> A typical problem is that, in the absence of equations, they project literal meanings onto words such as ‘grains’ of space-time or particles ‘popping’ in and out of existence. Science writers should be more careful to point out when we are using metaphors. My clients read way too much into pictures, measuring every angle, scrutinising every colour, counting every dash. Illustrators should be more careful to point out what is relevant information and what is artistic freedom. But the most important lesson I’ve learned is that journalists are so successful at making physics seem not so complicated that many readers come away with the impression that they can easily do it themselves. How can we blame them for not knowing what it takes if we never tell them?
Just the other day I went to a talk by a prestigious physicist who, on top of telling only half-truths _at best_, made all of these mistakes and more. And the audience ate it up! As a mathematician and guy-who-writes-about-math-online, it makes me feel very frustrated. I also realized the difference between a physicist and a mathematician: a physicist is openly willing to compromise their principles and stretch the truth for the sake of press, while a mathematician sticks to the truth and as a result nobody cares.
Just the other day I went to a talk by a prestigious physicist who, on top of telling only half-truths _at best_, made all of these mistakes and more. And the audience ate it up! As a mathematician and guy-who-writes-about-math-online, it makes me feel very frustrated. I also realized the difference between a physicist and a mathematician: a physicist is openly willing to compromise their principles and stretch the truth for the sake of press, while a mathematician sticks to the truth and as a result nobody cares.