is a wonderful concept which is difficult to graps with out tiny brains. According to new research from neuroscience your brain is actually finite. But accoriding to an ancient Greek philosopher. If you were to spank me, you could never actually do it, since your hadn has to travel hakf the way to my voluptuous bottom, and then a fourth and an eight, and so on. Speaking of Greece did you know that they had a steady decline in culture and economy for the past few thousands years, culminating in the poverty that they live in now. Did you know that povery actually originated in the ancient Mesopotamia? It was invented by the aristocracy to keep the man down and impose obedience. Aristocracy did a lot of weird shit. Such has proclaiming themselves to be gods in ancient Egypt and in doing some force themselves to mate with each other, since they couldn't mate with normies, in doing so inventing incest. Inventing was invented in England during the industrial age, and it gave birth to the computers which run on Quantum Mechanics. Quantum luctuations are what gave birth to black holes.

>>8799669
>pop science never really did anything for me
That's your fault. It was pop science what made me be interested in most deep science.

Pop science introduces people into science. It depends on these people if they will go deeper about the subject or will just forget it.

File: Li7Luwn[1].png (298KB, 854x443px) Image search: [Google]

298KB, 854x443px

>>8799660
Hey, Vsauce, Michelle here

Today we're gonna talk about 5 video games that are GUARANTEED to get you laid

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3KVSyQ8J3o4&t=12s

File: i214^pimgpsh_thumbnail_win_distr.jpg (4KB, 230x164px) Image search: [Google]

4KB, 230x164px

History books estimate that the civil rights marches from Selma to Montgomery in 1965 participated in my over 3,000 marchers total. How could that be possible when only 30,000 blacks resided in the state from 1964 to 1970? Could it be possible that the civil rights movement actually never happened?

>>8799682
Bravo

>>8799667
It's cancer.

>>8799699
>average girl
>gets shitty tattoo
>instantly below average

>>8799745
why?

>>8799755
Here is a lesson from Antiquity of what the damage of pop-sci on the development of science.

''Scientific systems were dismantled; parts that were complicated or seemed improbable were excluded and the simple and likely parts were incorporated. Heraclides' planetary theory was partially adopted (i.e. heliocentric motions for Venus and Mercury were accepted, diurnal rotation of the earth on its axis was omitted); but the complete heliocentric theory of Aristarchus of Samos, which included diurnal rotation for the earth, was hardly ever alluded to by handbook writers. This fact helps to explain why the complete theory of Aristarchus expired so quickly, and is one of many examples of the important influence that popular science had upon intellectual developments in Greece."
-Roman Science, William H. Stahl

There's nothing wrong with pop sci. It's better that more people are more interested in science. The only real counter argument is "I want to feel smarter than other people, so we need to force as many people out as possible!" This view is extremely detrimental to society.

>>8799699
>2010

>>8799801
Pop-sci does not get people interested in science. It encourages complacent and lazy learning of basic scientific concept, which allows scientifically illiterates to masquerade as knowledgeable. It promotes an uncritical view of scientific claims while reducing the whole process to a mere set of propositions, ignoring the fact that scientific work is a clash of ideas and models.
Presenting to the public dominant models as 'established science' is no more than disinformation. It's the reason why a few studies about the consumption of salt lead to a widespread belief that eating too much salt is bad for your pressure, despite the issue being contentious. It's why people change their diets and begin consuming too little salt.
Science is hard, and cannot be understood without effort. There is no justification for distilling scientific ideas and serving them ready-cooked to the public. This is not what science is.

>>8799822
Modern society is what encourages complacency and laziness. The overwhelming belief of the western mind is that we only exist to fulfill our lust, greed, and gluttony. Most human progress has been made from people with nothing but free time.

Also, for the lay person, there is no reason not to have surface level knowledge of science. Over time more people will become more interested in harder and harder topics. It's also good to encourage the youth to get more involved in science.

Your statement that "science is hard" is just self congratulatory circlejerking and you just want to discourage others from even trying to make yourself feel like a special snowflake.

>>8799776
Thats just incorrect science becoming popular, Im asking what your problem is with communicating simplified science to your average person

It just seems like you want to be smugly superior because you can do integrals

>>8799667
It's just a pretext for "muh enlightenment" and "muh euphoria" by pretentious cunts/fedoras. It does fuck all to educate laypeople. If you want to see lay education done right, watch old science documentaries from the '60s and earlier.

>>8799854
Unless you stick to physics only, most information in those is probably going to be wrong.

oMG i LOVE science but i HATE math, pyshix and chemistry LOL i Like biology tho cuz GENDER STUDIES XDDD

>>8799876
No one takes gender studies. The real problem is the flood of generic business majors and the rise of "exercise science" and sports related majors as sports slowly destroys our colleges.

>criticizes pop science
>accesses /sci/

File: vsause.jpg (175KB, 1318x217px) Image search: [Google]

175KB, 1318x217px

>>8799682
Preserved.

>>8799880
this

>>8799848
You are missing the point of this excerpt. It illustrates the fact that scientific theories were lost to history because they were too complicated to present to the public. Because science sought to address the masses, it had to be dumbed down. This is a dangerous truth of pop-sci. The whole book by Stahl is very good, and I recommend it.

>>8799667
Misinformation; I'd be okay with it if they didn't dumb it down for the sake of entertainment

more like poop science

>>8799896
hihi

>>8799926
lul

Tbh, he tries to explain idea that are much deeper into math and science than Niel DeMeme Tyson. He made an almost half hour long video about the banach tarski paradox, and another about zipfs law, topics much more mathematically intimate than the generic pop sci stuff

Though he is still popsci

>>8799876
How 2 like math?

>>8799667
It makes people confident enough to talk about stuff they don't understand.

It's the dunning kruger effect.

>>8799660
FUCK BALDING REDDITORS WITH GLASSES

>>8800043
So what? Talking about it is a good way towards understanding. Not everyone can be an expert on everything.

>>8799854
>>8799894
sounds to me like you guys don't want normies to enter "muh secret club"

>>8799682
>In one layer I could be cock juggling clown having a cock for a penis and you could be straight
kek

>>8799682
This feels like too much effort went into it.
Still very good. Keep the meme practice going.

>>8799686
This, theoretically.
Problem is, with dumb people it does everything that
>>8799854
>>8799894
and
>>8800043
said.

>ITT we act like pretentious fgts who mainly hate pop science because it encroaches on my hobby/passion etc.
>REEE NORMIES STAY AWAY

>>8800293
It doesn't just encroach on them, it quite often shits all over them and treats them like its bitches.
But you do have a point.

File: futurama_theorem.png (451KB, 802x437px) Image search: [Google]

451KB, 802x437px

What could possibly be wrong with this? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J65GNFfL94c
Only good things can come from it: more people get interested in mathematics.

>>8799822
>Pop-sci does not get people interested in science.

it does. i was browsing a lot of eli5 biology on reddit and found it fascinating. dropped out of my old school and got into medschool

File: if-you-cant-explain-it-simply-you-dont-understand-it-well-enough-quote-2.jpg (51KB, 800x800px) Image search: [Google]

51KB, 800x800px

>>8799822
your entire argument is "you should either fully commit into something or know nothing about it" which is pretty retarded since most people only have deep knowledge over a very specific and small field

>>8800378
Most people who are exposed to pop-sci seem not to share your opinion. I hear things more along the lines of "Why are my tax dollars going towards this when people are starving?" When the public starts deciding where funding goes, which is already beginning, maybe you'll understand why it's preferable that they not be exposed to scientific concepts too hard for them to grasp.

Isn't /sci/ also pop sci? There's barely anyone talking about real science here, just one meme science after meme science

File: beforeafter.png (703KB, 727x474px) Image search: [Google]

703KB, 727x474px

>>8800430
Not really pop sci since this is not public outreach.

>>8799660
It's still better when people watch pop sci instead of reality shit like big brother.

>>8800407
i honestly wish pop-science was more connected to the highschool subjects instead of just being more popular. i remember back in high-school, i had no interest in chemistry. its kind of sad but i got interest in it when my grandma was dying. she was on all kind of medications and i found the concept of medicine and drugs truly interesting and eventually it got to a point where i realized this is something i can imagine learning about for years.
when i was just a teenager i couldnt really connect the dots and find the interest in memorizing boring formulas. i can accept that there were people who already find that part interesting, but for me, i needed something more "real". something i can work towards instead of just seeing it as an endless line of formulas and data.

i think finding interest in something naturally is the best thing you can do and can lead to a point where you start to actually study it.

>>8800439
>>8800430
>>8800378
>>8799660

the issue with pop sci is it often leaves people more misinformed than they would otherwise be

the whole premise of it as follows

>published paper with a barely statistically relevant result
>news media latches onto this, fits it into a narrative
>fails to mention that the results are hardly statistically meaningful
>people take the sensationalized news article as absolute truth because there is a link to a study they will never read
>muh 1 in 4 women are raped, muh women make 70cents at the same job as a man, muh global ice will all be melted by 2013, muh C02 tax will fix pollution, muh vaccines are bad, muh vaccines are good, muh prison experiment

at least people knew they were dumb before, now their belief systems are just at the whim of pop sci pushers, and they actually think they are educated

>>8800598
What you're describing is the problems with media sensationalisation and is not a problem for science alone

Pop sci is the simplification of science so the average layman can understand it. Sensationlisation is deliberate misinterpretation of data to present a narrative. One is dumbing down a subject, the other is straight up wrong

>>8800618
The two converge very frequently.

>>8800128
sounds to me like you're a fucking faggot

>>8800128
Science is VIP. No normies allowed.

>>8800817
But they're not mutually inclusive.

>>8800849
No, but I would dare advance that [math] \vert \{x:x \text{ is pop-sci} \} \cap \{x: x\text{ is misinformation} \} \vert > \vert \{x:x \text{ is pop-sci} \} - \{x: x\text{ is misinformation} \} \vert [/math].

>>8801005
Clearly false, all one needs to do is look at politics to conclude [math]\vert \{x:x \text{ is misinformation} \} \cap ~ \{x: x\text{ is pop-sci} \} \vert > \vert \{x:x \text{ is pop-sci} \} \cap \{x: x\text{ is misinformation} \} \vert[/math]

>>8801032
Wait, I think you made an error since you are saying the set of 'misinformation and pop-sci' is greater than itself. What were you trying to say? Or is there something I'm not getting?

>>8801041
yeah was supposed to be {x is misinformation}^~{x is pop sci} but idk how math tags work

>>8799896
kek

Pop science is a good way to find interesting topics to look up.

>>8801392
Very true. If only people would actually look things up instead of assuming they can discuss with MIT professors as peers just because they read a column on scientific american.

>>8801402
why are you so butthurt man? where do you see all these people? especially considering there are so many areas we know very little about. even when it comes the most frequently used things, like exact mechanism of certain medications

>>8801411
Where do you NOT see them? I'm pretty sure everyone here has had several conversations with people of the kind that I'm referring to.
Also your other point has nothing to do with pop-sci