Television shows that degrade science.
There are show on television that gives the image that if you do crazy things in uncontrolled situations you are actually doing science. I am talking about shows like Myth busters and Braniac.
There was this one instance the they tested if your ears become red if someone talk behind your back of you and you can hear them. They only had one subject and he was totally aware of the fact that they are testing for this. Of course you will not get any results in this kind of way.
If you understand what I am trying to say you can reply.
Well Myth busters is a show to bust urban myths so given the stupidity of many urban myths, they will inevitably do something dumb like that.
If you shows that degrade science look to science fiction, Star Trek, Star Gate, Farscape, and so on. They try to make it look like there based in real science but there not.
Never saw Brainiac.
I like the SciFi shows even though most don't even try to be scientifically accurate. But it's entertainment. Like Martial Arts movies that use wires and fast cuts to make the stars do the impossible. Bad science? Surely, but I think the shows can inspire kids to get into science also.
Mythbusters? Wow, I love to watch that show, but hate the test methods. I have worked in testing labs for over 30 years and it drives me nuts to see the test methods they use. But again, it's entertainment.
While those shows aren't paragons of scientific knowledge, I think they do create interest in science.
@ Con: How about Firefly? I particularly like that show's decision to make all exterior shots of spacecraft in absolute silence. Very effective.
I haven't seen Firefl. But no sound in space is far more accurate though less dramatic.
Yes it is just entertainment and they are good shows (though some of the SciFi Channel ones can get really weird)
TV shows are meant for entertainment, and for many people, people doing stupid things is funny. Take Braniac for example, at least once a show they blow something up, now i don't know about you but it always brings a smile to my face when something explodes, especially if there's copper in it and it is a magnificent green flame. The point of some of these shows is to do things that we as normal law abiding citizens of the us, great britain, or wherever you are from, that we are not supposed to do, such as blowing up trailers, or making a 20 ft long cannon using a couple pounds of gunpowder, a 20 ft long drainage culvert, and one manakin named buster.
Did his ears become red? I dont think that informing the subject would alter the results of the experiment.
As people have said before, there's a reason they call it science fiction.
Mythbusters most of the time have a horrible scientific method. The value in it is when they do things that you couldn't possibly do yourself at home. (or would cost you a pretty penny) They do debunk some myths that people still continue to believe until watching the show. I have a hard time watching the more glaring failures in the show though.
I disagree that space shots in Firefly are less dramatic due to the silence. Of course, this may be different for different people. I prefer the silence for both the accuracy and how it captures how lonely it is in space, a theme in many of the episodes.
People are often suprised when I tell them that I'm a major sci-fi buff - particularly if I've just got through lecturing them on pseudo-science. It's true though and, what's more, I have a particularly soft spot for the 'B' movie genre from the 50s/60s which is about as scientifically bad as you can get 
I have about 5,000 sci-fi books scattered around the place - all read at least once. I don't find a problem as long as the separation is clear and no confusion arises.
The problem with the shows like Braniac is that the non-scientific view may be persuaded that this does indeed have something to do with science when, obviously, it doesn't. I also find the show particularly childish and sexist in the style of presentation. Richard Hammond is the new 'big thing' as a presenter and they are obviously trying to find platforms for him to develop but I think this is one he might well be advised to forget when he no longer needs to take this sort of work.
I have less of a problem with Mythbusters for two reasons.
1) They are fairly non-sexist and non-moronic (compared to Braniac at least).
2) They do know some basic engineering and science and I suspect that the amount of work that goes unseen is probably greater than one would first think.
As an entertainment show I think it is harmless and I even watch it occasionally.
Braniac is not, and I don't.
xChris I would argue that CSI would be a programme that degrades science. I am a geneticist, and while we can get our samples processed pretty fast that show takes the biscuit. Samples are always processed in a few hours, always come out right first time around and I can only remember one episode where there was a problem with contamination. So not like reality- people now will all want to be criminalists and be sadly disappointed when it's ot like on the television.
Mythbusters is definately not science. They are engineers who build fun things to entertain us. Sure, they do it in the guise of science, but really it all about having fun laughing at these legends.
I think more degrading to science than shows like Mythbusters and Brainiac are shows like Desperate Housewives and The Real World, because while some shows at least ask you to think, others actively ask you to halt all rational thought and just watch the train-wreck happening.
| syzygygoth wrote: |
| I would argue that CSI would be a programme that degrades science. |
I have to agree with this point about C.S.I., but I still enjoy the show as entertainment. I think the worst thing it does is raise expectations among the genral populace that all problems can be solved, the guilty will always be caught.
Sometimes they use real scientific howlers as part of the plot and even contradict themselves. I watched an epsiode from series 6 last night involving a big shootout. A cop and a bandit standing around ten feet apart were shooting at each other. It emerges that one of the cops bullets had hit the bandits gun and flattened on it, blocking the cylinder. It was said that the bandit would have felt this as being 'just normal recoil'. The bandit was holding his gun at arms length and sideways (Gangsta style). Later a cop is autopsied. He was hit by a shell in the chest but was wearing a vest which stopped the shell, flattening it. His chest was bruised and the effect was described as 'like being kicked by a mule.' These two descriptions from one episode are mutually contradictory.
As for Mythbusters, I love it. It may not be strictly scientific but it does popularize science and that's no bad thing. I just wish they'd bring back Scottie, there's something about a good looking woman who can weld that I really like 
Brainiac I find moronic. | Miniwood wrote: |
| Sometimes they use real scientific howlers as part of the plot and even contradict themselves. I watched an epsiode from series 6 last night involving a big shootout. A cop and a bandit standing around ten feet apart were shooting at each other. It emerges that one of the cops bullets had hit the bandits gun and flattened on it, blocking the cylinder. It was said that the bandit would have felt this as being 'just normal recoil'. The bandit was holding his gun at arms length and sideways (Gangsta style). Later a cop is autopsied. He was hit by a shell in the chest but was wearing a vest which stopped the shell, flattening it. His chest was bruised and the effect was described as 'like being kicked by a mule.' These two descriptions from one episode are mutually contradictory. |
Not really. There's nothing to suggest that if the gun was placed against the chest and fired, the recoil wouldn't feel like a kick by a mule. I've never personally been kicked by a mule, and don't know anyone that has, so I can't comment on that comparison.
Nevertheless, logically, if a gun in your hand were struck by a bullet head on, it would probably feel just like a normal recoil. It's pretty much the same amount of energy being dissipated into your arm. By the same token, I've heard many people describe being shot while wearing a vest as feeling like they've been kicked in the chest. I don't really see a contradiction there.
I don't know about Brainiac, but as far as I've seen with Mythbusters, the philosophy of the show is just: "Oh yeah? Well, let's just see.". That's not science, that's just showmanship... with a budget. But I would hardly call that degrading science. If anything, it elevates science by demonstrating that it's principle methodology - even when applied in a half-assed manner - is very effective in separating myth from reality.
The shows that are really insulting to science are the ones that pretend to use it seriously, while at the same time doing nothing of the sort. I can't name any offhand, but I've seen dozens of shows on nonsense like ghost hunting, crop circles and "rods". Those are the ones that disappoint me. | HoboPelican wrote: |
| Like Martial Arts movies that use wires and fast cuts to make the stars do the impossible. |
What???????? You mean???
Oh cr*pWhat about Paycheck (the movie)? Apparently, guy sees future using a lens that accelerates light beyond 3E8 
| vashish87 wrote: |
| What about Paycheck (the movie)? Apparently, guy sees future using a lens that accelerates light beyond 3E8 :D |
Well...sounds like they didn't have enough budget for a good science consultant on the movie :-)
ChrisStar Wars (not a TV show, I know!) got it all: you can see lasers in motion through space, sound in space, no laws of gravity, telekinesis and psychokinesis, monsters that fly despite their weight and small wings. Midi-chlorians give special powers? Are midi-chlorians mitochondria with special powers (super-mitochondria) or maybe super-chloroplasts (i never saw Anakin eat maybe he does photosynthesis) ? Most science shows degrade science these days just to get people to watch I think. Take the long running BBC science series Horizon, I seem to remember it had more guts 15 years ago. These days it's about visual effects and cataclysmic music, with a narration that sounds like an advert telling you what will happen if don't use a brand of bleach down your toilet - '...germs will multiply and your family will be at rissskkk!!!'. It's just an asteroid and you don't know if and when it's coming, so why bellow at us and show CGI footage of it destroying CGI dinosaurs?
The Jodie Foster film Contact was a load of cobblers.
Couldn't agree more with this post! I was watching a short programme on Einstien, and E=MC2. It lasted five minutes, and purported to make his theories accessible to the general public. In reality, it showed a cartoon Einstein, complete with faux-German accent, explaining that the C stood for a constant. Fair enough, I thought. Then it ended. Fortunately, I have more than a basic knowledge of science, so already understood the equation. But it got me thinking. This programme was obviously aimed at children/teens, and putting myself in their place, I felt that I would have come out of the whole experience knowing a lot less than I did before it started. I applaud their intentions, as science should be a thing to be enjoyed by all, but why cheapen it's name, as well as Einstein's, without actually giving any form of education to compensate?
xx
can we leave science FICTION movies and tv shows out of this? seriously they are labeled as fiction BECAUSE they arnt fact. Some portions of the shows have scientific basis but they are not intended as fact they are entertainment.
Now as for the shows that do claim to be doing scientific experiments, they are putting science in a fun way, sure they arnt going to be doing precise science they are doing entertaining science, Myth Busters doesnt intend to get their evidence 100% accurate because they can have more fun and make it look cooler settling for 80% and as has been said most of the time theres nothing at stake its stupid myths.
Science shows arnt as accurate as real scientists get it.. so what? they get regular people interested in science.
No matter what kind of show it is, it should stay true to its declarations. It is irresponsible to purport oneself as an expert and behave as an amateur.
Sci-Fi shows make no qualms about their veracity. They are fiction.
It's those shows that claim to be scientific but fail to do so responsibly that are a problem. The shows that are appropriately done (like Bill Nye) are excellent, but the shows that are not appropriately done do not get regular people interested in science. They get regular people interested in pseudo-science.
The problem is some people take science fiction too seriously, I once read that NASA was planing to build a "hyper drive" based on some pseudophysics, I even have an ancient blog post about it (from the beginning of the year).
I like mythbusters! That show isn't about science though. If anything it's more along the lines of engineering (which is not science btw). Those guys just have fun breaking and blowing things up. The kinds of things I would do if I had enough money and time.
Go to Science Channel, NOT SciFi Channel. Byotches.
| bluedragon wrote: |
| Go to Science Channel, NOT SciFi Channel. Byotches. |
What is this supposed to mean? Did you read the title of the thread? Are you saying that to find shows that degrade science, we should go to the science channel? By throwing in your little "byotches", are trying to imply that the you have just taught us something? Why not give us a real post about the subject, "sonny". I have serious concerns about the Simpsons for the same reason. They portray the lives of Nuclear Plant workers in a very unfashionable fashion. In particular, I take issue with the fact they suggest that Nuclear Power Plant workers don't hold advanced degrees.
| indeedwrestling wrote: |
| I have serious concerns about the Simpsons for the same reason. They portray the lives of Nuclear Plant workers in a very unfashionable fashion. In particular, I take issue with the fact they suggest that Nuclear Power Plant workers don't hold advanced degrees. |
I had to check Looks like a high school diploma is good enough for some positions!
http://www.nppd.com/Careers/Additional_Files/104901.asp
| Quote: |
Non-Licensed Nuclear Plant Operator
Nebraska Public Power District has an immediate opening for a Non-Licensed Nuclear Plant Operator (6 positions) located at Cooper Nuclear Station near Brownville, Nebraska.
Operate and monitor all electrical and mechanical plant equipment. Ensure that all equipment is operated safely and in a manner that will guarantee continuous operation even in the event of an abnormal or emergency situation.
APPLICANTS CHOSEN FOR INTERVIEWS MUST PASS A POSS (Plant Operator Selection System) TEST and SCORE AT LEAST 11.
......
Education and Training:
A high school diploma required (AND) Nuclear Navy experience (highly preferred)
(OR)
High School Diploma required (AND) Experience in the operation of either heavy equipment or complex manufacturing processes that demonstrates manual dexterity (AND) Commensurate amount of higher level education |
All I can say is just because it's on a Science/Learning channel, that doesn't guarantee it's accurate. First of all, the knowledge base of almost any subject is continually evolving. Second of all, the "experts" that people will consult sometimes have an agenda to push or are fearful of being seen as wrong so they'll reduce complex issues to simple soundbytes. A given example would be the "Extraordinary Story of Professional Wrestling" that aired a few years back on TLC. They managed to screw up big things like the difference between the National Wrestling Alliance and the National Wrestling Association. Sounds like a little detail, but that's almost like mixing up Germany and Guernsey just because they both sound alike. However, was this really corrected? No. Because the people that care already know and the people that watch don't really care. The question is more, do shows like this provoke an interest and active investigation into science or just propogate further misunderstandings?
In the case of Mythbusters, they are addressing urban myths. Now, something can be true and still be a myth. It's just a commonly held belief with some folklore story behind it. What they're trying to do is put reasonable boundaries on the probability that these things happened. Of course, they like to paint with a broad black/white brush that says "TRUE" or "FALSE" (in their case, "CONFIRMED" or "BUSTED") but there is always that tiniest chance that a million factors aligned to set the situation in action even when that myth is "busted". Still, I think since they are dealing with folklore beliefs instead of say, Government Policy, they are safely in the realm of entertaining science entertainment. I'm not going to even say education since they are more concerned with coming up with ways to use high-powered explosives rather than assign a large crew of scientists (or even graduate students perusing advance science degrees) to tackle difficult problems.
The learning/science channels are generally reliable, yes some mistakes are made (thats inevitable.) But they do have shows that pseudoscience but most of the time its generally reliable.
There is much pseudoscience on channels such as Discovery and TLC. Many a time I watch shows about the supernatural on it: hauntings, ghosts, etc.
And still there are many that are reliable. The error isn't intentional.
And I don't call MythBusters a science show, they just use the scientific method to solve problems (which is what it is made for) but it doesn't necessarily mean it's science.
There actually was an article in a magazine about the "CSI Effect" and how many jurors are now demanding unrealistic expectations of forensic scientists after seeing CSI and how quickly they test for DNA.
Here's the Wikipedia article - food for thought:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CSI_effect
