Science on the BBC
Discussion
Tonight I sat down to watch a Horizon programme about dark matter.
I gave up after a short while.
They started off by suggesting that we fully understand the Big Bang.
According to Horizon, the Big Bang is a fact, as opposed to a theory.
Dark matter is made up of difficult to detect Weakly Interacting Massive Particles "WIMPs). This isn't a theory. It is a fact. Horizon admits that nobody has ever actually detected any evidence of a WIMP, but they expect us to simply believe the "scientists".
Recently, I tuned in to watch a programme about the formation of the solar system. This was devoid of anything that might challenge anyone with an IQ above 40. As a result, it was pure drivel. They advertised the programme saying that it would reveal new theories about the formation of the solar system. So, what was new? Well, Jupiter might have changed its orbit.
Not only did Jupiter change its orbit, but it also pushed "rocky objects" out of its way. WTF? Doesn't Jupiter have massive gravity? I'm not saying that Jupiter couldn't have "pushed" rocky material, but I would like an explanation of sorts.
The BBC used to do some decent science. Not any more, it would seem.
I gave up after a short while.
They started off by suggesting that we fully understand the Big Bang.
According to Horizon, the Big Bang is a fact, as opposed to a theory.
Dark matter is made up of difficult to detect Weakly Interacting Massive Particles "WIMPs). This isn't a theory. It is a fact. Horizon admits that nobody has ever actually detected any evidence of a WIMP, but they expect us to simply believe the "scientists".
Recently, I tuned in to watch a programme about the formation of the solar system. This was devoid of anything that might challenge anyone with an IQ above 40. As a result, it was pure drivel. They advertised the programme saying that it would reveal new theories about the formation of the solar system. So, what was new? Well, Jupiter might have changed its orbit.
Not only did Jupiter change its orbit, but it also pushed "rocky objects" out of its way. WTF? Doesn't Jupiter have massive gravity? I'm not saying that Jupiter couldn't have "pushed" rocky material, but I would like an explanation of sorts.
The BBC used to do some decent science. Not any more, it would seem.
don4l said:
According to Horizon, the Big Bang is a fact, as opposed to a theory.
You need to define what you mean by the phrase "as opposed to a theory".http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theory
"Scientific theories are the most reliable, rigorous, and comprehensive form of scientific knowledge. This is significantly different from the common usage of the word "theory", which implies that something is a conjecture, hypothesis, or guess"
Big bang theory has so much evidence going for it that we can categorically say it happened. How it was initiated is another question entirely.
As for dark matter, there are various hypotheses which aim to to try and explain why the observable matter in the universe does not appear sufficient to explain observed rotational speeds in galaxies, gravitational lensing in galaxy clusters etc. One of the leading hypotheses is that WIMPs are involved - although we have yet to actually detect particles of this nature. It may take us years to do so - or we may find that these hypotheses are flawed and that alternative ideas are in fact closer to reality - that's the beauty of science, we propose mechanisms, then test them. If the evidence does not support those mechanisms - we formulate new ones.
There appears to be more matter in the universe than we can account for - that is indisputable fact. What form this matter takes (if it takes form at all) is an area of current research. Nobody has ever claimed science has all the answers. On the contrary - if it did - it would be the death of science.
Edited by Moonhawk on Tuesday 17th March 23:40
LordGrover said:
Didn't see the programme in question but as stated, science today on the BBC is very poor. I fear the BBC is not alone though. Even the once reputable New Scientist is going the same way - far too many articles and features on trivia.
I agree that they do tend to sensationalise things a bit.The horizon program about the formation of the solar system for example. It went to great lengths to point out how different our solar system was to all of those detected so far and strongly implied that ours was somehow unique or special.
They conveniently left out the fact that all of the solar system found around others stars are relatively easy to find - containing large, heavy planets orbiting close to the parent star - so that multiple occulations occur in a short period of time.
A solar system like ours where the two largest planets in the system orbit far away from the parent star and only occult the sun every 12 and 29 years respectively will be very difficult to detect and would require many years (if not decades) to confirm - so it's no wonder we have yet to find an analogue to our own solar system.
Edited by Moonhawk on Tuesday 17th March 23:48
Have you seen the state of "science" on TV in general? Discovery doesn't do it any more; they're more concerned with people digging up gold or hauling things in from the see. National Geographic travels from the sublime to the ridiculous but even at it's best is the definition of lightweight.
Then you have the BBC that will put their "mass market" science on BBC Two but still does so without needing to have shows like "Ancient Aliens" ; they put people like Prof Cox on the TV and allow him to talk about protein gradients.
Then on BBC4 they frequently hide away more "niche" stuff; Jim Alkhilililiiilllii on Quantum Physics, Marcus DeDoDoo on Measurement. Series on Temperature etc
Horizon frequently does retrospective shows based on a theme (they even risked tackling Climate Change) where they pull together content across the man years of their programming; There's no magic tipping point in evidence; there was no golden age when men where men, science was science and you needed real qualifications and letters before and after your name to understand the TV.
I watched the program last night, enjoyed it and found (like the programs often do) it a catalyst to go off and dig into a bit more detail.
I also agree with Eric - tonight the BBC(and through to Friday) is yielding 90 minutes between 8:00 and 9:30PM to Prof Cox, Dara O'Brien and no doubt an interesting mix of real scientists or "space" professionals. What other TV station would do that?
There's lots I dislike about the BBC but they do the factual thing, in the main, very well
Then you have the BBC that will put their "mass market" science on BBC Two but still does so without needing to have shows like "Ancient Aliens" ; they put people like Prof Cox on the TV and allow him to talk about protein gradients.
Then on BBC4 they frequently hide away more "niche" stuff; Jim Alkhilililiiilllii on Quantum Physics, Marcus DeDoDoo on Measurement. Series on Temperature etc
Horizon frequently does retrospective shows based on a theme (they even risked tackling Climate Change) where they pull together content across the man years of their programming; There's no magic tipping point in evidence; there was no golden age when men where men, science was science and you needed real qualifications and letters before and after your name to understand the TV.
I watched the program last night, enjoyed it and found (like the programs often do) it a catalyst to go off and dig into a bit more detail.
I also agree with Eric - tonight the BBC(and through to Friday) is yielding 90 minutes between 8:00 and 9:30PM to Prof Cox, Dara O'Brien and no doubt an interesting mix of real scientists or "space" professionals. What other TV station would do that?
There's lots I dislike about the BBC but they do the factual thing, in the main, very well
I tend not to watch anything on the BBC if they attempt 'science'. Usually it just becomes a propaganda program stating "MMGW is FACT".
I often watch science lectures on youtube and the like. Those are generally pitched more towards a particular topic and are set at a wide range of knowledge levels.
I often watch science lectures on youtube and the like. Those are generally pitched more towards a particular topic and are set at a wide range of knowledge levels.
Eric Mc said:
I think that the MMGW stuff has calmed down a lot in recent years. Are you going to ignore Stargazing Live just in case your ears might pick up a MMGW comment that might upset you?
Yes indeed I will.Like I say I tend not to bother at all with the BBC for any of my science 'intake'.
If they can't be ar$ed to make a balanced effort with MMGW then it doesn't say much about anything else they can do.
I hear the sound of someone cutting off their nose to spite their face.
On the whole, the BBC features MUCH more science in their output - spread over BBC 1,2 and 4 plus (the gem) Radio 4 - than probably any other broadcaster in the world. Yesterday, for instance, Radio 4 spent half an hour interviewing one of the project scientists on the Rosetta space probe. Not a mention of MMGW anywhere.
As has been mentioned, even the dedicated science channels such as Discovery and National Geographic - produce far more dross than good stuff.
On the whole, the BBC features MUCH more science in their output - spread over BBC 1,2 and 4 plus (the gem) Radio 4 - than probably any other broadcaster in the world. Yesterday, for instance, Radio 4 spent half an hour interviewing one of the project scientists on the Rosetta space probe. Not a mention of MMGW anywhere.
As has been mentioned, even the dedicated science channels such as Discovery and National Geographic - produce far more dross than good stuff.
Its ok Eric, you can big up the BBC all you want, and I can see you are a fan, but for me its not where I get my science 'intake'.
I don't have a TV licence for one thing, small part to play in the equation I know, but I do have 'super-fast' internet, and there is a wealth of content out there in the WWW.
Enough to keep me going for years.
I don't have a TV licence for one thing, small part to play in the equation I know, but I do have 'super-fast' internet, and there is a wealth of content out there in the WWW.
Enough to keep me going for years.
Including some BBC stuff if you deign to watch it - which you can.
There are programmes on the BBC that drive me mad too. Know what, I don't watch them. However, I'm not so blinded by "BBC Anger" that I can see that now and then they do some pretty damn good stuff too.
And, on the whole, their ratio of "good stuff" v "bad stuff" is well ahead of their competitors.
I also agree that there is loads of good viewing on the internet too. It still doesn't stop me watching the BBC when I want to.
There are programmes on the BBC that drive me mad too. Know what, I don't watch them. However, I'm not so blinded by "BBC Anger" that I can see that now and then they do some pretty damn good stuff too.
And, on the whole, their ratio of "good stuff" v "bad stuff" is well ahead of their competitors.
I also agree that there is loads of good viewing on the internet too. It still doesn't stop me watching the BBC when I want to.
don4l said:
Stuff
I watched this the other week (I presume it must have been a repeat) and thought exactly the same. I'm glad I was not the only one to think this. As Horizon goes, this program did seem to reach a low point, as you said theory was presented as fact and computer modelling as evidence, I think the scientists involved in the program weren't helping themselves much but to be fair they did at least have the humility to say that they were theories. "Jupiter pushing rock out of the way" I too had a WTF moment.
I've just watched the first hour of Stargazing Live, and found it to be in complete contrast to recent episodes of Horizon.
It also managed to be "accessible" to non-scientists. I loved the interview with Buzz Aldrin.
So, my issue is not quite as simple as I stated in my opening post.
However, two programmes a year does not mean that the BBC is anything as good at presenting science as it used to be.
It also managed to be "accessible" to non-scientists. I loved the interview with Buzz Aldrin.
So, my issue is not quite as simple as I stated in my opening post.
However, two programmes a year does not mean that the BBC is anything as good at presenting science as it used to be.
Gassing Station | Science! | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff