I agree completely dan, particularly with your last comment. Of course it shouldn't just be scientists who have the right on important descions, thats ridiculous. Its people who regurgitate what the Sun says that get my goat, people who think that whatever Littlejohn or whatever that cock is called says is right and then just regurgitate his arguments rather than form somekind of there own opinion. Its only with people like that that the argument, "well, they know more than you so shut up" is relevent. I suppose thats relevent to everything, including topical science issues such as GM crops.
I still belive that forming a truly well informed opinion is incredibly difficult on complex scientifc issues, like GM crops, not least because of the amount of rubbish that is spouted but also the technical nature of the problems, which a "commoner" couldn't get to grips with without at least a little training in the area. Which is where i feel tv science, however dumbed down, can only help. If people at least have a vaugue idea of what scientific principles are involved in a technology, then that can only lead to a greater understanding of its implications and help to build a more reasoned argument. However people should at least allow expert opinions to have a certain weighting when assembling there own, as its a damn site more reasoned than some journo in the Daily Sport trying to get readers.
Paul, i agree that the expert should not give opinion on something outside of their field. But to assume the expert has no capacity or even right to have an opinion on anything else, as being well informed on something prevents you from having any spare mental capacity is nonsence. Or is that just your form of arrogance, that geeky people who devote there life to understanding of something can't possibly have any grasp of wider issues, wheras as people who don't, can? utter rubbish. Or was that just a go at me personally?
So anyway, lay off the dumbed down science shows, i think the're good!
Off to spout on about how great scientists are and how they deserve to rule the earth to everyone on the bus now. ta ta.
Yes Dan i do need to feel special :-) - Not at all, i just fancy a bit of banter on a friday afternoon, im bored and this thread was something i felt i could contribute to, and the more people i can wind up whilst im doing it the better!
What about the general level of politics programmes? I havn't faintest clue about politics, so little i feel i probably shouldn't be allowed to vote, as i'd only just vote for the party with the nicest colour or summin, anyone got any complaints about politics on tv? surly a similar topic...
and Dan, well yes an acedemic is definatly better INFORMED about there subject, im not saying that makes them right. Surly if a builder said your house was going to fall down you'd be inclined to go with his opinion over a mate who'd seen charlie dimmock put some decking down on tv once, or does this make his opinion just as valid as the builders?
Of course im arrogant and patronising, im a PhD student who knows everything :-)
That is a good point though, scientists are generally regarded by the public as arrogant and patronising, whilst that may be true to some extent, they havn't spent their entire life researching something just for some bloke whos seen a programme about science blurt out some rubbish and expect to agree with them. Unfortunatly the academic DOES know better, no two ways about it. Yet their not allowed to say so in case of offending somebodies ego? "yes sir your views on nanotechnology are just as worthy as mine, despite you harvesting yours via yesterdays Sun newspaper and mine due to 30 years of research into the field"?
Thats why i think as much science on TV can only be a good thing, it helps educate people and dispose of the idea of science being a mysterious black magic, carried out by crazy dudes who are a law unto themselves.
I don't agree that a good communicator can make anything understandable - the only way to make something horribly complex understandable to the average Joe Bloggs is to cut out alot of the core material and gloss over the difficulties.....which is dumbing down then? which is what everyone is complaining about?? I wouldn't want to watch a 50 hour programme going into the details of the english monarchy to establish a good background knowledge, yet i'll happily sit quite for an hour and watch Tony Robinson try his best to explain it in a way that is understandable yet dumbed down.
They are aiming at the general public. People seem to love such low rent drivel like "big brother" so imagine being a producer of a science programme?
You've got to get ratings and make it accessable. I enjoy history programmes, for example that one Tony Robinson did about the monarchy over christmas, i thought that was dead interesting.
Im sure people who actually know something about history were laughing there socks at its dumbed down content. However my knowledge of history is nothing so i just enjoyed it and got a few "down-the-pub-pop-triva-facts" from it, yet that is infinitly better than knowing what bra size a fat bird on big brother is?
Phatboy da Silva
