Why do most people find science boring?

[Schmelzer]

What you were recommended to read.....
mite i make a suggestion: there is a book you should read called "For the Love of Physics" by professor Lewin
A book for children?

This was my impression from a look at the link.

"As joyful as Richard Feynman's Lectures in Physics (but without the math)"
"educational book that enlightens the layperson to physics"

Ok, let's give the book a fair try:

When guests came for dinner, Walter would preside over the game of Going to the Moon. As Chuck remembers it, “We would dim the lights, pound our fists on the table making a drumroll kind of sound, simulating the noise of a rocket launch. Some of the kids would even go under the table and pound. Then, as we reached space, we stopped the pounding, and once we landed on the Moon, all of us would walk around the living room pretending to be in very low gravity, taking crazy exaggerated steps. Meanwhile, the guests must have been thinking, ‘These people are nuts!’ But for us kids, it was fantastic! Going to the Moon!”

I would have, probably, liked such a book during my childhood, but not later. And if somebody recommends a book which is joyful and without math to somebody who has published physics papers with a lot of math in peer-reviewed journals, why would you consider it objectionable if I respond symmetrically with another book which is joyful and without math?

 

[Truck Captain Stumpy]

Thanks. And you should read "Winnie the Pooh".

@schmelz
1- i've read pooh... obviously you've never read Lewin's work because -
2- the point was that you would learn about constraints and error bars in measurement as well as what "accuracy" and all that means in science (not in subjective pseudoscience or other non-objective methods ... science and the scientific method are constrained by a series of parameters for a reason)
EDIT:
this is covered right in the beginning of the book i linked ... as well as his courses @ MIT. first course in physics talks about this at the MIT links above (Lewins course especially)

it was not derogatory or sarcastic, like your reply. it was about basic scientific details... so what would Winnie teach me in this case? how is it relevant other than your lashing out?

That GR is a theory which more accurately describes the world is not the question.

the statement was thus: you said it was "made with the aim to find a theory which is true", (shall i quote it directly?) which was incorrect.

truth is a subjective term and requires specific parameters to establish a guideline. it is a (typically) philosophical statement used which can be malleable depending on the argument used

so, to quote yourself back at you... "Hm, this is about physics, not about wishful thinking"

Alternative hypothesis pushers with inflated egos and delusions of grandeur, that claim to rewrite 21st century cosmology and have no other outlet than forums such as this.
There favourite pastime of course is to indulge in conspiracies, denigrate mainstream science as "priests" practising some religion, and recalcitrant on protecting that religion for all their worth.
And of course excuses, preaching and cop outs.
In the end, they go the way of all alternative hypothesis pushers.

@Paddo
absolutely correct... it is far worse in lightly moderated (or unmoderated) sites like Phys.org... the comment sections are flooded with trolling spammers wishing to find converts for their con-job religious organizations!

 

[Truck Captain Stumpy]

I would have, probably, liked such a book during my childhood, but not later. And if somebody recommends a book which is joyful and without math to somebody who has published physics papers with a lot of math in peer-reviewed journals, why would you consider it objectionable if I respond symmetrically with another book which is joyful and without math?

never judge a book by its cover, especially a physics book written for laymen

the whole basis of the book describes how and why certain things are known and how they know them, including measurements, etc

until you read the book you will not know that
BUT
if you take his course on the MIT site , it covers this topic in his basic course, which was my point

 

[arfa brane]

Maybe a lot of people are bored with science because they just can't find the same level of interest in it which those people who are successful scientists and academics do seem to manage.

So is the question instead: why do only some people remain interested enough in science that they become actual scientists and do research?
Who are they?

 

[Schmelzer]

2- the point was that you would learn about constraints and error bars in measurement as well as what "accuracy" and all that means in science (not in subjective pseudoscience or other non-objective methods ... science and the scientific method are constrained by a series of parameters for a reason)

I have guessed something like this.

it was not derogatory or sarcastic, like your reply. it was about basic scientific details... so what would Winnie teach me in this case? how is it relevant other than your lashing out?

It was certainly not about scientific details - if you would have liked to argue about scientific details, you would have made your point about the content. Then, of course, you could have added that this or that point is described in book X at page y or so.

And what you have written now is not much better - it is a claim that I have yet to learn some unspecified basic facts about error bars in measurements or so, from a book for children praised as being without math. And this without presenting any argument that I have made some error in this domain. What Winnie could teach you? Maybe some basic ideas about how to communicate with other people?

you said it was "made with the aim to find a theory which is true", (shall i quote it directly?) which was incorrect.
truth is a subjective term and requires specific parameters to establish a guideline. it is a (typically) philosophical statement used which can be malleable depending on the argument used

No, truth is not a subjective term. Your explanation about this makes no sense at all - the only meaningful interpretation which connects truth with the necessity of a guideline would be an Orwellian one where one needs a guideline about what is actually Truth from the Big Brother. Subjective truth is at best sloppy speach about subjective opinions about what is true.

never judge a book by its cover, especially a physics book written for laymen

I have not judged the book - the book may be very good, and it is certainly difficult to write good books about this. I have judged about your behaviour. That I have not judged the book should be obvious from my response - Winnie the Pooh is certainly a very good book.

if you take his course on the MIT site , it covers this topic in his basic course, which was my point

Don't worry, I have understood this point. You claim that I don't know some elementary things handled in some basic course. I have responded symmetrically. I claim you don't know some elementary things about how to behave in a civilized society.

Namely, if you think that I have made some elementary error, or shown that I don't know some elementary things, you should have told me about this, pointing to the place where I have made the error, and explaining what you think is correct. In a way similar to what I'm doing now - explaining you what I think you have done wrong, and what would be IMHO an appropriate behaviour.

If you think differently, you can explain why. If you agree, you can quote something you think is wrong from me, and then quote something from your book or course which corrects my error. This would have been the appropriate way. I'm waiting.

 

[paddoboy]

Funny. A method is a particular tool to reach some goal. That means, one needs, at first, a goal, and then one can think about a method to reach this goal.

So, the goal to reach something via some method is a little bit strange.

If one has the search for truth as the aim, then the scientific method appears to be the best method to reach this.

You know what I said...Stop being so dishonest, you sound like rajesh.
Let me state it again........
The truth that you are so fanatical about finding, may be unobtainable of it exists at all, and is used as an excuse to give your own hypothesis some credibility at least in your eyes.
Science is about modeling as close to what we observe as possible be that what you see as truth or otherwise.
Science invokes reason, logic and evidence and is falsifiable...religion invokes magic, faith and is not falsifiable.
To say that it is science, is to take philosophy to ridiculous ends and is what turns people off such deep philosophical claptrap which is what it appears you have dabbled in..
And again its worthwhile noting that your brand of science and politics will forever remain in oblivion...not because they are not accepted by the majority so much, but because they are inherently wrong.
http://www.openculture.com/2014/03/richard-feynman-on-religion-science.html
“But what is truth?” asks a certain kind of skeptic. That, suggests the late Nobel prize-winning physicist Richard Feynman above, depends upon your method. If you’re doing science, you may find answers, but not necessarily the ones you want:

If you expected science to give all the answers to the wonderful questions about what we are, where we’re going, what the meaning of the universe is and so on, then I think you can easily become disillusioned and look for some mystic answer.

Going to the sciences, says Feynman, to “get an answer to some deep philosophical question,” means “you may be wrong. It may be that you can’t get an answer to that question by finding out more about the character of nature.” Science does not begin with answers, but with doubt: “Is science true? No, no we don’t know what’s true, we’re trying to find out.” Feynman’s scientific attitude is profoundly agnostic; he’d rather “live with doubt than have answers that might be wrong.”

 

[krash661]

Don't worry, I have understood this point.[...]
Namely, if you think that I have made some elementary error, or shown that I don't know some elementary things, you should have told me about this, pointing to the place where I have made the error, and explaining what you think is correct.[...]
If you think differently, you can explain why. If you agree, you can quote something you think is wrong from me, and then quote something from your book or course which corrects my error. This would have been the appropriate way. I'm waiting.

has not this occurred already ?
the answer is exactly yes, just comprehend, it's that simple. shrugs.

 

[paddoboy]

And what you have written now is not much better - it is a claim that I have yet to learn some unspecified basic facts about error bars in measurements or so, from a book for children praised as being without math. And this without presenting any argument that I have made some error in this domain. What Winnie could teach you? Maybe some basic ideas about how to communicate with other people?

In that short paragraph you have in my opinion painted yourself as a pompous egotistical crank, that sees yourself as the "light, the truth and the way" Your total philosophical outlook on life in general, it appears is all you can and ever will consider. The rest you just don't care about, to use your own words.
Like the Cocky on the biscuit tin, you aint in it.

I have not judged the book - the book may be very good, and it is certainly difficult to write good books about this. I have judged about your behaviour. That I have not judged the book should be obvious from my response - Winnie the Pooh is certainly a very good book.

Of course you have judged the book. You have judged the book to be below your pay grade. You have inferred that there is nothing you are able to learn.
And even if that was the case [which I doubt very much ] All you needed to do was politely acknowledge it. But no not you. You go into a contempuous childish sarcasm mode and offer a child's book in return.

Don't worry, I have understood this point. You claim that I don't know some elementary things handled in some basic course. I have responded symmetrically. I claim you don't know some elementary things about how to behave in a civilized society.

I doubt that anyone is seriously worried. Although I suggest you should be. Afterall it is you that is on the outside looking in, [just like the Cocky on that biscuit tin]
And rather ironic you finish off your preaching about "civilised society" when you propose another extreme form of society.

If you agree, you can quote something you think is wrong from me, I'm waiting.

I think I have already done that.

 

[krash661]

painted yourself as a pompous egotistical crank, that sees yourself as the "light, the truth and the way"[...] You go into a contempuous childish sarcasm mode and offer a child's book in return.

is not that the case with every inexperienced, let alone properly educated, want-to be- intellects ?
shrugs. this is the new fad, too insult science and scientist while having a low level mentality. welcome to the everyone is special era, that has been occurring since the 80's.
shrugs.

 

[paddoboy]

I would have, probably, liked such a book during my childhood, but not later. And if somebody recommends a book which is joyful and without math to somebody who has published physics papers with a lot of math in peer-reviewed journals, why would you consider it objectionable if I respond symmetrically with another book which is joyful and without math?

You have published nothing more than highly theoretical concepts which have not been accepted and will languish and eventually totally be forgotten.
Again, you convict yourself as an egotistical pompous self appraised knowall who needs to learn nothing more. :shrug:
If it does turn out that I'm wrong [yes there is a non zero chance of that] and they put your name up in lights, you can rest assured I'll acknowledge it.

 

[brucep]

@schmelz
1- i've read pooh... obviously you've never read Lewin's work because -
2- the point was that you would learn about constraints and error bars in measurement as well as what "accuracy" and all that means in science (not in subjective pseudoscience or other non-objective methods ... science and the scientific method are constrained by a series of parameters for a reason)
EDIT:
this is covered right in the beginning of the book i linked ... as well as his courses @ MIT. first course in physics talks about this at the MIT links above (Lewins course especially)

it was not derogatory or sarcastic, like your reply. it was about basic scientific details... so what would Winnie teach me in this case? how is it relevant other than your lashing out?
the statement was thus: you said it was "made with the aim to find a theory which is true", (shall i quote it directly?) which was incorrect.

truth is a subjective term and requires specific parameters to establish a guideline. it is a (typically) philosophical statement used which can be malleable depending on the argument used

so, to quote yourself back at you... "Hm, this is about physics, not about wishful thinking"

@Paddo
absolutely correct... it is far worse in lightly moderated (or unmoderated) sites like Phys.org... the comment sections are flooded with trolling spammers wishing to find converts for their con-job religious organizations!

Cranks choose ignorance for a reason. I've never come across a crank who pays attention to the scientific literature. It's against the rules. I kinda like this from the Eagles. "All the knowledge in the world is of no use to fools". That's pretty much a philosophical comment but in this case I think it's poignant.

 

[Write4U]

(This may be of interest:

This is the pentaquark. It's smaller than an atom, and until now, no one knew it existed.

http://www.upworthy.com/this-is-the...w1&u=e44c37095904eedf187951ed525ff2bdd87081fd

I see a definite fractal aspect to this model (see my earlier posts regarding CDT).
http://www.dodecahedron.us/Dodecahedron.html

I cannot vouch for the link, but it does contain reference to apparently serious qualified research in this area. CDT, today, is a legitimate area of interest in theoretical science.
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-self-organizing-quantum-universe/

As interested serious layman, I understand these type of narratives (and illustrations) without the clutter of formal mathematical proofs, most of which I don't understand (the symbolic notation only ) or need for my personal purposes. Applied scientific formulation by scientists demands such proofs.
I don't need such proofs, I accept scientific concensus as sufficient proof.

p.s. I do oiccasionally use this reference: http://rapidtables.com/math/symbols/Basic_Math_Symbols.htm

 

[krash661]

" Why do most people find science boring? "
scientific knowledge is just too advance to be translated into their primitive conceptual framework. it's analogous to if i were to try to translate quantum mechanics into the grunts and screeches of a chimpanzee.
there's a high attrition rate for scientist in these programs. you would think they would be energised by the challenge, but a lot of them take the ego deflation very hard when they find out not only how much they don't know, but how much they're not capable of understanding.

 

[river]

" Why do most people find science boring? "
scientific knowledge is just too advance to be translated into their primitive conceptual framework. it's analogous to if i were to try to translate quantum mechanics into the grunts and screeches of a chimpanzee.
there's a high attrition rate for scientist in these programs. you would think they would be energised by the challenge, but a lot of them take the ego deflation very hard when they find out not only how much they don't know, but how much they're not capable of understanding.

Hence they are NOT true scientists .

Look there are many that have the " memory " to advance into what interests them. They are simple people which do nothing more than regurgitate what they have learned. They have limited imagination.Hence they get overwhelmed.

True scientists don't dwell on what they don't know ; they dwell though on the exploration and discovery.

 

[paddoboy]

Look there are many that have the " memory " to advance into what interests them. They are simple people which do nothing more than regurgitate what they have learned. They have limited imagination.Hence they get overwhelmed.

You mean like standing on the shoulders of giants of the present and past river?
You forget that everyone, scientists and non scientists, do some "regurgitating" as you so sarcastically put it at sometime in their life, on some discipline or subject.
What people must do, scientists and non scientists, is have the logic, ability and general nouse to sort out the wheat from the chaff that agenda laden individuals, trolls and nuts want to push onto others.

True scientists don't dwell on what they don't know ; they dwell though on the exploration and discovery.

Yep, so that what they don't know, will one day be what they do know.
As the great man said, Imagination is a part of science along with Intellect and the diligence to have the get up and go, to delve into what is unknown.
But Imagination needs to be curtailed by common sense, logic and the scientific method.
When we have claims of UFOs of alien origins, ghosts, goblins, Bigfoots, giants, voices out of the blue etc etc etc, they by necessity need to run the gauntlet and require extraordinary evidence to confirm their claims.
That has never been done.

People do not find science boring per se. Most are in awe of astronomy and cosmology for example, but their interests lay elsewhere....some may go on to ask questions, and/or read reputable books.
Some will accept what is told to them on faith certainly, just as you would accept a Doctor's advice on some medical condition you had, on faith.

In essence with me replying to you here, what we have is simply my "regurgitating" as you say, partly on the faith I have in science, and of course the general evidence, over your unsupported generally disproved claims, coupled with an Imagination that has somewhat run amok.
I can live with that sort of regurgitating.

 

[Write4U]

Hence they are NOT true scientists.
Look there are many that have the " memory " to advance into what interests them. They are simple people which do nothing more than regurgitate what they have learned. They have limited imagination.Hence they get overwhelmed.

Allow me to modify that statement to read, "They have limited imagination. Hence they get overwhelmed, when presented with probing questions (propositions) from seriously interested lay persons about some fundamental aspect of the nature of our universe which is outside their area of expertise.

True scientists don't dwell on what they don't know ; they dwell though on the exploration and discovery.

I agree with that. But this does not necessarily always require a formal education. Van Leeuwenhoek is a perfect example of a selftaught true scientist, an intellectual explorer who had to overcome ridicule by "learned fellows" who had greater formal education, but were not his intellectual equal.

Despite the initial success of Leeuwenhoek's relationship with the Royal Society, this relationship was soon severely strained. In 1676, his credibility was questioned when he sent the Royal Society a copy of his first observations of microscopic single-celled organisms. Previously, the existence of single-celled organisms was entirely unknown. Thus, even with his established reputation with the Royal Society as a reliable observer, his observations of microscopic life were initially met with both skepticism and open ridicule

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antonie_van_Leeuwenhoek

Scientist abhor absolutes, except where it pertains to an area of science outside their area of their interest. Then the layman becomes absolutely incapable of scientific exploration and discovery.
Scientists are smart and knowledgeable, lay people are stupid and ignorant?

Intellectually, is there no in-between?

 

[river]

↑
Look there are many that have the " memory " to advance into what interests them. They are simple people which do nothing more than regurgitate what they have learned. They have limited imagination.Hence they get overwhelmed.

You mean like standing on the shoulders of giants of the present and past river?
You forget that everyone, scientists and non scientists, do some "regurgitating" as you so sarcastically put it at sometime in their life, on some discipline or subject.
What people must do, scientists and non scientists, is have the logic, ability and general nouse to sort out the wheat from the chaff that agenda laden individuals, trolls and nuts want to push onto others.

No

I mean those that have the memory in high school that can remember math formulas ; words , paragraghs , pages of books they have read. But can't expand on what they have read. Because they can't. Their intellect can't match their memory. They assume they can because of their memory.

Memory does not necessarily = intellect or further discoveries in any field.

 

[river]

True scientists don't dwell on what they don't know ; they dwell though on the exploration and discovery.

I agree with that. But this does not necessarily always require a formal education. Van Leeuwenhoek is a perfect example of a selftaught true scientist, an intellectual explorer who had to overcome ridicule by "learned fellows" who had greater formal education, but were not his intellectual equal.

Of course not.

No need to twist my statements here.

 

[Write4U]

Of course not.
No need to twist my statements here.

That was not the intention, I am in agreement with you. I just offered a few additional thoughts on your post. I hope we are still in agreement.

 

[river]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antonie_van_Leeuwenhoek

Scientist abhor absolutes, except where it pertains to an area of science outside their area of their interest. Then the layman becomes absolutely incapable of scientific exploration and discovery.
Scientists are smart and knowledgeable, lay people are stupid and ignorant?

Intellectually, is there no in-between?

Lay people can be just as intelligent and sometimes more so because they are not restricted by reputation, in order to keep their job, ridicule from peers and financial considerations.