Using your common sense to solve a physics problem.

The various popular science magazines, TV shows and the like aren't all bad or good. It depends on who is doing it, the topic and what audience they aim for.Generally, there is a big problem with complex issues that are at the leading edge. The producers have to aim at a middle of the road audience with a limited attention span. How well they simplify varies a lot. Somethings when simplified aren't really right any more. How close they can get to conveying the right message is tricky.It also depends on what you bring to it. If you have an extensive back ground you might get more of the "truth" out of a show or be able to see where they have over simplified. An example might be the global warming issue.There might be an argument presented between two scientists with differing views. One might say "we have shown that global warming is partially caused by man". The other might be shown saying "it isn't proven".This may appear to be a big difference when they might, if brought together, end up saying the same thing."we have shown" might be short hand for "the correlation between what we observe and the expected effects of the measured CO2 increases make it relatively unlikely that the change is a part of natural variation""not proved" might mean "the direct linkage to carbon emissions and precise changes in climate have not been shown. We still don't have all the information on the carbon cycle as it is currently running."With the above translations both claims could be right. However, you'd have to know something that the show isn't going to have time to air and know a lot about the nature of scientific thinking before you could suss that out.Without the background you'd just come away thinking that there is a total disagreement with only a black and white decision to be made. This would be terribly misleading and you would have no real idea of what is actually going on.This is one reason why popularizations can be iffy in complex areas.Add to that the need to jazz up a show by making it appear that there is controversy when there might not be and the rush to air that some shows must do to keep costs down and there is risk in taking them as your source of information.The magazines that offer a chance for questions and disagreement to be published as letters to the editor seem to me to be more trustworthy. If you follow a topic from initial publication through a round of leter writing you get a bit better an idea of just how well accepted an idea is.I like "New Scientist" myself. It isn't at too high a level but not as low a level as "Scientific American" as settled to. Discovery seems to be ok but I don't read it all that often. It is a bit lighter as well.A better option is to get more than on book out of the library on a topic. If real experts in the field right them for a popular audience you get a much more detailed insight. Then read any differing views you can find. By the time you've done that you probably have as good a grasp as you're going to get.The only real source is primary literature or books written that intend to be at that level. They don't all have to be unreadable. (It just seems that way )With the resources here (at evcforum) you can probably get reasonable views on anything you see on Discovery channel or read somewhere. The real scientists here do have some expertise and insight that should be helpful.

You know, there are hints that this is correct. You have a long way to go to be able to apply the talent you may have but it might be there.You're going to have to listen to some input a lot better than you have though. You'll have to stop assuming that you know a lot more than you actually do.You'll have to be able to handle some deeply disturbing, to you, ideas and understand the logic behind them.It's a lot. Good luck.

There can be a serious problem with arguing without having the basic knowledge on which to base the discussions.It tends to produce suggestions which, to the more knowledgable, are clear nonsense. Eventually they get tired and write the person off as a total crackpot. Then your learning opportunities are gone.Combine that tendancy with one that is stuggling to support a pre conceived idea and you aren't likely to learn much of anything.No add in a suspicion of those who are expert and a tendancy to be unhappy with having to take somethings just because those who are expert say so and one will find themselves in a very narrowly defined little box without a way out.This message has been edited by NosyNed, 09-25-2004 10:41 AM

There is something that I have seen expressed here, on other boards and by religious friends that you might want to consider. The concern expressed is the enormous damage that fundamentalist literalism can do to faith. You might want to ask some of those here who were once devote but lost that, in part, because of the literalist nature of what they had been taught.Many religous people see that teaching that, if you don't believe in a literal bible, then you can't believe in Jesus and God is very wrong. If this is really believed by an intelligent person then eventually there is a great danger that they will find out the truth about the world around us and in doing so lose their faith.A better, deeper understanding of what the Bible is really about is a solid foundation that can only produce a growth in faith as new things are learned.This is the opinion of the majority of Christians. You might want to consider, not the scientific side of it, but the theological issues involved.If you wish to spread the word of God and do mean well,then think carefully about the real impact your actions may have.To the religious you may be seen as dangerous. To those of us without faith you might just confirm the idea that it is all nonsense if you are careless and spout things which we do know are nonsense. That's not going to win any hearts and minds, now is it?This message has been edited by NosyNed, 09-25-2004 11:13 AM

You can not think productively outside the box if you don't know anything about what is inside the box.Without guidence from a base of knowledge such "thinking" becomes raving, wild eyed gibbering. There is some small chance that some of it might happen to be usesful but no one, the raver included, will be able to tell the junk from the gold.