Science TV should it be forced to post disclaimers.

[PennyKay]

Also, just to add, at no point during these programs does the presenter claim that these images are real...that would be misleading...

 

[bobhikes]

There are.

HubbleSite - Picture Album: Stars

I know Nasa does, which is why I don't see any reason TV show's claiming to be accurate science shouldn't do the same.

 

[tumbleweed41]

I know Nasa does, which is why I don't see any reason TV show's claiming to be accurate science shouldn't do the same.

The show used CGI animations based on Hubble photographs.

What exactly is your issue?

 

[bobhikes]

Also, just to add, at no point during these programs does the presenter claim that these images are real...that would be misleading...

They also don't impy that they aren't. Let the viewer believe what they want. Fine then don't verify the scientists let the viewer guess that information as well.

The issue is they do verify the scientists and use them to validate the spoken information presented of which the CGI is naturally assumed by all who watch to be valid.

 

[PennyKay]

I know Nasa does, which is why I don't see any reason TV show's claiming to be accurate science shouldn't do the same.

They're not claiming the artistic visualizations are real, they're just helping people understand things that we have no images/videos of (e.g. a supernova happening in the space of 30 seconds). The actual words that they scientist/presenter is speaking however is (hopefully) accurate.

 

[tumbleweed41]

Fine then don't verify the scientists let the viewer guess that information as well.

Scientists produced the show?

 

[bobhikes]

The show used CGI animations based on Hubble photographs.

What exactly is your issue?

My mistake, read the Nasa website on the Hubble Photo's they do indicate they are artistic versions. They will tell you how they determine blue, purple red and such. They will also show you the actual picture the hubble takes, it has no color.

I sorry I thought you realized this.

 

[tumbleweed41]

.I sorry I thought you realized this.

Did I ever indicate I did not?
HubbleSite - Gallery - Behind the Pictures

 

[PennyKay]

They also don't impy that they aren't. Let the viewer believe what they want. Fine then don't verify the scientists let the viewer guess that information as well.

The issue is they do verify the scientists and use them to validate the spoken information presented of which the CGI is naturally assumed by all who watch to be valid.

It really depends on what program you're watching...

If you're watching Wonders of the Universe on BB2, they use lots of visualizations. The reason being that the program is to entice the uneducated public into learning about science.

However, if your watching a program targeted at students, yes you would expect some more evidence for what the scientist/presenter is telling you.

Personally, for the broad, popular science programs, I don't see a problem with it. But each to their own.

 

[Magic Man]

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.

What does any of this have to do with anything? Of course a drawing requires a description. No one is arguing that. The point is that a drawing that illustrates the concepts being described in text or through speech is just a way to help someone understand the concept. It's not meant as a 100% accurate representation. I'd be interested to know how many people would actually think an atom looked exactly like that. I'd guess not many, if any.

 

[Magic Man]

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

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

Now that I could get behind. That would be a much better use of time and effort than Science channel disclaimers.

 

[outhouse]

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

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

thats true with ancient aliens

having been to the places they butcher the truth

 

[bobhikes]

What does any of this have to do with anything? Of course a drawing requires a description. No one is arguing that. The point is that a drawing that illustrates the concepts being described in text or through speech is just a way to help someone understand the concept. It's not meant as a 100% accurate representation. I'd be interested to know how many people would actually think an atom looked exactly like that. I'd guess not many, if any.

The point as Penny point out is that in text books they make the distinction. It says this is only a representation and explains how it could be different. Same for a person doing a speech.

So it is proper for education but for entertainment allow the public to believe what they want. It won't hurt anything. For entertainment why don't we just have everything as fact. Let the public use there own intelligence to determine fact from fiction.

If the show wants to advertise as fiction they can do all that the want. If they advertise as science they should be held to standards.

We are not saying they can't show it or have to show differing views just that they have to indicate in some form it is not fact.

Like I said Dramatization have to indicate they are sure and not real. Movies edit for TV have to indicate such. Science shows should have to indicate when it is manipulated to make it seem pretty.

 

[Magic Man]

Like I said Dramatization have to indicate they are sure and not real. Movies edit for TV have to indicate such. Science shows should have to indicate when it is manipulated to make it seem pretty.

You still haven't supported this, though. Why should science shows have to do that? Why would it be anything but obvious that all they're doing is giving us visual representations of the ideas they're conveying? I'm sure there are some people out there who don't understand that, but I'm not a big fan of catering to them.

 

[PennyKay]

The point as Penny point out is that in text books they make the distinction. It says this is only a representation and explains how it could be different. Same for a person doing a speech.

So it is proper for education but for entertainment allow the public to believe what they want. It won't hurt anything. For entertainment why don't we just have everything as fact. Let the public use there own intelligence to determine fact from fiction.

If the show wants to advertise as fiction they can do all that the want. If they advertise as science they should be held to standards.

We are not saying they can't show it or have to show differing views just that they have to indicate in some form it is not fact.

Like I said Dramatization have to indicate they are sure and not real. Movies edit for TV have to indicate such. Science shows should have to indicate when it is manipulated to make it seem pretty.

Most of the broader popular science programs do teach proper science, they just use a bit of artistic license to illustrate things we have no images for (yet ample amounts of other evidence for). I see no problem with this what so ever.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

Anyone who would need a disclaimer probably wouldn't be helped by it anyway.

 

[tumbleweed41]

It would be more helpful for shows like "Ghost Hunters" and "Ancient Aliens" to have disclaimers stating they contain psudoscience and baseless speculation.

 

[bobhikes]

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

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

Funny How nobody has problems with it but most comments agreed with this quote.


Misinformation is bad for all.
As Kilgore points out it would be ignored by most anyway.

So because it would be a minor inconvience that would try to correct bad information and be mostly ignore. Just ignore it.

Why do most of you debate online. Is it to correct bad information that is just a minor inconvience and mostly ignored. Maybe TV can help. Just ignore it.

 

[Dirty Penguin]

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 don't see how it matters. When I watch (The Science Channel) on programs such as this...I think how neat it is we've come to know so much...but I in no way consider any of the pretty CGI to be taken as real.

I'd venture to say that the people who are interested in such shows and have an understanding of the content (i.e. the very technical stuff) aren't under some misguided impression the CGI is real footage. Others who may not understand the technical jargon will simply change the channel....

 

[tumbleweed41]

Misinformation is bad for all.

How is CGI based on empirical evidence misinformation?