POP SCIENCE:

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

We seem to have a handful of posers, all by the way, troubled with accepted views of science, primarily in the cosmology field, and all certainly with agendas.
Posers, yes they are, as all seem also not to have any credentials or refuse to divulge what those credentials are: Like the labelling of reputable science articles as "pop science", even those from learned institutions, I see the refusal to divulge any credentials when asked[in the face of anti science claims] as just another cop out.
All obviously, as enthusiastic as some appear to be, cannot seem to recognise that their unsupported claims, are making no difference to the real scientists and giants of the present and past and those others at the coal face, doing what makes science so great and working inline with the scientific methodology and appropriate peer review.

I therefor decided to google, "what is pop science"?
All basically say the same thing......
https://www.google.com.au/search?q=pop science&oq=pop science&aqs=chrome..69i57j0l5.7463j0j7&sourceid=chrome&es_sm=93&ie=UTF-8#q=what is pop science
Popular science (or pop-science) is interpretation of science intended for a general audience. While science journalism focuses on recent scientific developments, popular science is more broad-ranging. It may be written by professional science journalists or by scientists themselves.

I also found the following article which seems to reflect excellent logical thoughts.......
http://www.xojane.com/issues/pop-science-may-be-annoying-but-its-necessary

Why Pop Science Is Important, Even If You Don't Think It's "Real Science"

One nice little ditty from that link goes like this.......
While “fake science fans” may be annoying, science deniers are deadly.
This forum of course is graced by both types.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Another extract from the link says this......
Nobody likes poseurs. Nobody likes “fake” participants in their subculture. Nobody likes people that claim membership within a subculture without “putting in their dues” or presenting the correct credentials. Like an original fan of an obscure indie group, longtime champions of science are put off by this group of science fans who claim to love the subject with only a cursory understanding of it.

But science is not an indie band.

Science is an attempt to understand the world around us and any and all enthusiasm for the subject must be encouraged. Because while these “fake science fans” may be annoying, science deniers are deadly. Currently, the public’s trust of scientific studies is alarmingly low. In a new Huff Post/YouGov poll, only 36 percent of Americans reported having "a lot" of trust in information they get from scientists as accurate and reliable. Fifty-one percent said they trust that information only a little, and another 6 percent said they don't trust it at all. Another survey conducted by the Associated Press in March of this year found that only 31% of the people polled were “extremely confident” that “Life on Earth, including human beings, evolved through a process of natural selection.”"

I used to scoff at “fake science fans” who could only name Bill Nye or Neil deGrasee Tyson when questioned about their favorite scientists, but you know what? Those two men are not only great scientists, but great science communicators, and the two do not always go hand and hand. I’ve met a lot of great chemists, and some of them were terrible at explaining chemistry; he's a great person to be familiar with.

If someone is “only familiar with Neil deGrasse Tyson,” at least they are familiar with an astrophysicist. Not only that, it’s someone who can impart scientific knowledge in an accessible, engaging way.
""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""
I'm a lay person. Why do I need to say that? Because any questions that I do answer, or any aspect of science I do explain, I believe ti is my duty to let those people know I am just that.
Likewise, when we are confronted with phoneys and fraudsters, that want to tell us that GR is in trouble, or that gravitational lensing is not valid, or that BH's are nonsense, we seem also to be confronted with them ignoring requests for their credentials.
Quite likely then, it can be construed that they do not have credentials, rather only an agenda.

Pop Science is great stuff! Pop science is essential to the general populace.
Yes, sometimes science journalists indulge in sensationalism [such as Hawking said BH's do not exist] sensationalism that is generally recognised for what it is by those truly interested in science, but quickly grabbed hold of by the fraudsters and phoneys when they see the need to, particularly when the said article refutes there own brand of science.

So yes, the furphy that "it is only pop science" is just that: a furphy.
Hoorah for pop science!

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

goodo another argument thread. just what this site needs.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

You think so?
It's a crying shame you have not been witness to the number of threads that start out in science, under thinly disguised questions format and quickly develop into out right claims by the people I speak of.
GR, BH's Gravitational lensing, you name it and it has been insidiously started under scientific discussion, to quickly have the guise dropped and the thread revealed for what it is.....A promotion of alternative hypotheticals of different grades of stupidity, started in the sciences, to gain at least a semblance of credibility.
This thread highlights that problem, and the excuses/cop outs given, when reputable links are raised to show the errors in those alternative hypotheticals.
Perhaps you need to be here more often.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Paddoboy well done with your thoughtful assessment.
As layman I was happy to find anything on tv or even a magazine and early on had no idea about the body of work in the form of peer reviewed papers.
I think cranks are useful. They present their ideas and you or others will present the mainsteam science. The cranks may or may not read the provided links but I do and so I learn so indirectly I benefit. Thats all I want.

There must be many others who are interested and follow links provided in forum crank discussion.
And hopefully they also learn.

 

This site needs somebody with scholarship to review initial posts, intended for discussion, to insure the thread will be appropriate for discussion in the science threads. Doing that would restrict the initial discussion to stuff that makes scientific sense and reduce the need of comments like yours. Not going to happen. Subsequently a major portion of the comments will include those that are sick and tired of this nonsense. Like yours and mine.

 

No problems mate.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

I suppose cranks are useful in there own inevitable way. I mean It is certainly true that it takes all kinds to make a world, but some of those kinds we have seen here, brings tears to your eyes and a lump to your throat.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

And it also gives one a sense of well being seeing how others are, how they react, the burdens they carry through life and what they believe or don't believe.
And of course some like our divine friend, has even prompted me into checking out further aspects of cosmology and brushing up on certain aspects, particularly when he has claimed otherwise, and so further advancing my learning.

 

I come here everyday, and have for 12 or so years. Though, because of the tripe, I rarely post these days. I much prefer to read good science, presented and argued well.

 

That's nice.
And my thread here was initiated to show and highlight all the tripe and associated agendas, posted under the guise of science.
We do have particular sections for such Zarkovian like tripe, but in many cases, that is not adhered to. That's my beef.
Bruce has certainly hit the nail on the head.

 

What are your "credentials", Paddoboy? What credentials do you possess that you believe qualify you to assume the position of Sciforuns' Grand Inquisitor?

Isn't Sciforums a laypersons' board? To the best of my knowledge, no working scientific researchers post here. Only a minority of participants seem to even have an undergraduate-level background in a science. In other words, the majority of Sciforums participants don't seem to have a whole lot of formal qualifications in science. They are laypeople, who just happen to be interested in the universe around them. (That's a good thing.)

An author's institutional affiliation isn't what determines whether or not an article is "pop science". What distinguishes "pop science" is that the text was written for a lay audience without significant education in the subject, in such a way that conclusions are presented without most of the supporting data and reasoning that justify the conclusions. That leaves readers of "pop science" with little choice but to accept the soundness of the missing steps on faith.

Does anything written on Sciforums by any of us make any difference to "the real scientists and giants of the present and past"?

Deadly...how? To what?

What damage is done if some individual doesn't automatically accept everything that's said to the general public in the name of science?

 

What Sciforums needs more than prior-censorship is participants who have formal training in the sciences and the ability to teach what they know, people with the ability to communicate the fundamentals of their subjects to other people.

A post expressing an idea that doesn't make scientific sense might be great occasion for somebody else to explain precisely what's wrong with it and why it doesn't make sense. Chances are that would be educational for more readers than just the individual who made the post.

But yes, I agree that some threads probably should be moved pretty quickly to 'alternative theories'. Isn't that why that forum was created?

 

Is that how you view it? How philosophically quaint! Oh, and you already know my credentials: The article though is based on observations and common sense and if you have not noticed non science being discussed in the sciences, than let me add that you are obviously biased, as evidenced to at least two being finally shifted to where they should be.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Perhaps you need to talk to the god.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

https://www.google.com.au/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&ion=1&espv=2&ie=UTF-8#q=what%20is%20pop%20science
Popular science (or pop-science) is interpretation ofscience intended for a general audience. Whilescience journalism focuses on recent scientificdevelopments, popular science is more broad-ranging. It may be written by professional sciencejournalists or by scientists themselves.
"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""

And of course everyone at one time or another, needs to accept something on faith: Unless you are omnipotent and all knowing?

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Like I said, a crank is recognised by his usual writing off anything that disagrees with his view as "pop science" in a derogatory fashion, just as the evidence shows.

Of course not! But you really need to impress that on the cranks!

That's fairly obvious I suggest. Again think religious inspired cranks.

Ignorance? But hey! perhaps you are not concerned about the future and our children and religious driven hypocrisy along with the ignorance.

 

Bingo! So perhaps if more protested and reported such nonsense when it is posted in science, things would happen quicker, rather than waiting for conflict to develop over many many pages.

 

He reads 'pop-science" stories.

 

Sure I do Boris, just as you do also, and I read them in conjunction and along with many even more reputable official science papers as is patently evident on this forum..
Again the definition of pop science for my many fans out there......

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Popular_science
Popular science (or pop-science) is interpretation ofscience intended for a general audience. While science journalism focuses on recent scientific developments, popular science is more broad-ranging. It may be written by professional science journalistsor by scientists themselves. It is presented in many forms, including books, film and television documentaries, magazine articles, and web pages.

Popular science is a bridge between scientific literature as a professional medium of scientific research, and the realms of popular political and cultural discourse. The goal of the genre is often to capture the methods and accuracy of science, while making the language more accessible. Many science-related controversies are discussed in popular science books and publications, such as the long-running debates over biological determinism and the biological components of intelligence, stirred by popular books such as The Mismeasure of Man and The Bell Curve.[1]

 

yeah, but i don't think it makes me an expert in anything though.

 

Like I said, a crank is recognised by his usual writing off anything that disagrees with his view as "pop science" in a derogatory fashion, just as the evidence shows.

 

Me either, so I suggest you inform the forum cranks that think they have invalidated SR/GR or claims that BH's do not exist on that score.

 

I intended to keep out of such a deliberately contentious, all too familiar shit-stirring thread as this one - correctly tagged as such in post #2. Oh well. It's been obvious to me for a long time that paddoboy, having elsewhere confessed to being a lapsed Catholic by about age 12, has, as an uneducated science enthusiast, latched onto science as a substitute religion. Hence a 70 or so year old's boyish enthusiasm for e.g. Moon/Mars colonies ('future heavenly paradise'), Alcubierre drive/wormhole portals ('miracles'), time-travel/CTC's ('pseudo immortality'), etc. For every religious belief abandoned, in paddoboy's world, his particular brand of Science has a 'real' parallel to offer the True Believer.

The really nasty parallel with medieval Catholicism though is the inquisitorial mindset that obsesses with seeking out 'heretics' who question the 'infallible doctrines' all True Believers need to subscribe to - in particular GR & BH's. If inquisitor paddoboy had his way - doubters of the Official Canon, or worse - outright GR/BH Deniers would face automatic excommunication! And little doubt, if it were legal, burning at the stake.

Needless to say, as a self-confessed GR/BH Denier, I strongly disagree with such a mindset. Overwhelming incumbency bolstered by a slick, well-honed and generously financed PR machine impresses me far less than self-consistency in a rival theory however marginalized it may be. Hence, I would back the right to prefer an imo logically sound and expert presentation of someone like Stanley Robertson as per a previous thread:
http://www.sciforums.com/threads/hawking-radiation.152642/page-11#post-3336120
http://www.sciforums.com/threads/hawking-radiation.152642/page-20#post-3338529
If paddoboy or other intolerant and abusive fellow-travelers wish to attempt to rebut above linked, I advise to do so on a sound, technically proficient level. Some chance. Failing that, don't expect the likes of me to bow to your intolerant, dogmatic, strictured worldview.

 

You mean as opposed to your own deliberately contentious all too familiar shit stirring thread/s, one at least moved to the fringes.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

I'll ignore most of your usual childish diatribe that follows.

Of course you do and all your false indignation is noted.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

And your cherry picked links totally ignored...considering I can do the same.

Of course not! If you feel comfortable in wallowing along with some of the others inferred in this thread then go right ahead.

 

Your interpretation of one thread in particular, moved contrary to the obvious proper classification of such. With an obvious personal motivation by an anonymous coward who to this day refuses to own up as instigator. Again, if you think it's 'junk' - go there, and for the very first time *objectively* challenge my OP post or following. Thus affording me the pleasure of embarrassing you. Of course, like every other time you dragged that matter up, you won't take the challenge up. Because you have no competence to so challenge me. Just faith in the Official Canon.

How convenient - but you know that outline fits quite well.

Ignored because once again you have no competence to challenge the substance of material pointed to in those 'cherry picked' links. Otherwise you would do so. Simple.

Wallowing? No, just fed up with your incessant abusive diatribes against any and all Doubters/Unbelievers. Of course you tend to shine if compared to certain posters who genuinely deserve crackpot status. Such is ever so relative and comparing to those at the lower end of the yardstick establishes very little.
I would never need to post here if you simply observed the generally accepted standards of civility, humility, objectivity and tollerance. But you never have, and probably never will.