There seems to be a very strong correlation between popularity and scientific inaccuracy. For example, Sex at Dawn was a massive hit, and completely based on wistful thinking and speculation, like "We found multiple different kinds of arrowheads in one cave. It must mean the lady living in the cave had multiple lovers, in a happy and peaceful polyamorous utopia"
I wonder if there is a strong correlation between popularity and scientific analysis.
I sometimes see papers getting ripped to shreds by twitter for days, and while the papers are indeed bad, I've seen dozens of papers which are just as bad, just not as interesting to Twitter.
I think there's just little correlation in either direction. The accuracy levels are probably similar if you compare all popular science books to all non-popular books (perhaps above a threshold to exclude the biggest cranks).
