There was a recent thread somewhere that drifted off into a discussion of science in the media -this should probably be there, but I can't find it.
We watched a program about Chaos last night on BBC 4, and either the two of us are too thick to understand it, or we watched a whole hour of televsion that was totally devoid of content.
Pretty pictures that could have been someone's GCSE in graphic arts or particularly colourfull strain of penicillin, and much pointless outdoor filming around Ribblehead viaduct in the snow.
Did anybody else see it ? .... please reassure me I'm not that thick.
|
|
Well my A/A* graded GCSE science 15yr old watched it with Mrs F and seemed to have gleened something that prompted discussion throughout. I was too busy in t'other room.
|
Ahh - bring back those halcyon days of Tomorrow's World :-)
Science explained by the avuncular Raymond Baxter, sitting on what appeared to be a barstool....
|
>>Ahh - bring back those halcyon days of Tomorrow's World :-)
Funnily enough I was watching Wallace & Gromit's World of Invention and thought it reminded me of Tomorrow's world.
|
Chaos is a theory,
50% of theory is cobblers dressed complicated so you cant work it out.
|
>> 50% of theory is cobblers dressed complicated so you cant work it out.
That applies to almost everything, and especially my posts.
|
Oh, and rather conveniently - on Wednesday BBC4 are showing:
Mad and Bad: 60 Years of Science on TV
A journey through the history of science programmes on TV, exploring what factual programmes including The Sky at Night, Horizon, and Tomorrow's World and sci-fi shows such as Doctor Who and The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy tell viewers about Britain over the past 60 years. With contributions by David Attenborough, Patrick Moore, Robert Winston, Tony Robinson and many more. Narrated by Robert Webb
|
|
You just needed to watch star trek if you want to know what's going to happen in the future.
|
>>Ahh - bring back those halcyon days of Tomorrow's World :-)
There you go:
www.bbc.co.uk/archive/tomorrowsworld/
Only found the BBC archive site recently. It a bit like rummaging around in the attic. It full of fascinating old rubbish
|
|
they got William Woodard and the old top gear up there in the attic? Now that is rubbish, mind it would keep some on here happy for a while.
|
>> of penicillin, and much pointless outdoor filming around Ribblehead viaduct in the snow.
>>
I missed it as I was watching the "student" mob rioting in London.
>> Did anybody else see it ? .... please reassure me I'm not that thick.
>>
I did see "The Joy of Stats" which I enjoyed and I wish some of the graphics he had could be reproduced online to be used for interactive tutorials. However, I fear that for most innumerate Brits, it will be complete gobbledegook.
www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b00wgq0l
(to be repeated on Monday 13 Dec, 23:00 on BBC Four).
"Documentary which takes viewers on a rollercoaster ride through the wonderful world of statistics to explore the remarkable power thay have to change our understanding of the world, presented by superstar boffin Professor Hans Rosling, whose eye-opening, mind-expanding and funny online lectures have made him an international internet legend.
Rosling is a man who revels in the glorious nerdiness of statistics, and here he entertainingly explores their history, how they work mathematically and how they can be used in today's computer age to see the world as it really is, not just as we imagine it to be."
|
>> Oh dear god Yawn Yawn.
>>
Watch it and then yawn.
The Guardian review said "The Joy of Stats: Is BBC4 the best teacher I never had?
BBC4 is turning educational TV into an artform with last night's The Joy of Stats and its beautiful infographics
... Given that I generally prefer to watch TV in a semi-vegetative state while eating the weight of my head in Minstrels, The Joy of Stats proved a revelation. "
Last edited by: John H on Fri 10 Dec 10 at 11:05
|
less than 5% of the uk population watch BBC4.
of that 50% will fall asleep.
That means that 2.5% of the total population will be sleeping,
|
>>less than 5% of the uk population watch BBC4
Maybe so, but those of us who think BBC4 is pretty much the only reason to have a TV at all would object vociferously to its removal.
|
Have you worked out what BBC 3 is for, or is the answer "Dr Who"?
John
ps sorry for being slow on the uptake previously CC.
Last edited by: Tooslow on Fri 10 Dec 10 at 12:54
|
>> Have you worked out what BBC 3 is for, or is the answer "Dr Who"?
Dr Who is not my bag, as we used to say. I saw it as kid of course, but it doesn't excite me now. I've never turned on BBC 3 at all I'm afraid, so I'm probably missing out on something.
>> ps sorry for being slow on the uptake previously CC.
No problem - also sorry if I was a tad sharp in my reply.
There, you see everyone, you CAN apologise and be nice on here.
PS I hate you all.
Last edited by: Crankcase on Fri 10 Dec 10 at 14:13
|
>> Have you worked out what BBC 3 is for, or is the answer "Dr Who"?
>> John
>>
>> ps sorry for being slow on the uptake previously CC.
>>
I call it "The Doctor Who channel", in the same way as I call Sky One "Simpsons One" although that's probably less true than it used to be.
|
I enjoyed "The joy of stats" and the follow up "The joy of graphs" (I think). I thought the stats one was a bit narrow but it wasn't supposed to be A level maths so, as a taster, not bad. Is that animated graph available in Office 2010 :-)
I didn't see the chaos programme but I do think that the general standard of science programmes is low. As has been said, bring back Tomorrow's World and Raymod Baxter ( a computer generated hologram. It should be possible according to the Eagle). I did hide behind the settee when Judith Hahn(?) came on. Nothing personal Judith but you did always get the yucky medical bits. (alright, that last bit is a slight fib).
John
|
>>Nothing personal Judith...
Sadly, I must confess to fantasies involving Maggie Philbin :-)
Keith Chegwin - how could she?!
|
I can understand that. I quite liked squeaky Janet.
John
|
>> Sadly, I must confess to fantasies involving Maggie Philbin :-)
>>
>> Keith Chegwin - how could she?!
Good god. She didn't? Eeeugghhh. Wikipedia said she did, so it must be true.
|
>> >> Sadly, I must confess to fantasies involving Maggie Philbin :-)
>> >>
>> >> Keith Chegwin - how could she?!
>>
>>
>> Good god. She didn't? Eeeugghhh. Wikipedia said she did, so it must be true.
She came to her senses and divorced him, but yes its ruined isn't it.
|
"She came to her senses and divorced him"
Because he took to drinking two bottles of whiskey a day and sleeping in his own vomit on the front lawn.
|
|
That's certainly an alternative lifestyle.
|
|
She's on Linkedin if you fancy connecting ;-)
|
>> I enjoyed "The joy of stats" and the follow up "The joy of graphs" (I
>> think).
Are they going to do a whole series of "The Joy of...."?
Could prove interesting in the choice of subjects...
I'm afraid I gave up Maths with Stats at A level after a year as the Stats part was sooo boring... I could try and watch this programme to see if it was just my teacher who was at fault... but on the other hand...
|
>> I did see "The Joy of Stats" which I enjoyed and I wish some of
>> the graphics he had could be reproduced online to be used for interactive tutorials.
found it:
www.gapminder.org/
try this one on your computer: www.gapminder.org/world/
|
I much prefer the radio, as they have to fill the void with sound, rather than mesmerising you with vacuous pretty pictures, and fancy background music. Close your eyes while a TV documentary programme is on, and all too often you will 'see' that it is content light.
Ah, chaos, non-linear dynamics, fascinating stuff, and all very new 20 years ago when I did research.
|
Close your eyes while >> a TV documentary programme is on, and all too often you will 'see' that it >> is content light.
Possibly because its a visual medium and you are not seeing it?
|
>> Close your eyes while >> a TV documentary programme is on, and all too
>> often you will 'see' that it >> is content light.
>>
>> Possibly because its a visual medium and you are not seeing it?
Well, it is a visual and audio medium, but the point I was making is that the visual part does not convey much real information beyond "ooh that's pretty". Okay, if you are doing a programme on the British countryside, that is valuable, but if you are presenting chaos theory, you need solid content.
|
The problem with stuff like "chaos theory" or statistics, is your target audience.
Its not pitched to a known specific audience, and therefore has to hit a very much "lowest common denominator" audience.
Even then it will fly over the head of some, and seem simplistic to others.
|
>> The problem with stuff like "chaos theory" or statistics, is your target audience.
>>
>> Its not pitched to a known specific audience, and therefore has to hit a very
>> much "lowest common denominator" audience.
>>
>> Even then it will fly over the head of some, and seem simplistic to others.
I agree with that comment. But I still think radio is better for documentary style programmes when images are not central to the subject. Also I think that a station such as radio 4 can target intelligent people given that a) dorks and chavs tend not to listen to R4, and b) radio is cheaper to make, so they can take more risks.
|
Spot on Leif.
Drama often works quite well on the wireless too and must cost about 1% of a TV costume extravaganza.
I like TV, but much of it is clearly made for bears of very little brain, attention span or curiosity.
|
|
A fan of radio too. Science and technology are also particularly well suited to podcasts
|
>> Drama often works quite well on the wireless too and must cost about 1% of
>> a TV costume extravaganza.
Yes I recall very good adaptations of the Midwich Cookoos and The Odyssey.
|
Maths on t'internet can be good too. Be prepared for a hyper fast delivery over some quite interesting topics, all wrapped in elephants.
www.youtube.com/watch?v=DK5Z709J2eo&feature=related
Marmite this one - you'll hate it or love it, I predict.
|
I think I've seen the program before, and turned over the other night just as they got to the Mandlebrot set bit. Here's another video of zooming in to see its infinite detail:
vimeo.com/12185093
Generate your own:
personal.redestb.es/jlabreu/mandelbrotset.html
I was at Leeds uni when the Scientific American article on it was published back in the 80s - I saw it in the uni library, and it was amazing. Subsequently the Amstrad 6128 in my room spent many nights generating pretty patterns using my own program (no internet!). It was easy to write a BASIC program to generate the whole set, but it takes ages to get any amount of detail on an 8 bit 4(?)MHz Z80 CPU running an interpreted program.
(The black bits represent points in the set; anything else is outside it, and colour is used to make it more interesting - it's indicates how 'far' outside the set the point is. All the detail is on the edge of the set.)
Last edited by: Focus on Mon 13 Dec 10 at 21:09
|
I too ran BASIC programmes on the BBC computer creating Mandelbrot sets. Left overnight it might have finished some.
When Mandelbrot died recently, I put a Mandelbrot program on the phone and it rendered them in seconds. How things change.
|
Science & TV - Fenlander
