Hi folks, I wonder what is your opinion on popular science books? Are they trash because they are not peer-reviewed...

Hi folks, I wonder what is your opinion on popular science books? Are they trash because they are not peer-reviewed? Should anyone with a university degree read them?

there are science books?

these dawkins books are nothing but self wankery
if you want to read something like that but actually not so fucking obnoxious read Sagan books, and i'm saying it as a biologist

Popular science books serve a purpose. In exchange for what is usually something less than 100% accuracy and usually a strong POV, they provide an introduction to the non-specialist to a new topic. Unless you think ignorance is better than starting on the road to knowledge, this is a good thing.

There is a similar discussion on Veeky Forums from time to time, regarding popular history books or even historical fiction. As with books putting science concepts and ideas before non-scientists, they can serve as an inspiration to go find out more. The worst hat can be said for them is that maybe somebody who was formerly ignorant and damned sure of themselves might read them and become partially informed and damned sure of themselves. That might not be much of a step forward, but it might be at least a little step -- and certainly is no worse than the situation before.

They encourage people to talk about shit they dont understand, and they trick people into thinking that regurgitating what you read = criticial thinking

have you guys watched the dawkins and krauss movie The unbelievers? it was fucking awful

Sagan and Hawking are pretty good. They give a nice view of what modern astronomy and physics is like, without trying to convince the reader that they are now an expert for having read the book.

Popular science is intended to make you believe that you understand a thing which actually you don't understand, and to gratify what I believe to be one of the lowest desires of modern people, namely the superficial curiosity about the latest discoveries of science.

to reconstruct, to comprehend, or to re-enact a train of thought does not mean to swallow it blindly

I read them to have a quick overview on a subject. If I'm interested i will check out some articles. It's just very convenient.

Taking a specialist scientist's opinion on their subject as your own is vastly better than just being flat out ignorant. I would recommend somebody to read The Selfish Gene if they have no understanding of how genetic inheritance and evolution works, since a lot of people simply don't understand it or have been purposely mislead by religious programs which give false representations of what evolution is.

I don't see how amateurs just "taking their word for it" in regards to science as long as they're discerning enough to find a source that's not some fringe nutjob.

the thing to take away from luring is that we don't know anything

>Popular science is intended to make you believe that you understand a thing which actually you don't understand
If you weren't with your head so far up your academic as, you would know it is actually intended so the great masses get enough of science so they don't start rejecting it.
Also, people in general know they aren't specialists on a given popsci subject, just knowledgeable enough to argue about it sometimes.

>If you weren't with your head so far up your academic as, you would know it is actually intended so the great masses get enough of science so they don't start rejecting it.
Blindly accepting science is as bad, if not worse, then blindly rejecting it (i.e. 'An Inconvenient Truth')

>Dawkins

Kill yourself

Im sure scientists are guilty of blindly accepting things too desu. And pop sci can atleast give introductions if they do want to get into it. Atleast gives them some basic grounds for further research. I dont see your alternative for people who arent going to become scientists.

>Are they trash because they are not peer-reviewed? Should anyone with a university degree read them?

Yes, I don't read anything that's not peer reviewed. For insistence I will only get restaurant menus through peer-reviewed recommendations.

People who go to university no longer read "books" once they have completed. This is common knowledge as you will have read any and everything worth reading during your time at university. I hope this help and that you graduate soon.

Shoulda had your post peer reviewed mate.

Insistence*

You cunt.

Case by case basis.

The selfish gene is pretty good. I think most pop physics books are junk

Just dont expect something rigorous.

You haven't read dawkins. And I'm a biologist that has read dawkins and find what he has to say very contentious

Should of*

>Hi folks, I wonder what is your opinion on popular science books?
Trash.
>Are they trash because they are not peer-reviewed?
No, because they don't educate. They just spam buzzwords and speculative bullshit without setting up a foundation to understand them. The only good recent popsci books are the manga guides because they don't try to cover far out postgraduate material but stick to 1st and 2nd year fundamental material.
Also, there is literally nothing wrong with research monographs. Not everything has to be published in peer reviewed journals.
>Should anyone with a university degree read them?
No. If you have a university degree then you should have had learned how to learn and are more than capable of reading intro textbooks.

For instance*

Should have*