Talk:Popular science

message: I suggest adding Edward O. Wilson to the list of "Notable English-language popularizers of science".  E.O. Wilson wrote may books aimed at general audiences, covering biology, life sciences, and the general condition on the planet Earth.  See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E._O._Wilson
Tony (talk) 19:39, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Addition of E.O. Wilson under Notable English-language popularizers of science

message: Before encountering this article, I had generally understood "popular science," or "pop" science to refer to purported statements of "fact" that the general public commonly believe to meet the criteria of science, but which don't, some examples being that we only use 10 percent of our brain, and that the Coriolis force causes water to drain in a particular direction.
This article suggests, however, that popular science can also simply mean science that has been popularized.
If one wished to specifically document incorrect or misleading statements thought to be scientific but which are not,
where would be the most appropriate place? The article at pseudoscience is inappropriate, because it isn't a question of something being scientifically valid, it is a question of whether or not something is thought to be true science.
Any thoughts? AdmN 17:39, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: List of common misconceptions#Science. Mitch Ames (talk) 23:46, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: "Pop" science

message: I removed the external link to the Popular Science magazine as I couldn't see how it would help understanding of the subject. Okay, that magazine is called "Popular Science", whose subject area is popular science, but that's as far as it goes - it's not ABOUT the subject area of popular science. (Hope I'm making sense here!). (In any case, there's a disambiguation-type link at the top of the page for anyone that happens to be looking for that particular magazine.)
And as there was just this one external link, it seemed logical to just get rid of that section. (Is that a reasonable thing to do? Or should there just be an empty section lying around? Sorry, I'm a bit inexperienced in some aspects of Wikipedia!)
Finbarr Saunders 18:30, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Removal of external links

message: Might scientific myths better fit in with folk science? Zagubov 18:16, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Scientific myths

message: This has moved from a one-on-one dispute, as another editor has now removed the image. However, I'd say to leave the image out, as it's a bit specific for this article. An image would be great, but this one isn't the best to use. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 20:11, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the attention here Jeremy. I probably don't need to say this but I agree with you. Equazcion •✗/C • 05:15, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: [[WP:3O|Third opinion]] on image

message: Would it not be appropriate to establish a :Category:Popularizers of science as a sub-category of :Category:Science writers? __meco (talk) 22:36, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Categorizing popularizers of science?

message: I'd like to make a case for Jad Abumrad to be on the list. He's the co-host of Radiolab with Robert Krulwich (who's already on the list). The show has been going on since 2002 and is currently attracting 1.8M listeners.
The radioshow is mostly on scientific subjects or philosophical subjects with a scientific bent. It promotes interest in science in a very low key way, but thoughtful, and makes it accessible and intriguing to large numbers of listeners. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tharapita (talk • contribs) 19:37, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Jad Abumrad

message: We have :Category:Popular science books. I think it needs a parent category here, and we probably need categories for popular science media in general (documentaries, magazines) as well as popular science people (activists?). Thoughts? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 01:11, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed; I went ahead and got it started. Fgnievinski (talk) 04:55, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Should we create [[:Category:Popular science]]? 

message: Please weigh in here: Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2015_June_24#Category:Science_books. Thanks. Fgnievinski (talk) 05:00, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Upmerge [[:Category:Popular science books]] into [[:Category:Science books]]? 

message: See this definition on Wiktionary:
The process of making something accessible and attractive to the general public
So popular science as Neil deGrasse Tyson does it would be a form of vulgarization but vulgarization can apply to other domains outside of hard science where technical detail and jargon (such as in theology?) can make things difficult to understand for the uninitiated.
That is unless "science" here is being applied in the very broad sense of the word as a study of things without the scientific method being of importance.  
--JamesPoulson (talk) 07:47, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Popular science is a subset of [[Vulgarisation]]? 

message: Please make sure entries are in alphabetical order by surname.
Nolween (talk) 00:04, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Order of list

message: Why are there two different articles about essentially the same thing? Popular science should be combined with Science communication.--Sanya3 (talk) 01:13, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Combine with Science Communication

message: I find one thing annoying with Wikipedia quite often. Some page uses a term, and links to the term. Meanwhile, the term page gets merged into some other page, and a redirect is made, or the page evolves into something else in other ways. In case of Divulgation, it originally redirected to Public awareness of science (which at this point actually has a link to Wiktionary for the word under external links) but was then changed to point to this page. Neither page seems to explain the term, but at least the original target still has a link to Wiktionary, although I am not sure this covers the word in an encyclopaedic sense. And when coming from the redirect to Popular science, there is exactly one occurrence of the word on this page, namely the statement of the fact that the redirect took place. 5.186.55.135 (talk) 09:05, 5 December 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Divulgation redirects here - so this page should explain it