And they still don't. But hey, this is pop science. It is now expected to be horribly wrong and highly entertaining. To be successful, it must only affirm existing beliefs (or challenge weakly held beliefs) for a great number of people. The perception of accuracy and truth only needs to persist for the length of the video + or - a few minutes for early dropouts and comment skimming.

The piece on pop science he was working on at the time

Your video, Pop Science - Coffee Break, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

*related=https://videosift.com/video/Pop-Science-Coffee-Break

Pop Science - Coffee Break has been added as a related post - related requested by newtboy.

*related=https://videosift.com/video/Pop-Science-Coffee-Break

We need more pop-science shows. If they have to bring out the dancing girls to teach people what GMO really means, then bring it on.

Every reality show needs to be cosmically balanced by something like this.

"As flawed as our science may be, it is far and away more reliable than any other way of 'knowing' that we have."

I'm going to be polite and assume you have narcolepsy and just happen to fall asleep during the bits that challenge your own viewpoint.

The theory about global warming may yet prove to be untrue - that i cannot deny; some other as yet unknown factor may be found. But the likelihood that thousands of scientists have p-hacked and fudged their way to a false positive in this case is more like 10 sigma.

In the past I have always told you - do not listen to 'a' scientist because one scientist could be a liar. Listen to many, many scientists.

Global warming isn't a pop-science article one small group put together, nor is this video the only argument you need to deny the theories of gravity, relativity or the spherical earth. Perhaps the tinfoil hat was rustling during the important final part of the video but if the alternative method of deduction is 'some crap bob heard on youtube' then I think i'll take my chances with the scientists.

I was immediately apprehensive when the video stated that the light was confined to travelling along the nanowire and that it is reflected at either end and forms a standing wave. What is the photon interacting with at either end of the wire that reflects it?

The answer is that they haven't imaged light, but instead surface plasmons - oscillations of free electrons on the surface of the wire. Light is used to stimulate the plasmon, and the plasmon is used as a representation of light, which is imaged. However, electrons have mass and light does not.

A lot of reasonable people are calling this pop-science bullshit generated by the publicity department of whatever group published the study. Or rather, not that it's bullshit but that the explanation and headline are gross misrepresentations of what physical interactions are making the image.

I love this video for not pandering or trying to be pop-science.
Just good detailed information, well organized and well presented.

I initially wanted to provide a link to Ars Technica, since pop-science is a bit their thing, but they had no article up yet. This now fixed;
http://arstechnica.com/science/2014/05/measles-is-the-latest-virus-to-be-turned-into-a-weapon-against-cancer/

returning* to his evolutionary roots, eh?

..also, why is everyone (or maybe just people who produce pop science content) obsessed with octopus intelligence? Like many cool things that octopus do, this is complex behavior.. but likely innate, and not a sign of intelligence.


*Dear inevitable trolls: I do not mean to imply that cephalopods evolved from bivalves, only that they had a molluscan ancestor with an external shell.

>> ^alien_concept:

>> ^Gallowflak:
On the one hand, popularizing science is important. On the other hand, if you need pop-science to interest you in the subject, it's probably not for you.

I don't think so. It's great for anyone to have even the smallest grasp of a subject and if "pop" science will make those who aren't necessarily academic interested, then it's all good. It's impossible to be wholly interested in anything that you can't understand well, so I'm sure tons of people who don't like science would be fascinated if it were put into layman's terms


Thats totally fine for things that can be put into layman's terms but why bother when you can teach people that know absaluty nothing about science about things that will get them intrestead in science and not require analogies that are abstract to the piont that they become absurd.

for example evalutoin can be explained and understood by sum one that has no prior knowlage of science or anything you can demon-strait it tangibly , you can also demonstrate the scientific method and how its the best way to understand reality and inspire people to then get involved with aireas of science that require a deep scientific knowlage or mathematical background.

Still i think its worth having lectures on quantum phisics and exsplaning how the world works i just think its important not to make analogies that ultimately are of no real use, In this lecture the most valid and usfull thing about quantum physics cox explained was

along the lines of - " this is an equation a clever guy came up with and a good propotion of the scentific comunity belive is logicaly sound , using the equation scientists have been able to make an acuret prodiction about the universe that we have then observed in reality thus proving that the equation has utility and is not bullshit or useless"

Don't get me wrong this lecture was 100x better than the fucking bullshit documentaries with bullshit CGI and I wish this sort of lecture was weekly if not daily on the tv I mean why the fuck is that not the case ? ITS MENTAL

also I love popular science but I think the real thing of importance is installing the spirit of the scientific method in people if everyone understood what the scentific method was properly and how to evaluate information properly we would have a far better soicity and far more people acting on reality rather than being traped in some bullshit fantisy world.

>> ^Gallowflak:

On the one hand, popularizing science is important. On the other hand, if you need pop-science to interest you in the subject, it's probably not for you.


I don't think so. It's great for anyone to have even the smallest grasp of a subject and if "pop" science will make those who aren't necessarily academic interested, then it's all good. It's impossible to be wholly interested in anything that you can't understand well, so I'm sure tons of people who don't like science would be fascinated if it were put into layman's terms

On the one hand, popularizing science is important. On the other hand, if you need pop-science to interest you in the subject, it's probably not for you.