Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Wanted: a Real Science Channel

Posted by michael on from the dream-on dept.

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

28 of 408 comments (clear)

  1. I, for one! by bluethundr · · Score: 2, Funny

    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!

    --
    Quod scripsi, scripsi.
  2. I hope it will fly, but I have doubts by nystul555 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

    1. Re:I hope it will fly, but I have doubts by GuyMannDude · · Score: 2, Interesting

      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

      --
      watch this
    2. Re:I hope it will fly, but I have doubts by EvilTwinSkippy · · Score: 2, Funny
      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..."

      --
      "Learning is not compulsory... neither is survival."
      --Dr.W.Edwards Deming
    3. Re:I hope it will fly, but I have doubts by jeko · · Score: 2, Insightful

      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?

      --
      He put his boots up on the table and made a face. "The sig," he smirked. "You can waste your life in search of the sig."
    4. Re:I hope it will fly, but I have doubts by dasmegabyte · · Score: 2, Informative

      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?

      --
      Hey freaks: now you're ju
    5. Re:I hope it will fly, but I have doubts by jejones · · Score: 2, Insightful

      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.

  3. It wouldn't be interesting... by Lohrno · · Score: 2, Insightful

    "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...

    1. Re:It wouldn't be interesting... by eln · · Score: 2, Insightful

      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.

  4. Waiting for ages for a real 'discovery' channel by butane_bob2003 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    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.

    --


    TallGreen CMS hosting
  5. Re:If Only... by kaotech · · Score: 2, Informative

    Here you go.

    --
    "Misery logs company"
  6. Re:Oh Get Real... by Monkey-Man2000 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    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?

    --
    This post was generated by a Cadre of Uber Monkeys for Monkey-Man2000 (603495).
  7. No, I wouldn't. by MagikSlinger · · Score: 4, Insightful
    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?

    --
    The bitter lessons of a veteran coder: http://bitterprogrammer.blogspot.com
    1. Re:No, I wouldn't. by undef24 · · Score: 2, Informative

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

  8. While We are making fun of John Edward.... by vtechpilot · · Score: 2, Funny

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

    --
    Slashdot is an anagram for Has Dolts, and I am Dolt number 468543
  9. Entertainment Value by Kanan · · Score: 2, Insightful

    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.

  10. Re:All Things Considered Science Friday by phliar · · Score: 2, Informative

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

    --
    Unlimited growth == Cancer.
  11. In the UK, BBC2 ain't bad by arevos · · Score: 2, Informative

    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 :)

  12. Canadian Discovery Channel by Bondolo · · Score: 2, Informative

    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)

    --
    -- "Most people prefer a popular myth to an unpopular truth"
  13. Science Channels by webhat · · Score: 2, Informative

    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

    --
    'I am become Shiva, destroyer of worlds'
  14. Let's not make fun -- he's worse than that by GuyMannDude · · Score: 2, Insightful

    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

    --
    watch this
  15. WTF? by march · · Score: 2, Interesting

    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.

  16. Anyone remember TLC years ago? by freeweed · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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.

    --
    Endless arguments over trivial contradictions in books written by ignorant savages to explain thunder in the dark.
  17. Wanted: More real science channels by slumos · · Score: 2, Informative
    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.
  18. Re:Oh Get Real... by dasmegabyte · · Score: 2, Informative

    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.

    --
    Hey freaks: now you're ju
  19. DirecTV has the SCI channel already by gad_zuki! · · Score: 2, Interesting

    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.

  20. My Email to Canadian Learning Television by Bueller_007 · · Score: 2, Interesting

    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

  21. Ha ha ha. . . by Fantastic+Lad · · Score: 2, Interesting
    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