Being interested in science versus being able to read science

[medicalschoolislife]

---

Members don't see this ad.

Hi,

I was wondering if anyone knows of any individuals that appear to be interested in science, but find it too complicated or lose concentration while reading it. I would like to know this because my assumption is that if someone has an interest in science, they should be able to read about it (unless they struggle to read - that is different story) and would not lose concentration or find it too complicated, but I can't say this with much confidence.

Thanks for your input!

 

[Verity]

There's plenty of subjects that I'm interested in that I am not able to readily understand at a high level. Being interested does not equate being an expert, nor should it.

Just an edit to add... I definitely know many people who are interested, but that wouldn't wanna or who simply don't have the background to read a long pub on it. 😛 Take my younger brother, who excitedly tells our family about all the coolest new science he sees online, that kinda gets the gist, but who of course isn't going to pour over a nature pub for an hour

 

[Cotterpin]

I imagine that if you were really interested to read about something, you would keep trying even if you found it hard. And then with effort and time it would get easier.

 

[NeedACar]

I found it took me until the summer before my 4th year to enjoy reading pubs, and only then if I had sufficient background about the subject.

Being in a research lab totally did a 180 on my perception of them!

 

[medicalschoolislife]

I imagine that if you were really interested to read about something, you would keep trying even if you found it hard. And then with effort and time it would get easier.

Yes, this is the type of answer I was looking for. Unless someone struggles to read in general, they would pursue more complex readings of a topic because they are more interested than say, someone who just reads general knowledge type stuff (ie. a scientific researcher versus someone who buys a book at Chapters about insects).

 

[libertyyne]

Hi,

I was wondering if anyone knows of any individuals that appear to be interested in science, but find it too complicated or lose concentration while reading it. I would like to know this because my assumption is that if someone has an interest in science, they should be able to read about it (unless they struggle to read - that is different story) and would not lose concentration or find it too complicated, but I can't say this with much confidence.

Thanks for your input!

I think there are a few things that are necessary. You need to understand the basics including how to critically evaluate the quality of the literature and then have an interest in the topic. I love reading journal articles because I am always trying to think up ways in which they messed up in the study design, or think of reasons on why they made the decions they did, but this is only possible if I am interested in the topic at hand and have some familiarity with the content, like in order to read a paper about cardiac stenting you need to have a nuts and bolts understanding of what it is, what they are trying to treat, what the anatomy looks like, what the alternatives are and just a high level overview of what they are talking about. Only after you have that understanding will you be able to enjoy the paper. I am in a similar situation that you are with finance/economics/engineering papers where I am interested but I have difficulty considering I dont know the math they talk about and some of the topic specific lingo evades me.
My advice would be to keep at it, like all things in life perseverance and effort helps you along the way and it eventually clicks into place and reading the journal or scientific article becomes easier.

 

[aldol16]

In an ideal world, anybody interested in science (not layperson science but research science) should have enough mathematical training to understand the foundations of scientific works. In the end, it's all math. But in practice, this gets harder and harder because any particular field of science is becoming more and more specialized and is extremely derivative of previous works. So while you might understand how to do all the fundamental math and derivations, the current science might elude you simply because there's no simple path that connects the math to the science. In between, there have been many approximations and estimates that have no easy physical meaning. What I'm trying to say is that in practice now, science has become very obscure and field-specific knowledge is required to understand many works even when it shouldn't be. Pick up a copy of Nature or Science and you'll see what I mean. I always say that you know you're doing good science when you can explain it to a layperson and that person understands it.

So all that said, reading science does require a level of background knowledge and knowledge of the "lingo" - otherwise, one might become hopelessly lost in the terminology and give up reading altogether. If you're interested in reading about science that you have no expertise in, a good place to start might be the pieces that are usually included before high-impact works in Nature or Science. Those are usually written at a level that any scientist should be able to understand regardless of their field.

 

[Iz_FtB]

Primary literature is meant for consumption by people in the field, and will always require some level of understanding of prior works to understand the meaning and significance of more recent work. A meaningful piece of scientific literature that extends the understanding of the field will, by default, seem complex to the point of near incomprehension to anyone not deeply involved in the field, and that is how it should be. There is certainly an argument to be made for more clear scientific writing, which isn't always practiced, but the very material that makes up the forefront of our scientific knowledge will always seem arcane to most non-specialists, and that's OK.

I'd recommend starting with some of the work that won Nobel prizes in recent years. Find a prize awarded for a piece of work you find personally interesting, and begin doing some research on the topic. Look up the winner's Stockholm speech, and eventually dig up the primary literature that first reported the prize winning work. You'll find enough lay material describing the science that you'll have a better understanding when you try to tackle the primary literature.

 

[medicalschoolislife]

Primary literature is meant for consumption by people in the field, and will always require some level of understanding of prior works to understand the meaning and significance of more recent work. A meaningful piece of scientific literature that extends the understanding of the field will, by default, seem complex to the point of near incomprehension to anyone not deeply involved in the field, and that is how it should be. There is certainly an argument to be made for more clear scientific writing, which isn't always practiced, but the very material that makes up the forefront of our scientific knowledge will always seem arcane to most non-specialists, and that's OK.

I'd recommend starting with some of the work that won Nobel prizes in recent years. Find a prize awarded for a piece of work you find personally interesting, and begin doing some research on the topic. Look up the winner's Stockholm speech, and eventually dig up the primary literature that first reported the prize winning work. You'll find enough lay material describing the science that you'll have a better understanding when you try to tackle the primary literature.

I have a degree in Biology and was able to start from the basics of science to eventually learn more complex science, but thanks for your advice.

My concern is for the individual that has the potential to be very interested in complex science (like what you read in scientific journals) but can't do so because they struggle to memorize all the vocabulary. I say this individual has the potential to be very interested in complex science because maybe they are a very visual learner.

 

[aldol16]

My concern is for the individual that has the potential to be very interested in complex science (like what you read in scientific journals) but can't do so because they struggle to memorize all the vocabulary. I say this individual has the potential to be very interested in complex science because maybe they are a very visual learner.

This is why I always recommend people with adequate science preparation but perhaps not in the field they are reading about to read articles starting with the figures. One can easily get bogged down in the technical jargon in the article but the data usually does not lie and doesn't require much vocab knowledge to understand. Usually, if it's a good article, the first figure will tell you something about the background and why their work is important. The next figures will then show you the science, which you should be able to decipher without too much background knowledge. This, of course, gets harder as the difference between your field and the field of the article broadens.

 

[Iz_FtB]

I have a degree in Biology and was able to start from the basics of science to eventually learn more complex science, but thanks for your advice.

My concern is for the individual that has the potential to be very interested in complex science (like what you read in scientific journals) but can't do so because they struggle to memorize all the vocabulary. I say this individual has the potential to be very interested in complex science because maybe they are a very visual learner.

Learning the language of science is like learning any other language: it's a product of practice and immersion. In the the same way you can't expect to be fluent in Spanish after a week, you can't expect to understand the terminology that communicates complex scientific ideas in short order, either. It took me about a year of intense study in my field before I got to the point where I felt I was scientifically literate and could explain primary literature confidently and concisely.

If the problem is one of exposure, I'd also recommend joining a journal club. I'd imagine schools with active pre-med societies would offer that. If that isn't available, I would suggest digging up your school's invited speaker series for your school's graduate departments. Most grad departments invite a speaker once a week to give a talk on their work. Depending on the quality of the speaker, these talks can be great for giving you an overview of the speaker's field in addition to details about their own work. You get to hear about how a researcher goes about formulating questions and designing experiments to produce solutions. Naturally, these talks are very different from what you might expect from a typical undergrad course. Do a bit of reading beforehand about the subject of the talk, and you'll really be able to appreciate the details and won't be scrambling to make sense of things. A few months of this and your scientific understanding will skyrocket.

 

[medicalschoolislife]

Learning the language of science is like learning any other language: it's a product of practice and immersion. In the the same way you can't expect to be fluent in Spanish after a week, you can't expect to understand the terminology that communicates complex scientific ideas in short order, either. It took me about a year of intense study in my field before I got to the point where I felt I was scientifically literate and could explain primary literature confidently and concisely.

If the problem is one of exposure, I'd also recommend joining a journal club. I'd imagine schools with active pre-med societies would offer that. If that isn't available, I would suggest digging up your school's invited speaker series for your school's graduate departments. Most grad departments invite a speaker once a week to give a talk on their work. Depending on the quality of the speaker, these talks can be great for giving you an overview of the speaker's field in addition to details about their own work. You get to hear about how a researcher goes about formulating questions and designing experiments to produce solutions. Naturally, these talks are very different from what you might expect from a typical undergrad course. Do a bit of reading beforehand about the subject of the talk, and you'll really be able to appreciate the details and won't be scrambling to make sense of things. A few months of this and your scientific understanding will skyrocket.

There is a lot of new vocabulary in anything science, though, and someone who has a hard time learning all the new vocabulary may not be able to reach their full potential as a scientist. All I'm saying is there could be someone out there with the creative potential to propose something as big as the theory of relativity, but doesn't learn science that well because of comprehension and memorization issues. Would such an individual even exist?

 

[libertyyne]

There is a lot of new vocabulary in anything science, though, and someone who has a hard time learning all the new vocabulary may not be able to reach their full potential as a scientist. All I'm saying is there could be someone out there with the creative potential to propose something as big as the theory of relativity, but doesn't learn science that well because of comprehension and memorization issues. Would such an individual even exist?

You can understand concepts without knowing the words that represent them. You could call relativity -x in your mind and still explain it in plain language, doctors do this all the time when consenting the almost illiterate. That being said, reading the scientific literature may be difficult and communicating complex ideas to your colleague s may be more difficult.

 

[ChrisMack390]

I think theoretical physics is wildly interesting. I am not nearly smart enough to understand it.


And yes I know that no one really understands it but you know what I'm trying to say.