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?"

Comments

It does in Japan

[antifoidulus]

there is a channel that is soley devoted to really boring science. One day I saw a dude doing Fourier transforms on TV, another molecular bio, and yet another they were talking about software engineering.
But then again, at the same time, I didn't think I could see anything dumber on Japanese TV than I did on American, but boy was I wrong....

It should

[AKAImBatman]

Honestly, people do like the Discovery Channel and hearing about "Mysteries of the Universe". Topics which can grab people's attention include:

- Explaining Nuclear Space Propulsion Methods
- Investigate Red Mercury, whether it exists, and its potential uses
- Explain how Fission and Fusion actually work
- Explain Relativity, String Theory, etc. (Oh wait, someone did that.)
- Investigate the Ancient Vimanas

The secret to making these subjects interesting is to place them in the context of the common person. Lay low on the mathematics, and go heavy on the computer graphics.

As long as the public isn't hearing the same 50 year old science AGAIN (look, it's a Saturn V), they'll be interested.

Re:It should

[defy god]

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.

that is where i think you are wrong. the usefulness of a scientific show that concentrates on the lowest common denominator is essential to the acceptance of science. If we have too much mathematics and too little of the "super-cool" computer graphics, we won't be capturing the attention, and in turn, the imaginations of the mass populace. A show that can attract a giant audience, though not very technical, can make a HUGE impact on what people will learn.

How you may ask?

Well, a show filled with math and physics equations can be helpful for those who have a good foundation in the subjects. for those who don't have the understanding or interest, the next channel is probably what they'll be watching.

BUT...

for the shows with the "super-cool" graphics and interesting commentary, though again not very technical, can instill something very important, curiosity. while catering to a bigger audience, it increases the chance of someone being captivated by the special effects and pursue how everything [insert science/math info that the special effects was representing] works. the show might not teach people, but it will be a gateway for them to delve deeper in the subject. this is what I've personally gotten from these shows. can you fully explain something like the space travel in a 30 minute or one hour show? of course not, but we can possibly grab someone's attention long enough for them the get interested in the general topic and find more information on it.

Science spells "fun" E-X-P-L-O-...

[Cabriel]

I've always found science fun and interesting, though I am not Joe Public.

I enjoyed watching TLC before it was all "OMFG! Trading Spaces is on!" However, it was a whole lot of reruns on things they did before. Like Shark Week always seemed to be the same. And the dinosaur special. And the.. well, pretty much all the sciencey stuff.

Discovery Channel wasn't so bad, but then they deviated from hard science to other things.

If I had two good science channels, I'd get cable. Until that time, I'm content with Google. ^_^

Bring it on!

[xasper8]

Lets hope this gets off the ground quickly! I am for anything that will off set the vacuum of intellect that my local cable company provides. Can I please get something other than Sports and another women's network?

I am already a fan of the Discovery Science channel - however it needs a better programming - but I'm not complaining! At least it's something.

I am still in disbelief of what happened over at TechTV...

We need a lecture series

[Clod9]

I'd love to see a lecture series where they'd take a one-hour lecture from someone who knows what they're talking about, like Feynman or Knuth, and expand it with well-shot illustrations, commentary, and explanations for those who aren't in the field. A continuous channel full of such things would hold my interest, and my anticipation, like nothing they've got anywhere right now.

Note my examples: both current topics and historically significant figures and subjects would be equally welcome. It would be cheap, too, and far more likely to glue me to the TV than, say, COPS or M*A*S*H reruns.

I think my demographic is just too small, though. Otherwise it would already be there -- it would be so cheap to do a good job of it, and there's so much potential material available. I suspect they need source material that not only draws advertisers but spawns action figures and other marketable materials, and pi-mesons and sorting algorithms just don't fit the bill.

Re:We HAD one, damnit.

[mrgreen4242]

Ya the Discovery Channel has kinda tanked the alst few years. American Chopper was good for like 2 episode, and Monster Garage for maybe 2 ro 3 episodes.

However, I never get tired of Junkyard Wars and Myth Busters. Myth Busters has to be the best show ever. They should get Adam and Jamie to do a show where they build crazy stuff to demonstrate simple to mildy complex science. I can't say that I hav learned a whole lot of science from their show, but it is extremely entertaining!

Niche programming

[Unnngh!]

Television, much like radio and most other media for that matter, is moving gradually in the direction of niche programming. This is supported by on-demand, tivo, etc. The science channel looks like something that would appeal to a limited number of people, depending on the format, but enough to warrant the programming. I personally like the speed channel and I really can't imagine that most people watch it that much--Nascar is in, but not racing in general in the US.

Just a matter of time before I can just pick up the remote, find which category and specific type of program I want to watch, choose which episode/installment, and there I go.

Diversity

[promethean_spark]

As the number of channels grow, the niches that a channel can focus on profitably grow smaller, allowing channels to choose programming that isn't dumbed down to the least common denominator. Someday with video on demand we'll be able to watch linear algebra proofs 24-7 if we want.

Re:We HAD one, damnit.

[binary42]

The only channel I watch for educational value is... the History Channel (which itself could be better). Everything else either used to be good or never was. I should note that my selection of programming is limited so there may be more out there.

Niche channel...

[AJ_Levy]

A hard science channel, at least for the immediate time being, would be a niche channel. It may attract a large enough audience to remain viable, but unless it is significantly dumbed down, I can't imagine that niche would be a really large one.

And this doesn't mean that those who chose not to be viewers of such a channel are "dumb". The truth is that a lot of people - really intelligent people for that matter - don't particularly find subject matter that leads to a lot of thinking an appealing use of the time where they don't have to. A lot of people are under a lot of stress, between work, jobs, family, etc.; and don't want to do a lot of extra mental heavy lifting in their leisure time.

The other thing is that, for many people, hard science is difficult. This, again, doesn't necessarily mean that they're dumb; just that they've gone through life without having a good education about science. Call it a problem with the education system, or the way many children are raised, but the sad truth is many people just don't 'get' science.

So will it be a mainstream success? If I were a gambling man, I'd almost certainly say no, mostly for the reasons outlined above. But I don't think that high ratings is the point of putting together a hard science channel; rather the point is to attract a core demographic of people who are interested. And, assuming that the channel can find advertisers who are willing to pay a premium for people who spend their leaisure time thinking about hard science, it can be a success.

The shows are out there, but who is watching?

[Mr. Flibble]

There are shows out there that are science based, but how many people watch them?

Nova has been around for ages, as has Nature. Both are excellent shows, but what kind of audience do they have? Sadly, not enough. Even with such excellent programs as this: The Elegant Universe. (Note, you need to downgrade your version of quicktime if it is new to view it due to a quicktime bug. I reccomend the full screen version BTW.)

Up here in Canada I have been watching The Nature of Things for as long as I can remember. We also get Quirks and Quarks on CBC radio, which is actually quite popular up here. (I reccomend downloading some episodes in MP3. Jay Ingram from Daily Planet used to host this show.)

So, there are good shows out there for such a network, but the question becomes, would people watch? I know I would, hell, I would subscribe to a cable channel of that nature in an instant. However, as it is, I use my ATI All-In-Wonder and the PVR software that came with it to record and play back these shows, so I have a "custom" science channel of my own.

Michael Schermer has been working towards this for some time: as shown here.

I think though, that one VITAL thing to add would be along the lines of what Schermer already does (and the Mythbusters TV show does to some degree as well): Teach Joe Sixpack the nature of scientific thinking, specifically critical thinking as outlined in Carl Sagan's The Demon Haunted World, Science as a Candle in the Dark. Once more people begin to understand this concept, they will likely become more open to scientific televison, well, that is what I hope for anyhow.

Re:Joe Public cares. A lot.

[daveo0331]

I'm not sure it's that people are of below-average intelligence so much as not all people are interested in science in and of itself. As you pointed out, if you can use science to create something they find useful, they'll care. Those of us on Slashdot may be interested in how passing electricity through a plasma can be used to produce a certain wavelength of light, but most people don't seem to care until you use it to build a TV.

This can work the other way around for different topics. Most people in the Slashdot crowd aren't interested in fashion for its own sake, but many of us will start to care if there's a way to use it to do something useful, like get a job or a date.

I think the bottom line is, different people are interested in different things. Not everyone is a science geek.

No need to catch on with the general public

[Anonymous Coward]

There is plenty of room on cable for niche TV shows, and as long as it is popular enough to stay on the air it can be successful. Society as a whole will benefit as long as those who are intelligent enough to be understand the shows and inspired enough to go into one of the sciences watch it.

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Re:Science is a threat

[deglr6328]

It is not science and knowledge specifically which constitute a "threat to those in power". Bush et al. or whoever happens to be in power at the time are not likely to be dethroned by a sudden widespread and detailed comprehension of nuclear fusion for instance. No, it is the powerful incisive, rational, analytical and logical thought processes which a scientifically trained mind must posess that are truly disruptive to the "status quo" (if I may use such a loaded term).

Re:I learned all the science I need to know...

[shirai]

I don't think I've ever replied to my own post before but I had to do a case in point with just the last episode I saw:

1. They were trying to prove that frozen chickens and thawed chickens cause the same amount of damage when fired through the front glass of a high speed train. To do this, they built a compressed air canon and fired frozen and thawed chickens through the glass of an airplane cockpit window, blocks of something (foam?) and sheets of glass. The conclusion was that frozen chickens actually did have more penetrating power.

3. (One of the funniest), they were trying to prove that you can't die from pissing on the tracks of an electric powered train. Or re-proving it. They get responses back that you could by peeing on an electric fence. Their conclusion was that you could get a mild shock from peeing at extremely close range on an electric fence. And by the way, they actually set up a fence and the guy actually peed on it. Funny stuff, all while exploring Science in the process.

3. That cell phones cannot cause explosions at gas stations. They did this by filling up a contained block with gas fumes and had the phone ring in the container and in a deseperate attempt even shorted out the battery multiple times. No explosion by the way. Of course, to prove that the container would actually explode, they blew it up anyways.

Doubtful

[4minus0]

I doubt any kind of hard science channel will take off. Joe Public doesn't like to think. He just wants to be passively entertained.

Look at how far downhill the programming on TLC has gone. Shows that were mildly entertaining on BBC are highly irritating on that channel. Shows like Trading Spaces and such fill their daily programming now, and not because management there "guesses" people will watch.

Outside of academia and industries that have hard sciences as their backbone, people are pretty damned stupid. Seriously. Joe Public is an idiot and will do whatever it takes to keep from having to think too hard. Joe Public seems to have enough sense to keep himself alive for 70 some odd years and little drive to pick up any more knowledge.

You been thinkin' son?
Yeah, but I don't think I'm thunk.

Mythbusters

[SimonShine]

I've watched two episodes of Mythbusters, one about tree cannons and how they could be built in a night, and next how much gun powder it would take to blow up the cannon consisting of a huge log with a gun hole.

The other was about tricking the alcohol meter, so basically they got drunk and acted up. I wouldn't call it science. :)

Without 'em I couldn't visit from the 21st Century

[netringer]

Last weekend the American Science Channel was doing a classic Science shows marathon, with "The Secret Life of Machines," "The Ascent of Man", "The Day the Universe Changed," and Walter Cronkite's "The 21st Century" from the 1960s.

I put in a season pass for for the first three on the TiVo.

"The Day the Universe Changed" is current enough that I had already watched most of it on my TiVo.

It occurred to me that I actually have the complete "Ascent of Man" buried somewhere on VHS tapes that I made when it was first broadcast in the 1980s. I had no life.

They say in the modern commentary that some things we know now contradict what we thought the but that doesn't hurt the enjoyment of the show.

"The Secret Life of Machines" is great mostly because they pull off amazing demonstrations of how the components inside work. The host Roy Hunkin said he amazed himself that were able to make an electrostatic copy like a Xerox machine. In almost every episode, even though I have decent knowledge I learned some new aspect of how things work.

The most amazing is "The 21st Century" which I remember watching when it was originally on in the 1960s. I remember it was the first time I heard that Raytheon had a prototype oven that cooked with microwave radio waves. They called it a RadarRange.

In one they absolutely torture some poor volunteers with Gs, heat and cold to check aspects of putting men in space. One guy was put into a 400 degree oven for 6 minutes.

I heard several times that we are scheduled to put men on Mars by 1986.

By the year 2000 we will have much more leisure time because we will work only a 30 hour work week.

They showed the home of the future. One cutting edge California engineer had a computer terminal (a LOUD clanky TeleType) in his own kitchen that connected by phone line to a computer all the way in New York. The kids could even do math homework on it.

The home would have a TEN FOOT 3D Television with a HIGH FIDELITY STEREOPHONIC SOUND system. There was a control panel about 8 feet wide that had huge knobs to control it all. There was desk where the homeowner could work. One screen had the weather and stock quotes. The one next to it was a video telephone. The next one could do the finances. (It never occurred then that we would have one screen that did all that and more..)

I went to a presentation at the Chicago Consumer Electronics show about 15 years ago where it was predicted there would be 10 foot flat screen "hang it on the wall" TVs in ten years time, and a panel member said "I've been hearing that we'd have them in ten years for 20 years." We still don't have em.

It occurs to me now that the QUADRAPHONIC SOUND we thought was white elephant fad in the 80s was actually ahead of it's time. It was only one or two speakers from modern surround sound systems.

Guests to your house will bring their own inflatable furniture, inflate it to use in your house, and then deflate it and take it home. (only until the end of the 1970s. |-{)

I felt like I was a visitor from the future looking in to see what they got right.

Mostly they couldn't imagine the drag that politics and other interests would be on progress in space and elsewhere. They didn't note that things got smaller as they got newer. I think at that time the miniaturization of electronics was just at its birth so they had no way to note what it would mean to things in the future.

It was very cool. I'm saving the "Home of the Future" episode permanently.

Re:Yes

[rnturn]

Most of the decent science programming that I recall was from quite a few years ago.

There was Cosmos, of course, though I got really tired of the camera shots of Carl Sagan staring out of his spaceship window. In fact, I almost didn't make it past the initial show after those sappy scenes. Someone thing about it rubbed me the wrong way in a major way. (And don't even get me started about Pachelbel's Canon...)

From about '74/'75 -- at least that's when it aired in Chicago -- there was 'The Ascent of Man'. I loved listening to Jacob Bronowski in that series. Maybe it was the frumpy old school professor demeanor.

There was `Connections' with James Burke. That was always interesting. Haven't heard much from Burke in the past several years.

'Nova' is still on but the content seems to be repetitive. (Either that or I'm seeing reruns. :-) )

I like the `Scientific American' show (or whatever the name is) hosted by Alan Alda. Even though there are times when I can't stand him, the topics are interesting and the shows are well done. They're not being shown much around here any more.

Not really a television show but a series that I really liked as a kid was the films put out by Bell Science. Oh come on, you all remember the films with the young, black haired guy who always wore a white shirt and tie and was sort of the comic relief to Dr. Frank Baxter, the straight-laced, older, bald fellow with the glasses who always wore a suit. There was a curtain in their lab that used to get pulled back to reveal a screen where animated characters would explain the scientific principles. 'Hemo the Magnificent' was one of the films. (It was shown -- probably excerpted -- for some years in an exhibit at Chicago's Museum of Science and Industry. I remember being pretty disappointed when they took that exhibit down.) I seem to recall that these two guys were also in 'Donald Duck in Mathemagics Land'. I still remember learning about the Coriolis Effect via the animation in 'The Unchained Goddess'. Good stuff. I have a few of those films on laserdisk and my kids love 'em. (Don't have 'Hemo' or 'Mathemagics Land', though. :-( )

Certified 'Old Farts' will remember that Walter Cronkite -- once he finished rehashing WWII on 'The 20th Century' -- had a science/technology-related show called (not surprisingly) 'The 21st Century'. Probably inspired by the moon program, it covered advances in science that, I guess, we were all going to be benefitting from by the 21st century. I cannot recall how good the shows were. It'd be interesting to see them again if only to see how close the show came to predicting the way things eventually turned out. Or how far off they were.

There was another show that I used to catch years ago (infrequently, as it seemed to get scheduled at odd times) on one of the local PBS stations. I think it was called 'Physical Universe' or something like that. It had a real clean cut lecturer speaking in an auditorium complete with lab table in front of a bunch of students. There were some simple but, IMHO, effective computer graphics showing some of the physical principles being talked about. Pretty low budget, I'd guess, but interesting. Anyone know if it's still being aired?

If the current crop of science shows isn't working out too well, they could bring back any of the above series and exceed the quality of the current science programming by an order of magnitude or two. Heck even the animated 'Science Court' is better than what I've seen lately. I've got two grade school age children who are interested in science and it'd be nice if the networks or PBS could mix some decent science programming into the Saturday morning schedule. And I don't mean at 5:30 AM, either.

Someone had mentioned the Discovery Channel and that made me laugh. There were some Sat. AM science shows that I used to watch when I was a kid. One of them was called 'Discovery 67'. If memory serves, it was on for a couple of years. Heck, for

Lets Drop the "Joe Public" already

[PetoskeyGuy]

Joe Public, Joe Six Pack, The Great Unwashed, ID-10-T Errors, l-users...

People aren't nearly as stupid as most geeks like to think. A big problem is that most "smart" people seem to be unable to communicate properly and that science really does come off as boring.

The reason most people find science boring is because it's so poorly presented. A Brief History of Time, and The Elegant Universe were both NYT Best Sellers. They explain amazingly complex topics in a way that's interesting and understandable.

Create some programs that deliver science with respect for the viewer and understands that if it doesn't seem interesting it's a fault of the show, not the viewers. Bring out the human and social factors and don't just dryly spout technical jargon.

Russians have a program

[drgonzo59]

I think it is called Gordon. It airs late at night on a fairly popular channel not some obscure one. The program has a very simple structure, the host just invites scientists to present topics from recent research and then they discuss it. The topics range as they do in the Nature journal: physics, biochemistry, geology, they might even have math there. The host doesn't know in depth all those fields so he invites two or three guests that so they ask each other questions and talk about the presentation. Not really a program for prime time, but I when I visit back home in Eastern Europe, I try to stay up to watch it. I wish we had something like it here in the States.

Re:I learned all the science I need to know...

[NOLAChief]

About the, erm, shocking railroad experience, I saw the first one where they had the dummy basically holding the energized rail before he got fried. Based on shall we say...personal...observations, I'm not so sure that they were correctly modeling the biology/physics involved. IIRC, they basically uncorked a reservoir in their dummy and let it flow based on the pressure head. The bladder is actually pressurized through muscle contraction, imparting a greater exit velocity. This appears to result in the continuous stream they had such a hard time reproducing, thus resulting in an extra tasty crispy wang.

That said, it's hilarious to watch these guys try to kill themselves (after all, they're what we call "professionals") just to prove how stupid people can be, but I wouldn't necessarily go to them for a rigorous course in the scientific method.

Boring?

[blitz487]

There is no boring science. There are only boring speakers. And you're quite wrong about Fourier transforms. If you don't have an interest in the world around you, that doesn't make the world boring, it makes you boring.

Re:Boring?

[Almost-Retired]

There is no boring science. There are only boring speakers. And you're quite wrong about Fourier transforms. If you don't have an interest in the world around you, that doesn't make the world boring, it makes you boring.

Amen, I wish I'd written that. I'm 70, and have been making electrons do usefull work for about 57 of those years because I was interested

I started out fixing the neighbors radios for cigarette money when I was 13, and was working at a major brand tv wholesaler fixing the tv's the dealers couldn't fix for Iowa and the north half of Missouri by the time I was 16. Drifting over to tv broadcast engineering in 62, after testing the fuel regulators that put John Glenn up, and helping build the cameras that were on the Trieste when it went down into the ultimate abyss, the Marianas Trench off the Phillipines. I could go on but then you'd get the message that while I've had an interesting life so far, I'm boreing in actual fact. So I'll do like Andy Capp and shaddup.

Cheers, Gene

Re:We HAD one, damnit.

[timeOday]

Ya the Discovery Channel has kinda tanked the alst few years.... However, I never get tired of Junkyard Wars and Myth Busters.

Have you seen their recent documentary: Black Sky: The Race for Space? It's about Burt Rutan's quest to be the first private team into space. I think it's the best documentary on an engineering project I've ever seen.

Re:Science Television

[Anonymous Coward]

Don't underestimate the power of free TV. I remember getting up early on school days to watch some animated scince shows ... in the early 60s ! One in particular was an animated demonstration of what might happen if one could travel at the speed of light. It had a profound affect on me and I've been in the sciences ever since. I'd love to see it again if its still around.

Re:I learned all the science I need to know...

[danila]

In my view, the point of science TV programs is not to correct some misconceptions people have - it's to educate them about science and create a positive attitude towards it so that they can apply the scientific method (and basic critical thinking, scepticism and rationalism) to resolve these misconceptions themselves when need arises.

The point is not to give them more "I saw it on TV" ammo when discussing whether peeing on an electric fence is dangerous, the point is (or rather should be) to make intelligent human beings out of the general populace. For this particular example they would need to have a general understanding of what electricity is and how it works, what matter and energy are, in what areas of agriculture, law-enforcement, military, etc. electric and other fences are used and why, how the power is generated, what is air, what is urine, how it is generated in the human body, what is waste, what people eat in different parts of the world...

And I (or any educated person) can go on and on about what fields of human knowledge are related and I have a sufficient understanding in most of them to be able to either know the answer myself with a sufficient degree of certainty (though hearing experimental results can still be useful), can judge the stories presented elsewhere, evidence that is available and claims that are made based on it, and can apply the knowledge more widely than just not pissing on the fence or having some fun pretending to be educated while watching some crap on TV.

Most of presumably scientific content on TV is crap (depends on the country/TV channel, etc.). Rarely is the right thing done as it requires such a gagrantuan effort and such a unique combination of skills that those few people who manage this are treated as heroes (Carl Sagan, Sergey Kapitsa).

Re:I learned all the science I need to know...

[danila]

I am not missing the point. I would probably watch this show if I could and enjoy whatever science was included there, I just abhore the idea that the only way to get Joe Public interested is to blow shit up or piss on an electric fence.