The sorry state of 'science' programming on TV

[El_Machinae]

Keep in mind, though, that the Aliens who monitor our tv signals (and have never had access to our books) will now THINK that it's an important part of our history! And either:

1) they will crap their pants "Humans have figured out how to make spears magic!"
2) or they will say "They still venerate their iron age technology, they are not yet a threat"

Either way, we can continue stockpiling our tin hats.

 

[Bozo Erectus]

Yeah, the aliens will steal the Spear of Destiny, and say"Bwahahaha, bwahahhaaa, now the humans will be powerless before us! Bwahahahaha!"

 

[Babbler]

So, TV science blows. It not like that unexpected of the vast wasteland...

Although you could argue that printed media is better suited for presentation of scientific ideas. Television is a passive medium; you plop yourself in front of the idiot box and absorb anything it radiates out from a few hours. There no interaction, no thought required. Science, however, requires you to think, to contemplate. Moreover, you have to go at the pace of the program -- lose one step, and you can't understand a thing. With a book or a magazine article, you can go at your own pause, stopping where you like or even backtracking if you want (of course, you can use VCR, but it interrupts the flow of the program more than you pausing at the end of a chapter in a book).

I don't remember seeing many Nova or Nature. I watched Magic School Bus and Bill Nye the Science Guy. I remembered an interesting program looking at "ordinary" questions, like why is chilly spicy or how do traffic jams develops.

 

[Bozo Erectus]

The BBC produces the best science programming by far. Theres an excellent show called 'Connections' iirc, hosted by James Burke, that deals with the history of science, and how seemingly unrelated scientific discoveries actually are all tied together. That ones one of my favorites.

 

[WillJ]

You lazy CFCers disgust me.

The first rule of entrepreneurship is to find something people want but don't have. In this case, it's a science program that takes a middle-of-the-road approach between an academic journal that's full of information but quite dry, and a scientifically empty production value showcase.

Someone, go out there and supply this demand!

Although you could argue that printed media is better suited for presentation of scientific ideas. Television is a passive medium; you plop yourself in front of the idiot box and absorb anything it radiates out from a few hours. There no interaction, no thought required. Science, however, requires you to think, to contemplate. Moreover, you have to go at the pace of the program -- lose one step, and you can't understand a thing. With a book or a magazine article, you can go at your own pause, stopping where you like or even backtracking if you want (of course, you can use VCR, but it interrupts the flow of the program more than you pausing at the end of a chapter in a book).

On the flip side, text and static visuals have their limitations in explanatory power; video doesn't.

About Nye - I know it's fun to make fun of him, but as an advisor for CNN, he's not bad. He's educated enough to research a topic, and he's comfortable in front of a camera. I really hate it when I get news reports from someone who doesn't know anything about science, and at least he knows a bit.

I'd have to agree. But why pick someone who knows a bit when you can pick someone who knows a lot? Why pick someone to research a topic when you can pick someone who has already researched the topic, perhaps having dedicated years to it?

 

[Neonanocyborgasm]

You hit the nail right on the head. Guess whats on the Discovery Times channel at this moment? "The Real DaVinci Code" But Im going to watch it for one reason: its hosted by none other than Baldrick from Blackadder! Nice touch, they hooked me with that alone.

If this is the same one that I saw on the History channel a week ago, then it's actually very good. The entire show debunks every point in the book, and not just at the end, but every 5 minutes. At the end, there's a coup de grace that basically makes everyone who believed even 1 word of the book look utterly stupid.

 

[Babbler]

You lazy CFCers disgust me.

The first rule of entrepreneurship is to find something people want but don't have. In this case, it's a science program that takes a middle-of-the-road approach between an academic journal that's full of information but quite dry, and a scientifically empty production value showcase.

Are you sure about that? OTers may whine about it, but OTers are definitely NOT representative of the general population.

Someone, go out there and supply this demand!

Yeah! All need is a few million dollars, and we're in.

It is interesting to note that most of the good scientific programs are made by PBS, BBC, CBC, etc.

 

[SeleucusNicator]

You could read 100 books about the life and times of Constantine, 100 more about the life and times of Hitler, and never encounter one line about the Spear. If you had never read a real history book in your entire life, and all you had to go on was this program (which is likely the case with alot of people who saw the program) youd be under the impression that the Spear played a central role in historic events. Thats why its not really a history program at all IMO.

Disagree about Hitler. The Holy Lance does come up a lot with regards to him.

In any event, you're arguing that history shows on TV should never move beyond History 101, never focus in on one particular thing, and I must strongly disagree.

 

[CartesianFart]

Eventhough televison has degrade education to the lowest denominator[or demographics]i remember a televison PBS show other that Sagan Cosmos,Western Tradition by UCLA professor Eugene Weber,not science but a really interesting brief illustration of the history of the western world from the ancient times to modern day era.Quite funny and enlightening story if you ask me.

 

[WillJ]

Are you sure about that? OTers may whine about it, but OTers are definitely NOT representative of the general population.

True, but what Bozo said at some point made sense to me. Surely your typical person isn't going to watch a show on string theory no matter how many explosions it includes, so I'm not sure why such shows should be reduced to the LCD.

Yeah! All need is a few million dollars, and we're in.

Of course, I wasn't really serious, at least not in directing my "complaint" to CFC.

It is interesting to note that most of the good scientific programs are made by PBS, BBC, CBC, etc.

You're right, little of it is privately provided. There must be something missing in what I said at the top (and what Bozo said).

 

[Kayak]

The BBC produces the best science programming by far. Theres an excellent show called 'Connections' iirc, hosted by James Burke, that deals with the history of science, and how seemingly unrelated scientific discoveries actually are all tied together. That ones one of my favorites.

That was the best show ever. Is it still played? or has there been a remake of the series.

 

[carlosMM]

by David Attenborough

sucky sucky stuff he's been doing lately: e.g. the totally absurd 'walking with..' "future" bit! What BS - presenting idle speculation about what animal might or might not evolve how as FACT!!!!!

Disagree about Hitler. The Holy Lance does come up a lot with regards to him.

sources, please!

 

[Stapel]

Disagree about Hitler. The Holy Lance does come up a lot with regards to him.

I've read quite a lot about pre- WW II politics and about the system Hitler wored with. There is a lot to say about, since many things are hard to comprehend, when you are used to freedom and democracy.

However, I have never ever even heared a single rumour about this spear, let go it could be connected with Hitler.

I bet you, that if any such theory exists, it was created after WW II.

Just like it is a rather simple historical fact, that the crucifiction of Mr. Yeshua Josephson of Nazareth was added to his resume, after he died/disappeared

 

[The Last Conformist]

You mean his resurection, don't you? There's nothing implausible in him being crucified - it was a common punishment for rebels at the time.

A concerns Hitler, I agree 100%. I've read pretty much about Mr Hitler, and all I've ever heard of the holy lance in connection with him is unsubstantiated claims on the 'Net.

 

[carlosMM]

You mean his resurection, don't you? There's nothing implausible in him being crucified - it was a common punishment for rebels at the time.

the unusual method, though (nailed, not bound) is at the very least totally unsupported. This alone makes the story rather suspicious - it looks very much like a way of making him look special when in reality, if this guy was crucified, then in the way of any other common criminal: bound to the cross so that he would die as slowly as possible.

 

[The Last Conformist]

Which brings us back to the lance - why on earth would you spear someone undergoing crucifiction?

I'm not arguing he was crucified - I'm saying we are not in a position to assert he was not.

 

[Charles 22]

Im sitting here watching "The Spear of Jesus" on the Discovery Times channel. It deals with the Spear of Longinus, the one that supposedly pierced the side of Jesus, and became embued with magical powers because of Jesus's blood. The only science in the entire program revolves around taking the spear, which has been in an Austrian museum, and having it analysed to properly date it and see if it could really be from around the time of Christ, thats it. Unfortunately, 99% of the hour long program is devoted to cheesy, slow motion reenactments, with an actor with a Roman helmet, thrusting a spear, or of Constantine, various European Kings and notables who came into contact with it, and finally US soldiers in post war Berlin who supposedly found it. Literally, most of the time, youre looking at a spear, revolving in slow motion, blurring in and out of focus. They leave the actual scientific information for the last 4 minutes of the program. Obviously, the magical spear stuff is a bunch of nonsense, but it could have been a perfect opportunity to explain how forensics work, metal working techniques in ancient Rome and the Middle Ages, etc.

Im picking on this show because I happened to be watching it, but much of science programming is the same. Whether its killer asteroids, neanderthals, history, you name it, very little information is imparted, and virtually the entire programs are about lame, cheesy special effects, and bad actors in bad make-up or costumes.

Carl Sagans 'Cosmos' had the balance just right: Lots of real information and education, with some special effects thrown in to underscore the narration.Why has the balance shifted almost completely from education to 'entertainment'?

[/rant]

Longinus was converted by the Blood of Jesus. There was nothing "magical" as far as I know. Mystical yes, magical no (although contemporary society typcially misapplies grace for magic). He didn't become invincible or anything magical like that. From what I understand he died as a martyr as well.

On an interesting sidenote, there was some sort of thing that happened with Hitler and his superstitious beliefs where he had some notion that if he carried this spear into battle he could not lose (though such a notion wasn't superstitious in the case of the Ark of the Covenant - assuming the Israelies were doing God's Will at the time). I think Hitler actually had possession of the spear, but whether he tried using it in battle or not is unknown to me.

 

[Charles 22]

Which brings us back to the lance - why on earth would you spear someone undergoing crucifiction?

I'm not arguing he was crucified - I'm saying we are not in a position to assert he was not.

The two thieves to either side of Jesus had their legs broken, to ensure a quick death at that point. Jesus was lanced because the centurion believed Him already to be dead, unlike the thieves. Seems they had to get everyone dead before the Passover IIRC, so they were making real sure they were dead.

 

[carlosMM]

Seems they had to get everyone dead before the Passover IIRC, so they were making real sure they were dead.

I really doubt that they'd mind a 'foreign' religious day! OTOH, many henchmen (regular soldiers, after all), would see to it that the deliquents wouldn't suffer too long. I remember reading a roman report on a solider punished for killing people 'too quickly'! So, *if* the entire lance story should be true, then probably the guy was either prodding him to see if he was still alive, or trying to wound him enough to speed his death out of compassion without overtly violating the rules for executions!

 

[Charles 22]

I really doubt that they'd mind a 'foreign' religious day! OTOH, many henchmen (regular soldiers, after all), would see to it that the deliquents wouldn't suffer too long. I remember reading a roman report on a solider punished for killing people 'too quickly'! So, *if* the entire lance story should be true, then probably the guy was either prodding him to see if he was still alive, or trying to wound him enough to speed his death out of compassion without overtly violating the rules for executions!

Recall though how harassed Pontius Pilate was by the Jewish religous leaders such that he feared revolution? Part of their whole reasoning was to get Jesus out of the way before the Passover; before Jesus could be given some decent legal defense, and so that they wouldn't have to delay it till after the Passover was over.