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.
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.
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
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
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
...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
"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."
Well, there is a LOT of that attitude. But not "nearly everything". But let's face it, I suspect most slashdot members have more in common with the "educated elite" than the average public.
"The general public is too stupid, uninterested, and incapable of understanding it." It's utter nonsense."
Really? I mean, surely not all three of those at once, but one of the three words probably applies to many if not most of the "general public". Remember, half the people in the world are below average in intelligence. Science and math are not popular topics.
I currently work with "average" people (warehouse job). And let me tell you uninterested, stupid, and incapable of understanding applies very well. Through in a smattering of "let me tell you how it really is" and "I know I'm right" and you cover the general public very well, even the brighter ones. Sure, there are exceptions, but what you attribute to slashdot members can be found among the "general public" as well-those who have no grounds whatsoever for that elitist attitude.
Most people may not be blathering idiots, but they sure act like it....
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.