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

Re:If Only...

[kaotech]

Here you go.

Re:All Things Considered Science Friday

[phliar]

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

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 :)

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)

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: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.

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: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:No, I wouldn't.

[undef24]

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

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.