Jump to content

Do we need a new show on TV to get people interested in space exploration and science?


CmdrShepSpectre2183
 Share

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, Ken Fabian said:

If they were "little things" - rather than turned way up past 11 - I could look past the overly dramatic tone. The DeGrasse Tyson "Cosmos" was like that. And I might look past it if the content was up to my grade - which isn't claiming my knowledge is exceptional, just that of an interested adult. Like Peterkin says, for the target audience it probably works well. I am not the target audience. I enjoyed watching "SolarMax" for example - a doco on solar science and the solar cycle.

I got my Sagan in book form mostly - and yes, a great science educator. Attenborough is good too, although I am not a fan of presenters pretending to see the CGI reconstructions of extinct animals; it isn't the CGI that looks fake, just the presenter's pretense. Again a matter of tastes perhaps.

People hold up Gravity as being very realistic but it made serious mistakes that undid my perceptions of it being realistic - you can't tow another spacesuited person like towing a boat on a line... ie wobbling around behind them; if they tried that they would end spinning around each other at the ends of their tether, probably in both senses of the phrase. Better to lash their suits together and move as a single mass. No reason not to do it like that; it could've offered opportunities for lewd innuendo depending on the position, except that the moviemakers didn't seek good information about how one suit with jets could be used to do a rescue. And spotting a space station and boosting in that direction wouldn't work either; the suits needed some kind of course planning software and again there was no reason not to have done it that way, with opportunity for explanation for why you can't just aim and boost. But for the ignorance and misunderstandings and lack of research of the film makers.

For sure I was enthused during my youth by science fiction as well as the Moon Landing and space exploration that was going on at the time but the more I know the less likely I think these space programs will be stepping stones to making the grand space dreams - the fiction - come true.

The universe and solar system are awesome and those kinds of entertainment probably did prompt the enjoyment I get in learning more about them. If it encourages people to do science, I think it is positive but if it merely encourages unrealistic fantasies about space and new iterations of science fiction based on science fiction I am not so sure.

I believe I mentioned it early in the piece, by far my favourite sci/fi movie was "2001: A Space Oddysey" and despite it now being somewhat dated [1968] predicted many things...Moon landings, space shuttle, space station, [albeit in a much simple form] AI, etc. Still imho, number uno!

I may enjoy a sci/fi movie, but I will always afterwards go through the movie and see how many things they did get wrong. 

Did you see the Sagan version of Cosmos? It is what got me avidly interested in science, particularly cosmology. That and consequently a number of other various science docos, had me searching for more knowledge and info...Hawking's A Brief History of Time, was part of that trip...the forums such as this where I learnt further and more exacting definitions and data.

My point is, and I have put this before, is that pop science docos do serve a purpose. If any layperson becomes insterested [as I did] they will endeavour to learn more and more [as I did]The BB as a conventional explosion being wrong, the rubber sheet and bowling ball analogy limitations...many many others. Sure, most will probably enjoy such pop science, do some thinking, be in momentarial awe, and then back to what they do best. If one person out of 10 make the effort to clarify and get more data, then the pop science has done a job.

Also with all due respect, and having crossed swords with you before re how far space exploration will realistically take us, I see you view as somewhat pessimistic. While certainly you are probably far more learned then me, there are also others probably more learned then you, that would also fervently disagree. This is why I generally don't put any time limit on things. If I had back in July 1969 made a prediction, it would certainly have been that by now we would have a permanent outpost on the Moon. But that doesn't make that prediction as never going to happen. Obviously in that respect, the more problems we have on Earth, the slower our continued progress in space will be. Will we put boots on Mars? Certainly!! Don't ask me when though, although I hope the current schedule, is accurate.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

2 hours ago, Ken Fabian said:

If they were "little things" - rather than turned way up past 11 - I could look past the overly dramatic tone. The DeGrasse Tyson "Cosmos" was like that.

I didn't like the Tyson version of Cosmos, either when I first saw it. My bugaboo was the cartoons, rather than his tone. Also, his ship of the imagination looks like it was made by Samsung and everything was too flashy. But then, I decided to cut him some slack - it can't be any picnic to follow Sagan. And the representation of scientists was a more fair and inclusive. All the same, the first Cosmos series was a landmark of my youth - along with many others of my generation. But it contained the Big Lie that bedazzled my generation: we believed Science could accomplish anything, solve any problem, overcome all obstacles, keep on improving and improving the world and unite humanity. 

Which reminds me, one my SO's favourite SF movies is  Contact, which I didn't think was at all realistic and had what I considered a major miss on the God question. I liked Close Encounters, even though it was equally implausible.

3 hours ago, Ken Fabian said:

And I might look past it if the content was up to my grade

Adult programming in any genre is hard to come by. When they label something as 'adult', they mean violent and dirty - but what we're craving is intelligent and advanced. The last little while we had satellite tv service, we subscribed to a science channel. Hugely disappointing! Most of the programming is juvenile and sensationalistic (Who murdered King Tut? War of the dinosaurs!) Their best stuff was the nature shows we get free on public television.

However, You Tube has the Feynman lectures - I don't know whether you have to pay for them, but it's more worth subscribing to than Prime (unless you want to save on mail order shipping). We really enjoyed this one, Fun to Imagine.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, dimreepr said:

Why is science more interesting???

Than raw emotion? Because science has a lot more narrative, direction and detail.

Than spirituality? Because spirituality is private and can't be effectively communicated, while science has a voluminous, finely tuned vocabulary accessible to all. 

Than art? It's not. That's why they make such familiar bedfellows: each enhances the other.

Than watching grass grow? Well, that is science, the very core of science. 

Edited by Peterkin
very
Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 hours ago, Peterkin said:

I didn't like the Tyson version of Cosmos, either when I first saw it. My bugaboo was the cartoons, rather than his tone. Also, his ship of the imagination looks like it was made by Samsung and everything was too flashy. But then, I decided to cut him some slack - it can't be any picnic to follow Sagan. And the representation of scientists was a more fair and inclusive. All the same, the first Cosmos series was a landmark of my youth - along with many others of my generation. But it contained the Big Lie that bedazzled my generation: we believed Science could accomplish anything, solve any problem, overcome all obstacles, keep on improving and improving the world and unite humanity. 

Carl Sagan's "ship of imagination" from the Cosmos documentary | Carl  sagan, Carl sagan cosmos, Cosmos

Carl Sagan's ship of the imagination:

It was a landmark of my youth also. It was shown every Sunday at 1300hrs in 30 minute episodes [from memory, may have been 1 hour episodes] But I'm not sure how you can believe that your generation was bedazzled by this lie that science can solve all mankinds problems. That most certainly was never part of my expectations, nor anyone else I knew. Science was never meant to or even predicted to solve all of humanities problems, but it certainly does far better then any other aspect of our society. Think what it has achieved in reducing hunger, disease, and increasing food supplies. Where would agriculture [and many other areas of our daily lives] today be without the science of satellites? 

Think human qualities in attempting to get a "perfect world" and if all our areas of science were applied as they should be. I came across this answer to your claim...

https://www.wtamu.edu/~cbaird/sq/2013/09/25/how-can-science-solve-all-of-our-problems/bucket of rice poured out

There is enough rice in the world to feed every single person on the globe seven servings a day. World hunger is a result of human behavior and not inadequate agricultural science. Public Domain Image, source: Christopher S. Baird.

:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::

 "Science can answer questions such as "is the average global temperature increasing?" but can never answer questions such as "what should humans do about global warming?" 

Many of the "problems" that are discussed in the political sphere are not really problems at all in the scientific sense. They are simply a clash of human wants: one large faction wants one thing and the other faction wants something else. 

Lastly, many areas of life are simply too non-physical to be satisfactorily addressed by science. Love, hate, relationships, poetry, art, music, literature, and spirituality are all outside the realm of science. Any problems that arise in these areas cannot be completely solved by science."

Not being sure of the validity of the above claim, started to wonder about his credentials...

https://www.wtamu.edu/~cbaird/sq/faqs/

 What are Dr. Baird's qualifications for providing answers to science questions?
For the past three years, Dr. Baird has been an Assistant Professor of Physics at West Texas A&M University. In this capacity, he teaches numerous entry-level and upper-level university courses and carries out research on quantum devices. Previous to this, he was an adjunct physics professor for ten years at the University of Massachusetts Lowell and senior research scientist at the Submillimeter-Wave Technology Laboratory. While at UMass Lowell, Dr. Baird taught electromagnetics courses to PhD students and supervised PhD student research in the laboratory. Additionally, he has authored several dozen academic research publications, including various internal reports for the military. Furthermore, Dr. Baird has served as a peer reviewer for academic journals such as Applied Physics Letters, Optics Express, and IEEE Transactions on Antennas and Propagation; as well as a reviewer of applications for NASA fellowships and a reviewer of book proposals for CRC Publishing.

Edited by beecee
Link to comment
Share on other sites

36 minutes ago, beecee said:

"Science can answer questions such as "is the average global temperature increasing?" but can never answer questions such as "what should humans do about global warming?" 

Can and has. Also many other questions that philosophy wrestles with and politics play football with. Unfortunately, the answers science provides are based on the assumption that we all want a rational, equitable, sustainable outcome. But since we don't, we can't accept the straightforward answer: Turn off the goddam combustion engines by 1970.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Peterkin said:

Can and has. Also many other questions that philosophy wrestles with and politics play football with. Unfortunately, the answers science provides are based on the assumption that we all want a rational, equitable, sustainable outcome. But since we don't, we can't accept the straightforward answer: Turn off the goddam combustion engines by 1970.  

That was an extract from the link btw, and agree, on face value is not really valid. But again it is totally true and factual, that science certainly cannot, nor attempts to answer all of mankind's political, and emotional problems. As he continues to rightly say, "they are simply a clash of human wants: one large faction wants one thing and the other faction wants something else. 

Lastly, many areas of life are simply too non-physical to be satisfactorily addressed by science. Love, hate, relationships, poetry, art, music, literature, and spirituality are all outside the realm of science. Any problems that arise in these areas cannot be completely solved by science."

Just as science/theories/models, do ont necessarily reveal to us the true reality of our existence. But hey, my fault, but we maybe skewing off topic somewhat!

::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

28 minutes ago, beecee said:

But again it is totally true and factual, that science certainly cannot, nor attempts to answer all of mankind's political, and emotional problems.

What? The quote said global warming. As for emotional problems, medical science has had a rocky road. Currently, however, clinical psychology has a better track record with them than religion, or at least, doesn't drive so many disturbed people to gruesome martyrdom.  On the other hand, it has supplied the inquisitors with effective tools for extracting confession and recantation from apostates and continues to supply their modern counterparts with ever increasingly sophisticated devices.

By science solving the problems confronting humanity, I didn't mean we expected scientists to come up with a formula to fix everything. We expected the knowledge provided by science, and the reasoning process that produces knowledge, to permeate the human population through universal education. The 1950's, 60's and 70's saw a great expansion in public schooling, general literacy and numeracy, more advanced studies, college and university enrollment. My cohort expected that trend to continue and include all the countries that were once called 'backward', then 'underdeveloped' and are now optimistically and indiscriminately labelled 'developing'. (I have often questioned that last word...)   

28 minutes ago, beecee said:

Lastly, many areas of life are simply too non-physical to be satisfactorily addressed by science. Love, hate, relationships, poetry, art, music, literature, and spirituality are all outside the realm of science. Any problems that arise in these areas cannot be completely solved by science."

Who says those are problems in need of solving? Give us efficient birth control, food security and shelter from storms, we can figure out our music, football and love lives!

Edited by Peterkin
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Peterkin said:

What? The quote said global warming.

and the quote also said,  "but can never answer questions such as "what should humans do about global warming?" meaning that while science can draw graphs based on the data available, and the many observationl aspects, what humanity does about it, is another decision, involving greed, emotional instability, and selfishness, and the fact that any human catastrophe will probably not occur with this generation.

1 hour ago, Peterkin said:

Who says those are problems in need of solving? Give us efficient birth control, food security and shelter from storms, we can figure out our music, football and love lives!

Not sure what planet you are on, or maybe what universe you are in, they all certainly can be problems in need of a solution, personal, societal and racial...but anyway, as I mentioned earlier, I would think this is off topic. We have also shown previously that science/models/theories also isn't about any supposed truth and/or reality.

 

Edited by beecee
Link to comment
Share on other sites

29 minutes ago, beecee said:

and the quote also said,  "but can never answer questions such as "what should humans do about global warming?"

Which has been answered hundreds of times.

30 minutes ago, beecee said:

meaning that while science can draw graphs based on the data available, and the many observationl aspects, what humanity does about it, is another decision, involving greed, emotional instability, and selfishness, and the fact that any human catastrophe will probably not occur with this generation.

Science can also say, and has said what they should do, which was in the question. What they will or won't do because of the other craziness was not in the question. 

 

33 minutes ago, beecee said:

Not sure what planet you are on, or maybe what universe you are in, they all certainly can be problems in need of a solution, personal, societal and racial..

No, Love, hate, relationships, poetry, art, music, literature, and spirituality are not problems. They are human experiences and activities. They don't require solving. People are capable of creating problems in each of those areas of endeavour and they're equally capable of solving their individual problems in their individual ways. No intervention required. The same goes for personal, societal and racial problems: people make them; people solve them.  That's life. While there is an ultimate scientific solution to life, most of us don't consider it an optimum outcome - at least, not just yet.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Getting back on track, and as I have always been suggesting, it's science itself that the task of getting people interested falls on. In this respect the many talks and docos by the likes of Neil Degrasse Tyson, Brian Greene, Brian Cox, Sir David Attenborough, and the likes of "Blue Planet", "Love and Bananas; An Elephant Story"  "Chasing Ice'.Blackfish, Our Universe, Cosmic Journeys, Wonders of the Universe etc can help in. Yet [at least where I am] the free to air channels are flooded with nonsensical "reality" type shows, when nothing could be further from that reality. 

Science is a wonderful, awesome discipline, that we all should make sure that our kids understand.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, beecee said:

, it's science itself that the task of getting people interested falls on

How do you impose duty on a discipline, or methodology or concept? It's not alive, it's not responsive; it doesn't exist in any physical or palpable form.

Tasks are assigned to and undertaken by human beings, individually or collectively.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, Peterkin said:

How do you impose duty on a discipline, or methodology or concept? It's not alive, it's not responsive; it doesn't exist in any physical or palpable form.

Tasks are assigned to and undertaken by human beings, individually or collectively.

Who do you believe practises science? 

 

*clue* Perhaps some of the names I have given.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Peterkin said:

How do you impose duty on a discipline, or methodology or concept? It's not alive, it's not responsive; it doesn't exist in any physical or palpable form.

Tasks are assigned to and undertaken by human beings, individually or collectively.

 

2 hours ago, Peterkin said:

Humans.

That just about sums up your intentions for genuine discussions...or should we say as another mentioned, arguments?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, beecee said:

That just about sums up your intentions for genuine discussions...or should we say as another mentioned, arguments?

I have made several of those, both discussions and arguments, with explanations, farther up this thread, as in another. I'm not certain I've exhausted all possible approaches, but I don't see any new paths opening before me in either subject.

Edited by Peterkin
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Peterkin said:

I have made several of those, both discussions and arguments, with explanations, farther up this thread, as in another. I'm not certain I've exhausted all possible approaches, but I don't see any new paths opening before me in either subject.

The only path I see as obvious, is taking your politics and philosophical rhetoric with a grain of salt.

As per the subject of this thread and the heading, is obviously a start at school, the science fairs and such https://jmss.vic.edu.au/news/latest/australian-science-fair-2020/  https://www.scienceweek.net.au/  are examples, and then museums such as Sydney's Power House museum https://www.maas.museum/powerhouse-museum/

or the USA's Smithsonian Institution, [on my bucket list to visit] and of course more publicity on these places of opportunity and learning. 

I remember when my boy was around 6 years old, and I took him and his mate to the Sydney Observatory for a "night show" and the kids were allowed to camp over for the night.  I wish such things were available when I was a kid!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, beecee said:

he only path I see as obvious, is taking your politics and philosophical rhetoric with a grain of salt.

This time, I honestly don't know what you're talking about. The most recent post of mine to which you took exception had no political or philosophical content. I merely said that science does not exist as an entity which can be held responsible; it's all up to the people who practice science. How is that opposed to science education in schools, or field trips or museums?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...

Have you noticed space becoming big in pop culture? It may have started in the early 2010s with movies like "Gravity", "Interstellar", "The Martian", "Hidden Figures", and the return of "Star Wars" and I am willing to be that "Kerbal Space Program" and "Mass Effect" contributed but but now it is exploding. There was also "The Expanse" novels and show.

Last year we got a ton of astronaut themed soap operas and documentaries. "For All Mankind" and "Challenger Final Flight" were the best of them. "Among the Stars" is excellent as well.

 

 

For those of you who are younger pop music is starting to become more "spacey". Dua Lipa's "Levitating" which I hear all the time on the radio. Imagine if it becomes the "Fly Me to The Moon" of this decade. Ariana Grande even has a song called "NASA". There is also "Astronaut in the Ocean". An astronaut even appears in a music video for a song that is not space themed.

 

We are going to get some big budget space sci fi games. "Starfield", "Beyond Good & Evil 2", a game based on the "Guardians of the Galaxy", a Star Wars Knights of the Old Republic remake and Jedi Fallen Order sequel, as well as the return of Mass Effect and Kerbal Space Program.

 

 

 

 


Also toys and books aimed at children.

 

 

"Dune" has the potential of becoming the next pop culture phenomenon in the vein of "Lord of the Rings", "Star Wars" or "Game of Thrones. There is also a movie based on "Buzz Lightyear" and an Hollywood adaption of Andy Weir's "Project Hail Mary". Hopefully these movies are successful and lead to Hollywood keep on making more space movies.

 

Is space becoming as big in pop culture as it was during the 50s and 60s?

If so then what is driving it? The spectacular achievements of SpaceX? Access to more good sci fi than ever before? More exciting discoveries made in space? Earth becoming more of a depressing place leading more and more people to look at space as a place for escape?

Edited by CmdrShepSpectre2183
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I find it sad that none of the best looking and most popular students at my college were not interested in engineering or science.

I find it even sadder that no one I knew ever dreamed of becoming an astronaut.

I wish we had a space program that is more like "For All Mankind".
 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

There are plenty of "Star Trek" and "Star Wars" shows on right now but where is our gritty sci fi futuristic war saga?

 

I grew up with games like "Command & Conquer" and "Sid Meier's Alpha Centauri" in the 90s.

 

It would be awesome if they could make a show about a group of humans who travel off to a far off solar system and then split off into unique factions.

 

"Command and Conquer" was the first fictional universe I fell in love with and it could make for an awesome future war show.

 

Where is our sci fi equivalent of "Game of Thrones"? We need more powered armored super soldiers on our TV screens!

 

Has the depressing state of the world cause society to gravitate for more fantastical settings like superheroes and fantasy?

 

Or since we already live in the future with computers and space travel we desire these more fantastical settings?

Edited by CmdrShepSpectre2183
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.