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 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

[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]

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.

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...

[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.

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.

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: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?

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?

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.

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

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.