Why the popsci hate?

[Anonymous No.11117968]

I don't get it. If they can present a dumbed down version of science that gets people exited about it, what's the harm? Yes some people will end up feeling like they know more than they do. But is it really so bad if it leads to more people taking a geniune interest in science?

[Anonymous No.11117978]

Spacetime might actually be one of the very few good forms of popsci.

[Anonymous No.11117981]

>>11117968

It doesn't lead to a further interest in science. It gives people infatuated with the idea of being a smart and knowledgeable person a push up mount stupid.

Most of the information is so dumbed down or bare bones and tortures with analogy to be "not even wrong."

Like all the popsci on quantum. It's just a bunch of scientists who gave up advancing human knowledge after getting their degree talking ABOUT how fascinating and unintuitive it is.

[Anonymous No.11117983]

>>11117978
>t gay for Matt

[Anonymous No.11117984]

>>11117968
>dumbed down version of science
>genuine interest in science
heh

[Anonymous No.11117985]

>>11117981
>It doesn't lead to a further interest in science
Sure it does. Watching a lot of mythbusters as a kid got me into engineering.
>quantum
Some things, however, literally can't be broken down so that a person with no background can understand.

[Anonymous No.11118021]

>>11117968
Unironically, the "Captain Quantum" video on Youtube was the first time I heard about QM, I was maybe 16. I found it completely mindblowing and decided to read into it more myself. I realized eventually the video misleading gave it a mystic feel, trying to implying consciousness causes wavefunction collapse. But it got me interested in learning more about it.

[Anonymous No.11118028]

>>11118021
That video isn't popsci, it's outright fraud and purposeful deception.

[Anonymous No.11118047]

>>11117968
based Matt is based. Niel says way too much stupid shit for my taste, Michio says tons of wacky crap that is expressed poorly when and if it isn’t just him shilling, and Bill Nye has gone too far into politics for me to respect him. but based Matt is based

[Anonymous No.11118063]

>>11118021
captain quantum/dr quantum is a newager hippie LSD fried idiot. like Jack Safatti. anything associated with the Fundamental Fysiks Group can safely be discarded, Dr.Quantun especially.

can you guess which one he is in pic related?

[Anonymous No.11118140]

>>11117968
>what's the harm
Look at black science man. He grew up watching an actual scientist trying to do popsci. In the end, he grew up to be the most worthless sack of shit in existence. He's never published anything, his personality is pretending to be smart in front of cameras and his full-time job is passing his worthlessness down to his viewers.

[Anonymous No.11118332]

>>11117968
Yeah but space-time is a actually good.

[Anonymous No.11118387]

>>11117968
Because popsci dumbs things down to the point where nothing valuable about the subject is conveyed, and the kinds of people who obsess over popsci practically never embrace learning science at anything other than the popsci level. I've lost count of the people I see at university wearing shirts plastered with NASA logos who know practically nothing about actual rocketry, if a discussion of actual rocketry comes up I can practically see their eyes glaze over before they switch subjects to capeshit or some stupid shit a celebrity said on twitter. I'm not going to judge people for watching popsci or talking about it, but I haven't seen any evidence that it gets people "excited" about science or that they take a genuine interest in science.

[Anonymous No.11118407]

>>11117968
>If they can present a dumbed down version of science that gets people exited about it, what's the harm? Yes some people will end up feeling like they know more than they do.

Normies absolutely do not understand space time and they know it.

[Anonymous No.11118580]

>>11117968
To add to what has already been stated in this thread, a small anecdote:
I was at the bar with colleagues (grad student here) once and there were some dudes next to us who were talking about quantum physics. Clearly only had a "pop sci" understanding. One of my more sociable peers decided to join in on their conversation, and the rest of us were partially dragged in because of that. No one mentioned that we were physics phd students until much later into the discussion. Anyway, this was a while ago and I got fairly buzzed so I don't remember the details, but it went as you might imagine:
>dude quantum physics means our consciousness decides what the universe is gonna do!
>I heard quantum entanglement is linked to how we form relationships with others
>quantum mechanics confirms the philosophical ideas of "u cant know nuthin"
And so on. I stayed out of it as much as possible, for various reasons, but mainly because there was so much misinformation that they had already ingrained into their minds that it would take multiple days just to get them to "unlearn" what pop sci taught them, let alone trying to explain what's actually going on.
And that's pretty much my problem with pop sci. It's active damaging, because in order to learn the stuff properly later down the line (if you're the 0.1% that actually cares enough), you have to forget everything you were told.

[Anonymous No.11118596]

>>11118580
Funnily enough, they're not necessarily* completely* wrong on the first two points, but for the last one observation is knowing.
>quantum physics means our consciousness decides what the universe is gonna do!
Observation with an intent to capture one aspect of a particle or the other is the "choice."
>The evidence for telekinesis is scant at best

>I heard quantum entanglement is linked to how we form relationships with others
The mind is a quantum object and I could dig out some material on the experiments toying with "telepathy" from people that formed a subjective connection. After which, in faraday cages, one subject exposed to stimulus such as flashing lights registered identical brain activity in the "connected" person in another room with faraday cages enclosing both of them. If a mind is a quantum object then the possibility of a vague entanglement is non-zero, but that possibility is a frightening one.

[Anonymous No.11118610]

>>11118596
>Richard Feynman, who said that a classical computer can never simulate non-locality. Thus, if non-local information processing exists in humans, it is one of our non-algorithmic processes that computers can never simulate
Found the book for the faraday cage experiment
>Grinberg-Zylberbaum et al. (1992)

[Anonymous No.11118725]

>>11118140
He actually was published a few times in the 90s, but you are correct other than that.

Carl Sagan was the only pop-sci guy who actually contributed in a meaningful way beyond explaining things to normies. That's also why Sagan is the guy who actually inspired most real astrophyscisists and astronomers today.

[Anonymous No.11119655]

>>11118407
I didn't even understand space time in my first year of undergrad most of the time

[Anonymous No.11119659]

>>11117981
>Like all the popsci on quantum. It's just a bunch of scientists who gave up advancing human knowledge after getting their degree talking ABOUT how fascinating and unintuitive it is.
Thank you, I couldn't have said it better. The fetish of the unintuitiveness is literally anti-Science.

[Anonymous No.11119886]

>>11117968

well as someone who did not go to uni the likes of space time are great, i get digestible knowledge while still going into some level of detail. lectures on channels like RI are great too. fuck i even enjoy some of the pseud shit, you don't have to agree with something to enjoy it

[Anonymous No.11119940]

>>11117968
It makes normal people think that they understand things that far too complicated for their simple minds and then they start believing that they are intelligent, which they obviously are not.
They need to stick to their twitter and tinder, leaving thinking to us that are actually capable of doing it instead of just pretending.

[Anonymous No.11120036]

>>11119940

cringe

[Anonymous No.11120360]

>>11117968
Popsci always got hate and will always get hate, any simplified version of something will always get hate from the people actually involved because in their eyes it was "dumbed down", even Sagan got hate back when Cosmos first aired.

[Anonymous No.11120432]

Most popsci is just using fleeting association with scientific rigor in order to push a commie/pozzed agenda.

[Anonymous No.11120445]

>>11117981
And yet, a lot of it fueled my son's interest and now he's in a university double majoring in Biochemistry Molecular Biology and Biological Engineering.

[Anonymous No.11120537]

>>11117984
This

[Anonymous No.11120601]

>>11119940
Based.

[Anonymous No.11120604]

>>11119940
You, on the other hand, are highly intelligent.

[Anonymous No.11120612]

>>11120445

Your son balked at taking organic chemistry 2.

[Anonymous No.11120641]

>>11120612
Nope, he's in organic chemistry, but it's tough and he pays for tutoring in it.

[Anonymous No.11120871]

>>11118610
>that computers can never simulate

quantum computers can simulate it and non locality has been proven by the experiments by Rupert Sheldrake and independently verified. THere was another guy that proved ESP but i forgot the name.

[Anonymous No.11120907]

>>11117968
Everyone is fucking dumb but I am smart, so stop bullying me at school you dumb jocks!

[Anonymous No.11120916]

>>11120871
>i forgot
just have your guru beam it to you

[Anonymous No.11120930]

>>11117968
I can't learn from someone who's constantly distracting me with his body language. All hand talkers and head-bobbers are fags and shit teachers. Whatver social media "expert" is teaching these people these disgustingly effete affectations deserves to have their body cast off the city walls into a waiting iron hook like in medieval Algiers

[Anonymous No.11120933]

>>11117968
because most is sci-fi shit with retard imaginary logic. grow the fuck up.

[Anonymous No.11121935]

>>11117968
I think we can all agree that we love Matt

[Anonymous No.11122780]

>>11120612
? Biochem has up to orgo 3 and 4 what the fuck are you talking about?

[Anonymous No.11123347]

>>11119940
Not everyone wants to dive really deep into just one topic, these videos are more like a summarized Wikipedia page which is perfectly fine is you just want a general understanding on a certain topic.

[Anonymous No.11124653]

>>11117968
All your theoretical quantum string special relativistic astrophysics has no application in the real world anyway and is one step above metaphysics and sci fi, might as well watch entertaining content about it
>b-but muh up-quark spacetime curvature
no
fuck off

[Anonymous No.11124666]

>>11121935
I stopped watching him because he keeps insisting on retarded bullshit that with sufficient credentials it makes it ok.
i cant support that

[Anonymous No.11124718]

>>11124666
coffee break is over, go back to cleaning toilets

[Anonymous No.11124740]

>>11117968
I enjoy watching people solve integrals while they talk funny. It's the best kind of popsci.

[Anonymous No.11124745]

To show the issue, just flip it and see what happens when you don't have popsci and your science impenetrable to the layman and can't be "cool". This is the case with Chemistry.
Sure, you can make drugs or do the old sodium in water trick, but that actually is so far removed from what sort of things chemistry deals with, especially in the less hands-on areas.
I doubt you could get a layman excited over a bunch of EPR spectra.

[Anonymous No.11124757]

>>11124718
you tell em

[Anonymous No.11124906]

>>11117968
bring back beakman

[Anonymous No.11124933]

Most of it fetishizes how "weird" and "mysterious" it all is, implicitly sending the message that you shouldn't even try to understand these things, which is the exact opposite of what popsci should do: show people we actually can understand and know things, and motivate them to learn.

[Anonymous No.11125050]

>>11117968
Popsci is as good as the format allows.
Books trying to vulgarize science are often quite good, things like youtube or buzzfeed articles are mostly garbage.

[Anonymous No.11126798]

>>11117968
Because trying to explain something inherently mathematical without showing the maths is an exercise in futility. It's like making a radio show for deaf people.

[Anonymous No.11126889]

>>11117968
Because it's usually fluff and autists trying to be funny while giving retards a false sense of superiority.

[Anonymous No.11127040]

>>11117968
People don't hate it though, it's popular.
PBS is hardly pop-sci anyway and the average person will be lost after 5 minutes in a lot of episodes.
Posters on this board may hate it because they feel having done 1 or 2 physics classes puts them in some sort of elite club that they feel the need to protect because their entire self esteem hinges on it.

TL:DR, having a massive audience get interested in science at any level can only be a good thing. Anyone who thinks otherwise is a dick.