7 ms·

If you want actual scientific knowledge, read a textbook, not a breezy popular science book written by some journalist dude. For example, I am taking a CMU OLI

by kiba 13y ago

If you want actual scientific knowledge, read a textbook, not a breezy popular science book written by some journalist dude. For example, I am taking a CMU OLI course on introductory statistics, which is about 216 pages long. I am in it for 29 days at 151 pages thus far, which means I am about 70% complete. I study an hour a day, does about 30 minutes of review minimum each day. I admit that it's not the most exciting subject to learn and requires a lot of work. Although the subject isn't actually boring to learn. However, armed with knowledge of statistics, I will be able to spot more bullshit coming from writers like Malcolm Gladwell. Popular science books are not to be trusted, at the very least, without a subject matter expert's recommendation. They should be viewed as only entertainment.

r0h1n 13y ago
I'm afraid you're comparing two entirely different genres. People who read popular non-fiction (on science, economics etc.) aren't looking to learn concepts the way you are. They, I surmise, want to read interesting stories that can be explained using science/economics etc. In other words, you're attempting to learn the science so you can apply it, while most others are attempting to read stories which can be explained using science.
- kiba 13y ago
  In other words, you're attempting to learn the science so you can apply it, while most others are attempting to read stories which can be explained using science. I don't need to apply the scientific knowledge. I have gratification in knowing how reality work.
  - vdaniuk 13y ago
    Consider yourself lucky. It is currently impossible to flip a switch in the brain and get gratification from knowing. For those who do not enjoy understanding the inner workings the textbook aproach will never work.
  - pjmorris 13y ago
    Yes, and more power to you, but your boss, and his boss, and your city manager, and the people providing the services you have are basing their decisions on something. If it's pseudo-science instead of the real thing, you're still living with the consequences.
sn41 13y ago
The problem with popular science books is that they are written by journalists untrained in science. It should be scientists who write popular works. There are several scientists who have written great works which are neither difficult, nor dumbed down - for example, Steinhaus' "Mathematical Snapshots", Einstein and Infeld's "The Evolution of Physics", Schrodinger's "What is life?" and even delightful works such as Faraday's "Chemical history of a candle". With the hypercompetitiveness of modern scientific careers, scientists who take time off to write popular expositions are looked down upon. The problem is not Malcolm Gladwell, the problem is the insularity of modern scientists.
- tempestn 13y ago
  I've heard good things about Hawking's books as well, although haven't read any yet.
  - nzp 13y ago
    Don't waste your time. His books are just horribly misleading. After reading them you won't come out with any better knowledge about what is actually going on, in fact you might even be worse off. He throws around lots of technical jargon without any attempt to actually explain (relying instead on layman reader's wrong intuitions) what those words mean in the context of theoretical physics and you can really see just how hard he tries to make it all mysterious to impress the "common man" and give him enough illusion of understanding so he doesn't stop reading. But hey, that sells books! Although he's not the only scientist who does this, he's become in my mind a prototype for such deceitful behavior. Feynman's approach was as good as it gets when it comes to popularizing physics, so your best bet are his popular books. And if you have some working calculus knowledge you should just read his Lectures on Physics to get to understand pretty much all of physics up to and not including QFT and General Relativity.
  - mpclark 13y ago
    Almost nobody has. Oh yes, we've all got them, but we haven't read them.
  - debacle 13y ago

by kiba 13y ago

r0h1n 13y ago

I'm afraid you're comparing two entirely different genres. People who read popular non-fiction (on science, economics etc.) aren't looking to learn concepts the way you are. They, I surmise, want to read interesting stories that can be explained using science/economics etc. In other words, you're attempting to learn the science so you can apply it, while most others are attempting to read stories which can be explained using science.

kiba 13y ago
In other words, you're attempting to learn the science so you can apply it, while most others are attempting to read stories which can be explained using science. I don't need to apply the scientific knowledge. I have gratification in knowing how reality work.
- vdaniuk 13y ago
  Consider yourself lucky. It is currently impossible to flip a switch in the brain and get gratification from knowing. For those who do not enjoy understanding the inner workings the textbook aproach will never work.
- pjmorris 13y ago
  Yes, and more power to you, but your boss, and his boss, and your city manager, and the people providing the services you have are basing their decisions on something. If it's pseudo-science instead of the real thing, you're still living with the consequences.

sn41 13y ago

The problem with popular science books is that they are written by journalists untrained in science. It should be scientists who write popular works. There are several scientists who have written great works which are neither difficult, nor dumbed down - for example, Steinhaus' "Mathematical Snapshots", Einstein and Infeld's "The Evolution of Physics", Schrodinger's "What is life?" and even delightful works such as Faraday's "Chemical history of a candle". With the hypercompetitiveness of modern scientific careers, scientists who take time off to write popular expositions are looked down upon. The problem is not Malcolm Gladwell, the problem is the insularity of modern scientists.

tempestn 13y ago
I've heard good things about Hawking's books as well, although haven't read any yet.
- nzp 13y ago
  Don't waste your time. His books are just horribly misleading. After reading them you won't come out with any better knowledge about what is actually going on, in fact you might even be worse off. He throws around lots of technical jargon without any attempt to actually explain (relying instead on layman reader's wrong intuitions) what those words mean in the context of theoretical physics and you can really see just how hard he tries to make it all mysterious to impress the "common man" and give him enough illusion of understanding so he doesn't stop reading. But hey, that sells books! Although he's not the only scientist who does this, he's become in my mind a prototype for such deceitful behavior. Feynman's approach was as good as it gets when it comes to popularizing physics, so your best bet are his popular books. And if you have some working calculus knowledge you should just read his Lectures on Physics to get to understand pretty much all of physics up to and not including QFT and General Relativity.
- mpclark 13y ago
  Almost nobody has. Oh yes, we've all got them, but we haven't read them.
- debacle 13y ago