
Ask HN: How do you discriminate science and pop-science reads? - anhcv
I like to read science, psychology and philosophy topics. But everytime I read the discussions here regarding a book in those fields, there is almost always someone claiming that it is just pop science and pushing you to &quot;really read and learn deeper&quot; instead of learning from that book. This is not really an issue, as it&#x27;s true that sometimes I was able to learn more from other sources. But again, there is not always enough time or even willpower to step into a rabbit hole to learn something &quot;deeply enough&quot;.<p>So my questions are: How do you decide that something is just &quot;pop-science&quot;? Where do you draw the line? For example, sometimes I only want to learn about an area well enough, say quantum physics for example; I don&#x27;t really want to dig deep into all the text, but I was unable to read just a few articles without wondering if they are just &quot;pop-science&quot; or even worse, wrong knowledge.
Is there any way that works for you when you approach new territories like that?<p>P.S. English is not my first language so I hope what I wrote is clear enough.
======
DanielBMarkham
It's not that simple. Language may be an issue here.

There are people who study how we know stuff. After all the way you "know"
that chairs hold you up is different from the way you "know" string theory
explains the birth of the universe. Or that language evolved before tool
usage. People use "know" and "science" to describe both, but they're different
kinds of knowledge.

This is why no matter what the topic (almost), somebody can call it pop
science. A lot of what people get angry about is just non-science reporters
covering scientists who might exaggerate a bit. I can see where it gets them
angry, but I am not sure that it is anything purposefully-bad going on.

So let's define pop-science as things that have broad audience appeal but
little in the way of advancing the underlying conversation.

Once we define it like that, anything appearing in a popular forum that
strikes up controversy? Most likely it's fluff. Every now and then, about 1
time in 100, there's really something interesting going on. Usually it's just
non-scientists enjoying playing mental Star Trek and scientists scoffing at
the terrible reporting.

Likewise, any book that tells me things I want to hear, or supports some
larger overall narrative about how large groups of people feel about the
world, is pop science. You see these a lot in the softer fields where
"science" is much more a matter of opinion than anything else.

Hope that helps.

By the way, pop-science can be fun! You just have to know what you're
consuming.

