Physics World this month has a nice article by Robert Crease on the strategies used in popular physics books, drawing on a study of popular books by Elizabeth Leane (Reading Popular Physics, much of which is available via Google Books). He talks about three different strategies that she identifies, and how they’re employed in different fields. I was particularly amused by this:
Explaining quantum theory, for instance, seems both to require and to shipwreck metaphors — for what is “down there” just does not behave like what is “up here”. A common tool is to anthropomorphize, personifying elements of the quantum world. Certain books, such as George Gamow’s Mr Tompkins Explores the Atom, use such anthropomorphic metaphors guilelessly, trusting the reader to recognize the difference between what is literal and what is not. Others, especially the “new-age” accounts, tend to deliberately blur that difference for their own ends. These include [Gary] Zukav, who moves from a claim about the role of observation on atomic systems to the claim that “physics has become a branch of psychology”.
It’s nice to know that talking to my dog fits right in with an existing tradition. And it’s also worthwhile to have the shady games of quantum quacks called out.
I’m a little curious about whether this stuff is really specific to physics, or if other fields use similar techniques. Are these unique strategies required by the weirdness of modern physics, or are these same tools used to make, say, biochemistry accessible to the public?
I don’t really have time to read anything weighty, but I may see if our library has this, or can get it.