ex-xian

In light of this thread and this one, thought I'd post Carl Sagan's comments on quantum mechanics and its popularizations. Taken from The Demon-Haunted World: Science as a Candle in the Dark.

fando

There is more.

A little learning is a dangerous thing; drink deep, or taste not the Pierian spring: there shallow draughts intoxicate the brain, and drinking largely sobers us again. Alexander Pope (1688-1744) - An Essay on Criticism

That is, a small amount of knowledge can cause people to think they are more expert than they are and consequently make flawed extrapolations. So not only do the popularizers of science have the difficulty of communicating concepts best described in an arcane language, they must be wary of how their information can be misinterpreted, as it so often is.

Friar Bellows

Brilliant quote! I wish more of us would take it to heart.

Majestyk

Although, the "populizer" has the responsibility of presenting information in a concise and accurate manner, I'd say the burden of interpretation lies with the layman.

It is the layman's responsibility to maintain their own humility in level to their understanding. The layman must first and foremost realize that the abstract concepts presented to them by "science" are themselves subject to revision upon the discovery of new evidence. Any extrapolations that the layman makes must also, no matter how well understood and reasonable at the time, be viewed as, what it is; speculation based on their limited knowledge.

Not even the scientists who are part of the avant garde of a discipline are afforded the luxury of absolute certainty. Absolute Certainty is part of the realm of religion.

ex-xian

Unfortunately, too many laymen assume that science is in the business of certainty. They talk about Laws of this and that, make authoritative statements, and end up changing their favorite theories. The scientist understands the scientific progression of knowledge, but Joe Sixpack in Alabama doesn't.

Shadowy Man

Aye, but there's the rub. When presenting science, or at least astronomy (since that is the realm of my knowledge), in a concise manner, things have to be interpreted and adjusted.

We want to present it in a way so that the reader isn't reading the professional journals, nor needs the education of the professionals to understand. This "watering down" of the science necessarily obfuscates the situation.

I have seen many an astronomical investigation misrepresented in the newspapers and/or science magazines because of this process. Things always seem to be presented in a much more confident manner when in the paper.

ex-xian

I suppose that it's difficult for the layperson to see, on one hand, science give us computers, airplanes, info. about distant galaxies, and on the other hand, hear that all scientific knowledge is provisional, and see long held theories overturned.

leyline

i couldn't help smile at the term layman. This is not something that is restricted to science, and yet the all encompassing philosophies such as determinism and empiricism are equally well applied to subjects where the critic is often a 'layman' to the culture they are addressing. Richard Dawkins for example with respect to religion.

Similarly for many art critics, political commentators, western leaders on international politics and so on...

We cannot but be laymen and laywomen for a whole range of experiences and disciplines. I don't see QM as a special case at all, as Sagan seems to imply. (After all there is testimony in this thread to the same problem in other disciplines of science.)

And that includes the so called exagerrations and short cuts that go into a good media production. I would suggest that those who feel aggrieved at, or superior to these apparent innacuracies and shenanogans of the media, are in fact 'laypeople' themselves when it comes to understanding media production and its purpose. It ain't all about information transfer for a start.

Sagan is being very deceptive here, and like a good performer playing to the crowd. He has been a part of many media productions and i consider the quote at the start of this thread as one of them. Tarting QM up as particularily mysterious and beyond 'laypeople' only flatters the subject and those who feel they understand it.

Its an old media technique. You guys fell for it hook line and sinker, as any good media performance seeks to do to its audience. Sagan is good at it and should be applauded for his 'popularisations'. We all love to feel in the know.

Majestyk

* deleted *

I stand by my statement in this thread.

HeatherD

You mean Sagan was good at it, he passed away some time ago.

Certain areas of study will always be hard to the layperson to grasp. As a populizer of science, Sagan knew what it was that laypeople didn't understand and how hard it was to get some areas of science across to them. QM is definitely one of those areas, Einstein's two theories of relativity are a better example since it's been around longer. More laypeople think they understand it when in reality they don't or won't without significant education.

Some of the other areas you mention are easier to grasp without extensive education because laypeople at least "know what they like". Art critics and political commentators have to be educated to be experts in their respective fields but these tend to be subjectively based areas. QM and science in general are more objective and require a solid base of education to really understand it. It's math not art.