3 ms·

As a (former) physicist I have to say that there is plenty of eye-rolling about how physics is portrayed in the news. However, in any branch of modern physics i

As a (former) physicist I have to say that there is plenty of eye-rolling about how physics is portrayed in the news. However, in any branch of modern physics it is accepted that no news article aimed at the general public could ever possibly convey the science with complete accuracy. Simply because it requires years of study and specialization to really understand it. I did my graduate research at the LHC and I was there when the Higgs boson was discovered. I can't tell you how many people (non physicists) came to me with questions about it that were completely misguided because of it's misrepresentation in the news ("God particle" - holy mother of terrible catch phrases). But at the same time how can anyone expect to convey the full scope of the Standard Model in a news article? The problem isn't that simplifying science with nice metaphors and analogies is wrong, it's that people who read the articles don't understand that what they're reading is just that: a nice metaphor or analogy. People think that because the science is dumbed down for a general audience that it must be simple enough for a general audience to understand. Unfortunately, that has not been the case in physics (and most other fields) for over a hundred years and never will be again.

th0ma5 10y ago
Often I wish articles were written targeting a person with an undergrad or grad degree in physics rather than the typical 6th grade reading level. If people don't understand stuff they can google it or just not read the article.
- mcbits 10y ago
  At the very least, sneak one relevant equation into each article (not just as decoration) and spend a paragraph explaining something about it. Over time, readers will gain a lot more from that than from a data center full of 3D cartoons and raisin bread and rubber sheet analogies.
- forgetsusername 10y ago
  >If people don't understand stuff they can google it or just not read the article. Or if you are interested beyond an elementary level, you can Google for more complicated subject matter. There's more than enough out there to wet your whistle. Do you really think most normal people are going to look further into some random subject they didn't understand? Because that's who the mainstream media is appealing to. One of my pet peeves is coming into these very comment sections and someone criticizing an article for being "dumbed down". If you know the subject matter and find it "easy" then the article was probably not targeted at you. Why ask the author to write a "harder" article?
  - dredmorbius 10y ago
    The reason to demand articles which push the limits of public understanding in discourse of complex topics is because that's the only way you get a more informed public, and more informed discussion. It comes down to basic communications theory -- Claude Shannon stuff (though this may be a comparison made by others, I need to check sources). An informative communication is based on both and established common understanding and new material. The common understanding provides the basis for contextualising the issue, the novel material, for extending the receiver's understanding. A communication which is completely novel simply won't be understood. A communication which is completely known conveys no new information. You need a balance. I think I first encountered this concept in Grammatical Man, a 1980s-ish book by Jeremy Campbell on information and chaos theory, exceptionally well written, and highly recommended. More recently, recalling as I write this, I've seen a plot of the level of understanding of an audience by different types of lecturers. Most start high and proceed low, though it's the specific plots they follow which provide the amusement value. Here we are: The Nine Kinds of Physics Seminar https://manyworldstheory.com/2013/10/03/the-9-kinds-of-physics-seminar/ https://manyworldstheory.com/2013/10/03/the-9-kinds-of-physi...
  - th0ma5 10y ago
    Yes you do have a point. I do also like the other reply to your comment but I do think about your point as well.
- engi_nerd 10y ago
  I don't think that all physics articles in the press should be written this way, but I think there's a place for it. I would certainly be interested in such a publication (does my master's in fluid mechanics count?)

th0ma5 10y ago

Often I wish articles were written targeting a person with an undergrad or grad degree in physics rather than the typical 6th grade reading level. If people don't understand stuff they can google it or just not read the article.

mcbits 10y ago
At the very least, sneak one relevant equation into each article (not just as decoration) and spend a paragraph explaining something about it. Over time, readers will gain a lot more from that than from a data center full of 3D cartoons and raisin bread and rubber sheet analogies.
forgetsusername 10y ago
>If people don't understand stuff they can google it or just not read the article. Or if you are interested beyond an elementary level, you can Google for more complicated subject matter. There's more than enough out there to wet your whistle. Do you really think most normal people are going to look further into some random subject they didn't understand? Because that's who the mainstream media is appealing to. One of my pet peeves is coming into these very comment sections and someone criticizing an article for being "dumbed down". If you know the subject matter and find it "easy" then the article was probably not targeted at you. Why ask the author to write a "harder" article?
- dredmorbius 10y ago
  The reason to demand articles which push the limits of public understanding in discourse of complex topics is because that's the only way you get a more informed public, and more informed discussion. It comes down to basic communications theory -- Claude Shannon stuff (though this may be a comparison made by others, I need to check sources). An informative communication is based on both and established common understanding and new material. The common understanding provides the basis for contextualising the issue, the novel material, for extending the receiver's understanding. A communication which is completely novel simply won't be understood. A communication which is completely known conveys no new information. You need a balance. I think I first encountered this concept in Grammatical Man, a 1980s-ish book by Jeremy Campbell on information and chaos theory, exceptionally well written, and highly recommended. More recently, recalling as I write this, I've seen a plot of the level of understanding of an audience by different types of lecturers. Most start high and proceed low, though it's the specific plots they follow which provide the amusement value. Here we are: The Nine Kinds of Physics Seminar https://manyworldstheory.com/2013/10/03/the-9-kinds-of-physics-seminar/ https://manyworldstheory.com/2013/10/03/the-9-kinds-of-physi...
- th0ma5 10y ago
  Yes you do have a point. I do also like the other reply to your comment but I do think about your point as well.
engi_nerd 10y ago
I don't think that all physics articles in the press should be written this way, but I think there's a place for it. I would certainly be interested in such a publication (does my master's in fluid mechanics count?)