Slashdot Mirror
Science Documentaries for Youngsters?
An anonymous reader writes "My 7-year-old daughter is asking some interesting questions, such as, 'How did everything get created?' I've explained, in general terms, our family's non-religious views on the subject of creation and the Big Bang. I'd like to find some documentary videos geared to this age level that may explain better these concepts and theories. I've found a few PBS specials online - Stephen Hawking stuff - but they seem to be geared for young adults and older. Does anyone have recommended titles that might be better geared to children of this age bracket?"
It's not a video, but if you have a science-oriented child in your household, Symmetry magazine is a very good choice. It's published by Fermilab and discusses all sorts of things related to scientific discovery, from particle physics to the daily routine of scientists at Fermilab. It's a regular publication and it costs nothing, so it's only a positive for your kid.
http://www.symmetrymagazine.org/cms/
I'm not religious at all but still I see some mysticism in the Universe. To quote the Matrix: "Everything that has a beginning has an end.". Or to put it in human terms, we cannot comprehend something that did not have a beginning. And Turtles all the way down just doesn't cut it.
Shh.
Frank Capra did a series of science documentaries in the 50's that are quite amazing. Adults might find them a bit over the top, but for a seven year old they can be really mind bending. I know they had a big impact on me as a child.
Our Mr. Sun
Hemo the Magnificent
Unchained Goddess
The Strange Case of Cosmic Rays
are available on DVD. The whole series had nine films, but I haven't been able to find the others.
Winged Migration is also quite good.
oh, & wikipedia, NASA, etc. yup, that should keep a seven year old busy
as for books, try the library
Words to men, as air to birds.
This opening video should keep your child interested and fuel a healthy discussion. http://youtube.com/watch?v=5X4L-Q9MHCg
If you are OK with torrents, mvgroup.org is a highly recommended place to look for educational documentaries.
"The Universe" series on the history channel has some quality episodes about the origins of the solar system and the Universe. (http://www.history.com/minisite.do?content_type=Minisite_Episodes&content_type_id=54042&display_order=7&mini_id=54036)
It's old, but its wonderful. It's truly Carl Sagan at his best. And when she's old enough, there's the companion book. And the whole thing is available on Netflix.
It just happened! At one time there was nothing, an instant later there was everything in a very small space. In time that small space of everything expanded out to be the universe as we know it today.
That should put everything in the perspective a 7 year old can understand and not be anything less than our scientists told us. It just happened!
-- Many men would appreciate a woman's mind more if they could fondle it
Search for "magic school bus" and they have an episode on the big bang.
in fact that tv show is good for chemistry, molecular physics, biology, etc....
Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
See, when we were growing up we didn't have science shows aimed at 7 year olds, so 7 year olds had to ask their parents or grandparents etc. And they chose the best answer they could find.
The best thing that you can do IMHO is to take your daughter in hand and go find the answer. She will learn two things at a minimum: The answer to the question as best as it can be answered, the fact that you care to do that for her, and the methods you use to find answers. That last one is way more important than you might think.
I used to hate hearing the words "go look it up" but it did lead to me looking for a lot of things... and finding them. When she learns from you HOW to look for answers, hopefully she will never stop looking for answers as long as she lives.
Support NYCountryLawyer RIAA vs People
Richard Dawkins explains it to the kids...
http://richarddawkins.net/article,826,Growing-Up-in-the-Universe-2-Disc-DVD-Set,The-Richard-Dawkins-Foundation-for-Reason-and-Science
When I was growing up (which wasn't that long ago, really), my parents got me a Ranger Rick subscription as a very little kid. Then they got me Kids Discover which I read until I was 9 or so, I think. National Geographic is also really good, and Scientific American, for when she gets a little older. In addition, the public library should have some nice glossy picture books about the planets and other things. I would recommend that she read as opposed to watching TV; she'll become a better reader and you can really get lost in books, stare at the pictures and let your mind turn on all of it - take your time as opposed to being rushed along as films too often do. But films are good too :)
If Ben Stein couldnt keep a highschool class awake, what good is he going to do for a seven year old? Anyone? Anyone?
C.
"Doctor, it's not the voices I hear in MY head, but the voices I hear in YOUR head that really frighten me."
"Growning up in the universe" is for children. It is available free online at the above adress and you can order dvds if you like.
But a repository of good multimedia clips and lessons aimed at children of different ages: http://www.teachersdomain.org/
This site is run by the PBS station WGBH. You might be able to find footage of what you are looking for here and questions that could spark and interesting conversation between yourself and your child.
You've got a golden opportunity here. Give your kid a little more credit. They can understand a whole lot more than we adults think especially with your guidance. Maybe their attention span is shorter but then just stop the tape after 30 minutes and pick it up later. If their into the content they'll ask for more. Cosmos and Connections are great.
It's too bad there's no modern equivalent of 3-2-1 Contact or Mr. Wizard's World. Both (and I'm sure some others) were good shows aimed at teaching kids science on a good level. Newton's Apple was excellent too, although it was not aimed solely at kids.
Bill Nye and Beakman (especially Beakman) were not as good because they were too interested in being flashy and funny and catering to kids with no attention spans.
I don't know if there's anything comparable on TV today.
The Life on Earth series from the BBC.
I know it's fairly local (i.e. our planet) - but it is inspiring.
Genesis 1:32 And God typed
The Planet Earth series by Discovery channel or Planet Earth by the BBC might be a bit more interesting then a generic creationalism vs evolution debate. I thought the series was great because after each segment we talked as a family generically about how "things came to be" with the idea that the kids should get inspired to find their own answers.
Check your local planetarium, if possible. They often have shows geared to younger children.
I took my niece (then about 6 years old) to one a couple of times after she showed interest in star-gazing. I think these days, she (now 9 years old) might be better than me at picking out constellations!
Nobody knows.
Try to explain the difference between religion, fact, and theory. Then move on to children's versions of the "good books". Allow her to make her own decisions but stress that she's also allowed to change her mind.
Finally, go back to point one; nobody knows. She's no better than someone who adopts an alternate view.
My kid's 4 and a half and really enjoys any science documentary we throw at him, and seems to have decent retention. This is a problem when we were traveling recently and all we could find on the TV was a documentary on the ancient Aztecs and their propensity for human sacrifice. When talking about hearts later, he remembered that the Aztecs took out people's hearts. So you have to be careful, but any kid who's naturally inquisitive will probably enjoy any fact-based programming geared for any age, with a thoughtful parent to help interpret they parts they might not understand.
-- Of course I'm paranoid. I'm a sysadmin.
I don't know your daughter and wether she is a potential savant or not. Asking such questions at the age of 7 could indicate that. However, it is more likely that she's just like any other child. Meaning that at about the age she is in, normal healthy children ask questions for the sake of asking questions. They practice the task of asking. You can observe this when they repeat a question or when they inmediately follow up with another question without really pondering your last answer that much. Because they really can't fathom what you're saying actually. It's the general process of Q&A their interested in. That doesn't mean you should lie - just stick to answers that are low on the abstract and rich on images. And - honestly now - screw any conserved media. A wildlife documentary around the age of 10 or so every once and a while is ok - but it's not before well into teenage that children can really gain knowledge from these. Other means of education are far more important before that.
By far the biggest screwup of modern western education - with huge, seemingly unrelated consequences for society - is that it treats kids under teenage and even teenagers far to much like intellectually fully developed grown-ups. Appealing to pure reason and logic in a 7-year old does more damage than good, with consequences that show up far later in life (lack of will and motivation, concentration problems, undeveloped social skills, restlessness, etc. - we geek kids of the 80ties know all this). If here questions are of the usual nature (her *praticing* the process of questioning!) then see it as a game and follow along, even if it turns into seemingly strange circular Q&A sessions. Ask her repeating questions in return yourself - she's praticing the act of questioning, the subject hardly matters ("Where do you live?" and a few other related questions repeatadly asked and answered, is a classic for this sort of thing). You'll actually notice that this questioning goes away after a while and comes back during the teenages if it was dealt with appropriately at younger age.
The first specs of true scientific interest come at the age of about 9. And then a trip to the library or the zoo or a science park and you sticking to personal and live explainations (that needant be all that scientifically detailed) of real phenomenon (weather, "Where do rivers come from?" "How can a car drive?", etc.) are all she needs. And don't worry - if you give her the right kind of education at the right time, she'll be a bright kid all by herself when her intellect and her strength for own reasoning fully awakes. Usually at the age of adolescence - as parents all around the world know very well. In fact, her reasoning will be far more healthy and her own if she doesn't get intellectually challenged to early in life. And it will be supported by a healthy own will, if she has the correct treatment as a child to look back on. There are other things children need to develop before they can develop a healthym intellectual reasoning. It's for that exact reason that the question "What would you like?" often is totally misplaced towards a toddler or small child.
And FYI: Yes, that is an essential conclusion of waldorf education. An educational methodology sometimes considered heretic by other educational trends. I've found it to be spot on. Make you own experiences, but do your and your sibling a favour and don't burry your kid in all kinds of media to early before you know what's really going on.
My 2 cents as a father of a 10 year old daughter.
We suffer more in our imagination than in reality. - Seneca
Edit it. Add the fact that she has a dinosaur for a pet. Or the part about her having five elbows. Save. Show. (And then revert.) Ask your kid about the wisdom of using Wikipedia. (*)
Better idea, do all of that, but DON'T revert it. Go back to the page sometime later and point out that someone else has fixed the mistakes. THEN ask your kid about the wisdom of using Wikipedia.
Wikipedia is not infallible, and mistakes can slip through and even remain for a long time in some rare cases, but most things will be fixed very quickly, and "in general" it is a fairly accurate resource (especially if you actually check cited references). It is, on the whole, far MORE accurate than many other accepted resources precisely because it is editable.
My book about LSD and Self-Discovery
Also on facebook as: DroppingAcidDaleBewan
It's a bit advanced for a seven year old, but she won't stay seven forever. It's just what the title says: "A Cartoon History of the Universe". It's printed rather than video.
This combines basic cosmology (a bit dated now), some palentology, and mainly history or the world. One does need a pretty good vocabulary to handle it, but it's good.
Most of it originally came out as comic books (black & white only), but it's been rebound into some fairly thick books. (If you want, at the end of each section there's a bibliography of his sources, so you can check him for accuracy.)
I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
I occasionally vandalize obscure articles on Wikipedia on purpose, just to test its integrity. No matter what I do, it's always reverted within a few hours.
There are a lot of smart, careful, and bored people who do nothing but watch the global changelog and review new edits.
I am actually proud of my kids' school, where they have banned wikipedia for use as a source.
Good for them. In the coming century, that policy will make it that much easier for my kids to outcompete yours.
WP should not be used as source material. That does not make it useless. The same is true for any encyclopedia.
WP is an excellent resource for several things. It provides a good overview of a subject. Often, if you're only somewhat knowledgeable on a subject, it can fill in some gaps in ways that are obviously not horribly wrong. For example, I've learned a lot of math on WP -- I can follow the derivations, and see their correctness independent of any other source, but I couldn't produce them on my own. This is, obviously, a limited case -- especially for a kid.
The best thing to use WP for, once you have a high-level grasp of a topic, is its bibliography. Nearly all articles contain at least a couple references; some contain quite extensive bibliographies. These are useful places to start your research. Need some data on global warming? I wouldn't get it from WP, but I would happily go to the WP page, find what appeared to be the data I wanted, find the citation for it, and then go read the referenced material.
Barney is not for 7 year olds. Many of them, if curious, are quite capable of understanding fairly complex topics. It's obvious you've never actually had a conversation with a smart, curious 7 year old.
I know others have said this as well, but I have a 7 year old boy and he's been absolutely loves watching The Universe on The History Channel with me. After having watched almost all of the episodes over the past two seasons, he can converse far more intelligently about cosmology than most adults can.
When in the car, we also listen to the Astronomy Cast podcast. Dr. Pamela Gay does a great job of getting the science across in an informative and entertaining way without dumbing it down too much for us non professional physicists and astronomers.
Yes, a lot of it is over his head (heck, a lot of it is over my head), but he asks very intelligent questions about time, space, where everything came from, and where it's all headed, so I highly recommend those two sources.
We've tried watching reruns of Cosmos. It was an absolutely groundbreaking and stunning show 28 years ago. But by today's standards, the graphics are weak and some of the science is dated. It's amazing how much we as a species have learned about the universe we live in in that short amount of time.
-S
--- What parts of "shall make no law", "shall not be infringed", and "shall not be violated" don't you understand?
Assuming your child is in High School, I assure you no one actually follows that ban. They either take straight from Wikipedia with no source, or just use the sources that it links to at the bottom. Doing dumb shit like that is useless. Just like putting up web locks at schools. Kids will always break through them.
As parent says, get the kid interested in books and magazines. Take them to public lectures. These are all typically higher quality than TV/video. Read up yourself and do some of that quality time stuff.
I'm a homeschooling parent and spend a lot of time having discussions on a wide variety of subjects with the kids. Sure, this is a bit more effort (I have to read up on stuff I don't know about), but that gives you a second chance at an interesting education too.
... And don't give me that "I don't have the time" BS. It does not take a lot of effort to read up on stuff, instead of watching crap on TV. If you don't have the time to interact with kids, get yourself sterilized.
Engineering is the art of compromise.
SLIGHT problem with your method - it almost always will not work. On the occasions that I review a Wikipedia article, I don't just "check that there is a source", but I actually check the validity, quality, reliability and veracity of that source. And I'm not alone in my thoroughness.
I am definitely NOT new to "this Wikipedia thing"
My book about LSD and Self-Discovery
Also on facebook as: DroppingAcidDaleBewan
The evolution of the standard atomic model is a perfect illustration of how the scientific process is one of continuous refinement. You can use it to introduce the idea that the Universe doesn't owe us an explanation of itself, and how there will never be a time of genuine "enlightenment" when we can stop asking questions.
It's a good way to give the kid antibodies against superstition and mysticism, in other words. "No, we don't really understand what stuff is really made from. Nobody does... not yet. But people know a lot more about it than they did I was your age, and we can do a lot of cool stuff with the knowledge we have."
Dahlmann tightly grips the knife, which he may have no idea how to use, and steps out into the plain.
NO! The problem with doing this is that without very good guidance from her parents, she is almost certainly not mature enough to weed out "snake oil salesmen", of which many religions are far too rife with.
If you read some of my previous posts, you may find that I am quite staunchly atheist (I actually strongly believe religion to be a harmful mental delusion), but putting that aside, let's try a little thought experiment. Can you imagine a strongly Christian person accepting their daughter being exposed to Islamic religious texts and discussions on a "fair and equal level" to Christian philosophies? I think not! There would be too much fear about the child being "indoctrinated" in to that religion under "false pretences". In the same way, I put to you that the vast majority of religions will attempt to "indoctrinate" in this manner, and it is not responsible parenting to allow the impressionable mind of a child to be exposed to this without some kind of guidance.
Now, if you're a strongly Christian family, you would probably want that "guidance" to be towards Christianity, however one day when I have the great joy of becoming a parent, I will "guide" my children towards science, logic and reason. I will go so far even as to point out my views on religion and if they get it in to their heads that there's a great mystical man in the sky, I'll happily debate with them to change their minds (as I will with ANYONE who brings it up and is open to discussion, whether they're related to me or not).
My book about LSD and Self-Discovery
Also on facebook as: DroppingAcidDaleBewan
Not believing a God created the world doesn't give one a nihilistic suicidal outlook on life. In fact, I'm appalled that you would even think such a thing. Clearly, you don't know too many people who grew up being atheists, or became atheists later in life.
As someone who WAS a suicidal nihilist WITH a religious outlook on life, I can tell you that you're full of it.
gb2church
Ergo, anyone who cannot reproduce the experience is not practicing meditation intensely enough. Your statement is unfalsifiable.
From what I understand, to explain things to her in terms of how things were created is still based on Judeo-Christian religion (in a sociological or historical sense). I've been listening to these lectures by Alan Watts on iTunes, and according to him, the West's view of the universe as an artifact (something that was created) is rooted in Judeo-Christian religion (the creator who created the creation). There's a long and involved explanation for that, but I don't recall it (nor do I wish to type it). The Hindus view it as a drama that is acted out, and Asian cultures (at least some of them) view it as an organism. So, to give an example that Watts uses, while it's very natural for your daughter to ask "How was everything created?" (given the culture she is growing up in), that would be a very strange question coming from a Chinese child. It would be much more normal for the Chinese child to ask "How did everything grow?"
Just food for thought. I think it's very interesting.
I wish for once the religious arguments would stop. Dawkins doesn't even go out of his way to attack religion in The Royal Institution Christmas Lectures for Children. His lectures in 1991 were brilliant and inspiring.
If you want a solid, secular explanation of evolutionary biology, do yourself a favor and watch this series with your children. You can tell your children "God was behind it" or anything else that will make you feel better about it, but at least they'll have an accurate understanding of the facts and theory. They'll also learn a lot of interesting things about biology.
SWM seeks new sig for a brief fling
I'd have given a lot to have been present when my son's teacher asked "Who can tell me what we call the nearest star?" and he answered "The Sun!"
Clever, but I don't get it. Why would a true statement be falsifiable? ;-P
Well if you want to get down to it, nothing can be proven to you until your senses and your reason have sifted it and found it to be consistent with your experience. In some cases an hypothesis will be so out of whack with your experience that no argument will be able to convince you of its truth, and you'll need to see for yourself.
Insight experiences are simply the most powerful example of this principle. The only validation to be found is in going to the very place where the answer lies and seeing for yourself. Because of the nature of the problem of self, direct investigation is the only way to gain the needed experiential parity to even come to terms.
And sure, in the end, you may fail. Or even if you manage to have an "experience" (which is not the point) you can choose to believe that there is no content in what you've experienced, and nothing will have been proven to you. And that's fine too.
I have to play two sides here, because I am well convinced that meditation plays an essential role in exercising areas of the brain and aspects of consciousness that habits like thinking simply can't. But on the other hand, I'm strongly averse to the kind of mysticism as described in this thread (being opposed to reason).
Obviously, practical problems require practical solutions; our everyday experiences require us to weigh and calculate. ("Trust in Allah - but tie up your camel!") Now, when it comes to the practical problem of the self ("Who am i?") meditation and related remedies are reasonably indicated.
It just happens that mystical experiences and insights often follow, in part because the mind is no longer anchored to self-talk as its mirror of identity, but also because of what we're made of -- probability waves, mostly empty space, pure energy... the nature of which is innate to us. The sense of self and other disappears of necessity - it becomes clear to oneself that separateness is a meaningless concept, but all one has to go on is an inexpressible experience.
One comes away with a sense of awe, understandably frustrated by conventional means of expressing oneself, and of reflecting on the world. When someone asks, "What is reality like?" the only useful answers seem to be in the form of analogies, poems, and cries in the wilderness of "find out for yourself."
I think it's a mistake to assume that people who have had mystical insights are necessarily abandoning reason. Reason is after all, very very useful! Me personally, I find that reason is very helpful to remind me that I can't walk through walls after all, despite being utterly "empty."
Now, science isn't totally unable to study mystical phenomena. Dan Dennett's heterophenomenological approach ought to suffice just fine! The individual reports by people of their mystical experiences can be taken as simply being subjective reports, and you use standard methods of quantification and analysis to derive data. Over a long enough period of time you can begin to build a picture, and then you can know how to take these reports.
I think that's an important key to many such problem. One can choose to take a critical stance in which mystical assertions are points on which you must choose to agree or disagree, or you can note down the subjective report of the organic system in question, add it to your data, and hold off your conclusions until enough information is accumulated.
Of course, all this presumes that one is interested in the subject enough to look more deeply into it. But for many people, their conclusions have already been drawn.
As for my part, I am staying open to the value of mystical experience, so called, and to not-knowing as a potent epistemological stance. In fact, I feel more empty and sponge-like already!
-- thinkyhead software and media
This Show is old but it is very interesting. How a silver rush in Czechoslovakia leads to telephone is amazing. History and science at its best. How one idea leads to another and how things are the way they are, you can't beat it. This guy is amazing and his shows explain some complex things in easy enough terms for a twelve year old. Maybe a bit more than your daughter but if she is asking questions then this is what you want. Truly an amazing historian. Otherwise tell her about Ada Lovelace, Ãmilie du ChÃtelet, Lise Meitner and Marie Curie. Amazing women of science.