Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Science Television: Does Joe Public Care?

Posted by michael on from the mr.-wizard dept.

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?"

10 of 423 comments (clear)

  1. We HAD one, damnit. by el-spectre · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.
  2. Yes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

  3. Science is a threat by suso · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

    1. Re:Science is a threat by drlake · · Score: 4, Insightful

      While science MAY be a threat to those in power (I disagree) that has no bearing on whether or not this will catch on. The basic problem facing a channel like this is the widespread willful ignorance of Americans. If it isn't directly related to their chosen way to make money and isn't otherwise entertaining, they aren't interested. Unless this is done in a very entertaining way, it won't get much of a viewership. It may have enough to catch on, but that'll be about it.

  4. CSI (Crime Scene Investigations) by qbzzt · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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
  5. Re:It should by peeping_Thomist · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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
  6. If the U.S. Continues on it's course... by Trolling4Dollars · · Score: 4, Insightful

    ...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
    1. Re:If the U.S. Continues on it's course... by Teckla · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Right now, being stupid is what's seen as being cool.

      I agree. And what might be even worse:

      Even if you're smart and pursue an education, you won't find a job because it'll be offshore outsourced anyway.

      The U.S. is on the verge of re-electing the most anti-science president in U.S. history, George W. Bush.

      The future doesn't look very bright if you're an American.

  7. Re:Arogant story by Babbster · · Score: 4, Insightful
    Flamebait but absolutely right. TV isn't a good place to learn "hard science," anyway, unless you're doing a half-hour (or much longer) show per formula/theory (which nobody will watch). There's a reason it takes college plus several years to get a doctorate in a science (or any other) subject - because it takes time and hard work to learn. Even then, does anyone really think that, for example, someone with a doctorate in microbiology is going to be able to get a lot out of a postdoctoral lecture on string theory? If you don't, then why would anyone expect "Joe Public" (a term which automatically denotes arrogance and dismissiveness, by the way) to have an interest?

    If you really have an abiding interest in "hard science," (which I take to mean the nitty-gritty details) go back to school.

  8. Re:I learned all the science I need to know... by MagicDude · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.