Regarding thing being 'sciency', perhaps you would like the following situation that happened to me. About four years ago I went to my father, ex-researcher theoretical physicist in field of superconductivity and statistical physics, to get some clarification on all that string theory hubbub. Here's how that went (changes due to my memory and translation may occur):

Father: I honestly can't explain it to you. Aside of it being quite far from my speciality, I don't think it's accessible to you?

Me: Why?

Father: First of all, you lack about three or four years of university-level mathematical and conceptual preparation. Second of all, there's not just one string theory but a term for at least four theories that I'm only vaguely aware about. Thirdly, it's an extension of what's called Quantum Field Theory that itself is an extension of quantum mechanics.

Me: And I need to understand all of that just to get the gist?

Father: Understand? You would need to master them! Honestly, I would feel a certain level of contempt toward a string theorist who would not be able to solve QFT problem that I could.

Me: But what about concepts? What are these strings?

Father: Abstractions. Like atoms. Look, the only thing I can tell you myself is this: there is some structure that physicists called string. Depending on how it 'vibrates', moves or whatever else it does in ST it is responsible for properties of lower level abstractions. Gluons, leptons, bozons, neutrinos and whatever you have there. Remember these particles are also abstract and you probably have only a vague understanding of them, because I'll assume that you had at least heard me talk about some of them. Only string theory is, presumably, valid even in relativistic sense. Please don't ask me about that one, I already feel like a parrot, mindlessly repeating to you what I heard or happened to read about.

I felt a bit deflated, but I need to say that he was right. Road to Reality by Roger Penrose (I cannot give enough praise to that book!) is a book that he gave me a few weeks later, "because if I want to learn about it, I'll better hit the books and do the work myself". It's a book to which I'm returning constantly, each time going a chapter or two further. It allowed me to appreciate many abstract concepts and connections. I got some insane mathematical preparation in the meantime and can quite competently read even certain graduate level texts.

Few months ago I went on YouTube and watched some 'string theory documentaries'. It was just… baffling. It managed to bore my dormmate (biology major, just started senior year along with second year of chemistry major) got bored out of his skull. I felt almost insulted at the level. It didn't say anything about string theory, just pretty much the same things that my father told me… only in the span of hour or more. There was nothing about WTF that even is, halfway seemed to give up and just began showing more and more animations of vibrating strings, ribbons and membranes in the back of clearly trying physicists who were assigned something impossible: condense something that takes over a decade of prep into few minutes worth of ELI5. It felt like they were repeating the same thing over and over without adding anything.

I would imagine that something similar occurs around chaos theory. If you lack the hard science and maths prep, you can easily end up feeling like you are simply amassing trivia. And if you have that prep (or even still acquiring it, like I am now)… it's actually an intriguing quirk, but I can't really see myself passionate about it. Seems like it's a bit too famous while not being easy to appreciate without some serious work. And you don't want to study calculus for years to get a pop-sci book, right? You want to read a book without maths that explains what basically emerges as a result of doing some serious mathematics. ;)