would you like some science in your pop sci?
It’s probably a pretty safe assumption that if you read this blog, you’re well aware that Phil Plait, aka The Bad Astronomer, will have a show on the Discovery Channel sometime this fall. Bad Universe is largely based on his book Death From The Skies, (I know, he wrote a book?) and after taking a look at the preview, I’m going to agree with the assessment that it looks like the child of Brian Cox and the Mythbusters. Of course this is great news for Phil and I certainly wish him all the best with his show. Having had a chance to chat with him some time ago, I can confirm that his enthusiastic delivery on TV and in presentations is a natural talent, and I’ve no doubt that he’ll be a great host. However, my positive thoughts about Phil’s writing and lecturing aside, I have to echo a question I’ve been hearing from quite a few fellow skeptics: how much science will this show have?
Remember the first few seasons of Mythbusters, when Adam and Jamie would give us detailed plans of their machines and scientific explanations of why the myths they were testing failed? When explosions weren’t the requirement for an episode’s end, but in which we got to see the messy and exploratory nature of planning an experiment and seeing it through no matter what? We don’t see much of that anymore, do we now? Instead, a cheeky sign reading “warning! science content!” serves to introduce most facts, figures, and historical notes, often treated as a break before another big boom. Don’t get me wrong, it’s still a very fun show. But a little bit more science wouldn’t exactly kill the ratings. And even that’s pretty scientific compared to most of what you’re going to see on the Discovery lineup. We’ve got loggers, truckers, crab fishermen, and Mike Rowe’s constant misadventures in the world of careers that take you way outside the office cubicle. So, um, where’s the whole science part if you pardon me for asking? We get it once in a long while with a Walking With Dinosaurs rerun, or another BBC show in the same route, often “edited for American audiences” to use the polite term.
It’s really a cultural issue. Rather than fight with the new craze of creating celebrities who have no discernable talents other than making themselves look like train wrecks for the paparazzi, or just being attractive, or loud, obnoxious pundits and politicians with a searing hatred of actual experts in any field by trying to create an entirely new brand of science show that merges entertainment with education, like NatGeo has been trying to do with it’s Naked Science, Explorer, Known Universe, and Taboo, Discovery decided to go into reality TV. For several seasons they were fueled by nothing but shows about building custom motorcycles and cars, or the various spin-offs from these projects. Even now, after relegating them to TLC and rebranding that network, it still seems that what propels Discovery are just different reality shows. So where’s the actual discovery? And how much scientific content imparted by Phil (who certainly has all the skills and credentials to impart quite a bit of it), will survive the editors and producers through which it’ll have to pass before it hits our TVs? We need good science on TV and I’m hoping that Discovery starts bringing in more science than flash, explosions and various new cavities and messes for Mike Rowe to explore and clean up, respectively…
hi there, gfish,
i think you simply ask to much. how can you seriously expect that housewifes, clerks and play station consoleros wanna have more real science in their daily dose of para-science provided by quasi-scientists, quacksalvers and all those shady producers?
i suggest the “explosive of the week”: a plutonium bomb ignited 20 miles up in the sky to illustrate the big bang plus the comment: “please, guys, don´t (never ever) try this at home!”.
i think you simply ask to much. how can you seriously expect that housewifes, clerks and play station consoleros wanna have more real science
Now, now, let’s not get condescending. Not all aspects of scientific work are exciting enough to be televised. Theoretical astrophysicists spending weeks writing sheets and sheets worth of equations? Chemists quietly mixing fluids in beakers or sitting, looking at computer printouts from spectrometers? Not exactly must see TV.
But there are aspects of science that can be presented in captivating ways, and if an executive of an educational TV network decided to say “forget it, science is too hard,” and simply stop trying to show anything scientific, you’re not going to get any science on TV in the first place, much less exciting scientific content.
You can add “Through The Wormhole” to that list. I was terribly annoyed when they claimed that ID was a hot topic of debate in the scientific community (it might be in politics and on science blogs, but only because creationists won’t accept they have no evidence and just shut up), or that the idea that there might be no God is a “radical” scientific concept. They also gave serious consideration to the idea that we’re all just part of a giant computer simulation being run by some cosmic programmer.
I recorded the series and finally got around to watching a couple of episodes, and some of what passes for science in the first two episodes is disturbingly misleading. I’m hoping that as they move away from the “Is there a creator” question, the series will get better but the time travel episode didn’t do much to quell my fears.
I don’t know if many readers remember the PBS show Nova as it was in the early 70′s. It was wonderful because of the depth of its plunge into experimental science. It would tell the story of a series of experiments actually performed to discover something. The process of elimination of possible explanations was fascinating and exposed the ingenuity of the scientists. Now it is just another piece of junk, devoid of much of anything that illuminates or truly exposes the nature of science.
Something similar happened to Scientific American magazine. I remember reading it in the 60′s as a teenager. There was just enough detail in it to make you really want to know more and to help you actually gain some level of understanding. There were wonderful columns on mathematics and the Amateur Scientist section made you want to go out and do some science yourself. Now it is barely distinguishable from Discover.
It is sad, but it all seems part of a general dumbing-down of America. Take reality TV shows for example. Good drama has been almost entirely replaced by this junk. Look at news shows. On the one hand you have the extremely shallow reporting found on CNN, the people-magazine like style of most of the content and on the other you the ideologues on Fox News hammering away at the pubic with disinformation or at least questionable information.
Today’s news media has succeeded in convincing many people that scientist are a bunch of idiots not to be trusted and worse, criminals disseminating incorrect information for personal gain.
What does it all mean? Perhaps the decline and fall of my dear country.