I’ve been thinking about this a lot lately.  I think its fine not to include the entire evidence chain in popular science.  The whole point is, after all, that it remain _popular_.  But if you don’t at least make a nod to the existence of such evidence, you do science and the general viewing public a great disservice.  If you say “studies have shown”, then it proves nothing, but it makes the viewer aware that _you_ did check it, and implies that they too could check it if they don’t quite trust you.  If you just state the facts as a given without evidence then as far as proving your point goes its not really any less conclusive.  But as far as educating the public as to how science works its infinitely worse.  People are subliminally indoctrinated into the idea that the way science works is that someone makes a broad statement and then you choose to believe it or not, instead of chains of evidence existing somewhere that support the theory.  Suddenly they’re arguing about “science as just another form of faith” and in their minds its legitimate, because they’ve “seen how science works” on tv, and its just like going to church.

Writing popular science is hard.  But I think we need to make a concerted effort to present the _process_ of science, not just the results.