One Minute of Science Per Five Hours of Cable News

ideonexus writes "The Pew group has released its annual study into the state of news media. They conclude that science and technology content is a rare treat for cable newscast viewers; some five hours of programming could pass with the average viewer seeing only one minute of science news coverage."

Comments

junk science at that

[timmarhy]

I suspect the quality of that science is also very lacking....

Re:junk science at that

[klik]

yes, your sarcasm is right on the mark. There are religious people who are sensible and considered, and there are scientists with strong biases. But science as a system promotes the biases being noticed and removed from the understanding of a subject, whereas religions in general do not promote that kind of understanding - a few individual religious thinkers have shown good sense ( Thomas Aquinas and Augustine of Hippo come to mind - but their philosophies were derived from Platonic thought) but most end up integrating dumb ideas in to what usually starts as a decent religion and turn it in to a self-contradictory mess.

on the subject of the article, It would be interesting to see those sort of statistics by a regional and national breakdown. I am aware of some countries where inclination towards a scientific world view - and thus interest in the subject matter - is profoundly different to the US, where purposeful ignorance of proven fact simply because acceptance would require a change in lifestyle seems to be the norm.

(apologies for the train-of-thought format of my post)

Re:junk science at that

[SpecTheIntro]

There are religious people who are sensible and considered, and there are scientists with strong biases. But science as a system promotes the biases being noticed and removed from the understanding of a subject, whereas religions in general do not promote that kind of understanding - a few individual religious thinkers have shown good sense ( Thomas Aquinas and Augustine of Hippo come to mind - but their philosophies were derived from Platonic thought) but most end up integrating dumb ideas in to what usually starts as a decent religion and turn it in to a self-contradictory mess.

You are assuming that religion does not promote the exercise of reason and free will, when in fact this is patently untrue. Nearly all of the greatest scientists in history, prior to the modern era when we decided religion was for "teh craziez," were deeply religious men, and in fact their religion was a bulwark in how they approached science. The early Christian thinkers (I'm talking early, as in 2-300 A.D.) consistently stressed the necessity of exercising reason in faith. Early Islamic thinkers operated the same way, believing that the gift of free will and reason were not only blessings from the Creator but obligations to humanity in their exercise. (Although the Islamic question of free will is a very nuanced one, and honestly a bit confusing--this coming from an Iranian Muslim, mind you.) There is, nowadays, an overriding sentiment that because a.) religious institutions were corrupted and b.) people are generally stupid, that somehow this means religion promotes closed-mindedness. But any actual study of scripture and theology will often quite clearly paint a different picture. Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell are not theologians. Neither is Ahmadinejad, for that matter, and even Khameini, fundamentalist as he is, is remarkably pro-science. (Again, a consequence of following the doctrines of his religion. His sin is that he interprets as narrowly as he can when it comes to the social order.)

It annoys me to no end that the world is becoming both anti-religious and anti-intellectual. And the longer we go, the more "religious" science becomes, with any dissidents in the community ostracized because of their beliefs, rather than their evidence. This movement towards "consensus" in scientific thought is absolutely horrifying: I don't give a shit if one hundred million scientists "agree" that it looks like x is happening; consensus is the antithesis of good science. Either the studies support you, or they don't--and the methodology of those studies should be attacked with such virulence that there can be no doubt remaining that they are valid. Instead, we have a cartel of scientific bodies that exists solely to insulate its members from real scrutiny, and react with the vehemence of the Inquisition if anyone dares to question the results they provide. It's disgusting.

Re:junk science at that

[theStorminMormon]

Spec is definitely on to something here. And I think it comes down to defining religion and science in terms of their function to society as opposed to their content or methodologies.

Inherently religion is supposed to guide people to God/salvation/enlightenment/etc. That is it's stated purpose. But in terms of historical function religion became a powerful political force and for that reason was corrupted. It was easy to exploit religious concepts (especially authority) to subvert a system ostensibly about progression into a system that was in actuality about domination. But the domination was no intrinsic to religious theology, it was intrinsic to any human institution viewed as authoritative.

I would go even farther and say that politico-religion is directly opposed to theological-religion. It's not that there's something wrong with organized religion, per se, it's that organized religion is just too tempting a target for hijacking. And since religions have been around for several thousand years there has been a constant war of attrition as religious powers grew and encompassed political, economic, and military realms.

The antidote to this, or so it at first appeared, was the Enlightenment and the age of reason. Science directly undercut the authority of religion by providing answers to the kinds of questions religion was supposed to provide answer to that had more explanatory power. As a result, the religious sphere of influence became drastically restricted, religious power in the political, economic, and military realms was curtailed, and therefore religion was a less potent vehicle of political domination.

The tragedy is that science itself has come to be the new vehicle of political domination. Just as there's an inherent conflict between politico-religion and theological-religion, there's an emerging concept between politico-science and rational-science.

So while there's a great hullaballoo about the conflict between religion and science the real conflict has always been and always will be the conflict between reason and domination. Religion has a bad name these days, and most people who speak negatively of it are referring the political version of it, the "blind faith", anti-rational version of religion. But if the definition of religion is "a series of untestable and unverifiable dogmas which are adhered to with irrational zeal" than science itself is in serious danger of becoming religion.

Re:junk science at that

[Maxo-Texas]

Lots of historical places and events reported in the bible are true.

Some of them are versions of older true stories found in older religions and stories in the region.
Some of them are unprovable and indistinguishable from madness.

There is lots of good advice and the christian religion helped it's followers survive and prosper rather than die out so it is overall beneficial to its followers.

However, some things appear very unlikely. It is very unlikely that the entire earth really was flooded underwater and the entire human genome was concentrated through one family within the last 10,000 years.

And it is true that, to this day, a lot of religious people are rabidly anti-science to the point that it is hurting us relative to other societies around the world now. We were very pro-science in the 20s to the 60's and then somehow got off the path and have been losing our edge ever since.

It is also true that some religious people (in power) are complete wack jobs like James Watt (sec interior) who said it was okay to sell of our national parks because the end times were near. (never mind that as a religious person he should have been husbanding the earth- not strip mining and clearing it).

There are crazy people in science and in religion. However, science requires that other people be able to reproduce your results independently. So it corrects bias's and errors over time. Religious truth is more often based on who is the most charismatic, who breeds most prolifically, or who is the most murderous. A religion that increases followers is more true while one that loses followers is less true.

Re:junk science at that

[Anonymous Coward]

Preach it, brother! And as long as the article is about the media, I'm sick of hearing statements such as "[prominent scientist XYZ] agrees with this theory" in the news - as if the opinion of a scientist is worth a bowl of horseradish (unless his/her opinion is not an opinion at all, but rather a knowledge of evidence). It must be a case of lazy-brains, but why people want to pay lip service to intellectualism without actually having to think is beyond me. It would be like me wanting to talk about sports but not bothering to watch a game.

Re:junk science at that

[MozeeToby]

I agree with you that consensus is bad science; unfortunatly, most subjects in science have gone far beyond what I have the time, money, and intellegence to fully understand.

I don't have time to research global warming to the point that I understand all the nuances of the theory. Even if I did, I don't have the money for a computer to run the simulations myself. I am forced to accept the opinion of the poeple who do have the resources to do the research.

The problem is, the issues can then be clouded by politics, the media, or just plain crank science. This means that scientists are forced into vehemently defending their views since if the opposition (who they feel is wrong) gains even a toehold, we end up with evolution deniers and people who honestly believe video games are the direct cause of all violence in society.

Re:junk science at that

[frogzilla]

"There are religious people who are sensible and considered"

No there aren't. Any sensible and considered person will soon lose their religion. The universe outside religion is so self-consistent and the evidence-based reasoning we use to solve all of our basic problems in life, as active scientists, or simply as humans trying to get through the day, is so overwhelmingly powerful compared to _anything_ that religious beliefs can do that any reasonable person with more than half a high school diploma must either decide to keep lying about what their own senses tell them or use their senses and abandon their pointless, illogical faith. I secretly hope that most religious people with half an education really do understand this and are just waiting for a critical mass of admission to occur so that we can finally put a stake into the heart of these pointless belief systems.

Bitter? A bit, I admit it. Also, however, saddened by the waste.

Re:junk science at that

[trytoguess]

Religion unfortunately promotes whatever interpretations a person/group has of a holy text. I've heard/read plenty of people on both sides (whatever the side may be) claim they've the correct interpretation of something. Usually it seems to revolve around cherry picking verses/logic that go well with their biases/goals, and ignoring the rest. For example you talk about reason and free will, while ignoring the notion that omnipotence makes free will a questionable concept, and with the existence of eternal damnation there's little motivation to be rationale instead of literally following a book.

I agree religion can and is for the most part is an institution of good, but one can not ignore the aspects of religions that promote irrationality/fatalism/whatever by dismissively claiming it's all an incorrect interpretation. That's insisting on a group mindset that you seem to dislike. To be honest though, without actually excising passages that promote such mindsets I don't know how to deal with the "dark" aspects of religion. Making people so content, and egotistical they don't wanna take on the unsavory parts of a religion could work I guess.

Re:junk science at that

[Belial6]

Your confused by that whole cause-effect thing. The link between early religion and science is not that religion caused science, it was that money caused science, and religion caused money. The religions direct contact with science was to stifle it. It's just that when the money got to be enough, the science happened whether the religion wanted it to or not.

I do agree with your analysis of what is happening today with the whole "consensus" thing. Just listen to the number of people who claim there is no debate concerning global warming, as their argument in a debate concerning global warming. They will follow this claim up with a claim of "consensus".

Of course, there is the line of thought that religion IS science. In that religion attempts to explain the natural world around us. A big fiery ball crosses the sky? Must be a fiery chariot driven by a god! Matter exists and we don't know where it came from? It must be vibrating strings! The problem is that people the people that wont give up their beliefs when faced with overwhelming evidence. These beliefs are what we call religion, and when people have crossed from taking a huge leap of faith to explain the world around them, to insanity. They are just not called insane because there are so many of them.

Wide spread insanity isn't limited to those believing in invisible people though. I have noticed that a major part of the population is insane in respect to dogs. It is actually scary the number of people that honestly cannot fully tell the difference between a human and a dog.

Re:junk science at that

[3.14159265]

Nearly all of the greatest scientists in history, prior to the modern era when we decided religion was for "teh craziez," were deeply religious men, and in fact their religion was a bulwark in how they approached science.

Either that or they just didn't want to get into any trouble, all with the inquisition, the witch burning, the being turned into an outcast, etc.
In that kind of society, where is the advantage in that?...

Re:junk science at that

[SpecTheIntro]

Your confused by that whole cause-effect thing. The link between early religion and science is not that religion caused science, it was that money caused science, and religion caused money. The religions direct contact with science was to stifle it. It's just that when the money got to be enough, the science happened whether the religion wanted it to or not.

While I appreciate the point you are trying to make, this is not true. The early theologians were not rich, and yet if you read their works they very clearly advocate the application of reason and logic in all of man's endeavors. This focus on progress, coupled with the belief that man could use his faculties to improve the world around him, is what spurred scientific endeavor in the first place--and it's heavily supported by scripture. Simply because the later institutions went against this grain is not an indictment of religion, but instead a telling display of how easily power can corrupt.

Re:junk science at that

[Pescar]

amen to that :)
this is what i seem to have trouble getting through to those people who say that "science is just another religion" as their excuse for their irrational beliefs.

Re:junk science at that

[SpecTheIntro]

Either that or they just didn't want to get into any trouble, all with the inquisition, the witch burning, the being turned into an outcast, etc. In that kind of society, where is the advantage in that?...

Again, you need to look past the institutions and return to the source material. Take, for example, the problem of slavery. There is no doubt that many Christian clergymen helped facilitate and sustain the slave trade. But the Bible is very clearly against slavery, and many prominent theologians spoke out against it. In fact, various Popes issued decrees against slavery numerous times throughout the Medieval and Enlightenment periods, yet his edicts were largely ignored by corrupt officials. (Chiefly in Spain, which promptly nosedived after they managed to kick the Moors out.) Islam followed similarly: within one hundred years of the Prophet Muhammad's death, the Ummayads had found new and ingenious ways to warp the theology of the Qur'an, replacing what was a startlingly egalitarian religion with one that encouraged Arabs to assert their superiority over their conquered people. (Look no further than the Islamic Conquest of Iran to see how greatly Islamic theology and Islamic institutions differed.)

Religious theology and religious institutions rarely mirror one another, often because the former inherently prevents authoritarianism. Most monotheistic traditions stress free will, which is anathema to any institution that wishes to exert power. This does not somehow invalidate the theology, though, which is what is so frustrating about the anti-religiousness of today's society: people who condemn religion and theology as baseless and devoid of reason are doing so without any actual exposure to either. They are, in effect, doing precisely what they claim to condemn.

Re:junk science at that

[SpecTheIntro]

No there aren't. Any sensible and considered person will soon lose their religion.

Right. Because that kind of statement doesn't make you look dogmatic or irrational at all.

The universe outside religion is so self-consistent and the evidence-based reasoning we use to solve all of our basic problems in life, as active scientists, or simply as humans trying to get through the day, is so overwhelmingly powerful compared to _anything_ that religious beliefs can do that any reasonable person with more than half a high school diploma must either decide to keep lying about what their own senses tell them or use their senses and abandon their pointless, illogical faith.

I could just as easily substitute "religion" for "science" in this paragraph and frame an argument that does exactly what yours just did.

Essentially you are convinced that science will provide you with all of your answers. Good for you. I am firmly convinced that the more than we learn about the universe, the more clear it becomes that the origins of our universe and the laws that govern it are inexplicable without some kind of outside interference. There is nothing pointless or illogical about this. I am, in essence, retaining my skepticism of science, whereas you have completely abandoned yours--much the same as any person who indulges in blind faith. I can think of no verifiable way to demonstrate that the universe came from nothing. And it's bad science to assume that the lack of evidence for something is enough to rule it out, especially when no contrary evidence can be provided.

If you don't want to be religious, fine, that's your call. I happen to be deeply so, and I have my reasons for it, none of which involve blindly believing. I would, however, suggest you show a bit more deference to the thinkers who came before you, as the shoulders of the giants on which you stand were all bowed in worship before God. And I think many of them would be very offended to hear that faith described as "pointless" or "illogical."

Re:junk science at that

[Skevin]

Another good (and related) comparison might be:

One dollar of Public School per 5 million of Iraq.

Solomon

Re:junk science at that

[Col Bat Guano]

"But if the definition of religion is "a series of untestable and unverifiable dogmas which are adhered to with irrational zeal" than science itself is in serious danger of becoming religion." And of course this is completely bass-ackwards. Religion and science are antithetical. Religion is based on untestable claims and dogma. Science is based on repeatable observations for gathering facts, and theory to provide a consistent framework to explain them. The earlier poster bemoaned the fact that religion is seen as antithetical to science, but the fundamental belief of testability in science is simply missing in religion. It would be interesting to see why science is "in serious danger of becoming a religion". I think science is great because -it works-. Religion on the other hand...

Re:junk science at that

[The Man and the Wind]

The thing that is funny about this is that it isn't the news that determines what is reported. It is the news station. They are thinking about the almighty dollar. I used to think that with 24 hours news that there wouldn't be a story missed. When Fox News started I was so excited to see that CNN would have competition and they wouldn't have all of those crossfire propagandists where questions aren't answered. You have to fill up all of that time, so why not report about the news. Instead, you just get more and more commentary/propaganda. It is fine as long as people are aware that is what it is. I just want to know do you have to do to be called a news station. Also, it just makes me think, how many stories were squashed because it conflicted with the news station or wouldn't bring enough money? What other pieces of information am I really missing?

Re:junk science at that

[radl33t]

Worthless diatribe. Smart men sometimes believe stupid things. Let's change that. Religion has nothing to offer man. Get the fuck over it already.

Re:junk science at that

[elem3nt]

The "dogma" of science he is referring to are a priori assumptions needed to do science; for example, "science discovers truth" or "empiricism is a valid epistemology" or the like. It would not be possible to carry out a scientific experiment to see whether or not science reveals truth, or empirically verify whether empiricism is true. So, contrary to what you say, science, too has some "untestable claims and dogma."

Re:junk science at that

[lsatenstein]

How did this topic turn to religion. It started out as a cable news critique that indicates the lack of scientific news.

Re:junk science at that

[theStorminMormon]

And of course this is completely bass-ackwards. Religion and science are antithetical. Religion is based on untestable claims and dogma. Science is based on repeatable observations for gathering facts, and theory to provide a consistent framework to explain them.

Your statement is more indicative of prejudice than anything else. Not all religions are based on "untestable claims and dogma". In fact, a great many religions rely on personal experience and experimentation, and are differentiated from science by the nature of the data collected (unquantifiable) and not by an embrace of blind faith. You have done just what I criticized: taken one version of religion (the stupid version) and conflated it with religion in general.

The bible itself (just as one example) decries this stupid approach to religion in John 7L17:

"17 If any man will do his will, he shall know of the doctrine, whether it be of God, or whether I speak of myself."

Translation: test the doctrine out in your life and through personal experience you will come to know if it is true or not.

Furthermore it is trivial to see that religion without testing and experimentation is frought with moral dilemmas. If the point of religion is to accept dogma without reason, than there is no moral distinction between someone who accepts religion A and religion B, and therefore God is unjust to differentiate between the two.

So I've just illustrated the obvious moral problems with blind-faith based religion and the scriptural basis for Christianity (which I'm not claiming is unique in this regard) to establish a reason and evidence based approach to religion.

The problem is that you, like many young materialists, are so wrapped up in ridiculing the stupid version of religion that you're unwilling to consider the possibility that other and less intellectually retarded versions may exist. Try talking to a philosopher of religion or a trained theologian and I think your preconceptions about the role of reason in religion will be challenged.

Science, on the other hand, is certain *intended* to be as you describe. But you're contrasting religion at it's worst with science at it's best. The fact of the matter is that while what you say is theoretically true about science (and theoretically false about religion) in practice science (e.g. the body of professional scientists, publications, and the theories and work they produce) departs radically from "true science".

Michael Crichton gives several excellent examples of this regrettable trend in his essay "Aliens Cause Global Warming": http://michaelcrichton.com/speech-alienscauseglobalwarming.html

Here are a few quotes:

nd in Green Bank, West Virginia at the new National Radio Astronomy Observatory, a young astrophysicist named Frank Drake runs a two week project called Ozma, to search for extraterrestrial signals. A signal is received, to great excitement. It turns out to be false, but the excitement remains. In 1960, Drake organizes the first SETI conference, and came up with the now-famous Drake equation:

N=N*fp ne fl fi fc fL

Where N is the number of stars in the Milky Way galaxy; fp is the fraction with planets; ne is the number of planets per star capable of supporting life; fl is the fraction of planets where life evolves; fi is the fraction where intelligent life evolves; and fc is the fraction that communicates; and fL is the fraction of the planet's life during which the communicating civilizations live.

This serious-looking equation gave SETI an serious footing as a legitimate intellectual inquiry. The problem, of course, is that none of the terms can be known, and most cannot even be estimated. The only way to work the equation is to fill in with guesses. And guesses-just so we're clear-are merely expressions of prejudice. Nor can there be "informed guesses." If you need to state how many planets with life choose to communicate, t

Re:junk science at that

[Col Bat Guano]

Your statement is more indicative of prejudice than anything else. Not all religions are based on "untestable claims and dogma".

Sorry but I've not noticed any religious claims that are testable. Perhaps you could fill everyone in on them, and list the experiments we could use to falsify them.

Perhaps like the power of intercessory prayer (I have no idea if you believe in this or not) which has been tested and found lacking (will you pray to heal my amputation?)

In fact, a great many religions rely on personal experience and experimentation, and are differentiated from science by the nature of the data collected (unquantifiable) and not by an embrace of blind faith.

Personal experience is way overrated. The brain works hard to convince you you are great, correct, never wrong, have a great memory etc, yet most studies of the brain & human behaviour show how cautious and judicious we should be about accepting such testimony. You have done just what I criticized: taken one version of religion (the stupid version) and conflated it with religion in general. Ah, the old "you haven't criticised what -i- believe in" line. Heard it too many times to be interested. All versions of religion are stupid, because they aren't based on testable claims, in fact the opposite is true.

The bible itself (just as one example) decries this stupid approach to religion in John 7L17: "17 If any man will do his will, he shall know of the doctrine, whether it be of God, or whether I speak of myself." Translation: test the doctrine out in your life and through personal experience you will come to know if it is true or not.

According to the book of Cordelia Fine ("A mind of it's own : how the brain distorts and deceives") I should be very wary of people who establish truth solely though personal experience. Given the book was written based on mountains of experiments by psychologists world wide, brain scanning techniques etc, and not 1500 years ago, I think i'll take it's recommendations more seriously.

Furthermore it is trivial to see that religion without testing and experimentation is frought with moral dilemmas. If the point of religion is to accept dogma without reason, than there is no moral distinction between someone who accepts religion A and religion B, and therefore God is unjust to differentiate between the two.

So I've just illustrated the obvious moral problems with blind-faith based religion and the scriptural basis for Christianity (which I'm not claiming is unique in this regard) to establish a reason and evidence based approach to religion.

Most people take their religion on blind faith which is why there is such a strong correlation b/w a parent's religion, and their children's.

The problem is that you, like many young materialists, are so wrapped up in ridiculing the stupid version of religion that you're unwilling to consider the possibility that other and less intellectually retarded versions may exist. Try talking to a philosopher of religion or a trained theologian and I think your preconceptions about the role of reason in religion will be challenged.

It's been a long time since I've been called "young"! :-). "Stupid version of religion" is a tautology. I notice that in your second sentence you subtly change the goalposts from "is religion true" to 'the role of religion'. Cute. In any case I have read a lot of the stuff that the religious write, and it's crap (the emperor's new clothes comes to mind). Philosophers can be interesting (Peter Singer is,and he's an atheist. So too was Nietzsche).

Science, on the other hand, is certain *intended* to be as you describe. But you're contrasting religion at it's worst with science at it's best. The fact of the matter is that while what you say is theoretically true about science (and theoretically false about religion) in practice science (e.g. the body of professional scientists, publications, and the theories

Re:junk science at that

[theStorminMormon]

1. Personal Experience

According to the book of Cordelia Fine ("A mind of it's own : how the brain distorts and deceives") I should be very wary of people who establish truth solely though personal experience. Given the book was written based on mountains of experiments by psychologists world wide, brain scanning techniques etc, and not 1500 years ago, I think i'll take it's recommendations more seriously.

I agree. Personal experience is tricky. It should not be used in isolation. It should be used with whatever applicable evidence can be gathered as well as the application of reason and logic. However your position - that we should only accept those claims which are scientific (falsifiable hypotheticals subject to quantifiable, repeatable exeperimenation) is untenable.

2. The Faith of Science

The philosopher Hegel pointed out that a fundamental irrational aspect of science is believe in casaulity. We can observe A and then B, but we can never directly observer the causation between the two. We can only infer causation.

Of course, it's actually worse than that. In order to believe in the scientific you have to believe in causation first. In other words, it is necessary to assume causation in order to use the scientific method because the scientific method can't work without causation. So even if it were possible to directly prove causation (and it's not) it would still be necessary to act on the assumption that it holds prior to establishing any evidence of whether or not it holds.

Individual scientific theories are testable, falsifiable, quantifiable, etc. but the scientific paradigm itself is not. Instead, we simply assume causality and then notice, after the fact, that we get all sorts of functioning scientific theory and applicable technology. Every time causality works as expected this reinforces our faith (and it is faith) in causality.

This is the same model I apply to religous faith. It is entirely rationaly, and merely the act of operating on insufficient evidence but in accord with the best evidence and reason available.

Ah, the old "you haven't criticised what -i- believe in" line. Heard it too many times to be interested. All versions of religion are stupid, because they aren't based on testable claims, in fact the opposite is true.

For the record that is not my position. I do not believe that Mormonism, or my particular take on Mormonism has a lock on rational faith. I believe it is common to many denominations of Christianity as well as many non-Christian faiths.

Most people take their religion on blind faith which is why there is such a strong correlation b/w a parent's religion, and their children's.

Agreed. But that's a statement of what most people do and not of what religion is.

I notice that in your second sentence you subtly change the goalposts from "is religion true" to 'the role of religion'.

The only "cute" thing is your apparent insistence that the aim of science is epistemological certainty about the world. Certainty has been dead since Descartes, my friend, and it's never coming back. I don't think it's useful to ask if religious claims are true without qualification or if scientific claims are true without qualification because "truth" - sans any doubt, uncertainty, or room for error - is impossible for humans to achieve.

I have read a lot of the stuff that the religious write, and it's crap (the emperor's new clothes comes to mind). Philosophers can be interesting (Peter Singer is,and he's an atheist. So too was Nietzsche).

As have I. But here is the evidence of your prejudice. While I believe that atheists are wrong on the fact of God's existence, I have no chip on my should that causes me to spout such absurdities as "stupid atheism is a tautlology". Some of the philosophers I revere the most (French atheist existentialist like Sartre, Camus, and deBeauvoir) are (as the name implies) atheist. I

Re:junk science at that

[theStorminMormon]

Religion and science are antithetical. Religion is based on untestable claims and dogma.

It's really pathetic that you can get modded +4 insightful by not knowing what the hell you're talking about. I mean seriously, how much religion have you studied? Kierkegaard? Augustine? Aquinas? This is just argument-from-definition. "I define religion to be based on untestaable claims and dogma". Nevermind that:

1. religious claims are frequently testable, even if the data is not quantifiable or transferable.
2. science is inherently untestable (see: "law of causation")

But hey, if it makes you feel better to draw a big line in your head and have "science" on one side and "religion" on the other, I suppose it has served its (unscientific) purpose.

I think science is great because -it works-

Yeah. Because nothing bad has ever been done in the name of science.

Religion on the other hand...

And nothing good has ever been done in the name of religion.

I thought it was the Christian right that was supposed to see everything in stark black-and-white...

Re:junk science at that

[LinuxLuver]

I've long felt that if you want to have NO IDEA what's really going on in the world then you watch TV news, because they are more likely to misinform you than inform you.....and ESPECIALLY on important issues. Was Bush misleading people about the case for invading Iraq? TV news didn't catch on to that story until more than year after the invasion....when it was far too late to do anything about it. Some parts of other media pegged Bush as a liar almost a year BEFORE the invasion. You want to be reading those parts.

Re:junk science at that

[Col Bat Guano]

It's really pathetic that you can get modded +4 insightful by not knowing what the hell you're talking about. I mean seriously, how much religion have you studied? Kierkegaard? Augustine? Aquinas?

How much of the belief systems of the Vikings have you studied? What about all of the Indian theology and philosophers? Have you studied them all?

One of the problems with these guys is that they all begin with the a-priori assumption that god does exist. Look at Aquinas' "Five Ways" - are any of his statements provable? They are as fact based as the FSM, and about as relevant to any discussion of the reality of the world.

Augustine's work presumes a literal creation, one which conflicts with the reality of evolution. Let's face facts - most of the arguments (untestable, unprovable waffle) from these philosophers have been overtaken by the real world analysis of science.

This is just argument-from-definition. "I define religion to be based on untestaable claims and dogma". Nevermind that:

1. religious claims are frequently testable, even if the data is not quantifiable or transferable.
2. science is inherently untestable (see: "law of causation") I've got no idea what a frequently testable religious claim would be if it's not quantifiable or testable. Presumably you are referring to anecdotal evidence ("I prayed and I got better") ignoring the "I prayed, but I didn't get better". (see the "why does god hate amputees" site). As to your second point - Meh. Maybe it's untestable at some level - we assume causality, but it -seems- to work very well indeed. A worthwhile principle to hang on to given how effective it has proven to be. Worrying about science not being testable because of this is rather clutching at straws.

But hey, if it makes you feel better to draw a big line in your head and have "science" on one side and "religion" on the other, I suppose it has served its (unscientific) purpose.

I think i'll draw a line in the sand :-). Science in the corner of testability, repeatability (with the proviso that all knowledge is provisional), religion in the other corner with just waffle about what people -think- is the world around them.

I think science is great because -it works-

Yeah. Because nothing bad has ever been done in the name of science.

You can move the goalposts of the argument if you like, but it's obvious what you are doing.

Religion on the other hand...

And nothing good has ever been done in the name of religion.

Clutching at strawmen again? I never made this claim, I was saying that religion is not provable - your last post which I didn't respond to had a very lame example of what you consider proof, which I find totally underwhelming.

However I will ask you the same question that Christopher Hitchens asks - what good could a religious person do that could only be done because of their religion - what could I not do because I am an atheist?

I thought it was the Christian right that was supposed to see everything in stark black-and-white...

You are no doubt sarcastically attributing this attitude to me, but you are wrong.

Re:junk science at that

[theStorminMormon]

How much of the belief systems of the Vikings have you studied? What about all of the Indian theology and philosophers? Have you studied them all?

That's exactly my point. I don't know very much about Viking theology. What I do know I know from reading historical fiction (Bernard Cornwell) and I know next to nothing about Indian theology and philosophy (although I would love to have a serious conversation with a devout sikh one day). And as a result, you won't catch me making sweeping pronouncements about what Vikings or Indians believe. And yet here we have some dude on Slashdot defining religion (not even just Christian religion!) and a bunch of chuckle-head moderators giving him +1 insightful for re-affirming their own ignoran prejudices.

One of the problems with these guys is that they all begin with the a-priori assumption that god does exist.

Which illustrates exactly how ignorant this whole smug anti-religious sentiment. "A lot of these guys", huh? How about one of the greatest Christian writers of all time: Dostoevsky. He'e s personal hero of mine, and let's see how his version of Christian faith holds up against your stupid assertion that "these guys.. all being with a-priori assumption that god does exist":

It is not as a child that I believe and confess Jesus Christ. My hosanna is born of a furnace of doubt. ~ Fyodor Dostoevsky

"I will tell you that I am a child of this century, a child of disbelief and doubt. I am that today and will remain so until the grave. How much terrible torture this thirst for faith has cost me and costs me even now, which is all the stronger in my soul the more arguments I can find against it. And yet, God sends me sometimes instants when I am completely calm; at those instants I love and feel loved by others, and it is at those instances that I have shaped for myself a Credo where everything is clear and sacred or me. This Credo is very simple, here it is: to believe that nothing is more beautiful, profound, sympathetic, reasonable, manly and more powerful than Christ; and I tell myself with a jealous love not only that there is nothing, but that there cannot be anything higher. Even more, if someone proved to me that Christ is outside truth, and that in realitythe truth were outside Christ, that I should prefer to remain with Christ rather than with the truth." - Fyodor Dostoevsky

You want to explain how this fits into your little pigeon-holed version of all religion? For crying out loud, look at Kierkegaard. He's largely considered one of the fathers of existentialism, and you think he doesn't know about doubt?

So, to repeat: I don't sound off about Viking theology because I know full-well that I'm ignorant. And you won't catch me trying to define religion because anyone who tells you in 1 or 2 sentences what religion is will sound like an idiot to anyone who knows what they're talking about. I know just enough about religion, and Christian theology in particular, to know that the trite stereotypes are infantile straw men next to some of the actual Christian thinkers out there.

Agustine's work presumes a literal creation, one which conflicts with the reality of evolution. Let's face facts - most of the arguments (untestable, unprovable waffle) from these philosophers have been overtaken by the real world analysis of science.

Sure, if you think that the height of Christian philosophy was the Middle Ages. I guess you should take a list over here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Christian_theologians Notice that 20th century and 21st century have their own categories. Do you have an Bonhoeffer to go with your Augustine? Any C. S. Lewis? Anybody at all from that list?

I've got no idea what a frequently testable religious claim would be if it's not quantifiable or testable. Presumably you are referring to anecdotal evidence ("I prayed and I got better") ignoring the "I prayed, but I didn't get

Slashdot?

[BaphometLaVey]

I think the average slashdot user can spend as much time on slashdot and read even less than a minutes worth of science. The articles are traps anyway. That aside, people tend to watch drama and reality TV, are we surprised there isn't any science there?

Re:Slashdot?

[garett_spencley]

Drama and Reality TV != Cable News

And I really hope you're not making the implication that someone who watches drama and/or reality TV would not watch the news.

Re:Slashdot?

[value_added]

That aside, people tend to watch drama and reality TV, are we surprised there isn't any science there?

I'm afraid the same could be said of "Science TV", which regularly consist of 4 parts drama and reality, and 1 part science, the latter typically consisting mostly of indirect references to science.

My guess is that the programming folks fear that people wouldn't otherwise watch. If that's the case, then they've certainly overcome any fear that their viewers would be turned off by an overabundance of special effects presented against a backdrop of bombastic music, or are similarly disinterested in the human-interest angle, and turn to something more informative.

The history buffs have it better.

Re:Slashdot?

[BaphometLaVey]

Sorry. I realize I came across a little vague. It says (something to the effect of) "the average viewer would have to watch 5 hours of news to get a minute of science". The AVERAGE person does NOT watch 5 hours of news a day, or possibly even a week. They tend to watch other things. From personal experience, people who like sport, for example, channel hop until towards the end of the news, catch sport and weather. I also know family with digital TV who will filter news themselves and only catch the bits the want. Mostly regional, rarely National. I don't know of much science that would appear in the regional news rather than the national news, so these people miss it. The article doesn't quite account for how much science is happening and it could be assumed that 1 minute per 5 hours, is all the science that is happening anyway.

Re:Slashdot?

[Ngarrang]

I think the average slashdot user can spend as much time on slashdot and read even less than a minutes worth of science. The articles are traps anyway. That aside, people tend to watch drama and reality TV, are we surprised there isn't any science there? While I must admit to my love of CSI (the original series) and Law & Order, I easily watch far more Science Channel, Discovery Channel, History Channel, Smithsonian Channel and HD Theater Channel. With that, I am exposing my kids to a steady diet of science.

Re:Slashdot?

[BaphometLaVey]

I agree. Strange thing is, there are two extra bold tags, I don't remember adding, and I did close the other ones. Oh well. (Strange thing to post as anonymous though)

Re:Slashdot?

[CastrTroy]

I personally watch a lot more drama and comedy than science myself. Does that mean I don't get enough science in my life? Well, not really, I get most of my science exposure from the internet. By the time they produce a show on it, it's already old news. I find that reading stuff online is a far better way to get my daily intake of science.

Re:Slashdot?

[Comboman]

Drama and Reality TV != Cable News

And I really hope you're not making the implication that someone who watches drama and/or reality TV would not watch the news.

I think the implication was that we wouldn't expect to see science on drama or reality TV so why would we expect it on the news? I'm sure there's less than 1 minute of election coverage per 5 hours on the Discovery Channel.

Re:Slashdot?

[Ngarrang]

I personally watch a lot more drama and comedy than science myself. Does that mean I don't get enough science in my life? Well, not really, I get most of my science exposure from the internet. By the time they produce a show on it, it's already old news. I find that reading stuff online is a far better way to get my daily intake of science. True, the internet is more up to date, but a series like "Blue Planet" makes such science more visually appealing. This may illustrate some laziness on my part, actually. While I am not adverse to reading a book about particle physics, I enjoy sitting and NOT having to read dry text. The stuff on TV may bring up areas of knowledge I had not read. So, I guess the moral of this story is to use multiple sources.

Re:Slashdot?

[Atzanteol]

The history buffs have it better.

I don't think so... Just yesterday I was watching a show on Noah's Ark. And later a show on the "Real" Jesus!

Re:Slashdot?

[ObsessiveMathsFreak]

I think the average slashdot user can spend as much time on slashdot and read even less than a minutes worth of science.

Perhaps in the Politics and YRO sections, which to be fair is one of the few places which even airs such stories anymore. But over the rest of the site, (I exclude "Games" here) the signal to noise ratio remains high. In any tech related story, this site is still lucky to have multiple knowledgeable users, armed with urls, who can help shed light on any topic, and usually from more than one standpoint. Most stories around here are still an educational experience, if you take the time to actually look through the comments.

Re:Slashdot?

[mikael]

I also know family with digital TV who will filter news themselves and only catch the bits the want.

We have retired relatives who will change to a different channel as soon as a news article on animal cruelty is aired. Even if the poor critter has recovered and running around in a green field or there is no video, the channel still gets changed. Anyone in the room who objects is regarded as some twisted animal sadist.

There was one family who kept the TV as a status symbol only, in their best room, which was only watched when there was a news article about the royal family.

Re:Slashdot?

[genner]

And later a show on the "Real" Jesus! I have a problem with that too but I'm guessing it's for a diffrent reason.

Re:Slashdot?

[WilyCoder]

Clearly you haven't seen CSI. Not only is science, it is cutting edge science. I'm amazed that a TV show can do science better than they can in a university! Its like a mix of uber-science AND reality!

Ahem, its a joke people!

Re:Slashdot?

[PitaBred]

The problem is that they get higher ratings if they dumb it down. Make it more accessible to everyone, and more people will watch. If you show things too complicated, most people aren't interested enough to keep watching. My fiancee and I love watching Alton Brown because he injects science into his show, as well as goofy theatrics, but one of her relatives actually said that he doesn't like Alton BECAUSE of the science content. He still wants a new computer though... most people don't care about the science. They want the flashy toys and simple overviews. Information is complex and hard to handle, so it confuses them.

It's probably a good thing...

[Anonymous Coward]

The minute of news is most probably completely wrong anyway.

Re:It's probably a good thing...

[__aaclcg7560]

If you think science news has it tough, true news has it worse with one minute out of 24 hours. Even then sharpshooters are standing by to shoot it down to protect the American public from itself.

Re:It's probably a good thing...

[demachina]

Science and technology junkies don't need to feel bad. Its pretty tough to get more than a minute of news in five hours for anything but the latest murder or kidnapping of some pretty young white girl, the latest on Brittany and Paris, and hour after hour of campaign coverage. Cable news is only going to cover news that gets them ratings, not what is important. Unfortunately the female demographic overwhelming wants sordid crime stories, preferably involving pretty young white women as the victim. They also want entertainment news... preferably about pretty young white women.

The campaign coverage is the only thing on their list that is actually important, something we've just now rediscovered the hard way by electing, and then more amazingly reelecting, one of the worst Presidents in American history. A President whose administration has so permanently damaged America to the point it will probably never recover. Unfortunately 2 years is way to long to be covering a presidential campaign 24x7. They are so desperate for "news" that they end up creating most of it and most of it is negative and silly just because its entertaining and people will watch. They also are showing an ever increasing bandwagon mentality where they just take the last winner and make them in to an unstoppable force, until of course they lose a round and and they jump to the next bandwagon and try to pretend they weren't idiots for calling the last guy the shoe in.

I've pretty much given up on the cable news networks in America. All three have reached a point where they are unwatchable. BBC America is the only news coverage I watch. They at least cover some important international news which you just can't get on American cable anymore unless something completely explodes. I've also turned to CNBC just because financial news networks never cover murders of, or gossip about, pretty young white women and they don't cover Brittany or Paris unless there is some financial impact on the markets.

And this is surprising how?

[Anonymous Coward]

People don't give a flip about things like science and engineering. Partially because they don't see how they're attached to their daily lives and partially because it's just not entertaining or diverting. Who of the unwashed masses wants to think when watching TV? I'd rather see a few shows that are done well on a cable channel than the dumbed-down stuff that's attempting to be popular. However, I'm unwilling to pay tens or hundreds of $CURRENCY a year to get such stuff, so I'll stick to books.

Before you flame my ass, I'll mention I've been whacking away at chemistry/computer software for years and years. And I really like a good science show (like an old NOVA) - but when it makes you think, it's just not what they want.

Re:And this is surprising how?

[sm62704]

Who of the unwashed masses wants to think when watching TV?

The topic isn't "reality TV", it's news. You could say the same thing about political news. Nobody wants to think when they're watching The Simpsons, but they want to be educated when they're watching Nova. They want to be informed when watching the news.

Re:And this is surprising how?

[Mateo_LeFou]

"They want to be informed when watching the news."

Slight correction: they want to feel as though they're being informed when watching the news. Cf
http://www.peirce.org/writings/p107.html

Re:And this is surprising how?

[sm62704]

Judging from the cuts in staff, cuts in schedule time and content shift seen in news programs, I'll stand by my assertion

You're talking about entertainment network news (Fox, NBC, CBS, ABC, etc), not MSNBC or CNN. Do you have links to sources that back up the assertation that CNN has cut schedule time and shifted content?

Why on earth would someone tune to CNN for entertainment? (Of course, I can't see why anyone would tune in to a soap opera, but that's just me)

The Pew group?

[FoolsGold]

Tag this article "pewpewpew".

I'm so sorry, really. I'll go now.

Re:The Pew group?

[sm62704]

I'm so sorry, really. I'll go now.

And I get flamed for linking Uncyclopedia! (actually that link is on topic. Kinda. Well hell, how 'bout UnNews:Stars must "check science facts"?

Gees, tough room.

Would they care?

[Swizec]

It seems to me that the average television viewing person couldn't care less about science news. Unless it's groundbreaking and will most definitely change their lives they don't care and if it does, well then it's in the news anyway.

Be honest, how many average people do you know who might care about a galaxy eating another galaxy ... and then again ... if memory serves I saw that on the news a few days after it was on Slashdot because the pictures were pretty.

News networks don't care about news, they care about viewership.

Re:Would they care?

[maxume]

The average television viewing person isn't watching the news.

Zing!

Re:Would they care?

[drsquare]

Be honest, how many average people do you know who might care about a galaxy eating another galaxy

Is that really news if it happened millions of years ago?

Re:Would they care?

[Swizec]

It's .... news that we saw it? When you think about it, far as we're concerned it hasn't really happened until we in some way detect the event. If you go on to postulate that reality is merely a sum result of what our senses are telling us the galaxies did not even colide until we saw them.

huh?

[apodyopsis]

FTFA: From 5 hours:

* 35 minutes about campaigns and elections
* 36 minutes about the debate over U.S. foreign policy
* 26 minutes or more of crime
* 12 minutes of accidents and disasters
* 10 minutes of celebrity and entertainment

On the other hand, one would have seen:

* 1 minute and 25 seconds about the environment
* 1 minute and 22 seconds about education
* 1 minute about science and technology
* 3 minutes and 34 seconds about the economy

Or to put that in perspective...

1 hour 11 minutes of campaigns. elections and foreign policy and then.. only 4 minutes 56 seconds on education and economy!!?

I would of thought the two would of gone hand in hand. How else to the politicians intend to persuade you lot to vote?

Re:huh?

[faloi]

Since most politicians have been pitifully inadequate, it actually helps them to have a lot of time spent on barely scratching the surface of very complex subjects coupled with them discussing how pitiful the other politicians are (regardless of the fact that their views are almost lockstep with one another). If in-depth information of value ever really got out to the public at large, I'm willing to bet that most politicians currently in power would be looking for some new jobs.

Re:huh?

[IBBoard]

Five hours of news and only 10 minutes of celebs? Based on most UK news that seems far too low. We borrow things like American Idol from the US and our TV is excessively Celebrity-centric, so what news channel were they watching that wasn't?!

Re:huh?

[Anonymous Coward]

I would of thought the two would of gone hand in hand. You would what? The two would what? I don't understand.

Re:huh?

[locster]

I would of thought the two would of gone hand in hand.

I would have thought the two would have gone hand in hand.

There, fixed that for you. Maybe you should watch more educational programming.

Re:huh?

[apodyopsis]

I would of thought the two would of gone hand in hand.

I would have thought the two would have gone hand in hand.

There, fixed that for you. Maybe you should watch more educational programming.

Oh I totally agree.

But as I would need to watch 204.5 hours of cable for 1 hour of educational content I don't think my will power is up to it.

Re:huh?

[InvisblePinkUnicorn]

"How else to the politicians intend to persuade you lot to vote?"

I vote in the time-honored tradition of who talks the loudest in the debates. I have no clue what they're talking about, but they couldn't possibly get all that applause unless they had just made some awesome point, could they?

Re:huh?

[CastrTroy]

I would have said the same thing, based on Canadian news. I guess it depends which news program you are watching. You don't get much celeb news if you watch the CBC, but you do tend to get a lot of it on some other networks.

Re:huh?

[kamapuaa]

An equally valid way to interpret those numbers is that people tend to get certain types of information from other sources than Cable TV News. With economics, there's the Internet, there's Newspapers, there's cable TV stations entirely dedicated to economic news, and so forth. General-purpose Cable TV News is not intended or perceived as a person's sole resource on the current state of the world today.

Re:huh?

[Kiaser Zohsay]

* 35 minutes about campaigns and elections
* 36 minutes about the debate over U.S. foreign policy
* 26 minutes or more of crime
* 12 minutes of accidents and disasters
* 10 minutes of celebrity and entertainment Some news stories fit into multiple categories, so we get to see 71 minutes (elections + crime + celebrity) worth of pictures of Spitzer's call girl.

Not that there's anything wrong with that.

Re:huh?

[jrumney]

Paris Hilton was out of town on the day they did the survey.

Re:huh?

[electrictroy]

>>>"Based on most UK news that seems far too low. We borrow things like American Idol from the US" You got it backwards son. American Idol was a hit in the UK first, and then later exported by the British producer Simon to the U.S. television.

Re:huh?

[ashitaka]

Ummm, you do realize that American Idol is based on the British program "Pop Idol" and that many of the classic American programs that Yanks get nostalgic about are based on British programs:

Steptoe and Son begat Sanford and Son.
Til Death US Do Part begat All in the Family
etc.

Re:huh?

[IBBoard]

Shows how interesting I found it. Thinking about it, we're responsible for Big Brother as well.

Why is all of our TV so terrible? Why are we so obsessed with "wannabe celebs"? And why do we get so much press about actual celebs doing stupid things?

OJ Simpson getting chased for potential murder or whatever - news. Amy Winehouse getting caught doing drugs again - not news (and better suited to the radio where I don't have to look at her face). Heath Ledger found dead - news. Heather Mills making millions out of getting married to and divorced from a Beatle - not news (or minor news).

Re:huh?

[Atari400]

"Shows how interesting I found it. Thinking about it, we're responsible for Big Brother as well."

-- Big Brother was originally a Dutch TV production, shot literally just up the road from me. At least if you mean the TV series. Not that I have any interest in it, I find it doubleplusungood.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Brother_(TV_series)

Re:huh?

[deanlandolt]

"We borrow things like American Idol from the US" Quite the opposite, and I still haven't forgiven you limey bastards for it!

Re:huh?

[laddiebuck]

Three's Company and Three's a Crowd from Man About the House and Robin's Nest. etc.

Re:huh?

[mapkinase]

We had more scientific talk on TV in USSR than US now. One of the most popular programs was "Obvious and Impossible".

But more striking contrast could be observed if you look at the printed subscription media. We had "Science and Life", immensely popular "Chemistry and Life", very popular hands-on "Technology to the Youth". The technology oriented journals had all kind of fun stuff besides technology as well: sci-fi fiction, funny stories, funny pictures.

All that crap we have now in Russia: tabloids, glamour journals, trash talk, was non-existent. In that environment, we had either "official" political newspapers with boring staff or technology-oriented staff. Guess what we have been choosing...

Even earlier, at Stalin's time professors in science were highest paid workers. They had enormous flats in the establishment apartment buildings in the center of Moscow, they had even servants (in communist country!). By Brezhnev times preferential treatment of scientists and engineers were gone and they became the lowest cast.

I am not a Stalinist. He was a ruthless dictator. But at least he had brains compared to the subsequent Russain leadership up to Putin.

Re:huh?

[IBBoard]

Oh well, at least that's some terrible televisual crap that we can't be blamed for :D Although it looks like we weren't too far behind.

consequences...

[Mr_Nitro]

That's why modern ppl are 99% dumb amoebas watching american idol or such trash tv shows.
We're doomed to extinction if we don't stimulate the growth of genuine creativity and curiosity towards science and nature. The Greeks knew it well, and today we still admire and study their writings...
I hope it's not too late to invert all the wrong stuffs we're doing, from environment destruction, to poor energetic choices (see new german power-regulators using env-friendly energies... working and clean!) and most important, destroy all religion-hate-war-sellweapons market in that order possibly...

cheers
v

Re:consequences...

[Culture20]

I think you're confusing a couple ancient greeks with _all_ ancient greeks.

Re:consequences...

[sm62704]

We're doomed to extinction if we don't stimulate the growth of genuine creativity and curiosity towards science and nature

A species' survival doesn't hings on how intelligent its members are, it depends on procreation. We're not going to become extinct because we're stupid, if we become extinct it will be because of some global catastrophe that we, ourselves, will likely cause.

And it will be a catastrophe that couldn't have occurred had we not been smart enough to make atom bombs, automobiles, electricity, etc.

Re:consequences...

[Eivind]

True enough.

But -some- global disasters may be better dealt with by smarter people.

I don't think it's very likely that humanity will die out in the next few hundred years. It's much more likely that we suffer huge catastrophies of some kind, and that intelligence and resourcefulness determines if 1 million people die or 1 billion.

Which makes a difference, but ain't precisely about extinction seeing as we're several billion people.

Re:consequences...

[Maxo-Texas]

Think of the earth as a very large easter island or haiti without UN food aid.

Dumb people create catastrophes too-- they just do it by overbreeding, stripping the entire area of food, and then suffering 99% mortality rates.

Your basic point is extremely valid however.

Re:consequences...

[Mr. Slippery]

Which makes a difference, but ain't precisely about extinction seeing as we're several billion people.

There were between 3 and 5 billion passenger pigeons in North America when the Europeans showed up. Less than five hundred years later, in 1914, the last one died.

Nature will wipe us out just as happily as we wiped out the passenger pigeon.

I don't think it's very likely that humanity will die out in the next few hundred years.

It's quite possible that humanity as we know it will not exist five hundred years from now. We will either have fscked up completely and be extinct; or we will have changed so much, hit some sort of Vingean singularity, that "human" will no longer be fully descriptive.

Re:consequences...

[Eivind]

You're COMPLETELY beside the point. First, my point wasn't "we can't die out cos we're so many", my point was that a HUGE disaster that kills millions or even a billion or two is nevertheless not anywhere close to making us extinct.

Second, the pigeons did not actually DO anything to avoid extinction, or even, for that matter, DISCOVER the threat. They're dumb. Like all animals. We're pretty dumb too, but we're still light-years ahead of any animal on the planet.

Third, I said I don't think its very likely that we'll die out in the next few hundred years, you respond that it's "quite possible", which would've been relevant if I had claimed it was IMPOSSIBLE, which I never did, I just said I don't find it likely.

That humanity will change is a given, such predictions score no points. Indeed even to human beings from a few hundred years back we're half-gods (or atleast we're capable of many feats that THEY assosiate only with Gods), and change is definitely accelerating. (1908 - 2008 is a LOT bigger change than 1208 - 1308 was, really)

That's a given, but it's not precisely extinction, now is it ?

Cue Sniveling "I Am Oh So Superior" Comments

[Anonymous Coward]

in 3. . . 2. . . 1. . .

SSh!

[youthoftoday]

Am I the only one that thought the title was about people holding one minute's silence for five hours' cable news?

Well, at least you can say one good thing...

[tgd]

Its still more than you get on the Discovery Channel anymore...

Re:Well, at least you can say one good thing...

[malsdavis]

"Its still more than you get on the Discovery Channel anymore..."

Agreed. Discovery Channel no longer seem to show science programs of post-kindergarten level anymore.

If I see one more 'professor' explaining a concept which most 6-year olds would find obvious, as if the concept is something the viewer may struggle to grasp, I think I'm going to be sick.

Re:Well, at least you can say one good thing...

[value_added]

Its still more than you get on the Discovery Channel anymore...

Which ain't much. The closest I've ever come to being informed was watching hour-long interviews on The Charlie Rose Show on PBS.

A random sampling of guests include Dr. Paul Nurse and Dr. James Watson, E.O. Wilson, Jane Goodall, Carl Sagan, Noam Chomsky, and Linus Torvalds. Many of them have appeared multiple times.

Natalie Portman is in there too, but I'm not sure how scientific an interview with her could be.

Re:Well, at least you can say one good thing...

[RogueWarrior65]

And WAY more than you get on The Learning Channel these days. Watching a show that spouts off what some moron thinks I should wear is about as useful as the hundreds of sports channels which usually have nothing on them anyway and the fifty or so shopping channels. GAH!!!

Re:Well, at least you can say one good thing...

[ashitaka]

Natalie Portman is in there too, but I'm not sure how scientific an interview with her could be.

She could discuss the application of elevated temperature corn porridge to the unclothed human anatomy resulting in loss of motor functions due to extreme fear.

Re:Well, at least you can say one good thing...

[kerohazel]

This needs to be said:
http://xkcd.com/397/

Now, granted, it's not science *news*. But it's still science.

Re:Well, at least you can say one good thing...

[Jardine]

Its still more than you get on the Discovery Channel anymore...

Discovery Channel in Canada airs a daily hour-long science news show called Daily Planet. They seem to have shifted most of the documentaries off to their other channels, leaving us with Mythbusters, Dirty Jobs, How It's Made, Deadliest Catch, and the occasional edutainment piece about scientists who time travel to bring animals from the past.

Enticement

[camperdave]

People think that the commercials are there to entice you to buy the product. In fact, the shows are there to entice you to spend time in front of the TV. Broadcasters aren't in business to entertain. They are selling viewership to advertisers. Their product isn't the show. Their product is viewer attention, and the shows are how they attract viewers. This includes the news. The broadcasters learned long ago that controversy and disaster attract much more viewers than science, and good news. The news isn't there to inform and enlighten, it is there so they can sell air time.

Re:Enticement

[pgn674]

Does /. do the same?

I know, one liner replies suck. But, this other line commenting about the one-liner property of this post destroys said property. There's a lesson in that... ...maybe.

Re:Enticement

[jackbird]

Actually, that business model is more or less explicitly not supposed to include the news programming. The broadcasters got their monopoly of the airwaves way back when at least partially in exchange for a promise that some portion of their programming would serve the public good (i.e. news).

The advent of TV news divisions being expected to make a profit, and the attendent nosedive in journalistic standards, is fairly recent. Watch Network now and it's hard to see how outrageous a satire the proto-reality TV news segments were back then - it's surpassed daily by all sorts of actual programming.

Re:Enticement

[Herkum01]

I think that you are wrong, it is EASIER and CHEAPER to produce a story about a disaster or controversy than it is about science. You have to be willing to spend some time about science in order to engage a viewer.

News today is more about press releases and quick quotes, hell the news media does not really bother fact checking most of the time, which is stupid in a age where information is more available than any other time in history.

Re:Enticement

[Anonymous Coward]

Kudos. Nice to see that there are some people out there who get it.

Re:Enticement

[melikamp]

Don't feel bad about how short your reply is. Or thin, rather, since adding more lines would make it thicker. It is not all about size. Some men can do more with their tiny one-liners than others with long beefy paragraphs. And when that happens, other men take notice. Not me, though. I am just a well-wisher, in that I do not wish you any specific harm.

Re:Enticement

[camperdave]

We got the bubble-headed-bleach-blonde who comes on at five.
She can tell you 'bout the plane crash with a gleam in her eye.
Its interesting when people die - Give us dirty laundry.

The advent of TV news divisions being expected to make a profit, and the attendent nosedive in journalistic standards, is fairly recent.

Things have changed with the ubiquitousness of cable and satellite tv. Back in days of yore, each station broadcast the news at the same time, so there was pretty much no point in channel surfing - you got news no matter which channel you tuned to. These days, with 50-500 channels to choose from, many from different time zones, it is easy to find something else to watch. News has to compete against late afternoon sitcoms, or prime time dramas. That's one of the reasons why so many stations now have pretty female newscasters rather than the older male "trusted faces".

Another factor is the advent of the remote control. It used to be an inconvenience to change the channel, so surfing was not as common. Broadcasters can't count on human laziness to maintain their viewership. News needs to be sensational and immediate. No more "film at 11:00". Also, broadcasters need to do more carrot dangling: "Coming up later in the hour, cars that don't use gas.", or "After the break, how a cow is changing Broadway".

Calling science's bluff

[Goffee71]

Go on then, with all the money that science gets for R&D, why doesn't the scientific community use a tiny part of it to launch its own channel covering 'proper' science.

But, oh no, scientists everywhere suddenly claim poverty and, anyway, are far too busy tinkering with the LHC, latest mega-laser and juggling bacteria.

Anyway, you only get covered in the media if you spend money on it.
Science isn't sexy for 98.2% of the western world (i looked it up)
With religious loonies running much of the american political system and media, the less science gets a look-in, the better - as far as they are concerned. Just in case people start to take notice.

Re:Calling science's bluff

[JohnFluxx]

Well a lot of scientists do end up lecturing some of the week. And there's barely enough to time to do that.

Re:Calling science's bluff

[philspear]

Go on then, with all the money that science gets for R&D, why doesn't the scientific community use a tiny part of it to launch its own channel covering 'proper' science. But, oh no, scientists everywhere suddenly claim poverty and, anyway, are far too busy tinkering with the LHC, latest mega-laser and juggling bacteria.

Someone overestimates how much funding is given to scientists and underestimates how much money it costs to set up a TV channel, and also underestimates restrictions on funding. Also overestimates the importance of Joe Couchpotato being up on the latest physics research.

You know what's sad?

[TheRagingTowel]

You know what's really sad? That I've read the title, before reading the summary, and thought to myself: Hey, this could be a good idea!

Look at the bright side.

[Thanshin]

Five hundred years ago, the minute of science would consist on latest scientist burning on the stake.

Oh God, how I miss medieval tv. Closest we get now is a Thich Quang Duc impersonator, and monthly, at best.

Re:Look at the bright side.

[Atari400]

Did anyone else laugh when they saw this comment modded as "Flamebait"?

Re:Look at the bright side.

[Anonymous Coward]

No, but I did give a slight mental 'heh' when you pointed it out.

That study is whack

[smchris]

When I watch the "noos" I see stories about high achieving high school students, cats saved from fires, Paris Hilton, the latest actor picked up for drunk driving. the annual arrival of Girl Scout cookies, plucky disabled people, gang shootings, BS, BS, BS.

So, out of the five hours of "news" broken down by foreign affairs, domestic affairs, campaign '08, etc. did they actually have to watch 50 hours of "noos"?

Re:That study is whack

[philspear]

Good point. For every 5 hours of cable news, theres' maximum of 5 minutes of real news. One of those is apperantly science-related.

"Life" has a smaller percentage.

[Culture20]

This "state" of the news media isn't bad. Life itself for most people has very little science going on in the foreground. Just because we slashdotters wallow in science and technology all day long at work doesn't mean we should be cramming it down people's throats during news broadcasts.

Re:"Life" has a smaller percentage.

[necro81]

I'd say this statement is a reflection of the ignorance most people have about science and technology. It surrounds every facet of their lives - they're just too oblivious to realize it. From the car they drive to work, to the computer they use once they get there (be it a powerful workstation or a cash register), to the device playing music in the background, to the TV they watch at home while tucking into a microwaved dinner - science and technology is all around them.

Most people don't recognize this fact until some piece of technology fails them. Then they wail and cry because they can't watch the latest episode of American Idol, and rail against the "scientists" who have betrayed them with a TV that's broken. Never mind that science and technology have enriched their lives, guarded them from disease and famine, advanced civilization, and allowed them to even have the freetime to squander on reality TV.

In general, it is a fact of technology that, once it is well established, it fades into the background and doesn't register in people's minds. That's no excuse for failing to recognize its importance. That includes the media, too.

ok, but...

[ack154]

How about another study not so close to a presidential-election year? Not that I expect the science/education/etc coverage to increase dramatically in other circumstances, but of course it's going to be a lot of campaign coverage.

Why is it so bad?

[Evil Pete]

I know that TV fosters a dumbing down of society and trashing of the image of those in the sciences. But here in Australia we actually had a period of time when science and science reporting was highly regarded. It has slipped a bit lately but the ABC still has a Science Week where almost every TV and radio program tries to inject Science into the format. And TripleJ still has Dr Karl answering science questions every week (unless he's too busy doing Sleek Geeks). Maybe it is the non-existence of a strong equivalent of the ABC or BBC. Because science reporting is popular, just not as popular as other things. What I guess I am trying to say is the current situation wherever you are is not inevitable. Just as the current slide here is not inevitable -- science has given way to the unbelievably boring discussions on 'renovations'. Crap.

Re:Why is it so bad?

[corstar]

I stopped listening to triple j ages ago, it just suck now. I also no longer listen to r Dr Karl, I respect him but sometimes jjj would have 5 or 6 songs between his calls. I mean, WHAT'S THE FRIGGIN POINT OF HAVING HIM IN.......??? I'd much rather listen to the programs on radio national. TV sucks anyways..just don't watch it! /rant over

Re:Why is it so bad?

[laddiebuck]

It'll always be different between profit-driven private broadcasting (almost all of what is in the US), charterered but partly commercially funded broadcasting (most of Europe and the Commonwealth) and entirely chartered and publicly funded broadcasting (the BBC and the Nordic broadcasters). (Independent broadcasting receives very little audience share.) At one end of the spectrum, the private end, there is almost zero value, as the viewer is merely a revenue-generating machine, whose desires and psychology are carefully analysed and catered to. Too much education or critical thinking would even impede his consumerism. At the other end of the spectrum there is the BBC, with its absolutely stellar documentary, science and news output. The BBC's mission is to educate, entertain and inform, and though falling short of perfection, not to mention being mauled by Thatcher & New Labour, it is still probably the best broadcaster in the world. It actually often broadcasts good science and good news, for instance. And the ABC, NZBC, CBC, PBS -- these will always occupy middle grounds in this spectrum, until they become wholly publicly funded.

Re:Why is it so bad?

[Evil Pete]

I stopped listening regularly to JJJ when Adam & Will left. So you may be right.

I think the major reason Australia's interest in science is so different is due to basically one man. Robyn Williams. I'm old enough to remember the growing influence of the Science Show which had unheard of popularity for an ABC radio program. Williams has written books, but I don't really like them. His skill is constructing an interesting, surprising and challenging 50 minute weekly show, and asking questions in such a manner that scientists don't usually dumb down the answers. Though it is interesting that some guests, usually American, who are new to the Science Show do dumb down their answers and it just sounds strange. Without him I don't think the ABC would have created the Science Unit, which has done some amazing stuff on TV. Pity they didn't come up with Mythbusters, though Beyond Productions in Sydney who are ex-ABC did do it. While science was in decline in popularity in the US and Britain it was actually increasing in popularity in Australia.

If it could be done here it could be done elsewhere. Though probably people of his calibre are a bit thin on the ground.

this isn't top down

[circletimessquare]

this is bottom up. if msnbc suddenly reports more on science in more amounts of time your average slashdotter finds acceptable, msnbc's ratings go down. believe me, if they went up, you'd see 20 minutes every hour of the day devoted to science on cnn, msnbc, and even fox

the real issue here then is that your average joe blow just doesn't care that much about science, not some sort of weird pact by cable news shows to keep everyone stupid

and to go further than that, many will see failure in society, in politics, because joe blow isn't so interested in things your average slashdotter is. well, that's your vanity speaking, not your intelligence. why is your science-centric viewpoint superior than the viewpoint of joe blow? what is your objective reason for believing that?

where is the objective measure that says someone massively interested in science would make a better citizen? many people here are certain of that idea, but plenty of people are also prejudiced to their own particular worldview and agenda. that's you i'm speaking to, you who sees little interest in science as a sort of travesty. it's not. it simply isn't. get over yourself

the truth is, just not that many people are interested in science, were interested science, or ever will be interested in science. in any time period, in any country. get used to it. the world does not revolve around your biases towards a lot of interest in science, so this idea that few people are interested in science is not in any way a bad thing, it's just the way it is, and you would be doing yourself a favor by simply accepting that and moving on, rather than crying into your milk about some sort of travesty that isn't really a travesty at all

Re:this isn't top down

[sm62704]

this is bottom up. if msnbc suddenly reports more on science in more amounts of time your average slashdotter finds acceptable, msnbc's ratings go down.

No, if they present the news in an uninteresting or nonunderstandable way the ratings go down. Most high school kids hate science class because "science is boring." Well, science isn't boring, their science teacher is boring!

If you have some ignorant dumbass who hates science because his science teacher put everyone to sleep then yes, ratings will go down. But PBS' Cosmos had good ratings, because there was an articulate scientist presenting the show.

If you know a high school science teacher, smack him upside the head for doing such a shitty job.

-mcgrew

Re:this isn't top down

[lennier]

I think historically there have been periods (such as the early-mid 20th century) when Science was *very* popular. Look at old issues of Popular Mechanics, for instance, and you'll get an idea of the Science! Fever gripping America in the 1930s-1960s.

This seemed to change in the 1970s. The problem, I think, is that basic science research, despite an initial flood of change, has hit a wall of diminishing returns. Becoming informed about atoms and rockets was useful to people because it seemed like that research would be very quickly streamed into technologies which would immediately impact life in a big way.

But things like manned space exploration and high-energy particle physics today frankly *just aren't producing interesting results* unless you're willing to accept 'tweaked one tiny decimal point on the end of a huge string of digits, thus revalidating an existing theory that gives us no new implications' as 'interesting'. Most mainstream physicists seem to believe that no matter what the LHC discovers, we're *not* just around the corner from time travel, warp drive, limitless fusion energy, or any of the, well, useful things that could conceivably come from this research. Back in the 30s to 60s, it seemed *plausible* that an antigravity warp drive *could* one day be built, maybe tomorrow. But not now. Now it's all 'no, Science tells us We Can't Ever Do That And You're Stupid For Thinking We Ever Could'.

So, no surprise that nobody cares about space and physics any longer. For all practical purposes, it's a dead end. And that hurts. We were sold domed cities on Mars and jetpacks as part of boosting the Space Age (tm). It was, basically, a lie. A little white lie 'for the good of Science', but people remember that sort of thing.

The other aspect is that even the areas of science that *are* still generating accelerating results - like biology and computing - are generating so much uncorrelated data spread among so many institutions, that no one person any longer is *allowed* to have access to all of it. It's expensive to do cutting-edge research, now, both in time and lab money, and because it's so specialised, the results won't ever be able to be communicated outside of field-specific jargon - so even if you do win big (and like showbiz, it's a gamble), *nobody outside a tiny clique will ever know* what it was you did. And so increasingly, like dreaming of being an astronaut, dreaming of being a 'scientist' is something that smart people realise is as inaccessible and futile. So, being smart, they readjust their dreams to exclude Science and to include things that society *will* give them the opportunity to do, and be rewarded for.

We don't have a 'popular science culture', in other words, because the practice of science is increasingly not 'popular' but governmental/corporate. There's no room left for being a Tom Swift.

Except possibly in computing, which is why individual personal interest in science still persists in the O'Reilly Make / Slashdot crowd.

That's right

[Rik Sweeney]

and you know what that 1 minute is. It's that bloody shampoo advert featuring the latest teen starlet stating: "here comes the science"

Slashdot, because you're worth it.

Re:That's right

[cpricejones]

i think you got +3 for funny and +2 for shameless promotion... but will it work again...

slashdot, worth more than 1 minute every five hours.

Priorities

[PunditGuy]

How can they possibly spend time talking about the latest Cassini mission when there are hookers in New York!!!??!?!

Re:Priorities

[sm62704]

Link: UnNews:New York governor linked to prostitution, approval rating skyrockets

This is a good thing.

[DynaSoar]

I've seen that one minute per five hours. It sucks. It's usually so dumbed down that even when it's right it's so bad that it might was well be wrong.

Put science news on the science and other educational channels. Science channel(s), Discovery, History channel(s), National Geographic, NASA channel -- it's not like there's a complete lack of sources. If people want it, they'll go looking. If they can't handle it, they won't watch it and don't need it.

And don't give me any "the kids" nonsense. If kids need science, they need something better than news channels present. They need education, which means keeping them engaged, which means decent production. They're not prepared for science news yet. They're still in the stage where half hour shows with a few interesting longer stories are better for them. Besides, they don't need everything on TV. There's plenty of sources of science news that they can read. They're supposed to be doing that too.

Re:This is a good thing.

[TheGrumpster]

The sad thing is that even many of the science and education channels have now been dumbed down to where they are often of little interest. Remember when TLC was "The Learning Channel" instead of the "Flip This House Channel"? Remember when the History Channel actually discussed history? Now even semi-respectable channels like Geographic are showing crap like "Search for Bigfoot" and "Doomsday Prophecies of the Bible". The networks aren't stupid. They know where their audience is. Why else do you think the channel formerly known as "CNN Headline News" that used to show a nice summary of the major stories in a half-hour is now nothing but four hours of some idiot blabbing about the latest Britney Spears fiasco? I know it's a sign of my old age, but seriously, the only television worth watching is an occasional show like Nova or Frontline on PBS, and sometimes something on CSPAN. As for the rest, it's all trash. The new dark ages indeed.

Re:This is a good thing.

[jmorris42]

> Remember when TLC was "The Learning Channel?
> Remember when the History Channel actually discussed history?

Yes it is tied to the dumbing down of everything, but it is also something else. Not sure what the drive is, but look at the cable channels today vs a decade or so back. In the beginning the promise of cable/sat was lots of focused channels catering to niches that broadcast TV couldn't serve. So we had news channels that just did news, music channels that were 24 hours of music, science channels, etc. That was the promise, we would drive towards the 500 channel systems and it wouldn't matter what your interest, one of those channels would have something for you.

But what happened? We got 500 channels that increasingly are just mirrors of the three networks. Game shows (reality) everywhere, celebrity worship and gossip. Flip to a random channel and without looking at the bug in the corner you won't be able to tell what channel you are on. MTV runs fewer music videos in a week than network TV did back before MTV opened with "Video killed the radio star." CNN abandoned it's news all the time format and launched Headline News to compensate... only to make a mockery by turning 'headline news' into celebrity and tabloid trash in the evening and now a me too perky anchors in the morning show. So when will CNN - Really the News be launched like MTV3 was launched when the music died on MTV2 and VH1? Or take your example of Discovery, History and TLC becoming just crappy reality shows and searches for UFOs and Bigfoot. How about AMC running sitcoms and crap. Or TV Land running movies and original series instead of sticking to their mandate to keep classic TV series alive. And you can count the hours the SciFi channel runs SciFi on one hand these days. Guys, ghost hunters ain't SciFi. Jason vs Freddy ain't SciFi. Even Cartoon Network has morphed into a Nick clone with general (no requirement it be cartoon) kids programming by day and edgy 'adult' programming at night.

A closer look

[jovius]

People concentrate in the entertaining content rather than technology, which is so ubiquitous that it blends in. The human reality is built on rather beautiful science, but its meaning is mass produced to extinction. A breath here and there and a little pause once in a while could make miracles. One hardly ever takes a look of what is seen.

Well . . . .

[MazzThePianoman]

It takes a lot of time for the current administration to censor, twist, and edit science news before it reaches congress and the public.

Training is everything

[oDDmON oUT]

And make no mistake about it, viewers are being trained by what, and how, they watch from a very early age. News programming is only one facet of that.

If you're trained to only accept information in time units no larger than the average bowel movement, the chances that you will think critically about any given subject are reduced immmensely.

This works especially well for marketers and companies intent on your "consuming" their products, and for those who have the motives of a three card monte dealer.

Which points up the critical importance of your tax dollars being used to insure everyone has access to the "glass teat".

Bread and circuses anyone?

And I bet that 1 minute of "science"

[WCMI92]

Is related to the whole "man made global warming" hoax.

Which is junk science at it's worst.

hmmm

[thatskinnyguy]

That's because if the general public were to even begin to understand the magic concepts of Science, their heads would explode. Small doses like this keep them informed, yet it keeps everything "Scientific" still magical.

Have you ever tried to explain how something works to someone? I mean, I have to use analogies with elves, envelopes, and a giant series of tubes to explain how the interwebs work! I still end-up with a deer in the headlights stare.

Re:hmmm

[stubear]

"Have you ever tried to explain how something works to someone? I mean, I have to use analogies with elves, envelopes, and a giant series of tubes to explain how the interwebs work! I still end-up with a deer in the headlights stare."

Perhaps it's our explanation and the fact that you automatically assume that you are smarter then the person you are talking to? Maybe you hang around people who are dumber than you just to make yourself feel smarter? The sooner you realize that knowing more about a single subject that you have dedicated your life to does NOT make you smarter then everyone else, the sooner we can get over these bullshit Slashbot generalizations and misconceptions and have honest, open discussions. Until then, Slashdot group-think zealots like yourself are no better than the groups or organizations you mock.

Cable News Is A Lot Like Alcohol

[pandrijeczko]

If you sit and drink alcohol solidly for five hours, your liver will turn to mush.

If you sit and watch cable news for five hours, your brain will turn to mush.

And quite frankly, if you've a mushed brain then scientific concepts are probably the last thing you'll ever be able to assimilate.

No, you're probably far better off just sat there on you fat backside cramming crisps and canned beer into your mouth while you are mnindlessly forcefed more celebrity gossip and the endless coverage of Paul McCartney's divorce settlement by Rupert Murdoch's minions...

Re:Cable News Is A Lot Like Alcohol

[Anonymous Coward]

hey! my beer comes in a bottle, you insensitive clod!

Re:Cable News Is A Lot Like Alcohol

[pandrijeczko]

If that bottle has the word "Budweiser" on it, that ain't beer.

Re:Cable News Is A Lot Like Alcohol

[trongey]

...you're probably far better off just sat there on you fat backside cramming crisps and canned beer into your mouth... I can't think of any topic where this statement would not be true.

Good news /bad news

[sm62704]

some five hours of programming could pass with the average viewer seeing only one minute of science news coverage."

That would only be bad news if their reporting was factual and accurate, but they can hardly report on anything science-related without making some glaring error that any high school student should know is wrong.

It makes me wonder about their reporting on other aspects.

Even worse is the abysmal state of "educational" TV. One reason I dropped cable (besides the annual rate hike gougings) is channels like the Discovery channel. They used to have interesting topics - physics, astronomy, etc. Then it was all "how to chop a tractor-trailor into the world's largest motorcycle" or some such drivel.

Unfortunately...

[InvisblePinkUnicorn]

Unfortunately, that one minute of cable science news happens to occur on Fox News, where they present the latest evidence pointing to babies as the source of all terrorism, or the newest findings confirming that the Pyramids were built with the use of dinosaurs.

Cable news is the same as politics

[Shivetya]

As for the politician question, for those of us Americans we should have all received from the IRS our official "Politician Relection Act" statement, aka the Economic Stimulus Package. Opening that up and reading who qualified was a big kick in the nuts for those who actually work. Then again those who pay the majority of taxes are already going to vote, the politicians need those others who don't normally vote; too lazy to do so - a general reflection on their other daily activities; and so checks needed to go out with a glorification of government for providing the money.

Politicians do not want an educated public. They want votes, ignorant people vote out of emotion more so than facts and as such they play to those ignorances. They play on bigotry, class envy, fear, and hatred. The news media caters to them, hell their story lineup pretty much is the same thing.

We talk about science and technology but rarely act on them. Its all the rage in schools until Little Susy gets a D then we can't have those subjects anymore because someone isn't capable of keeping pace and suddenly we are more concerned about feelings than getting them up to speed. We don't celebrate the leaders and achievers in school because it hurts other people's feelings. As such we don't emphasize areas which do require dedication and work : namely sciences and math. Cable news will cater to that as well, this is the American Idol generation.

The best thing about American Idol is that losers are shown and the winners celebrated. If we took that achievement equates to success ethic back to the schools then perhaps the kids would want something different out of the news when they grow into adults.

Re:Cable news is the same as politics

[greyhueofdoubt]

>>They play on bigotry, class envy, fear, and hatred. ...
>>We don't celebrate the leaders and achievers in school because it hurts other people's feelings.

It's interesting that when it comes to math and science, we do care about people's feelings, yet when it comes to politics and celebrities, anything goes.

-b

so what?

[presarioD]

what does this "study" prove? That if only cable networks included more "scientific" coverage in their content Jesus would be happy and the "dumbing down of america" averted for good? Give me a break! Scientists and scientific thinking (aka critical thinking) are not produced by watching a flashy tube like an idiot . It's a derivative of hard intellectual work.

Next study to follow: Save america from obesity, petition your cable provider for more health/workout related content you can watch while wolfing down your TV-dinner...

Bullshit!

[molex333]

This is Bullshit! Should be same rules for everybody!

Obligatory Carl Sagan Quote

[dankstick]

"We have designed our civilization based on science and technology and at the same time arranged things so that almost no one understands anything at all about science and technology. This is a clear prescription for disaster."

-Carl Sagan, 1995 Interview with Anne Kalosh

Misread that headline

[Anonymous Meoward]

For a minute, I thought it read "one minute of SILENCE for five hours of cable news".

If only.

news

[seededfury]

I saw on the news.... what happens to slashdot users when someone posts a goatse link? To my suprise it was all revealed... http://seededfury.com/graphix12/15835.jpg

They get sucked in....

The divide...

[Deliveranc3]

between most science and technology is such that we only get a minute amout of the former on /,

Slashdot is a brilliant news source with brilliant contributers but still...

I've found myself going to conferences to get my fix...

Nanotechnology promises to unite chemistry, engineering and biology... Quantum mechanics will re-write physics and philosophy...

The only hard sciences, that can be practiced without millions of dollars of funding, are mathmatics and information science.

Re:The divide...

[colmore]

No, Math is expensive too. People haven't done it for free since all mathematicians were wealthy and their names began with "Lord." Also, modern math uses supercomputers to guess at truth before it proves it. We're pretty certain that the R-Z hypotheses is true because it's been tested for trillions and trillions of solutions by pricey computers (and pricey mathematical computer scientists).

Someone with the chops to be a mathematician can in general do much more profitable things with their time. A high 5 / low 6 figure salary and a comfortable tenured position are pretty well needed to keep them from just going to investment banking and making easy(er than theoretical mathematics) millions.

So while no individual mathematician requires "millions," the university community collectively spends millions on keeping mathematicians employed. Also, most physics departments don't have a large hadron collider (funniest potential typo in science), most physicists are more or less mathematicians, just working with data gathered at a distant handful of very very expensive sites.

The expanse of knowledge is neither cheap nor always profitable in the short term. But give it up and lets see where our society goes.

Re:The divide...

[Matrix2110]

...I've found myself going to conferences to get my fix...

I will have you know I get MY fix from Mythbusters.

Mod parent up

[TheMeuge]

For the love of whatever deity, please mod parent "Insightful", for it appears that American society has deteriorated a great deal in the last 50 years, when it comes to public perception of science and technology. You know, science used to be a prestigious profession, and used to be respected. Now, the only persistent emotions I see towards science and technology is spite. Our youth has become fat and lazy... complacent and arrogant. We are allowing subsequent generations to grow dumber than the next!

Re:Mod parent up

[penguin_dance]

You know, science used to be a prestigious profession, and used to be respected. Now, the only persistent emotions I see towards science and technology is spite.

Unfortunately, I think that's in part because science has jumped into the political realm, sometimes unintentionally, sometimes intentionally. Global warming, stem cell research, cloning, take your pick. Science is becoming a tool of the governments. And it no longer places ethical boundaries on itself. Environmentalism for some has become the new, secular religion. Tell the children mommy and daddy are hurting the cute penguins so we need to herd the people into urban areas and force mass transit.

It all sounds nice and reasonable and the frog is enjoying his warm bath. Unfortunately, the news doesn't report much about history either.

does health & medicine count

[peter303]

Health stories most nightly on the network news. They lternative between fear stories of new diseases and hopes of new cures.

And if you add in all the drug commercials, its maybe a third of the newscast :-)

But wait ... now how much would you pay?

[NetSettler]

... I really like a good science show (like an old NOVA) - but when it makes you think, it's just not what they want. ...

In some ways it's as if we have factored out television channels from one another, such that they are each like prime numbers with as little overlap as possible ... well, as more channels get added, maybe there are very specific composites re-added, but you always know and can select the mix. For entertainment, this works out well. But we really need to see news and education as different, and work harder to give people integrated doses.

I'd make the analogy to a diet. It's one thing to have a menu of possible desserts on the menu, it's quite another to have a menu of vitamins. To be sure, some vitamins are needed in extra doses by some people, and a few people are allergic to others. But by and large, people need their vitamins. News and science are like vitamins. People need them, whether they realize it or not. They need to know what issues are affecting them urgently and they need the raw tools for analyzing things. Confusing that with entertainment is a disaster for a democracy, which relies on informed choice.

It seems as if many would prefer a "studied" separation from being informed to actual political autonomy. On the one hand, one would like to assume that part of personal freedom is the right to decide what one wants, but with that should come the responsibility to decide what one wants. And my impression is that people who aren't serious about staying inform fall easy prey to the manipulators, those who do practice the science of harvesting votes from the easily persuaded by indulging in them through cynical flattery the fiction that they are still participating. It's hard to point fingers at some particular case and show that it's happening, but it's easy to know that it is happening. The proof is in the strong correlation between money invested and minds changed.

People will try to tell us that the current financial problems in the US were a big surprise. But most rationally informed people have seen this kind of thing coming for quite some time. The same scenario is playing out for climate change, and the stakes are way higher.

Maybe Science itself needs to invest in superbowl ads and late night informercials.

(Am I the only one who's noticed that when I submit a post lately for preview with a revised subject line, it shows my subject line in the preview and then re-fills the subject box with the old subject line, dropping my "clever" replacement? Sigh. Maybe knowledge of web science is falling off even at Slashdot central...)

Re:But wait ... now how much would you pay?

[megaditto]

They need to know what issues are affecting them urgently and they need the raw tools for analyzing things Unless you are willing to dictate to the cable news companies what to include, they are going to stick only to what pays (e.g. terrorism, accidents, political controversy, celebrities and their nude shots).

Maybe Science itself needs to invest in superbowl ads and late night informercials. And who would that be, exactly? Nobody with lots of money has a lot of interest in improving public awareness about science, not even the big pharms, weapons makers, or universities.

Re:But wait ... now how much would you pay?

[cayenne8]

"People will try to tell us that the current financial problems in the US were a big surprise. But most rationally informed people have seen this kind of thing coming for quite some time. The same scenario is playing out for climate change, and the stakes are way higher."

I dunno...I think there are plenty of rationally informed people out there that just don't follow financial news. I must admit, I've only recently started taking an interest in it in the past few years, now that I'm making enough money to actually put some back into investments. I didn't see this coming this bad, but, then again, I'm a novice on financial markets.

Frankly, I'm more concerned with the financial situation in the US than climate change...I'll likely be long dead before any climate related Armageddon occurs....but, I do want my $$ safe for retirement.

Besides...it sure doesn't seem to be warming very much the past couple years....which I thought I heard, had been cooler rather than warmer overall?

Re:But wait ... now how much would you pay?

[NetSettler]

cayenne8: Frankly, I'm more concerned with the financial situation in the US than climate change...I'll likely be long dead before any climate related Armageddon occurs....but, I do want my $$ safe for retirement.

The thought that the entire future of life on the planet could come down to whether there are enough people like you, professing to be concerned only with their short-term enrichment and comfort, is stunning and scary.

cayenne8: Besides...it sure doesn't seem to be warming very much the past couple years....which I thought I heard, had been cooler rather than warmer overall?

Your impression is not supported by scientific measurement. In fact, it has gotten warmer.

2007 was Tied for the Second Hottest Year on Record by Fraser Cain

You weren't imagining things, 2007 really was an unseasonably hot year. In fact, it was tied with 1998 for the second hottest year on record. All in all, the 8 warmest years have all occurred since 1998, and the 14 warmest years since 1990. This mini-record was announced by NASA climatologists this week.

Moreover, there is substantial speculation based on various models that the process may be accelerating, indicating that urgent action sooner rather than later is essential.

Relating back to the topic of the article upon which we are commenting, this emphasizes the importance not just of science but of math. One reason people have trouble absorbing the science of things is that they may lack the necessary appreciation of math to understand why the word "acceleration" in this context should make them very concerned. People think very linearly, and probably aren't aware of why linear vs non-linear is even an issue, so it's hard for them to realize they should be tuning in more. Words like "non-linear" or "accelerative" don't have the kind of punch that other words do. And meanwhile, the scientists are working hard to separate fact from conjecture, which means they're really only talking about what they can prove... but what some suspect is actually much worse.

The National Geographic Channel recently ran a very good story explaining why even a tiny number of degrees change can be fatal for the earth, not to mention potentially intruding on the comfort of your retirement. See their page for information; you can click on the various degrees (one degree, two degrees, etc.) to see the effects of that much change. It is not pretty.

We now return you to your regularly scheduled, science free, "reality" show.

Re:Fristy P0st

[MobileTatsu-NJG]

Why do fireworks die? Fireworks don't die... they just fade away.

Re:ethical boundaries

[TheMeuge]

I disagree with your judgment of "ethical boundaries". You must be buying too much either into the media coverage of science, or the religious propaganda against it. Let me avail you of your fears. As a biomedical scientist, I can tell you that now, the ethical restrictions that the scientific community has imposed upon itself, are far stricter than ever before in history. If you don't realize, perhaps you should consider that B.F. Skinner experimented on his daughter.

In the end, we have to either trust the entire scientific community, which possesses an understanding of the research, to impose ethical boundaries upon its own members, or continue letting the politicians, catering to the fears of the population, spurred by scaremongering of the media and the religious groups, continue contradicting science, both ethically, and directly.

Profit not Inform

[harl]

Cable news networks are not in business to inform or educate. Cable news networks are in business to make a profit. They show what will get asses in chairs. Any informing or education is purely ancillary.

Slashdot

[kninja]

Slashdot seems to cover the market that would care about this.

Re:ethical boundaries

[penguin_dance]

As a biomedical scientist, I can tell you that now, the ethical restrictions that the scientific community has imposed upon itself, are far stricter than ever before in history. If you don't realize, perhaps you should consider that B.F. Skinner experimented on his daughter.

I also realize that companies today are benefiting from experiments and research done by the Nazi's in WWII. Makes you stop and think the next time you see a Bayer commercial for insecticide. Yes, they discovered aspirin, but they also discovered heroin and mustard gas.

What I see today is global lawmakers seeming to have to set limits on how far they're willing to let their scientists go while the scientist are complaining the government is too restrictive. Yes, lots of political grandstanding to be sure. Yet still a concern at simply letting a group police itself. As we have seen in the past it takes only a few less ethical or perhaps simply tempted...if I just stray over the line just *this* much. And what if they're successful? While their method might be condemned, their results would certainly be used.

We have indeed put down certain large lines that are not to be crossed, such as not experimenting on prisoners. (Although some would argue that our own soldiers have been affected by government experiments with regards to Gulf War Syndrome.) I also think it's pretty obvious that some contries, such as China, don't share our level of ethics when it comes to human experimentation.

But it's the gray areas that are of most concern. Most religions see life as beginning at conception. So to grow a blastocyst to harvest stem cells is no different than aborting a 6-month embryo and doing so--it not only smacks of playing God, but of another queasy ability to easily kill some humans to benefit others. And then the "what-if" someone discovers that a slightly older embryo produces the cure for Parkinson's? Or Alzheimer's? What if the Chinese start using their forced abortions as the subject of experimentation? It's easy to start justifying the aborting of fetuses is helping a conscious, breathing person. Perhaps the scientist would be condemned when found out, but companies would be rushing to patent the magical pill.

I do have a great respect for science and scientific discoveries. I have several relatives that are or were in scientific and medical fields. But I always grow concerned at a body that wants to simply oversee their own and of a public that isn't educated (or cares) enough to keep watch.

Get a Subscription to Scientific American

[ponraul]

People typically don't watch cable news to learn about the latest scientific and technological advances; it's moving wall paper that they can watch while half distracted. If you really care about being informed beyond USA Today style graphs and the headlines, try a newspaper, magazine or the Internet. With the increasing availability of broadband Internet connections, functional literacy is essentially optional; there are few barriers to "learning" about pop-science or pop-technology. Complaining about the scientific content of television programming is as impotent and useful as complaining about the scientific content of a bar or the scientific content of billboards.

Re:Get a Subscription to Scientific American

[Anonymous Coward]

Pop-science is all Scientific American is. I've found that they'll print anything, with or with-out significant facts.

TFA is wrong

[houghi]

It might be true if you look at proramming times, however those 5 hours are 5 time repeats, so only one hour. Of that one hour, there is 15 minutes of advertisement, 14 minutes of 'coming up', 10 minutes somebody anouncing somebody else or themselves and 20 minutes of self promotion.

But China has 5 hours of science for very minute

[heroine]

of tabloids & China is all we need.

Re:ethical boundaries

[Dhalka226]

I also realize that companies today are benefiting from experiments and research done by the Nazi's in WWII.

So what? Meh, I'll get back to this.

What I see today is global lawmakers seeming to have to set limits on how far they're willing to let their scientists go

Close. You see lawmakers choosing to do so, so that they can campaign on how moral they are and how evil their opponents are because (gasp!) not everybody has an identical set of beliefs or an identical moral code. And they do it for the same reasons you bring out, which are entirely the wrong reasons.

And what if they're successful? While their method might be condemned, their results would certainly be used.

Because there is no such thing as bad knowledge, merely bad people and bad applications. If I find a cure for cancer by disemboweling babies and feeding them to terrorists, I should go to jail--and other scientists should be absolutely jumping on my discoveries to determine what the hell I was doing that ended up working, and if there's a way to duplicate the effect in a more ethical manner. Anybody who suggests waving their hands and going, "no, wait! We can't use that knowledge, it was discovered in a bad way!" is, sorry, an idiot.

I obviously don't condone what the Nazis did, but the idea that we shouldn't use their results is absurd. Even if you want to frame it as a purely ethical argument, why not make the horrible deaths or maimings of these people mean something if their suffering truly did lead to discoveries that are going to help other people?

I also think it's pretty obvious that some contries, such as China, don't share our level of ethics when it comes to human experimentation.

I certainly can't deny it. The fallacy in that argument is the assumption that ours are the correct set of ethics in all cases, or even that there is an "our;" it seems like just in a sample set of you and me that we could sit down and identify a number of significant differences.

The problem with ethics is that people have them because they believe they are the best. If I thought some other ethical concept was superior to my own, I would adopt it as my own. In other words: Most people are entirely unwilling to even acknowledge the idea that somebody else may be as right as they are. Anybody who has studied ethics in a meaningful way understands there are a ridiculous number of theories of how to determine the "right" set of ethics, and that many of those theories either have what most people consider glaring holes (simple utilitarianism may support the Nazi's actions for example) or come to alternate conclusions given the exact same set of input data. Ethics are not a simple thing, nor are they a concrete thing. Simply putting them to a "vote" (choosing the system of the majority, or even allowing elected officials to dictate them down to scientists) is faulty on many levels.

Most religions see life as beginning at conception. So to grow a blastocyst to harvest stem cells is no different than aborting a 6-month embryo and doing so--it not only smacks of playing God, but of another queasy ability to easily kill some humans to benefit others.

I think your true rationale has come out; your religious views contradict some scientific ideas.

So okay, most religions may define the beginning of life to be conception and, as of yet, most people in the US remain in some way religious. What meaningful conclusions does that allow us to draw about whether or not stem-cell research is right or wrong? I can trot out all the same examples of times religions have been horrifically wrong, or done terrible things to people itself--but I suspect you know them anyway, so there's no point there. And contrary to what religious people think of themselves and their religions, they do not own morality and (especially giv

I'm not sure how we'd know if people care

[jesterzog]

It seems to me that the average television viewing person couldn't care less about science news. Unless it's groundbreaking and will most definitely change their lives they don't care and if it does, well then it's in the news anyway.

I don't see how you could claim this if it hasn't been properly tested. After all, why should people be particularly interested in people blowing each other up on the other side of the world, or in campaigns for politicians who might one day be running the country, even though virtually nothing will be likely to change in how they run the country? The fact is that the media concentrates on showing that kind of thing. It's there to watch.

A story about galaxies eating galaxies isn't exactly the climatic potential of scientific news reporting anyway. The main reason we see stories about galaxies at all is because they look shiny on TV and the topic will conveniently fill a gap with an entertaining distraction between other things that are spouted out by a media that's seriously broken.

There are plenty of science-related topics that are directly relevant to society and people who live in it, and which it might actually be beneficial for the media to report on. It might be that people wouldn't be interested in science unless it has flashy lights and lasts no longer than 2 minutes, but we really don't know because it's more cost-efficient to make talk shows that provoke people with noisy hosts and misinformation, or pseudo gameshows about social wierdos being trapped on artificial islands for months at a time and being psychologically manipulated into hating each other in front of cameras.

I wouldn't have thought they go hand in hand

[jesterzog]

I would of thought the two would of gone hand in hand. How else to the politicians intend to persuade you lot to vote?

I don't know exactly what you guys see inside the US, but near 100% of the media that gets exported outside which I see appears to be much more concerned with who's likely to get elected rather than why people should actually elect them. There's a lot more presentation, smiley faces, crowds of people cheering, and anecdotal notes about things like "black" or "female" or "experience" coming through. There's virtually no information or substance about actual policy. (Keeping in mind that most of what we get is about the Democrat primaries for some reason.)

Perhaps this is just because it's outside the US, even though it'd still be nice to have more information about how various US candidates might effect the rest of the world. (Our local media is hopeless and will happily regurgitate whatever reporting is popular overseas, however. It gets ratings and it's more cost effective than doing their own journalism about things that might be more directly relevant to their own viewers.)