Science between (Simplification & pop-science)

“If you can’t explain it simply, you don’t understand it well enough”
Albert Einstein

At first, how many times did you want to learn something new? And in the end, you end up sitting down to see some videos with animation and beautiful music but the outcome of what you have learned is zero! The real problem isn’t in video, music, not even animation, but perhaps in its misuse, misreading the concept of simplifying science, how to simplify science isn’t easy and can be harder than science itself.

By looking to the science in it’s deeper meaning we’ll found that maybe it’s hard sometimes and maybe anyone can understand it very easy and quick too, but all of the science stuff hard in the beginning even it’s one plus one. Imagine that simplifying addition and subtraction to 4 or 5 years old child, it’ll be too hard like that you try to simplify quantum mechanics to an adult, so, it’s always hard in the first of everything and especially new things so don’t blame or call someone stupid, all of us is stupid at the beginning and if you learn faster doesn’t mean that you smart as much as the person who teaches you, teach you well, then your intelligence play the second role.

By talking about the person who teaches you, it’s not necessary at all that person be a real person, it can be a video or an animation or even a game, what important is how to deliver the content and the science well, it isn’t possible to compare the possibilities in this field at present to what is in the past at all, and simply because in the past you didn’t have a tablet that allows you to see a three-dimensional model, for example simulating some chemical reactions and molecular compounds, but it wasn’t made to be the mainstay of the simplification process. Was it easy to give you some pictures of something you didn’t see before and ask you to explain it, so make sure you’ll explain it from the perspective of what you already learned, as Newton tried to explain and applied his mechanics on very small particles? But it ends with a failure, so it’s over here Is also a failure, it is simply aid and not the basis of the simplification of science, the use of modern means is a must. It undoubtedly accelerates the process of education, but use it very carefully so that it doesn’t end up that you just enjoyed some pictures only. In addition to something that is one of the basic rules in the simplification of science is that don’t blur or reduce this science or content and the blur here isn’t meant is that you despise this content, but you appear it in a way that is simpler than it is already, this isn’t Simplifying science, this is creating a big gap that stems from everything that is bad and we will talk about later.

Maybe it sometimes, science is really hard to understand it and teach it too, here the big job will be put on the teacher to know the best way to simplify it correctly and make it valuable, he should focus on the content not the delivery way.

Popular science or Pop-science is an interpretation of science intended for a general audience. While science journalism focuses on recent scientific developments, popular science is more broad-ranging. It may be written by professional science journalists or by scientists themselves. It is presented in many forms, including books, film and television documentaries, magazine articles, and web pages. It’s not a bad thing at all but the miss understanding about what it really is, this is the bad thing, Popular science is a bridge between scientific literature too as a professional medium of scientific research, and the realms of popular political and cultural discourse. The goal of the genre is often to capture the methods and accuracy of science while making the language more accessible.

Pop-science makers nowadays focusing on the entertainment, not on the content which makes it not good as much as the person who needs to take a look on that need, many many many people take a very failure step and enroll in a different major and faculty by just knowing a specific science wrong, this does not make people choose wrong only, this let knowledge defendant appear and spread wrong information and that makes a very big gap in the scientific square.

It’s not a simplified version of a concept, in most cases, it’s a completely incorrect version of a concept.

Take, for instance, “cellphone radiation causes cancer”. People who don’t know the science think there’s a question about that because they think that, even though the “science” they know is simplified, it’s correct. As Einstein said, make it as simple as possible - “but no simpler”. And in this case, it was made more simple than possible. If you don’t know the difference between ionizing radiation (which causes cancer) and non-ionizing radiation (which doesn’t), you think a meaningless question actually has meaning. Oh, sure, if you put a cellphone antenna at a spot on your ear and kept it there for 50 years, transmitting at full power all the time, you might get enough high-energy photons hitting a few cells to cause a microscopic tumor, but the surprise is: no one does that!!!

At the end simplification and pop-science have pros and cons, maybe pop-science more as much say but what the really important is that to take care in every time you want to teach someone new thing and be patient as much as you can and remember that all of us was stupid in the first of everything.