info
Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
OT: Science on TV
44 views
Skip to first unread message
Charlie
Sep 12, 2014, 7:58:22 AM9/12/14
to
Early this morning, I watched last night's special on the new Stonehenge
research. At the end of the programme, there was a link to selected
episodes celebrating 50 years of 'Horizon', with one entitled
'Strangeness Minus Three' about Murray Gell-Mann's research.
It was astounding to compare the austere and adult 1964 approach to
complex particle physics - with extended interviews with Gell-Mann and
Yuval Ne'eman, and immensely detailed and demanding brief lectures by
Richard Feynman and A. N. Other - with the infantilised way in which
science is presented on TV nowadays.
There was no tricksy time-lapse photography of sunrises or intrusive
background music, no interminable tracking shots of Michio Kaku or Brian
Cox walking through New York or driving through the desert; just
intelligent people talking with humility, enthusiasm and humour to an
audience which they assumed to be composed of intelligent people. How
very refreshing, and a real work-out for the brain compared to the
undemanding pap that is so often served up 50 years on.
research. At the end of the programme, there was a link to selected
episodes celebrating 50 years of 'Horizon', with one entitled
'Strangeness Minus Three' about Murray Gell-Mann's research.
It was astounding to compare the austere and adult 1964 approach to
complex particle physics - with extended interviews with Gell-Mann and
Yuval Ne'eman, and immensely detailed and demanding brief lectures by
Richard Feynman and A. N. Other - with the infantilised way in which
science is presented on TV nowadays.
There was no tricksy time-lapse photography of sunrises or intrusive
background music, no interminable tracking shots of Michio Kaku or Brian
Cox walking through New York or driving through the desert; just
intelligent people talking with humility, enthusiasm and humour to an
audience which they assumed to be composed of intelligent people. How
very refreshing, and a real work-out for the brain compared to the
undemanding pap that is so often served up 50 years on.
CT
Sep 12, 2014, 8:11:39 AM9/12/14
to
through, usually due to the way the information is presented, i.e. as to
a primary school child.
Whilst I can see the merit in getting the information across to, let's
say, "less sciency" people, where are the documentaries for people that
aren't completely stupid?
--
Chris
JeremyR
Sep 12, 2014, 8:19:34 AM9/12/14
to
"CT" <m...@christrollen.co.uk> wrote in news:c7g67rFk0joU1
@mid.individual.net:
I refer the above correspondents to the film "Idiocracy".
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0387808/
Prophetic innit..
@mid.individual.net:
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0387808/
Prophetic innit..
ogden
Sep 12, 2014, 8:40:54 AM9/12/14
to
CT wrote:
>
> Whilst I can see the merit in getting the information across to, let's
> say, "less sciency" people, where are the documentaries for people that
> aren't completely stupid?
They're called books.
>
> Whilst I can see the merit in getting the information across to, let's
> say, "less sciency" people, where are the documentaries for people that
> aren't completely stupid?
Peasant.
--
ogden
990SMT - bouncy orange tractor
GSXR1000 - vintage sports-tourer
CT
Sep 12, 2014, 8:58:37 AM9/12/14
to
ogden wrote:
> CT wrote:
> >
> > Whilst I can see the merit in getting the information across to,
> > let's say, "less sciency" people, where are the documentaries for
> > people that aren't completely stupid?
>
> They're called books.
Well, yes, as my collection of books by Richard Feynman, Brian Greene,
> CT wrote:
> >
> > Whilst I can see the merit in getting the information across to,
> > let's say, "less sciency" people, where are the documentaries for
> > people that aren't completely stupid?
>
> They're called books.
etc. attest to.
> Peasant.
Again, yes.
Ever seen the film Limitless? There's a quote by one of the
characters:
"I read the Elegant Universe by Brian Greene in 45 minutes, and I
understood all of it!"
It took me several weeks to get through ir and I still didn't get it
all. I must try it again sometime soon.
--
Chris
Thomas
Sep 12, 2014, 10:14:20 AM9/12/14
to
On Fri, 12 Sep 2014 04:58:22 -0700, Charlie <nos...@all.ta> wrote:
> Early this morning, I watched last night's special on the new Stonehenge
> research. At the end of the programme, there was a link to selected
> episodes celebrating 50 years of 'Horizon', with one entitled
> 'Strangeness Minus Three' about Murray Gell-Mann's research.
>
> It was astounding to compare the austere and adult 1964 approach to
> complex particle physics - with extended interviews with Gell-Mann and
> Yuval Ne'eman, and immensely detailed and demanding brief lectures by
> Richard Feynman and A. N. Other - with the infantilised way in which
> science is presented on TV nowadays.
A couple of days ago I watched a PBS (Public Broadcasting) program on MI6
> Early this morning, I watched last night's special on the new Stonehenge
> research. At the end of the programme, there was a link to selected
> episodes celebrating 50 years of 'Horizon', with one entitled
> 'Strangeness Minus Three' about Murray Gell-Mann's research.
>
> It was astounding to compare the austere and adult 1964 approach to
> complex particle physics - with extended interviews with Gell-Mann and
> Yuval Ne'eman, and immensely detailed and demanding brief lectures by
> Richard Feynman and A. N. Other - with the infantilised way in which
> science is presented on TV nowadays.
- "Secrets of HMSS." Rather than simple rational images to support the
voiceover, there were a ton of fake spy-y images. Closeups of suitcases
changing hands, chalk marks on phoneboxes, people looking surreptitious.
etc. The script wasn't bad, but the imagery was enough to make you gag.
OTOH, Carl Sagan, in his book, Intelligent Life in the Universe, was kind
enough to put delimiters around the hard math stuff, so us non-PhDs could
skip over it.
Tim
Sep 12, 2014, 12:44:15 PM9/12/14
to
On 12/09/2014 12:58, Charlie wrote:
> Early this morning, I watched last night's special on the new Stonehenge
[snip]
> Early this morning, I watched last night's special on the new Stonehenge
> undemanding pap that is so often served up 50 years on.
+1
PipL
Sep 12, 2014, 3:02:34 PM9/12/14
to
On 12 Sep 2014 12:58:37 GMT, "CT" <m...@christrollen.co.uk> wrote:
>Ever seen the film Limitless? There's a quote by one of the
>characters:
>
>"I read the Elegant Universe by Brian Greene in 45 minutes, and I
>understood all of it!"
"Apes don't read philosophy."
>Ever seen the film Limitless? There's a quote by one of the
>characters:
>
>"I read the Elegant Universe by Brian Greene in 45 minutes, and I
>understood all of it!"
"Yes they do, Otto. They just don't understand it"
--
Pip
ogden
Sep 12, 2014, 3:49:16 PM9/12/14
to
Colin Irvine
Sep 12, 2014, 6:01:24 PM9/12/14
to
Thomas
Sep 12, 2014, 6:11:36 PM9/12/14
to
On Fri, 12 Sep 2014 12:49:16 -0700, ogden <og...@pre.org> wrote:
> I don't think they've ever managed to top The Ascent of Man.
I'd like to see Da Scent of Woman, though.
> I don't think they've ever managed to top The Ascent of Man.
ogden
Sep 12, 2014, 7:17:20 PM9/12/14
to
Eiron
Sep 13, 2014, 9:55:30 PM9/13/14
to
On 12/09/2014 20:49, ogden wrote:
> I don't think they've ever managed to top The Ascent of Man.
It might only have seemed good because you were young and inexperienced
> I don't think they've ever managed to top The Ascent of Man.
at the time. I'll have to look for it on youtube to find out,
especially as apparently there was some Pink Floyd in it.
There was an entertaining documentary series not so long ago
with Brian Sewell bumming around Europe. :-)
--
Eiron.
ogden
Sep 14, 2014, 7:07:29 AM9/14/14
to
Eiron wrote:
>
> On 12/09/2014 20:49, ogden wrote:
>
> > I don't think they've ever managed to top The Ascent of Man.
>
> It might only have seemed good because you were young and inexperienced
> at the time.
I watched it last year, having missed it when originally broadcast due
>
> On 12/09/2014 20:49, ogden wrote:
>
> > I don't think they've ever managed to top The Ascent of Man.
>
> It might only have seemed good because you were young and inexperienced
> at the time.
to a minor case of "not being born yet".
> There was an entertaining documentary series not so long ago
> with Brian Sewell bumming around Europe. :-)
Charlie
Sep 15, 2014, 9:27:46 AM9/15/14
to
On 14/09/2014 02:55, Eiron wrote:
> There was an entertaining documentary series not so long ago
> with Brian Sewell bumming around Europe. :-)
What is the French for 'double entendre'?
> There was an entertaining documentary series not so long ago
> with Brian Sewell bumming around Europe. :-)
Syd Rumpo
Sep 15, 2014, 10:21:13 AM9/15/14
to
entendre, so I gave her one.
Cheers
--
Syd
Grimly Curmudgeon
Sep 15, 2014, 8:08:00 PM9/15/14
to
On 12 Sep 2014 12:11:39 GMT, "CT" <m...@christrollen.co.uk> wrote:
>Whilst I can see the merit in getting the information across to, let's
>say, "less sciency" people, where are the documentaries for people that
>aren't completely stupid?
http://forums.mvgroup.org/
>Whilst I can see the merit in getting the information across to, let's
>say, "less sciency" people, where are the documentaries for people that
>aren't completely stupid?
Grimly Curmudgeon
Sep 15, 2014, 8:09:38 PM9/15/14
to
>I don't think they've ever managed to top The Ascent of Man.
7ft 2in?
Alfonso
Sep 19, 2014, 9:09:40 AM9/19/14
to
automatically linked. There are 4 BBC channels you would have thought
that one might be used occasionally for people with more than a 5 minute
attention span.
I'm also pissed of with theories presented as fact to say nothing of
interminable background music.
0 new messages