Wanted: a Real Science Channel

You ever thought about what a real science channel would look like? Something to counter fakers and disinformation? Maybe it can happen.

Comments

I, for one!

[bluethundr]

I, for one, WELCOME all of the doubters of the American Space program! It'll make it much easier to send them all packing on the 'B Ark' currently on the launchpad at Cape Canaveral!

Re:I, for one!

[Anonymous Coward]

"badastronomy.com" is perhaps better named than they intended.

The moon-landing-hoax is of course ridiculous, but the webpage in which they try to debunk it isn't any better. One rather embarrassing bit:

The lunar dust has a peculiar property: it tends to reflect light back in the direction from where it came. So if you were to stand on the Moon and shine a flashlight at the surface, you would see a very bright spot where the light hits the ground, but, oddly, someone standing a bit to the side would hardly see it at all. The light is preferentially reflected back toward the flashlight (and therefore you), and not the person on the side.

That is not really true. Lunar dust is the same of dust particles (of similar size) on the earth so far as the reflecting of light is concerned. There is nothing "peculiar" about what really happens -- the light is scattered randomly and evenly in all directions --- not preferentially back toward the source!

What determines the apparent brightness of the beamspot is the observer's angle with respect to the surface that the beam shines on, not the observer's angle with respect to the beam itself. This is obvious when you think about it, and completely familiar from the way light works on the earth.

And when they go further to bring up heiligenschein, it is clear that they don't know what the hell they are talking about. The phenomenon of heiligenschein is due to the internal reflection of light within transparent droplets (usually water). It is totally irrelevant when you are talking about opaque particles of dust.

Re:I, for one!

[stripe]

It's a given that the at US is full of scientifically ignorant bigots. The only reason that the US is still ahead of world in world patents is because we patent things like one click shopping. I would not be too surprised to see most of the real technological patents mostly owned by the Japanese conglomorates. Our eductional system is a hodgepodge of politcally correct nonsense with little hard science. The only reason the technology companies are still in the US are all the H1B visas. No fear there the companies have realized that its cheaper to oursource to where the real technical literates are.(Not the US). Once they clamp down on those visas the US will lose the technical edge and become a 2nd rate technically backward country within 20 years. All the dumbing down of scientific research panels by Mr Bush makes for a great start.

Re:I, for one!

[cicadia]

the light is scattered randomly and evenly in all directions --- not preferentially back toward the source!

That is true.. what the author of that quote may have been thinking of is the corner mirrors placed on the moon by one of the Apollo teams, used to measure the precise distance to the moon.

It is, however, a fairly peculiar property, and one that isn't often seen here. Most materials have some reflectivity -- that is, incident light is not scattered evenly in all directions, but is biased towards the line of reflection. The fact that moondust is almost perfectly non-reflective is the reason that the moon always looks uniformly lit across its surface.

What determines the apparent brightness of the beamspot is the observer's angle with respect to the surface that the beam shines on, not the observer's angle with respect to the beam itself. This is obvious when you think about it, and completely familiar from the way light works on the earth.

The fact that it reflects equally in all directions means that the brightness is most definitely not dependent on the observers angle wrt to the surface.

Take a look at the moon sometime - right up to the terminator, it looks roughly equally bright all across its surface, despite the fact that, being spherical, its angle to you varies quite dramatically.

Re:I, for one!

[Deadstick]

There is a phenomenon visually very similar to heiligenschein that in no way depends on water. The easiest way to see it is to fly at low altitude over a vegetated area in close company with one or more other aircraft -- which is not very easy for most folks. But if you can contrive to do this, you will find that the shadow of your aircraft -- and only yours -- has a glow around it.

The mechanism: Every pebble and blade of grass casts a shadow, and in general you see a mixture of sunlit and shaded areas. But at the antisolar point, everything you see is sunlit. The smaller your aircraft, the brighter the glow.

Most of the people who have seen this are sailplane pilots who often circle in gaggles within the narrow radius of a thermal, for precisely the same reason that buzzards do. It can actually be useful in avoiding collisions.

rj

Re:I, for one!

[EvilTwinSkippy]

I'm just worried about the Flat Earth Society staging a protest.

Re:I, for one!

[sms]

There are still a lot of strong educational programs for math and science in the U.S. Still, I see the point you are trying to make. On the one hand, we have the media and sundry pundits bemoaning the lack of students who choose math and science as a vocation. On the other hand, those that do go that route are increasingly unlikely to find jobs using their degrees as corporate America goes overseas to do things on the cheap. So you have some basic contradictions here. I do not believe the incumbent president who is known to be friendly to Big Broth^H^H^H^H^Husiness and generals who spout nonsense about Christian holy wars is going to change this trend. It's kind of an interesting twist on the concept of the brain drain.

Re:I, for one!

[asparagus]

Just tell 'em the station's located at one of the corners of the earth. That should keep 'em busy for a while. ;-)

Re:I, for one!

[eXtro]

I don't really buy the argument that people are staying away from science and engineering because they won't find a job. I went through undergraduate electrical engineering. Out of graduating class of about 70 there were 8 north americans. Most of the rest were from Hong Kong. Those of us who wanted engineering positions have engineering positions.

A lot of people got into engineering with this idea in the back of their mind that they expected they'd be able to walk into someplace and be an instant engineering manager. Well, this doesn't usually happen. You graduate from an engineering school and you know a shallow amount of information about a wide variety of engineering topics. There's nothing wrong with this, in fact I think it's great, but for an engineering manager they want somebody who has a deeper amount of information about a narrower variety of topics. There's nothing wrong with this either. After you spend a few years in the field working building on the basis you have in this narrower body of topics you can move into management if that's what you want and you have that talent.

Now some people not only expect to start as managers but they're not willing to take a position as a lower ranked engineer in order to build experience. So later on they say things like there are no jobs, or an H1-B worker took all the positions.

I hope it will fly, but I have doubts

[nystul555]

This sounds like a great idea. I would LOVE to have a true science channel - it would be enough to get me to finally purchase cable!

But would it work? Most of American knows nothing about science. They are far more likely to be entertained and interested in psychics, the paranormal, and well, science-esque stories that they can understand.

Lets look at what popular now. Reality TV. Does it get any more mindless than that? Sitcoms are still popular, even though 95% of them are almost identical to eachother, and they repeat the same plots and stories that they have for years. Most movies that come out are unoriginal, and often the ones that do the best are the ones that stray the furthest from scientific fact.

It seems that people do not want to learn any longer. They do not want to be challenged. They just want to live in their shells, believing what they have always believed, thinking what they have always thought. And I'm afraid that for that reason, a science channel might not go over very well.

However, on the other hand, maybe having a good science channel would help to draw interest to science and facts. Maybe it would help to disprove psychics and other con-artists, maybe it could help teach people about how our world really works, and how things really are.

I hope so. But I kind of doubt it. I'm afraid most people would rather watch the same reruns of the same mindless crap over and over again.

Re:I hope it will fly, but I have doubts

[GuyMannDude]

But would it work? Most of American knows nothing about science. They are far more likely to be entertained and interested in psychics, the paranormal, and well, science-esque stories that they can understand.

I think this is an important point. One of the things that keeps people from being interested in science is the "high barriers to entry". I'm not saying that the average person is too dumb to understand science -- not at all. The problem is that all too often science is described in scientific jargon. In order to explain what cutting-edge research is about, you usually have to "fill the viewer in" on backround material first. Consider Brian Greene's "The Elegant Universe" book. The first few chapters have nothing to do with string theory -- it's basically a primer on relativity and quantum mechanics. Given the popularity of that book, one could argue that people are, indeed, willing to struggle through introductory material to get "to the good stuff." However, I would argue that (a) people are much more tolerant of that type of slow beginning when reading a book than they are when watching the TV and (b) high book sales are no indication of how many of those book purchasers ACTUALLY FINISHED READING THE BOOK!

I'd love to see a cable science channel as is being discussed. However, unless you're going to stock this channel full of shows narrated by people like Richard Feynman, who could explain difficult concepts in everyday language, I think this would fall flat on its face. And there aren't too many Feynman-types around who would be willing to make the kind of commitment this channel would require.

Honestly, TV is often called the boob tube and I think that's for good reason. It's very difficult to go into any kind of very meaningful discussion about difficult topics in this media. That goes not only for science but for current events as well. A lot of the problem is due to commericals interrupting the flow of information and I realize that what's being proposed here is a non-commerical channel. However, I think after a hard day of work most people aren't going to want to struggle through science.

GMD

Re:I hope it will fly, but I have doubts

[Ryokos_boytoy]

Lets look at what popular now. Reality TV. Does it get any more mindless than that?

Well, this is a country (US) of drunkards and idiots. And I think that given what is "popular" is a sign of the decline of our culture. Musicians who can't play instruments, models who aren't pretty and parents who don't devote themselves to their children. Honestly, at 40, I'm shocked how much this country has changed. Public schools have become holding pens for morons. When I was in school, you had to work hard to keep up with the smart kids or you got left back. Now, they hold back the smart kids to keep the dumb ones from losing their self-esteem. I hope I die soon, seeing all this is too depressing.

Re:I hope it will fly, but I have doubts

[MisterFancypants]

It seems that people do not want to learn any longer.

Any longer? I must have missed that part of human history where the majority of people had an interest in science and other pursuits of knowledge.

Always keep in mind that we look back through history in a narrow tube which shows us the important events (in hindsight) and people. The majority have and will always be of the type who don't question things to any great degree. This is not new, it is not caused by MTV or reality TV (both symptoms, not causes).

Re:I hope it will fly, but I have doubts

[sTalking_Goat]

Dude, you're 40, your nick is Ryokos boytoy, and you want to sit there and rant about how screwed up society is?

Re:I hope it will fly, but I have doubts

[tumbaumba]

It seems that people do not want to learn any longer. They do not want to be challenged.

They never wanted to learn in a first place. There is nothing wrong with it though. Do you want to learn group theory? Not as an imaginary instantaneous acquisition of knowledge, but actually sitting down and doing hard work to acquire it without clear picture in sight why you need it. People already have enough problems, like personal relationship for example.

On a side note, we should not place 'psychics and other con-artists' together, because they are not the same. If I don't understand Feynman it does not mean I consider him a con-artist.

Re:I hope it will fly, but I have doubts

[Brandybuck]

Most of American knows nothing about science.

That's because we inherited our intellectual rigor from the same people that brought you crop circles and the Coddington Fairies. Our tabloids are pale imitations of the famed anti-intellectual tabloids of London.

Re:I hope it will fly, but I have doubts

[tektrix]

Most Americans wouldn't be watching a channel like this. But then, it doesn't take the better part of 200 million people to make a cable channel a success, either. The whole notion of narrowcasting wouldn't be the success it is if it took a whole country to get behind it. Besides, there's prolly more tech and science savvy Americans than ever.

Re:I hope it will fly, but I have doubts

[jejones]

On a side note, we should not place 'psychics and other con-artists' together, because they are not the same.

This is true; there are psychics who are not con artists. OTOH, I have yet to see a psychic who can actually do the things he or she claims to be able to do without using the techniques that a con artist would use. If you have, by all means point them at James Randi's million dollar challenge.

What's really depressing about all this is that I, and I'm sure the rest of us, had hopes that the {Learning, Discovery, History} Channels wouldn't pander to the crackpots... and yet there I was the other week watching the History Channel put on a very credulous hour's worth of claptrap on the so-called "Bible Code."

Re:I hope it will fly, but I have doubts

[Jeff DeMaagd]

One problem is that the people exposing fraudsters often end up with anti-defamation lawsuits like the Amazing Randi (or some similar guy). He exposed possible tricks used by alleged psychics and had to defend himself in court.

If you make a show on how to protect yourself against even certifiably criminal type telephone con artists, you might get slammed with a lawsuit from a big telemarketing association.

Re:I hope it will fly, but I have doubts

[Anonymous Coward]

On a side note, we should not place 'psychics and other con-artists' together, because they are not the same. If I don't understand Feynman it does not mean I consider him a con-artist.

Doesn't make him a psychic either. It makes him a physicist.

Re:I hope it will fly, but I have doubts

[Planesdragon]

This is true; there are psychics who are not con artists. OTOH, I have yet to see a psychic who can actually do the things he or she claims to be able to do without using the techniques that a con artist would use. If you have, by all means point them at James Randi's million dollar challenge.

Nitpick: the two best theorums about how psychics work (collective unconciousness or 'magickal world') both nicely explain why psychics don't work for skeptics. Plus, the guy apparantly works to discredit any possible psychic, as if he had a million dollars on the line or something. ;)

What's really depressing about all this is that I, and I'm sure the rest of us, had hopes that the {Learning, Discovery, History} Channels wouldn't pander to the crackpots... and yet there I was the other week watching the History Channel put on a very credulous hour's worth of claptrap on the so-called "Bible Code."

Yes, there is crap on TV. There's crap on HBO, too, but "Real Sex" that doesn't keep artsy folk from watching it for "The Sopranos." (And, to be fair, the bible code is a moderately working therory... just neither a proven one, nor one that can ever have scientific acceptance.)

One final thought:

A person is smart. People are stupid, bliterhing idiots. A scientist is a person, and therefore smart. But his work has to be vetted by peer review--and peer review is done by a "People", and since they are people, they're blithering idiots...

and, thus, "science" is what is proven so well that even blithering idiots believe it.

Re:I hope it will fly, but I have doubts

[Paradise Pete]

Nitpick: the two best theorums about how psychics work (collective unconciousness or 'magickal world') both nicely explain why psychics don't work for skeptics.

Do they also explain why they don't work for anyone else, either? And You can't have a theory without first having something to explain.

Re:I hope it will fly, but I have doubts

[EvilTwinSkippy]

While I don't have the grades to prove it, I've been accused of being able to explain anything. Probably because I grok the concepts, but don't give a darn about the math.

Take fiber optic cable for instance. How many folks out there really know how fiber-optic cable works? It's basic optics applied in a radical way.

Fiber-Optic cable is actually made up [CLICK]

And next on "Crossing over with John Edwards..."

Re:I hope it will fly, but I have doubts

[Anonymous Coward]

This sounds like a great idea. I would LOVE to have a true science channel - it would be enough to get me to finally purchase cable!

scrambled porn was enough to get me to purchase cable, but to each his own

Re:I hope it will fly, but I have doubts

[EvilTwinSkippy]

There is a third explaination brought forth in "The Holographic Universe", by Michael Talbot. He explains that the world we live in is actually an interference pattern, much like a hologram. By itself, a hologram is an bunch of squiggles and moire patterns. Bounce a reference beam off of it, and you get a signal our eye understands.

He [IMHO] convincingly applies this holographic theory to the senses, as well as some supposedly psychic phenomina. Clairvoyance and Clairaudience work because conciousness is not really fixed on any one place in space or even time. Folks who can demonstrate those abilities seem to be able to tune their individual "reference" beams to a slightly different part of the universe than the one they are presently in.

Re:I hope it will fly, but I have doubts

[Have Blue]

Stop beating around the bush and blaming the "unwashed masses". The problem is that real science is boring. Chemists very rarely make funny-colored clouds and explosions, physicists don't play with particle acccelerators and electrostatic generators all day, and that's not even getting into the more observational fields like astronomy. To understand why a particular bit of lab work or a telescope session is important and exciting despite the appearance of tedium takes the same years of study and knowledge of the field that it takes to become a scientist in the first place, and the audience in general does not have it. It's the same problem as portraying hackers in movies.

Re:I hope it will fly, but I have doubts

[Anonymous Coward]

But what do you see as "real science"?
Is it posssible that maybe NASA is lying to us? What about evolution of human, is supporters of Darwinism potheads? Have you ever read James M. McCanneys theory on the "Plasma Discharge Model"?

Re:I hope it will fly, but I have doubts

[Jack Auf]

>I'm not saying that the average person is too dumb to understand science

But we're talking about the *American* public. The same public that elected GW Bush (or not) and The Govenator. The same public that watches Survivor. Yes, they are too dumb.

Maybe in Germany, Sweden, Norway or China.

Re:I hope it will fly, but I have doubts

[SubtleNuance]

Read this book:

Amusing Ourselves to Death by the recently deceased Neil Postman

Re:I hope it will fly, but I have doubts

[jeko]

Science and Schlock walk into a Hollywood pitch meeting.

Science: The Universe is basically comprehensible and mostly observable. We're going to offer you the chance to flog the living hell out of the data for a few generations until you finally understand what you're looking at. Of course, this won't be tedious. Here, listen to Carl Sagan talk about how we are "billions and billions of star-stuff."

Schlock: I got witches, ghosts, werewolves, jedis, vampires, superheroes, damsels in distress, and action heroes whose clips never run out of bullets. Oh, and breasts, I got breasts too. I got wish-fulfillment like you wouldn't believe.

Now tell me, which show are you going to watch?

Re:I hope it will fly, but I have doubts

[jejones]

And, to be fair, the bible code is a moderately working therory... just neither a proven one, nor one that can ever have scientific acceptance.

The bible code is the textual equivalent of "Ooh, that cloud looks like a horsie."

Re:I hope it will fly, but I have doubts

[Mark of THE CITY]

Do you want to learn group theory?

I'll stick to learning applications of group theory. Symmetry groups are hard enough.

Re:I hope it will fly, but I have doubts

[WayneConrad]

...the guy [James Randi] apparantly works to discredit any possible psychic, as if he had a million dollars on the line or something. ;)

Not technically his money; it belongs to the foundation he started.

I guess he does discredit psychics, if you count "ok, prove it and I'll give you money." It seems to me that the psychics do fine discrediting themselves without his help. He just enjoys pointing them out.

Re:I hope it will fly, but I have doubts

[dasmegabyte]

Well, one of the nice things about the magazine this article was in -- Scientific American -- is that it is easy for a layperson to understand what's going on. Even still, it is not a magazine most people would read for fun. Because no matter how much you explain topics like quantum mechanics or general relativity -- which, at their heart, are neither difficult to understand nor math intensive -- they will always SEEM like they are hard to understand, for the very reason that they require so much explanation.

It's not the jargon that does it. It's not the complexity. It's the completeness that is overwhelming. And completeness does not make for good television. It's just hard to keep people interested while at the same time giving them all of the facts, because after a while the brain just shuts down. It's why all the best physics courses I've taken have supplemented a decent professor with a strong textbook...you need to take things at your own pace, something you can do with a book, or a magazine article, or a website, but that you can't do with a cable channel.

And what happens if you come into the show late, just as the Braves game ends, and discover that you can't understand anything about it because you missed the 15 minutes of primer material?

I love Sci-Am. I love Nature. But I wouldn't watch this channel Shermer perscribes...because I know it would either talk down to me, talk above me, or be way too long to avoid doing either. In any case, it probably wouldn't be as entertaining, nor as educational, as 45 minutes on a treadmill with a nice magazine.

Plus, what product could you possibly advertise on a pure science channel without looking a little foolish? Baking Soda?

Re:I hope it will fly, but I have doubts

[titzandkunt]

"I'd love to see a cable science channel as is being discussed. However, unless you're going to stock this channel full of shows narrated by people like Richard Feynman, who could explain difficult concepts in everyday language"

Well, if you made a show that was narrated by Richard Feynman, then you'd have to involve the psychics, and everyone would be happy....

The scene: A darkened TV studio.
The personell: Troy McLure & Norah, a psychic.

Troy:"Well Norah, are you getting anything?

Norah:"Yes Troy... It's a Richard... Richard Feynman... he says he's very happy now, but that his old co-researcher Ed should revisit their 1969 paper in 'Mathematical Physics Proceedings' in light of Steven Hawking's latest publications..."

T&K.

Re:I hope it will fly, but I have doubts

[WayneConrad]

Clairvoyance and Clairaudience work

No, they don't.

because conciousness is not really fixed on any one place in space or even time. Folks who can demonstrate those abilities...

What folk? Who's willing to step up to the plate and prove it?

It's all very nice to say that we have a nice theory explaing why the stuff doesn't work when examined by scientists, but that's just a dodge invented by people who'd like to deceive themselves or others.

Re:I hope it will fly, but I have doubts

[Anonymous Coward]

Nice rant. It's chock full of generalizations and it's down on American popular culture enough to earn you some mod points. But you're wrong.

Go look at a cable TV or satellite service's Web site -- we have everything from CSPAN to the Food Network to the Independent Film Channel. We import TV from all over the world and produce a ridiculous amount of TV of our own.

We have plenty of stage shows -- opera, theater, musicals, comedy, dance, circus, you name it. We eat food from all over the world. We import beer and wine from all over, and we produce some damn good ones ourselves. Yes, we are the culture of Budweiser, but we're also the Land of a Thousand Microbrews.

Go ahead and whore Karma by putting Americans down. Maybe if you keep perpetrating the image that we're all buffoons spoon-fed our entertainment by mass media, you too will believe it.

I have no doubt that there are some Americans who are perfectly happy watching Cops while swilling Miller Lite, but they are by no means the majority of us. We are a diverse group of people, because our citizens all come from all over the world. We have a background of rebellion and ingenuity. Fuck you for trying to pigeonhole us.

Re:I hope it will fly, but I have doubts

[Anonymous Coward]

It seems that people do not want to learn any longer. They do not want to be challenged. They just want to live in their shells, believing what they have always believed, thinking what they have always thought. And I'm afraid that for that reason, a science channel might not go over very well.

And how is that any different from, say, last few thousand years?

But seriously, there have always been and always will be masses of people who consider highlights of life to be a can of beer and a sofa to sit on.
Likewise there are other people who like to test their limits and explore new ideas and so on.

So, the question is: do we really need to care about the other group at all?

Re:I hope it will fly, but I have doubts

[ls -lR]

Yeah, it would never fly... If only they could make it as interesting as C-SPAN. They must draw in millions of people out there to tune in to pork sausage subsidy subcommitte debates at 0300 AM, so they have no problem hanging around. Or that Weather channel, I mean who ISN'T glued to the tube for that show "guy holding umbrella in downpour". That show kicks ass, I can't wait for the new season.

Re:I hope it will fly, but I have doubts

[mr. marbles]

I believe you can get people to care about anything, you just have to make it worthwhile for them to care. TV execs give the public too little credit, they have nothing to gain by taking risks, and all there is to lose. Public broadcasting however is willing to take the time to challenge viewers, instead of pandering to their every subconscious desire. I wouldn't have became interested in science if I had not had grown up with Bill Nye the science guy when I was young. You are right, there is a will towards clinging to the comfortable known worlds. But most people find that when they leave their caves they begin finding the world of unknowns a lot more interesting. People will put their faith in science, but first you have to put your faith in people.

Re:I hope it will fly, but I have doubts

[tumbaumba]

The bible code is the textual equivalent of "Ooh, that cloud looks like a horsie."

On the other hand, what would you think if all clouds look like horsies. That must be one funny theory to explain that. :)

Re:I hope it will fly, but I have doubts

[Anonymous Coward]

Who's willing to step up to the plate and prove it?

All the psychics in the world are right now saying to themselves, "Wow! I'm going to throw away my life and put myself at risk of being killed by every government/mobster on the planet because WayneConrad doesn't believe people like me exist!"

Re:I hope it will fly, but I have doubts

[Anonymous Coward]

Now tell me, which show are you going to watch?

The one with breasts.

Re:I hope it will fly, but I have doubts

[BizidyDizidy]

No they're not. They're just ways of permuting a set of objects. When you compose them, you do one first then the other as one step. There's plenty of hard stuff, and plenty of hard stuff in algebra, but group theory is not one of them.

Re:I hope it will fly, but I have doubts

[Anonymous Coward]

I would welcome such a channel, even if it would probably cut my sleep.

>>> They are far more likely to be entertained and interested in psychics, the paranormal

I used to be addicted to the learning channel (TLC). Physics, biology, scientific proof of historical events, the brain, space, planetology... Wow!

Then TLC changed ... "My wedding week", "My baby is born", emergency room stories and the final blow JOHN EDWARDS??? Why oh please WHY? The humanity!

It's been years since I watched a real scientific channel.

Re:I hope it will fly, but I have doubts

[nmos]

But would it work? Most of American knows nothing about science. They are far more likely to be entertained and interested in psychics, the paranormal, and well, science-esque stories that they can understand.

Does it have to appeal to most Americans? I've got hundreds of channels and all I want is just one that does science (and maybe some other geek stuff) without assuming that the entire audience knows nothing about the topic at hand. Not EVERYTHING has to be introductory does it? Then again they'd have to hire writers who know the topic too and that might be too much. There's nothing like seeing some Discovery Channel special where they start out talking to some scientist and then switch to a narrator who spouts some nonsense misinterpretation of what the scientist just said.

Re:I hope it will fly, but I have doubts

[DerekLyons]

It seems that people do not want to learn any longer. They do not want to be challenged. They just want to live in their shells, believing what they have always believed, thinking what they have always thought.

I commend to you the study of the entertainment of era's past. You'll find less difference, so far as mindless content and lack of challenge and belief in the paranormal etc.., than you seem to believe.

Re:I hope it will fly, but I have doubts

[Anonymous Coward]

Riiiight. They have never provided any real proof by choice. Not because they're a pack of retarted and/or greedy pricks. Rationalize much?

Put a sock in it, kook.

Re:I hope it will fly, but I have doubts

[jejones]

OK. Here's the process involved in the bible code: Start at some point in the Torah, and for various values of n, try picking every nth letter until you get something that can be interpreted as having to do with something of your own selection. Hebrew, like other Semitic languages, doesn't bother to write down vowels, so that gives you even more leeway in finding supposedly meaningful stuff--because you can count CN as CAN, COIN, etc.

With enough text, you can basically turn up anything you please. A code that can generate any message is worthless, and the bible code advocates will take their place along side the crackpots who think that Shakespeare's literary output encodes the name of some supposed real author, or lurid tales of the Elizabethan court. Too bad the Friedmans are no longer around to skewer these new cipher crackpots as they did the Shakespearean variety.

Re:I hope it will fly, but I have doubts

[aimew]

Have you never heard of the Discovery & Learning Chanels? or are you looking for a lecturer to stand and talk physics all the day long?

Re:I hope it will fly, but I have doubts

[Anonymous Coward]

knows nothing about science

FUD

Lets look at what popular now.

Ok.

The History Channel
The Discovery Channel
Animal Planet
The Learning Channel
National Geographic Channel
Tech TV
The Internet
etc.

I'm afraid most people would rather watch the same reruns of the same mindless crap over and over again.

Who gives a shit? Who really gives a shit what most people would rather watch? Or is it really all about sweeps week? Forget it. The mass market was rendered obsolete the very instant the first search engine was invented.

Re:I hope it will fly, but I have doubts

[Anonymous Coward]

Wow.

Do you feel it's important to list every single vague negative possibility of every new idea you hear? With a little cynicism here and a little sarcasm there? Is there some purpose in this?

"It might not work" is never sufficient to abandon a new idea.

Re:I hope it will fly, but I have doubts

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, they are too dumb.

Welp, better close them libraries and schools and get that money better spent on seedcorn. While we're at it, might as well go back to an agrarian society with spoken traditions only. It'll be simpler that way.

Re:I hope it will fly, but I have doubts

[Anonymous Coward]

Most of American knows nothing about science.

Where'd you get that idea? TV?

Re:I hope it will fly, but I have doubts

[ahfoo]

At first I thought it wouldn't work because of the missing part of the premise that it's not certain exactly what science is.
But after looking at all the other negative posts, I was inspired to jump to the other side and now I think it can easily be done.
In fact, I've got a bit of experience in this trying to start and on-line forum on biotech. At first I started off monitoring RSS feeds looking for content. But soon I realized that the vast majority of the content being presented as news was simply summaries of the latest research published in scholarly journals.
So, it's not all that complicated really. You would just need some resources to maintain a staff. Generating the stories would be fairly easy as long as you had staff to review scholarship as it gets published and do a bit of Googling to make it digestible for for a wider crowd.
Toss in a bit of rudimentary animation and some voice overs and you've got something that would probably be quite tasty to tech freaks. You could do the materials science channel, the biotech channel, the nano channel, the IC channel. You could easily create a whole network if you had the resources.
If.

Re:I hope it will fly, but I have doubts

[Paulo]

Just so that you know, "Big brother" has been a huge hit in several european countries, including Spain, the UK and Sweden. And the biggest TV hit in Spain in the last few years has been "Operacion Triunfo" (think "American idol" + "Big brother").

Don't feel bad. The grass isn't always greener on the other side.

Re:I hope it will fly, but I have doubts

[EvilTwinSkippy]

Weather forecasting doesn't work, care to call that one to the carpet too.

Re:I hope it will fly, but I have doubts

[curious.corn]

Ohh... that's typical! First the snake oil chap chatters about some credible science any layman reasonably believes it's true. Next, he starts associating this fumous concoction to some metaphor of a greater unproven truth transposing the initial credibility to the bunch of crap (supposedly, of course) Then... boh, he asks for a credit card no. to further his research? ;-) Hah! I'm really sorry for the chap... actually I *hate* the real scientists that hack up similar explanations for those that "lack academic training"... bah, that's how people start believing in big bangs, strings and naughty elves...

Re:I hope it will fly, but I have doubts

[b-baggins]

Yep, the gene pool suddenly shifted and all Americans are BORN stupid today. No hope for them at all. Has nothing to do with perhaps the fact that nobody expects much of them, so they meet that expectation.

Nope, the idea of perhaps inspiring them to be greater is, in itself, a stupid idea, because it's all genetic. Besides, the idea that with some work maybe we could improve these folks means I have to get off my lazy butt and start working instead of just sitting around pontificating about how stupid everyone except me is.

Re:I hope it will fly, but I have doubts

[whatch durrin]

People are people, the whole world over. You've got smart ones, drunk ones, dumb ones...(you get the picture).

I agree that school systems have failed us. They no longer realize that different people have different potentials to do different tasks in life, whether it requires a college education or a five minute introduction to the deep-fryer. All students are pushed into a "college-prep" education; the ones that fail are left by the wayside, rather than determining the best way to make them contributors to society (that came out sounding a little too communistic).

But other than the education system, I think things aren't as dire as you seem to indicate. Take a little Prozac and relax...people are imperfect the world over.

Re:I hope it will fly, but I have doubts

[whatch durrin]

You're kidding, right? Trading Spaces, American Chopper (which I happen to love, but hate it's on Discovery), and a plethora of "real-life" shows about such scintillating topics as interior decorating and fashion sense.

They have the occasional show that they'll tout as being scientific and educational, but all it does is present glossed-over explanations of the topic at hand. Discovery and TLC have seemingly been lost forever to the entertainment wars.

If this is learning to you, please don't ever become a teacher.

Re:I hope it will fly, but I have doubts

[Joey7F]

Sweden and Norway watches, by and large, the same programming as Americans. I am not sure about Germany (though did see Friends there). China? The average person isn't educated at all (don't forget, it is a big ass country, it isn't just hong kong and beijing it is mostly rural!)

--Joey

Re:I hope it will fly, but I have doubts

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, I remember that episode of the Sopranos where Tony had the psychic killed because they freaked him out. I know the Russian mafia has an anti-telepath group, and crew members on that "crossing over" show keep mysteriously winding up dead...

Re:I hope it will fly, but I have doubts

[dasmegabyte]

No. But "it is a waste of resources better spent on ideas that already work, and have not been shown to be problematic" is a great reason to abandon a new idea. And it is too rarely used. Instead, people like to present every single foolish idea and strike it out like it was a gold rush.

As much as science and exploration are about trying what's new, they are also about contemplating hypothesis and possibility. Contemplation does not mean glazing over obvious problems. In fact, true contemplation should be as callous and forthright as reality itself, otherwise it's useless. Have we learned nothing from the bust?

I have presented what I feel are several very reasonable blocks to a science channel, as well as the basic fact that I probably wouldn't watch it. The problem of making science complete and yet exciting is one which is paramount to the issue here. It can be overcome, I know, I've seen Cosmos. But I also know that if there was a channel running Cosmos 24 hours a day interspersed with commercials for cooking sprays and deodorant and high milage oil, I wouldn't watch it. I also don't watch G4, Tech TV, MTV or Sci-Fi, channels which seem to pander to my interests and yet remain completely uninteresting to me. That's not cynicism. That's not sarcasm. It's realism...arguments extrapolated from a sarcastic, cynical reality where to most people science is boring and ignorance is bliss.

Re:I hope it will fly, but I have doubts

[Mybrid]

Their web site claims that they will air lectures in their entirety and unedited much like CSPAN. It doesn't sound like this is targeted for the mainstream, but a niche market. Persumably for this to really work the schedule of lectures would need be published well in advance and folks in different fields would tune into lectures they care about. This is kinda like ESPN where you only watch the sports teams you like and perhaps Monday night Football.

Most seminars I've been too though I would never air on public television. Boring content or boring speakers. My experience has been that most folks with PhD's don't present well. Also, the Q&A in some fields can devolve into shouting and negativity. Scientists love to pick on each other and can be down right nasty. I think the programming would a challenge.

To that end I think the best way to program it would be like the Common Wealth Club or the World Affairs council where people are invited to speak in a public forum. In fact I've heard many scientists speak on the Common Wealth Club. I for one wouldn't mind CSN airing Common Wealth Club science lectures.

In science we rely on experts and expert opinion. Experts can give their opinion without explaining everything, but inform us just by being convincing. For example, I went to a science lecture by a nuclear physicist one time who talked about nuclear power plants. That sounds intimidating, eh? But it wasn't. The premise was, "are nuclear power plants ok to use?" His answer as the expert? No. Why? Because to date we have no way of safely disposing of nuclear waste. Nuclear waste is "waste" for thousands of years. We have no containers that last thousands of years and as a culture we are burdening the problem on many future generations to come. His lecture took an hour and was never aired on public television, but it should have been.

Re:I hope it will fly, but I have doubts

[Anonymous Coward]

That isn't really a scientific theory. How can you distinguish it from any other "theory" of how psychic phenomena work? Not mentioning, of course, that there isn't even any evidence that these phenomena exist. And if you're applying it to ordinary senses, again, what evidence is there that "the world we live in is actually an interference pattern"? What does this theory explain about our senses that ordinary cellular biology and neurobiology do not?

Re:I hope it will fly, but I have doubts

[Anonymous Coward]

Uh, yeah, it works, about 70% of the time for forecasts in the 3-4 day range.

Re:I hope it will fly, but I have doubts

[aimew]

Reality is what it is, somebody has to pay the bills. "Pure science" has too few people's interests to attract sponsers.

If you want real science, get off your couch and take a class. What it sounds like is you want a free education.

Re:I hope it will fly, but I have doubts

[whatch durrin]

Actually, I've already received an education in electrical engineering. I just wish channels which claim to be "learning" and "discovery" channels would present topics that allow viewers to do just that - learn and discover. Right now, the only thing that's discovered is how to remake a room on a thousand dollars.

Shows presenting real science have aired before, and even succeeded. Other posters have mentioned many.

Re:I hope it will fly, but I have doubts

[Nucleon500]

int message(istream& in, ostream& out, string search, size_t min_distance, size_t max_distance)
{
int retval = 1;
unsigned int linenum = 1;
size_t first = 0;
size_t dis, i;
char ch;
bool match;

// converts search to lower case and removes all but letters
for(i = 0; i < search.length(); ++i) {
if(!isalpha(search[i])) {
search.erase(i, 1);
} else {
search[i] = tolower(search[i]);
}
}

// allocate the buffers.
size_t datalength = search.length();
size_t length = datalength * max_distance;
const char * const data = search.data();
char * const charbuf = new char[length];
streampos * const posbuf = new streampos[length];
unsigned int * const linebuf = new unsigned int[length];
size_t eofs_left = length;

for(i = 0; i < length; ++i) charbuf[i] = 0;
in.unsetf(ios::skipws);
while(eofs_left) {
// the eofs_left system is so that we get all of the file.
if(!in.eof()) {
in >> ch;
if(ch == '\n') ++linenum;
if(!isalpha(ch)) continue; else ch = tolower(ch);
} else {
--eofs_left;
ch = 0;
}
// get and validate a character, put it at first, and increment first.
charbuf[first] = ch;
posbuf[first] = in.tellg();
linebuf[first] = linenum;
first = (first + 1) % length;

for(dis = min_distance; dis <= max_distance; ++dis) {
match = true;
for(i = 0; i < datalength && match; ++i) {
if(data[i] != charbuf[(first + (i * dis)) % length]) match = false;
}
if(match) {
cout << "each\t" << dis << "\tfrom\t" << posbuf[first] << "\tline\t" << linebuf[first] << endl;
retval = 0;
}
}
}
delete [] charbuf;
delete [] posbuf;
delete [] linebuf;
return retval;
}

Re:I hope it will fly, but I have doubts

[aimew]

Yeah, well I guess that's why they call it 'entertainment' after all. I don't watch much of it myself.

Look at it this way, you get what you pay for and little else. Anything worth anything is worth paying for.

Audit a few classes, that's ceaper and keeps you away from the boob-tube.

Re:I hope it will fly, but I have doubts

[Mark of THE CITY]

omit the smiley, get a straight response. oops :)

I can see it already...

[blackmonday]

The first reality show featuring Stephen Hawking! No strip club cam, please.

Re:I can see it already...

[blackmonday]

Conan O'Brien said it best:

"It was reported that astrophysicist Stephen Hawking recently visited a London strip club. While at the strip club, Hawking was overheard saying, 'Hey, the universe isn't the only thing that's expanding.'"

Re:I can see it already...

[Anonymous Coward]

Boy is that guy ever unfunny.

Re:I can see it already...

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, but he is a brilliant scientist.

Re:I can see it already...

[scotch]

Conan O'Brien is the poster-child of mediocrity in pop culture. His success is a promise to the dull, unfunny, untalented, and lazy that they too can have their fame in today's world. He has reached new lows for the art form known as the late-night talk show monologue. Watching him beat a dead horse, repeat the same joke in several differnt forms, or jump to the obvious punchline makes me want to tear my ears off. It's as if the writers for TV's friend gave a crash course in how come up with the obvious joke, and Conan passed the course in flying colors. Conan, if I ever meet you, I will punch you in your unfunny throat.

If your idea of humor is posting the "nerds don't get no sex!!1!" joke for every even remotely appropriate slashdot story, you might like the comic stylings of Conan o'Brien.

Re:I can see it already...

[blackmonday]

You probably didn't complain watching all the Simpsons episodes that guy wrote, back in the heyday of that show...

Re:I can see it already...

[Seanasy]

If your idea of humor is posting the "nerds don't get no sex!!1!" joke for every even remotely appropriate slashdot story, you might like the comic stylings of Conan o'Brien.

Obviously, this poster is a nerd who can't get laid.

Re:I can see it already...

[scotch]

Take my wife, please !!!!!!!!!

Re:I can see it already...

[scotch]

He may have done some funny stuff in the past (don't know which episodes he wrote), doesn't mean I have to respect his poor attemts at comedy he makes now.

Re:I can see it already...

[whatch durrin]

The degree to which a comedian is funny is a matter of personal opinion (which by the way has absolutely nothing to do with this topic).

But...I think Conan's funny, and apparently many others do as well. Do I find other types of comedy entertaining? Sure. It's all about my mood at the time.

What?

[st0rmshadow]

What? You mean The X-Files WASN'T real?!

Well, I've wasted my life.

Re:What?

[Anonymous Coward]

No. X-Files is real. The Learning Channel though, is all faked.

Re:What?

[Anonymous Coward]

You can't say that, the redhead is right!

Re:What?

[Jason1729]

By The Learning Channel do you mean TLC? They used to be The Learning Channel, but they changed years ago. Now they fill their schedule with reality TV shows that make survivor look high-brow. For example, a show where they get couples to let a stranger plan their wedding on a small budget, a show where the hosts spend an hour say how horrible the guests wardrobe is, and a lot of home makeover shows like Trading Spaces.

Oh yeah, I almost forgot...their answer to Fox's Magic Secrets Revealed was a series of shows showing the same tricks and pretending they're real. They're also big on shows on paranormal phenomena, also prentending it's real.

Jason
ProfQuotes

It wouldn't be interesting...

[Lohrno]

"REAL" science would probably not be interesting enough to be palatable to the masses. The (Discovery) Science Channel is probably the closest that you're going to get...

Re:It wouldn't be interesting...

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, when I think science, "Monster Garage" is the first thing I think of.

Re:It wouldn't be interesting...

[eln]

Yes, Discovery and its spawn started out with much more true science and documentary style programming, and look what they turned into.

Any "real science" channel is going to end up transforming into the same type of thing as Discovery and the many channels it spawned as the bean counters in charge search for ways to increase viewership, and thus profitability.

Re:It wouldn't be interesting...

[Guppy06]

Nova on PBS does more with a few hours a week than the Science Channel is able to do with seven whole day's worth of programming.

Re:It wouldn't be interesting...

[Anonymous Coward]

Wrong. C-SPAN isn't "palatable to the masses" either. Nor C-SPAN II. In fact, I'm sure almost no one watches a significant chunk of the crap on digital cable (compared to, say, MTV), but it is still there.

Re:It wouldn't be interesting...

[SubtleNuance]

Read the article(site)!

They clearly say that CSN will be modeled after C-PAN. No frills (low production) content about science...

There is room for Fox News (fiction) and there is room for C-PAN (reality) -- which one do you watch?

Re:It wouldn't be interesting...

[hibiki_r]

I guess someone is using Perl a little too much lately. Fortunately, instead of a channel discussing Perl modules, we're stuck with C-SPANInstead.

Business model?

[Thinkit3]

Why not take the business model of public broadcasting and work from donations? The immediate problem will be funding. Sadly, the majority of people are unevolved morons, and advertisers want to target a majority. The only way to keep shows on psychics and astrology off the air is to rely on direct donations (or subscriptions).

Re:Business model?

[Bull999999]

Because an average person would rather spend $50 on games/booze/weed than making a donation to the physics channel.

Re:Business model?

[Anonymous Coward]

Why not introduce a $0.05 tax on booze and weed to support physics channels?

Re:Business model?

[Anonymous Coward]

"Because an average person would rather spend $50 on games/booze/weed than making a donation to the physics channel."

in a perfect world, my booze and herbs tax would go to funding science yes i have no problem with that.

Re:Business model?

[Anonymous Coward]

What's a physic?

Yawn...

[BigDork1001]

Put it all together and you have the Cable Science Network (CSN). A C-SPAN for science.

I don't think they should be shooting for the C-SPAN of science. That's not exactly the most entertaining of television for the majority of Americans. They will have to spice it up in some way while still sticking to true science. Otherwise its audience will only be those who already are truly into science the same way that most who watch C-SPAN are already very much into politics.

Re:Yawn...

[Sheetrock]

Today's Internet culture is an example of what happens when you have to mix entertainment in with something good.

If I want a good time I'll spend a night on the town. They don't need to keep dumping packets of sugar into everything else I consume just to make it palatable to mouthbreathers.

I get your point, but I don't think they're shooting for ratings. They just want to be included in the cable packages along with all those other crappy stations we've got to buy along with the two or three we watch.

We know one thing

[Anonymous Coward]

A real science channel wouldn't tell you "500 Internal Server Error" a quarter of the times that you turn it on...

Presumptuous

[Anonymous Coward]

I think it's a bit of a presumption to cast john edward off so quickly. I've seen 2 documentaries on the guy and he comes across as the real deal. So mod me down, there's more to reality than the physical world and you know it

Re:Presumptuous

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, but there's no way he can ever get elected. That's why I'm voting for General Clark.

Re:Presumptuous

[Anonymous Coward]

he comes across as the real deal.

That's the point, isn't it? All scam artists are extremely convincing. That's their job. What he does is something called cold reading. It is so old that it was debunked 200 years ago. The fact that it lives in is that people want to believe that there is something after this life.

Ask yourself this question - How come all the dead he talks to are so damn tricky. They only tell them the first letter of their name, they never tell him which person they are their for, and they are always so indecisive.

Re:Presumptuous

[yngv]

It's easy to close your mind, call him a 'fake', and dismiss the argument. What's hard is trying to discover what it is he's actually doing. Perhaps he is a fake, but maybe he's in touch with types of energy that our white coats haven't discovered yet. As you poo-poo that statement, try to remember that only 100+ years ago, our best and brightest only knew of two types of energy, and now we know of four. How can you say that aren't more? Did you look? Can you disprove their existence? If so, publish your findings; I'd love to read them.

A respectable scientist would look at what John Edward does with curiosity and study it, then either prove it, disprove it, or draw no conclusion. To make the blanket statement "All psychics are fakes" without even meeting one is not worthy of a true scientist. INVESTIGATE FIRST!

Re:Presumptuous

[Yunzil]

What's hard is trying to discover what it is he's actually doing.

Uh, no. It's known how he does it. He's doing a "cold reading" act, combined with having microphones listening to the audience before the show so he can gather information, plus some creative editing before the show goes on the air to make it look like he did better than he really did. Not too hard, really.

Bill Nye the Science Guy

[ChesireKat]

"Do you ever wonder what a REAL science channel would be like?"

Bill Nye isnt real...?

uh-oh.

"MOMMMMMMYYYY!!!!!"

Now I must question even something like whether Santa is real. You should be ashamed

Re:Bill Nye the Science Guy

[sTalking_Goat]

Say what you will, but Bill Nye actually made me care about science.

Re:Bill Nye the Science Guy

[Colonel Cholling]

Oh, please. Bill Nye only has a career because today's kids have too short attention spans to appreciate Mr. Wizard. Now there was a science show. A crusty, ill-tempered old man teaching children to perform dangerous experiments with common household items. You actually learned something after watching that show. Bill Nye's show is just a goofy song-and-dance variety show that spends half an hour on innane skits in order to teach a single, moronically basic concept like "water is more dense than air." Not for me. I want to see more kids getting electrocuted trying to make a glowing pickle.

All Things Considered Science Friday

[vtechpilot]

NPR's All Things Considered dedicates their entire show on fridays to exactly this sort of programming. Granted its only one day a week, but honestly, I don't think I would care to hear more than that. I do like that fact that you can call in and contribute the conversation, but I guess talk radio isn't for everybody.

Re:All Things Considered Science Friday

[phliar]

You mean Talk Of The Nation's Science Friday with Ira Flatow?

Re:All Things Considered Science Friday

[Anonymous Coward]

Gee whiz, you're dumb.

(See phliar's reply for more details.)

Re:All Things Considered Science Friday

[vtechpilot]

Oh man, how embarassing. I always get those two shows mixed up. Oh well.

No moon Landing?

[TheDarkRogue]

Well at least they are denying the Landing on the moon and not The Existance of the moon it self

Oh Get Real...

[still_sick]

The article complains that most current science channels "pander" to grab ratings by airing UFO specials and whatnot. Well jebus people, what does that tell you? It should tell you that the "real" science shows DON'T GET THE RATINGS. I agree that it'd be nice to have a "real" science channel, but it will die a horrible horrible death when people realize just how boring it is (to the masses).

Re:Oh Get Real...

[Monkey-Man2000]

Then why hasn't CSPAN died? Or CSPAN2? They're horribly boring, but they still manage to survive. Apparently, there is a niche for that type of programming, why not science?

Re:Oh Get Real...

[still_sick]

My point is not that "it's boring so it won't survive".

My point is that if the current science channels need to resort to "pandering" to make ratings, what makes anyone think that they can get enough ratings to live without "pandering"?

Re:Oh Get Real...

[Mupp252]

From C-Span's offical website:

"C-SPAN is a private, non-profit company, created in 1979 by the cable television industry as a public service."

I agree with the parent. The channel doesn't sound like it would be a ratings grabber.

Re:Oh Get Real...

[Monkey-Man2000]

I don't get the impression that they will be trying to grab ratings to sell to advertisers like the traditional science-related channels. It sounds more like they'd stick a video camera in a university classroom and transmit that. (i.e. The CSPAN of Science). It seems this would require a fairly low-budget, and probably be supported by donations and grants. Therefore, no need to pander.

Re:Oh Get Real...

[Anonymous Coward]

Then why hasn't CSPAN died? Or CSPAN2? They're horribly boring, but they still manage to survive. Apparently, there is a niche for that type of programming, why not science?

Most cable companies are required to carry "local access" channels and C-SPAN as a condition of their franchise.

Re:Oh Get Real...

[DoraLives]

"real" science shows DON'T GET THE RATINGS

With each passing day, TV becomes more and more irrelevant. The only people watching that crap anymore are bored children, jockstrap drongos, and that great heard of idiots who seek to be titillated by talk show mopery, unfunny sitcoms, hollywood trash glitz, perhaps a monster truck or two, and the everpresent Daily Dose of Death which masquerades under the name "News."

An interest in science bespeaks of at least SOME modicum of intelligence on the part of that person showing the interest.

Those of us with brains that think have long since put the TV in the rearview mirror, where it's getting smaller with each passing mile.

And besides, I've got the fucking INTERNET for my science channel!

Re:Oh Get Real...

[windex82]

If a company can keep getting/giving, however its working, funding for CSPAN, how hard would it be for a company to get funding to provide a feed for experiments, lectures, and other related tapes sent in by people who tape what they do related in the field?

It seems like it would need even less of a budget then CSPAN.

Re:Oh Get Real...

[Anonymous Coward]

Real science doesn't get the ratings because it doesn't get shown.

Here in the UK, the BBC will often schedule an evening at the Glynbourne opera ot a special broadcast of Mahler's 27th symphony (or such like, if there is such a thing)

Extremely intelectual artistic stuff which only ever draws a small audience.

Ihey NEVER schedule serious science programs in this way.

Since the mid 1980s when they changed the emphasis of their entire science broadcasting there have been very few non-human interest science shows, although why anyone considers children being operated on to be science I don't know.

the problem is that the people who commision and schedule the programmes don't understand and don't like science (by their own admission), so none but the bare minimum gets made for "educational" reasons.
RJG.

Re:Oh Get Real...

[raodin]

Actually, a at least a few big colleges do something like this already. Not necessarily just science, but its the same idea. At least, I know University of Washington does, and I've seen some big science (astronomy, usually) lecutres on it.

Re:Oh Get Real...

[jonabbey]

And tons of PBS and NPR affiliates make a go of asking people who actually do care to actually contribute to the cost of the programs.

If CSN is basing their model on C-SPAN, then it won't be like anything Discovery is doing, but it also won't be so expensive to produce programming for.

Of course, C-SPAN is subsidized by cable companies.. we'll have to see how CSN gets its funding.

Re:Oh Get Real...

[dasmegabyte]

Because CSPAN, and CSPAN2, are in the regulation law for the cable networks. They HAVE to carry them, and as basic cable ($20/mo), too. That was one of the few restrictions that survived deregulation.

Good thing it's in there, too. Because regardless of whether anybody watches them (and I know I don't...and I AM interested in government and the arts), CSPAN and CSPAN2 do not make any money for the cable companies, and that's bandwidth that could be used for a couple more home shopping networks.

Re:Oh Get Real...

[Anonymous Coward]

Not sure which channel shows it, but have you ever seen the Christmas Lectures that are on every year. I have noticed that they seem to be aimed at a younger audience every year but can be interesting.

Just look in your TV guide around the week of Christmas. You should find them...

Paul

Re:Oh Get Real...

[whatch durrin]

IIRC, C-SPAN was created because of an agreement between the cable companies and the US government. C-SPAN doens't depend on ratings, they're funded either way.

Ideally, this would be how a science channel would operate as well - no commercials, no fluff, just science. Ahhhhhhh.

Sorry, but...

[Anonymous Crowhead]

...I really doubt this would counter anything. The people who watch fox and sci-fi channel 'science programs' (and believe it) would not be interested. They might watch something like Penn and Teller Bullshit, but that is about it.

"The Science Channel"

[Anonymous Coward]

The Science Channel, owned by discovery, will give you all the stock footage pulled from secondary school educational videos you could ever want. As with all the discovery channels, they use the same stock footage over and over and over, just adding short new segments to make it appear more up to date.

Waiting for ages for a real 'discovery' channel

[butane_bob2003]

I like the discovery channel sometimes, even the shows where comedic (questionable) naturalists run around in the jungle molesting every animal they can find. Remember the PBS shows where you got to observe animals without someone running around trying to catch them? Ok, those were pretty boring. Educational TV just doesnt sell to the masses, and the masses are the ones watching all the TV out there.

Re:Waiting for ages for a real 'discovery' channel

[littlerubberfeet]

National Geographic is developing a channel. It is on satillite TV and a few cable networks. The Explorer TV show currently on MSNBC will be moved in about a year to another network or the Channel.

National Geographic uses a three-source rule when determining factual accuracy. They might be a decent science channel eventually. Currently their programming is slanted towards human-interest and natural history, but they are looking to expand.

We might already have our science channel in the making...if they decide not to try and imitate the Discovery networks.

Disclaimer: I work for a company that does a plurality of its' contract work with National Geo.

Re:Waiting for ages for a real 'discovery' channel

[Anonymous Coward]

Did Peter Arnett use this "three source" rule?

Re:Waiting for ages for a real 'discovery' channel

[Anonymous Coward]

Thank you! you actually made me laugh.

Well, you see, technically, he was only reporting what he saw, unscripted. It was subjective. Scripted shows follow the three fact rule.

He "turned native", told some half truthes and managed to piss off a lot of people, hence his rightful firing. The amusing thing was seeing Peter Arnett and Geraldo both defend themselves on the other's network (MSNBC and FOX respectively). National Geo was called, by the NY Times I think, the fig leaf that covered Arnett for NBC. Shame on --nameless Nat. Geo. TV exec-- for allowing that to happen.

If Only...

[Anonym1ty]

I wish I could find "The Mechanical Universe" I used to love that show as a kid.... I remember all the formulae moving around on the screen as they wor worked out. -That show taught me algebra, geometry and calculus through physics before I was in 5th grade.

Re:If Only...

[kaotech]

Here you go.

Re:If Only...

[Quasar1999]

I remember all the formulae moving around on the screen as they wor worked out. -That show taught me algebra, geometry and calculus through physics before I was in 5th grade.

Ah yes, but it obviously didn't teach you spelling... Although intuition works for most of the show's demonstrations, your intuition failed you when you tried to sound out the word 'were.' ;)

Re:If Only...

[garyrich]

I agree. It is one of few examples I can think of that were "real" science on TV. But Scientific American? Didn't they already whore themselves out for some terrible pop science TV thingy? A quick google says yes - it was that 3rd grade pop science thing with Alan Alda. I think that disqualifies them as the standard bearer. There are enough channels now that a real science channel that carries enough content to take someone from the scientific ignorance that the school system produces to a general 4 year degree level seems possible.

Even better than Mechanical Universe as the model for a channel(s) would be The Young Ladies Illustrated Primer (Diamond Age for the 2 people here that don't get the reference).

TLC is just as bad

[Anonymous Coward]

"The Learning Channel"

Yeah, right

All they teach is:
-how to paint a wall ON TOP of existing wallpaper (Trading Spaces)
-how to dress 40 year olds like sexy teenagers (What not to wear)

Oh, and they try to convince you every weekday for hours that the only way to be happy is to to the following in order:
get a makeover
get a blind date
get married
get pregnant
brag about it on tv

Re:TLC is just as bad

[spaceyhackerlady]

The two programs you mentioned are remakes of British programs, both of which are actually pretty good.

I don't know what's happened to TLC lately. I have fond memories of The Secret Life of Machines and Junkyard Wars, back when it was a lightly rebranded Scrapheap Challenge. Not the silly show it has since become.

My perennial beefs with "science" programming are all the usual ones: too much emphasis on biology, zero coverage of the process of science, too many pretty pictures with zero words to go with them, and so on.

Of course there are counterexamples. I saw a current episode of Scrapheap Challenge on vacation in England recently, and it was the original, un-messed-with format. A hoot, in other words. Another nice counter-example was Rocket Science, done by the (Canadian) Discovery Channel.

How many stories have you ever seen about mathematics? I can only think of two (Femat's Last Theorem and the 4 Colour Theorem).

I wish there were more.

...laura

I wonder

[Anonymous Coward]

Who owns the rebroadcasting right to the Biggest Douchebag in the Universe award ceremony? Any show featuring John Edwards has got to be scientific and inspirational.

Here's one!

[KillerHamster]

http://slashdot.org/search.pl?topic=134

What would the content be?

[lordDallan]

I think the biggest challenge of having a "real" science network would be the programming.

Science isn't something that explodes with sensational discoveries each week, at least not the kind that are easily translatable into hours of television programming.

Seriously, if there was a science network, what would be on it?

Re: What would the content be?

[Black Parrot]

> I think the biggest challenge of having a "real" science network would be the programming.

> Science isn't something that explodes with sensational discoveries each week, at least not the kind that are easily translatable into hours of television programming.

> Seriously, if there was a science network, what would be on it?

PBS's NOVA has pretty much degenerated into a series of human interest stories. (Still better than most broadcast TV fare, though.)

Re:What would the content be?

[poptones]

Scientific American Frontiers (older) NOVA Connections Brief History Of Time Cosmos Various NASA programs Various BBC programs And, because this is the new age of post-glasnodst communication, don't forget all those old Soviet science programs. And I'm sure china has some as well they would be willing to share with the world. It would be incredibly interesting to see tranlations of the various iron curtain "technology demonstrations." Would they be objective? Probably no more than NASA programming of the era. But as newsreel footage it represents a very real documentaton of part of that history, and until now few of us in the west have seen ANY of it. This concept alone would probably be enough to fill several seasons, and the productions costs would be relatively low.

Re:What would the content be?

[Joe Tie.]

Science isn't something that explodes with sensational discoveries each week, at least not the kind that are easily translatable into hours of television programming.

It could be. You'd just have to hire those people at the newspaper who take the smallest indication that there's a chance that a theory has been proved to mean it's fact, and we could get all kinds of programming. We could have the "Cure for cancer found!" channel, the Cloning channel, the "Immortality pill to be created!" channel. It's as limitless as the quack science reporters working at major papers!

Re:What would the content be?

[GuyMannDude]

Oh, I don't know about that. I'm not sure that the "average joe" would really care too much whether the programming was cutting-edge science or stuff that was simply new to them. I think there are much bigger obstacles that a channel like this would face.

Just my two cents

GMD

Re:What would the content be?

[$ASANY]

Given what I've seen of the general populace, and what would likely draw viewers, a science channel lineup might look like this:

6PM: News based entirely on polls, so Americans might know whether they're thinking properly (i.e.: in the majority) or whether the majority is whacked ( i.e.: they're not in the majority)
7PM: The science of fashion - what the celebrities wear and why people think it's "kewl" - a discussion by expert panelists
8PM: Brittney Spears' music - psychologists discuss the meaning of "I'm not that innocent"
9PM: Online dating guide show - the scientific matching of people based on realtime audience voting
10PM: Science you can use: how to use Microsoft Word
11PM: Intelligent Design Hour - it must have been God.
12PM: Viruses are Bad: how to spot a virus my the header of an email message, and why not to open anything entitled "Join The Crew"
1AM: Video Game Roundup!

American's wouldn't generally know science unless it crawled up their ass and bit them on the tongue.

Re:What would the content be?

[Anonymous Coward]

I'd like to see some shows where they teach the basics of a process. Such as carbon dating, oil refining, sewege treatment, earthquake epicenter location, etc... Sort of a "what this type of scientist does for a living" show. No freaking vague "social science"! Physical science only.

I'm imagining it's going to be mostly lectures and presentations though. Which is better than most of the CSPAN stuff there now.

But only...

[Kedisar]

if it had Bill Nye.

Re:But only...

[Anonymous Coward]

and/or Beakman.

And that rat dude.

as the web page says

[Anonymous Coward]

its trying to be a CSPAN for science. its not trying to be a meganetwork. i'm sure it could get ratings comparable to cspan if they try hard enough. i really like the idea

I'm Carl Sagan

[Anonym1ty]

Hi I'm Carl Sagan, and throughout my life I've said my name millions and millions and millions and millions and.....

Next Up: Carl Sagan speaks on grains of sand....

Re:A [FAILED] Slashdot Haiku

[Anonymous Coward]

the second line has
eight syllables, dumbass, plus
what season is it?

Why Cable?

[Anonymous Coward]

Is it really necessary for this to be a cable channel? Sure it'd be convenient, and I'd love to see it happen, but couldn't it perhaps start as an internet broadcast instead? It seems much more feasible.

Fake moon landing?

[incom]

The only dubious thing in my mind about the moon landing is the use of thin gold foil for spacecraft walls. Can someone point me to a link that explains how this is possible? Honestly, I WANT to believe int the moon landing, but my gut says its fake.

Re:Fake moon landing?

[Anonymous Coward]

You should get a gut-ectomy. Yours is stupid.

Re:Fake moon landing?

[Anonymous Coward]

Your GUT says it's fake?

STOP THE PRESSES!

This guy's gut feeling is that moon landing was faked!

You are a fucking imbecile. Did you go to school? Go to the fucking library and get out a book on space technology, you putrid waste of organic material. You make me sick. It's people like you who refuse to think for themselves that fuck up the world. I would wager all my money that you've never even read more than some random website on the subject, and the only reason you think it's fake is because you distrust the government, probably because you smoke a lot of pot and are afraid of them.

How close am I to correct?

Re:Fake moon landing?

[Anonymous Coward]

The Apollo LEM massed almost 15,000 kg. The gold comes from a mylar ("Kapton", to be precise)-foil thermal blanket used as insulation, which replaced a rigid heatshield as part of a redesign to save mass. They were not, however, structural elements of the LEM.

Here's a link to some rebuttals of some of the more common moan hoax arguments.

It is fairly common for a pseudoscientific argument to rebut some "fact" that's not even true in the first place. The lack of explanation for how gold foil could be used for lander walls doesn't necessarily mean that the lander didn't have walls! Never assume that questions posed by cranks are even well-formed in the first place.

Re:Fake moon landing?

[Anonymous Coward]

The only dubious thing in my mind about the moon landing is the use of thin gold foil for spacecraft walls.

Dude, it was 1969 (& the early seventies). Gold lame' was everywhere back then.

Re:Fake moon landing?

[Ossur]

Jeez, and i thought you was jokin.

Re:Fake moon landing?

[Anonymous Coward]

Don't feed the trolls asshat.

Re:Fake moon landing?

[Anonymous Coward]

Read Chariots for Apollo, chapter 17.

The walls weren't gold foil. (The gold foil was outside in the mylar layering for insulation.) They were thin (two sheets of newspaper thickness) aluminum. Metal is stronger than you think: a frame like that can stand up to the launch g's (though the original frame they were designing couldn't; the original walls were even thinner).

(Note: this is thinner than aluminum foil, but the whole hull wasn't made out of it: they were attached to stronger ribbing. Think of the lunar module as a rigid "skeleton" draped with thin "skin".)

They walls were still relatively weak: you could kick through one. That's why the interior was shielded from the outer walls by fiberglass shields, plastic covers, and false floors.

PBS and National Geographic

[zrail]

Does nobody remember the program NOVA on PBS? That was/is hardcore science for the masses. Come to think of it, almost any scientific program thats on PBS is "real" science.

National Geographic Channel is also composed of almost all real science stuff. I don't think I've ever seen a sensationalistic program on there.

Discovery Science

[Anonymous Coward]

Obviously the poster of the front page story, AND the editor (what do you know, its michael) do not watch Discovery Science. And boo hoo if you don't get it, call your cable company up and order it! You'd have to do this anyway for your "new science channel".

Come on people, do a little research before you go blabbing to slashdot. Whata karma, err, ego whore.

Discovery Science is where its at.

Re:Discovery Science

[Kallahan]

It's now just The Science Channel. But its the same exact channel.

MOD PARENT UP!!!!

[Anonymous Coward]

The parent is the owner of slashdot.org domain, according to Verisign.

No, I wouldn't.

[MagikSlinger]

Wouldn't you love to sit in on some of those presentations rather than waiting to hear about one of them in a 30-second encapsulation on network TV?

No, I wouldn't. Most of these presentations are duller than paint drying, and I've seen video of ones I was interested in. Also, Michael sounds like he wants it to be the Skeptics Network. I think the Skeptics movement are their own worst enemy. They sound as shrill as the people they're attacking.

I would love real science on the Discovery channel and TLC (back when it used to do that occasionaly), but you know what needs to happen first? More content. More production. That costs money. Real money. Horizon by the BBC kicks Nova's ass most of the time, and when it doesn't, it's because Nova is actually showing a Horizon documentary with Peter Coyote narating instead.

We need documentary makers who'll make interesting documentaries about math, physics and other hard sciences. I'm sick of the "animal/nature" specials that are nothing more than an hour of "Awww! Look at the *cute* animals!" Feh! At least Steve Irwin makes it interesting.

If you want to do an animal show, do it like Sir David Attenburough and make it about the science. I want the details. I want the cold, rational view of things that teaches me things I didn't know. You can talk about the philosophical or subjective aspects of it too, but it's first about the science, then the human side. Example: Industrial Revelations with Mark Williams for Discovery Networks Europe. All too often (like in Horizon/Nova's doc about Fermat's Last Equation), it's only about the human side.

Balance, people! Is that so much to ask for?

Re:No, I wouldn't.

[Joe Tie.]

I think the Skeptics movement are their own worst enemy.

I often feel the same way. I'm not going to mention the shows name to avoid stepping on any toes, but one show that features a lot of debunking annoys me for this very reason. Instead of intelligent argument and presenting the facts, they'll usually themselves resort to advertising tricks to try and manipulate the viewer to their own view. I understand the reasoning behind it, debunking psychics isn't overly exciting - especially if the methods involved controlled experiments. Effects, hype, and music are more of a ratings grab. But in the end I wind up being as fed up with them for being almost as manipulitive and condecending to their viewers as the people they started out debunking. It's nice that they'll come right out and admit that they're trying to manipulate the audience as well, but it's still annoying.

Re:No, I wouldn't.

[softspokenrevolution]

Well to be fair, Nova is a coproduction of the BBC and WGBH, one has a lot more money...

Re:No, I wouldn't.

[MagikSlinger]

Well to be fair, Nova is a coproduction of the BBC and WGBH, one has a lot more money...

Yes, WGBH Boston, so you have to wonder what their excuse is.

NOVA is not a co-production with the BBC. It's an all-American show that sometimes teams up with international TV producers to make shows. E.g., they've teamed up with just NHK a number of times and they often co-pro for specific shows with a German TV broadcaster as well as the BBC so that's why it seems like it's a co-pro. When the same show airs in England, it's usually on Horizon. Although lately, they've teamed up more with Channel 4 rather than the BBC lately...

Re:No, I wouldn't.

[Vellmont]

No, I wouldn't. Most of these presentations are duller than paint drying, and I've seen video of ones I was interested in.

Hmmm.. Maybe you'd only been exposed to the poor quality presentations. I've gone to the Nobel Conference for the past 4 years and the ratio of interesting/boring is somewhere from 60%-70%. I think that's pretty damn good considering the wide range of topics at the conference (everything from ecomomics to evolution). The nobel conference is a 2 day yearly event where some of the top people in branch, or branches of science and at least one nobel laureate come to talk on a particular science topic.

Granted the Nobel conference isn't just random scientists speaking, but a science channel certainly would pick out the cream of the crop too. They could certainly make arrangements to air the Nobel Conference every year, as well as video of past conferences. There's really tons of good content out their that's fairly accessible to the average person interested in science.

Quite frankly I think it's inevitable that a channel dedicated to science is created as more and more bandwidth becomes available for more and more different cable/satelite channels. The only question is when it will happen. I hope soon.

Re:No, I wouldn't.

[undef24]

Check out the Discovery Science Channel know known as the Science Channel. Get digital cable.

Re:No, I wouldn't.

[MagikSlinger]

We don't get that in Canada. :-(

Re:No, I wouldn't.

[nmos]

Quite frankly I think it's inevitable that a channel dedicated to science is created as more and more bandwidth becomes available for more and more different cable/satelite channels. The only question is when it will happen. I hope soon.

There's already plenty of spare bandwidth but apparently it's more profitable to use it for infomercials than programming.

Re:No, I wouldn't.

[Hephaestus]

Sadly, even the BBC isn't making the level of inteligent documentaries that it used to. :-(

Re:No, I wouldn't.

[ddimas]

I agree with you. I do think that he wants it to be the skeptics network. Unfortunately, I don't want to watch a thinly veiled attack on religion.

This whole Science Channel stuff is bringing back memories of Thesis Defences. Ahh the joy of learning about "The Chemistry of Non-Benzine Conjugated Ring Systems". The thrill of discovering that no one had noticed you sleeping because everyone else was asleep, thank goodness the room was dark (wait, that didn't help). The adulation given to the PhD candidate who had managed to get six overworked and highly caffienated Professors to sleep.

The joy of asking the lecturer to repeat that last part because we had PASSED OUT FROM SHEER BOREDOM!

Face it, most scientific lectures are so boring that you have to drink a gallon of Greek coffee (a lethal dose, one 8 oz cup boosted my heart rate from my normal 60 beats/min. to 130 beats/min.) just to stay awake, and those are the subjects that you are interested in...

it would fly only if...

[downix]

they get some nutjob speaking in a bad australian accent saying some nonsence word constantly to grab ahold of deadly substances with his bare hand, thereby giving the audience a false sence of danger and excitement.

It worked for Animal Planet.

Re:it would fly only if...

[Anonymous Coward]

Crikey!

Re:it would fly only if...

[jejones]

No, the thing to do is to bring back Beakman's World ! With all due respect to Bill Nye, Beakman ruled.

Re:it would fly only if...

[Anonymous Coward]

What, you dissin' Steve Irwin now?

His shows are way cool :-) Although a bit dramatized, but as you may have guessed it is intendent for the younger audience.

Naw, look at dis' daaangerous snake! It's really posawnous, so you dawn't wanna get any near it.. Now I'm gonna grab it by its thrawt so y'all can see!

I mean, who don't like that? It's almost like Jackass! :)

Re:it would fly only if...

[downix]

I agree 100%! Beakman rocked!

Re:it would fly only if...

[UserGoogol]

Different niches, to be fair. Nye took a somewhat broad subject and explained it as in depth as a 30 minutes kids show can offer, whereas Beakman explained two subjects and a random splattering of short questions.

As it happens, Nye is working on a new TV show for slightly older audiences. "Eyes of Nye." As far as I can tell, it's still working its way through development at KCTS/Seattle, but it seems like it has potential if it gets on the air.

What's the point with John Edward???

[Anonymous Coward]

Does he even pretend to be scientific?

Why is science interested in this guy? Why is he the opposite of good science as the article suggests? He's on the SCI-FI channel, the "SCIENCE FICTION" channel, that should give you a clue.

He has nothing to do with science, doesn't seem interested in the subject, and approaches his act from a spiritual angle. Why is he put forth as an example of what's wrong with scientific televion?

What next, PSICOP putting a camera in someone's throat to "bust" transubstantiation?

Re:What's the point with John Edward???

[Anonymous Coward]

Dr. Gary E. Schwartz is trying to bring real science to the subject, but all he gets from other scientists is derision and ridicule. What he needs is more help. I think his experiments can be reproduced elsewhere with similar results.

Gary Schwartz

GARY E. SCHWARTZ, Ph.D. is professor of psychology, medicine, neurology, psychiatry and surgery at the University of Arizona and director of its Human Energy Systems Laboratory. After receiving his doctorate from Harvard University, he served as a professor of psychology and psychiatry at Yale University, director of the Yale Psychophysiology Center, and co-director of the Yale Behavioral Medicine Clinic. He has published more than four hundred scientific papers, edited eleven academic books, and is the co-author, with Linda G. Russek, Ph.D., of The Living Energy Universe.

Science is boring

[AsmordeanX]

Science is boring. True, people (myself included) are entertained by documentarys covering major events or discoveries but the vast majority of it is enough to drive most people insane.

Any grad student that has been forced to sit though someone's lecture on how their NMR data yielded a different result from the guys that did it two years ago will understand.

Oh I know, how about a show on how one does titrations and thin layer chomotagraphy. OH BOY!

In case someone really wants to know, you could just find a lecture at a local university and sit in on a class. Few places actually check to see that the students sitting there really are students.

Re:Science is boring

[goodhell]

I have to disagree with you very strongly. Science is not boring. The people who present their data make it boring. That and the lack of understanding make it boring.

I know this from first-hand experience. I did my undergrad in BIS, and am now doing my masters in Environmental Engineering. In doing this transition, I've had to make up for all the knowledge I hadn't gained in my undergraduate career.

We have a seminar every week. People present a report on their work, and we get to listen and ask questions. At first, this was extremely boring. Why? Because I didn't understand the significance of what they were saying. Nor did I understand what they were saying. But now that I've put a lot of the classes behind me and have made up for that lost knowledge I'm enjoying these lectures more because I do understand what they are talking about and how it can effect me, my research, the environment, etc.

The other point, that the people make it boring is very true. A lot of times they are so wrapped up in what they are doing that they don't realize that others don't have a clue what they are talking about. Either that or they just don't have the ability to communicate and present their data so that a majority of the people can understand it (and at the very least keep awake). Communication is a skill that is not well developed in the geek community. Most geeks have the opinion of "Let me just stick to my work, I don't need to take this course on presentation because it doesn't (insert any excuse)." So they don't get the opportunity to develop a skill that would help bring them more $$$ in terms of research.

Although my professor doesn't make us take communication courses (or even suggest that we should), his ability to communicate with lay people gives him a great ability to bring in research money for the school.

If science people could develop this then I think we could find more people interested in it and therefore 3. Profit!!!

-------

So are the Chinese

[Anonymous Coward]

The chinese really didn't launch a man into space this weekend. How can you trust that from a nation that lies, cheats, and steals from everyone else? They beat down their citizens and steal their money.

The billions that were spent on this space program employing a mythical 300,000 people really went to line the pockets of the already fat dictators of china. It was all a scam to keep their people thinking they were actually doing something to benefit china, all while 400 million of their citizens go hungry tonight.

Good job china, you fucking retards.

Re:So are the Chinese

[Anonymous Coward]

How can you trust that from a nation that lies, cheats, and steals from everyone else? They beat down their citizens and steal their money.

sounds like you're talking about USA

lets see

lies : WMD - check
cheats: Enron,tyco - check
steals from everyone: see Enron,Microsoft

yep just try this regexp on your post

s/China/America/gi

Re:So are the Chinese

[Anonymous Coward]

Thanks.

Let me break it to you...

Everyone lies, cheats, steals.

Re:So are the Chinese

[Anonymous Coward]

How can you trust that from a nation that lies, cheats, and steals from everyone else?

You mean like the US of A?

Re:So are the Chinese

[Anonymous Coward]

I have to say that I agree with you there. It's not about bashing the USA. The facts stand for themselves. Or are they not true? You gotta see where they get their examples from:
"I am not a crook" - Nixon
"I was out of the loop" - Bush
"I did not have sexual relations with that woman" - Clinton
"...weapons of mass destruction..." Bush Jr

What it would look like.

[MisterFancypants]

I imagine it would take the form of the ghostly white snow of a dead channel within a few weeks of launching. Since my local cable carrier won't pick the channel up to begin with anyways, at least I won't have to mourn the loss.

NPR has the right model.

[.milfox]

They could start by doing it on public access on multiple areas, asking for donations (Paypal/Amazon sounds great to me) online to fund their first couple episodes. They can be non-profit getting individual pledges and educational sponsorships. Think PBS without the .gov subsidy and with all science content.

A real science channel.

[Anonymous Coward]

For all 6 real scientists. While a science channel is a nice idea, on some level it does have to be dumbed down to some degree. We aren't all specialists, and one of the main focuses of a science channel is to get youngsters (who aren't specialists either) interested in science. The level of the scientific programming must be chosen very carefully.

While We are making fun of John Edward....

[vtechpilot]

Recall the PVP Online fun when Scott Kurtz roasted him. Pick up the storyline here.

Re:While We are making fun of John Edward....

[eqteam]

While I thought the Kurtz cartoon was funny, I don't think it really gives John Edward a fair chance, especially for those reading here who have never actually watched the show, or been in the studio for one of his shows. I am not here to defend the man, but the cartoon is a drastic over-simplification of what he actually does do. I know there are plenty of examples from the TV show where he seems to be "reaching" for it, but there are just as many situations that leave me with a lot of doubt about him faking it, even though I am not a believer (in him at least).

I was recently dragged to one of his local appearances, and it left me wondering even more. Specifically, there were no "prior interviews" (I asked someone afterward who was talked to by Edward) and he didn't do the usual "digging" for information I have seen so many other "pychics" do in my lifetime.

No judgements, just continuing to observe...

Re:While We are making fun of John Edward....

[Anonymous Coward]

>the cartoon is a drastic over-simplification of >what he actually does do.

So is the show. It's heavily edited and there are plants/microphones in the audience :)

Come for the music, stay for the science

[Atario]

CSN[1] should use CSN[2] for their music.

[1] Cable Science Network.
[2] Crosby, Stills, and Nash.

Re:Come for the music, stay for the science

[mr_walrus]

Y ? :)

[perhaps many are too young to get my reference ;]

Re:Come for the music, stay for the science

[Anonymous Coward]

too young

Poor Neil, dead as a doornail...

[fewer still will get this reference. goodbye, pop!]

ABOUT TIME!!!

[Mr. Flibble]

About the only things on TV that intereste me are documentaries: Nova, Nature, Nature of Things, Daily Planet etc. The rest is really not worth my time (episodes of any Star Trek I have not seen notwithstanding... =)

I mostly get my science fix online, or though print.

Michael Schermer (who wrote the article) also wrote one of my favorite books: "Why People Believe Wierd Things" it is second only to Carl Sagans "The Demon Haunted World, Science as a Candle in the Dark" (Which is mentioned in the article.) - Both these books are worth a read if you have not taken a look at them. I hope that this network covers "myths" in the same way those books do. (And Given that Shermer is working on this, and that he works on Skeptic mag, I would suspect that the network will include shows of that nature.)

Sci Fi Channel

[jolyonr]

Um, there's a reason why it's called the Science Fiction channel.

Just sit back and pretend to be entertained. Or switch over. Bah.

Re:Sci Fi Channel

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, John Edward isn't a fictional character. He really claims to talk to dead people.

Re:Sci Fi Channel

[Thorstein]

LOL

Ever see the south park where they make fun of him and call him a fraud. Great stuff.

I like the Sci- Fi channel because it is FICTION! and besides... what once was sci fi is now real....

Submersibles 20000 Leaguse Under the Sea
Spaceships to outer space almost all sci fi, pre 1950.
UFOs ;-D

Re:Sci Fi Channel

[ctwxman]

This is so true. I hosted Inside Space, a science fact show on the SciFi Channel, until someone in charge realized what we were doing! Great show. Great job while it lasted.

I used to tell people it was like doing the Celibacy Show on Playboy.

Entertainment Value

[Kanan]

A lot of brilliant minds do not give good lectures or teach well. I somehow doubt listening to a lecture by Stephen Hawking would hold the masses attention very well. This channel would be targeted at those who are interested in science, but those people also surely also want to be entertained. Discovery science, the last time I watched it a year ago or so had a good offering, although they needed fewer repeats and they could have benefited from the idea of having the occasional science lectures. I think the format of interviews with the scientist and then explanation by the narrator with diagrams and such to explain is the best way. The main impediment to a science channel, is that all those people who don't want to learn about such things. TLC never calls itself the learning channel any more, after all, learning isn't fun, lets just show some "reality" decorating shows. Discovery has gone way down hill as well. Both of these channels used to be far better when I first discovered them many years ago.

Re:Entertainment Value

[Anonymous Coward]

TLC never calls itself the learning channel any more, after all, learning isn't fun, lets just show some "reality" decorating shows. Discovery has gone way down hill as well. Both of these channels used to be far better when I first discovered them many years ago.

Glad I'm not the only one to notice that! The History channel has a reasonable number of watchable "learning" shows still so I've fallen back on it, but it too could be much better.

Re:Entertainment Value

[EvilTwinSkippy]

What I find funny in all of this is that Cable companies want to throw up even MORE channels. But every content provider more or less is trying to grab EVERY eyeball instead of grabbing a few eyeballs all of the time.

Let's think of it this way. How much does it honestly cost to run a Cable channel? Yes you have to produce content, but this is Science people. Ditch some glitz, and edit using a handicam and a Mac running Premier.

Now with a ultra-low budget, go find some free suppliers of content. One area the comes to mind immediately are PH.d candidates. Each and every one of them is begging to be published. Have them work with your production staff to work their thesis into a segment on the show. It won't be long until you are turning content away.

Worst case, you'll inspire a dozen or so sister stations that will specialize in a certain discipline.

Re:Entertainment Value

[utahjazz]

I somehow doubt listening to a lecture by Stephen Hawking would hold the masses attention very well

I've been to a Stephen Hawking lecture. It was fantastic. Most of the people had no science background, but everyone hung on his ever word. This after waiting for hours to get in, and running a gauntlet of creationist protestors. (That's right, they picketed a pure-science physicist in a wheelchair).

Way funner than that shitty CSI show.

Re:Entertainment Value

[ddimas]

NOOOOOO! Not The Thesis Defence Channel!

Must Stay Awake...

ZZZZZ......

Plenty of entertaining stuff...

[Mr. No Skills]

I think there are plenty of cool science tricks they could squeeze in to keep you watching.

"And now a word from our sponsor, and when we come back we'll throw this bar of sodium into a swimming pool!"

"Welcome back, and how's our jello doing in that liquid nitrogen?"

Gosh, high school chemistry could be like MAD TV...

Re:Plenty of entertaining stuff...

[MikeXpop]

You're basically describing Bill Nye the Science Guy. That went on for quite awhile, and I even watched it in school up to Biology (as a freshman).

Re:Plenty of entertaining stuff...

[ShadowBlasko]

"Welcome back, and how's our jello doing in that liquid nitrogen?"

Now *that* makes me think of one man. A man who made science and physics *very* interesting (and fun) to me.

No, its not Bill Nye, although he is cool.

Nope, not Don Herbert either, although I must say that our beloved Mr Wizard certainly entertained and educated me more than I can really express in words, it was just the other kids that he had on the show that annoyed the hell out of me.

(Then again, I really miss those afternoons after school. Mr Wizard at 4:00, Dangermouse at 4:30, and You Can't do that on Television at 5:00, now that made for a decent afternoon)

Nope, just one person pops into mind.

Julias Sumner Miller

Julius
Sumner
Miller (warning, scary music and horribly made page)

Granted, he looked like a mad scientist, but he made physics cool to me. And he made mistakes, and that was one of the things that made it so fun to watch! Not only did I learn why things work, but he also taught me to *wonder* why things work the way they do, instead of just accepting that they work.

I am so very happy that those shows still air daily here on PBS in the states.

Sure the editing was atrocious, and the film was grainy, and the music just .. well .. was wierd, but If they would put those old shows on DVD, I would spend that money in a heartbeat, not only for myself to watch and enjoy again, but for my kids.

Heck, the messes that they would make in the kitchen couldn't possibly be as bad as the ones I made right?

THAT was the kind of show that, in some bizzare "train wreck" way, I just could not stop watching. Hell, I still watch them if I happen to channel surf past them in the afternoon.

Although, if I let my kids watch Mr Wizard also, I am going to have to watch it before they do, just to make sure I edit out that one episode where he teaches you how to make the hot air balloon with a dry cleaning bag, a few straws for a frame, and a little pile of burning sterno as a heat source. Then it was up, up, and away!

I have a strange feeling that if my kids were to copy that little trick, they might be branded as junior terrorists at this point.

We Already Have Some

[Isao]

Not that I want to get in the way of Ann Druyan (seriously), but there are already a few channels that do this. They might not be included in your TV lineup, so contact your provider.

The Research Channel, University of California, The University of Washington channel, HealthTV, University House, Educating Everyone.

The Research Channel in particular has some great lectures, and is available for free on Galaxy 10 Ku band with a 1 meter dish.

I'd like more, though, and if Cosmos Studios gets behind it, perhaps they will retransmit the Cosmos series for all to see.

Discovery Science Channel

[Anonymous Coward]

Discovery has a channel dedicated to science already.

John Edwards

[H0NGK0NGPH00EY]

I think perhaps this would have been a better link for "fakers."

Re:John Edwards

[EvilTwinSkippy]

The rub with common sense is that it's not all the common, and it involves gestaltic thinking rather than sensation.

Re:John Edwards

[wayward_son]

Isn't he seeking the Democratic nomination for President?

Seriously, he couldn't be worse than the part-time Senator from N.C. with the same name.

Re:John Edwards

[yngv]

Nice link on cold reading, but lousy information in the 'FACT' section. It was written not by an impartial person but by someone who desperately wants to show that all psychics are fakes, the end, no discussion. Reads like an isolationist pamphlet.

FACT 1 is just wrong (he uses 'showing' and 'telling' fairly equally)

FACT 2 is fairly irrelevant to JE, and is not backed up with any report (may be right -- shouldn't call it a fact without documentation)

FACT 3 is rambling and changes subject halfway. yes, guessing someone's birthday (particularly just the month as JE often does) is not very convincing. AFAIK, JE is 'wrong' on many tidibits too. this could mean he's a fake, or he misinterprets. This doesn't disprove psychic ability, just accuracy.

FACT4 implies that he only uses generic facts (and the argument thereafter is valid). But he often uses very specific facts that would require the readee to spill ahead of time, or his alledged crack team of investigators would have to break into people's homes to get details.

FACT5 states it was on the SciFi channel, therefore MUST be FICTION. Brilliant....

FACT6 the guy is running out of straws. He was a ballroom dance instructor, therefore CANNOT be psychic. If I recall, there was this German patent clerk who made a pretty significant career change....

Now that I've totally debunked the debunker, it is absolutely clear that you must now completely believe everything I have written, and you no longer need to think, as I have done it for you!

Honestly, I don't know if the guy is on the level or not, but I'd like to keep my mind OPEN to the possibility.

BTW: his name is John Edward. not Edwards. If you investigated him at all you should know that.

Answers:

[shepd]

#1. See if the Nasa channel can help.

#2. Get a Free to Air satellite system (cue North American "Huh? What's that" and European "Yeah, why the hell don't you have that there?" answers) and start watching those university networks! They're all over various satellites. You get all sorts of high-end lectures for free. It might not be everything, but it's sure a start.

Re:Answers:

[Anonymous Coward]

#3. David Shepherd is a fucking troll.

He declared that he could build a computer that would be as good as but cheaper than any Mac. When challenged, rather than admitting his mistake, or even taking a swipe at it, he just turned and ran away.

David Shepherd is an anti-Apple zealot and a troll. Please moderate his posts accordingly.

Oh, the horror...

[Shoten]

Christ, can you imagine the Slashdot effect a channel like that would have???

uh oh

[Anonymous Coward]

time to change my pants.

I'm so tired of seeing things like "wedding story" and "trading spaces" on the learning channel. they may very well be good shows that lots of people enjoy, but they really aren't educational, and you don't really learn anything while watching them.

You are speaking out of your ass

[Anonymous Coward]

Most of American knows nothing about science

Oh yeah, lets go hating on Americans now, try to make them look stupid. Its the popular thing to do, right?

Jesus Fucking Christ! It is America that has the freest and most open scientific community in the world. Why do scientists from all over come to JOIN our scientific realm? Why do we allow others to enter our scientific community? Why do we foster it from within? BECAUSE WE LOVE SCIENCE!

It seems that people [read Americans] do not want to learn any longer. They do not want to be challenged.

Riiiight. Where is the worlds leading scientific, medical, technology, etc produced? Well, let me give you a fact, yes, based on hard statistics: THE USA. Oh, but you employ foreign workers, you cry. True, but they are only a small FRACTION of our brain power. Plus, they want to become Americans anyway.

Saying most Americans know nothing about science is like saying Hitler loved the Jews. It is a totally wrong, biased, and backwards statement.

You my friend, are suffering from cerebral anoxia secondary to cephalo-rectal intussusception. Go look that up or ask a real doctor what it means. He can tell you what your problem is.

Re:You are speaking out of your ass

[Anonymous Coward]

U R TEH GHEY!! LOL!! WTF!!!!

Re:You are speaking out of your ass

[Anonymous Coward]

>Saying most Americans know nothing about science is like saying Hitler loved the Jews. It is a totally wrong, biased, and backwards statement.

Not quite.... you are correct that the US is a leading country in sciences. But unfortunately, the people that cause this lead are mostly foreigners, PhD's from India, Korea, China, Japan and such.

fakers?

[Alpha_Nerd]

Yes, I'm sure the Sci-Fi channel is attempting to fake being a science channel...

Re:fakers?

[taustin]

Actually, the Sci Fi channel is attempting to fake being a Fox channel.

80s Learning Channel and Discovery Channel

[suso]

Before they "dumbed down" TLC and the Discovery Channel they used to show hard core stuff like The Mechanical Universe, which was pretty much a video taping of the freshman physics course at Harvard with some extra stuff thrown in. THAT was educational.

Re:80s Learning Channel and Discovery Channel

[Colin Douglas Howell]

Actually, The Mechanical Universe was based on the first quarter of the Caltech freshman physics course, as taught by David Goodstein, who was the instructor for all the episodes. It was filmed in the Caltech lecture hall used for that course.

I took Caltech freshman physics only a year or two after The Mechanical Universe was filmed, and the first quarter, still taught by Goodstein, followed the series fairly closely, though with a much faster pace. The room was also obviously the same. Many of the "students" in the series were actors, though.

Re:80s Learning Channel and Discovery Channel

[suso]

That's cool. I don't know why any of the students in the class needed to be actors since they never really participated or said anything.

Re:80s Learning Channel and Discovery Channel

[cyberwench]

Well, no matter how interesting the class, without actors you'd probably get one person sleeping, one reading, a couple people talking... actors look like students without causing all the annoying distractions.

In the UK, BBC2 ain't bad

[arevos]

In the UK, the BBC has a lot of good science programs. BBC2 more really, because of the connections with the Open University, but there's also some other interesting things on. It's a long way from being a dedicated science channel, but it does a better job then any other channel I've seen, even the ones on Cable/Satellite.

Science Shack is good, with Adam Hart-Davis and his enthusiam for odd and fun experiments. Time Commanders is something I should mention, even if that's more military history, but only because I enjoy strategy games, and the idea of letting contestants take one side of an famous battles is good. If only they'd do a head-to-head version too :). The Human Mind and other documentary series like that are interesting, and deal with a lot of biology stuff. The Sky at Night is the longest running program in the world, and is interesting if you're into astronomy. Then there's also Rough Science, which is where a group of scientists have to complete tasks such as panning gold or building a generator whilst stuck out in the middle of nowhere with little resources. And Hollywood Science I like too.

Now if only they'd take all of these and all the rest and stick them on one channel for convenience :)

Re:In the UK, BBC2 ain't bad

[Hephaestus]

Thank God for the Open University. They are now making programming with the level of science in them, as the BBC used to back in the day. Sadly the really good, old OU programming is no longer being broadcast.

I watched on "UK History" (for US readers this is a sat/cable channel part owned by the BBC - 90% of the content being old BBC documentaries) an episode of "Horizon" (think "Nova") from 1986. It was about the Falkland's war; and how ship & weapon designers had learnt lessons from what went wrong. The explanations of the problems, and their solutions - was in far more detail than anything I've seen anyone make about the (first) Gulf war, for example.

I've also seen two OU programs about the same subject (Lanchester models); one from the mid 1990's, and one from the early 1980's. The newer programme was a superficial glimpse at the general principles - not mentioning the underlying mathematics at all; and actually doing a rather poor job of explaining anything. The 1980's one (despite being the same length), explained everything in great detail; and went on to show two Lanchester models actually "predicting" the results of the battle of Trafalgar, and (I think - I can't remember exactly) a WWII air battle.

Sadly it seems that no broadcaster credits their audience with any kind of intelligence any more.

Re:In the UK, BBC2 ain't bad

[arevos]

I feel a similar way. Maybe it's just nostalgia, but the level on science on TV seens to have decreased. Personally, I adored Local Heros, though I have to admit I haven't seen much of Science Shack, recently.

It would certainly be nice if there were more technical programmes on TV, rather than dumbing them down to the lowest common denominator.

Also, it seems, there has not been a single technical programme on software or computing made so far to date. At least, none that I have seen. Anyone know of anything being shown like this?

Science, eh?

[onyxruby]

So will this be pseudo science like is taught in most public and private educational institutions (where books are reviewed for politically correct content that varies throughout the nation), or will they eschew the potential for educational or tax dollars and focus on real science? There's money in the former, science in the latter.

Discovery Channel showed that it was actually possible to have documentaries on stuff that wouldn't put people to sleep and History Channel usually doesn't botch things too badly. Both are reasonably accurate a decent chunk of the time, and both seem to be quite popular. Point being, intellectually engaging material can have an audience.

The moment they talk about anything that shows the Earth to be more than 6000 years old they will lose any chance of educational opportunities in conservative places like Texas. The moment they talk about nature having merit over nurture they will lose liberal places like California and New York. The question isn't if this could succeed, the question is whether they science or education, for they cannot do both.

Re:Science, eh?

[EvilTwinSkippy]

Amoung my many aquaintances are a few historians. All of them snicker when I mention I've seen something on the History Channel. The problem with HC is that TV does not handle differing viewpoints all that well. In one case outlined to me by professional historians, they guy who got most of that airtime in one presentation is considered a crackpot in the field. But he photographed well.

Also look at their selection of subject matter. Their call letters might as well be WWII.

Major Problem With Their Description

[Performer Guy]

Geeze, congressional hearings on science? Political Debate? C-SPAN of science?!!

NO, how about some REAL content. These idiots mentioning this channel make it sound crap because they just don't get it. Just because science doesn't interest them and C-SPAN doesn't interest them, does NOT mean the programming will be similar.

Imagine lectures and programming on leading edge science topics. Educational programming with real meat on the bones. Demonstrations of the latest theories and experiments. Visits to international research labs. etc etc. Documentaries on the latest Astronomical discoveries and theories without the idiotic self promoters. Programming on technology of all sorts. The list goes on.

Only a complete ass could hear "science channel" and think "congressional debates on science".

Geeze, it that's it, it will fail, I don't want to see a bunch of ignorant old farts trolling for votes & lobbyist dollars to keep their fat asses in Washington.

Give us CONTENT!

John Edward is a Fraud.

[13Echo]

John Edward: But I'm a psychic.
Stan: No dude, you're a douche.
John Edward: I'm not a douche! What if I really believe that dead people talk to me?
Stan: Then you're a stupid douche
John Edward: I think I've had of your bullying me! Get out of my house or I'll runs upstairs, lock myself in my panic room and call the police!
Stan: I'm nine years old.
John Edward: I'm not talking to your friend and I'm not a douche! [runs up the stairs and towards his room] You'd better get out of my house, 'cause I'm gonna call the police! [Stan looks at him like he's nuts; he locks himself in his panic room]

Canadian Discovery Channel

[Bondolo]

Every time I go back to Canada I am stunned at the difference in quality between the US Discovery Channel and the Canadian edition. While the US version seems to focus on UFOs, John Edwards, Junkyard wars and other hocus pocus, the Canadian version has real content, interviews and articles about real science.

In particular the US version has NOTHING like the Daily Planet program. I don't know why it is that the Canadian version of Discovery Channel is SOOOOO much better.

It's depressing that there is no market incentive to produce a real science channel. With the Discovery channel and affiliates as part of basic cable and covering (squatting on actually) the "science beat" there is little hope that we will see competition.

compare :

Discovery Channel (USA)

Discovery Channel (Canada)

Re:Canadian Discovery Channel

[forkboy]

Most cable providers offer Discovery Science which is an offshoot of Discovery that focuses more on real science and less on pseudoscience. It's a really good channel that offers documentaries on everything from biology to medical science to astronomy.

Just so you know that there is SOME real science on TV here. (Oh, and John Edwards is on the "sci-fi" channel, not Discovery)

Re:Canadian Discovery Channel

[Anonymous Coward]

The US Discovery Channel has forked a number of times. It split off into the History Channel (which itself then spun off International History, taking most of the good stuff), while keeping the "Discovery" for the squirrels and such. Discovery then split again into several Discovery channels: Health, Science, School, Wings (yes, a whole channel for the one show and its spinoffs) plus the original. They also do Animal Planet and The Learning Channel.

In the course of all these spinoffs, the original has become a pale shadow of its former self. There's only so much content, and now its split among a dozen channels. The current "Discovery Channel" is thus a bit thin, like butter scraped over too much bread.

(There's still hope, though, if only they can bring all the other channels together and bind them again into the One Channel to Show Them All.)

Re:Canadian Discovery Channel

[Anonymous Coward]

You canadians are crazy. Like having a music channel that plays misic videos all the time!

Re:Canadian Discovery Channel

[undef24]

I am beginning to think that the people here are too lazy to even LOOK for a real science channel. The Discovery Science channel has been around for over a year in my area. This whole thread is moot! GET DIGITAL CABLE, PEOPLE!

Re:Canadian Discovery Channel

[cyberwench]

If the Canadian version is that much better, we're in big trouble. =) You watch it enough, it gets pretty bad. Admittedly, Daily Planet is a bright spot.

And for those people suggesting folks get digital cable to get "Discovery Science"... sorry, I'm not shelling out the extra cash just so I can get the three more channels I want. Besides, how long will it be before Discovery Science goes all fluffy and you have to subscribe to super-digital cable to get the new Discovery REAL Science channel? Discovery used to have good animal shows too... until they moved them all to Animal Planet, which you also can't get here without digital cable. Their strategy seems to be to see what people like, then to split it off onto its own channel. Their basic programming definitely suffers for it.

Re:Canadian Discovery Channel

[Anonymous Coward]

Discovery Science still sucks. The same documentaries that are shown on it, are shown on regular Discovery. The only difference is that Discovery Science shows more of them more often. It is still the same boarderline edutainment crap that you watch in 7th grade general science. Perhaps here in the US, everyone is too stupid and scared of math, science, and that also leads to technology. Which means that at most we get Discovery Science and the rest of Discovery * and TechTV. Woo hoo!

It would be nice to have some real shows where even a few of them assume you've had some basic college classes in the field the show is on. Not all have to be that way, but it would be nice if say there was a show about the mechanics of flight that could assume that you've seen an integral before. Or a show on sociology that assumes you've had Sociology 101.

Re:Canadian Discovery Channel

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh, and John Edwards is on the "sci-fi" channel, not Discovery

And it's the "fi" for fiction that fits what he does, not the "sci" part.

Science Channel, Yawn

[killmeplease]

Science channel huh? Do you remeber how fun it was in Physiccs class or Biology class in college. It was great for me because it wasn't writing term papers the size of novelas but there was certainly moments in my classes when I wanted to shoot the professor or myself because the details are so mundane in real science.

Beyond the type of stuff on the Discovery channel, which is really Science/History rolled into one and is pretty interesting to watch when you have nothing better to do. What more in detail do we want?

That said, I think as a society we are way behind the rest of the world in respects to math and science as a whole (Some of the greatest social acheivements in science and engineering have come from the US). Look at the crazy math geeks out of the Eastern Europe and pit them against a math geek and they will be quoting the proof to Fermat's Last Theorem while our geek is talking about Magic the Gathering Cards. Maybe if we focused television away from sitcoms and over to intelligent programming we may see things change. I know if I could watch my college lectures at home with some cheesy poofs, a beer, in my underwear while my girlfriend is giving me a hummer I would be more apt to go to class and pay attention. I could do that with a real science channel.

Science Channels

[webhat]

I always considered the researchchannel [1] and uwtv [2] as good science channels. So they show
mainly uni lectures, but as science only channel go that's a start. I've even seen a lecture on
good OO practise.
There are a number more such streams, including childrens channels. And what about the discovery
channel, so it's not so indepth, but it has got the science slant.

[1] http://www.researchchannel.org/webcast/asx/rtv-lan .asx
http://www.researchchannel.org/webcast/asx/rtv-mod em.asx
[2] http://www.uwtv.org/asx/uwtv-lan.asx
http://www.uwtv.org/asx/uwtv-modem.asx

Re:Science Channels

[gerardrj]

Yup, I'm glad at least a few others know of those channels and the web sites with the video clips.
DishNetwork carries both, along with I think one or two other university based channels. The Research Channel I think is Univerity of California's, UWTV is University of Washington. There may also be a Rutgers based channel.

On top of that I also regularly watch NASA TV which frequently does educational/lecture type shows, and they seem to show almost any testimony (that's not classified secret) by the administrator to Congress.

Discovery Science channel isn't too bad, and the National Geographic channel is great for Earth/nature based science and education. "Daily Planet" and "National Geographic Today" are two great news shows for finding out what's really going on the world besides just the local house fire, bank robbery, who's running for governor in a state where you don't live, etc.

And of course, the Weather Channel is great for learning about meteorology with some of the shows they have.

Perhaps the author of the article needs to spend a little more money and get a good satellite DBS, or a higher tier of service from his cable provider. I can't imagine all the "science" that I get on these channels being crammed in to just one channel called like "ultimate science".

Not Fair

[Anonymous Coward]

Have they forgotten people also have satellites? What does this news mean to satellite users? NOTHING. Both DirecTV and Dish Network take it in the ass because of "cable" premium channels like the YES Network.

Let's not make fun -- he's worse than that

[GuyMannDude]

The thing that bothers me so much about the coverage that John Edwards gets is not so much that he's spouting bullshit. There are tons of people who do that. What upsets me is that he is preying on people who have suffered emotional losses and is preventing them from achieving a natural recovery. I'm flabergasted that no one has publically gastigated him for this.

For those unfamiliar, Edwards claims to be a psychic who communicates with the dead. So people who have lost a loved one and are having troubles letting go come to his show and ask Edwards to help them communicate with the deceased. I won't go into the details of Edwards' tricks on how he gives the illusion of a successful communication. The problem is that once someone "hears" from their dead friend/spouse/lover/etc., they are essentially deprived of the opportunity to make final peace and closure with the death. After all, you can always go back to Edwards or some other psychic and have another "last conversation" with them, right?

Any psychotherapist will tell you that closure is a very diffcult but important thing for someone who is grieving to achieve. Edwards, by claiming to circumvent the absolute ending of death, is depriving these people of that finality that they require to move on with their life. There's nothing wrong with remembering a loved one, of course. But what Edwards is doing is just plain wrong. It's not just fraud -- it's cruel and I believe it causes signficant emotional damage to those who fall for his tricks by preventing the natural healing mechanism of closure from ever really taking place.

GMD

Re:Let's not make fun -- he's worse than that

[Anonymous Coward]

"I'm flabergasted that no one has publically gastigated him for this..."

i guess you dont watch the south park because they roasted him better than anyone. im not american so i had no idea who John Edward was. but now i do. the biggest douche in the universe!

Re:Let's not make fun -- he's worse than that

[jonabbey]

Best. Southpark. Ever.

Re:Let's not make fun -- he's worse than that

[yngv]

If he is a fake, then I totally agree with you. The problem is that you call him a fake without even checking him out. It's sad to see people of high intelligence like the slashdot crowd (shameless gathering of support, i know) throw away proper scientific method such as 'research'. Most psychic research has only rendered inconclusive results: it hasn't disproven a thing.

So if you call JE a fake simply because you believe that a) there is no life after death and/or b) there can be no communication between living and passed people/souls, then you need to prove that a) and b) are true first. AFAIK, no one's been able to do that. Your personal assurance that all psychics are fakes because you just simply know is no better than any religous person insisting that there absolutely IS a God simply because it says so in a book.

Doubt, but do not discount without hard evidence.

Re:Let's not make fun -- he's worse than that

[Anonymous Coward]

So if you call JE a fake simply because you believe that a) there is no life after death and/or b) there can be no communication between living and passed people/souls, then you need to prove that a) and b) are true first.

Science isn't in the business of proof, it's in the business of evidence. What is the evidence that Edwards is performing some kind of psychic feat? What is the evidence that he isn't?

Re:Let's not make fun -- he's worse than that

[yngv]

fair enough, evidence only. Then rephrase it to read ".. then you need to show evidence that a) and b) are true first."

There is testimonial evidence that he is a psychic (people he has read will vouge for his accuracy) and circumstantial evidence against (other people can do similar readings but either admit to it being a trick like cold reading or are caught doing sleight-of-hand. But just because others do this is not proof that JE is doing it).

How do you weigh the evidence? It's all subjective for either side. So as far as I'm concerned the jury's still out. I'm puzzled by people who consider it a foregone conclusion that he's a fake, without offering any evidence (other than showing that fake psychics exist). If you can show hard tangible evidence that JE (not others) is faking, I'll be sold. Catch him in the act, don't associate him with others.

In the absence of conclusive, unbiased evidence (either way), we should refrain from depicting our conclusions as facts.

Re:Let's not make fun -- he's worse than that

[Anonymous Coward]

Fortune tellers, psychics, etc. are all fakes and they know it. None of them has ever tried to pass a scientific test of their abilities, even though the Randi Foundation would pay $1 million if someone did.

I once saw a video where some skeptic goes to see a psychic. Afterwards, the skeptic is amazed how accurate the psychic was and is convinced he is real. Then the psychic explains that the whole thing was a trick.

So how do they seem so real? They have really good communication skills. The psychic says vague things, then the person probably confirms part of it, then the psychic builds on that. Psychics just are really good at maintaining the illusion that they are psychic.

Re:Let's not make fun -- he's worse than that

[Anonymous Coward]

There is testimonial evidence that he is a psychic (people he has read will vouge for his accuracy)

(You mean vouch?)

However, what is the evidence that the testimony is truthful, that he did not collaborate with them, and that he had no independent means of obtaining the information? Where is the control, to determine how good or poor a guesser you have to be before people start believing you're accurate?

In other words, what is the reason to believe that any of this testimony represents credible evidence in favor of the psychic hypothesis? Testimony concerning the accuracy of cold readings is known to be less credible, for the various reasons given above among others, than the kind of testimony you will get in other circumstances.

and circumstantial evidence against (other people can do similar readings but either admit to it being a trick like cold reading or are caught doing sleight-of-hand. But just because others do this is not proof that JE is doing it).

The evidence, circumstantial or not, is not limited to psychics other than Edward -- there is also reason to believe that Edward operates under suspicious circumstances. We can't have rigorous evidence against, because he has not submitted to controlled experiments.

I'm puzzled by people who consider it a foregone conclusion that he's a fake, without offering any evidence (other than showing that fake psychics exist). If you can show hard tangible evidence that JE (not others) is faking, I'll be sold. Catch him in the act, don't associate him with others.

There isn't anything "unscientific" about strongly believing he's not psychic. We have a great deal of prior reason to believe that people who claim to be psychics, aren't -- they're faking it or are lucky. It should accordingly require extraordinarily conclusive evidence to sway us from our prior belief that Edward is like all the others: non-psychic. This is a straightforward implication of Bayes's theorem of probabilistic inference.

Re:Let's not make fun -- he's worse than that

[Anonymous Coward]

Fortune tellers, psychics, etc. are all fakes and they know it. None of them has ever tried to pass a scientific test of their abilities, even though the Randi Foundation would pay $1 million if someone did.

Actually, some of them have tried to pass scientific tests, and they failed. Nobody's tried to pass Randi's challenge, though.

Re:Let's not make fun -- he's worse than that

[yngv]

(yes, I meant vouch -- my bad)

You are right - there's no way for me to know that he has or has not hired shills to further his claim. However, it seems to me that he would have to pay off at least a dozen people per episode. That's a lot of people to pay to say what you want and to keep quiet.

I read your link to his suspicious behavior, but just as you believe JE is likely faking, I believe a lot of 'skeptics' relish their positions so much they themselves slant the information they collect to further their own cause. this particular author seems like he was happy to expose JE, and clouds his report with his disdain for him. I'd like to see an investigation by someone who doesn't already have a strong prejudgement either way.

One of the posters here must have read the article you pointed to and paraphrased it as his own opinion. That's scary.

The only point I'm trying to make is that we should all keep an open mind. You personally have at least engaged me in intelligent dialog and have provided good arguments. It's people who have already closed the door and refuse to even peek around the side that concern me.

Real Science Channel

[Anonymous Coward]

Its about fucking time.. I watch CPAC (Canada's political channel) for politics, but the discovery channel doesn't cut it for science.

Damnit, Offtopic

[l810c]

I had a nice LONG reply typed out and formatted. I pressed the Preview key and get a 500. Is Slashdot being Slashdotted? I'm getting these with increasing frequency lately.

I'm copying this message before I hit Submit or Preview.

Re:Damnit, Offtopic

[Anonymous Coward]

/. uses mod_perl, so it does not surprise me at all that it is having trouble. I'm seeing the same thing, too.

Re:Damnit, Offtopic

[Josh Booth]

I have too. Someone said that Slashdot is going through upgrades and occasionally borks out. But then again, this is just hearsay.

How about... Reality Science?

[turnstyle]

Lets look at what popular now. Reality TV. Does it get any more mindless than that?

How about a Reality Science show? You know, watching real scientists do things like graph data, get the right glassware, and think about stuff?

Re:How about... Reality Science?

[jpostel]

ROFL!!! I just see myself in college with my safety goggles on carefully weighing Ca0 powder. Going to the library and making photocopies. Too funny.

Interestingly enough, this is also why any show or movie about computer geeks is doomed to failure (unless it is a documentary). People are bored stiff by what we do everyday at work and at home.

Re:How about... Reality Science?

[Anonymous Coward]

...watch the lonely researcher stare longingly at the depressingly attractive lab tech, and then zoom in on his facial expression as it turns to one of utter defeat and hopelessness.

Re:How about... Reality Science?

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually there was a show called "Rough Science", I believe on Public Television. A group of scientists were isolated on a tropical island and set to solve some technical problems with the meager resourses at hand. Educational and funny. But even those producers spent too little time on the actual design of the gadgets the scientists built.

Re:How about... Reality Science?

[Anonymous Coward]

ROFL!!! I just see myself in college with my safety goggles on carefully weighing Ca0 powder. Going to the library and violating copyrights. Too funny.

Re:How about... Reality Science?

[Anonymous Coward]

Just before she walks up and asks him out, which leads to them getting married and living happily ever after.

Women really really like smart guys.

Re:How about... Reality Science?

[Anonymous Coward]

Booollsheeit. I'm not saying women like dumb guys, just that intelligence is sometimes counterproductive in getting noticed by them. Women seem to like sense of humor and confidence. The former is often a by-product of intelligence, while the latter is caused by lack thereof. Confidence usually decreases with greater intelligence just because dumb people question themselves less often, therefore seeming more "in control." Anyone who has been below the Mason-Dixon line (or to any high school) has seen this.

Re:How about... Reality Science?

[Anonymous Coward]

Except the problem is, women in the sciences get snapped up within milliseconds of entering the field ... in reality, this story would end as soon as soon as she starts talking about her SO.

Re:How about... Reality Science?

[Anonymous Coward]

There's already a reality science show, though the name escapes me.

It's like MacGyver meets Encyclopaedia Brown meets Survivor, except noone gets voted off.

Half a dozen scientists on an island, given daily/weekly goals, such as "Light" or "Headache Cure" or "Map the Island", "Photograph". They create their own electricity, distillation apparatus, paper, camera, etc. and show how they do it.

It's pretty neat, but not on the level of "CSPAN for Science".

On another note, many of the comments bemoan the general stupidity of the populace. At the risk of having my IP banned, this just shows the stupidity of the /. populace - you don't really think that during the time of, say, Edison, or Franklin that the GENERAL POPULACE cared one whit about learning Science with a capital "S", do you? Daft fools. They cared about how they were going to feed their families come winter or whether their children would live to see another spring. They couldn't have cared less about scientific method. They cared about results right now, just like today. (See how generalization is bad?)

Re:How about... Reality Science?

[M-G]

Yup. Rough Science'.

I agree that it was done with a decent amount of laughs, and was pretty good overall. But if you're science-ignorant, there was probably too much left out in the explanation of things. Of course, they put in little bugs directing you to the web site for more details, things you could do at home, etc., so I guess their goal was to just draw you in enough to read up on the topics.

TV does not allow a "real" science chanel...

[shadow099]

a "real" science chanel is an oxy-moron. The medium of TV does not allow such a thing to happen.

Reason: TV is a passive not an active device. You sit infront of the TV and watch... passivally. There is no way to interact with the TV, thus allowing you to have the experience of a real "science chanel".... we're all destined to have wanna be science.

Re:TV does not allow a "real" science chanel...

[Anonymous Coward]

you cannot observe a thing without affecting it.

Ahh... science

[softspokenrevolution]

Television isn't for teh dification of the general public, or the dissemination of knowledge an dunderstanding. Television is a magic happy box for keeping people vaguely entertained/enthralled by electromagnetic waves. Let me just say however, that I don't recall the Sci-Fi channel ever pretending to be a legitimate science netork, come on folks, they have the word Fiction in their name. It's like when they had that Blair Witch program and people thought it was about a true story, you know, because their slow. I'm not even going to get started on those John Edwards shennigans, but seriously with a big enough audience and enough practice it's pretty easy to do.

Anyhow, when I was young there was all sorts of neat Science stuff like Bill Nye the science guy (I can still vaguely recall him testifying in front of some congressional commmittee for the NSF to get some more money to fund educational programs) and you had that Beakman guy (I really like Bill Nye better to tell the truth). I can't really see a whole channel dedicated to science, I can see it as part of a broader backdrop, like say, PBS, so instead of just repeating a bunch of BBC sitcoms on Thursdays and Saturdays they could show programs in the vein of Invention, and that one tha tIra Flatow had on public television way back when, and Nova and that sort of thing. Just a thought.

Oooh.

[DrEldarion]

If they would play reruns of Mr. Wizard, I'd be sold!

-- Dr Eldarion --

popular science

[Rutulian]

The popular science magazines like Scientific American and The New Scientist have some faults, but I think they have the right idea as far as content is concerned. There are a lot of interesting topics in science to talk about without focusing on the latest genomic research. Scientific American, for example, published an article on the science of coffee a few months ago. Stuff like that can be very interesting to people and still be real science.

The challenge comes when you need to take some of the more difficult subjects, like quantum computing or drug discovery, and present it to people who don't have degrees in physics or chemistry. There is some really interesting physics and chemistry involved that can be explained, it just takes longer. You don't have to compromise the integrity of the actual science, either, by making fallacious claims or drawing erroneous conclusions in an effort to make the science more exciting. This is my major problem with some of the stuff in Scientific American and The New Scientist. Just present the facts; they will stand on their own merit.

Keith Devlin is a good example of a popular author. He is a true mathematician, but he can write popular books, like The Millenium Problems, on the most complicated current mathematical problems. Granted you have to have some patience to get through explanations of things like the Yang-Mills hypothesis, but it is completely within the grasp of someone with only a basic math background if they are interested enough to take the time.

Applied science is not

[Benm78]

'Dry' science by itself can be very boring, espcially when there is no apparant 'use' or 'good' in the findings presented.

As a (former) scientist, I think it is very important to show the relevance of your work in any presentation. Just emphasize why the story you are telling is important, and how it may affect people or society as a whole.

The only people that can see the value in 'dry' science are scientists in the same field. To any other audience, outlining the consequences of the material you present is essential.

For example, I can imagine that few people care (or even know) that an electron has something called 'spin' that can be in two directions. But many people will be interested in a technology that allows their physician to determine the exact position of a tumor without cutting them open first. If you start with a story about MRI scans, and then move deeper into the fundamentals, some people may actually like to hear the rest of the story. I doubt many people will stick around if you start with the fundamentals of 'spin' and mention medical MRI in your last sentence.

Of course, mentioning the long-term benefits of any more or less fundamental research program is common practice in fund raising... So many scientist already know how it's done, but could use a little motivation to present their ideas accessibly at all occasions...

As Opposed To ...

[Rangerk8]

...the Sci-Fi-Less Channel? Or maybe we should call it the Psi-Fi channel, since they don't seem to be able to do science fiction any more. Impeach Bonnie Hammer!

Please...

[DdJ]

Could we get a real SciFi channel while we're at it? Pretty please?

Science is a human activity, not an exclusive club

[thenarftwit]

Like every other human pursuit, science requires support from the population, not from a small group of self appointed "old boys" network. Because we are at a time in human history where our civillization is using science to discover and harness the discoveries and technologies that the activity of doing science rewards us with. To do that, we need to open up the access to science and technologys through TV programs and the use of the internet. Back in the early 1970's, a lot of TV networks did not like the idea of general science information programs, but these programs turned out to be very popular. If we move to the present, examples of popularizing science and technolgy can be found on any TV network. It would, of course, be nice to have a hard science TV network that has more than "fluff" information on it. One thing that we must remember, is that it is natural human nature, that given a group of people (in this case, people involved in science), there will always be a sub-group that appoints itself the be the high-priests of that given diciplin....remember, 20 years ago (before personal computers), 99% of the population had no access to computers, you had to either have access to a computer at work, or through a college or university. So essentially, we had this high-priesthood that regulated and controlled access to this technology. You simply could not get access to CPU's, for example, assembly language was considered to be something that college graduates and university graduates were capable of understanding, fast forwared to today, and you find kids programming computers in assembly with no problem. This is why these special interests groups can not be allowed to dictate how science is done and how it is communicated to people. Besides, people who popularize science have allways come under attack by "purists", it makes you wonder if these purists don't want people to find out that science can be done by ordinary people. Another example is the cancellation of SETI research by the republicans back in the early 90's and the treatended black-listing of people who would dare to propose and SETI research, of course, now we have seri@home and lots of cool NASA and world-wide SETI science going on. Because science is a human activity, and depends upon supports from the population at-large, to keep it growing, we should "open the gates" to more access, not restrict it to what ammount to a "dark middle ages" closed community.

Quiktime movie

[Anonymous Coward]

heh

das link

Re:Science is a human activity, not an exclusive c

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, and that's not all! The high priesthood of science also tightly restricts access to the

and
tags!

why "real"?

[protomala]

more real than beakman's world? Why science should be boring? Aren't discovery channel and bbc documentaries scientific? As a former electric engennering and now computer science student (so, probally a future scientist) I belive those channels are very fine and teach a lot.

OH yeah!

[Anonymous Coward]

I forgot, its the popular, cool, and in thing to do.. hate on the USA.

Jee, your pretty smart there buddy.

If it wasn't for the USA, you'd still be a piece of shit, but not have the ability to go blabbering your horse shit on the internet. Thank the USA for giving you the right to be free (and by that, say what you want) for once. Now shut up.

Yeah, sit back down in your chair moron.

There is only one thing more boring ...

[Anonymous Coward]

There is only one thing more boring than a real science show and that is ...

a discussion on /. about why there aren't any real science shows!!!

John Edwards

[coolmacdude]

Just out of curiosity, I actually watched a few episodes of this. I'm amazed at the stupidity of people who believe even for a second it could be real. Basically the routine goes like this,

He gets this huge audience, then starts walking. Steps over to a certain area while spewing out some shit like "I'm being drawn to this area." Then for his amazing stunt to connect with someone beyond the grave, he says something like, "A prescence is telling me that someone in this area had a father who's name started with F." Some stupid person shreaks, "Oh, that's me, dear Frank, he wants to contact me, what did he tell you?"

WTF??!!

Had you any sense of intelligence, reason, or common sense at all, you would see what a joke this is. This is the most ridiculous excuse for a psychic I've ever seen.

I'd love anything

[Anonymous Coward]

I'd love a Science Channel, "authentic" or not, TechTV, or even another national news station. However, I'd don't think I'll ever get any of those thanks to the eons that it takes for my cable company to update its listings with new channels, and its complete reluctance to drop old, unused channels (Lifetime, anyone?) that geeks never watch.

Maybe we need a channel on capitalist monopolies?

WTF?

[march]

Why would a "real science channel" be devoted to debunking fakers and disinformation?

That is *not* real science. Get a clue.

Now, a channel devoted to real science AND a channel devoted to debunking bad science. That would be cool.

Anyone who thinks there isn't "real science" TV...

[Illbay]

...hasn't seen "Bill Nye the Science Guy!"

Anyone remember TLC years ago?

[freeweed]

Ah, Discovery Channel. Where I fled after TLC turned into complete, utter garbage.

TLC started by showing what seemed to be several hours a day of Connections, one of my favorite shows ever. Anyone know if you can get it on DVD?

Within a few years, shit like Trading Spaces somehow got labelled as "learning", and now TLC is basically soap opera fluff on a low budget. A Dating Story, A Baby Story, A Makeover Story, While You Were Out... on and on with the sentimental Martha Stewart drivel.

Perhaps the closest thing to educational on TLC is Junkyard Wars, which many Slashdotters swear by, but really: it's rocks for jocks, or rather, big hunks of metal being welded together for jocks.

Discovery (I understand it's a bit different up here in Canada) lasted for a while longer, but sure enough, Crocodile Hunter started the downhill slope. Steve, after a few shows you're just not funny anymore, and I wish that damnable dog would get chunked by a croc someday.

Now Discovery is about half "MONSTER GARAGE" (hey, it's how they pronounce it to make it sound cool to Joe SixPack) and its 80 other derivatives (monster HOUSE?!?! what kind of crack...).

Another poster mentioned the National Geographic channel, and it's not bad, actually. A bit dry compared to Connections, but c'est la vie I suppose. Also nice is the History channel, but up here they play about 50% movies, and not very good ones at that.

*sigh* Thank your lucky stars for the Internet, kids. Television really truly does suck these days, unless you find the 315th episode of Friends to be enlightening.

Re:Anyone remember TLC years ago?

[CTachyon]

TLC was bought out by the Discovery Channel quite a few years back, before the fluff even. It was probably 1995-97ish when they merged. Hell, TLC's official website is tlc.discovery.com.

Re:Anyone remember TLC years ago?

[cyberwench]

Discovery (I understand it's a bit different up here in Canada) lasted for a while longer, but sure enough, Crocodile Hunter started the downhill slope. Steve, after a few shows you're just not funny anymore, and I wish that damnable dog would get chunked by a croc someday.

While I know a number of people who find him annoying, I just can't get over the fact that Steve Irwin managed to do a fantastic job of getting good info out on the non-cute-and-cuddly endangered species. I'd say that's one of the highlights of the Discovery Channel, and it definitely qualifies as educational.

TLC, in my opinion was going downhill right from the point where they were doing archaeology shows that would present good, hard info... and then cut to commercial break with lines like "... OR was it built by aliens thousands of years ago??" And I'd have to agree with you on the Canadian "History" channel... I'm sure if you like fictional movies about historical things, it'd be great. Educational, no way.

However, for non-educational but enjoyable fluff in Canada, the Space channel has to be it - I've never seen a channel show "Fire Maidens of Outer Space" so often. Wow.

A science channel of that model would be cool...

[Anonymous Coward]

if only they would avoid the heavy left leaning bias of NPR. The fact that NPR gets tax money is probably what bothers me about it the most though, in fairness.

Penn and Teller: Bullshit!

[march]

You should have seen the episode where Penn and Teller debunk these idiots.

There is a whole pre-show that we don't see where they basically get the info out of the audiance. Not to mention the incredible editing that takes place to make it appear seemless.

In the infamous words of P&T: It's *bullshit*! But, we knew that....

Re:Penn and Teller: Bullshit!

[coolmacdude]

There is a whole pre-show that we don't see where they basically get the info out of the audiance.

I'm surprised that's even necessary. The stuff is all so abstract it would probably apply to half the audience. Shit like "Someone in this area had a mother-in-law who's favorite color was red." Then someone speaks up and volunteers a whole bunch more info for him to use.

Re:Penn and Teller: Bullshit!

[march]

Just goes to show you how *really* lame these guys are.

Re:Penn and Teller: Bullshit!

[yngv]

to me this illustrates that you get out of the show what you expect. You obviously believe he's a fraud, then you speak of segments of his show where his readings are lame (and your example is valid). Do you not see the parts where he says stuff like "There's someone above you like an aunt, whose name is Jane, Jean or some J, who wants you to remind you about the picnic last summer where you tripped and your skirt flew up?" Some of his quips are very general, yes, but some are very accurate. Agreed that the show is edited to make it seem better, and I can't comment on the pre-show (never been there, and I doubt you have either), but at least approach it with an open mind before you pass judgement.

Re:Penn and Teller: Bullshit!

[Anonymous Coward]

What are the odds that he's really psychic, vs. the odds that he's got shills in the audience?

Re:Penn and Teller: Bullshit!

[yngv]

I honestly don't know. Lots of factors involved there, including the critical notion of whether or not psychics exist at all or if they are ALL fake. I wish I could answer that. What irks me is that many people have already decided that ALL psychics ARE fakes using very flimsy and circumstantial evidence. I don't think you can draw a conclusion without hard evidence either way. I think an investigative team should check him out, see if he's rigging the whole thing. Shouldn't be that hard to verify that. But if they find nothing, it would still not prove or disprove.

I like to think that there's more to our universe than we've already discovered (think of all the stuff we've uncovered in the past 100 years...) and as such I find it close minded to dismiss psychic ability without first researching the dickens out of it.

Re:Penn and Teller: Bullshit!

[Anonymous Coward]

What irks me is that many people have already decided that ALL psychics ARE fakes using very flimsy and circumstantial evidence.

The fact that every "psychic" who has submitted to controlled scientific testing has turned out not to be psychic, is not "flimsy and circumstantial evidence" that all psychics are fakes.

If I have a batch of a 100 coins and flip 99 of them once, and they all come up tails, that is not "very flimsy and circumstantial evidence" that the 100th coin will also come up tails. It's possible that it is independent of the rest and will come up heads when I flip it, but it's more likely that the whole batch of coins is rigged.

I don't think you can draw a conclusion without hard evidence either way. I think an investigative team should check him out, see if he's rigging the whole thing.

Randi, and probably others, has offered, but Edward hasn't accepted. Convenient, eh?

I like to think that there's more to our universe than we've already discovered (think of all the stuff we've uncovered in the past 100 years...) and as such I find it close minded to dismiss psychic ability without first researching the dickens out of it.

Psychic ability has been heavily researched, particularly in the 1970's. Fine, the universe is a strange and not always well-understood place, but the flip side is that most wild claims people make aren't true, and there isn't any evidence that psychic abilities of any form actually exist. Remember the adage about keeping one's mind so open one's brains fall out. I can't prove Santa Claus doesn't exist, but I don't feel closed-minded in telling people he doesn't.

Home Boring Office - and it already exists

[BelugaParty]

I'm sorry, I have hundreds of scientists a few stories below me. What they do is boring. And, I'm sorry, but the legal, political, and clerical sides of science are even more tedious. Bio-ethicists (boring).

I love reading science fiction because it goes somewhere and strikes upon several topics without spending 15yrs to a lifetime studying one boring phenomena.

A real science channel wouldn't appeal to anyone. Kids would find it boring. Real scientists wouldn't need to occupy anymore of their time thinking about boring science (not to mention, nothing they could broadcast would be specific or current enough to satisfy most pro's), and the rest of us really enjoy criticizing shows that have scientific flaws, not the other way around.

If you want to do a test of how successful this channel will be, turn on the community college channel or the local university channel. Watch a chemistry 101 lecture. Maybe a physics lecture. I doubt you'll stick around. No one else will either.

I feel sorry for scientists...

[Anonymous Coward]

Now they all have to start taking showers, dress stylishly, exercise, and become good at public speaking.

Wasn't even a submission this time.

[Anonymous Coward]

God damn it, Mike. It's bad enough that you comment on articles and viciously downmod anyone that doesn't agree with you, but now you have to go just making shit up?

I'd kill for this...

[malakai]

Seriously, who do I have to kill for this network to get funding and put on the air.

MAGAZINE show like Popular Science is watchable

[zymano]

I HATE cable television. There is not worth to cable tv except for a pay movie channel.

But if there needed to be a science channel there would be two different styles of media.

1. Journal like Cell would be stale to alot(not me) .

2. More Magazine oriented like Popular Science. Gets to the point. Would have nice graphics and would get to the point.

I don't know how you would get it on cable unless you SUED those cable peckerheads. The would rather put infomercials/QVC on.

Re:MAGAZINE show like Popular Science is watchable

[whatch durrin]

Popular Science is the opposite of what I'd want to see. I used to get that magazine, but turned it down because it became too glossed-over. If you're looking for the latest gadget, it's for you. If you really want to learn how the gadget works on a basic level, you're SOL.

Uh... There IS a science channel.

[ronwolf]

At least there is on my cable system (Time Warner Digital Cable, NYC.) It used to be called the Discovery Science channel I believe.

There are lots of programs on the *3* public TV stations available in my area, plus many of the shows on the Discovery Channel (natural sciences count as *real* imho) are great. It's up to you whether to include either of the 2 health channels, but I think we're doing alright.

Could be better, but it's not a sky-is-falling situation.

Re:Uh... There IS a science channel.

[Anonymous Coward]

Michael's just making up his own shit articles. I guess he figures that's a way to inject his unwanted commentary without getting flamed for tagging it onto the end of submissions... but he figured wrong.

Jizz for *all*!

[Anonymous Coward]

All, eat my jizz. Eat my motherfucking jizz, you fucking gay-ay-ay-o faggoty bastards. And don't forget to send a message to superkt and zac on DALnet for a fucking good time. A good time with goats and lube!

-- The WIPO Avenger

Crap I'm on a tear...

[EvilTwinSkippy]

Forgive my brain dumping, but going back to my post on the "holographic universe", I would like to prove to the reader that your conciousness can indeed work in a different time and a different place than your mind is currently inhabiting.

Just sit back and try to remember some event that happened to you in the recent past. Something particularly memorable. Now, try to remember a few minor details about what was going on. Maybe the clothes you were wearing, or what you ate for breakfast.

Did you catch yourself closing your eyes, and imagining? Think about dreams. We all have had them. They are often strange, and occasionally scary. We navigate through them as though we were awake an concious, but we are in fact asleep. Why do stoned people hallucinate?

I'm just going to throw this all out there, and let you guys pick it apart.

Re:Crap I'm on a tear...

[S.Lemmon]

Ah, so then my VCR is psychic! Amazing - I never even expected it had *the gift*. I wonder if I can get it on a TV show...

Re:Crap I'm on a tear...

[Anonymous Coward]

Yet, oddly, I cannot look forward into time. Now gee, I wonder why that is?

Re:Crap I'm on a tear...

[EvilTwinSkippy]

Yet, oddly, I cannot look forward into time. Now gee, I wonder why that is?

Well you can. But it's less reliable than looking back, or elsewhere for that matter.

If my memory is any gauge, even looking back is not very reliable.

Re:Crap I'm on a tear...

[Anonymous Coward]

S.Lemmon: You can't watch your VCR with your eyes closed st00pid.. that's an audio device :)

Re:Crap I'm on a tear...

[Anonymous Coward]

Closing your eyes while conscious is not the same as dreaming nor imagining. Removing visual distractions while focusing attention and visual brain centers on a memory is not the same as closing your eyes while you don't need them and the sleeping brain trying to interpret whatever happens to flow.

Next time you have a lucid dream, one which you can remember and where you are somewhat conscious, try reading something. Hmm.. But that isn't proof of anything either, as you might think you're dreaming when you're actually experiencing the Relaxation Response (without recognizing what it is), and actually be conscious.

Maybe I should just say there there are many mental states, not all of them useful.

Re:Crap I'm on a tear...

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, we can remember stuff. What does that have to do with holographic universes or psychic phenomena? Just because we can remember things that happened to us in different times and places, doesn't say anything about whether we can remember things that didn't happen to us.

Re:A [FAILED] Slashdot Haiku

[Anonymous Coward]

It's seven if you pronounce it phonetically.
Cmdr as cmm-der (2 syllables), rather than co-man-der (3 syllables).

I Want My CTV (Computer Television)

[Dr. Wu]

While I certainly would welcome a full-fledged quality Science channel, I would also like a solid Computer channel as well. Or at least, tie this into the science channel's programming.

TechTV is nice, but it's aiming for the masses. I want a true 'Geek' network to cater to the needs of myself (and I suspect other /. users). No Anime, no lame talk-shows, etc. They were on the right track with 'Big Thinkers', and when they attempted to be the Tech News channel, that worked for me as well.

But I would kill to have shows that really aim for the heart of computing. While the average viewer might not care about how to build a website from the ground up, I could watch it. Especially if it covered various areas. Spend a few hours on hacking OS X, a few on getting into Windows admin, a few on custom-installs of Linux. Or, you could have Mac day, PC day, etc.

Plus, let's get a real tech-news show. Twice daily 30 minute updates directly from /. What stories are hot, feature some of the comments, etc. Let Ars Technica have an hour or so a week, give us a real tech morning show covering tech entertainment and gaming news, feature a blog here or there, and break for commercials with the days Webcomics.

Sadly, I know this will probably never happen, but if you build it, I will come.

Dr. Wu
"Yes, There's Gas In The Car"

Re:What a Troll!

[Anonymous Coward]

I sense that you've been modded "-1, troll" in the recent past. Perhaps you are a troll, or an asshat, or something starting with a d?
Prove my vague psychic observations wrong.

Wanted: More real science channels

[slumos]

I already have real science channels on Dish Network. They're called ResearchChannel and UWTV. In fact:

For our many viewers on cable, direct broadcast satellite, and the Internet, ResearchChannel is the C-SPAN of scientific and medical research.

Re:Wanted: More real science channels

[Excen]

UWTV kicks ass! I used to watch that all the time, before I went to college. Now all that's on is College TV and 3 home shopping networks. Explain to me this: why do college students need 3 home shopping channels to their dorms? We are all dirt poor, courtesy of the university, and therefore, have no money. . . If they can add CTV to the cable lineup, why not get rid of the three completely worthless channels?

micheal

[dextr0us]

WTF, really, micheal used to be good at articles, now it seems like slashdot is his own personal rant page.

i get to rant, but it doesnt get on the front page of slashdot.

Teaching method is most important

[Jesrad]

On national TV channels here, there is one particular science program, in which a pair of presenters demonstrate things like Venturi and Coanda effects, basic electromagnetic forces and the like, with simple, demonstrative experiments. What is most important though is not what they show, but how they show it. They follow a protocol, and get experimental results that confirm (or sometimes infirm) the expected theory. They discuss the results simply and rationally and then apply the theory to the real world.

This scientific method is what matters most IMHO. In arguments and debates I too often see people fail to grasp simple logic or make fallacious reasonings. To the point they sometimes contradict themselves without noticing, and pointing out their contradictions only makes them angry.

A real Science channel should teach such a method, and not just broadcast news and documentaries from the Science World.

Seeing science properly...

[vudufixit]

A science channel should dispel the common view of science with a big "s" and looked at as a big body of knowledge. Science is an ongoing, systematic inquiry into the laws that govern nature. A good science channel should demonstrate again and again how natural human curiosity leads to study, research, peer review and dissemination. Just think about when you go to a hospital to have symptoms checked out - how many man-hours of study, how many attempted diagnoses, and how many people died on the road to empirical knowledge.

How about a Virtual Cable Channel?

[TomRC]

I think it's easy to underestimate how hard it would be to get an all science channel adopted by any significant number of cable operators. In their minds, they've got that market covered with "Discovery". The idea of putting anything deeper (read "more boring") than that in one of their valuable slots would give them no more than a brief passing chuckle.

So, instead, how about creating the first Virtual cable channel, using the internet and PVR software?

It would get started by providing local listings of 'real' science programming, feeding directly into PVR software if the user likes, to capture the "channel" from PBS, CSPAN, Discovery, and any other channel carrying worthwhile science TV.

Then, they could provide web-page "background" for "their" programs, to quickly bring viewers up to speed so that even the most detailed science discussions are comprehensible. They could target High school science classes, for example to get some grant funding.

Then they could start producing their own content, delivering it in whatever time slots on whatever channel the cable operator can schedule for them. Again, the PVR makes it possible to do this.

By the time they get that far along, PVRs will be rolling out to more and more cable customers in set-top boxes, and they'll have to convince the operators to implement their virtual channel through that system. Operators may see it as an interesting experiment - an approach to even finer market segmentation using their new PVR capabilities.

no real science, no real history, no real anything

[Anonymous Coward]

There's as much chance of having a real science channel as there is of having a real history channel: slim to none.

Science is just a carpenter's workshop...

[curious.corn]

... that's it. Science is cool, a mind monopolist for those that obsess themselves to the subject. Those that get to that point are happy enough to wade through dusty libraries, tex formatted articles and worse. It's like hacking... ever wonder why the movies show pretty GL gfx to portrait hacking? Because few will get excited for green pixelated nmap scans, only those that know the code, concepts behind the strings. That's not something you understand in a 45' infotainment docudrama, bla, bla. I'm the first to feel the pain for the discrepancy... I'd love to play with startrek sci-fi technology, see photons interact with phonons in superlattice crystals, feel, watch with my very eyes distributed backscattering oscillations (which is ormai, ordinary textbook material...) yet the closest I've got was a lousy diagram plotting some montecarlo simulation. Science isn't dramatic enough... the knowledge deltras are extreme and the background to appreciate them, even on plain paper, are just as dramatic. I'm not pissing on science nor am I despising those that don't care, I'm just claiming that science isn't any better than carpentry or farming. It's an activity that requires skill, dedication and passion, nothinfg else. Those that don't have it can't really care, those that do will hate the pretty GFX fluff. Would you spend years learning metal welding? Wood engraving? Paint? Would you tolerate simplifications just to keep the avg specator tuned in? Which takes me to the pont: would *I* endure a lecture on sculpting? Would it hold my attention without recurring to cheap tricks? No, I'd listen to some art geek praising the David, maybe I'd be interested in watching a demo on "how does a marble brick become a plastic form" but given a hammer and a scalpel I'd fall asleep in no time. I'm not a carpenter nor a scientist either... (sigh, I love the pretty GFX) so I chose to become an engineer... despised by both parties. ;-)

Re:Science is just a carpenter's workshop...

[nobbis]

"... I'm just claiming that science isn't any better than carpentry ..."

The difference between science and carpentry is that science is about explaining the rules governing the universe and carpentry is about cutting up a plant and sticking its pieces together.

That the former should have no higher interest to laypeople than the latter is an exceptionally ugly thought.

Re:Science is just a carpenter's workshop...

[curious.corn]

I'm not demoting science but I'd rather avoid giving it some kind of ontological meaning. Science is about extracting ratios and formulae from experiment, not reading God's mind. In this sense it isn't any better than carving wood, an exceptionally decent and beautiful activity. I don't know how to make a chair but I can feel the dedication put in some carved furniture and I respect that; on the other hand I'm weary of priests pretending to teach me the Truth just as of scientists who pretend to put their science on the pulpit.

The problem with..

[Rostin]

.. science TV is that for it to work, TV will have to be fundamentally different. While it is theoretically possible for people to think about complicated ideas while watching TV (there are taped lectures which are very educational), it isn't at all likely to happen.

Television is designed to be rapid-fire. Most people flip channels when a lull occurs. When people turn on the TV, usually their intention isn't to think, but to do the opposite - vegetate. The evening news flips from story to story with flashing lights and catchy music, and before any genuine critical thought begins to occur, a commerical (lasting 15-30 seconds) comes on, and then another, and another, and another - the brain is rebooted over and over and over again.

Think about it. When you read a book, would you be able to learn anything if every 30 seconds you were required to drop what you were thinking about and think about something new?

In real life, thinking takes time, and thinking about things that really matter should take a lot of time. Are the participants in a discussion about stem-cell research going to just stop every minute or so to allow the audience to ponder what has been said? Are they all going to agree to play nice so that one guy who might not be so "photogenic" will get as honest a hearing as the other who can talk a million miles a minute and who just looks so smart?

It seems like what science TV supporters probably really want is not thoughtful, educational TV, but another outlet through which to indoctrinate and shape people's thinking without their really completely coming to grips with what they've ingested. If their motives are otherwise, I'd like to hear how they are planning on overcoming the limitations which the medium of television will (necessarily?) place on the content they wish to convey.

It Is Called the Internet

[LuYu]

You already have a "real science channel". It is called the Internet. Defend the right to free speech so people can continue to post things like these well reasoned sites.

Ordinary people would change the channel if they saw such clear reasoning, so only free (I mean Internet) "broadcasting" will carry correct (as well as tons of bogus) information.

It also occurs to me that a sort of Open Science net stream show could be created. Maybe people could take turns creating programs with their own equipment and reviewed on a website for accuracy and content. You Slashdot guys are already doing the news: Why not Geek TV?

what would it look like?

[Tablizer]

what a real science channel would look like?

about 13 total viewers

Don't you guys get the Discovery Science channel?

[Otto]

I get Discovery Science on my digital cable. Okay, TLC is soap opera crap nowadays, and Discovery ain't much better, but DCSci ain't too bad. It's mostly hour long documentary type shows, with different focuses.

A few shows in my guide on Discovery Science:
Connections
Discover Magazine (which is like a fast 30 minutes of semi interesing pop-sci stuff)
Extreme Earth (natural disasters and other geographic type stuff)
Science of the Deep (semi-science based documentary show all about various underwater explorations)
Pulse (fairly good show which is about anything medical related)
The Gene Hunters (DNA, evolution, etc)
Curious World (random hour of whatever they come up with)
About 5 different shows about dinosaurs in some way.
Ancient Expeditions (anything archeology related)
Mission Control (space stuff)

And so forth. Generally they pick a wide topic, like space stuff or dinos or medicine or whatever, and show stuff mainly relating to that topic for a couple days. A lot of repeating episodes and such, but still it's not cluttered with crap like "A Baby Story" on TLC.

There are science channels out there, they're just not widely available without digital cable and extended packages, sort of thing. The reason being that these aren't popular shows. It's mostly documentary type stuff.

I guess I'm just failing to see why a new channel is needed when there's several good ones, which simply aren't in very wide circulation. What makes the people making this new channel think that they'll get any better area coverage than these existing marginal coverage channels?

John Edwards...

[BTWR]

..is the Biggest Douche in the Universe!

(whine) I'M NOT A DOUCHE!

Re:John Edwards...

[Dun Malg]

John Edwards....is the Biggest Douche in the Universe! (whine) I'M NOT A DOUCHE!

Wow. You really showed him.

Try Harder!

[GISGEOLOGYGEEK]

Give me a break, since when has anyone thought of FOX or CNN as science channels!

This is just a blatant advertisement for CSN.

Now if micheal had been trying to make a real effort on posting real thoughts on this subject instead of just advertising for CSN, he would have mentioned all the fake science (psychic crap, "some say it was ghosts", "some say it was UFO's") garbage that is often on TLC and DISCOVERY.

I guess it's hard to keep the free advertising out of these topics when the slashdot editors themselves post it. hmmm do you smell kickbacks?

Re:Try Harder!

[KnightStalker]

Of course it is. Everything on slashdot is an advertisement. What makes this any different from "Apache 2.0137 released! Now with more whistles!"? Both are interesting to the /. readership. How else would I find out about prospective cable science channels? I hope CSN gets as much free advertising as possible.

If it were a *paid* advertisement and michael didn't reveal that, that would be a different story...

Its here already

[Anonymous Coward]

Check this out.

in concert with...

[spurious cowherd]

....the Public Library of Science there may be hope tha we can counter the dumbification of science

Worst Writeup, Ever

[Roofus]

Without reading the damn articles I have no idea what this story is about. What gives? I don't want to click the links, I just want to make snide remarks!

Discovery Science

[undef24]

Doesn't anyone have the "Discovery Science Channel" or now known as the Science channel?

Are you all in hickville?

CSN isn't it - Education or distilled dogma?

[tz]

I would love to see Feynman science lectures, but I can see Science and many others on the university channels on my Dish network's third feed (the 9400 range).

I would not love to "watch a heated debate" about stem-cell research. It would be better to be enlightened with what can be done with umbilical or adult or other stem cells v.s. embryos (are they even necessary). It is hard to find facts when the players have political or ideological axes to grind and bend or select facts for their view.

If they want "heated" debates, they should do the creation v.s. evolution.

And if I want to watch morality, I can tune in TBN or EWTN (which I do tune into - I don't mean this as an insult, only that such on a "science" channel would be out of context).

The last thing the airwaves need is a secular version of the televangelist. "Save people from ignorance - donate now" while thumping "Atlas Shrugged" on the podium.

If all we get is "We are all going to die from global warming if the ozone hole doesn't get us first (so call your congressman and tell him to double NASAs budget) and we must discard all technology and go back to medieval tech" there is no point.

I would prefer something along the way Scientific American used to be (somewhat over a decade ago when I let my subscription lapse) and not dumbed down, but with enough extra explanation to lift me up to fully understanding the latest in physics, chemistry, astronomy and astrophysics, mathematics, etc. Nothing preachy, just solid information made interesting. And just present the facts - just report, let me decide, to plagiarize the FOX News line.

GREAT!

[POds]

I'd love this. I love watching the Science Mysteries on the discovery channel and have been faciniated by mysteries ever since grade school... Although back then i was paranormal activities, such as ghosts, deamons ect, but its all the same field :)

When will this get to Australia? Foxtell/Austar? Gime!

McHawking

[bstadil]

I somehow doubt listening to Stephen Hawking would hold the masses attention very well

You are very wrong ;-), he is one of the best Rappers in the business.

perfectly good reason.

[mushroom blue]

C-SPAN lives for late-night parenting.

want your fussy child to go to bed when she wakes up at 2:00 am? sit down on the couch with a bottle of milk, and put on C-SPAN (or C-SPAN2). boring monotonous voices talking about mundane subjects. The camera rarely switches, so unlike other channels (or commercials) the light differences don't send a great big WAKE UP signal to a near-sleeping daughter.

when you have fussy children, you'll suddenly love C-SPAN.

Re:perfectly good reason.

[nmos]

want your fussy child to go to bed when she wakes up at 2:00 am? sit down on the couch with a bottle of milk, and put on C-SPAN (or C-SPAN2).

No need for fussy children here, when the wife is working nights I can't sleep so around 3-5am I just lay down on the couch and put on C-SPAN. Works like a charm.

The "Moon": Absurd Liberal Myth

[Anonymous Coward]

It amazes me that so many allegedly "educated" people have fallen so quickly and so hard for a fraudulent fabrication of such laughable proportions. The very idea that a gigantic ball of rock happens to orbit our planet, showing itself in neat, four-week cycles -- with the same side facing us all the time -- is ludicrous. Furthermore, it is an insult to common sense and a damnable affront to intellectual honesty and integrity. That people actually believe it is evidence that the liberals have wrested the last vestiges of control of our public school system from decent, God-fearing Americans (as if any further evidence was needed! Daddy's Roommate? God Almighty!)

Documentaries such as Enemy of the State have accurately portrayed the elaborate, byzantine network of surveillance satellites that the liberals have sent into space to spy on law-abiding Americans. Equipped with technology developed by Handgun Control, Inc., these satellites have the ability to detect firearms from hundreds of kilometers up. That's right, neighbors .. the next time you're out in the backyard exercising your Second Amendment rights, the liberals will see it! These satellites are sensitive enough to tell the difference between a Colt .45 and a .38 Special! And when they detect you with a firearm, their computers cross-reference the address to figure out your name, and then an enormous database housed at Berkeley is updated with information about you.

Of course, this all works fine during the day, but what about at night? Even the liberals can't control the rotation of the Earth to prevent nightfall from setting in (only Joshua was able to ask for that particular favor!) That's where the "moon" comes in. Powered by nuclear reactors, the "moon" is nothing more than an enormous balloon, emitting trillions of candlepower of gun-revealing light. Piloted by key members of the liberal community, the "moon" is strategically moved across the country, pointing out those who dare to make use of their God-given rights at night!

Yes, I know this probably sounds paranoid and preposterous, but consider this. Despite what the revisionist historians tell you, there is no mention of the "moon" anywhere in literature or historical documents -- anywhere -- before 1950. That is when it was initially launched. When President Josef Kennedy, at the State of the Union address, proclaimed "We choose to go to the moon", he may as well have said "We choose to go to the weather balloon." The subsequent faking of a "moon" landing on national TV was the first step in a long history of the erosion of our constitutional rights by leftists in this country. No longer can we hide from our government when the sun goes down.

Netflix should get science DVD's

[jclaer]

I wanted to rent Carl Sagan's famous TV series, "Cosmos". Well, Netflix hasn't heard of them. The Carl Sagan foundation will sell them to me for $150.00 (ack!!!) but I did find if I join "greencine.com" I can rent them. I say, a TV channel is too much to hope for. Let's hope somebody starts a good science-nature DVD rental club.

Behold: Connections on DVD

[bani]

Well, season 1 anyway:

http://www.documentary-video.com/displayitem.cfm ?v id=854

Arguably, his "Day the universe changed" was a much better series.

seasons 2 and 3 are on VHS only:

http://www.lifewisdom.com/connections.desc.html

Re:Behold: Connections on DVD

[DoctorRad]

All of it here, not cheap mind.

Matt...

want it to be entertaining? easy

[pyrrho]

Just hire Bill Nye and that guy from The Secret Life of Machines to run it.

btw, "noggin", for kids is pushing this type of formula for kids... is it working?

A Real Sci Fi channel would be nice too...

[thelizman]

...hey, real science is great and all, but real sci-fi would be nice. What we have now is a "Sci Fi" channel that puts crap like "Tremors" and "Crossing Over" on between reruns of good shit like Farscape or Lexx. Wait, I haven't seen Lexx in reruns. Oh, and they cancelled "Invisible Man". Lets face it, Bonnie Hammer and the gang fucked it up, and now they're pushing half-assed creature flicks on their audience.

Yeah, I'm bitter about the Farscape thing.

test

[Anonymous Coward]

.defeater .text .in .there .i .wonder .how .many .people .will .read .this .whole .comment .I .certainly .hope .it .doesnt .annoy .too .many .people .This .is .just .the .beginning .because .PAGE .WIDENING .IS .BACK .I .like .wide .pages .I .wish .all .pages .could .be .as .wide .as .this .dont .you .wide .pages .are .much .cooler .than .those .narrow .pages .you .are .used .to .reading .because .you .dont .have .to .worry .about .the .lameness .filter .telling .you .that .you .don't .have .enough .charaters .per .line .that .really .sucks .when .that .happens .and .you .have .to .put .some .lame .lameness .filter .defeater .text .in .there .i .wonder .how .many .people .will .read .this .whole .comment .I .certainly .hope .it .doesnt .annoy .too .many .people .This .is .just .the .beginning .because .PAGE .WIDENING .IS .BACK .I .like .wide .pages .I .wish .all .pages .could .be .as .wide .as .this .dont .you .wide .pages .are .much .cooler .than .those .narrow .pages .you .are .used .to .reading .because .you .dont .have .to .worry .a

Is the USA the reason for the world's freedom?

[Anonymous Coward]

Is the USA the reason for the world's freedom? That my friend is horse-crap. The USA is responsible for taking away many people's freedom. Been to cuba lately? Infact, they did diddly squat in WWII, and came in late at that. They shoot so many of their own and their allies in every war. Vietnam ring any bells? Did you know that the gung-ho USA killed more US soldiers in the first gulf war, than the Iraqis did?

Thank the USA for what exactly?

Research Channel on Dish Network

[dankjones]

We already have this. Doesn't anybody else watch it besides me?

DirecTV has the SCI channel already

[gad_zuki!]

Its very informative, but lacks the flash and buzzwords that makes television successful. In other words its fairly boring. Digging up McLuhan's corpse here but the medium is very much the message. Selling science on TV is a *tough* sell and you need various gimmicks to get a critical mass of people watching.

Carl Sagan was a cult of personality of his own.

Connections was amusing, smart, well narrated, and had lots of on-locale stuff.

Right now the Science Channel comes off exactly like what they made us watch in high school when teachers didnt feel like teaching, only not as dumbed down.

Television really isn't a good medium for science. Then again its not good for a lot of things, yet there are ways around this problem. Look at all the sexy women reading the telepromter on cable news. Or shows with "extreme" type advetising gimmicks. Hiring people with real charisma and giving them some creative control. etc.

An issue that does bother me is that SCI-FI, PAX, PBS, etc have no problem playing these "Unexplained" shows, all of which give a lot of credit to creationism (right-wing bias in the media is quite real) and other credulous nonsense without a counterpart on some other channel attacking these shows. An offensive, in your face, science show consisting of people with some backbone could make for some excellent ratings. Divide that up with traditional science shows and it might work. Find the luminaries out there, let them speak in a format that's entertaining. I've read that Bucky Fuller was just a great speaker. Where are the Bucky Fullers of our age? There are a lot of "Carl Sagans" and "Bucky Fullers" out there. Find them and give them a job and watch the money roll in.

Re:DirecTV has the SCI channel already

[Anonymous Coward]

Television really isn't a good medium for science. Then again its not good for a lot of things, yet there are ways around this problem. Look at all the sexy women reading the telepromter on cable news. Or shows with "extreme" type advetising gimmicks. Hiring people with real charisma and giving them some creative control. etc.

I propse the channel then be called "Nekkid Science Adventures", where they have shows on all topics of science, except everyone shown is naked.

Some programs might be kinda dangerous though, like shows on viruses, chemicals, or space...

Sort of like Naked News except with science =)

Uh, Science Channel anyone?

[LuxFX]

Does nobody else get the Science Channel? (it used to the Discovery Science channel but they renamed it) It's part of a whole group of more specific science channels on our digital cable plan, like Discovery Health, Discovery Wings, etc. My wife watches the Health channel all the time, but I love the Science Channel.

It has (IMO) some really excellent programming, and doesn't do that crap like Mysteries of the Egyptian Mummies and talk about how the constellations in the Eyptian sky happen to align just right with Edgar Cayce's predictions, or whatever that shite was. When the Science Channel does a show on Mummies, they follow a real team of scientists, give real stories about real digs and only present nice solid facts/theories.

It's my favorite of the hundreds of channels we get with our digital plan. If you can, watch it. But apparently nobody else gets this channel, because the poster and everybody else (in my threshold at least!) seems to be oooing and aahing over the idea....

Re:Uh, Science Channel anyone?

[BadluckShleprock]

I totally agree! The multiple Discovery networks do a good job of providing a variety of scientific information. The Science Channel has recently been showing a lot of Astronomical shows similar to Cosmos. The only thing that is kind of off-putting is the rosy "man will soon be travelling to distant planets" future that they present. Maybe it's because my definition of "soon" means "within my lifetime" and theirs is based on the fact that out of the history of humanity, 500 years is just around the corner. That being said, I still like to watch the shows because I am an optimisit when it comes to humanity eventually overcoming the petty problems we try to deal with today and look at the "big picture": We will eventually run out of enough resources to sustain a single-planet population.

Hopefully the new science channel will take the place of one of the many horrible music video channels (Such as MTV Jams) and give people something constructive to watch.

I'll step off my soapbox now. . .

Re:Uh, Science Channel anyone?

[LuxFX]

Hopefully the new science channel will take the place of one of the many horrible music video channels (Such as MTV Jams) and give people something constructive to watch.

That would be great news, but the pessimist in me knows that most people consider the firing of neurons to be too exhausting. Scratch that, that would be the realist in me....

ok so TV sucks

[tabby]

So what's good on the 'net in this department? Any good sites that have streams or downloads of documentaries/talks/lectures/presentations etc on good science?

There is (Kinda')

[DzugZug]

There is one that is pretty good. Not all science but there is quite a bit.

Re:II, for two!

[nimblebrain]

I don't think engineering can be lumped in with science and math when it comes to jobs.

Engineering as "applied science" has a lot of direct, commercial use. There are often co-op programs and, around these parts, the two years of EIT (Engineer-in-Training) under a professional engineer before you earn your professional title.

You certainly go through the mill in most educational institutions for engineering degrees. Entire classes with marks around 12% on final exams seems not uncommon. The attrition rate for those unable to give a lot of time (or, in some cases, collude on assignments :) is very high - that cuts down the attendance from most cultures; I imagine Hong Kong may slowly "calm down" in the future, evening out the ratios slightly, but that's a hard culture to shake :)

You don't start at the top, but under the engineering professional societies, you have a semi-"unionized" group that tries to ensure that their members stay up to date, and get fairly compensated.

Many companies can use their services directly, especially here in oil-rich Alberta. By contrast, the number of companies (as opposed to universities) that need the services of scientists and mathematicians is comparatively sparse.

Gandering through a number of the classifieds, in New Scientist, on government job postings, etc., it seems that scientists (haven't encountered mathematician job postings yet) get paid a pittance by comparison - even the senior jobs. Especially badly too, it would seem, in the UK. Academic institutions look positively generous by comparison.

It seems the globe goes through doldrums where the focus is all on the bottom line, on what you can squeeze out in the next two weeks. The situation probably reflects that we're in such 'doldrums'. Not sure what's going to spur on the next set of interest in research (although some branches of biology are still "hot"... or at least "warmer" at the moment) - it might, sadly, end up being something political again (I'm sure the moon landing was just scientifically motivated :)

Well, there's my rant for today :)

Science Weekly

[Anonymous Coward]

Dr. White writes that in the recent report from Science Weekly, Dr. Brooks found some chimps to be smarter than Negroes.The full report will be published in December. Also a genetic link between Negro genes and idleness.

Then I remembered a show which I had seen on television. Last summer I watched a PBS program about Koko the gorilla using sign language and so on, and among other things, they said this ape had an IQ of 85. The first thing that came to mind was the average American black IQ as mentioned in Charles Murray's The Bell Curve. Surely I couldn't have been the only one to take note, but I figured that if anyone complained, the newsmedia wouldn't respond because it would be just too damned embarrassing to publicize if the nignogs demanded that this segment be edited out.

My Email to Canadian Learning Television

[Bueller_007]

I just thought that I would write to thank you for your enlightening program on Nostradamus. Indeed, his extremely vague prophecies foretell the future quite accurately. Certainly, "hollow mountains" could refer to nothing but the World Trade Center towers. How amiss we were not to have figured that out in advance.

And, of course, had the Germans known in advance that Hitler (whose name of course, appears nowhere in the predictions, since he uses "double-entendre" and "poetic license") was the second "Anti-Christ" they could have prevented him from coming to power.

I particularly enjoyed the ending, which stated that we could avoid a 27-year war if we heeded the prophecies. Well, let's all go ape poopy, and start murdering people from the "near east" and "North Africa" so we can wipe him out before he can act. Killing a few hundred thousand innocent civilians in this manner is clearly not enough to give someone Anti-Christ status, as WW II American/British military did so quite readily during the bombings of Hiroshima, Nagasaki and Dresden. (The firebombing of Dresden, being the most deadly attack of all time; its death toll was higher than the combined death toll of both of the nuclear bombings. Of course, Nostradamus failed to mention this one. (Unless you squeeze some new meaning from his nonsensical poems.))

How dare you call yourself "Canadian Learning Television"? The "special" did not even present the skeptical view of Nostradamus' predictions. You are spreading a myth that has no educational merit. Had you presented both points of view, this would have been educational indeed. The only things that I "learned" during your program were the naivete of humanity, and that the money that my parents spend on cable would be better spent by giving your programming supervisor a subscription to Skeptic magazine.

Perhaps you would like to air a one-sided special featuring Scientology propaganda, or some specials on ghosts, UFOs and the moon-landing hoax? Just blame it on the Freemasons.

If it were up to me, your channel would feature the same "program" 24 hours-per-day, seven days-per-week. It would be a black screen, with "READ A BOOK" written in bold, white letters. Perhaps you should heed these words. May I recommend Carl Sagan?

Yours in regret,

Rene Malenfant

Top Programs

[nimblebrain]

There are a few science show gems out there - what would a decent lineup look like?

Some of the shows I've enjoyed watching:

• Beakman's World (for the kiddles and young-at-heart :)
• Bill Nye the Science Guy
• Connections (James Burke)
• Cosmos (Carl Sagan)
• Nova
• Wild Kingdom (watched an episode a couple of years back - was surprised at how informative and unpatronizing it was)

A few sundry IMAX shows, perhaps Donald Duck in Mathmagic Land on Sunday...

...and late-night, whatever that show was way back when on Access channel here with the bearded geologist guy explaining rocks and volcanoes. (Anyone remember him?)

Much as I love the Discovery Channel (and I do), the Space Channel actually has much more interestingly-presented news bytes. A new channel would do well to follow a similar format.

Define Science

[Anonymous Coward]

Define Science you fucking BOZO
The Discovery Channel,
The Animal Channel,
FUCK even Court TV are all legitimate Science Channels.

GET FUCKED
PS - I AM AN ANGRY GUMBALL!!!

Ha ha ha. . .

[Fantastic Lad]

I can't quite tell how ironic Michael is being here, but it's an interesting post regardless of how one takes it.

A lot of people have responded with, "Have you seen The Science Channel?" and "Hey, there's Discovery". Somebody else even claimed that the Canadian version of "Discovery" is superior to the U.S. version, which I would only agree with in that perhaps Canadians are better educated in general and thus need a smarter form of dis-info in order to be properly bullshitted, and Jay Ingram are so very full of shit.

Here's the sad, ugly truth of the matter: Television is a tool of mind-control through societal behavior modification. It is incredibly effective in many basic ways. It is owned up and down by the kind of people and organizations who are aligned and well suited to this kind of work.

You will NEVER get a generally available 'Science' television show which is un-biased, un-manipulative, and which honestly seeks to enlighten its viewers. NEVER. --Science in its current, publically accepted form, is founded upon a series of lies to begin with. There is simply no way the basic nature of television will change short of a massive paradigm shift where all the people in positions of power suddenly turn 'good'. This seems unlikely.

With the exception of DVD's and such, I stopped watching television about a year ago. That is, I do not watch any of the 'live' commercial feed into which virtually everybody in the West is plugged. The results were fascinating, if not un-predictable. . .

1. There was a period of withdraw pain, and a desire to watch television. This lasted for several months.

2. Then, the strangest thing happened. Not only did the desire to watch television dry up and vanish, but I discovered that I now feel extremely ill at ease when I am visiting another person's house where they have a television playing. The hammering of advertising especially feels the most horrible and numbing. It's literally a job not to want to escape the room. My natural tolerance has vanished, and I feel amazed that other people can stand to be around a television. It's stunning. Like an ex-smoker being now repulsed by smoke. Very similar.

3. Amazingly, all the extra time I thought I would be bored during, twiddling my thumbs, (and the first few months were like that), has now been easily absorbed by the rest of my day. I get SO much more stuff done now! Life has in a very real sense, been enriched.

4. I once thought it was important to be tuned in to television so that I could share the common experience of everybody else in the West; to stay in touch with humanity. One of my biggest revelations is that, as it turns out, I now strongly recognize that I don't want to be part of that mass awareness. Quite simply, the collective 'awareness' of the television watching public is extraordinarily restrcited, dumb and numb. I feel like I am awake now, properly, for the first time in years, and I am disgusted to think that I was ever one of the sleepers sitting, staring into that queer, flickering light.

What a science fiction idea! That a whole population subjects itself for hours to that creepy flickering light. Watching people watch television is fucking disturbing, and we all know it. It's like those Borg ports where the head is plugged into that flickering thing. Fucked up, and everybody knows it.

What I find most upsetting is when I see little children innocently watching television without their parents warning them of what is being done to their developing minds. There is so little chance for people to escape, as the conditioning begins almost from birth. Only one in a thousand or so seem to manage to break away. Maybe even fewer.

-FL

Re:Ha ha ha. . .

[Suidae]

You come across kind of strongly, so I'm not sure if you are trolling or not, but either way you have some good points.

I watch TV differently than most people. I watch only the shows I've chosen (scifi mostly), maybe three shows total. I always mute the commercials and divert my attention from the screen (commercials grate on my nerves, I see only their pathetic attempts to influence me and too little product info (the exception being car lots usually, the only product you almost always see with a price )).

I agree regarding wonderment at peoples ability to actually sit there and watch commercials. I also agree regarding free time. I like to think of TV like candy. Its a nice treat now and again, but should not be consumed regularly.

Regarding children. I have a son that the doctors call ADD. I don't know much about ADD, but I can tell you he acts exactly like I did when I was his age, so I think I know what that condition, whatever it is, is like. I was lucky my parents didn't even have a telivision around for many years, got us a 13" black and white set until I was in middle school, and finally got a VCR when I was getting to high school. Never had cable, never had a game console. Did have a TRS-80 with a compiler.

If you are going to let your kids vegge with something, make it a computer without an internet connection.

wanted: a real economy/commerce abilty

[Anonymous Coward]

have you ever thought about what a real economy would operate like? Something to counter the felonious georgewellian fuddite southern baptist ?pr? ?firm? hypenosys payper liesense corepirate nazi stock markup fairytail execrable?

Maybe it can happen?

definitely going to happen. it's part of the creator's newclear power plan/gnu millennium of open/honest communications/commerce.

get ready to see the light.

Like...

[Heidistein]

Slashdot on TV?

Isn't that what the discovery channel is for?

[ghislain_leblanc]

I can't remember if it is only here in Canada or if it's US tv but I know I have the discovery channel here which...sometimes...has very interesting shows.

It doesn't have to be a 24 hour loop of one method

[stomv]

Consider this:

A CNN-esque hour of science news. This includes medicine, technology, space, etc. Spend some time explaining basics, and for the bigger segments, delve into higher levels of the concept.

A C-SPAN esque hour of science in politics. The current legislation that involves science, be it involving the EPA, DofE, DofT, etc. Hell, even a little bit of financial stuff would involve some science (like econ and Brownian Motion related stuff).

A debunk-the-doubters hour of science debunking everything from crop circles to John Edwards. Want to make it really interesting -- involve the skeptics.

A science and/or religion hour. This could get pretty interesting. Given that science isn't inherently in lieu of religion, one could use science to show religious claims are valid (a person really was at a location, an artifact really is made of and as old as claimed in a text, etc). Yes, this would have some overlap with history, but that's OK -- just use and explain the science. There could also be debates, etc. As long as the religious folks involved were selected to be analytical and scientific in thought, some really good discussions could result.

Certainly, there could be science hours for kids (and adults?!) of different scientific educational backgrounds. This is the "Bill Nye" hour that lots of folks would watch.

Who would advertise? Any major corporation -- Ford, GE, Microsoft -- that wants to be considered with science. Any drug company. Local colleges (from ITT to comm. college to state college). Educational toys on the "Bill Nye" type shows. Also, they could (and would) solicit grants from government agencies, the Park Foundation, etc.

It will work, as long as they don't make it a 24 hour video of MIT lectures. Keep changing up the level of science necessary to follow, the topic, and the application in life.

(This will not get modded up because I'm far too late to the discussion)

Medicine is knowledge, not science

[Anonymous Coward]

The purspose of science is to understand the world.

The purpose of medicine is to heal people.

These are two VERY DIFFERENT purposes.

Here it comes...

[Lispy]

the closest I have heard of would be BR alpha (German only, sorry)

A REAL science channel does exist.

[baomike]

It is on Dish Network . There are
two from the Univ of Washington. Some of the stuff
is quite interesting,but depends on who the lecture
is intended for. Some of if goes over my head,
I am not that savy on statistics. Some like the
formation of elements in novaea and dark matter
are really gee whiz. A lot of it has do do with medicine, there is a UW med school.

And today on the True Science Channel!

[BuckaBooBob]

We are busting Fakes and Disinformation in the technology world... Todays Spotlight... SCO!

OGG, MP3 and RealPlayer documentaries

[ClarkMills]

While not quite what the poster requested, this may be of interest to those that read this thread.

If you have an ogg or mp3 player then these are two great sites:

• http://radio.cbc.ca/
  
• http://science.nasa.gov/

The Canadian site releases stuff weekly and has a great archive of material and interview some really interesting people. The Nasa site also has a largish archive but is a recital of the website material and only provide mp3s.

If you have RealPlayer then http://www.dw-world.de/english/ is worthy of a weekly visit. Their Tomorrow Today has some great material from time to time but no archive as far as I can tell.

If anyone else can recommend any other sites that provide archived multimedia documentary material, I'd be interested.

Cheers... Clark
--
This hand crafted, one of a kind .sig streamed live from C.Mills' keyboard.

Scientific American used to be a great magazine...

[Anonymous Coward]

Today it makes me gag to read it.

So much crap today. No wonder kids are
friggin F-tards.

PBS' "The Mechanical Universe"

[Pope]

I watched this every Saturday morning after cartoons, it was on at 10am IIRC. Nothing better than an intro to physics with a good lecturer and nicely animated examples. I was in grade 9 at the time, 2 years to go before I took physics in high school. Great show.

The best thing in TLC is "Junkyard Wars" :)

Re:PBS' "The Mechanical Universe"

[aimew]

Ah yes, it was very nice. Of course it was on PBS because no sponser would pick it up - too little market share.

If you want 'real science' all the time, get off the couch and into a classroom. Thats a real reality show, complete with homework and everything. If you do it right there won't be time for the "idiot box" - they call it that for a reason you know.

I got Digital Cable...

[SB5]

I got Digital Cable and I get about 7 Digital channels with the Discovery brand name on them, they are 99.9% than the regular Discovery channel. I get Discovery Kids, The Discovery Science Channel(The Current program at this time of 2:25 is entitled: Big Picture: How to Build a Human: Creation, and it is about stem cells and cloning), The Discovery Travel, Home and Living channel, the Discovery Times(as in the title of a newspaper) channel, Discovery Health Channel, and the Discovery Wings channel... I highly recommend these channels because at least one thing is on that is interesting if not more... They do tend to repeat a lot but the content is still 2x better than the regular Discovery or TLC channels...

Definition of science

[Anonymous Coward]

Science is the a part of human knowledge which uses the scientific method.

Purpose: Understanding how the world works.

Method: the scientific method, which consists in making experiments and observations, then making theories which explain the results of these experiments and observations. These theories suggest new experiments. After these new experiments and/or observations are carried out they suggest the developnent of new theories, etc.
These painful iterative processes, lead to the slow increase of human knowledge

Some branches of human knowledge are not science. For example mathematics is not a science because it does not use the scientific method, it is not based on experiments, the mathematical theories are not developed in order to explain experimental results, etc. Another branch of knowledge which is not science is medicine. Medicine does not have the purpose of understanding the world but to heal people, which is an entirely different business. Theology is not a science. Although theology does try to understand the world, it does not use the scientific method, it is not based on experiments but on faith and unproven (and unprovable) beliefs. Other branches of human knowledge which are not science are cooking, gardening, architecture, painting, music, etc. All these areas of knowledge are not developed in order to understand the world, but to fulfill specific purposes. Moreover, although they may involve experiments, they do not use the scientific method.

Best PBS shows are not US made

[Anonymous Coward]

Note however that the best PBS show are not produced in the USA. They are either British or Canadian.

There are a few exceptions. The most poplar is Carl Sagan's series about the Universe.

John Edward

[tunesmith]

All right, I know it's popular to knock down anything that isn't clearly scientific. But there's something about the skepticism about John Edward that doesn't seem very scientific itself.

Aren't you supposed to actually try to knock down the hypothesis rather than simply point out alternate explanations of how it could be faking? I mean, sure, going to a room of bereaved people and saying generalities and waiting for responses while you get more specific could definitely be cold reading or a con. But pointing out that possibility doesn't mean that it isn't psychic.

Most skeptics come back with their belief that "psychic mumbo-jumbo" is ridiculous, so of course it couldn't be. But there's a word for that reasoning, and that is "tautology". Using your belief that psychic mumbo-jumbo is ridiculous to prove that psychic mumbo-jumbo is ridiculous. It doesn't actually disprove psychic activity though.

Most skepticism seems centered on pointing out alternate explanations. Which is fine, I appreciate the perspective. But it all too common takes a bizarre left turn just before the conclusion; they seem to think it means they've disproved the claim. They haven't; all they've done is introduced doubt. That can be good, valuable, healthy, but it's not the same as debunking.

Re:John Edward

[Anonymous Coward]

Aren't you supposed to actually try to knock down the hypothesis rather than simply point out alternate explanations of how it could be faking?

You're supposed to do both, when possible. Unfortuantely, Edward hasn't actually submitted to any kind of scientifically controlled test. When Edward controls the circumstances, there are too many variables. You have to rigorously eliminate the possibility of collusion, of obtaining information independently beforehand, control with non-psychics to compare accuracies, etc.

I mean, sure, going to a room of bereaved people and saying generalities and waiting for responses while you get more specific could definitely be cold reading or a con. But pointing out that possibility doesn't mean that it isn't psychic.

As I've mentioned elsewhere in the thread, science isn't about proof, it's about probabilities and how evidence affects them. Just on prior knowledge of psychics alone, there is strong reason to believe that Edward isn't psychic even before you know how reliable his predictions are. In order to alter a strong prior belief, the data must indicate strongly that Edward is genuinely psychic and there is no plausible competing explanation. But there are plausible competing explanations, so the additional evidence of Edward's reliability is not enough to sway what one has good prior reason to believe about the existence of psychics.

Anyway, skeptics would love to have evidence that not just follows from prior belief, but significantly increases the odds that Edward isn't psychic -- namely, catching him in the act. But if he's not going to submit to circumstances that will allow that to be possible, there won't be such evidence: but it is still reasonable to strongly conclude that he's not psychic, on the basis of what we know about psychics in general and the existence of plausible alternate hypotheses.

Offtopic, but

[lee7guy]

Fyi, Survivor was first broadcasted in Sweden as a show called "Expedition Robinson". It was the beginning of all sucky reality TV shows here (except from real world MTV, though MTV can't really be conscidered swedish television).

Quality wise, the original swedish Survivor is much better than most shitty reality tv shown on commercial channels. Sometimes public access TV is the winner.

Expedition Robinson

How to make this channel work

[Uma Thurman]

It can't be advertiser supported. Advertising on TV is all about subtle psychological tricks, and smart people who would watch this channel would be less susceptable. The ads wouldn't work.

It needs to be subscriber based, no commercials at all.

zerg

[Lord Omlette]

Once again, Stephen Hawking has the perfect response to this.

There is one.

[LWATCDR]

How about Nasa TV?
There is no real need for real Scienc TV. If you want to learn about Science.
Read Scientific American or get on the internet. Watch out for the bogus stuff and you can learn a lot.
Maybe reading is a better way to learn the watching TV?

Um

[Anonymous Coward]

Ever try looking at The Science Channel?

Re:It doesn't have to be a 24 hour loop of one met

[BWJones]

(This will not get modded up because I'm far too late to the discussion)

No, but people will still read it. :-)

At any rate, I agree completely with your ideas and would say that the current level of science education in the general public is truly worrysome. The only problem is that there is a relatively small segment of society that might be interested in this stuff and I would worry that it would have to be "sexed up" in order to appeal to a wide enough base to be profitable.

I dont however think that this is absolute in that great programming is broadcast on PBS, TLC, Discovery, BBC, etc...etc...etc... Some of it apparently is right up the description that you have proposed (only sexed up a bit). For instance, I saw a teaser for a program called Mythbusters on one of the cable channels geared I thought primarily to the teen audience the other night.

What I would like to see is a hybrid of CNN news hours, documentaries, science education, with some small portion of learning via traditional academic classes taught by some of the best teachers around. Think about how that might place value on instructors and educators much more than is currently done. For example in many larger basic science institutions, teaching is perceived as an annoyance rather than something that should be respected as a duty.

Re:It doesn't have to be a 24 hour loop of one met

[bill_mcgonigle]

For instance, I saw a teaser for a program called Mythbusters on one of the cable channels geared I thought primarily to the teen audience the other night.

Actually, it was quite good. They fashioned a crown molding stapler into a penny shooter, put lots of stuff in microwaves to see what would happen (there's a poodle on the show). It should appeal to all the hackers and inventors in the crowd. The short segment on the difference between UV in tanning beds and Microwave was pretty slow, but apparently the general public is confused about the issue. Perhaps they will take away some understanding of theory/experimentation/deductive reasoning and the scientific method. The one guy is pretty funny; the other is a bit of a curmudgeon.

Yeah. . , a bit strong there. . .

[Fantastic Lad]

There are some good messages which do make it through the medium. I like pre-recorded movies because it nixes the chance of being sucked into ads and the whole, "Well, TNG starts in fifteen minutes, so I'll just watch 'Friends' until then, so no harm done, right?" thinking.

I agree; good sci-fi is often an excellent medium for positive messages.

-FL

There IS a Science Channel (not DC or TLC)

[fortheloveofjava]

I never really thought I was one of the privileged few, but in reading the myriad of (very much correct) comments complaining about the detritus that passes as science on the Discovery Channel or The Learning Channel it occurs to me that most people don't get the Science Channel that I get on my handy-dandy digital cable.

Though it can be a bit repetitive after a few months (there seems to be alot less science programming available than there are reruns of Friends in the world - go figure), there is some truly facinating SCIENCE presented.

Here is a brief listing from tonight, a la tvguide.com (FYI - I live in United States ZIP code 11706, and use Hauppague Cable, if you want to lokk for yourself - it's channel 170)

• Understanding - The human brain is examined. Included: how the brain develops, functions of brain anatomy, how cerebral chemicals affect thought, brain surgery to control seizures. Also: 3-D imaging charts the brain in action.
• Paleoworld - Theories about dinosaurs raising their young.
• Connections - "The Big Spin" - Segments include Helen of Troy; police blotters; insurance statistics; soda; oil; micro-fossils; and earthquake detection. James Burke hosts.
• Lives of Stars - Deep-space astronomical phenomena include red giants, white dwarfs and black holes.

Note, that this is a listing from just today. Personally, I leave this channel on almost constantly when I'm home.

Contact your cable provider, and request the Science Channel!

I agree

[_ph1ux_]

I stopped watching TV about a year ago as well. I must say thatthe most disgusting experience in my daily life is advertising - from any source - hitting my senses.

I drive up to san francisco and back every day to commute to work - and in that hour, I can handle about 10 minutes max of radio - due to advertising. I prefer to have music for a short time - and silence most...

I feel that all advertising is Thought Pollution and I am trying to figure out something to do about it... but it is pretty tough.

I rent netflix - and (sadly) blockbuster for movies that I will only watch in bed before we sleep (which may not be the best idea....)

anyway - TV is evil crap - and I am thankful to not have it.