Discovery Channel Scientific Accuracy

[ParanoiA]

I was watching the Discovery Channel, or the Science Channel the other night and it occured to me that maybe, just maybe, scientists watch these shows and shake their heads like my dad does when he watches ER or House (he's a respiratory therapist).

 

So, when you're watching something on Discovery / Science / National Geo and they're discussing something in your particular field of expertise, do you all throw up your proverbial hands at how they're mangling the details and facts, or do these networks do a pretty good job of getting it right?

[ecoli]

I was watching the Discovery Channel, or the Science Channel the other night and it occured to me that maybe, just maybe, scientists watch these shows and shake their heads like my dad does when he watches ER or House (he's a respiratory therapist).

 

So, when you're watching something on Discovery / Science / National Geo and they're discussing something in your particular field of expertise, do you all throw up your proverbial hands at how they're mangling the details and facts, or do these networks do a pretty good job of getting it right?

 

Your suspicions are correct. These networks do a lot on conspiracy theory/predictions and present even loose theory as fact.

 

Not all the programs and shows do this, but enough that I don't waste my time with them.

[Mokele]

Jurassic Fight Club = Fail. Seriously, we're not talking about minor details nobody outside of a specialist field knows, we're talking glaring errors obvious to anyone who has even the slightest knowledge of the animals.

 

Not to mention how some of what they say, while literally true, is just ridiculous. They described a hadrosaur ('duck-billed dinosaur') as having "dozens of rows of teeth, like a Shark!", which is like saying "Armadillos have huge claws, like a Tiger!".

 

Even the supposedly legit shows often screw things up, ranging from species ID to grossly mis-represented behavior to presenting dubious theories as if they're definite. I distinctly remember being disappointed that Life In Cold Blood, which was otherwise excellent, presented the now-disproven osteoderm hypothesis of turtle shell evolution as if it were known definitively.

 

Such programs can be fun, and often have useful visuals, but they aren't a great source of scientific information.

 

Still, it was nice to see the mode of snake locomotion I discovered in a natural setting.

 

Mokele

[ParanoiA]

I should have known. Well I'll bet you two would really have a field day on the program I watched last night on theoretical alien life forms. Even I was shaking my head and I know nothing. Of course, they did qualify their content as theoretical.

 

With your interest in locomotion, Mokele, you might have had a good laugh at their three legged theoretical lifeform that featured a "stool" at the base where the three legs form one flat surface that they theorized would move using scales underneath. This was due to the increase in gravity (3x earth's gravity) on this theoretical planet. They reasoned that with that kind of gravity, the legs would likely not come off the ground, and therefore would evolve to merge together, using the scales for locomotion.

[Mokele]

Hrm, that's actually kind of interesting, because in terrestrial limbed locomotion, gravity actually makes things easier. During walking, we act like an 'inverted pendulum' converting potential energy to kinetic and back as we vault over stiff legs. During running, KE & PE oscillate in phase, and the energy is stored in springy tendons in the limbs. Obviously, there would be differences, but assuming there are materials that can handle the forces, walking and running should work just fine.

 

Honestly, I would *love* to see an alien world with macroscopic life, simply because based on nothing more than videos sent back from a probe, we could *truly* determine if certain aspects of locomotion are universal, or just because all Earth organisms work mostly the same way.

 

Mokele

[insane_alien]

some of the science on the discovery channel just makes me cringe. especially if its about some chemical process on 'how do they do it?' i realise they are short on time but it can be simplified quite far without being utterly meaningless.

[Mokele]

The "Evolve" series, where they would talk about how certain features like eyes or wings evolved, was actually very good, because the editors ran everything past the scientists before it was released (a friend of mine was one of the 'talking heads' for the program).

 

Predictably, it "wasn't dramatic enough" and got canceled.

[iNow]

If it's too sciency and accurate, people won't tune in in large enough numbers to justify the cost of the episode. Sad, but true. They make it "jazzy" and dumb things down a bit.

 

While there are some painful inaccuracies in some pieces, much of it is best viewed with poetic license. They tend to inspire people to go learn more about a subject, or to come to forums like this and ask specific questions. That's good. I agree that much of it is presented at a lower order of magnitude of accuracy, but you'll only notice if you're already educated on the topic.

 

I noticed this a while back when NOVA did a special on atomic cooling. I'd never seen such a thing. It was all completely new to me, and I felt like I was drinking from a firehose there was so much new information coming my way. Then, the next day I logged in here and saw that swansont was railing about how it was too basic and how the program was poor (basically, because he does such things at work every day, so it's like second nature). It depends on the audience, and we must remember that. (although, NOVA does not tend to be inaccurate, so perhaps a bad analogy).

 

Either way, it's television, not a university course, so I tend to grant them some leeway. If you want to break it down, though, Discovery channel is far better than History channel when it comes to this accuracy concern.

 

EDIT: Cross posted with Mokele.

 

 

 

The "Evolve" series, where they would talk about how certain features like eyes or wings evolved, was actually very good, because the editors ran everything past the scientists before it was released (a friend of mine was one of the 'talking heads' for the program).

 

Predictably, it "wasn't dramatic enough" and got canceled.

 

I quite enjoyed that show. It was on History, though, not Discovery. Interesting considering my comments immediately above.

Edited December 13, 2008 by iNow
multiple post merged

[ParanoiA]

The "Evolve" series, where they would talk about how certain features like eyes or wings evolved, was actually very good, because the editors ran everything past the scientists before it was released (a friend of mine was one of the 'talking heads' for the program).

 

Predictably, it "wasn't dramatic enough" and got canceled.

 

Yeah, I watched an episode of something like that and I was fascinated with the bit on eyes. I think it was presented as a defense of evolution, or at least this program was. Too bad it's cancelled, I enjoyed it.

 

I actually watch alot of this stuff. It's the one thing my wife and I can agree on, which keeps me from having to watch unreality TV. And, like you all have said, they do a good job of dumbing it down for me complete with flashy CGI.

[iNow]

I actually watch alot of this stuff. It's the one thing my wife and I can agree on, which keeps me from having to watch unreality TV.

 

Please tell me she's no longer watching Ghost Hunters.

[ParanoiA]

Please tell me she's no longer watching Ghost Hunters.

 

I wish I could...

[Sisyphus]

Yeah, they're definitely watered down. I'm not even a scientist of any kind, and I can see lots of inaccuracies and oversimplifications in pretty much everything on those channels. But I'm willing to cut them a lot of slack if they at least get the general ideas right and make people interested in them. The only ones that really make me cringe are the "paranormal" themed shows, from UFOs to Biblical prophecies to haunted houses. It really makes me wonder how they can sleep at night straightfacedly putting that crap on TV and calling it a "science channel."

 

I do like Mythbusters, though. No, it's not scientifically rigorous. But they're doing a public service, they do it creatively, and they don't go home until they've blown something up. What's not to love?

[Pangloss]

I agree, it's kind of a good news / bad news deal with them. You take the good with the bad. Not the way things should be, perhaps, but in a perfect world PBS wouldn't need to run pledge drives either.

[Mokele]

I do like Mythbusters, though. No, it's not scientifically rigorous. But they're doing a public service, they do it creatively, and they don't go home until they've blown something up. What's not to love?

 

Courtesy of XKCD

[ajb]

One thing that seems typical of "popular science" programmes is that they use the wrong units for things.

[waitforufo]

So, when you're watching something on Discovery / Science / National Geo and they're discussing something in your particular field of expertise, do you all throw up your proverbial hands at how they're mangling the details and facts, or do these networks do a pretty good job of getting it right?

 

As an electrical engineer my favorites are when they discuss electrical potential in amps, current in volts, power in volts and voltage in watts. They do this all the time. The only reason I can come up with for getting these basic units wrong is that big numbers sound more impressive. So ten thousand volts of power (wrong units) sounds more impressive than 1 kilowatt. The number 1 is small, the prefix kilo requires explanation, and the average person has no idea what an amp, volt, or watt is anyway so why bother using the correct units? When watching a program that does this I can let it go a few times but after a while I just have to change the channel.

 

EDIT: Cross posted with ajb

[CaptainPanic]

I enjoy watching the errors. Shows like "really big things" or whatever they're called regularly state numbers that are a factor 1000 off. (tons in stead of kilos or something).

 

Also, expressing energies in watts, or power in joules. Or the worst of them all: expressing weight in elephants (Indian or African, male or female?), or area in "football fields" (soccer? Us-football? ). Horrible how accuracy is wasted to make sure that the world's stupidest people also watch the show.

 

In short - they're better off showing the bike-buildoff shows. At least there they don't explain anything, and you just see grown up men discuss their projects the way 10 year olds talk. (Always makes me jealous - our meetings are more boring!). These are the worst shows, with the least information, and ironically also with the least errors.