Popular science
| Line 4: | Line 4: | ||
Obviously, pop science requires that a lot of the complexity of scientific theories and understanding must be removed for a lay or non-expert audience to understand it. In ''A Brief History of Time'', Stephen Hawking remarks how he was told that every equation that he included in the book would halve its sales.<ref>Though this is obviously not literally true, as it would have led to many bestsellers having sold a quarter of a copy.</ref> This invariably leads to mixed results. Popular science can often be the source of many misconceptions about scientific theories when done badly, but it can cement ideas and perceptions in the public mind when done well. | Obviously, pop science requires that a lot of the complexity of scientific theories and understanding must be removed for a lay or non-expert audience to understand it. In ''A Brief History of Time'', Stephen Hawking remarks how he was told that every equation that he included in the book would halve its sales.<ref>Though this is obviously not literally true, as it would have led to many bestsellers having sold a quarter of a copy.</ref> This invariably leads to mixed results. Popular science can often be the source of many misconceptions about scientific theories when done badly, but it can cement ideas and perceptions in the public mind when done well. | ||
| + | |||
| + | ==Magazines== | ||
| + | Much of the public experience with popular science comes through magazines, which range from the generally good (''Discover'' until recently), to the unreadable (''Scientific American''), to those with an unfortunate tendency to run far too many sensationalistic articles on pseudoscience (most of the rest). | ||
| + | |||
| + | ''Omni'' magazine (part of the Bob Guccione/''Penthouse'' family of publications, published 1978-1995) was one of the worst in this regard, and ''Science Digest'' (defunct as of 1988) wasn't much better. Both were fond of trying to pass off silly material on [[UFO]]s, [[ESP]], [[shaman]]ism, and other such subjects as "science". Another popular magazine, appropriately enough titled ''Popular Science'', tends more toward coverage of cutting edge consumer products and hobbyist projects than pure science. ''[[Scientific American]]'' is more of a pure science magazine, but many find it unreadable and others find it too eager to push an agenda, as in their unwarranted attacks on Bjorn Lomborg's environmental writings. ''Discover'' attempted to bridge the gap between ''Scientific American'' and ''Popular Science'' by combining the latter's readability with the former's coverage of pure science, but it has since gone through several changes of ownership (one of whom was former ''Omni'' publisher Bob Guccione, since ousted), and in recent years has drifted away from skepticism and too much into speculative [[science woo]]. | ||
| + | |||
| + | ==Television== | ||
| + | Television is another outlet for popular science, perhaps best typified by the 1980 ''Cosmos'' TV series and the accompanying book by [[Carl Sagan]]. ''Cosmos'' has been one of the most enduring and influential introductions to popular science for billions and billions of people, which is probably a good thing because the science behind it is sound and well presented. Not so with far too many other television "science" series, with the 1976-1982 series ''In Search Of'' having been a notorious promoter of [[cryptozoology]], [[pyramid]] woo, and worse. Popular science, mostly of the good kind, is the main theme of cable television channels like the Discovery Channel and the Science Channel, although both have tended to play to viewer tastes by emphasizing shows involving adventure and danger in topics ranging from crab fishing to storm chasing. | ||
==Footnotes== | ==Footnotes== | ||
Revision as of 13:09, 3 May 2009
Popular science, often shortened to just pop science, is the result of making science accessible to the public. There are many books, films and short television documentaries that fall under this category. It most certainly should not be confused with pseudoscience.
Contents |
Good v. Bad
Obviously, pop science requires that a lot of the complexity of scientific theories and understanding must be removed for a lay or non-expert audience to understand it. In A Brief History of Time, Stephen Hawking remarks how he was told that every equation that he included in the book would halve its sales.[1] This invariably leads to mixed results. Popular science can often be the source of many misconceptions about scientific theories when done badly, but it can cement ideas and perceptions in the public mind when done well.
Magazines
Much of the public experience with popular science comes through magazines, which range from the generally good (Discover until recently), to the unreadable (Scientific American), to those with an unfortunate tendency to run far too many sensationalistic articles on pseudoscience (most of the rest).
Omni magazine (part of the Bob Guccione/Penthouse family of publications, published 1978-1995) was one of the worst in this regard, and Science Digest (defunct as of 1988) wasn't much better. Both were fond of trying to pass off silly material on UFOs, ESP, shamanism, and other such subjects as "science". Another popular magazine, appropriately enough titled Popular Science, tends more toward coverage of cutting edge consumer products and hobbyist projects than pure science. Scientific American is more of a pure science magazine, but many find it unreadable and others find it too eager to push an agenda, as in their unwarranted attacks on Bjorn Lomborg's environmental writings. Discover attempted to bridge the gap between Scientific American and Popular Science by combining the latter's readability with the former's coverage of pure science, but it has since gone through several changes of ownership (one of whom was former Omni publisher Bob Guccione, since ousted), and in recent years has drifted away from skepticism and too much into speculative science woo.
Television
Television is another outlet for popular science, perhaps best typified by the 1980 Cosmos TV series and the accompanying book by Carl Sagan. Cosmos has been one of the most enduring and influential introductions to popular science for billions and billions of people, which is probably a good thing because the science behind it is sound and well presented. Not so with far too many other television "science" series, with the 1976-1982 series In Search Of having been a notorious promoter of cryptozoology, pyramid woo, and worse. Popular science, mostly of the good kind, is the main theme of cable television channels like the Discovery Channel and the Science Channel, although both have tended to play to viewer tastes by emphasizing shows involving adventure and danger in topics ranging from crab fishing to storm chasing.
Footnotes
- ↑ Though this is obviously not literally true, as it would have led to many bestsellers having sold a quarter of a copy.
You can help RationalWiki by expanding it.