I know very well that the first thought you will have when reading this title is to say to yourself "Why the hell talk about the Bogdanov brothers on a media dedicated to cryptocurrencies"?
Did they talk about blockchain? Did they extol the merits of cryptocurrencies?
No.
You will see, at the end of this short article, the link, although it may be subtle or innocuous (it depends on your mood). No, we will not talk about covid, I reassure you, that is not at all the subject of this little consideration, you think well.
(This is also not the treacherous opportunity to seek visibility on the dead. Dismiss this twisted suspicion because if I wanted to make noise, I would have had a thousand times the opportunity to do so with titles much more touts)
Here I would like to indirectly pay tribute (as humble as it may be) to the work carried out by the Bogdanov brothers, who are, I remind you, two brothers, two hosts of a television program dating from 1979 on the theme of science- fiction.
I preferred to describe them based on their public notoriety, because it seems logical to me to the extent that we know them through television 😉 However, I could (should?) have described them as two brothers who are essayists, scientists, having a doctorate in Quantum Physics; Which they are to the intelligentsia, after all.
I will – and it is preferable – not dwell on the judgments and opinions that could be made and which have long fueled the Bogdanovs' notoriety. Here, we're going to send the doxa into the air, it's better.
I mean, in other words, that I am not going to enter into debates on the quality of their work, on the legitimacy of their doctoral thesis and especially not debate their theories.
Should I specify that I am not going to talk about their physical transformations, and I bring this up here in spite of myself, because -alas- after their death, it came up many times on tribute videos... As if, seriously, we gave a damn? Forgive my "vulgarity", but when guys strive to write books and scientific articles, even if they go to the circus with sweet potatoes, it must remain a detail as interesting as the number of times they played belote; in a word: uninteresting.
I do not have the skills that would allow me to "judge" their scientific work and, moreover, I do not see the point in waging such an intellectual battle where I find a more interesting element to consider. At my level, of course.
It was time to get to the point, indeed.
Ultimately, the purpose of this article was simply to salute their popularization work. Yes that's all. To be honest with you, I could even have written two lines with a limited character as Twitter taught us to salute their work. Simply, it’s true, that would have been enough. I am the editorialist of this blog, media and therefore, I can take liberties from time to time, right?
Also, I want to add a few lines to take the opportunity to thank them post-mortem as much as possible but also to recall the unsuspected work of popularization.
I will try to be brief so as not to take up too much attention...That said, I am well aware that this is a subject which deserves much more in-depth and in-depth reflection. Don't blame me, I'm trying to be digestible here. And in fact, you will quickly see that this is the whole subject of this article.
We speak of "popularization" to refer to the idea of describing in a simple way (not simplistic, if possible, even if it is almost impossible by definition) a subject/idea/theory that is at first glance complicated.
The word "vulgarization" is awful, right? In French, it refers directly to the word "vulgar" and I'm not going to give you the all too obvious definition here... What I mean is that explaining "complex" ideas in simple words then appears as being "vulgar". It would almost be a thug thing... In English, the word "vulgarization" refers to the word "popularize". Speaking to the people with their language. The people are not the plebs in the Anglicist definition of the term.
Now the idea of "popularizing" from an objective point of view consists of making complicated ideas "intelligible", "understandable" and even "accessible". I made it short for you, but do you see the difference? The simple fact of having chosen other terms makes this work more "noble", doesn't it?
Well, that's what I was getting at. I'm not going to elaborate here because the conclusion is obvious and you already understand where I was going with this.
Some scientists, from the height of their ivory tower, have not stopped criticizing the Bogdanov brothers for having the audacity and the arrogance of having "popularized" the science of astronomy to the plebs, in familiar language...
Where is the crime? Honestly, I'm asking you.
Want to transmit information that novices will use as gateways to deeper exploration?
Can we seriously criticize them for wanting to explain in simple terms theories as important as those describing the origin of the origin of our universe?
Such criticism is indecent, right?
If I do not have the academic skills to understand Einstein but the Bogdanov brothers, without pretension, give me the wonderful opportunity to be able to grasp a quarter of a quarter of the piece of the problem;
And….It’s already a great gift. (Invaluable even I want to say.)
I learned a lot with them about the BigBang theory, as I come from the humanities and who, by definition, have no knowledge of the universe, the planets or anything related.
I learned with the Bogdanov brothers and this often served as a starting point for me to explore and develop certain theories. They awakened in me an appetite for the thing.
Just for that: THANK YOU.
What crime is there in wanting to explain ideas and theories which very often are disguised and convoluted to give the impression of complexity? Like an ugly man or woman who covers themselves with makeup or jewelry to hide what cannot be fundamentally hidden).
I end up like this.
I'm not going any further.
If the evil tongues say that I wrote this article to defend all the popularizers and myself included.
Yes that's exactly it.
I'm not going to contradict them.
