Aren't some science documentaries ever so slightly sensationalist?

[joigus]

I watch science documentaries quite often. I find most other kind of TV quite unbearable. Overall I think it's a positive experience, because you get a lot of visual information that otherwise wouldn't be accessible to you. Plus you get to hear the researches, you learn some of the story of the scientific ideas... But I've noticed it's a bit dangerous to take some statements from them too literally. There are narrative strictures that sometimes have the unfortunate effect of adulterating the message with a pinch of sensationalism. And why is it that you never get the chance to hear a complete argument by any scientist that's being interviewed? It's like a collage of sentences.

[studiot]

I suppose it also depends upon the quality of TV where you are.

Here, some are really good, the BBC has produced some first classones eg in  Earth Science  with a 'textbook' to go with it, now in its second edition.

But I agree there are some 'handwavy' presenters as well.

Commercial stations are less likely to expend the resources necessary as the audiences are smaller than say the 'soaps'

But I have noticed that the soaps (I have never been into them) have become more like the gangster movies of 20/30+ years ago.
 

[CharonY]

In addition, the documentaries are generally not prepared by scientists. They may feature the latter, but some may just use snippets or creative editing to make things more interesting at the cost of being factual (but potentially boring).

[studiot]

48 minutes ago, CharonY said:

In addition, the documentaries are generally not prepared by scientists. They may feature the latter, but some may just use snippets or creative editing to make things more interesting at the cost of being factual (but potentially boring).

I hope this is not an expression of the all too common fallacy that all you have to do to teach something is to know your subject.

[swansont]

One issue is that documentaries give a false sense of proportion;  you don't know how long a nature documentary spent getting the shot they put in the show. You think the action is typical when it isn't. The boring bits where nothing is happening don't make it into the final cut.  

[joigus]

2 hours ago, studiot said:

I suppose it also depends upon the quality of TV where you are.

Here, some are really good, the BBC has produced some first classones eg in  Earth Science  with a 'textbook' to go with it, now in its second edition.

Well, I don't live in North Sentinel island.

BBC is, I have to say, my favourite in that respect. Only thing is when they get to me they're not quite so fresh. Plus the BBC blocks some contents outside the UK, unfortunately.

1 hour ago, CharonY said:

In addition, the documentaries are generally not prepared by scientists. They may feature the latter, but some may just use snippets or creative editing to make things more interesting at the cost of being factual (but potentially boring).

Yeah, it's the 'snippets' part I was talking about. Although I quite agree with studiot that asking that people making the films be scientists is perhaps a step too far. Only that the authors be careful about documenting, and maybe allow the scientist to critically review the film so that no exaggerations are put in their mouths by selectively cutting the interview to make a statement sound as a suggestion of something else.

16 minutes ago, swansont said:

One issue is that documentaries give a false sense of proportion;  you don't know how long a nature documentary spent getting the shot they put in the show. You think the action is typical when it isn't. The boring bits where nothing is happening don't make it into the final cut.  

So true. Related, although not the same. I remember a CGI film --it was wonderful otherwise-- about the Cretaceous extinction with three dinos killing each other in some kind of Reservoir Dogs of the dinosaur era finale.

[studiot]

52 minutes ago, joigus said:

So true. Related, although not the same. I remember a CGI film --it was wonderful otherwise-- about the Cretaceous extinction with three dinos killing each other in some kind of Reservoir Dogs of the dinosaur era finale.

BBC again.

Did you see the Walking with Dinosaurs series?

There was also a programme where they discussed the amking of and it would appear that the CGI team faced the fact that no one really knew how dinosaurs locomoted.
So the studied it scientifically and some very interesting new bioscience came out of that, which was described.

I remember from school we had the Unilever chemistry pamphlets. The ones on surface chemistry,  and the one on glycerides I remember well and the one on quantum bonding had a film with it that was especially good.

1 hour ago, swansont said:

One issue is that documentaries give a false sense of proportion;  you don't know how long a nature documentary spent getting the shot they put in the show. You think the action is typical when it isn't. The boring bits where nothing is happening don't make it into the final cut.  

Excellent point.

[joigus]

1 hour ago, studiot said:

Did you see the Walking with Dinosaurs series?

Did I see it you say? Saw it several times. Particularly the Walking with Beasts series. I also greatly enjoyed the Walking with Monsters, as it brought to life the things I'd read about in S. J. Gould's Wonderful Life, that had me dreaming for years about the Cambrian and pre-Cambrian oceans. Googled about for all the critters, and further 'investigated' the evolution of whales,  which is an amazing story of both natural evolution and scientific perseverance. The animation of Ambulocetus natans is one of the best things I've seen in the genre.

17 minutes ago, joigus said:

The animation of Ambulocetus natans is one of the best things I've seen in the genre.

https://i.gifer.com/5Bk5.gif

Edited May 11, 2020 by joigus
linked-messed up a paragraph

[Phi for All]

I think the medium itself is a bit dangerous for learning. I don't think we have as effective a filtering system when it comes to audio/visual input as opposed to the written word. Or perhaps we're more apt to be emotional when more of the senses are engaged. 

If I'm reading a scientific article and it slides into sensationalism, I'm more likely to catch it and start being more skeptical about any claims it makes. If I'm watching a video, I'm more likely to let it slip rather than interrupt the flow of the presentation. 

[dimreepr]

23 minutes ago, Phi for All said:

I think the medium itself is a bit dangerous for learning. I don't think we have as effective a filtering system when it comes to audio/visual input as opposed to the written word. Or perhaps we're more apt to be emotional when more of the senses are engaged. 

If I'm reading a scientific article and it slides into sensationalism, I'm more likely to catch it and start being more skeptical about any claims it makes. If I'm watching a video, I'm more likely to let it slip rather than interrupt the flow of the presentation. 

Ultimately, I think the medium is irrelevant because only some people will get it; it reminds me of recent adverts that suggest caffeine shampoo is good because, they say, lots of people buy it... 

[Phi for All]

48 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

Ultimately, I think the medium is irrelevant because only some people will get it; it reminds me of recent adverts that suggest caffeine shampoo is good because, they say, lots of people buy it... 

The difference, perhaps, is that scientific information written to inform is easier to assess than the same information displayed to entertain. No matter who attempts to "get it", I think it's easier for modern humans to be critical when information is written out. And I think it's easier to miss some misinformation when it's part of a "story". A big part of the entertainment format is suspension of disbelief, sort of the opposite of healthy scientific skepticism. 

[joigus]

4 hours ago, Phi for All said:

I think the medium itself is a bit dangerous for learning. I don't think we have as effective a filtering system when it comes to audio/visual input as opposed to the written word. Or perhaps we're more apt to be emotional when more of the senses are engaged. 

Also an excellent point.

 

4 hours ago, Phi for All said:

If I'm reading a scientific article and it slides into sensationalism, I'm more likely to catch it and start being more skeptical about any claims it makes. If I'm watching a video, I'm more likely to let it slip rather than interrupt the flow of the presentation. 

Let me guess. You either do some refereeing or have been there... Because the modern peer-review system has zero tolerance with sensationalism. AAMOF, it's in the user's manual.

Edited May 11, 2020 by joigus
mistyped

[Strange]

7 hours ago, Phi for All said:

I think the medium itself is a bit dangerous for learning. I don't think we have as effective a filtering system when it comes to audio/visual input as opposed to the written word. Or perhaps we're more apt to be emotional when more of the senses are engaged. 

If I'm reading a scientific article and it slides into sensationalism, I'm more likely to catch it and start being more skeptical about any claims it makes. If I'm watching a video, I'm more likely to let it slip rather than interrupt the flow of the presentation. 

I wonder if it is because when you read, you can always pause and think about what you have just read. But with an audiovisual presentation you are less likely to hit pause  and so you give yourself less time to think.

There has been some research that shows you learn better from texts that are hard to read (too small, fuzzy, bad letter forms, etc) because you are forced to take time over them. Reading is an artificial skill that we have to learn. So maybe reading, because it takes more effort, has a similar cognitive advantage over our more intuitive skills like listening and watching.

[Sensei]

Quote

Aren't some science documentaries ever so slightly sensationalist?

Purpose of scientific documentary TV show is to awaken of interest of person who has none or little knowledge in a field it is about. Promotion of science and knowledge among a wider audience, who would not be otherwise reached. Doing it in a boring way will have exactly reverse effect than intended (which many primary and secondary school teachers do).. The desire to know is the natural state of mind of every newborn living being. To understand entire environment and world around. Competent teacher stimulates and wisely expands this state of mind. A bad teacher (e.g. the most likely one who ruined his or her career in the field, and finished up "on exile" in school as teacher) can ruin this state..

Edited May 11, 2020 by Sensei

[joigus]

1 hour ago, Sensei said:

Purpose of scientific documentary TV shows is to awaken of interest of person who has none or little knowledge in a field they are about. Promotion of science and knowledge among a wider audience, who would not be otherwise reached. Doing it in a boring way will have exactly reverse effect than intended (which many primary and secondary school teachers do).. The desire to know is the natural state of mind of every newborn living being. To understand entire environment and world around. Competent teacher stimulates and wisely expands this state of mind. A bad teacher (e.g. the most likely one who ruined his or her career in the field, and finished up "on exile" in school as teacher) can ruin this state..

Ok. I really must take issue with this, because although I do find some points of agreement with you, like, e.g., the "it would defeat the purpose" argument, or the general intention to reach wider audiences that these shows blatantly target, I really think you're flushing too much down the plughole there.

As to school teachers pictured as "exiles,' I really must tell you that I've found sour exiles and leeches at university and school alike. Some of the best were at uni, and some of the worst too. I know enough of science to know that there exist vast graveyards of good-for-nothing sloppy science made by professionals, like some 'glorious' pieces of GR that were just plain wrong because the authors didn't know they were dealing with tensor densities, and messed up the calculations. They're still there, published, 80-odd years afterwards, to the shame of all. It is by no means the rule, thanks to the peer review system, but it just happens to happen. Same goes for papers that are but leading-nowhere speculations dressed with the glories of mind-numbing formalism. Again, not the norm, but there is such a thing as bad professional science and there is such a thing as good popular science. It's not as simple as researchers or university professors = people in the know, versus school teachers or popular science writers = poor idiots who don't know what they're talking about.

 

Edited May 11, 2020 by joigus
mistyped

[MigL]

I don't know where you're from, Joygus ( the 'origin' doesn't tell me much ), but the days when schoolteachers became teachers for the love of teaching are gone. I guess teachers are only human. ( remember when sports were for the love of the game ? )
Here in the Canadian province of Ontario, a schoolteacher, with all his/her training up to date earns over $ 100 000 per year while working for the school board. That is with two summer months, one PD day every month, Christmas vacation, reading week and March break , off.
And the best benefits package, and pension this side of politicians.
That's even if they're teaching 1st grade, and almost twice as much as private school teachers.
It wasn't always like that. In the 70s, I did have a couple of teachers that deeply influenced my life, both deceased now.
One  was an engineer who taught Physics, the other was a hard-a*s Algebra teacher who almost failed me in Gr 13.

My University teachers were all quite decent, maybe because it was a very small university, and there was only two Physics students in my 4th year, and lots of interaction. On any given day, the Prof, I, and the other student would be at our own sections of board scribbling equations. The only one who I didn't have experience with ( everyone thought he was young and clueless ) is now the head of the department ( Ha-ha ).

These teachers/Profs that influenced me, didn't 'dumb' things down, or sensationalize science and math.
First question asked of us in Gr 10 Physics ( 14 yrs old ) was " Are you moving ?"
I was the only one to reply "Relative to what ?"

[joigus]

6 hours ago, MigL said:

the days when schoolteachers became teachers for the love of teaching are gone.

Maybe. But I remember a conference by Svante Pääbo for CARTA in which, during the Q&A session, somebody asked him why Neanderthals, having such cognitive abilities, failed to become the prevalent human species in Europe and the Middle East 30 000 ya. After some pondering he said something like, 'when we modern humans learn something, we feel the urge to share it with others. That may be the reason why our knowledge started building upon the previous generation's, while theirs became stagnant, as they had to re-discover all the tricks generation after generation' --something like that, I'm quasi-quoting him. So I do think there is an element of sheer delight in teaching that's hardwired in our brain circuitry, in looking at the expression of wonder in a child's face when she understands something or finds out about something with your help. That must be, I think, coded in our genetic sequences somewhere. And, please, nobody say this is cheap sentimentalism. Or if it is, it's reasoned and purposeful at that.

Another very important reason why we must take as many looks at the different ways to entice enthusiasm in learners is this: We are living times in which religions in the West are about to disappear for good. Some people turn their eyes to science, others turn to pseudoscience or the occult, others --most likely in other parts of the world-- desperately try to reinforce their religious faith, probably as a counter-reaction.

Religions cannot be the way out of whatever it is that we're in. And just pure utilitarianism is plain scary. That's why it's so important, if you are right and passionate teachers are something of the past, we revive them.

Sorry I haven't dwelt on biographical details. Some of them've made me smile in complicity, some of them've made me cringe with envy. Lucky you for having grown up in Canada.

Edited May 12, 2020 by joigus
mistyped

[studiot]

58 minutes ago, joigus said:

Another very important reason why we must take as many looks at the different ways to entice enthusiasm in learners is this: We are living times in which religions in the West are about to disappear for good. Some people turn their eyes to science, others turn to pseudoscience or the occult, others --most likely in other parts of the world-- desperately try to reinforce their religious faith, probably as a counter-reaction.

In his book Alven's protege, Lerner, documents quite the reverse trend.

https://books.google.co.uk/books/about/The_Big_Bang_Never_Happened.html?id=RMa5uCzz_ZkC&source=kp_book_description&redir_esc=y

Some of the physics is a bit dated now but the social backgrund is still valid.

1 hour ago, joigus said:

Sorry I haven't dwelt on biographical details.

When I was young, my family moved about a lot. So I attended primary scchools in England and secondary in England but also in France and West Germany.
Even at the time I was struck by the enormous differences between the systems, both regionally in England and between the three countries.
In particular one thing stood out in Science teaching. The French textbooks hardly ever mentioned a German scientist and the German ones a French Scientist. At least the English ones were pretty even handed on the principal scientists from all nations.

13 hours ago, Sensei said:

Purpose of scientific documentary TV show is to awaken of interest of person who has none or little knowledge in a field it is about. Promotion of science and knowledge among a wider audience, who would not be otherwise reached.

Again I come back to my comment that it depends upon your national TV structure.

The BBC has long produced and broadcast (both radio and TV and today over the net) educational material for schools from infants up to senior secondary level.
The material is designed to fit in with and produce lessons for whatever passed for a national curriculum at the time.

In some instance they were national leaders, for instance 'the BBC computer'.

In the present covid crisis they have stepped up to the plate and increased this output to help reach children stuck at home when they should be at school.

Commercial channels have also a history of high quality output, but in much lower quantity since audiences are smaller than for some other types of programme.

[joigus]

1 hour ago, studiot said:

When I was young, my family moved about a lot. So I attended primary scchools in England and secondary in England but also in France and West Germany.
Even at the time I was struck by the enormous differences between the systems, both regionally in England and between the three countries.
In particular one thing stood out in Science teaching. The French textbooks hardly ever mentioned a German scientist and the German ones a French Scientist. At least the English ones were pretty even handed on the principal scientists from all nations.

So your mind was cross-pollinated. That speaks highly of you. I remember reading Russian calculus and phys/chem books and learning about Gauss' theorem under the name of Ostrogradsky's theorem, and the atomic theory as Lomonosov's. That's about as much cross-pollination as I was able to get.

Edited May 12, 2020 by joigus
mistyped