Science TV should it be forced to post disclaimers.

[bobhikes]

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?

 

[Gharib]

i would say yes, many people actually believe that what was animated in the computer to represent the scientists explanation are taken as real. take the sun for example, ask anyone about it they will say it looks something like this:

 

[lunakilo]

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

No.

You cannot make laws for everything.

In some cases people will just have to rely on their brains to figure things out.

 

[Noaidi]

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.

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...

 

[bobhikes]

No.

You cannot make laws for everything.

In some cases people will just have to rely on their brains to figure things out.

In these case you are putting figures in there head and then supporting it with supposed facts(not all these theories are fully excepted) and stamping it with the approval of verified scientists.

If you are going to verify the scientists and call it non-fiction there should be a law requiring you identify the fiction parts.

 

[lunakilo]

i would say yes, many people actually believe that what was animated in the computer to represent the scientists explanation are taken as real. take the sun for example, ask anyone about it they will say it looks something like this:

And how would you classify a graphical representation of data?

If you have data from the sun for example, and you represent it as an animation which looks like the sun, is that a computer animation or picture of reality?

 

[bobhikes]

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...

Talk to them they don't. Most realise that a cameraman wasn't there but think we have the technology to actually record it.

 

[Gharib]

And how would you classify a graphical representation of data?

If you have data from the sun for example, and you represent it as an animation which looks like the sun, is that a computer animation or picture of reality?

what exactly are we talking about when you say, 'data from the sun' i assume pictures or someone looking at it with their own eyes. is that what you mean by 'data'

 

[bobhikes]

And how would you classify a graphical representation of data?

If you have data from the sun for example, and you represent it as an animation which looks like the sun, is that a computer animation or picture of reality?

Its a computer animation flat out. Science is based on supposed facts animation is based on interpretation. If you want to call it science than science is not fact.

 

[Gharib]

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...

you'd be surprised with the american people.

 

[lunakilo]

If you are going to verify the scientists and call it non-fiction there should be a law requiring you identify the fiction parts.

And how do you identify what is fiction?

We are talking about tv-shows, not scientific articles. If you have to stop the show with a 'warning! Fiction ahead' every time you want to show a picture I think many people would stop watching.

 

[Noaidi]

Talk to them they don't. Most realise that a cameraman wasn't there but think we have the technology to actually record it.

Then that's a problem with the level of education of the viewer, not a problem with the programme. I would feel insulted everytime I sat down to watch a programme and a disclaimer appeared.

"Dear viewer - Please note that Scooby-Doo is not a real crime-busting dog, and is merely an artist's impression of a dog."

 

[Falvlun]

I don't think there should be a law, but I think it would be good to mention at some point that these are just artistic representations based upon the data we've gathered and our "best guess" as to what it looks like. Kinda like those neanderthal and dinosaur representations: we really just have bones, but that hasn't stopped people from making hairy cavemen and colorful, scaly dinosaurs.

 

[bobhikes]

what exactly are we talking about when you say, 'data from the sun' i assume pictures or someone looking at it with their own eyes. is that what you mean by 'data'

We have satelites that circle the sun getting data from it. We can also look at it through various technical devices. We also observe phenomenon on earth caused by the sun.

What scientists do is through radiation and light determine the elements involved in these far drawfs and compare to what we know about our own sun. Then they assign colors to the various elements and through various theories work out size and shape.

 

[bobhikes]

I don't think there should be a law, but I think it would be good to mention at some point that these are just artistic representations based upon the data we've gathered and our "best guess" as to what it looks like. Kinda like those neanderthal and dinosaur representations: we really just have bones, but that hasn't stopped people from making hairy cavemen and colorful, scaly dinosaurs.

Valid point

 

[bobhikes]

Then that's a problem with the level of education of the viewer, not a problem with the programme. I would feel insulted everytime I sat down to watch a programme and a disclaimer appeared.

"Dear viewer - Please note that Scooby-Doo is not a real crime-busting dog, and is merely an artist's impression of a dog."

The issue is Scooby-doo makes no claim to be real. These documents claim to be non-fiction.

In Independence Day or 2012 movies, I have no complaints. They do not claim to be real.

In TV dramas they are forced to post a few times that things have been changed. When movies go to tv they are forced to put edited for television.

 

[lunakilo]

what exactly are we talking about when you say, 'data from the sun' i assume pictures or someone looking at it with their own eyes. is that what you mean by 'data'

An example could be mesurements of the surface temperature of the sun at different coordinats (x,y) on the surface of the sun.

A way to show this data could be to plot the data on a sphere and show the different temperatures as different shades of orange.
The result would be an orange sphere which looks quite like the sun.

It is obviously not a real image, but it is not exactly fiction either.

An other example is pictures in false colors like this:http://www.nasaimages.org/luna/servlet/detail/NSVS~3~3~9005~109005:Mars-Rotate--False-Color-
This is not what Mars looks like, but it is nor fictional either.

 

[Looncall]

Its a computer animation flat out. Science is based on supposed facts animation is based on interpretation. If you want to call it science than science is not fact.

I do not see why one must not make a visual representation of data. Images are often the most effective way to communicate information.

Often, data is collected in forms, such as high-energy radiation, that would not be perceptible in the first place.

Also, you seem to have a very strange idea of what science is about.

 

[bobhikes]

I do not see why one must not make a visual representation of data. Images are often the most effective way to communicate information.

Often, data is collected in forms, such as high-energy radiation, that would not be perceptible in the first place.

Also, you seem to have a very strange idea of what science is about.

I agree image is a most effective way to communicate information which is why it should be labeled.

It is not just the cosmo's but also the show's predicting the future. Life after Humans and they also have a children show that predict life years in the future. While the show makes no claims. Scientists have praised the accuracy of the shows prediction.

Predicting is never accurate, Life after humans again backs up its claims with scientists. Never indicating the actual probalility which is very low.


All this leads to another claim of mine. If you want to allow this then just label science a religon.

 

[tumbleweed41]

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.