4 ms·

This was such a common problem in my undergrad. I'd say over half of all incoming majors had at least some form of miss-understanding of what physics was and h

by lumost 5y ago

This was such a common problem in my undergrad. I'd say over half of all incoming majors had at least some form of miss-understanding of what physics was and how it really worked coming off of pop sci. Even those who stick it out through Grad School and post docs often lament that they toiled away always believing that the grandiose visions of research presented in pop sci would eventually come true for them. While pop-sci has been radically successful at making physics concepts appear accessible, it has woefully failed at making actual physics accessible. It's no wonder that Americans increasingly view science as either the tony stark like practice of wizards - or as a ceremonious endeavor practiced by those whose beliefs are no more testable than a TV pundits. We need to do better at Science writing.

nullc 5y ago
I bet the bad science writing sells much better-- readers enjoy the Feeling of Knowing. You're not going to get much of that feeling from an honest article on a complex subject.
blablabla123 5y ago
For me pop sci documentaries were quite a motivation to study Physics though. But yeah, after having studied it I have zero interest in pop sci anymore. It's unfortunately not really explaining things but more show casing things. But what I also learned while reading text books, listening and reading lectures: often the most concise explanations are very close to every day language. (In the lines of https://www.motionmountain.net/9lines.html https://www.motionmountain.net/9lines.html which was recently also posted on HN) Would be great if such things could be included more into pop sci. Maybe in a way that at least the common notations are put in. That doesn't enable you to do meaningful calculations but at least it would be way closer to relevant literature. Unfortunately there's also quite a barrier to university literature in terms of pricing and some stuff is just not published on the Internet. E.g. lecture notes are only sporadically available but tend to be more readable than most books. FWIW Feynman's lectures on Physics really stand out here
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
jacobr1 5y ago
While there is always room for better, is this even a problem that is solvable? To a certain extent, fundamental background knowledge, in particular mathematical, is needed. So to present something to a general audience will necessarily involve a simplified model of some kind. This can be a bad analogy, but even a "good models" are flawed at the edges and seem likely to be the simpler the model becomes in relation to a more complex topic.
JabavuAdams 5y ago
"If we just do better, they'll come around". Nah. Sometimes we're just starting too far apart, or frankly the person is not smart enough or has some mental difference that makes the requisite study too hard. We should try -- these are excuses that can be used to give up on people too soon, but ... you can lead a horse to water, but you can't make it think. The median person who can drive, pay taxes, be a loving partner, and parent is just ... disappointingly not smart if you've been surrounded by brainiacs for most of your life. Some very bright people have other personality quirks that make it hard for them to integrate new ideas outside their comfort zone. We need better people.
- throwawaygh 5y ago
  You don't have to be particularly smart to do professional mathematics or physics. However, you do need to either come from money or be content with a monkish life. Both of those are "multiple post-docs" fields -- you're basically living hand-to-mouth until your mid 30s (which for most means not having kids). There are some folks who are incredibly motivated and also fundamentally incapable. But for most people, the biggest "issue" is that there are multiple lucrative and lower-stress exit ramps.
  - wittycardio 5y ago
    Lol you have to be incredibly smart to do math and physics professionally. A lot smarter than most software developers certainly.
    - lumost 5y ago
      Having done both, I’d say that the primary difference is motivation. Humans learn things to do things. People who learn on their own often have some ultimate goal they are trying to achieve- even if it is I’ll defined. Learning higher maths and physics is not intrinsically more difficult, but it is hard for most to maintain focus on a topic with only vague applications to anything and leads for most to financial ruin. Software skills are more common merely by virtue of how applicable they are.
q-big 5y ago
> Even those who stick it out through Grad School and post docs often lament that they toiled away always believing that the grandiose visions of research presented in pop sci would eventually come true for them. > [...] > We need to do better at Science writing. Rather: we need to get better at not believing what advertising tells people.
hoseja 5y ago
Lot of science is deeply idiosyncratic and could really use a major overhaul in areas we can be confident we kinda know what we're talking about; for much improved teachability. Currently it's patched together with incremental development hacks/legacy crud that could really use some spring cleaning. Of course paying due respect to Chesterton fences etc. I would start with most terms named after their inventors/discoverers, trying to give them meaningful names.

by lumost 5y ago

nullc 5y ago

I bet the bad science writing sells much better-- readers enjoy the Feeling of Knowing. You're not going to get much of that feeling from an honest article on a complex subject.

blablabla123 5y ago

For me pop sci documentaries were quite a motivation to study Physics though. But yeah, after having studied it I have zero interest in pop sci anymore. It's unfortunately not really explaining things but more show casing things. But what I also learned while reading text books, listening and reading lectures: often the most concise explanations are very close to every day language. (In the lines of https://www.motionmountain.net/9lines.html https://www.motionmountain.net/9lines.html which was recently also posted on HN) Would be great if such things could be included more into pop sci. Maybe in a way that at least the common notations are put in. That doesn't enable you to do meaningful calculations but at least it would be way closer to relevant literature. Unfortunately there's also quite a barrier to university literature in terms of pricing and some stuff is just not published on the Internet. E.g. lecture notes are only sporadically available but tend to be more readable than most books. FWIW Feynman's lectures on Physics really stand out here

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]

jacobr1 5y ago

While there is always room for better, is this even a problem that is solvable? To a certain extent, fundamental background knowledge, in particular mathematical, is needed. So to present something to a general audience will necessarily involve a simplified model of some kind. This can be a bad analogy, but even a "good models" are flawed at the edges and seem likely to be the simpler the model becomes in relation to a more complex topic.

JabavuAdams 5y ago

"If we just do better, they'll come around". Nah. Sometimes we're just starting too far apart, or frankly the person is not smart enough or has some mental difference that makes the requisite study too hard. We should try -- these are excuses that can be used to give up on people too soon, but ... you can lead a horse to water, but you can't make it think. The median person who can drive, pay taxes, be a loving partner, and parent is just ... disappointingly not smart if you've been surrounded by brainiacs for most of your life. Some very bright people have other personality quirks that make it hard for them to integrate new ideas outside their comfort zone. We need better people.

throwawaygh 5y ago
You don't have to be particularly smart to do professional mathematics or physics. However, you do need to either come from money or be content with a monkish life. Both of those are "multiple post-docs" fields -- you're basically living hand-to-mouth until your mid 30s (which for most means not having kids). There are some folks who are incredibly motivated and also fundamentally incapable. But for most people, the biggest "issue" is that there are multiple lucrative and lower-stress exit ramps.
- wittycardio 5y ago
  Lol you have to be incredibly smart to do math and physics professionally. A lot smarter than most software developers certainly.
  - lumost 5y ago
    Having done both, I’d say that the primary difference is motivation. Humans learn things to do things. People who learn on their own often have some ultimate goal they are trying to achieve- even if it is I’ll defined. Learning higher maths and physics is not intrinsically more difficult, but it is hard for most to maintain focus on a topic with only vague applications to anything and leads for most to financial ruin. Software skills are more common merely by virtue of how applicable they are.

q-big 5y ago

> Even those who stick it out through Grad School and post docs often lament that they toiled away always believing that the grandiose visions of research presented in pop sci would eventually come true for them. > [...] > We need to do better at Science writing. Rather: we need to get better at not believing what advertising tells people.

hoseja 5y ago

Lot of science is deeply idiosyncratic and could really use a major overhaul in areas we can be confident we kinda know what we're talking about; for much improved teachability. Currently it's patched together with incremental development hacks/legacy crud that could really use some spring cleaning. Of course paying due respect to Chesterton fences etc. I would start with most terms named after their inventors/discoverers, trying to give them meaningful names.