The reason I don't trust popular science books is because at least 50% of the time when I fact-check a claim it's either wrong or misleading
-
Show this thread
-
Just looked into a claim from a big hit pop sci book. Referenced to a book chapter
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likesShow this thread -
Go to the book chapter, and it cites a report that is unavailable on PubMed A bit of digging on Google and I find the report Claim is exactly where the reference says it is, except made without any basis
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likesShow this thread -
So I read the whole report, turns out that the claim appears to be based on a single survey of a relatively small number of people in Lima that doesn't really support the statement in the book itself
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likesShow this thread -
And then I look at the literature, and it turns out that the claim is disputed, might not be accurate, and is almost certainly more complex than the presentation of it as a fact in the book
1 reply 0 retweets 7 likesShow this thread -
Bottom line: pop science books are great fun, interesting, can be very important, but relying on them for facts can be very dicey
4 replies 0 retweets 13 likesShow this thread -
Replying to @GidMK
Really unpopular opinion: pop science is a great way to stimulate research ideas. I think it works bc it's so sensationalized you're forced into thinking way out of the box. Then you can use your scientist brain to back it up 40 steps and make it science again
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
I don't necessarily disagree but also my whole life is pointing out when people are wrong so I guess I'm doomed to be annoyed by pop sci books
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.