>>11269942if that's how you are qualifying popsci, then there is no point to argue. what I'm saying is he's not making any woo-woo outlandish predictions, he's explaining science, not popularizing it. That's the difference between him and others, like Jim Al-Khalili, specifically his talks on quantum biology.
What is, versus what if, is my criteria for "not popsci" vs popsci.
