Is it possible to poplularize science
海底两万里中物理学的句子
海底两万里中物理学的句子英文回答：Physics plays a significant role in Jules Verne's novel "Twenty Thousand Leagues Under the Sea." As the story follows the adventures of Professor Aronnax, Ned Land, and Conseil aboard the Nautilus, many instances highlight the application of physics principles.One example is the concept of buoyancy. The Nautilus, being a submarine, must maintain neutral buoyancy to navigate underwater. This is achieved by adjusting the amount of water in the ballast tanks. By controlling the density of the Nautilus, Captain Nemo ensures that the upward force exerted by the water equals the downward force of the submarine, allowing it to float at a desired depth. This demonstrates Archimedes' principle, which states that an object immersed in a fluid experiences an upward buoyant force equal to the weight of the fluid it displaces.Another physics concept explored in the novel is pressure. As the Nautilus dives deeper into the ocean, the pressure increases significantly. The characters experience this firsthand when they descend to great depths and feel the pressure on their bodies. This aligns with Pascal's principle, which states that pressure is transmitted uniformly in all directions in a fluid. The immense pressure at great depths is a result of the weight of the water above pressing down on the submarine.Furthermore, the novel touches upon the principles of electricity and magnetism. The Nautilus is powered by electricity, and Verne describes the use of electric motors to propel the submarine through the water. The concept of electromagnetism is also evident in the use of magnetic fields to navigate and detect underwater objects. These applications of physics showcase the integration of scientific knowledge into the fictional world of the Nautilus.中文回答：物理学在朱尔·凡尔纳的小说《海底两万里》中起着重要的作用。
居里夫人的人生简介英语版讲解
Kang Ling
Why?
• To have deep love for learning • To treat scientific reasearch seriously and never give up • To be indifferent to fame and fortune
First Marie needed a lab. She had to settle for a storeroom. The storeroom was crowded and damp, but somehow she overcame its problems. She started off by studying a variety of chemical compounds.
But other scientists did not trust the announcement, for the Curies did not have enough polonium and radium to see and weigh. The Curies would have to separate the two elements from the other substances they were mixed with. And Curies continued their work in an abandoned shed nearby.
“On the way to fame, but the blood flow is not sweat, their name is not with the pen but lives in.”
高二英语海洋科学单选题40题
高二英语海洋科学单选题40题1. The ______ of the whale is one of the most amazing spectacles in the ocean.A. migrationB. hibernationC. reproductionD. digestion答案：A。
本题考查海洋生物的行为。
选项A“migration”意思是迁徙，鲸鱼的迁徙是海洋中令人惊叹的景象之一。
选项B“hibernation”指冬眠，鲸鱼通常不冬眠。
选项C“reproduction”是繁殖，虽然鲸鱼繁殖也是重要的生命活动，但不如迁徙具有壮观的景象。
选项D“digestion”是消化，与题干描述的壮观景象不符。
2. Some species of sea turtles can live up to 100 years. The underlined part means ______.A. kindsB. groupsC. numbersD. qualities答案：A。
“species”常见释义为“物种；种类”。
选项A“kinds”有“种类”的意思，符合。
选项B“groups”是“组；群”。
选项C“numbers”是“数量”。
选项D“qualities”是“质量；品质”。
3. The color of the octopus can change to blend in with its ______.A. environmentB. companionC. predatorD. competitor答案：A。
本题考查海洋生物的生存策略。
“blend in with”表示与......融合。
选项A“environment”环境，章鱼能变色与环境融合。
选项B“companion”同伴。
选项C“predator”捕食者。
选项D“competitor”竞争者。
章鱼变色主要是为了适应环境，而非同伴、捕食者或竞争者。
波普尔把科学发现归结为从错误到对错英语作文
全文分为作者个人简介和正文两个部分：作者个人简介：Hello everyone, I am an author dedicated to creating and sharing high-quality document templates. In this era of information overload, accurate and efficient communication has become especially important. I firmly believe that good communication can build bridges between people, playing an indispensable role in academia, career, and daily life. Therefore, I decided to invest my knowledge and skills into creating valuable documents to help people find inspiration and direction when needed.正文：波普尔把科学发现归结为从错误到对错英语作文全文共3篇示例，供读者参考篇1Popper's Falsification and the Path of ScienceWhen I first learned about Sir Karl Popper's views on the philosophy of science, I have to admit I was a bit perplexed. Popper argued that the way science advances is by scientistscontinuously putting forth bold theories and then trying their hardest to falsify or refute those theories through stringent testing. If the theories withstand serious attempts at falsification, they are provisionally retained. But if they are falsified by observable evidence, they must be rejected or revised.This seemed backwards to me at first. Isn't the goal of science to ultimately arrive at profound truths about the universe through empirical investigation? Why would Popper claim that science doesn't deal in ultimate truths at all, but merely erecting theoretical structures that have so far withstood our efforts to knock them down? Asserting that science progresses "from error to error" seems like an awfully pessimistic view.However, the more I studied Popper's critical rationalism, the more I came to see the wisdom and importance of his ideas. Popper was reacting against the rigid empiricism and verificationism of the logical positivists who demanded that scientific knowledge be proven with certainty through pure observation and inductive reasoning. Popper rightly pointed out that this is an unrealistic and unattainable standard. No matter how many observations seem to confirm a theory, it can never be proven with total certainty because there is always the possibility of a future observation that contradicts and falsifies it.Instead, Popper argued that scientific theories can only ever be provisionally retained as being the best explanations we have so far until contradictory evidence emerges. This forces scientists to hold even their most cherished theories tentatively and be willing to modify or abandon them if the observable evidence demands it. As Popper put it, "The old scientific ideal of episteme – of absolutely certain, demonstrable knowledge – has proved to be an idol. The demand for scientific objectivity makes it inevitable that every scientific statement must remain tentative for ever."What I really grew to appreciate about Popper's philosophy is that it encourages a mindset of constant critical scrutiny, skepticism of dogma, and willingness to change one's views in the face of new evidence. This is the essence of the true scientific temperament – to never cling stubbornly to ideas just because we want them to be true, but to always follow the path of reason and observable reality wherever it leads.Popper used the vivid metaphor of scientists as unwitting "randy plank-builders" who devise bold theoretical planks to cross the ocean of the unknown. They build their plank as far out as they dare, secured only by the flimsiest anchor of tested knowledge, constantly extending it outwards to explore newdomains. But they must always be ready to demolish or modify their plank if it doesn't hold up to rigorous testing.To Popper, science advances by this constant process of conjectures and refutations. We put forth daring conjectures or hypotheses that attempt to explain aspects of reality. We then expose these conjectures to the most strenuous attempts at refutation that we can devise through precise observation and experimentation. Those theories that do get falsified are discarded as errors, while the survivors are retained – but only tentatively until contradicted. In this way, science progresses not by proving absolute truths, but by discarding error after error in favor of better approximations of the truth.The history of science is replete with examples of dominant theories that were later overturned or modified through bold conjectures and rigorous refutation. The geocentric model of the universe reigned for centuries until it was falsified by the heliocentric model of Copernicus, Galileo and Kepler. Newton's classical physics stood as the paramount theory until it was superseded in certain domains by Einstein's theories of relativity. The idea of the immutable gene was eventually overturned by our understanding of genetic mutation, horizontal gene transfer, and epigenetic expression.Each new scientific revolution involved daring scientists putting forth bold conjectures that contradicted and ultimately falsified the old paradigms through painstaking empirical scrutiny. As Popper said, "Whenever a theory appears to you as the only possible one, take this as a sign that you have neither understood the theory nor the problem which it was intended to solve."So in this light, science doesn't progress linearly towards final truths, but in fitful bursts, zigs and zags as old errors are discarded for newer and more empirically adequate conjectures. Popper likened it to a Socratic discussion where we continually uncover problems and revise our theories through the provocation of new arguments and careful refutation.There is undoubtedly a sense of provisionality and humility in Popper's view – we can never attain perfect, certain truth, only contingent approximations subject to revision. But I've come to see this as a strength rather than a weakness of science. It means our scientific knowledge remains flexible, open to change, and deeply rooted in observable reality rather than rigid doctrine. As Popper said, "The autonomy of science, guaranteed by incessant criticism and forever undergoing risk to survive, provides the firmest security system for science."So after studying Popper at length, I've come to embrace his perspective of science as boldly conjecturing solutions and then striving indefatigably to criticize and refute those solutions. By eliminating errors one by one, and revising our theories to account for contradictory evidence, science advances step by step towards fuller and more empirically robust explanations of the observable world. We may never attain ultimate truth, but we can progressively shed error after error in its pursuit.篇2Scientific Discovery: Popper's View of Progressing from Error to TruthAs students of science, we are taught from an early age that the scientific method is the path to uncovering objective truths about the natural world. We dutifully memorize the steps - make an observation, form a hypothesis, design an experiment to test the hypothesis, analyze the results, and draw a conclusion. If our results support the hypothesis, we consider it to be a valid theory that explains the phenomenon we investigated.However, the renowned philosopher of science Karl Popper held a radically different view of how scientific knowledge advances. In his seminal work "The Logic of Scientific Discovery,"Popper argued that the classical scientific method is fundamentally flawed because it is impossible to prove a theory is true through observations or experiments, no matter how much data we collect supporting it. Instead, Popper proposed that science progresses by continually attempting to falsify or disprove accepted theories through rigorous testing.Popper's core premise is that no number of confirming observations or experiments can establish a scientific theory as true with absolute certainty. This is because it is always possible that a future observation or test could arise that contradicts the theory. For example, physicists once considered Newtonian mechanics to be an unassailable truth based on centuries of observations that aligned with its principles. However, this theory was later shown to be incomplete and only an approximation through experiments that revealed the bizarre nature of physics at the quantum scale.Instead of naively seeking to prove theories true, Popper advocated for scientists to approach theories as permanent sources of potential error or falsehoods that must be ruthlessly scrutinized. A theory can only be considered scientifically valuable if it is inherently falsifiable - meaning it generatestestable predictions or premises that could reveal the theory to be false if contradictory evidence emerges.Through this process of "surviving" strenuous attempts at falsification, Popper believed that theories could provisionally be accepted as closer approximations of the truth, but never proven to be perfect or complete representations of reality. Each failed attempt to falsify strengthens a theory's credibility and explanatory power, but it is always subject to being revised or discarded if future observations reveal flaws.For example, Einstein's theory of relativity made very precise, quantifiable predictions about phenomena like the bending of light by gravitational fields. When astronomers observed stars positioned precisely where Einstein's equations predicted during a solar eclipse, it was considered a falsification of Newton's established laws. However, rather than taking this as final proof, scientists have continued rigorously testing relativity for over a century through experiments probing the theory's limits in more extreme scenarios. The theory remains unchallenged, but open to being potentially superseded.From Popper's perspective, science self-corrects and progresses through a Darwinian competition amongst theories to survive increasingly stringent tests. The fittest theories live on,being further refined by new evidence, while flawed or limited theories are culled from the body of accepted scientific knowledge.By adopting this critical mindset of potential falsification, Popper felt science could avoid falling into dogmatism and blind allegiance to potentially flawed axioms or doctrines, as he believed had occurred in fields like Freudian psychoanalysis and Marxist economic theory. Instead, an enduring culture of scrutiny and openness to revising even our most fundamental beliefs in light of new evidence is vital for expanding the frontiers of human knowledge.Popper used the example of Einstein's revolutionary theory of relativity displacing long-held notions of absolute space and time to illustrate how truly transformative scientific breakthroughs often originate from admitting the flaws in existing paradigms. He argued that if Einstein had merely sought confirmations of Newton's teachings, he would never have conceived such a radically different perspective.Of course, not all students may find Popper's philosophy of science intuitive or appealing. Critics argue that his emphasis on seeking falsifications rather than verifications is an unnecessary constraint that could actually impede scientific progress. If weare overly preoccupied with finding reasons why theories might be wrong, we may fail to thoroughly explore and expand upon their useful applications and predictive power.Additionally, some contend that Popper's falsification principle sets an unrealistic standard, as it is effectively impossible to definitively rule out any theory with 100% certainty through a finite set of observations or experiments. There will always be some possibility that future evidence could revive a theory previously considered falsified.Nonetheless, Popper's overarching emphasis on maintaining a critical, skeptical attitude and willingness to challenge even our most deeply held assumptions resonates with many scholars. His philosophy reminds us that no scientific theory, no matter how comprehensive or well-established, should be blindly accepted as infallible truth. There must always be space for new evidence and ideas to emerge that could revolutionize our understanding, or even expose folly in long-accepted tenets.As students, we would be wise to embrace Popper's humble perspective that all scientific knowledge is inherently provisional, incomplete, and open to revision through a process of continual error-correction. Each theory we learn represents the culmination of accumulated scrutiny withstanding arduousattempts at falsification by generations of inquisitive minds. However, these theories should not be dogmas etched in stone, but subjected to the same critical evaluation that allowed them to displace previous flawed models.Ultimately, Popper viewed science not as a linear pursuit of proving universal truths, but as an evolutionary process of discarding errors and developing ever-closer approximations of how the natural world operates. By treating even our most compelling theories as potential sources of error to scrutinize, we open the doors for superior explanations to emerge and our collective understanding to progress. Science advances not through perfection, but by paradoxically admitting the permanence of imperfection in our theories, and seeking to identify and correct those flaws.篇3From Error to Truth: Karl Popper's Revolutionary View on Scientific DiscoveryAs students of science, we are often taught that the scientific method is a logical and systematic process of formulating hypotheses, conducting experiments, and using empirical evidence to accept or reject those hypotheses. However, therenowned philosopher Karl Popper challenged this conventional view, proposing a radically different perspective on how scientific discoveries are made. In his seminal work, "The Logic of Scientific Discovery," Popper argued that scientific progress is not a linear accumulation of knowledge but rather a continuous process of trial and error, where theories are constantly subjected to rigorous testing and potential falsification.At the heart of Popper's philosophy lies the principle of falsifiability. According to Popper, a theory or hypothesis is scientific only if it is formulated in such a way that it can be empirically tested and potentially proven false. This criterion distinguishes science from pseudoscience, which often relies on unfalsifiable claims or explanations that are immune to refutation. Popper believed that the true essence of science lies not in the process of verifying theories but in the earnest attempt to falsify them through rigorous experimentation and observation.Popper's revolutionary idea challenged the widely accepted inductivist approach, which held that scientific knowledge is built upon repeated observations and the gradual accumulation of evidence supporting a theory. Instead, he proposed a deductive approach, where scientists start with bold conjectures orhypotheses and then subject them to the most stringent tests possible in an attempt to find flaws or counterexamples. If a theory withstands these tests, it is provisionally accepted, but it is always open to further scrutiny and potential falsification by new evidence.One of the key implications of Popper's philosophy is that scientific progress is driven by a continuous cycle of proposing theories, subjecting them to critical tests, and refining or replacing them with better explanations when they are falsified. This process is often referred to as the "trial and error" method, where scientists learn from their mistakes and use them as stepping stones to advance their understanding of the world.Popper's ideas have had a profound impact on the philosophy of science and have influenced generations of scientists across various disciplines. His emphasis on falsifiability has encouraged researchers to formulate precise and testable hypotheses, rather than vague or unfalsifiable claims. It has also fostered a culture of critical thinking and skepticism, where theories are constantly challenged and scrutinized, rather than accepted dogmatically.Moreover, Popper's philosophy has shed light on the inherent fallibility of scientific knowledge. Unlike the traditionalview of science as a steady accumulation of proven facts, Popper recognized that all scientific theories are provisional and subject to revision or replacement in light of new evidence or better explanations. This acknowledgment of the provisional nature of scientific knowledge has encouraged humility andopen-mindedness among scientists, as well as a willingness to adapt and embrace new paradigms when warranted.Critics of Popper's philosophy have argued that the strict application of falsifiability can lead to the premature rejection of promising theories or the inability to falsify certain theories due to practical limitations. Additionally, some have pointed out that the process of theory formulation and testing is not as clear-cut as Popper suggested, and that various psychological, social, and historical factors can influence the development of scientific knowledge.Despite these criticisms, Popper's ideas remain influential and have inspired a rich tradition of critical rationalism in science. His emphasis on the fallibility of human knowledge and the importance of subjecting theories to rigorous testing has contributed to the self-correcting nature of science and its ability to overcome dogmatism and stagnation.As students of science, we can learn valuable lessons from Popper's philosophy. First, we must embrace a spirit of critical inquiry and be willing to challenge our own preconceptions and biases. Secondly, we should strive to formulate precise and falsifiable hypotheses, recognizing that the true progress of science lies in the potential for our theories to be refuted and replaced by better explanations. Thirdly, we should cultivate a sense of humility and acknowledge that our current understanding of the world is always provisional and subject to revision in the face of new evidence or insights.By embracing Popper's revolutionary perspective, we can appreciate the dynamic and self-correcting nature of science, where discoveries emerge not from the gradual accumulation of facts but from the continuous cycle of proposing bold conjectures, subjecting them to rigorous testing, and learning from our errors. It is through this process of trial and error that we can advance our understanding of the world and move ever closer to the elusive goal of truth.。
科技英语翻译1
增译翻译练习This action externally appears like the discharge of a capacitor.这一作用从表面上看起来像是电容器的放电现象。
Once out of the earth's gravity, an astronaut is affected by still another problem — weightlessness.一经摆脱了地球的引力束缚，宇航员又会遭遇到另一个问题—失重。
By minimizing the microscopic imperfections scientists are making far stronger ceramics.科学家们正通过最大限度地减少微观瑕疵来制造强度高得多的陶瓷。
Atomic cells are small and very light, as compared to ordinary dry ones.与普通干电池相比，原子电池体积小，而且重量特轻。
Transistors can make previously large equipment much smaller.晶体管能使原先体积很大的设备大为缩小。
Astronomers have evidence of a few other stars too, which might have black holes as companions.天文学家们有证据表明，还存在一些其他的恒星，这些恒星可能以黑洞为伴星。
level.The key to the new materials is researchers‘ increasing ability to manipulate substances at the molecular 开发新材料的关键在于增强研究人员在分子层次操纵物质的能力。
The largest and most expensive products cannot, because of their size, be testable in the factory.体积最庞大价格最昂贵的产品正是由于其体积太大，不能在厂里测试。
火星可以生存吗作文英语
Is it possible to live on Mars?This question has intrigued scientists,astronauts,and space enthusiasts for decades.As our understanding of the Red Planet grows,so does the possibility of human habitation.Here are some key factors to consider when discussing the viability of life on Mars:1.Atmosphere:Mars has a thin atmosphere,primarily composed of carbon dioxide,with traces of nitrogen and argon.It is not breathable for humans and lacks the oxygen necessary for human respiration.To live on Mars,we would need to create enclosed habitats with oxygenrich environments.2.Temperature:The average temperature on Mars is about80degrees Fahrenheit60 degrees Celsius,with extremes ranging from195F125C at the poles to70F20C at the equator during the day.Humans would need to adapt to these temperatures or create controlled environments to maintain a comfortable living temperature.3.Water:Evidence suggests that there is water on Mars,mostly in the form of ice.This is crucial for human survival,as water is essential for drinking,agriculture,and producing oxygen.However,the extraction and purification of Martian water would be a significant challenge.4.Radiation:Mars lacks a global magnetic field,which means that its surface is exposed to higher levels of solar and cosmic radiation.Longterm exposure to this radiation could be harmful to human health.Protective measures,such as radiation shielding,would be necessary.5.Gravity:Mars has about38%of Earths gravity.Prolonged exposure to lower gravity can lead to muscle atrophy and bone density loss.To mitigate these effects,inhabitants would need to engage in regular exercise and possibly develop new ways to adapt to the lower gravity.6.Resources:To live on Mars,we would need to establish a sustainable supply of food, water,and energy.This could involve growing crops in controlled environments,using solar panels or nuclear power for energy,and recycling waste materials.7.Psychological Factors:Living on Mars would be a significant psychological challenge due to isolation,confinement,and the harsh environment.Mental health support and recreational activities would be essential to maintain the wellbeing of the inhabitants.8.Technology:Advancements in technology are necessary for Mars habitation.This includes life support systems,construction materials,and transportation methods.Robotsand AI could play a significant role in building infrastructure and maintaining habitats.9.International Cooperation:Establishing a human presence on Mars would likely require international cooperation and collaboration.Sharing resources,knowledge,and technology could be key to the success of a Mars colony.10.Ethical Considerations:There are ethical questions surrounding the colonization of Mars,including the potential impact on the Martian environment and the rights of future inhabitants.In conclusion,while there are significant challenges to living on Mars,advances in technology and a better understanding of the planets conditions are making the idea more feasible.With careful planning,international collaboration,and innovative solutions,the prospect of human life on Mars is not just a dream but a potential reality in the not too distant future.。
2013年高考总复习英语：必修三Module6
栏目 导引
必修三
跟踪训练
Ⅰ.品句填词 structure 1.The hospital is the tallest______________(建 筑物)in the small town.
2.They cut down the tree,which____________ dated
必修三
解析:选B.用whose引导定语从句,修饰many children,whose在从句中充当定语.句意:许多父 母远在大城市工作的小孩,在乡村受到了很好 的照顾.
栏目 导引
必修三
考点串讲•讲练互动
单词精研 1date n．日期;年代;时代;约会
v．加日期于;起始于(某时期);属于(某时期)
河)，is an absolutely beautiful place to visit.
栏目 导引
必修三
4.do you think用作插入语
Why do you think there are ______________________________________ (你认为为什么有)so many tall buildings in the
栏目 导引
必修三
engineer 14.He said he was an ____________，but he
engine even didn’t know how an____________
engineering Worked,so I doubt if he studied___________. (engineer) 15.The man working at the observatory ____________said observed he ____________stars every day and his observation ____________was very good.(observatory)
高二英语科学发现单选题50题
高二英语科学发现单选题50题1. The ______ of the light bulb by Thomas Edison had a great impact on the world.A. inventionB. discoveryC. explorationD. creation答案：A。
解析：“invention”强调创造出以前不存在的东西，灯泡是爱迪生创造发明出来的，所以选A。
“discovery”侧重于发现原本就存在但不为人知的事物；“exploration”主要指探索、探究；“creation”更侧重于创造抽象的事物或艺术作品等，在表示发明具体物品时不如“invention”合适。
2. Alexander Fleming is famous for his ______ of penicillin.A. inventionB. discoveryC. findD. creation答案：B。
解析：“discovery”指发现原本存在但未被发现的事物，青霉素原本就存在，弗莱明是发现了它，所以选B。
“invention”强调发明新的东西；“find”作名词时没有这种科学发现的含义；“creation”侧重于创造抽象或艺术等方面的东西。
3. Which of the following is the correct English term for “万有引力”that was discovered by Isaac Newton?A. Universal GravityB. General GravityC. Total GravityD. Whole Gravity答案：A。
解析：“Universal Gravity”是“万有引力”的正确英文表达。
“General”通常表示一般的、总体的；“Total”表示总数的、总计的；“Whole”表示整个的，都不能准确表达“万有引力”这个科学概念。
- 1、下载文档前请自行甄别文档内容的完整性，平台不提供额外的编辑、内容补充、找答案等附加服务。
- 2、"仅部分预览"的文档,不可在线预览部分如存在完整性等问题,可反馈申请退款(可完整预览的文档不适用该条件!)。
- 3、如文档侵犯您的权益，请联系客服反馈,我们会尽快为您处理(人工客服工作时间：9:00-18:30)。
Philosophy of ScienceIs Popularization of Science Possible?Gustaaf C. CornelisVrije Universiteit Brussel, Brussel, Belgiumgccornel@vub.ac.beABSTRACT:If the philosophy of science wants to pass along its views adequately to the public, it is important that the latter have a basic general understanding of science. Only in this way can "popularization of science" be meaningful from a philosophical and educational point of view. Is "good" popularization a possibility or merely a utopian phantasm. I conclude that popularization of science is possible if certain conditions are met. Scientists have to take responsibility and be honest in their efforts, both toward science as well as the public.IntroductionPopularization of science is nothing else than an endeavour to image scientific ideas in such a way that everyone (especially non-scientists) can grasp the fundamental concepts and have an idea of what science in essence is. Of course, no one really knows what 'science' is, not even the scientists themselves. Philosophers trying to describe what the scientific method could be and others trying to put down what the scientific method should be, found out (it took them a lot of time) that there is nothing like the 'one and only' scientific approach. The impossibility to give a distinct and unique definition follows. Nevertheless, the phenomenon 'science' and its results do exist. Although nobody can tell exactly what 'science' is all about, everyone should have an idea anyway. The question at stake here is whether this is possible and, if so, to what extent.Mapping ScienceLet us take the following into consideration. The best map one can make is, evidently, a scale 1:1 parallel projection of the surface one wants to chart. But such a map is clearly lumpish to handle and quite superfluous. In extremis, the most accurate image of an object is the object itself. Mutatis mutandis, an attempt to popularize science should then present science as it is. Ilya Prigogine strongly adheres this position (Prigogine, 1996). A 'good' book on general relativity theory is then nothing else than a complete historical overview (in extenso) of all papers on the topic. However, the reader is then supposed to be a scientist (already), which makes the whole enterprise unneeded.So, one has to take the confined capabilities of the possible reader into consideration. Since the reader is not a scientist, a 'translation' has to be made, making science more accessible. Besides this, also a selection is imperative, because the scientific domain is quite vast. Inevitably, a (major?) part of the information to get a reasonable complete view of science is lost in the process. One cannot give a full account of science.However, according to Carl Sagan (1996), it is possible to popularize science to a great extent, by means of a comparison of science with baseball. All fields of interest-from Newtonian mechanics to sociological models-can be effectively explained in this way. But doing so, the difference between the disciplines tends to disappear. The reader might well understand Newtonian mechanics and several sociological models by means of an analogy, but will certainly fail to understand science itself. There is more to understanding science, than merely the comprehension of the respective contents of the disiciplines.Out of all this, free interpretation results. In two ways, popularization implies necessary interpretation. Firstly, since there is no 'standard interpretation' on hand, the author of a vulgarizing book has to write down his/her view on science and scientific matters alike. As Dennis Dieks wrote regarding the popularization of quantum mechanics "For the science popularizer [] there is no 'scientific picture' which he can attempt to represent with as little distortion as possible" (Dieks, 1996, 167). Secondly, the reader makes an interpretation of his/her own. The distance between 'science' and the layperson seems to get bigger and bigger.Still, popularization seems to be possible. It is possible to popularize all specific scientific ideas (one at a time), it is possible to show how a particular specialist works (one at a time). Ideal popularization is therefore possible, taken that the reader has enough time (to compensate the loss by selection) and taken that enough popularizers can be found to adequately present the scientific content (to compensate the loss by translation). The key to all this is time indeed. Which should not be surprising, since every learning process takes lots of time. Hence, popularization of science does not have to be utopian. But are we on the right track with the existing attempts?Some attemptsIn 1991 David Lerner published his "The Big Bang Never Happened," a first class example of a wrong type of popularization. Lerner, a science journalist, came up with a strange but viable idea, seconded by a couple of astronomers. However, without any sense of selfcritique, the thesis that standard theory was completely crazy was presented by means of a popular work on astronomy. The title was-from a publisher's point of view-brilliantly chosen. It is always exciting to everyone to hear that a standard theory is becoming overthrown (another example is Boslough's "Masters of Time. How Wormholes, snakewood and assaults on the big bang have brought mystery back to the cosmos."). 'Science', i.e., standard science, seems to fail. Hence, presenting non-scientific thoughts as scientific ones in a popular manner and at the same time scorching a standard view, the layperson is harshly misled. Furthermore, with one particular standard view down the drain, other established theories (in other fields of science) could loose their convincing power as well, just because they are 'standard' theories. In this context, it is good to know that standard big bang cosmology is not what most of the people think it is. It is a rather humble theory, based on the Hubble-relation (taking into account several parameters, which means that the redshift does not necessarily imply an overall expansion). The theory tries to fit this and a few other empirical facts (like the cosmic background radiation) into a consistent whole. The parametrization makes it a very flexible theory (standard theory, for example, does not predict a specific age for the universe), still easy to falsify."A Brief History of Time," Stephen Hawking's 1988 best-seller, is an example of an excellent popularizer. Following the advice of his publisher, Hawking only kept one formula in the book, since every mathematical expression would have halved the sales (White, 1992, 222). In view of popularization, it is, of course, very important to reach a public as broad as possible. Hawking succeeded in this: in 1997 a twenty first revised edition appeared.Do the sales make good popularizations? Yes and no. Pseudo-science has even better sales-figures and can hardly be recognized as good popularization of science. It is equally important that the content of the book is unbiased, non-speculative and clear, and regards standard science. Hawking's 1988 attempt makes a high score. It is objective, perspicuous and objective. With one exception: Hawking does not state that his thoughts on the arrow of time are speculative.In 1994, the CD-ROM titled "A Brief History of Time. An Interactive Adventure" appeared. Without effort, one can now discover Hawking's universe. The complete text is online and animated graphicsmake the most complex concepts crystal-clear. But two disadvantages must be considered. For one, the CD-ROM is not available to everyone. And secondly, the majority of the users will read the book only partially. As far as the content goes, it is an superb popularizer. It's the medium that doesn't satisfy. The twentieth edition of "A Brief History of Time" was a revised edition. Hawking includes the latest theoretical ideas and empirical results in this version (which is no longer a pocketbook edition). Most importantly, though, the book is illustrated with beautiful photographs and lucid diagrams. The benefit is evidently twofold. Pictures magnetize the layman and, after the book is bought and one starts reading it, they make understanding very easy. The illustrations of the first edition seem to be very cheap in comparison with the latest publication. The new text though doesn't differ much from the original edition and the style is still the same: very transparent and fluent.All this contrasts sharply with Hawking's "The Nature of Space and Time," a book he wrote with his close friend and colleague Roger Penrose. Actually, the book is a compilation of a series of talks, a debate between the two authors, held in 1994 at the University of Cambridge. The result is unfortunate example of bad popularization. Needless to say it didn't serve the popularization of science, nor its audience. The text is obscured by ambiguous, sometimes even shabby illustrations and very complex formulae (tensors and differential forms!). Only graduates in mathematics or physics can grasp the whole story. This shouldn't be a problem if the book wasn't presented as another 'best-seller' written by the most famous popularizer of science!ConclusionLerner's publication shows that popularization is hazardous: pseudo-science lurks. The layman, intrigued by science and eager to learn, doesn't know and should be protected. But how? Popularizers should take an effort to present science objectively, making sure that the distinction between science and pseudo-science (if we don't know what science is, we still could tell what it isn't) is clear. Any confusion should be avoided, so I agree with George Gale when he writes that "We should avoid wherever possible the more speculative aspects of today's cosmology. Although it is possible that it is just these aspects of cosmology that the public most desires, we have here a case in which forbearance is the best policy. This, because, cosmological speculation is just that: speculation. And speculation is not science; indeed, it is not even popular science. We serve our audience and ourselves badly when we mislead them by presenting speculation within a scientific context." (Gale 1996, 180)However, from a methodological point of view, speculation is fundamental in cosmology. According to Ilya Prigogine, it is necessary to present science as adequately as possible (Prigogine 1996): ideally presenting science as it is done, in its own language. Therefore, speculation cannot be left out of the picture. When Hawking described in "A Brief History of Time" his own particular view on time, a view which still remains very controversial, he showed the layman that science is still developing and depending on speculation. But the layman couldn't make the difference. So, although the book is certainly a very good popularizer (at least because of its distribution), Hawking should have flagged clearly his latest views as highly speculative. Anyway, Hawking's "Brief History" shows that 'scientifically correct', 'ideologically acceptable', 'effective' or 'objective' vulgarization of science is indeed a reachable ideal. It is most important, though, that the authors are clear about their own views and don't use popularization for their own purposes.BibliographyJohn Boslough, Masters of Time. How Wormholes, snakewood and assaults on the big bang havebrought mystery back to the cosmos. Dent, 1992.Gustaaf Cornelis, Popularization of Science. The Democratization of Knowledge in Perspective. Communication and Cognition 29 (2) 1996.Dennis Dieks, "The Quantum Mechanical Worldpicture and Its Popularization" in Cornelis 1996, 153-168.Stephen Hawking, A Brief History of Time. Bantam Press, 1988/1997.________, A Brief History of Time. An Interactive Adventure. CD-ROM (created by Jim Mervis and Robit Hairman), Blasterware, 1994.________ and Roger PENROSE, The Nature of Space and Time. Princeton University Press, 1996. David Lerner, The Big Bang Never Happened. Simon and Schuster, 1991.Ilya Prigogine and Gustaaf Cornelis, "Unity between Science and Culture." In Cornelis 1996, 239-248. Carl Sagan, The Demon-Haunted World. Science as a candle in the dark. Headline, 1996.There are three aims of popularizing science: one, to reduce sciencephobia in general population; two, to help the youth in their choice of career; and three, to prepare the ground for good public reception of scientific endeavours, which in turn will favour research funding through democratic institutions. Beside the short overview of attempts at popularizing science in Croatia and abroad, the author proposes recommendations for good writing in popular scientific journals and stresses the problem of combining two styles, that is, the scientific and the artistic in popular scientific writing.。