Pop Science Hate Thread - Peddling bullshit to the masses

[Jewthulhu]

Popular science is a form of scientific communication intended for consumption by the lay public. While traditional scientific communication involves lengthy, technical papers hyperfocused on a specific phenomenon and paywalled behind overpriced journals, popular science intends to make the latest advances in science simple, digestible, and readily available for someone with no background in the field. Jargon and excessive math are avoided, the ideas being communicated are easily understood and memorable, and it refrains from getting bogged down in the minutiae. Additionally, pop science tends to be first and foremost edutainment, with its presentation aiming to be "fun" and stimulating. It is also immensely accessible, coming in the form of books, tv shows, news articles, or free videos on YouTube.

While all this sounds well and good, in reality, popular science is plagued with a number of issues that makes its utility as a form of scientific communication questionable at best.

Oversimplification
Simplification of a complex topic to something digestible is an innate feature of pop science. However, scientific principles and ideas are often simplified to the point of inaccuracy. While this is not uncommon even in education (commonly referred to as a "lie-to-children"), pop science often assertively presents its oversimplifications as absolute "facts," leaving many with the false impression that this represents the scientific consensus. These oversimplifications also tend to be rigid and unnuanced, often lending themselves to contradictions and contributing to popular confusion and skepticism.

Misrepresentation
Due to the complexity and relative inaccessibility of scientific papers, many rely on journalism and pop science to learn about the latest research breakthroughs and findings. However, due to its need to be stimulating and relevant, pop science journalism often radically misrepresents the key findings and importance of a paper. Relatively small and benign findings become "breakthroughs," often based solely on the title or impact statement of the paper. Single studies become "proof" of a phenomenon, regardless of how contentious such a finding is in the scientific community as a whole. Pop science journalism also has a habit of largely focusing on reports from "prestigious" journals such as Nature, despite their generally mixed reputation among the larger scientific community.

Obsession with the Fringe
As pop science is often a form of entertainment, it is naturally drawn to the wildest and most bizarre aspects of the universe. However, this often leads to an obsession with the "fringes" of science; wild theories and speculation with little evidence behind them. Often times, these theories are unscientific, unfalsifiable, and even contradictory to the current scientific consensus. This doesn't stop them from being constantly pushed and speculated on by pop scientists, and mundane findings are often twisted and confidently touted as "evidence" for these wild speculations.

False Authority
Pop scientists are often presented as "experts," and foster for themselves an image of authority on all things "science." While some pop scientists do hold relevant degrees and have done research on the material they cover, this is far from a requirement. Many also abuse their image and standing to speak authoritatively on subjects they have little experience in.

Politics
Politics and bias are an issue in all fields, including science. It is impossible to avoid one's biases in research, and it's not uncommon for experiments to be tainted by a biased protocol or the expectation of a certain result. In science, this is often (if imperfectly) controlled for by the principles of reproducibility (the idea that the result of an experiment can be reproduced by another researcher), peer review, and the forming of "scientific theories" through a consensus of evidence. However, pop scientists are not burdened by any controls limiting bias. Despite some adopting the veneer of objectivity, many take advantage of their status as the "face of science" to push certain policies or ideas. Pop scientists often pick and choose what they present in order to confirm their preexisting beliefs, and present it as if it were scientific fact.


At its most benign, popular science is harmless entertainment; a series of fun facts, though often dipping into the unscientific fringes. However, pop science is often misleading, politicized, and far removed from the actual field it purports to represent. It is beset by charlatans and grifters, and has, in my opinion, done more to harm science than to help.

 

[Schwarzwald]

I FUCKIN' LOVE SCIENCE!

The Big Bang Theory is my favorite show, I am such a nerd.

 

[David Brown]

I'm at a point where if I didn't collect the data myself I just assume it was made up to get more publications, unless it affirms my preconceptions of course

 

[XL xQgg?QcQCaTYDMjqoDnYpG]

popular science intends to make the latest advances in science simple, digestible, and readily available for someone with no background in the field. Jargon and excessive math are avoided

Surely you're not insinuating this is a defect?
The process of abstraction is how human cognition works
Conceptual knowledge must omit measurements while retaining distinguishing characteristics
Oversimplification is not per se the problem, but distortion is
Making things simple is laudable, making things wrong is where issues start

However, scientific principles and ideas are often simplified to the point of inaccuracy. [...] often lending themselves to contradictions and contributing to popular confusion and skepticism.

But the issue with this is actually much deeper, namely a culture that treats consensus as a substitute for thought
When people believe they *know* something merely because some "expert" or institution said it, then they're no longer engaged in discovering truth, all they do is repeat signals
I don't think the simplifier deserves the blame, the real problem is the notion that truth is something we *receive*, not something we must earn through effort

Relatively small and benign findings become "breakthroughs," often based solely on the title or impact statement of the paper. Single studies become "proof"

That's just a consequence of the separation of incentives from consequences
In a postmodern world where clicks, grants, and institutional prestige are decoupled from accuracy, the truth is demoted to just one variable of many
That distortion is not even a bug, it's a feature of a structure that answers to bureaucratic or social reward systems instead of reality

As pop science is often a form of entertainment, it is naturally drawn to the wildest and most bizarre aspects of the universe.

Because all you currently have is institutional prestige, guaranteed funding, and captive audiences. There's no real market test for truth here.
In environments where reputation is decoupled from responsibility, of course you get more people pursuing novelty rather than integration
Scientific output becomes theater precisely because it is insulated from markets
When errors carry no personal cost, pretense becomes profitable

Pop scientists often pick and choose what they present in order to confirm their preexisting beliefs, and present it as if it were scientific fact.

That's the predictable result of science being political
Politics is force, and force is compelling rather than persuading
When institutions rely on coercion to sustain themselves, they stop needing to convince anyone
And once ideas no longer need to be persuasive, they no longer need to be true

 

[JohnnyG]

Simplification of a complex topic to something digestible is an innate feature of pop science.

Le heckin' ghosts driving meat skeletons made of epic stardust on an amazeballs rock flying through space!!

 

[Lord of the Large Pants]

Grabby Aliens™ have quickly become one of my most hated concepts in pop science.

The Fermi Paradox asks a simple question. If the universe is teeming with life, where the fuck is it? Why does it seem like we're it? Where are the radio signals from deep space? The Dysons Spheres? The hot green skinned alien babes?

Enter Grabby Aliens. It basically assumes that any intelligent species will ultimately become a highly visible, galaxy spanning civilization. But since hasn't happened yet, that means we were just lucky enough to be the first on the scene.

There are a gazillion possible solutions to the Fermi Paradox, but The Science™ proves that this one is absolutely true! Why? Well, because it has a snappy name, colorful Youtube explainers, and a vaguely sciencey looking model! There's MATH! There's INFOGRAPHICS! That means it HAS to be right!

I mean, look. I don't discount the possibility. It's one conceivable answer. But even after considerable cirtique, the I Fucking Love Science Reddit crowd remains latched onto this like a retarded, soyfaced barnacle. I have my own view on the Fermi Paradox, but the answer right now is, we don't fucking know. Some theories are better than others, but there's no obvious winner.

 

[I'm Retarded?]

But the issue with this is actually much deeper, namely a culture that treats consensus as a substitute for thought

When people believe they *know* something merely because some "expert" or institution said it, then they're no longer engaged in discovering truth, all they do is repeat signals

unfortunately, friend, this is not due to culture, it is simply how the human mind works. society is a superorganism from which we all receive signals that uncontrollably influence our thoughts and behavior. particular examples of this abound. humans not only fundamentally rely on signals of consensus to make decisions about the information they have, but are completely unable to shut it out. in fact, forcibly removing a person from all social signals essentially makes them go insane. the 'tism insulates you from this somewhat, but every functional human brain ultimately includes this system.

Scientific output becomes theater precisely because it is insulated from markets

Because all you currently have is institutional prestige, guaranteed funding, and captive audiences. There's no real market test for truth here.

what would a "market test for truth" even look like? are you saying that the veracity of science should be subject to the judgment of the collective? how would you even create a market that enforces "truth"?

And once ideas no longer need to be persuasive, they no longer need to be true

sounds great on paper, but in actuality, the most convincing ideas are idealistic untruths. the human spirit is more or less fueled by constantly lying to itself. what people accept as consensus reality has very little to do with its proximity to "truth", whatever that might be.

I'm at a point where if I didn't collect the data myself I just assume it was made up to get more publications, unless it affirms my preconceptions of course

 

[XL xQgg?QcQCaTYDMjqoDnYpG]

society is a superorganism from which we all receive signals that uncontrollably influence our thoughts and behavior.

If that were true, you wouldn't be writing this
Argument presupposes that reasoning minds exist, and by that I mean minds that are able to abstract from signals, question premises, and reach conclusions
If your thoughts are "uncontrollably" determined by social signals, then what you just wrote wasn't thinking, but rather broadcasting. But if that were the case, if it were just signal replication, then there is no reason for me or anyone else to treat it as something with cognitive value

the most convincing ideas are idealistic untruths. the human spirit is more or less fueled by constantly lying to itself.

If you genuinely believe that, then you must include your own belief in that category
So either you are currently lying or you're the exception to the very rule you're asserting
Either way, the statement cancels itself

what would a "market test for truth" even look like? are you saying that the veracity of science should be subject to the judgment of the collective?

A market disciplines falsehood through consequences
When you're wrong in a real market, you can't simply pass the cost off to others
That selective pressure (losing reputation, credibility, capital) does not exist in prestige-driven institutions that are insulated from voluntary exchange
That was my point

forcibly removing a person from all social signals essentially makes them go insane.

That's because man is the rational animal, not a solitary automaton
But that fact that we live in a society does not mean that society thinks for us
A mind that only mirrors the crowd is not a mind that's thinking

 

[Jewthulhu]

Surely you're not insinuating this is a defect?

Hardly. I think fostering public understanding of science and making complex phenomena understandable is a noble goal.

But the issue with this is actually much deeper, namely a culture that treats consensus as a substitute for thought
When people believe they *know* something merely because some "expert" or institution said it, then they're no longer engaged in discovering truth, all they do is repeat signals
I don't think the simplifier deserves the blame, the real problem is the notion that truth is something we *receive*, not something we must earn through effort

Yes and no. Yes, I think people often overtrust something because an "expert" said it. But I also think "receiving truth" is something that is unavoidable. No one can be an expert on everything, and at a certain point, you need to be told what is (at least, what is believed to be) the truth on a certain matter. That's kind of the point of popular science.

At the end of the day, everyone repeats signals, even the most skeptical person.

That's the predictable result of science being political
Politics is force, and force is compelling rather than persuading
When institutions rely on coercion to sustain themselves, they stop needing to convince anyone
And once ideas no longer need to be persuasive, they no longer need to be true

We can argue how politicized "real" science is. As I kind of alluded to, I think most of it is benign minutae.

My main issue, though, is how scientific communicators specifically put politics first, and misrepresent or cherry-pick findings to fit those political aims. And then they'll present it as if it were the scientific consensus, when the actual consensus on most controversial political issues (such as trans issues, religion, political orientation, etc.) is murky at best.

 

[I'm Retarded?]

If your thoughts are "uncontrollably" determined by social signals, then what you just wrote wasn't thinking, but rather broadcasting. But if that were the case, if it were just signal replication, then there is no reason for me or anyone else to treat it as something with cognitive value

not solely determined, but certainly influenced, and to an indeterminate degree.

If you genuinely believe that, then you must include your own belief in that category
So either you are currently lying or you're the exception to the very rule you're asserting

I'm talking about ideals, or things like hope. things like beauty, or love, or artistic interpretation are intentionally (though subconsciously) skewed filters that humans use to make reality more appealing to themselves. this layer exists below all forms of thought, especially logical thought. your reasoning is never as freethinking or emotionless as you might wish to believe.

A market disciplines falsehood through consequences
When you're wrong in a real market, you can't simply pass the cost off to others
That selective pressure (losing reputation, credibility, capital) does not exist in prestige-driven institutions that are insulated from voluntary exchange

okay, cool. but if you want to create a social mechanism to punish pursuing sensationalism at the expense of accuracy, you need some method to accurately judge accuracy. however, humanity's accurate perception of reality is undermined by the fact that consensus takes precedence. until you have some reliable, reproducible method of judging accuracy relative to objective reality, this is impossible.

 

[XL xQgg?QcQCaTYDMjqoDnYpG]

I also think "receiving truth" is something that is unavoidable. No one can be an expert on everything

I'd draw a sharp line at this point
Relying on others for information is not the same thing as outsourcing judgment
It's one thing to take in someone else's perspective, evaluate their reasoning, or consult their findings
But accepting someone else's claim as true just because of who said it, that to me is submission

Like, in practice we all "receive" claims, that's trivially true, the fact that you're reading this sentence demonstrates it
But the error creeps in when people treat the act of receiving as epistemically sufficient
That's the real danger in my opinion, not the logistics of "not knowing everything", but the habit of deferring judgment altogether
Does that make sense?

My main issue, though, is how scientific communicators specifically put politics first, and misrepresent or cherry-pick findings to fit those political aims.

And that's exactly where the structure of incentive matters
When scientific authority is detached from personal accountability - which is the case, because there is no reputational cost for being wrong, there is no market test for persuasion, just think of the COVID bullshit - it becomes performative
And in that situation, even good-faith communicators are caught in a system where truth is optional, but alignment is mandatory

Like, I wouldn't say the problem is not with pop sci people simplifying things because people want to understand otherwise complex topics - I think you agree with me that it's ackshually a good thing
The problem is that the institutions that are positioned as the sources of knowledge no longer have to earn trust through demonstrated integrity, successful predictions, or honest error correction. These institutions operate in environments where performance is decoupled from attention, funding, and prestige

In that kind of system, it's fairly self-evident that people aren't really encouraged to think
Rather, they're encouraged to find the right signals to repeat
It feels safer to conform than to scrutinize, because scrutiny gets you social punishment while conformity is rewarded regardless of accuracy
So even sincere people start to adopt beliefs, not because they examined them, but more because everyone else seems to

 

[XL xQgg?QcQCaTYDMjqoDnYpG]

not solely determined, but certainly influenced, and to an indeterminate degree.

True, influence is real, as we are social beings and we absorb cues all the time
But influence does not negate judgment

The question isn't "is our thinking affected or not?", but rather "can we correct for that influence when we choose to?"
If we couldn't, then there would be no distinction between thinking and reacting
Learning, reconsidering, persuading, these things would then not exist

things like hope. things like beauty, or love, or artistic interpretation are intentionally (though subconsciously) skewed filters that humans use to make reality more appealing to themselves. this layer exists below all forms of thought

Let me offer you a different perspective on that matter
Our capacity for art and beauty is not a filter to escape reality, it is a signal that we value reality
Even ideals like love and hope depend on seeing the world clearly enough to want it to be better
The emotional doesn't undercut the rational, instead it gives fuel to the rational
The fact that we feel things does not mean that we're incapable of knowing things

until you have some reliable, reproducible method of judging accuracy relative to objective reality, this [market for truth] is impossible.

The thing is, we do have methods
Not infallible methods, but they exist, they're functional
Everywhere where people face the costs of being wrong, accuracy gets judged
Think of engineers, doctors, farmers, entrepreneurs, etc.pp.
These people may not always get it right, but when they don't, they pay the price for it
This feedback is the point of real markets

You don't need some flawless or unerring oracle of truth. What you need is a system where error has consequences and correction is possible
And the market provides precisely these things
And prestige-driven institutions often lack precisely these things, they are insulated from consequences
That is exactly why bad ideas persist
Not because people are evil or stupid (although, granted, many of them are), but because no one has to pay the price for having bad ideas

My core point is that truth doesn't need to be dictated, it just needs the space to prove itself
That's all a real filter has to accomplish

 

[XL xQgg?QcQCaTYDMjqoDnYpG]

Our capacity for art and beauty is not a filter to escape reality, it is a signal that we value reality

Apologies for tripleposting, but I just thought of a fantastic example for this point that deserves its own post

Think of leftists, trannies, globohomo, whatever
These people are the most prominent deniers of reality, be it biological reality (there are only two sexes), economic reality (wealth just exists, production is meaningless, redistribution solves everything), ethical reality (there is no right and wrong, everything is a social construct), and all other sorts of aspects of reality
Have you seen any of these people produce good art?

 

[I'm Retarded?]

The thing is, we do have methods
Not infallible methods, but they exist, they're functional
Everywhere where people face the costs of being wrong, accuracy gets judged
Think of engineers, doctors, farmers, entrepreneurs, etc.pp.
These people may not always get it right, but when they don't, they pay the price for it

the difference is that things like medical practice, engineering, and business all have material consequences of error that exist outside of human judgment. people die, shit breaks, money gets lost. not so with science. what material cost is invoked by some dipshit like Michio Kaku rambling about String Theory? in fact, it's the opposite. these things generate value in the form of entertainment, which is what encourages the pop science industry to exist in the first place. there's no material impetus to force anybody to worry about objective accuracy. it's not consumer indolence or people being stupid - it simply doesn't exist.

Let me offer you a different perspective on that matter
Our capacity for art and beauty is not a filter to escape reality, it is a signal that we value reality
Even ideals like love and hope depend on seeing the world clearly enough to want it to be better
The emotional doesn't undercut the rational, instead it gives fuel to the rational

I'd say you haven't been in enough relationships, friend. a bad woman will have you clinging to cope and betraying your own mind like it's second nature. in moments of extremis, the emotional will always supersede the rational. when you're induced to act in ways you wouldn't normally agree with, that's when you catch a glimpse of how your mind truly works.

Have you seen any of these people produce good art?

two things:

1. gender obsession selects highly for empty people with no interesting ideas or complexity of mind. if they had anything notable to say about themselves or the world around them, they wouldn't be so fixated on such shallow concepts of identity. such people make poor artists.
2. since trans people are all about broadcasting signals at maximum volume due to their pathological need for acceptance, the troon art style heavily conforms to the trends that send those signals. that's why anybody who's bothered to develop a sense for it can pretty much immediately clock a troon artist.

 

[XL xQgg?QcQCaTYDMjqoDnYpG]

things like medical practice, engineering, and business all have material consequences of error that exist outside of human judgment. people die, shit breaks, money gets lost. not so with science.

What Kaku does is mere public science communication, it's not actual science, it's just theater in a lab coat
Like Mai-Thi Nguyen who may be familiar to German readers
The problem is that these talking heads cash in on the authority of real disciplines, but without being subject to the same feedback loop

The other thing is that costs are real, but they're currently displaced
When bad scientific claims result in bad policy, bad education, or bad cultural assumptions, bad ideas scale
And in a prestige-driven system, those who get it wrong don't pay
And that's precisely the failure you fix by using market pressure. You gotta link error and consequence. That's how you give people an incentive to care about accuracy

a bad woman will have you clinging to cope and betraying your own mind like it's second nature. in moments of extremis, the emotional will always supersede the rational.

Well, what you're really describing is what happens when one surrenders reason, you're not showing that reason doesn't exist
It someone gets drunk and crashes a car, we don't say "the steering wheel was an illusion", we'd say "this dumbass failed to use the steering wheel"

It's almost certain that everyone's had moments of weakness at some point, but that doesn't justify treating emotional surrender as the default human condition
Some "men" bite the hook and ruin themselves over a bad relationship. Others see the danger, identify it, and walk away
The question isn't "does failure happen?", it's "is failure inevitable?"
And my answer is a resounding "no"

 

[Chunky Salsa]

Anything to do with Tesla, he was a brain broken spazz with some neat ideas. Nothing more.

 

[I'm Retarded?]

And that's precisely the failure you fix by using market pressure. You gotta link error and consequence. That's how you give people an incentive to care about accuracy

okay, but what is the mechanism that creates that pressure? how can you accurately judge accuracy such that consequences can be attached to the violation of it?

Well, what you're really describing is what happens when one surrenders reason, you're not showing that reason doesn't exist

I'm not claiming reason doesn't exist, only that it's an idealized vision of how the human mind works. logic and emotion are never truly separate things, and the idea that logic can be separated from emotion is vanity. so logic, which fancies itself objective, must always be treated with suspicion. and this judgment of accuracy we're discussing is a logical judgment. why is it that sensationalism is rewarded over accuracy? is it really because society is just improperly constructed, or that people are simply failing to act with a proper degree of rationality?

It's almost certain that everyone's had moments of weakness at some point, but that doesn't justify treating emotional surrender as the default human condition
Some "men" bite the hook and ruin themselves over a bad relationship. Others see the danger, identify it, and walk away

lol. you should hope against hope that you never find yourself becoming one of these "men" you speak of with such derision. you're not as immune to it as you think.

The question isn't "does failure happen?", it's "is failure inevitable?"
And my answer is a resounding "no"

of course failure is inevitable, it's inherent in the human condition. there's always a disconnect between ideal and reality, and humans are incapable of cognitively touching reality. and so attempts to change reality or even perceive the true shape of it come with an inherent degree of uncertainty and inaccuracy. human tools cannot create a perfect system. some failures can be fixed, but some failures are simply the inevitable result of the process that created them. and some failures are not failures in execution, but a misunderstanding of the problem from the very beginning. I believe that, past a certain point, and at certain levels of scale, objective accuracy is merely a romantic ideal rather than an achievable result. and so there is no world where you could conceivably squelch inaccurate scientific rhetoric on a society-wide scale and force pop scientists to conform to some standard of truth, because the success of pop science reflects how feelings and interpretation are more real to the human mind than the actual physical world around us.

 

[XL xQgg?QcQCaTYDMjqoDnYpG]

okay, but what is the mechanism that creates that pressure? how can you accurately judge accuracy such that consequences can be attached to the violation of it?

When someone builds a bridge and it collapses, do we require a perfect theory of material science to know that something went wrong?
Or do we look at the result and someone pays for it?
That's how a market causes discipline, by making error expensive. There's no guarantee for truth out there
Like, you don't need omniscience to correct error. All you need is exposure to consequences

logic, which fancies itself objective, must always be treated with suspicion.

Being suspicious of logic, stated logically, is self-refuting
You can't make an argument while discrediting the very act of making arguments
If logic is always suspect, then so is your statement, and you've surrendered the ability to convince anyone of anything, including yourself

there's always a disconnect between ideal and reality, and humans are incapable of cognitively touching reality.

... And yet you just made an array of claims about reality, about how it works, what minds can and can't do, and what society is like

Failure is real. Fallibility is part of the human condition. But all you do by calling something "inevitable" is giving yourself justification for resignation
That's pure learned helplessness

objective accuracy is merely a romantic ideal rather than an achievable result.

That belief is itself a claim to accuracy
So either you're wrong or you've just asserted a romantic ideal of your own
Either way, you're not escaping the standard, you're just denying that anyone else can meet it

If truth didn't matter, then no one would be trying this hard to bury it

 

[Otterly]

There’s been a significant drop in quality of science journalism over the last decade or so. We had a brief period where there was some really good popular simplification that was rigorous. Ben goldacre for example. His books (bad science, and bad pharma) are really good and I think his blog is still up. It’s well worth a read. We had a few people who were good at simplifying without insulting or missing rhe point, and who explained the why as well as the what. At the same time ‘evidence based medicine’ became popular.
I think Covid hammered the last nails in that particular coffin, but the sheer amount of money involved in pharma combined with the government/mil intel infiltration of it started that off. You saw ‘The Science (TM)’ become a thing rather than a process. It became effectively a cult belief rather than a process and method.
Magazines like new scientist were always a bit optimistic but they did have really good writing and now it’s completely captured and mainly bilge.

 

[skykiii]

You saw ‘The Science (TM)’ become a thing rather than a process. It became effectively a cult belief rather than a process and method.

There's always been people with a cult like religious fervosity around Science.

Usually these same people (as a kiwi joked earlier in this thread) would declare any science that backed up their presupported beliefs as correct.

.....

So, something I wanna share which is kinda related but is also kinda off-topic, Mentiswave posted this a few days ago: