People don't like sciences because they don't understand it?

And isn't it insulting people's intelligence to assume that they are effectively "incapable" of understanding a basic science book? Because that's rubbish. I know plenty of people who would read books about science in primary school and understand it. Think of biology, how hard is it to understand that the heart pumps blood round the body, the lungs take in air and the brain sends information round the body and controls other body functions and how we think? Most children understand that, once they've learned it. And as for documentaries, did anyone else watch those Chemistry documentaries a while ago? I saw the one about the periodic table. Call me a nerd, but I was totally into that, my chemistry class were all discussing it, it was great.

Oh, it's definitely a science in my opinion, just a sort of "diluted" one, I guess. Since you're also doing several sciences I suppose you've seen how they're all just applied something or other. There's a picture about it somewhere, but since I don't know where it is, I'll just copy it here.

Geology=Applied Geography
Geography/Psychology=Applied Biology (in my head, anyway)
Biology=Applied Chemistry
Chemistry=Applied Physics
Physics=Applied Maths

Maths is kind of the core of all sciences, since it's used in every other science, and those sciences wouldn't work without it.

I don't know why so many have taken offense to what I've said. I never said anyone was incapable of understanding anything, just that for science books in general, more effort or prior knowledge is needed. If we take an average person, give him a introductory book on Einstein's theory of relativity and a history book on the cold war, he is more likely to find the history book more understandable. Reason? because in general, science books (even basic ones) have pre-requistes that you know some core concepts, if you don't then the book will have to explain them to you, hence one would require more effort to read it and effectively teach themselves the content. Whereas with a history book or a english literature book, you can understand it from the word, go - its like reading a story or a novel (this expression is something I hear so often among my friends who take history). Even if you don't possess the full skill of dissecting every sentence to unearth hidden meanings behind texts, it doesn't matter a great deal if you're just casually reading it, because with arts and humanities, there are no wrong answers/interpretation.

The example you used of primary school books is plainly unsuitable because of course if you reduce anything to the most simple child-friendly level, then it's no surprise then that even 7-8 year olds can understand them without too much struggle. The introductory books I'm talking about are ones you see in public libraries, aimed at teenagers and beyond. The content in those will no doubt be much more sophisticated than your heart-pumps-blood-around-body example.

In A-levels and in university, arts and humanities are more popular than sciences/engineering. Theres no doubt that courses like physics, chemistry and engineering are undersubsribed at university compared to economics, history and english. What do you guys think is the reason for this?

Is it down to a lack of understanding with sciences? or are they just not as interesting?


Personally, I think people don't understand sciences, or at least not well enough which has led to the trend in the popularity of subjects/courses. Go into a library, almost anyone can pick up a book on economics or history and begin understanding what is being written. The same can't be said with the equivalent in physics or biology for example. I'm studying A2 physics, maths and chemistry, and even I struggle abit when reading introductory books on quantum mechanics and the universe - I certainly notice it required more effort of me than when I was reading an economics book on globalisation. I try and put myself in the mindset of the typical student and I can imagine I'd be like ''I can't be bothered with this''. You naturally become disinterested in something when you don't have a clue about it. I think if everyone understood both sciences and the arts and humanities equally, we'd see a near 50-50 split between students in both those areas. It also quite telling that whenever I hear about bad teachers, they tend to be from science departments.

This raises another question, when it comes to deciding which A-level subjects to take or which course to do, is it a 'good' enough reason to turn away from certain subjects simply because you don't understand it well enough?
I remember when I was picking my A-levels just over a year ago, I didn't like maths back then, but in hindsight I'm really glad that I took it, because A-level maths has been a real eye opener, now I actually understand the logic (some of it at least) rather than just mindlessly working away like a drone.

Edit: Need to make clear, that I am not suggesting any particular subject is more superior or inferior to the other. I respect all subjects/courses, okay?

Clarification of my point: With sciences, if you don't understand the concepts (i.e trigonometry, calculus) of science, you will struggle to understand even a basic book on it you picked in the library. Hence frustration leads to disinterest in the subject. In with the arts and humanities, there are no concepts that are too challenging to understand. Thats not to say History, Geography, English Lit, etc aren't difficult, they are, but in a different way - writing a balancd essay, critically examining sources, interpreting a poem. The difference is, not knowing how to write a balanced essay, will not be a barrier to the average joe understanding a history book, documentary, etc. Hence in my view, the arts and humanities are more accessible to the general population.

My sister showed me something like this before, though I think it ended with something along the lines of "And that is why Maths is awesome" This was pretty much what the science teachers at my secondary school said about which sciences were best. (Without the maths though.)

I know maths is the core of all the sciences, but its more techniques that cross over, rather than actual information, whereas you're bound to get some crossover in information/knowledge within say Chemistry and Biology or Geography and Geology. Geology does have cross overs with Physics though.

Is it down to a lack of understanding with sciences? or are they just not as interesting?

Hahahaha.

You just called Einstein's theory of relativity basic.

It's really not.

And you talked about basic books about science, it's not unreasonable to interpret that as being the most simple explanations of science designed for children. You said basic, but considering what you said about relativity, I don't think we're on the same page there.

Also, if your friends are taking History, then chances are they like it and are good at it, and will find reading a history book easy as pie. Someone not so good with history will struggle, because they'll get really bored really quickly. I know people who can quite easily munch their way through a book about astrophysics and love every bit of it, but present them with a book about the Crusades and that head hits the table faster than a photon.

If we take an average person, give him a introductory book on Einstein's theory of relativity and a history book on the cold war, he is more likely to find the history book more understandable. Reason? because in general, science books (even basic ones) have pre-requistes that you know some core concepts, if you don't then the book will have to explain them to you, hence one would require more effort to read it and effectively teach themselves the content.

Oh, it's definitely a science in my opinion, just a sort of "diluted" one, I guess. Since you're also doing several sciences I suppose you've seen how they're all just applied something or other. There's a picture about it somewhere, but since I don't know where it is, I'll just copy it here.

Geology=Applied Geography
Geography/Psychology=Applied Biology (in my head, anyway)
Biology=Applied Chemistry
Chemistry=Applied Physics
Physics=Applied Maths

Maths is kind of the core of all sciences, since it's used in every other science, and those sciences wouldn't work without it.

I've never particularly agreed with all that "x is applied y" stuff. For example, if biology really were applied chemistry then a chemist would be well-equipped to understand all of biology by simply 'applying' their knowledge to it. The reason they can't do this is because, for the most part, biology is on a different plane of understanding to chemistry.

I would argue that applied chemistry is more stuff like chemical synthesis because that is a direct and realistic application of chemical knowledge.

Personally I think some people have maths/science brains, and some people have artsy brains.
I'm doing an MEng degree, but ask me to sit an GCSE English paper? No chance. I could do it, got an A when I did, but I hate all that bloody writing,
whereas a lot of my friends doing things like History, English, Psychology say they're rubbish at maths. Their brains just don't work in the logical way that mine does, making quickly working things out difficult and un-fun.

No, I really believe biology is applied chemistry. So much of what we're learning in biology this year is stuff we've already done in chemistry last year (a lot of the peptide stuff, and the carbohydrates and lipids), and a lot of the things we're doing in chemistry are things my classmates did in physics the year before (I didn't take it so I don't know it). But that's just my experience.

Biochemistry is applied chemistry (to an extent). Of course a carbohydrate can be explained chemically because it is just a molecule. But the chemistry rapidly becomes so obscure as to be meaningless when studying higher biological systems - ecosystem dynamics, organ function, even cellular function, cannot be satisfactorily explaied in chemical terms because they require a qualitative description in order to be meaningfully understood.

Ouch. Alright, I get that rather scathing hint. I'm not doing biochemistry though, I'm just saying that there are many crossovers between what I am doing in Biology and what I have done in chemistry. I suppose it's like a colour chart. Let's say Chemistry is red, biology is yellow. They overlap with orange, but both have other parts that are totally different. That's the way I see it.

Perhaps you didn't mean it that way, but this post implies that a book on Einstein's theory of relativity is basic. At least, that's the way it seems to me.

Just because you have no trouble with reading books on philosophy and english lit, doesn't mean others won't. Just because some people find science books confusing, doesn't mean other people don't fly through them like they're the final Harry Potter book. Yes, you need to know about the basic concept first in order to understand it, but if you're being introduced to that concept for the first time, how is it any harder than understand why Britain went to war with Germany? In fact, I'd say that understand a science concept is easier than understanding History, because some of the things people have done in history are far beyond my comprehension. How Hitler could act the way he did is beyond me. I find History boos rather hard going, I frequently end up crying and have to stop. Science books don't aggravate my tear ducts.

And a lot of people do not have very good grammar or vocabulary, you'd be surprised.

This. End of thread.

This thread would of made more sense if it was "average Joe in the street dislikes and thinks science is evil just because he doesn't understand it. Chem gets a bad press because people think it's all about making nasty chemicals that kill people, Biology because everybody thinks they make evil mutant beings from unborn babies or whatever, and physics because everybody thinks computers are gonna take over the world soon.

Fair enough, simple misunderstanding with my use of words.

Still I don't agree with what you said about history books. You said, 'How Hitler could act the way he did is beyond me', this suggests to me that you have difficulty empathising with his actions. Thats a perfectly fine to me and its irrelevant to affecting your ability to understand events in history. I'm not expecting people to be able comprehend the worse evils of human nature, indeed I can't put myself in the mindset of a mass murderer. But surely its not difficult to understand the idea that person A has extreme hatred of people X, so person A sets out to eradicate those people, or country B invades country C to expand their influence and take over more resource.