After many prolific years as an astrophysicist, Neil deGrasse Tyson has it all: an acclaimed scientific podcast, a late night talk show, and a leading spot on the widely successful “Cosmos” reboot. He’s rocketed to the top, reaching star status through his infectious love of science. Though uncommon, his story isn’t new. For example, Stephen Hawking and Bill Nye the Science Guy also achieved celebrity status, each by making science accessible to the masses. This accessibility is the essence of popular science — which is essentially science rendered for a more general audience.
It’s important to note that popular science is, in broad strokes, entertainment. Much like the film industry’s focus on big action and special effects, pop science uses flashy, radical ideas to attract an audience. Boasting supermassive black holes and whirling neutron stars, shows like “How the Universe Works” draw viewers simply because they present the impossible — or, rather, the unconsidered. In the end, the average person is busy in the hubbub of life, so far removed from astronomical events that they seem like a mere fantasy.
It’s an unfortunate fact that most humans simply aren’t equipped to distinguish between “Star Wars” and “real science.” For most, there’s little more foreign than string theory or the Higgs boson. Why, then, might the average viewer trust a book or television show to convey such alien abstractions? It’s not the fact that they’re outlandish (or otherwise too difficult for most of the audience to decipher). Rather, it’s the scientific figureheads endorsing them.
Take, for instance, Stephen Hawking’s unique, robotic drone or Neil deGrasse Tyson’s charismatic personality. Each is compelling, even persuasive in his own right. These popular scientific authorities point toward hard science without a moment’s hesitation. After all, why shouldn’t they? However, unfounded trust in celebrity scientists creates an artificial belief in science. Of course, there are both positive and negative repercussions to this synthetic understanding.
From a scientist’s perspective, fostering a community of scientific trust lessens the progress-hindering weight of skepticism. After all, even a partial understanding of scientific happenings is better than blissful, or even spiteful, ignorance. Additionally, interest in pop science often leads to interest in theoretical or experimental science.
It’s unsettling to think, though, that the public perception of science is so easily swayed. Take, for example, theoretical physicist Michio Kaku’s “Physics of the Future.” In it, Kaku describes scientific trends and how they might affect the world as we know it. Such topics, while interesting, are mere speculation. However, the line between popular science and scientific speculation is often blurred. This distortion is magnified as pop science consumers take information at face value.
Lying deep beneath the broad overviews offered by popular science is an extensive, elegant mathematical and experimental framework. Pop science brings its audience closer to a complete understanding but does not breach the barrier between general understanding and scientific literacy: mathematical proficiency. To most, the equations of Albert Einstein’s theory of general relativity are far less beautiful than its more accessible, geometric description. It would not be fair, though, to penalize pop science for skirting mathematical descriptions. After all, it’s merely accommodating the disturbing trend of mathematical inefficiency among the American public.
All things considered, pop science hides the nitty-gritty of scientific work. It shields the public eye from scientists’ calculations and experimentation simply because they are inaccessible. Instead, it favors presenting radical theories, oftentimes venturing into the realm of speculation. Such inconsistency is indicative of pop science’s limited value.
However, countless young scientists find inspiration in popular science. In this case, it isn’t a shield; rather, it is a segue into the world of science. To some degree, the barrier between pop science and hard science is intrinsic to the individual. Some are satisfied with a general understanding, and some have an insatiable thirst for more knowledge.
It’s clear popular science creates an artificial understanding of science, one that is oftentimes muddied with speculation. Such an understanding, though, ensures a continued interest in science. In many cases, it inspires new and larger interest. Though some in the scientific community resent its sway on the public perception of science, it’s clear that the pop science and hard science are, indeed, working in tandem.
Gage DeZoort is a Viewpoint writer.
Read More
EDITORIAL: Scapegoating students will not stop hazing
By Editorial Board | 6 hours agoInstead of retroactively responding to extreme hazing allegations, we, and especially the University, must begin asking more probing questions about the role of fraternal organizations on Grounds.
EDITORIAL: Celebrating and reflecting on The Cavalier Daily’s independence
By Editorial Board | 6 days agoOur independence grants us the ability to ask the hard questions and to say what University representatives cannot.
ARRAS: U.Va. must revise the Sexual Assault Prevention Training module
By Aoife Arras | April 17, 2024In addition to its failures in interactivity, the module lacks details specific to the University and discusses key concepts in universal terms.
