/sci/ - Science & Math

When you explain quantum mechanics to average people, how do you suppose to be scientific?

Average people can't:
> host and fire a LHC
> send a telescope to the space
> use some bleeding edge microscope to see atoms
When one tries explain the high/low energy physics, macroscopic or microscopic world to average people, they cant conduct experiments like we did in highschool for Newtonian physics.

Double-slit? If you can convince people to believe the quantum world, uncertainty principle or something, then he must be stupid enough to believe Jesus is their god.

If you think about it, the popsci or our textbooks don't really teach people science or engage a scientific spirit towards truth (Darwin who really moves his ass out and observe various kind of things), the science we teach today are just as funny as bible.

I mean, some people really are just doing their jobs, have you ever try understand these people?

If you don't try to be "funny", how do you suppose to express the idea that imagination is good, science can be fun and aesthetic?
For example,
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5TQ28aA9gGo
I am not sure about my understanding on QM, just highschool level double-slit and wave-particle duality. I've seen the performance of Brian Cox above and i think it is already quite subtle, even though some "professionals" criticize his speech about "the universe is one" or "everything is connected", but it seems to me that when he tries explain the QM, he actually asserted that QM is true and how things follow, i don't think it is too wrong except he should have quoted that if QM is true(applies everywhere), then blah blah blah..

I've read the book "the brief history of time" by Hawking, which tries to be friendly and it shows merely the history of what people(physicists) think about the universe and the development of techniques or such.

What i really seriously hate about popsci is original research, say, string theory and Michio Kaku, I think pulling in the most bleeding edge doubts or research on TV is really good-for-nothing and whoever does this is trying to boost his/her influence.
I mean, who the fuck is your target consumer? Physicists? On BBC? It doesn't add up. When you try explain the new "theory" on TV, you should better off explain the limit of our reasoning first, if you can't do that, you are trying to oversell your "theory".

I can't come up with examples which is worth-noting and worse than Michio Kaku, i think popsci is really doing quite well.