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
Everything in science is more complicated than it seems. But you can't interrupt a good story every 3 sentences with an ugly mess of qualifications
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @frogsandstars
True, but I don't know if filling a book with inaccurate statements is the answer either
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
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.