Talk:Popular science

Addition of E.O. Wilson under Notable English-language popularizers of science

I suggest adding Edward O. Wilson to the list of "Notable English-language popularizers of science". E.O. Wilson wrote may books aimed at general audiences, covering biology, life sciences, and the general condition on the planet Earth. See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E._O._Wilson Tony (talk) 19:39, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

Deletion

I removed the following from the original article. I thought it was a little of the mark (ike9898): "Popular science is a term for the modern sciences, most notably study into Quantum Physics and the Chaos Theory and includes links with Time Travel theory, Superstring Theory, Cloning as well working out so-called trivial things such as why cornflakes don't stay crisp when the milk is added, and why buses come in threes.

21:25, 5 March 2004‎ Ike9898

Related article

• Science magazine

21:25, 5 March 2004‎ Ike9898

"Pop" science

Before encountering this article, I had generally understood "popular science," or "pop" science to refer to purported statements of "fact" that the general public commonly believe to meet the criteria of science, but which don't, some examples being that we only use 10 percent of our brain, and that the Coriolis force causes water to drain in a particular direction.

This article suggests, however, that popular science can also simply mean science that has been popularized.

If one wished to specifically document incorrect or misleading statements thought to be scientific but which are not, where would be the most appropriate place? The article at pseudoscience is inappropriate, because it isn't a question of something being scientifically valid, it is a question of whether or not something is thought to be true science.

Any thoughts? AdmN 17:39, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)

List of common misconceptions#Science. Mitch Ames (talk) 23:46, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Removal of external links

I removed the external link to the Popular Science magazine as I couldn't see how it would help understanding of the subject. Okay, that magazine is called "Popular Science", whose subject area is popular science, but that's as far as it goes - it's not ABOUT the subject area of popular science. (Hope I'm making sense here!). (In any case, there's a disambiguation-type link at the top of the page for anyone that happens to be looking for that particular magazine.)

And as there was just this one external link, it seemed logical to just get rid of that section. (Is that a reasonable thing to do? Or should there just be an empty section lying around? Sorry, I'm a bit inexperienced in some aspects of Wikipedia!)

Finbarr Saunders 18:30, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

A bit negative

The tone of this piece seems very negative. A lot of popular science, including most of the work by the authors cited, is very good! It's like having an article on football which emphsises that some footballers cheat by diving, without mentioning any of the good stuff. And I definitely subscribe to the view that "popular science" means real science that is true but has been presented for a wide audience, not that it means popular myths.

Charlie T 20 August 2006

I agree. This basically depicts science journalism, outside of professional journals, as uniformly misleading and boarderline propoganda. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.166.65.242 (talk) 01:25, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree too. Also, popular science does not always speak with "factual authority". A lot of popular science writing (written by actual scientists) is careful to explain how science works and that nothing can be "proven", only supported with ever more evidence.

00:36, 27 September 2009‎ 24.145.178.73

"By contrast, popular science emphasizes uniqueness and generality, taking a tone of factual authority…" is definitely an example of abusive "generality" "taking a tone of factual authority". The idea is not uninteresting but should absolutely be deeply rewritten as conditional from beginning to conclusion. (The phrase "often be quite dramatic", though conditional, is grossly exaggerated). This I cannot do because of my limited mastery of English. --Dominique Meeùs (talk) 05:26, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

Gary Larson

Shouldn't he be added to the list? Hasn't he popularized science through his Far Side comics?

02:14, 9 January 2007 69.120.13.232

Types of scientific fallacy

Why is this page listed in this category?

Popular science is not bad science. Like all science, it can sometimes be done badly. Also bad science, pseudoscience and voodoo science etc. appeal to the popular audience, but through their non-scientific nature are not really science, and therefore not popular science.

(I hope it makes some sense)--ZayZayEM 08:58, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

No, popular science is definitely not bad science or scientific myth. It is regular science written in simple terms for people who want to learn about scientific developments but do not have the scientific or mathematical background. I think it should be taken out of this category, but I don't know how.

00:32, 27 September 2009‎ 24.145.178.73

Scientific myths

Might scientific myths better fit in with folk science? Zagubov 18:16, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Third opinion on image

This has moved from a one-on-one dispute, as another editor has now removed the image. However, I'd say to leave the image out, as it's a bit specific for this article. An image would be great, but this one isn't the best to use. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 20:11, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the attention here Jeremy. I probably don't need to say this but I agree with you. Equazcion •✗/C • 05:15, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Removed red links

I've removed the following entries. If they're just red-links, they can't be that notable. If someone wants to start articles for these folks, feel free to put these links back in. Matt Deres (talk) 02:14, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

• Robert Bud, curator of bioscience at the Science Museum, London
• Mary Gribbin, author

Categorizing popularizers of science?

Would it not be appropriate to establish a Category:Popularizers of science as a sub-category of Category:Science writers? __meco (talk) 22:36, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

• @Meco: I've started Category:Science communicators. Fgnievinski (talk) 05:58, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
• Do you think that Category:Science writers needs to be split in Category:Popular-science writers? Fgnievinski (talk) 05:58, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Jad Abumrad

I'd like to make a case for Jad Abumrad to be on the list. He's the co-host of Radiolab with Robert Krulwich (who's already on the list). The show has been going on since 2002 and is currently attracting 1.8M listeners.

The radioshow is mostly on scientific subjects or philosophical subjects with a scientific bent. It promotes interest in science in a very low key way, but thoughtful, and makes it accessible and intriguing to large numbers of listeners. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tharapita (talk • contribs) 19:37, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Should we create Category:Popular science?

We have Category:Popular science books. I think it needs a parent category here, and we probably need categories for popular science media in general (documentaries, magazines) as well as popular science people (activists?). Thoughts? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:11, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

@Piotrus: Agreed; I went ahead and got it started. Fgnievinski (talk) 04:55, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Upmerge Category:Popular science books into Category:Science books?

Please weigh in here: Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2015_June_24#Category:Science_books. Thanks. Fgnievinski (talk) 05:00, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Popular science is a subset of Vulgarisation?

See this definition on Wiktionary:

The process of making something accessible and attractive to the general public

So popular science as Neil deGrasse Tyson does it would be a form of vulgarization but vulgarization can apply to other domains outside of hard science where technical detail and jargon (such as in theology?) can make things difficult to understand for the uninitiated.

That is unless "science" here is being applied in the very broad sense of the word as a study of things without the scientific method being of importance.

--JamesPoulson (talk) 07:47, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Order of list

Please make sure entries are in alphabetical order by surname.

Nolween (talk) 00:04, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

Combine with Science Communication

Why are there two different articles about essentially the same thing? Popular science should be combined with Science communication.--Sanya3 (talk) 01:13, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

Divulgation redirects here - so this page should explain it

I find one thing annoying with Wikipedia quite often. Some page uses a term, and links to the term. Meanwhile, the term page gets merged into some other page, and a redirect is made, or the page evolves into something else in other ways. In case of Divulgation, it originally redirected to Public awareness of science (which at this point actually has a link to Wiktionary for the word under external links) but was then changed to point to this page. Neither page seems to explain the term, but at least the original target still has a link to Wiktionary, although I am not sure this covers the word in an encyclopaedic sense. And when coming from the redirect to Popular science, there is exactly one occurrence of the word on this page, namely the statement of the fact that the redirect took place. 5.186.55.135 (talk) 09:05, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

pop sci

Concerning this revert: I find it deeply implausible that this obvious abbreviation is (necessarily, or even typically) pejorative. As a point in favor of my position, consider that the magazine Popular Science chose as its website popsci.com–a deeply implausible choice if "popsci" were widely regarded as having negative connotations. I cannot access the reference Johnjbarton added to support their position; can anyone share a relevant quote from it? ~2026-28744-62 (talk) 20:16, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

Sure I will add quote. Johnjbarton (talk) 20:20, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

So do you have a source to support an alternative point of view? I would gladly see that added. Johnjbarton (talk) 20:25, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

The alternative sky-is-blue view that "pop science" is an abbreviation of "popular science"?! The redirect Pop science was created in 2004, and Popsci was directed here in 2014, which is about how long the article has asserted in its first sentence that they are synonyms without bothering anyone. Thank you for including the brief quote; my personal take on it is that the author is introducing a term of art to make a subtle distinction that does not exist in common usage, not remarking on a widely agreed distinction. I propose we solicit a few more views and see how consensus develops.

Are you planning on addressing the point about the magazine? ~2026-28744-62 (talk) 20:40, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

Genentech is gene.com. So is 'gene' a shorthand for gene technology?

In my personal experience the term "pop sci" is used for lightweight non-authoritative articles whose scientific nature is secondary to their entertainment value. Johnjbarton (talk) 20:50, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

If the word "gene" had negative connotations, do you think Genrntech would have chosen that URL? ~2026-28744-62 (talk) 20:51, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

? You are claiming the website as some kind of evidence. I dispute it as evidence.

Your definition of pop-sci from cambridge.org is the one that claims it has negative connotaions. Johnjbarton (talk) 20:54, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

What precisely do you dispute? I have proposed a very simple logical argument; to dispute it you should make clear what premise or logical claim you actually object to. (It would also be fine to say, "yes you're right that it is weak evidence for your position, but it doesn't convince me to change my strongly held prior view" or "I don't think I understand the argument" or something, too.)

Your definition of pop-sci from cambridge.org is the one that claims it has negative connotaions. As far as I can tell, this is completely false. Do you mean that some of the usage examples it quotes are negative? Because I've come across plenty of negative-vibe comments about pop science writing that use the non-abvreviated form, too: e.g. from the same search as below Popular science thus represents a kind of science “lite,” derivative at best, if not the illegitimate brainchild of true knowledge dragging its audience down the slippery slope toward trivialization. Dictionaries make notations when two things are not synonyms because of connotations of negativity. ~2026-28744-62 (talk) 22:36, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

Also the content I added did not claim pejorative or "negative connotations", rather I used the source. I'm only interested in what we can source. Johnjbarton (talk) 20:33, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

No the content you added didn't say that, I was addressing your clear description of *why* you made the edit (which imo is totally mistaken). BTW, what search did you use to find this reference? (I mean, what was the query you entered?) ~2026-28744-62 (talk) 20:43, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

Here are the hits that come up for me on the first page of a typical search engine from the query "popsci definition" that are relevant:

https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/pop-sci

A mirror of https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Popular_science

https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/popular_science

None of these is an amazing source but none of them suggests anything other than the obvious. ~2026-28744-62 (talk) 20:49, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

We could use the first one, the others are circular. Johnjbarton (talk) 20:51, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

They are not circular, but I know they can't be used, no one is proposing to use them, the point is that they are *evidence for the proposition* that the distinction you're making is not widely accepted. I note you didn't answer my question about your query; would you please do so? ~2026-28744-62 (talk) 22:38, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C5&q=%22pop+science%22&btnG=

The first hit is a book by E Kaeser, who has thought about this a bit, evidently. The book is in German.

The second hit

• https://ve.scielo.org/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S0378-18442003001100010 says Science becomes part of popular culture (pop-science). This is also my sense of the use of the short form.

The fourth hit

• https://jcom.sissa.it/article/pubid/Jcom0904(2010)R01/ is a short reviewed-review of Kaeser's book. Pop science is not necessarily the same as popular science. Kaeser describes pop science as bubbling mixtures of public education and popular culture as found, for instance, in contemporary video clips, arts and music. I submit that this summary is not far from mine.

These sources don't establish THE definition of "pop science" but they are evidence that it need not be solely an abbreviated form. I think there are two points of view on the use of the term "pop science". One is the short form for "popular science" per the Cambridge Dictionary; another emphasizes the "pop" part and views the arena as separate from a pure popularization of science. Johnjbarton (talk) 00:19, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

Another source:

• https://www.thecrimson.com/article/2008/5/2/the-pop-science-paradox-on-the-first/ Steven Pinker explicitly distinguishes these terms Indeed, one of the reasons that Pinker takes issue with the term “pop science” is that other terms that begin with the prefix—”pop music,” “pop culture”—have consumers that are not in the same demographic as his readers. In fact, as science becomes more complex—and, by its nature, more specialized—an increasing number of Pinker’s readers are also his colleagues. Pinker said that his four “popular science” books are cited actually more often in the scholarly literature than are his research papers.

Johnjbarton (talk) 00:51, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

Please compare the short quotes in these two definitions:

https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/popular-science

https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/pop-sci

The short form is associated with negative appraisals. I don't think this is an accident and matches my experience. Johnjbarton (talk) 20:56, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

Yes well that and a dollar will buy you a can of soda. Please suggest a noticeboard or wikiproject from which you would be comfortable if I solicited a third opinion. ~2026-28744-62 (talk) 22:41, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

I propose that we collaborate to create content that includes both points of view. Johnjbarton (talk) 00:52, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

Here is a concrete proposal for a subsection named "Pop sci".

----

The term "popular science" appears in a shortened form as pop science or pop sci, but some science communicators use the shortened forms with a different meaning. Steven Pinker, a Harvard professor and author of several popular science books, distances himself the term "pop science" while embracing popular science writing as part of his work as a scholar. Eduard Kaeser describes "pop science" as a kitsch form of popular science writing, that pushes science popularization towards the spectacular and superficial aspects.

----- Johnjbarton (talk) 23:24, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

Noting that I have seen your last two messages but have not had a chance to review the proposal or its sou4ces; hope to do so in the next day or two. ~2026-28259-76 (talk) 11:00, 24 June 2026 (UTC)

I published the paragraph awaiting your further improvements. Johnjbarton (talk) 16:49, 7 July 2026 (UTC)

References