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?"
...from Star Trek.
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
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.
Thats why Star Trek is so popular. It has nothing based on science, but says that it is, and has good special effects.
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.
"shiny veneer of stupid..."
Then you wouldn't be watching the Presidential debates, would you?
I stopped tuning in when it became the Discover Gay Men's Taste in Decoration Channel.
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....
Monstar L
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.
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.
Javascript + Nintendo DSi = DSiCade
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...
Instead of raising your voice, try strengthening your argument.
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
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.
http://amishthrasher.blogspot.com/
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
Get thee to a statistics class!
"Faith: Belief without evidence in what is told by one who speaks without knowledge, of things without parallel." - A.B.
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.
Try to hack my 31337 firewall!
...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.
To take your example: if you present Fourier transforms as a series of integrals, then it might not be too interesting. But as a way of moving between time and frequency domains, they're something we use without knowing it all the time.
Your inner ear effectively does Fourier transforms! It takes a sound wave in, and has tiny hairs that vibrate at different frequencies, each one triggering a different nerve impulse. Similarly, the spectrum analyser, tone controls or graphic equaliser on your hi-fi system are working in the frequency domain. Piano keyboards, radio tuners, synthesisers, and many other things are all concerned with Fourier transforms and their effects. Most of use think of sound in the frequency domain!
Even if you restrict yourself to the mathematics, they underpin MP3 and pretty much all forms of audio compression; JPEG, MPEG and many forms of graphic compression; the circuitry behind CD players (those digital filters), and so on.
I'm sure a good director could come up with a really fascinating programme about them!
Ceterum censeo subscriptionem esse delendam.
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.