Science TV should it be forced to post disclaimers.

[Falvlun]

Look at the credits of the show, the CGI studio and artists are listed.

Funny that you knew it was CGI, but you worry that others think it is actual camera footage.

This is a non-issue.

I don't think that's the point. It's more like, Yes, people know that these are animations, but they still believe that that is actually how they look. Like the model of the atom: People know they aren't looking at an actual atom when they see the textbook image, but they still think that electrons orbit the nucleus in set orbits, because that is how it's visually depicted, even though in reality, those orbits just represent a general area in which the electron might be found.

 

[Dirty Penguin]

I kinda hope that when people watch these programmes they realise that there wasn't really a cameraman live at the event and that it's an artistic impression of events...

Exactly.....:yes:

 

[Dirty Penguin]

Look at the credits of the show, the CGI studio and artists are listed.

Funny that you knew it was CGI, but you worry that others think it is actual camera footage.

This is a non-issue.

:clap

 

[bobhikes]

I don't think that's the point. It's more like, Yes, people know that these are animations, but they still believe that that is actually how they look. Like the model of the atom: People know they aren't looking at an actual atom when they see the textbook image, but they still think that electrons orbit the nucleus in set orbits, because that is how it's visually depicted, even though in reality, those orbits just represent a general area in which the electron might be found.

Yes,:clap

 

[Magic Man]

I don't understand the problem here. These are representations of the ideas they're talking about on these shows. It's like showing a CGI representation of an atom. It gives people an idea of the sort of thing would look like, not an exact rendering of what it actually looks like. We'll never know exactly what some of these things look like. We'll never have actual footage of a lot of it.

I don't see why we need to tell people "This is only CGI, and it only represents an idea we're trying to convey; it's not a 100% accurate depiction of the ideas we're explaining, just something to give you a neat visual aide". I also think the number of people who watch those shows without understanding that is being overestimated here.

 

[bobhikes]

I don't understand the problem here. These are representations of the ideas they're talking about on these shows. It's like showing a CGI representation of an atom. It gives people an idea of the sort of thing would look like, not an exact rendering of what it actually looks like. We'll never know exactly what some of these things look like. We'll never have actual footage of a lot of it.

I don't see why we need to tell people "This is only CGI, and it only represents an idea we're trying to convey; it's not a 100% accurate depiction of the ideas we're explaining, just something to give you a neat visual aide". I also think the number of people who watch those shows without understanding that is being overestimated here.

What I don't understand is why it is such a problem to advertise the truth, either before or after the show a simple disclaimer or in small print while the CGI is up artist depiction.

Why are some of you against this, do you want to promote misunderstanding of Science?

 

[outhouse]

One of my loves is watching scientific shows on tv but of late it has started to concern me.

More and more of it is being shown and they never post the inaccuracies of it. Last night I watched the making of the universe concerning stars. They show these great graphics of how the stars form blow up and what they look like after. The showed white darwf stars, nutrino stars and etc. The showed close ups of these stars spinning in full color with representation of land masses.

There was never any indication of this being artistic versions. Isn't this bad science. We are premoting a vision of something that doesn't exist.

Many people are buying this art as fact and shows do not discourage this. All the scientists are identified by name and position but the pictures are not identified as art. Isn't this lying to the public.

Shouldn't these shows be forced to label artistic version's?

what problem do you really have??

do you think a creator did this???


scienitist have photographic evidence of everything you have stated so far.

Who are you to question them??????


on a last note science does not prove anything, that is not their job. It is however their job to observe and report what they see and to state any facts they may find.

 

[tumbleweed41]

Like the model of the atom: People know they aren't looking at an actual atom when they see the textbook image, but they still think that electrons orbit the nucleus in set orbits, because that is how it's visually depicted, even though in reality, those orbits just represent a general area in which the electron might be found.

So this....

Should be accompanied by a disclaimer?

 

[outhouse]

What I don't understand is why it is such a problem to advertise the truth, either before or after the show a simple disclaimer or in small print while the CGI is up artist depiction.

Why are some of you against this, do you want to promote misunderstanding of Science?

it is not a misunderstanding of science

they are showing you what happens in our universe

 

[bobhikes]

So this....

Should be accompanied by a disclaimer?

If used as a scientific truth yes. If used as a pretty picture no.

 

[Falvlun]

So this....

Should be accompanied by a disclaimer?

It would not be the worse thing in the world, no, if in general, people were made more aware that artistic representations may not be telling the whole truth and nothing but the truth.

 

[bobhikes]

what problem do you really have??

do you think a creator did this???


scienitist have photographic evidence of everything you have stated so far.

Who are you to question them??????


on a last note science does not prove anything, that is not their job. It is however their job to observe and report what they see and to state any facts they may find.

See, we actually have people that believe there is scientific photographs of this stuff. Proof we need disclaimers.:yes:

 

[Magic Man]

What I don't understand is why it is such a problem to advertise the truth, either before or after the show a simple disclaimer or in small print while the CGI is up artist depiction.

Why are some of you against this, do you want to promote misunderstanding of Science?

I'm not really "against" it; I just don't see the need for it. Not having the disclaimers is not promoting the misunderstanding of science. It's assuming a certain mental capacity of the viewers of the show.

 

[Magic Man]

If used as a scientific truth yes. If used as a pretty picture no.

How about if used as a pretty picture to give a visual understanding of a scientific truth? (since that is it's actual use)

 

[tumbleweed41]

It would not be the worse thing in the world, no, if in general, people were made more aware that artistic representations may not be telling the whole truth and nothing but the truth.

The truth is negatively charged electrons orbit a nucleus of protons and neutrons.
Other than the picture being an obvious representation of such, where is the dishonesty?

Where is the dishonesty of an obvious CGI representation of a star being born?

 

[bobhikes]

How about if used as a pretty picture to give a visual understanding of a scientific truth? (since that is it's actual use)

Well that one is not a very accurate model of anything. It needs a lot of discription. If you just show that to some one they would not know what you were trying to depict.

I think its an atom but electrons to me would be all the same color and there would be a circular nucleus with equal number of protons and maybe some neutrons.

It could be a gallaxy, multiple colors for different planets and orbits but I have never seen a sun depicted that way.

 

[PennyKay]

I think it's a tad nit picky. Most people (I'd like to think) would realise that not all the images/videos shown on these programs are real, and if not, where is the harm in it. They're simply visual aids to help peoples understanding.

I certainly don't think there's any need for laws to e put in place. As somebody previously said, people have to learn to use their brains.

 

[bobhikes]

what problem do you really have??

do you think a creator did this???


scienitist have photographic evidence of everything you have stated so far.

Who are you to question them??????


on a last note science does not prove anything, that is not their job. It is however their job to observe and report what they see and to state any facts they may find.

Worth the repost

 

[tumbleweed41]

See, we actually have people that believe there is scientific photographs of this stuff. Proof we need disclaimers.:yes:

There are.

HubbleSite - Picture Album: Stars

 

[doppelganger]

The History Channel would need to follow suit. Something like:

"This show is based on wild speculation . . . entertaining wild speculation . . . but wild speculation nonetheless."