

Grad Student Wins Alan Alda's Flame Challenge 161
eldavojohn writes "Scientists have long been criticized of their inability to communicate complex ideas adequately to the rest of society. Similar to his questions on PBS' Scientific American Frontiers, actor Alan Alda wrote to the journal Science with a proposition called The Flame Challenge (PDF). Contestants would have to explain a flame to an eleven-year-old kid, and the entries would be judged by thousands of children across the country. The winner of The Flame Challenge is quantum physics grad student Ben Ames, whose animated video covers concepts like pyrolysis, chemiluminescence, oxidation and incandescence boiled into a humorous video, complete with song. Now they are asking children age 10-12 to suggest the next question for the Flame Challenge. Kids out there, what would you like scientists to explain?"
1 of my favorite Antenna channels (Score:5, Informative)
Over-the-air channel 12-3 broadcasts an hour of Scientific American every day. Very well done (if a bit simplistic). They air other documentaries too. I remember when TLC used to have shows like this, but now it's PBS doing the job.
Re: (Score:2)
A bit off-topic, I apologize, but this is one of my main triggers.
I also remember when The Learning Channel had learning shows, instead of reality TV [realitybug.com], and when the History Channel had history shows, instead of reality TV [history.com](I'm too lazy to find more), and when Animal Planet had animal shows, instead of reality TV [reality-tv-online.com], and so on, and so forth, I don't want to get more depressed than I currently am, so I'm not looking anymore up.
It's a sign of the times that we must rely almost solely on PBS for actual, substantial
Re: (Score:2)
Thoughts?
Agree 100%. This is why I don't have cable, and when I'm traveling and see cable in my hotel, I can't find anything worth watching. Even my former favorite Syfy has devolved into a reality/gameshow channel. About the only shows I still watch are iCarly (it's funny), South Park (also funny), and the movie marathons that air on weekends.
I actually enjoy Antenna TV more than Cable TV, because they air classic shows like Hitchcock/Dragnet, news shows like RT/France24, old movies almost 24 hours a da
Re: (Score:2)
Thoughts?
Just that I hope you're not dissing Alan Alda!
Re: (Score:2)
P.S. I misnamed channel 12-3 as PBS. It's actually "PBS Info" one of 6 different channels PBS is now producing for antenna viewers. (The others are the main channel, a kids channel, a music/concert channel, a home/life channel, and a few others I've forgotten.)
Re:1 of my favorite Antenna channels (Score:5, Insightful)
Why? Because we're all precious little snow-flakes, we all have interesting stories, and we all deserve our own television show.
Nope. Wrong.
The mass marketing of specialized channels happened because there simply weren't enough specialized viewers to keep the specialization afloat. They all had to start creating new stuff to draw more eyeballs for the advertisers.
MTV was an early victim. People got tired of watching music videos and they had to expand into whatever was edgy and new for the demographic they sought. That's why we have Real World and Road Rules and The Challenge XXI and "Pregnant at 16" and whatever other stuff they can draw people to. "Made" is homage to the fact that MTV has changed from music TV into "teen TV" but just not been honest enough to change the name.
It is an insidious problem. AMC (American MOVIE CLASSICS) has created new TV series (Mad Men) and is now heavy into "CSI Miami". Even TVLand has fallen into the trap, airing new sitcoms they've produced.
It was a grand and glorious vision in the 80's. 500 specialized channels so anyone could find the kind of material they wanted to watch anytime. Cable networks starting up to do the equivalent of "The Scotch Tape Store" or "Spatula City". And then finding out that fractional audiences brought fractional ad revenues.
PBS gets away with it because they have convinced donors that they are special and it's an honor to give lots of money ( a rich people demonstration of social responsibility), they have convinced advertisers to pay for ads that are almost not ads ("this show is funded by ..."), and use a lot of BBC produced programs to draw viewers that will pay to keep the transmitters fed with electrons.
PBS is, however, far from the "if not PBS, then who..." they were close to being many years ago. I was going to say british sitcoms are "if not PBS, then BBC America", but even BBCA has fallen into the trap and is busy showing lots of US shows --- at least any US show that has Gordon Ramsay as the host.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I'm disappointed the Sci-Fi is no longer sci-fi/fantasy. I'm disappointed that History Channel no longer shows history, but instead shows the present. Well that's about it. I didn't watch much else.
BTW music television exists on Antenna television. It's called CoolTV and they play blocks like "70s rock" or "cool 80s" and then modern music the rest of the time.
And yes I watch Ghost Hunters. On hulu. I fast-forward to the "reveal" because that's where all the "action" happens. If they ever find somethi
Re: (Score:2)
Do you have evidence for "people got tired of music videos", or is that just a guess? Because I would say Viacom buying MTV in '85 was its death knell, although it took Viacom a few years to really figure out what to put on MTV.
Not everyone non-music video show on MTV was bad though. Look at Liquid Television – they showed fairly avant garde shows like Aeon Flux.
And according to Wikipedia, MTV dropped the tagline "Music Television" in 2010. So that last lip service to music has finally been expunged.
Re: (Score:2)
Do you have evidence for "people got tired of music videos", or is that just a guess? Because I would say Viacom buying MTV in '85 was its death knell, although it took Viacom a few years to really figure out what to put on MTV.
MTV was doing ok with music videos as its niche format for many years. If MTV had kept doing well, Viacom would have had no decisions to make, and no reason to change formats. The change wasn't trying to get away from a successful channel, it was trying to fix a broken one. Part of the problem was that VH1 stole the "hits", and CMT stole country. One success spawned multiple copies, and thence multiple failures.
Not everyone non-music video show on MTV was bad though. Look at Liquid Television â"
I didn't say that they were bad, they were just not music television. Real World dealt with som
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I would add two more points.
I like the point about the writers strike but I would tkae it further. once the tv execs realized that people would watch unscripted tv, they realized they didn't need to pay (as many) script writers for a popular product. The studios like it b/c it is cheaper and the public likes it b/c it is 'easier' to watch people bumble about ( and not have to think about strenuous things like 'plot'.)
I think the point about viacom changing mtv b/c it wasn't successful isn't entirely true.
Re: (Score:2)
MTV (and several of these niche channels) could probably make a bit of money, but the amount they were making wasn't expanding (quickly enough). As a public company, if you can't show growth, you die so just making money isn't enough. This drives business that are mildly successful (continually bringing in, say, expenses + 5%) to drastic changes in the name of growth. stability is just not valued. I see this as a major problem across sectors and I think the move from music to reality tv from mtv was likely done in the name of growth, rather than to avoid losses.
This can't be said loudly enough. There are loads of great niche products that try to expand out of their niche in the name of 'moar moneys!'. Tons of niche games, shows, electronics, etc. are doing fine. They're making money, they are profitable. But as the parent says, stability has no value. GROWTH has become the byword and if you can't show growth, then you get the axe (for any company, but it's orders of magnitude worse at publicly traded companies). This inevitably leads to niche products/servic
Re: (Score:2)
It wasn't that people got tired of them, it was that ratings for non-videos shows got higher ratings than videos.
This is the book I remember reading about MTV, that covered the issue. http://www.amazon.com/Mtv-Making-Revolution-Tom-McGrath/dp/1561387037 [amazon.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Isn't that already called Playboy?
Re: (Score:2)
It was a grand and glorious vision in the 80's. 500 specialized channels so anyone could find the kind of material they wanted to watch anytime. Cable networks starting up to do the equivalent of "The Scotch Tape Store" or "Spatula City".
Yes but where else are you going to go to get all your name-brand spatulas at half the retail price?
Last week I bought ten spatulas, and I got one more for just a penny!
Re: (Score:2)
Remindes me of Wierd Al's [google.com] Cable TV [azlyrics.com]
I got celebrity hockey
The Racketball Channel too
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
You forgot ghosts and aliens.
If I see that orange guy that is just abosolutely positive that aliens are milking our prostates to create alien-human hybrid living spacecraft to deliver pyramid materials to far-off galaxies... I'm gunna throw my TV out the window. The best part is that H presents him like an expert. Whatever the fuck an "expert" in active alien conspiracies is, I'll never know.
As for all the fucking retarded ghost shows, they just repeat the same nonsense, over and over.
"That has to be a gh
Re: (Score:2)
More recently I've been a little impressed with a show that goes to a lot of trouble trying to debunk and/or recreate "supernatural" pictures and videos. They're still a little accepting of the idea that it *might* be a ghost or bigfoot or whatever for my tastes, but
Re: (Score:2)
Most of those shows have really obvious sources for the "strange activity" already. If I see one more freaking blob of out-of-focus dust (i.e. "an orb") I'm going to lose it. I really can't believe the guys on the show actually believe. It's so bad.
I think you're thinking of Fact or Faked: Paranormal Files.
I'd absolutely love to believe in all this hokum, but I simply can't. Still, I love Ancient Aliens. It's just good fun to me.
Re: (Score:2)
You forgot ghosts and aliens.
If I see that orange guy
http://weknowmemes.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/09/ancient-aliens-i-dont-know-therefore-aliens.jpg [weknowmemes.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I like Nova and a lot of other PBS documentaries, AND a bunch of the reality shows (not "Jersey Shore"). It's possible to like and enjoy both.
Re: (Score:2)
The History Channel just aired "The Hatfields & The McCoys", and got the highest ratings ever for a cable channel.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
No.. It's a good thing, since it was mostly historically accurate (the one issue I heard about is that the one judge in the movie was really a composite of two different judges).
It was a very entertaining miniseries.
Re: (Score:2)
It used to be just $25 a month.
And it was worthwhile because watching shows I'd never seen before (Time Tunnel, Ufo, Dark Shadows, Quantum Leap) was cheaper via cable then buying the season-set on VHS (around $1000).
Today it's the exact opposite. Cable costs too much (~70) and season sets on DVD or Hulu are cheap to rent.
Re: (Score:2)
I remember when TLC used to have shows like this, but now it's PBS doing the job.
Thank you socialism.
Re: (Score:3)
now it's PBS doing the job
Nova's been on the air since 1974. Either you're really old or you aren't giving PBS enough credit for always having good science shows.
Re:1 of my favorite Antenna channels (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Is it just me, or has the quality of the trolls at Slashdot absolutely plummeted in the last several years? I really appreciate quality trolling, but I'm afraid that it's turned into a lost art form around here.
Nah, it's just summer and the kiddies are out of school during the day. Data analysis of moderations/UID/day of the week/date would probably turn up some really interesting stuff.
Re: (Score:2)
Fucking magnets how do they work? (Score:5, Funny)
âoeFUCKING MAGNETS, HOW DO THEY WORK?
And I don't wanna talk to a scientist
Re:Fucking magnets how do they work? (Score:4, Funny)
yes, that would be an attractive video to watch!
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Some are attracted, some are repulsed. It's like slashdot's gone bipolar.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
As everybody knows, electric fields are the wake of the speedboats driven by the little tiny martians that live in copper wire, as they speed toward the cute lady martians who live on the anode of the battery [amazon.com].
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Great video. With regard to your indirect snipe that Feynman was smart enough to know that he couldn't (and presumably I'm too dumb to know this) then you may have missed the points of the video you posted, which are:
Re: (Score:3)
How do they work? Like [wikipedia.org] this [wikipedia.org].
Why do they work? Fuck if I know. At least Richard Feynman agreed with me [youtube.com].
Re: (Score:3)
How Women's Minds Work (Score:3, Funny)
I'd enjoy hearing the explanation behind how women's minds work. Seriously. I'm sure most guys out there have experienced the "I think I've finally figured out most of what makes her tick. Now I just need to.. what the fuck?! She just did the opposite of what I.. never mind, I give up."
Oh, wait, this is /. I'm talking about... ;-)
Re: (Score:2)
Bought this 20 years ago, and it helped immensely (though it's only the beginning of understanding; every martian/venusian is different) :
http://www.amazon.com/Men-Mars-Women-Venus-Understanding/dp/0060574216 [amazon.com]
Re: (Score:3)
You know, there are a lot of downsides to being gay and not a lot of upsides, but at least I've never seen a book titled Bears are from Mars, twinks are from Venus.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Most non-boring men are complicated too. It just seems that some men whine a lot more about it.
So please get over this overused trope. I don't come here to have my gender made fun of. It's getting pretty tiring getting hit with this ridiculousness in the middle of reading actual decent comments.
Re: (Score:2)
Men are complicated in much less strange ways. It's not like each and every one of us doesn't deal with both men and women in a variety of relationships all the time.
Re: (Score:2)
The ways are "much less strange" because you are a man. Believe it or not, if you are a complicated man you are just as strange a creature to a woman as a complicated woman is to you.
Unlike the original poster, when I think I have a woman figured out and she does the opposite of what I think she is going to do, I don't say "I give up" I say "Wonderful!" Who wants a boring, predictable lover? Maybe boring, predictable people, but not me.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, but if you think you have a man figured out and then find you haven't, he's not mad at you for that. Most men will take it as a welcome opportunity to explain how rational we are (and talk about ourselves for a bit).
If you're in a serious relationship with a woman and she realises that you don't understand something about her, then that's apparently cause for a fight/crying.
Somehow she can be as irrational as she likes and if you don't understand her that's because you don't love her enough.
Asking her
Re: (Score:2)
The way women's minds work is very simple. You start with the way a man's mind works, and then you take away reason and accountability. Perhaps whoever originally wrote that meant it as some kind representation of misogyny only to be conquered when the character got laid, thus proving that the root of all misogyny is sexual frustration.
On the other hand, it does work marvelously well. The other trick is when she inevitably gets her feelings hurt (like when you suggest one interpretation of the client'
Re: (Score:2)
I'd enjoy hearing the explanation behind how women's minds work.
This will provide some useful insights: Láadan [wikipedia.org].
Re: (Score:2)
Actually, the main thing isn't that men and women work that differently.
Granted, certain things differ somewhat.
However, the main thing is that when you live with someone, you REALLY get to know them.
Very few people have the same set of priorities as you do, also, they don't function the same mentally, physically or socially.
Meaning, as you understand more and more about just how different the one you are living with is from you, you get more and more perplexed.
This problem isn't lessened for gay people.
Whe
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
I'm just guessing here, but probably:
Give me this.
Buy me that.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
It sounds like the whole cycle. Dating, marriage, and divorce.
I worked with a guy once, who said that everything a woman said could be summarized to "I want ..." and "I need ...". The second could still be summarized as "I want ..."
I waited years to prove him wrong. I couldn't. When he was around, and a woman was talking, I was always waiting to be able to say "See, she didn't say want or need!" It wasn't necessarily in the first few seconds of talking, but those were
Re: (Score:2)
I think you missed a few:
6. If he is tired, or sick, she wants to be pampered.
7. If he is is stressed, she wants assistance
8. If he is trying to get some actual work done, she just wants someone to listen to her
9. If he is feeling tired or lonely, she wants to be gushed over.
10. If he is crying over the monthly bills, she wants to go shopping. Sometimes, she doesn't even know why she wants to go shopping. In those cases, just leave her alone till she's done.
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe she wants someone wearing Pampers. If saying "She wants George Clooney" is correct, then so is "She wants Pampered".
I've got one (Score:2)
ASIDE: I went to the NYC World Science Festival (Score:2)
Is this aimed at 11-year-olds?!? (Score:4, Insightful)
It's a great explanation, but why does it feel like it's explaining it to a 6-year-old?
I have a hard time imagining my 11-year-old self taking it serious at all.
Personally I think they should change the challenge a bit. Explain X to an adult, but in a way that an 11-year-old can grasp.
Stop talking down to kids.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The thing is, it's talking down but it's also spouting all kinds of random vocabulary that they don't need. Getting a basic understanding of the concept is much more important than knowing what everything's called.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Is this aimed at 11-year-olds?!? (Score:4, Insightful)
Verily, betimes jargon need be eschewed for the erudition of the laity.
Err--I mean, sometimes avoiding big words is the best way to teach people something.
That's not universally true though. Some concepts are just complicated and avoiding jargon makes them harder to understand--in the long term. An example from math:
Jargon-filled: "An nth degree polynomial has at most n roots."
Non-jargony: "Suppose you are given a starting number and have a fixed process you use to create an ending number. Let's also say the process has a few rules. You begin with the starting number and are allowed to do three types of operations on your current number: (1) add a number from a list you chose beforehand; (2) multiply by a number from a list you chose beforehand; or (3) multiply by the starting number. For how many starting numbers can your process end up creating 0? It turns out the answer is at most the number of times you used operation (3), plus one, unless you multiplied by 0 at some point in operation (2) in which case every ending number is 0."
Now suppose you were interested in proving the statement. The jargon-filled version can be followed up by basic properties of polynomial factorization which gives the result quickly. You could translate those properties without jargon but there would be three long-term problems: (1) the result would not be very memorable since the important individual ideas wouldn't be picked out for special emphasis with special words; (2) the ideas presented wouldn't be very portable (that is, applicable to other problems) since they're not clearly broken into usable pieces; (3) it would take a long time to communicate with others on similar topics without jargon (they'd invent their own, actually).
Still, when teaching things to a general audience that probably won't continue down a particular line of inquiry, jargon is a bad plan.
Tides & Currents (Score:2)
I hate deep water too, deathly afraid of it.
Re: (Score:2)
Bill O'Reilly can tell you all about that. It has something to do with miscommunication.
I understood this video . . . (Score:2)
Alda (Score:2)
Alda is quite the personality and has
How about these questions:
* Why is the sky blue?
* Why does water freeze?
* How is charcoal made? (relating it to fire, of course)
For those who are curious, he had an interesting discussion with Bob Osserman entitled M*A*T*H some years ago. You can download the video of it here: http://www.msri.org/web/msri/online-videos/-/video/showVideo/11928
this is a task better left to Sesame Street (Score:2)
Wrong Flame (Score:2)
Finally! Now I can explain to my bosses what the Flame virus means! 11-year old is exactly the level of understanding we need.
RTFA and cry. This is the wrong flame!
First, everybody knows it's there. Then, it has been there for millennia. Finally, nobody is afraid of it.
What a disappointment.
Re: (Score:2)
Because he's a really good host for the show and therefore not a "has been" but an "is now". Just like the guy who narrates for BBC/History Channel's "Life" and other docs.
Re: (Score:2)
Because he's a really good host for the show and therefore not a "has been" but an "is now". Just like the guy who narrates for BBC/History Channel's "Life" and other docs.
I don't know if I'd equivocate David Attenborough with Alan Alda given the shape and span of their respective careers.
Nevertheless, I agree with you, their narration style is both informative and engaging, something few narrators achieve in modern broadcasting (unlike the vanilla quality of Oprah Winfrey and the others who narrate BBC's documentary series for an American audience).
Re: (Score:2)
Ricardo Montalban was a kick ass narrator.
Probably didn't have 1/10th the career of Attenborough but he was still a kick ass narrator.
Re:Next Question? (Score:5, Insightful)
God, dude. Alan Alda has made significant contributions to the public understanding of science through hosting a show about it. He never plays the smart-ass, he's always unassuming and humble, and through that honesty (and by way of interviewing authorities on various subjects) he brings the most complex scientific concepts down to a common level that most people can understand. It's why his show is so popular. So, it may have been quite awhile since M*A*S*H* but that doesn't mean he hasn't stayed relevant. In fact, if Alan Alda wanted to interview a famous scientist -- better yet, YOUR favorite famous scientist, take your pick (I'll pick Stephen Hawking for you in your absence) -- he would get that interview at nearly a moment's notice! There's no scientist who wouldn't want to be interviewed by him and seen on his show. So, Big-Mouth, how many famous scientists can you speak with whenever you feel like it?
Re: (Score:2)
>>>I'll pick Stephen Hawking for you in your absence
Good example of a bad narrator (when he did Masters of Science Fiction). At least the stories were good. Maybe they should have had Alan Alda narrate instead. Or the guys who did the Twilight Zone/Outer Limits in the 90s.
Re: (Score:2)
actors perfect the art of communication (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Some people judge based on the message rather than the messenger.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Rayleigh scattering.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rayleigh_scattering [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Perhaps explain evolution next. If you can make a small child understand, you've got some hope of making an adult creationist understand...
The primary difference here is that a small child might want to understand, while the creationist prefers to ignore logical explanations. Most creationists would be capable of learning and understanding if the desire were present.
I absolutely love the concept of these challenges to develop really good explanations of science related concepts. Children generally want to know why things are they way they are. Giving them clear lessons to their questions will only result in improved scientific literacy and int
Re: (Score:2)
Erk. Creationists understand, they just don't agree.
Re: (Score:2)
There are absolutely creationists who don't understand the concepts of evolution. Either because they were never taught it or because they were taught a ludicrous straw man by people peddling FUD. We can't forget that! If we do, whenever a creationist asks a legitimate question about evolution we'll go off on them instead of providing an informative answer. The odds of an answer, no matter how informative, opening someone's eyes might be very slim but it is non-zero and every mind opened is a good thing
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
He's not really mocking creationists.
For that you need a publication from the Family Research Council.
Re: (Score:2)
If you can make a small child understand, you've got some hope of making an adult creationist understand...
Doubtful. But at least if you can make the creationists' kids understand, things will be better in 30 years. Of course, by then, the country may well have collapsed because of the idiocy of the creationists, but at least their kids and grandkids might be able to pick up the pieces and build something better.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Where do babies come from?
When a man and a woman love each other very much, they cuddle is a special way and make a baby.
How can I make this other person like me?
Firstly, you need to record all your actions for a whole month.
Once you have that footage, kidnap the person. Then randomly torture them for a couple of days asking questions that are totally irrelevant to your purpose. This is to invoke a Stockholm syndrome with the torturer.
Now, start showing clips of the video of yourself in differe
Re: (Score:2)
If you can make a small child understand, you've got some hope of making an adult creationist understand
Nope, much simpler to make a child understand, they have far less religious baggage and a maleable worldview. Adult creationists were brainwashed into their position as a child so it takes more than plain reasoning to get them to let go of their baggage. A brainwashed kid grows and joins the adult army of 'useful idiots', which is why certain groups don't want things like evolution or climate science taught in schools (it inteferes with their recuriting methods).
Re:The burning question... (Score:4, Funny)
Can you explain why you're never gonna give me up?
Re: (Score:2)
Wrong meme.
Re: (Score:2)
Uh, gee, there, don't forget about gold. Because you're trying to turn children into gold, right?
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Mankind has learned and used fire for over 100,000 yrs without needing to explain in words to a 10-12 year old something that is best grasped through the senses.
Pretty sure the number you where looking for was 6000... 6000 years.... your welcome...
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Reference: http://www.gallup.com/poll/155003/hold-creationist-view-human-origins.aspx [gallup.com]
Re: (Score:2)
The Cro-Magnon man was dated at ~35,000 BC.
Dinner and a movie? Tricky in those days.
Re: (Score:2)