Talk:Popular science

Addition of E.O. Wilson under Notable English-language popularizers of science

I suggest adding Edward O. Wilson to the list of "Notable English-language popularizers of science". E.O. Wilson wrote may books aimed at general audiences, covering biology, life sciences, and the general condition on the planet Earth. See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E._O._Wilson Tony (talk) 19:39, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

Deletion

I removed the following from the original article. I thought it was a little of the mark (ike9898): "Popular science is a term for the modern sciences, most notably study into Quantum Physics and the Chaos Theory and includes links with Time Travel theory, Superstring Theory, Cloning as well working out so-called trivial things such as why cornflakes don't stay crisp when the milk is added, and why buses come in threes.

21:25, 5 March 2004‎ Ike9898

Related article

• Science magazine

21:25, 5 March 2004‎ Ike9898

"Pop" science

Before encountering this article, I had generally understood "popular science," or "pop" science to refer to purported statements of "fact" that the general public commonly believe to meet the criteria of science, but which don't, some examples being that we only use 10 percent of our brain, and that the Coriolis force causes water to drain in a particular direction.

This article suggests, however, that popular science can also simply mean science that has been popularized.

If one wished to specifically document incorrect or misleading statements thought to be scientific but which are not, where would be the most appropriate place? The article at pseudoscience is inappropriate, because it isn't a question of something being scientifically valid, it is a question of whether or not something is thought to be true science.

Any thoughts? AdmN 17:39, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)

List of common misconceptions#Science. Mitch Ames (talk) 23:46, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Removal of external links

I removed the external link to the Popular Science magazine as I couldn't see how it would help understanding of the subject. Okay, that magazine is called "Popular Science", whose subject area is popular science, but that's as far as it goes - it's not ABOUT the subject area of popular science. (Hope I'm making sense here!). (In any case, there's a disambiguation-type link at the top of the page for anyone that happens to be looking for that particular magazine.)

And as there was just this one external link, it seemed logical to just get rid of that section. (Is that a reasonable thing to do? Or should there just be an empty section lying around? Sorry, I'm a bit inexperienced in some aspects of Wikipedia!)

Finbarr Saunders 18:30, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

A bit negative

The tone of this piece seems very negative. A lot of popular science, including most of the work by the authors cited, is very good! It's like having an article on football which emphsises that some footballers cheat by diving, without mentioning any of the good stuff. And I definitely subscribe to the view that "popular science" means real science that is true but has been presented for a wide audience, not that it means popular myths.

Charlie T 20 August 2006

I agree. This basically depicts science journalism, outside of professional journals, as uniformly misleading and boarderline propoganda. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.166.65.242 (talk) 01:25, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree too. Also, popular science does not always speak with "factual authority". A lot of popular science writing (written by actual scientists) is careful to explain how science works and that nothing can be "proven", only supported with ever more evidence.

00:36, 27 September 2009‎ 24.145.178.73

"By contrast, popular science emphasizes uniqueness and generality, taking a tone of factual authority…" is definitely an example of abusive "generality" "taking a tone of factual authority". The idea is not uninteresting but should absolutely be deeply rewritten as conditional from beginning to conclusion. (The phrase "often be quite dramatic", though conditional, is grossly exaggerated). This I cannot do because of my limited mastery of English. --Dominique Meeùs (talk) 05:26, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

Gary Larson

Shouldn't he be added to the list? Hasn't he popularized science through his Far Side comics?

02:14, 9 January 2007 69.120.13.232

Types of scientific fallacy

Why is this page listed in this category?

Popular science is not bad science. Like all science, it can sometimes be done badly. Also bad science, pseudoscience and voodoo science etc. appeal to the popular audience, but through their non-scientific nature are not really science, and therefore not popular science.

(I hope it makes some sense)--ZayZayEM 08:58, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

No, popular science is definitely not bad science or scientific myth. It is regular science written in simple terms for people who want to learn about scientific developments but do not have the scientific or mathematical background. I think it should be taken out of this category, but I don't know how.

00:32, 27 September 2009‎ 24.145.178.73

Scientific myths

Might scientific myths better fit in with folk science? Zagubov 18:16, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Third opinion on image

This has moved from a one-on-one dispute, as another editor has now removed the image. However, I'd say to leave the image out, as it's a bit specific for this article. An image would be great, but this one isn't the best to use. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 20:11, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the attention here Jeremy. I probably don't need to say this but I agree with you. Equazcion •✗/C • 05:15, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Removed red links

I've removed the following entries. If they're just red-links, they can't be that notable. If someone wants to start articles for these folks, feel free to put these links back in. Matt Deres (talk) 02:14, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

• Robert Bud, curator of bioscience at the Science Museum, London
• Mary Gribbin, author

Categorizing popularizers of science?

Would it not be appropriate to establish a Category:Popularizers of science as a sub-category of Category:Science writers? __meco (talk) 22:36, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

• @Meco: I've started Category:Science communicators. Fgnievinski (talk) 05:58, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
• Do you think that Category:Science writers needs to be split in Category:Popular-science writers? Fgnievinski (talk) 05:58, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Jad Abumrad

I'd like to make a case for Jad Abumrad to be on the list. He's the co-host of Radiolab with Robert Krulwich (who's already on the list). The show has been going on since 2002 and is currently attracting 1.8M listeners.

The radioshow is mostly on scientific subjects or philosophical subjects with a scientific bent. It promotes interest in science in a very low key way, but thoughtful, and makes it accessible and intriguing to large numbers of listeners. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tharapita (talk • contribs) 19:37, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Should we create Category:Popular science?

We have Category:Popular science books. I think it needs a parent category here, and we probably need categories for popular science media in general (documentaries, magazines) as well as popular science people (activists?). Thoughts? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:11, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

@Piotrus: Agreed; I went ahead and got it started. Fgnievinski (talk) 04:55, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Upmerge Category:Popular science books into Category:Science books?

Please weigh in here: Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2015_June_24#Category:Science_books. Thanks. Fgnievinski (talk) 05:00, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Popular science is a subset of Vulgarisation?

See this definition on Wiktionary:

The process of making something accessible and attractive to the general public

So popular science as Neil deGrasse Tyson does it would be a form of vulgarization but vulgarization can apply to other domains outside of hard science where technical detail and jargon (such as in theology?) can make things difficult to understand for the uninitiated.

That is unless "science" here is being applied in the very broad sense of the word as a study of things without the scientific method being of importance.

--JamesPoulson (talk) 07:47, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Order of list

Please make sure entries are in alphabetical order by surname.

Nolween (talk) 00:04, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

Combine with Science Communication

Why are there two different articles about essentially the same thing? Popular science should be combined with Science communication.--Sanya3 (talk) 01:13, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

Divulgation redirects here - so this page should explain it

I find one thing annoying with Wikipedia quite often. Some page uses a term, and links to the term. Meanwhile, the term page gets merged into some other page, and a redirect is made, or the page evolves into something else in other ways. In case of Divulgation, it originally redirected to Public awareness of science (which at this point actually has a link to Wiktionary for the word under external links) but was then changed to point to this page. Neither page seems to explain the term, but at least the original target still has a link to Wiktionary, although I am not sure this covers the word in an encyclopaedic sense. And when coming from the redirect to Popular science, there is exactly one occurrence of the word on this page, namely the statement of the fact that the redirect took place. 5.186.55.135 (talk) 09:05, 5 December 2022 (UTC)