Slashdot Mirror
Science Television: Does Joe Public Care?
AVIDJockey writes "Wired News has an article about a new science television network. As someone who is a fan of TV shows that lack a shiny veneer of stupid, such as those found on UWTV, UCTV and ResearchChannel, I've wondered if hard science or technology programming will ever catch on with the general public. What do you think?"
Before it became the Discover Motorcycles Channel
"Faith: Belief without evidence in what is told by one who speaks without knowledge, of things without parallel." - A.B.
IF the program is compered by the like of late Feynmaann or late Carl Sagan. One of the thing that attract people to scince is the style of narrator. A good narrator can spell bind you to the beauty of cosmo, scince.
Science and the knowledge of it is a threat to those in power. Those in power are pretty much setting an example for how people should live their lives. So I would say no, it is unlikely that a great thirst for the knowledge of science will happen very soon.
But does she really have to? I mean, does Joe Public care whether Perl is better that Pythin or vice versa? Of course not! But Real Programmers care, and that is what really matters. Likewise with science, philosophy, religion, art etc. Some people care, and for those few it is worth doing.
If it can be made into a date rape drug, or something that will harden his member, then Joe Public will be all over it. 95% of the population is of (counts on fingers for a bit...) below-average intelligence. So that means there's only 5% of the population that can bitch about the rest of the population on Slashdot. And of course, I'm in that 5% that's of above-average intelligence. Right?
But seriously. If you like hard science... don't go to television to find it. Television is all about branding dumbed down entertainment as something it isn't. Science. Law. Journalism. Even shows that are about dumb topics (like bikini babe lifeguards) aren't realistic in any sense of the word.
fifth sigma, inc.
Not to sound like a horrible pessimist, but I think this channel would have a great deal of trouble if it were Nation wide. For far too long, science has become stigmitized by popular culture, and the education system, into being something regarded as work. It's too bad that when people watch TV and see something that tries to show them how beautiful the world is, their eyes gloss over.
Of course, I am generalizing a lot of people in the US. But Americans don't place as much emphasis on science and mathematics anymore. Unlike during the Cold War, where science was encouraged to kids (to beat the Russians), science today has become another class you have to take for your report cards. I don't think people would want to bring what they regard as work into their vegetative times.
Another problem I see with the youth today is that they tell themselves "Math is hard. Science is hard." If they keep telling themselves that, how would they ever watch a channel devoted to it? There's a horrible self-fulfilling prophecy at work. It doesn't help that the popular culture likes to impress onto kids that being bad in math or science is something to be proud of.
My postings are informational and does not constitute legal advice. Act on it at your risk.
A hard science show that delves into the minutia of the matter, the math, the statistics, the detailed physics or chemistry, is not going to be enjoyable for anyone other than those already in the know.
I am of above average intelligence (however slightly). It isn't that I want to still watch Mr. Wizards World, but I also don't want to follow a statistics lecture, or inherently understand some anscillary chemical reaction, before I learn about a new technology.
My sister, doctorate in chemistry in hand, will not see the same utility in, and will, in fact be quite bored with, a chemistry show that holds my interest. I, on the flip side, wouldn't be able to follow a chemistry program that she would enjoy.
Where do you draw the line of "veneer of stupidity"? I think that is the question that needs to be asked, and the problem that needs to be solved.
This is an extremely popular TV show, which now runs three times a week (the Las Vegas original, Miami, and the brand new New York series). Each show focuses on the scientific gathering of evidence to catch criminals. This includes explanations, with heavy computer graphics.
It's not that the public doesn't care about science. It's that the public wants Drama. Drama with science works great, it's the dry science only stuff that fails.
Bye,
Ori
-- Support a free market in the field of government
Am I the only one who finds nearly everything said here rather elitist and rude? This attitude of"only we Slashdotters are smart and cultured enough to appreciate science programming. The general public is too stupid, uninterested, and incapable of understanding it." It's utter nonsense.
It is possible to have self-confidence and be proud of your achievements without assuming that everyone else is a blathering idiot. Putting down everyone else makes you a smaller, not a bigger person.
People like science, and will watch anything they can grasp. If a channel not only dedicates itself to presenting truly in-depth scientific shows, but also brings them up-to-date on the background science that leads to it and can give people reasons why it is useful science, they will watch.
One of the reasons people keep watching the same kinds of shows they do on the Discovery channel is that the topics are usually that which they have the background on already and so can grasp. I watched Cosmos when it originally aired during my first year of high school, and I had only the barest inkling of the topics he covered, but Sagan presented each episode in a way that helped me get up to speed quickly on what he was talking about before he fed out the hard science. In effect, making it all pretty easy science.
A hard science channel won't succeed if it's not willing to get people up to speed on the topics like that. If you want a channel that just dumps hard data on people's laps that they have no background information on, no, I don't think it will succeed.
NOVA is still pretty good. Unfortunately, PBS is being taken over by Antiques Roadshow.
One thing I don't get about PBS: during pledge drives, they largely scrap their normal programming and instead show the Umpteen Tenors, Yanni at the Hellmouth, Woodstock, Peter Paul And Mary's Dialysis Concert, and other aging boomer dreck.
It's like a completely different network, which bears no resemblance to their usual offerings. One which offers people with scientific interests no reason to contribute money.
Then, when the pledge drive is over, they go back to normal.
It's bizarre. Public radio doesn't do that, really. They play mostly their normal programs, so there's still a reason to listen.
What PBS *should* do is run a NOVA marathon. And other marathons of science/nature programs.
Back in the 50s, TV was going to be the innovation to herald a new era of education, enlightenment, and completely new entertainment. It never really achieved any of that. Most of TV's history has been political agenda-making, or brainless crap (and often both).
I don't see what would make it change now. Just look at the direction the internet has been going for the last decade.
"People who do stupid things with hazardous materials often die." -- Jim Davidson on alt.folklore.urban
You're asking this about a viewing public that thinks The Swan, Fear Factor, and Switching Mommies are the paramount of real TV.
Programs that actually involve thinking and heaven forbid - perhaps learning will be about as popular as math class was, to these same people, in school.
The only ones to watch would be the ones who would just as well read on the same topics.
Television that informs? What a silly idea!
Lay low on the mathematics, and go heavy on the computer graphics.
So then what's the point of having such shows? Without the grounding in mathematics, science turns into a fairy tale. Astrology tells its story, science tells its story, and people pick and choose between them. What people need to learn is that science actually affords us real knowledge. There's no way to do that while ignoring the math.
Anything worth doing is worth doing badly -- G.K. Chesterton
America does dumb, Japan does wierd.
The boring channel is NHK2. No-showbiz science programs. The real stuff you'd see in a lecture hall.
That being said even with just five or six channels I found Japanese TV can be far more entertaining and informative (even at the same time) than anything available in North America.
I haven't bothered to get cable, satellite or even a Tivo since moving back as each time we get a chance to sample what's on (staying at a hotel for example) we all end up agreeing its 99% crap. We have better things to do.
If you don't want to repeat the past, stop living in it.
...to the sea of stupid, we won't see this kind of thing catch on at all. Before shows like this can become popular, we have to make sure that intelligence is something that is pushed as being positive in popular culture. Right now, being stupid is what's seen as being cool. My wife read something last week that said that in England, the person that most boys idolize after Beckham is... Stephen Hawking. What do you want to bet that in the U.S. it's Kidd Rock or Eminem?
Un-news
If you really have an abiding interest in "hard science," (which I take to mean the nitty-gritty details) go back to school.
It is a funny comment, but there is some truth in it. Hard science doesn't have to be hard and boring. Hard and boring is what drives people away. Shows like Mr. Wizard, Beekman's World, and Bill Nye the Science Guy have been reasonably successful in terms of presenting scientific content to the mass public. Granted, those were geared towards kids, but it could be applied to a more mature audience. The point is that you have to present "interesting" science. Nobody cares about fourier transforms and such. You have to present concepts without bogging down in details. For example, I would be interested in learning how a shuttle launch is planned and what are the general parameters that influence a flight plan, but I am not interested in knowing how to calculate the necessary roll variance needed to compensate for the axial plane deviation due to Frinkinson's drag in the lower stratosphere. (I made all of that up BTW). Give people the interesting bits, and they'll develop an interest to learn more on their own.
Cool! And thanks for underscoring just one more reason why Japan is the probably the most technologically advanced society on Earth while the general public in the US consistently scores dead last in surveys of scientific literacy.
- "Hear that?! The percolations are imminent! Cease your ingress!"
I think a good source of Science television is good for children and adults alike.
For children, it inspires.
For adults, it explains really cool things in layman's terms.
I watch The Science Channel all the time... well, when the wife lets me have the clicker.
Up, Up, Down, Down, Left, Right, Left, Right, B, A, START
The only problem is that many people don't get those channels. As a result, the regular Discovery Channel programming seems boring. :-(
Javascript + Nintendo DSi = DSiCade
That is unless they blow lots of things up like Adam and Jamie do on Mythbusters.
About 30 years ago BBC Radio started an evening program Mon-Fri, billed as covering current news in the Arts & Sciences. But because the BBC was filled with arty types, and (back then) many scientists were not good communicators, the arty types soon took over the whole thing, so the 50:50 arts/sciences split became 95:5 So let's forgo the glitz and have some substance, and to hell with the ratings.
Those of us with an interest in science, engineering or technology can help by pointing out to others that "Yes, we need artists & poets to point in some new directions and to distil the deeper meanings, but without the sciences etc we'd all be in poverty or dead".
Problem is, the science anybody can get is boring to the general scientific community, while the stuff geared towards egg heads is too advanced for people with an average IQ.
IQ isn't really the whole picture. A lot of people could understand a lot of science if they had spent 4-8 years or more studying it, and then more years working with it. Since most people don't have the background of basic stuff, they will have a tough time really understanding the harder stuff.
It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds. - Captain Hammer
I think it comes down to the people making the programmes. In the old days, the people who made the programmes understood what they were telling you. They designed the programmes to inform, to explain, to convey knowledge -- and that was what made them interesting.
These days, most programmes are made by people who clearly don't have a clue about their subject matter. The idea is just to interview a few professors and hope that some information will leak out somewhere... Which rarely happens. Or, alternatively, you get the whizz-bang style, the 'Hey, wow, we don't understand any of this stuff either, but doesn't it look good??!!' approach.
And then they wonder why people don't get as much out of such programmes...
Personally, I'm happier watching old Open University programmes than most prime-time science programmes, even those on the BBC. The thrill of learning something new, of having your horizons broadened. You can't beat it.
Ceterum censeo subscriptionem esse delendam.
Want more people in the US to watch science related shows? Get David Suzuki back on the air in the US.
"I hate to advocate drugs, alcohol, violence or insanity but they've always worked for me" - HST
When I first got TLC it was great. They had shows like The day the universe change and Connections. Both of these James Burke shows were great. TLC even produced their own version called Connection 2 and Connections 3. They made you think. But now all that is on there are people redecorating other poeples houses and some guy building weird cars. I guess you have to program what the public wants more stupid "reailty" shows.
just my $.02
This is the way the world ends, not with a bang , but a wimper
UWTV, UCTV and ResearchChannel, are sometimes interesting, so is the NASA channel. However, PBS-U has the best in my view. My only displeasure with it is that a lot of the shows they put on were made in the late 70's to mid 80's and are extremely out-dated. I always get a chuckle watching these 80's geeks talking about state of the art computer equipment with wire-frame graphics that tick along at a speedy 1 frame per second. Whoo! Seriously though, I found that the Annenburg CPB organization has a 'video on demand' that was at one time a free deal. You could watch any number of topics about physics, chemistry, language, economics (which the president needs to watch), and more. I guess for some people learning is an addiction and we need to get our fix someplace. As for whether or not a science tv show/channel would be popular my guess is that if they made 'The Science Channel' a free channel on basic cable, you'd find a ton of people that would watch it. The problem is that this station is only available in the max/premium packages for all the networks, including satellite. Any chance I could get to sit down in front of my tv and see what scientists do when they're not doing boring lectures would be more than entertaining, it would be learning.
A few years back there were some physicists trying to get the TV world to put together a TV show about scientists, much like all the police and lawyer shows. One of the jokes in APS News was that they should call it NYPhD. Given the popularity of lawyer shows (I imagine work for most lawyers is quite dull) it's got to be possible to put together a dramatic show with a non-forensic, non-medical science backdrop.
My mom suggested a science geek version of "Cribs"-- I know a lot of scientists that have some weird projects at home, or things like a full machine shop in the living room.
I want them to go deeper into the subject.
My wife is tired of me screaming at the tv "This is freshmen level biology-- just like your last fucking show!"
Good one, but saying that alound, it doesn't seem to have the breaks at the right places.
"Looks like you..... also learned how to... type..... from Shatner....." seems to work a tad better.