Misplaced Pages

Popular science: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 10:59, 11 May 2008 editPeterlewis (talk | contribs)16,110 edits →Purposes← Previous edit Revision as of 11:00, 11 May 2008 edit undoEquazcion (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers41,926 edits →Purposes: restoring text edit but leaving image for now, pending discussion on user's talk pageNext edit →
Line 7: Line 7:
One important difference between popular and professional science is in purpose. The purpose of scientific literature is to persuade other specialists of the validity of observations and conclusions and the efficacy of methods&mdash; in terms Aristotle's classification of rhetoric, it is ]. Popular science attempts to convince scientific outsiders (including scientists in other fields) of the significance of data and conclusions and to celebrate the results, with their validity taken for granted&mdash;] rhetoric. Statements in scientific literature are often qualified and tentative, emphasizing that new observations and results are consistent with and similar to established knowledge; other qualified scientists are assumed to recognize the relevance. By contrast, popular science emphasizes uniqueness and generality, taking a tone of factual authority absent from the scientific literature. Comparisons between original scientific reports and derivative science journalism and popular science typically reveals at least some level of distortion and oversimplification, often quite dramatic, even with politically neutral scientific topics.<ref>Jeanne Fahnestock, "Accommodating Science: The Rhetorical Life of Scientific Facts" in ''The Literature of Science'', pp 17-36</ref> One important difference between popular and professional science is in purpose. The purpose of scientific literature is to persuade other specialists of the validity of observations and conclusions and the efficacy of methods&mdash; in terms Aristotle's classification of rhetoric, it is ]. Popular science attempts to convince scientific outsiders (including scientists in other fields) of the significance of data and conclusions and to celebrate the results, with their validity taken for granted&mdash;] rhetoric. Statements in scientific literature are often qualified and tentative, emphasizing that new observations and results are consistent with and similar to established knowledge; other qualified scientists are assumed to recognize the relevance. By contrast, popular science emphasizes uniqueness and generality, taking a tone of factual authority absent from the scientific literature. Comparisons between original scientific reports and derivative science journalism and popular science typically reveals at least some level of distortion and oversimplification, often quite dramatic, even with politically neutral scientific topics.<ref>Jeanne Fahnestock, "Accommodating Science: The Rhetorical Life of Scientific Facts" in ''The Literature of Science'', pp 17-36</ref>


Some popular science can be misleading, especially in areas of current scientific controversy. For example, developments are easily politicised, such as the ] and the ]. While some works are produced by experts or professionals in a particular scientific discipline, others are developed by those with a limited understanding of the subject they are interpreting. Unfortunately, it can be hard for the non-expert to identify misleading popular science. Popular science may, in some cases, also blur the boundaries between formal science and ]. Since popular science literature is often written by non-scientists, there exists the possibility that the authors have a limited understanding of the subject they are interpreting. It can be difficult for non-experts to identify misleading popular science. Popular science may, in some cases, also blur the boundaries between formal science and ].


==Common threads== ==Common threads==

Revision as of 11:00, 11 May 2008

For the magazine, see Popular Science (magazine). For the 1935-1949 short film series, see Popular Science (film).
Animation of Archimedes' screw in operation.

Popular science, sometimes called literature of science, is interpretation of science intended for a general audience, rather than for other experts or students. Popular science differs from science journalism in that the latter generally focuses on recent scientific developments, while popular science is more broad-ranging and is often written by journalists rather than scientists. It is presented in many formats, including books, television documentaries, and magazine articles. It includes Misplaced Pages and animations of machines, processes and events.

Scientific literature

As a bridge between scientific literature (the professional medium of scientific research) and the realm of popular political and cultural discourse, popular science shares some of the purposes of both but is in many ways distinct from either. Popular science generally attempts to wield the authority of science, sometimes even on social and political issues, but scientific content—the facts and arguments of professional science—changes considerably in translation, with some aspects lost and others gained. For this reason, many science-related controversies play out in the public realm, where political, philosophical and ideological contexts can mix more freely with the formal elements of science—for example, the long-running debates over biological determinism and the biological (especially racial) components of intelligence, spurred by popular books such as The Mismeasure of Man and The Bell Curve.

Purposes

One important difference between popular and professional science is in purpose. The purpose of scientific literature is to persuade other specialists of the validity of observations and conclusions and the efficacy of methods— in terms Aristotle's classification of rhetoric, it is forensic. Popular science attempts to convince scientific outsiders (including scientists in other fields) of the significance of data and conclusions and to celebrate the results, with their validity taken for granted—epideictic rhetoric. Statements in scientific literature are often qualified and tentative, emphasizing that new observations and results are consistent with and similar to established knowledge; other qualified scientists are assumed to recognize the relevance. By contrast, popular science emphasizes uniqueness and generality, taking a tone of factual authority absent from the scientific literature. Comparisons between original scientific reports and derivative science journalism and popular science typically reveals at least some level of distortion and oversimplification, often quite dramatic, even with politically neutral scientific topics.

Since popular science literature is often written by non-scientists, there exists the possibility that the authors have a limited understanding of the subject they are interpreting. It can be difficult for non-experts to identify misleading popular science. Popular science may, in some cases, also blur the boundaries between formal science and pseudoscience.

Common threads

Some common traits of popular science productions include:

  • providing entertainment value or personal relevance to the audience
  • providing generalized, simplified science concepts
  • generally forgoing mathematical formulas or complicating details
  • emphasizing uniqueness and radicalness
  • bridging the is-ought gap
  • assuming the audience has no science background, therefore explaining concepts more thoroughly
  • exploring ideas that have been overlooked by specialists or that fall outside of established disciplines
  • synthesis of new ideas that cross multiple fields and offer new applications in other academic specialties
  • Use of metaphors and analogies to explain difficult and/or abstract scientific concepts

Notable popularizers of science

Some sources of popular science

Notes and references

  1. Murdo William McRae, "Introduction: Science in Culture" in The Literature of Science, pp 1-3, 10-11
  2. Jeanne Fahnestock, "Accommodating Science: The Rhetorical Life of Scientific Facts" in The Literature of Science, pp 17-36
  • McRae, Murdo William (editor). The Literature of Science: Perspectives on Popular Scientific Writing. The University of Georgia Press: Athens, 1993. ISBN 0-8203-1506-0

See also

Categories:
Popular science: Difference between revisions Add topic