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

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

[Black Parrot]

...from Star Trek.

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

[DarkHelmet]

Looks like... you also learned... how to type.......... from Shatner.......

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

[MagicDude]

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.

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

[shirai]

Can Sciend and fun be put together? The answer in Two Words:

Myth Busters

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.

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

[fireboy1919]

It doesn't have to be boring, but it's...you know...hard.

Hence the name? Lot's 'o math. A lot of people find things boring if they can't understand them immediately. Soft science - applied sciences - are easier to visualize and have fun with. Easy, not as useful, and you can learn it faster reading a book, usually. Why bother with it if all we can get is the easy stuff?

What would happen if they started trying?

Hey kids! Today we're learning about the impulse function. It's got an infinite height, no width. an area of one, and is on the y-axis in a rectangular cartesian coordinate system! Yay!

Now lets go make our own impulse functions, with the help of this infinitely long sheet of construction paper and scissors that can cut infinitely thinly...

Boy that was fun. Lets convolve the impulse function with this sinusiod!

Coming up next week: Building wavelets from othographic functions!

We HAD one, damnit.

[el-spectre]

Before it became the Discover Motorcycles Channel

Yes

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:Yes

[dotwaffle]

A perfect example of this is the Spoof Science Series "Look Around You" which was on the BBC a couple years back (series two filming now...) which would not have been anywhere near as good without the narrator. If anyone wants a copy, and by copy I don't mean BitTorrent, then Amazon and other retailers have the DVD of series 1. It WILL make you laugh if you grew up with crappy science programmes like I did :) Enjoy...

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

Presidential Debates?

[Anonymous Coward]

"shiny veneer of stupid..."

Then you wouldn't be watching the Presidential debates, would you?

Re: Presidential Debates?

[Black Parrot]

> "shiny veneer of stupid..."

> Then you wouldn't be watching the Presidential debates, would you?

No, that was a dull veneer of stupid.

Oh, is that what it is now?

[Anonymous Coward]

I stopped tuning in when it became the Discover Gay Men's Taste in Decoration Channel.

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....

Science is a threat

[suso]

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.

Re:Science is a threat

[drlake]

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.

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).

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

[peeping_Thomist]

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.

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...

CSI (Crime Scene Investigations)

[qbzzt]

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

95% is below average?

[el-spectre]

Get thee to a statistics class!

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.

If the U.S. Continues on it's course...

[Trolling4Dollars]

...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?

Re:If the U.S. Continues on it's course...

[Teckla]

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.

Re:Arogant story

[Babbster]

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.

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.