Science Television: Does Joe Public Care? 423
AVIDJockey writes "Wired News has an article about a new science television network. As someone who is a fan of TV shows that lack a shiny veneer of stupid, such as those found on UWTV, UCTV and ResearchChannel, I've wondered if hard science or technology programming will ever catch on with the general public. What do you think?"
I learned all the science I need to know... (Score:5, Funny)
...from Star Trek.
Re:I learned all the science I need to know... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:I learned all the science I need to know... (Score:4, Funny)
Re:I learned all the science I need to know... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:I learned all the science I need to know... (Score:5, Informative)
Myth Busters
Re:I learned all the science I need to know... (Score:5, Interesting)
1. They were trying to prove that frozen chickens and thawed chickens cause the same amount of damage when fired through the front glass of a high speed train. To do this, they built a compressed air canon and fired frozen and thawed chickens through the glass of an airplane cockpit window, blocks of something (foam?) and sheets of glass. The conclusion was that frozen chickens actually did have more penetrating power.
3. (One of the funniest), they were trying to prove that you can't die from pissing on the tracks of an electric powered train. Or re-proving it. They get responses back that you could by peeing on an electric fence. Their conclusion was that you could get a mild shock from peeing at extremely close range on an electric fence. And by the way, they actually set up a fence and the guy actually peed on it. Funny stuff, all while exploring Science in the process.
3. That cell phones cannot cause explosions at gas stations. They did this by filling up a contained block with gas fumes and had the phone ring in the container and in a deseperate attempt even shorted out the battery multiple times. No explosion by the way. Of course, to prove that the container would actually explode, they blew it up anyways.
Re:I learned all the science I need to know... (Score:4, Interesting)
That said, it's hilarious to watch these guys try to kill themselves (after all, they're what we call "professionals") just to prove how stupid people can be, but I wouldn't necessarily go to them for a rigorous course in the scientific method.
Re:I learned all the science I need to know... (Score:4, Interesting)
The point is not to give them more "I saw it on TV" ammo when discussing whether peeing on an electric fence is dangerous, the point is (or rather should be) to make intelligent human beings out of the general populace. For this particular example they would need to have a general understanding of what electricity is and how it works, what matter and energy are, in what areas of agriculture, law-enforcement, military, etc. electric and other fences are used and why, how the power is generated, what is air, what is urine, how it is generated in the human body, what is waste, what people eat in different parts of the world...
And I (or any educated person) can go on and on about what fields of human knowledge are related and I have a sufficient understanding in most of them to be able to either know the answer myself with a sufficient degree of certainty (though hearing experimental results can still be useful), can judge the stories presented elsewhere, evidence that is available and claims that are made based on it, and can apply the knowledge more widely than just not pissing on the fence or having some fun pretending to be educated while watching some crap on TV.
Most of presumably scientific content on TV is crap (depends on the country/TV channel, etc.). Rarely is the right thing done as it requires such a gagrantuan effort and such a unique combination of skills that those few people who manage this are treated as heroes (Carl Sagan, Sergey Kapitsa).
Re:I learned all the science I need to know... (Score:3, Interesting)
Anything can be interesting, (Score:4, Informative)
To take your example: if you present Fourier transforms as a series of integrals, then it might not be too interesting. But as a way of moving between time and frequency domains, they're something we use without knowing it all the time.
Your inner ear effectively does Fourier transforms! It takes a sound wave in, and has tiny hairs that vibrate at different frequencies, each one triggering a different nerve impulse. Similarly, the spectrum analyser, tone controls or graphic equaliser on your hi-fi system are working in the frequency domain. Piano keyboards, radio tuners, synthesisers, and many other things are all concerned with Fourier transforms and their effects. Most of use think of sound in the frequency domain!
Even if you restrict yourself to the mathematics, they underpin MP3 and pretty much all forms of audio compression; JPEG, MPEG and many forms of graphic compression; the circuitry behind CD players (those digital filters), and so on.
I'm sure a good director could come up with a really fascinating programme about them!
Re:I learned all the science I need to know... (Score:5, Funny)
Hence the name? Lot's 'o math. A lot of people find things boring if they can't understand them immediately. Soft science - applied sciences - are easier to visualize and have fun with. Easy, not as useful, and you can learn it faster reading a book, usually. Why bother with it if all we can get is the easy stuff?
What would happen if they started trying?
Hey kids! Today we're learning about the impulse function. It's got an infinite height, no width. an area of one, and is on the y-axis in a rectangular cartesian coordinate system! Yay!
Now lets go make our own impulse functions, with the help of this infinitely long sheet of construction paper and scissors that can cut infinitely thinly...
Boy that was fun. Lets convolve the impulse function with this sinusiod!
Coming up next week: Building wavelets from othographic functions!
Boring? (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Boring? (Score:3, Interesting)
Amen, I wish I'd written that. I'm 70, and have been making electrons do usefull work for about 57 of those years because I was interested
I started out fixing the neighbors radios for cigarette money when I was 13, and was working at a major brand tv wholesaler fixing the tv's the deale
Re:I learned all the science I need to know... (Score:3, Insightful)
Problem is, the science anybody can get is boring to the general scientific community, while the stuff geared towards egg heads is too advanced for people with an average IQ.
IQ isn't really the whole picture. A lot of people could understand a lot of science if they had spent 4-8 years or more studying it, and then more years working with it. Since most people don't have the background of basic stuff, they will have a tough time really understanding the harder stuff.
We HAD one, damnit. (Score:5, Insightful)
Oh, is that what it is now? (Score:4, Funny)
Hey, don't dis Mikey! (Score:2)
Seriously, though, I agree... as amusing as some shows are, I can only discover so much about custom choppers before I realize I don't care.
American Chopper was funny for a season or two, but now it is almost a parody of itself.
Re:Hey, don't dis Mikey! (Score:2)
There's something to be said for occasional 'how they make bikes' shows. The 'birth of the V-Rod' actually had a buncha science/engineering/history in it. But every night it's either a bike, or a hot rod... how 'bout som
Re:Hey, don't dis Mikey! (Score:2, Funny)
Every time I hear his psycho dad talking about "size 12s" I look down at my size 13 steel toes and laugh...
Re:We HAD one, damnit. (Score:4, Interesting)
However, I never get tired of Junkyard Wars and Myth Busters. Myth Busters has to be the best show ever. They should get Adam and Jamie to do a show where they build crazy stuff to demonstrate simple to mildy complex science. I can't say that I hav learned a whole lot of science from their show, but it is extremely entertaining!
Re:We HAD one, damnit. (Score:4, Insightful)
As an odd side note, I saw Adam on the DVD for Matrix Revolutions, I guess he was involved with the Dock scenes. Amazing to see him not giggling
Re:We HAD one, damnit. (Score:2)
Re:We HAD one, damnit. (Score:4, Informative)
Re:We HAD one, damnit. (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:We HAD one, damnit. (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:We HAD one, damnit. (Score:2)
I wonder what the world will be like with a generation who grows up not knowing the joys of seeing the breasts of women in third world countries with discs through their lips, or watching animals get it on, or seeing all the cool gadgets of the future like they did on Beyond 2000.
The glory days of the Discovery Channel are far behind, I just hope they can rekindle some of their past fire. What
Re:We HAD one, damnit. (Score:3, Informative)
Pretty rotten of them, huh?
There's also National Geographic Channel with shows like Seconds from Disaster and Megastructures. History Channel has Tactical to Practical, Modern Marvels and Guts & Bolts. History Channel International has a significant number of shows about how structures were built.
Yeah, too bad there isn't any dece
Re:We HAD one, damnit. (Score:3, Insightful)
Not that I know whether or not PBS would give them up, but it's not like PBS is incredibly devoted to re-running their documentaries after a certain time.
Hell no! (Score:3, Funny)
Yes (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Yes (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Yes (Score:3, Insightful)
Great show about everyday objects and the science and history of their evolution.
Granted Connection 2 kinda lost the magic of the first show - good none-the-less.
Or even Mr. Wizard or Bill the Science guy - granted some of that was total kidz stuff - but they made it really interesting.
Re:Yes (Score:5, Interesting)
Most of the decent science programming that I recall was from quite a few years ago.
There was Cosmos, of course, though I got really tired of the camera shots of Carl Sagan staring out of his spaceship window. In fact, I almost didn't make it past the initial show after those sappy scenes. Someone thing about it rubbed me the wrong way in a major way. (And don't even get me started about Pachelbel's Canon...)
From about '74/'75 -- at least that's when it aired in Chicago -- there was 'The Ascent of Man'. I loved listening to Jacob Bronowski in that series. Maybe it was the frumpy old school professor demeanor.
There was `Connections' with James Burke. That was always interesting. Haven't heard much from Burke in the past several years.
'Nova' is still on but the content seems to be repetitive. (Either that or I'm seeing reruns. :-) )
I like the `Scientific American' show (or whatever the name is) hosted by Alan Alda. Even though there are times when I can't stand him, the topics are interesting and the shows are well done. They're not being shown much around here any more.
Not really a television show but a series that I really liked as a kid was the films put out by Bell Science. Oh come on, you all remember the films with the young, black haired guy who always wore a white shirt and tie and was sort of the comic relief to Dr. Frank Baxter, the straight-laced, older, bald fellow with the glasses who always wore a suit. There was a curtain in their lab that used to get pulled back to reveal a screen where animated characters would explain the scientific principles. 'Hemo the Magnificent' was one of the films. (It was shown -- probably excerpted -- for some years in an exhibit at Chicago's Museum of Science and Industry. I remember being pretty disappointed when they took that exhibit down.) I seem to recall that these two guys were also in 'Donald Duck in Mathemagics Land'. I still remember learning about the Coriolis Effect via the animation in 'The Unchained Goddess'. Good stuff. I have a few of those films on laserdisk and my kids love 'em. (Don't have 'Hemo' or 'Mathemagics Land', though. :-( )
Certified 'Old Farts' will remember that Walter Cronkite -- once he finished rehashing WWII on 'The 20th Century' -- had a science/technology-related show called (not surprisingly) 'The 21st Century'. Probably inspired by the moon program, it covered advances in science that, I guess, we were all going to be benefitting from by the 21st century. I cannot recall how good the shows were. It'd be interesting to see them again if only to see how close the show came to predicting the way things eventually turned out. Or how far off they were.
There was another show that I used to catch years ago (infrequently, as it seemed to get scheduled at odd times) on one of the local PBS stations. I think it was called 'Physical Universe' or something like that. It had a real clean cut lecturer speaking in an auditorium complete with lab table in front of a bunch of students. There were some simple but, IMHO, effective computer graphics showing some of the physical principles being talked about. Pretty low budget, I'd guess, but interesting. Anyone know if it's still being aired?
If the current crop of science shows isn't working out too well, they could bring back any of the above series and exceed the quality of the current science programming by an order of magnitude or two. Heck even the animated 'Science Court' is better than what I've seen lately. I've got two grade school age children who are interested in science and it'd be nice if the networks or PBS could mix some decent science programming into the Saturday morning schedule. And I don't mean at 5:30 AM, either.
Someone had mentioned the Discovery Channel and that made me laugh. There were some Sat. AM science shows that I used to watch when I was a kid. One of them was called 'Discovery 67'. If memory serves, it was on for a couple of years. Heck, for
IMO best science program ever (Score:3, Insightful)
Want more people in the US to watch science related shows?
Presidential Debates? (Score:5, Funny)
Then you wouldn't be watching the Presidential debates, would you?
Re: Presidential Debates? (Score:5, Funny)
> "shiny veneer of stupid..."
> Then you wouldn't be watching the Presidential debates, would you?
No, that was a dull veneer of stupid.
It does in Japan (Score:5, Interesting)
But then again, at the same time, I didn't think I could see anything dumber on Japanese TV than I did on American, but boy was I wrong....
Re:It does in Japan (Score:3, Insightful)
The boring channel is NHK2. No-showbiz science programs. The real stuff you'd see in a lecture hall.
That being said even with just five or six channels I found Japanese TV can be far more entertaining and informative (even at the same time) than anything available in North America.
I haven't bothered to get cable, satellite or even a Tivo since moving back as each time we get a chance to sample what's on (staying at a hotel for example) we all end up agreeing its 99% cr
Re:It does in Japan (Score:3, Insightful)
Science is a threat (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Science is a threat (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Science is a threat (Score:4, Funny)
--
Re:Science is a threat (Score:5, Interesting)
Of course not! (Score:2, Insightful)
It should (Score:5, Interesting)
- Explaining Nuclear Space Propulsion Methods
- Investigate Red Mercury, whether it exists, and its potential uses
- Explain how Fission and Fusion actually work
- Explain Relativity, String Theory, etc. (Oh wait, someone did that.)
- Investigate the Ancient Vimanas
The secret to making these subjects interesting is to place them in the context of the common person. Lay low on the mathematics, and go heavy on the computer graphics.
As long as the public isn't hearing the same 50 year old science AGAIN (look, it's a Saturn V), they'll be interested.
Re:It should (Score:5, Insightful)
So then what's the point of having such shows? Without the grounding in mathematics, science turns into a fairy tale. Astrology tells its story, science tells its story, and people pick and choose between them. What people need to learn is that science actually affords us real knowledge. There's no way to do that while ignoring the math.
Re:It should (Score:2)
Re:It should (Score:3, Informative)
So that's what we do when we brainstorm on new engine designs, or work out how to make Nuclear Fusion work. We simply "approximate" by saying "I want Nuclear Fusion", then we write a formula. Right.
Or maybe we figure out how an engine or fusion might work, then run the numbers to see if it will work. Don't believe me? Here's an equation for you:
k = f - l
Maybe it Should, but it Doesn't (Score:2)
Anyway, since you me
Re:Maybe it Should, but it Doesn't (Score:3, Insightful)
Science spells "fun" E-X-P-L-O-... (Score:2, Interesting)
I enjoyed watching TLC before it was all "OMFG! Trading Spaces is on!" However, it was a whole lot of reruns on things they did before. Like Shark Week always seemed to be the same. And the dinosaur special. And the.. well, pretty much all the sciencey stuff.
Discovery Channel wasn't so bad, but then they deviated from hard science to other things.
If I had two good science channels, I'd get cable. Until that time, I'm content with G
Great idea! (Score:2, Funny)
Sure-fire recipe for success!
Bring it on! (Score:5, Interesting)
I am already a fan of the Discovery Science channel - however it needs a better programming - but I'm not complaining! At least it's something.
I am still in disbelief of what happened over at TechTV...
Joe Public cares. A lot. (Score:3, Insightful)
But seriously. If you like hard science... don't go to television to find it. Television is all about branding dumbed down entertainment as something it isn't. Science. Law. Journalism. Even shows that are about dumb topics (like bikini babe lifeguards) aren't realistic in any sense of the word.
Re:Joe Public cares. A lot. (Score:2, Informative)
95% is below average? (Score:5, Funny)
Re:95% is below average? (Score:4, Informative)
No, that's possible. "Average" is not terribly specific, but the mean is a form of average and you can have 95% be below the mean. Consider these data points: 1,2,3,1,4,3,5,1,7,2,6,6,3,2,1,6,1,5,3,100. What's the mean? 8.1. What percent of data values are below the mean? 95%. The same thing would occur if you have 19 values of 99 and one of 100 (The mean is 99.95, but 19 of 20 is below it).
Now, there are other averages (mode, median, and range come to mind, and ISTR something about "upper and lower whiskers" but stats was LOOONG ago), and one would have to question a data set with one value way out of whack with the rest of the data, but you can have a 95% of things are below average if you have a weird distribution of data.
It's unrealistic, but there's nothing inherent to the definition of average that precludes it.
Re:Joe Public cares. A lot. (Score:2)
Re:Joe Public cares. A lot. (Score:3, Interesting)
This can work the other way around for different topics. Most people in t
Why Science Television Has Trouble (Score:3, Insightful)
Of course, I am generalizing a lot of people in the US. But Americans don't place as much emphasis on science and mathematics anymore. Unlike during the Cold War, where science was encouraged to kids (to beat the Russians), science today has become another class you have to take for your report cards. I don't think people would want to bring what they regard as work into their vegetative times.
Another problem I see with the youth today is that they tell themselves "Math is hard. Science is hard." If they keep telling themselves that, how would they ever watch a channel devoted to it? There's a horrible self-fulfilling prophecy at work. It doesn't help that the popular culture likes to impress onto kids that being bad in math or science is something to be proud of.
Science Channel (Score:2, Informative)
Shiney Veneer (Score:2, Insightful)
I am of above average intelligence (however slightly). It isn't that I want to still watch Mr. Wizards World, but I also don't want to follow a statistics lecture, or inherently understand some anscillary chemical reaction, before I learn about a new technology.
My sister, doctorate in chemistry in hand, wi
Re:Shiney Veneer (Score:3, Insightful)
As I read the introduction to this article, when I read that phrase my mind immediately thought of the programming advertised on U.P.N. as I watched Enterprise push the Magic Reset Button again. Shows like "America's Top Model" and "WWE Smackdown" would qualify as having at least a veneer of stupidity. These shows might be 100% stupid through and through.
On the other hand, those who can explain complex systems and theories in understandable ways without
one-sided (Score:2)
Hard science hasn't caught on (Score:2)
Hard science hasn't caught on, so hard science programming won't either, though programming labled hard science might, if it wasn't hard or science.
Science Television: Does Joe Public Care? (Score:2)
No, they won't (Score:2)
We need a lecture series (Score:2, Interesting)
Note my examples: both current topics and historically significant figures and subjects would be equally welcome. It would be che
Re:We need a lecture series (Score:3, Informative)
I don't know about a continuous channel, but you can get a few hours per year from the Royal Institution's Christmas lectures [rigb.org] wh
Does the public care? (Score:2)
You're FIRED! (Score:2)
Of course, television is slowly learning to rue the day that all they have left is the LCD because anyone with an iota of smarts is out playing on the Internet anyway.
Niche programming (Score:3, Interesting)
Just a matter of time before I can just pick up the remote, find which category and specific type of program I want to watch, choose which episode/installment, and there I go.
No offense but this is kind of a stupid question (Score:2)
What do you think will happen when someone plops a math formula across t
Diversity (Score:2, Interesting)
Two factors... (Score:2)
Will our program, or this new network, become multi-m
No ... But (Score:2)
But this doesn't matter, a strong enough demand will make it profitable to supply something that isn't mainstream.
Linux users didn't use to be a strong enough group to pull in lots of commercial software, now there are a variety of products, from games to large commercial packages.
Same thing with TV, when they realize they can make a profit broadcasting science, they'll do it.
No Way (Score:2)
Science shows with any serious information in them are of necessity confined to that miniscule percentage of the population that has a clear conception of what Science really is, and doesn't
CSI (Crime Scene Investigations) (Score:5, Insightful)
It's not that the public doesn't care about science. It's that the public wants Drama. Drama with science works great, it's the dry science only stuff that fails.
Bye,
Ori
insults... (Score:2, Insightful)
It is possible to have self-confidence and be proud of your achievements without assuming that everyone else is a blathering idiot. Putting down everyone else makes you a smaller, not a bigger person.
Re:insults... (Score:4, Insightful)
Well, there is a LOT of that attitude. But not "nearly everything". But let's face it, I suspect most slashdot members have more in common with the "educated elite" than the average public.
"The general public is too stupid, uninterested, and incapable of understanding it." It's utter nonsense."
Really? I mean, surely not all three of those at once, but one of the three words probably applies to many if not most of the "general public". Remember, half the people in the world are below average in intelligence. Science and math are not popular topics.
I currently work with "average" people (warehouse job). And let me tell you uninterested, stupid, and incapable of understanding applies very well. Through in a smattering of "let me tell you how it really is" and "I know I'm right" and you cover the general public very well, even the brighter ones. Sure, there are exceptions, but what you attribute to slashdot members can be found among the "general public" as well-those who have no grounds whatsoever for that elitist attitude.
Most people may not be blathering idiots, but they sure act like it....
Re:insults... (Score:2)
On the other hand, I still think that 95% of everybody is a frickin' idiot. But, that just might be the way it is in America.
Re:insults... (Score:3, Insightful)
Slashdotters are smart yes, but not the intellectual elite.
The real intellectual elites are out there doing hardsciences like physics or math or biology. They're the kind who're responsible for genuine progress, but the kind you don't really hear about except for in obscure journals. And the kind who would not know or care about an online forum
And to be fair, there is a lot of good science out there that is non-English. I noticed that you seem
People like science (Score:3, Insightful)
One of the reasons people keep watching the same kinds of shows they do on the Discovery channel is that the topics are usually that which they have the background on already and so can grasp. I watched Cosmos when it originally aired during my first year of high school, and I had only the barest inkling of the topics he covered, but Sagan presented each episode in a way that helped me get up to speed quickly on what he was talking about before he fed out the hard science. In effect, making it all pretty easy science.
A hard science channel won't succeed if it's not willing to get people up to speed on the topics like that. If you want a channel that just dumps hard data on people's laps that they have no background information on, no, I don't think it will succeed.
james burke (Score:2)
his 'connections' series are ok, but his 'day the universe changed' was far better (sadly its not available on vhs or dvd anywhere).
sadly they all pale to sagan's 'cosmos' series. the subject matter was sweeping and grand, and sagan's presentation was spellbinding.
Niche channel... (Score:3, Interesting)
And this doesn't mean that those who chose not to be viewers of such a channel are "dumb". The truth is that a lot of people - really intelligent people for that matter - don't particularly find subject matter that leads to a lot of thinking an appealing use of the time where they don't have to. A lot of people are under a lot of stress, between work, jobs, family, etc.; and don't want to do a lot of extra mental heavy lifting in their leisure time.
The other thing is that, for many people, hard science is difficult. This, again, doesn't necessarily mean that they're dumb; just that they've gone through life without having a good education about science. Call it a problem with the education system, or the way many children are raised, but the sad truth is many people just don't 'get' science.
So will it be a mainstream success? If I were a gambling man, I'd almost certainly say no, mostly for the reasons outlined above. But I don't think that high ratings is the point of putting together a hard science channel; rather the point is to attract a core demographic of people who are interested. And, assuming that the channel can find advertisers who are willing to pay a premium for people who spend their leaisure time thinking about hard science, it can be a success.
TV was MADE for education--and it's not there yet (Score:4, Insightful)
I don't see what would make it change now. Just look at the direction the internet has been going for the last decade.
Nobody ever lost money (Score:2)
I'd love to have a hard core science channel on free to air (as opposed to cable / pay TV), but will have to make do with the occasional paper copy of new scientist or scientific american.
The shows are out there, but who is watching? (Score:5, Interesting)
Nova has been around for ages, as has Nature. Both are excellent shows, but what kind of audience do they have? Sadly, not enough. Even with such excellent programs as this: The Elegant Universe [pbs.org]. (Note, you need to downgrade your version of quicktime if it is new to view it due to a quicktime bug. I reccomend the full screen version BTW.)
Up here in Canada I have been watching The Nature of Things [www.cbc.ca] for as long as I can remember. We also get Quirks and Quarks [radio.cbc.ca] on CBC radio, which is actually quite popular up here. (I reccomend downloading some episodes in MP3. Jay Ingram from Daily Planet used to host this show.)
So, there are good shows out there for such a network, but the question becomes, would people watch? I know I would, hell, I would subscribe to a cable channel of that nature in an instant. However, as it is, I use my ATI All-In-Wonder and the PVR software that came with it to record and play back these shows, so I have a "custom" science channel of my own.
Michael Schermer has been working towards this for some time: as shown here.
I think though, that one VITAL thing to add would be along the lines of what Schermer already does (and the Mythbusters TV show does to some degree as well): Teach Joe Sixpack the nature of scientific thinking, specifically critical thinking as outlined in Carl Sagan's The Demon Haunted World, Science as a Candle in the Dark. Once more people begin to understand this concept, they will likely become more open to scientific televison, well, that is what I hope for anyhow.
No, Nada, Zero Chance (Score:2, Insightful)
Programs that actually involve thinking and heaven forbid - perhaps learning will be about as popular as math class was, to these same people, in school.
The only ones to watch would be the ones who would just as well read on the same topics.
Television that informs? What a silly idea!
If the U.S. Continues on it's course... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:If the U.S. Continues on it's course... (Score:5, Insightful)
Right now, being stupid is what's seen as being cool.
I agree. And what might be even worse:
Even if you're smart and pursue an education, you won't find a job because it'll be offshore outsourced anyway.
The U.S. is on the verge of re-electing the most anti-science president in U.S. history, George W. Bush.
The future doesn't look very bright if you're an American.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Science Channels are good (Score:3, Insightful)
For children, it inspires.
For adults, it explains really cool things in layman's terms.
I watch The Science Channel all the time... well, when the wife lets me have the clicker.
It used to... (Score:3, Informative)
Also, the majority of people who made the original TechTV worth watching have already jumped ship.
Who knows... maybe if were lucky, the Discovery channel will create it's own version of what TechTV once was... but for now, the outlook is pretty grim.
Doubtful (Score:3, Interesting)
I doubt any kind of hard science channel will take off. Joe Public doesn't like to think. He just wants to be passively entertained.
Look at how far downhill the programming on TLC has gone. Shows that were mildly entertaining on BBC are highly irritating on that channel. Shows like Trading Spaces and such fill their daily programming now, and not because management there "guesses" people will watch.
Outside of academia and industries that have hard sciences as their backbone, people are pretty damned stupid. Seriously. Joe Public is an idiot and will do whatever it takes to keep from having to think too hard. Joe Public seems to have enough sense to keep himself alive for 70 some odd years and little drive to pick up any more knowledge.
You been thinkin' son?
Yeah, but I don't think I'm thunk.
Without 'em I couldn't visit from the 21st Century (Score:3, Interesting)
I put in a season pass for for the first three on the TiVo.
"The Day the Universe Changed" is current enough that I had already watched most of it on my TiVo.
It occurred to me that I actually have the complete "Ascent of Man" buried somewhere on VHS tapes that I made when it was first broadcast in the 1980s. I had no life.
They say in the modern commentary that some things we know now contradict what we thought the but that doesn't hurt the enjoyment of the show.
"The Secret Life of Machines" is great mostly because they pull off amazing demonstrations of how the components inside work. The host Roy Hunkin said he amazed himself that were able to make an electrostatic copy like a Xerox machine. In almost every episode, even though I have decent knowledge I learned some new aspect of how things work.
The most amazing is "The 21st Century" which I remember watching when it was originally on in the 1960s. I remember it was the first time I heard that Raytheon had a prototype oven that cooked with microwave radio waves. They called it a RadarRange.
In one they absolutely torture some poor volunteers with Gs, heat and cold to check aspects of putting men in space. One guy was put into a 400 degree oven for 6 minutes.
I heard several times that we are scheduled to put men on Mars by 1986.
By the year 2000 we will have much more leisure time because we will work only a 30 hour work week.
They showed the home of the future. One cutting edge California engineer had a computer terminal (a LOUD clanky TeleType) in his own kitchen that connected by phone line to a computer all the way in New York. The kids could even do math homework on it.
The home would have a TEN FOOT 3D Television with a HIGH FIDELITY STEREOPHONIC SOUND system. There was a control panel about 8 feet wide that had huge knobs to control it all. There was desk where the homeowner could work. One screen had the weather and stock quotes. The one next to it was a video telephone. The next one could do the finances. (It never occurred then that we would have one screen that did all that and more..)
I went to a presentation at the Chicago Consumer Electronics show about 15 years ago where it was predicted there would be 10 foot flat screen "hang it on the wall" TVs in ten years time, and a panel member said "I've been hearing that we'd have them in ten years for 20 years." We still don't have em.
It occurs to me now that the QUADRAPHONIC SOUND we thought was white elephant fad in the 80s was actually ahead of it's time. It was only one or two speakers from modern surround sound systems.
Guests to your house will bring their own inflatable furniture, inflate it to use in your house, and then deflate it and take it home. (only until the end of the 1970s. |-{)
I felt like I was a visitor from the future looking in to see what they got right.
Mostly they couldn't imagine the drag that politics and other interests would be on progress in space and elsewhere. They didn't note that things got smaller as they got newer. I think at that time the miniaturization of electronics was just at its birth so they had no way to note what it would mean to things in the future.
It was very cool. I'm saving the "Home of the Future" episode permanently.
I remember (Score:3, Insightful)
I think it comes down to the people making the programmes. In the old days, the people who made the programmes understood what they were telling you. They designed the programmes to inform, to explain, to convey knowledge -- and that was what made them interesting.
These days, most programmes are made by people who clearly don't have a clue about their subject matter. The idea is just to interview a few professors and hope that some information will leak out somewhere... Which rarely happens. Or, alternatively, you get the whizz-bang style, the 'Hey, wow, we don't understand any of this stuff either, but doesn't it look good??!!' approach.
And then they wonder why people don't get as much out of such programmes...
Personally, I'm happier watching old Open University programmes than most prime-time science programmes, even those on the BBC. The thrill of learning something new, of having your horizons broadened. You can't beat it.
Lets Drop the "Joe Public" already (Score:3, Interesting)
People aren't nearly as stupid as most geeks like to think. A big problem is that most "smart" people seem to be unable to communicate properly and that science really does come off as boring.
The reason most people find science boring is because it's so poorly presented. A Brief History of Time, and The Elegant Universe were both NYT Best Sellers. They explain amazingly complex topics in a way that's interesting and understandable.
Create some programs that deliver science with respect for the viewer and understands that if it doesn't seem interesting it's a fault of the show, not the viewers. Bring out the human and social factors and don't just dryly spout technical jargon.
Russians have a program (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Arogant story (Score:5, Insightful)
If you really have an abiding interest in "hard science," (which I take to mean the nitty-gritty details) go back to school.