Then it means they are for the layman. Layman isn't after understanding, but curiosity, wonder, anger, whatever fuels his emotional needs at the moment.
I think this attitude vastly underestimates how messy of a process knowing actually is. To give just one point here: understanding a topic---even a single assertion---isn't like a switch, something you lack one moment and have the next. A researcher who can use knowledge about a topic in a wide variety of contexts (especially beyond their mechanical training) and who can map it into a wide variety of other systems has, for the most part, a better understanding than a researcher who can't. And of a course a layman who can't even work in a single system but has acquired a few "analogical" notions can have more understanding than someone who doesn't even recognize the concept.
Exactly because of how knowing works, I think articles like this can have an important place. They can open up new concepts for us (often little more than an empty node that can later be filled in). For experts in the broader field, they can give a quick impression of what other people are working on which might stimulate digging into more detail. And for experts on this topic, taking such writing seriously can have benefits like keeping their work in perspective and stimulating creativity (see Feynman's point about teaching physics 101).
And yes, these articles satisfy emotional needs. But what good thing doesn't?
Edit: I was mostly responding to the parent->parent, not so much disagreeing with the parent, who raised a good point.
That's right. Sometimes part of the fun is having an understanding of what the theory is useful for, and how it could impact science overall in the medium and long term, even if we don't get anything at all about the workings of the theory itself.
Are you talking about cave people, or fellow human beings?
Curiosity and wonder are the motivation for understanding, even among researchers.
Or do you believe that researchers do their work for a PhD and for the compensation?
Not sure why you mention anger. I picture an angry plumber ripping up an issue of Popular Science while sitting in a La-Z-Boy and drinking a Rolling Rock.
Nowhere does his post condemn the satisfying of emotional needs. In fact, given that emotions are primary action catalysts, his post asserts Quanta is doing very important cultural work.
This is such a bizarre way to totally miss the point.
Let me respond to the left turn you just took. There are genetic and social differences between our prehistoric ancestors and modern humans. Where exactly we draw the line of who is a "caveman" and who is not, is ancillary to the point:
You're evaluating the statement, a "then" statement, without considering the antecedents from its parent comment.
He uses "laypeople" to describe a group of people who are not truly interested, who are not seeking understanding, and who use pop-sci literature to abate basal emotions like anger.
> In fact, given that emotions are primary action catalysts, his post asserts Quanta is doing very important cultural work.
By that logic, every magazine for people who are not truly interested and don't seek understanding is potentially culturally important if it can connect with emotions. I don't buy it.
Cave people is such a nebulous term that I probably shouldn't have responded to that part of your post :\
He says the layperson isn't seeking understanding, yes. To conflate that, and curiosity, wonder, and anger, with being -not truly interested-, baffles me. Maybe you disagree that interest manifests in ways besides seeking understanding?
Thanks for clarification, it was precisely my point: layman won't understand true detail but they won't care, because the sense of interest in those articles comes from other 'rewards' (more emotional).
> Curiosity and wonder are the motivation for understanding, even among researchers.
Right, and the layperson is just interested in those first two things, whereas the researcher follows through to the point of understanding. Or maybe they don't. Someone who does research is not necessarily interested in understanding every single field either.
Nice condescension you have going on there. You don't think that reading about these articles might actually inspire someone to study mathematics? Introduce and explain difficult topics to laypeople, thus making mathematical research more accessible?
I didn't mean to condescend. And while I am convinced online article won't inspire anyone to study a field as arcane and useless to most people as math, I was simply extending on parent's observation: a lot of content out there is written in a way that non-expert can't use, and experts have no use because it's too basic.
> And while I am convinced online article won't inspire anyone to study a field as arcane and useless to most people as math
An individual seeking more information about physics will likely understand that complex math will be deeply involved.
The problem tackled by a pop-sci article shouldn't be to inspire the individual to develop a thorough background in math but to inspire a different way of thinking or to introduce new concepts.
