Decreasing standard of Science Channels.

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the perceived decline in the quality of science-related television programming, particularly on channels like Animal Planet, Discovery, and History Channel. Participants express concerns about the shift towards entertainment-focused content rather than educational programming, with a focus on various genres including documentaries, reality shows, and sensationalist themes.

Discussion Character

  • Debate/contested
  • Conceptual clarification
  • Exploratory

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants lament the shift in programming on channels like Animal Planet, noting a focus on the African savanna and sensationalized content over diverse wildlife documentaries.
  • Others criticize the inclusion of non-scientific themes in programming, such as haunted houses and ancient prophecies, questioning the validity of what is presented as "science".
  • Several participants express frustration with reality-style shows that focus on mundane activities, suggesting that these do not contribute to educational content.
  • Some participants mention specific shows they appreciate, such as "Through the Wormhole" and "Planet Earth", contrasting them with what they perceive as lower-quality programming.
  • Concerns are raised about the financial motivations behind programming choices, with some suggesting that cheaper, sensational content is prioritized over quality educational programming.
  • There are critiques of specific scientific inaccuracies presented in shows, with participants expressing disbelief at how concepts like gravity and free fall are explained.
  • Some participants propose that the public's understanding of science may be underestimated by producers, leading to misleading explanations in programming.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants generally agree on the decline in quality and educational value of science programming, but there is no consensus on the reasons behind this trend or the specific content that should be prioritized.

Contextual Notes

Participants express varying levels of dissatisfaction with different channels and programming styles, indicating a complex landscape of viewer expectations and content production challenges. There are unresolved questions regarding the balance between entertainment and education in science media.

  • #31
Darken-Sol said:
whatever happened to bill nye the science guy? science rules

I hear him quite a lot, he does radio commercials here in the Seattle area.
 
Biology news on Phys.org
  • #32
Alfi said:
Bill Nye, the harmless children's edu-tainer known as "The Science Guy," managed to offend a select group of adults in Waco, Texas at a presentation, when he suggested that the moon does not emit light, but instead reflects the light of the sun.

As even most elementary-school graduates know, the moon reflects the light of the sun but produces no light of its own.

But don't tell that to the good people of Waco, who were "visibly angered by what some perceived as irreverence," according to the Waco Tribune.

Nye was in town to participate in McLennan Community College's Distinguished Lecture Series. He gave two lectures on such unfunny and adult topics as global warming, Mars exploration, and energy consumption.

But nothing got people as riled as when he brought up Genesis 1:16, which reads: "God made two great lights -- the greater light to govern the day and the lesser light to govern the night. He also made the stars."

The lesser light, he pointed out, is not a light at all, but only a reflector.

At this point, several people in the audience stormed out in fury. One woman yelled "We believe in God!" and left with three children, thus ensuring that people across America would read about the incident and conclude that Waco is as nutty as they'd always suspected.

This story originally appeared in the Waco Tribune, but the newspaper has mysteriously pulled its story from the online version, presumably to avoid further embarrassment.

http://www.wacotrib.com/news/content...acbillnye.html
To put that in some context, he was specifically criticizing Genesis 1:16, which is no doubt what the audience members were reacting to. It wasn't the fact that the moon reflects light that they objected to, but that he claimed this was a contradiction of the Bible.
http://digg.com/news/story/Bill_Nye_Booed_in_Waco_for_pointing_out_Moon_reflects_the_Sun
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #33
Galteeth said:
To put that in some context, he was specifically criticizing Genesis 1:16, which is no doubt what the audience members were reacting to. It wasn't the fact that the moon reflects light that they objected to, but that he claimed this was a contradiction of the Bible.
It is a contradiction/correction.
 
  • #34
Really, it doesn't contradict the Bible at all unless every verse is taken literally. The moon, as essentially a giant mirror, could be considered a secondary source of light.
 
  • #35
Char. Limit said:
Really, it doesn't contradict the Bible at all unless every verse is taken literally. The moon, as essentially a giant mirror, could be considered a secondary source of light.

Exactly that's the point. Ancient texts are not meant to be taken literally. You are supposed to interpret it metaphorically.
 
  • #36
But the people that take offense do take the bible literally.
 
  • #37
Evo said:
But the people that take offense do take the bible literally.

And that is what is causing the science-religion incompatibility.
 
  • #38
I wonder if they weren't offended by his claims about the Moon and light so much as they were offended by his invoking the Bible.

In a sense, he's kind of doing the very thing we science-peeps always scream bloody murder about: mixing science and belief.

They may have been perfectly happy to follow his science lesson if he hadn't tried to tie it to the Bible, which they may well have interpreted as an attempt to discredit it. One wonders what, if not a shot at the bible, his intentions were in bringing it up.
 
  • #39
DaveC426913 said:
I wonder if they weren't offended by his claims about the Moon and light so much as they were offended by his invoking the Bible.

In a sense, he's kind of doing the very thing we science-peeps always scream bloody murder about: mixing science and belief.

They may have been perfectly happy to follow his science lesson if he hadn't tried to tie it to the Bible, which they may well have interpreted as an attempt to discredit it. One wonders what, if not a shot at the bible, his intentions were in bringing it up.

I agree. It was unnecessary and, frankly, he should have known better.
 
  • #40
(*ignoring bible discussion*)

I never enjoyed Bill Nye. I prefer serious documentaries (i.e. not targeted for children).

I really used to love Lonely Planet by Ian Wright on Discovery (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vDn-cDm3kUk&feature=relmfu, ), Animal documentaries on Discovery, and Cultural documentaries on Nat Geo.

Few of things I hate about current shows are that hosts come out as quite arrogant and self-experts (this is also the reason I don't like American movies).
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #41
The great thing about watching Bill Nye in grade school was that you just had to fill in an easy worksheet on the video, and not do any real work. :-p
 
  • #42
jhae2.718 said:
The great thing about watching Bill Nye in grade school was that you just had to fill in an easy worksheet on the video, and not do any real work. :-p

I also had to do that, it was a torture!
 
  • #43
rootX said:
I also had to do that, it was a torture!

It beat doing vocabulary definitions, as if mindlessly copying down the glossary taught something...

I hated the stupid music videos in Bill Nye's show. And the stupid, stereotypical portrayal of scientists.
 
  • #44
jhae2.718 said:
It beat doing vocabulary definitions, as if mindlessly copying down the glossary taught something...

I hated the stupid music videos in Bill Nye's show. And the stupid, stereotypical portrayal of scientists.

Well, it was on TV. What did you expect? Realistic portrayals? No one would watch it.
 
  • #45
rootX said:
(*ignoring bible discussion*)

I never enjoyed Bill Nye. I prefer serious documentaries (i.e. not targeted for children).

I really used to love Lonely Planet by Ian Wright on Discovery (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vDn-cDm3kUk&feature=relmfu, ), Animal documentaries on Discovery, and Cultural documentaries on Nat Geo.


The only recent documentaries worthy of being watched would be the "Life" Series by BBC.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #46
Drakkith said:
Well, it was on TV. What did you expect? Realistic portrayals? No one would watch it.

Touché.
 
  • #47
Drakkith said:
Well, it was on TV..
.. in the physics classes!

mishrashubham said:
The only recent documentaries worthy of being watched would be the "Life" Series by BBC.
BBC does a phenomenal job on everything. I don't have a TV but I love clips of many BBC documentaries.
 
  • #48
I hate how science documentaries sensualize everything! I mean pointing out the epicness is something but to do it just for the money sucks, they actually show the Hutchinson effect as a real thing!
 
  • #49
Bill Nye goes swing dancing almost every Thursday night in Pasadena. :)
 
  • #50
Superposed_Cat said:
I hate how science documentaries sensualize everything! I mean pointing out the epicness is something but to do it just for the money sucks, they actually show the Hutchinson effect as a real thing!

I think you mean 'sensationalize'. If the sci channels 'sensualized' everything, there would be more nekkid people on these programs.
 
  • #51
SteamKing said:
I think you mean 'sensationalize'. If the sci channels 'sensualized' everything, there would be more nekkid people on these programs.

Haven't you seen Naked and Afraid?
 
  • #52
lol sleep dep, thanks you should see my math errors.