Pseudoscience and TV from Down-Under

From
Date
Tom:  Thanks for sharing a non-American view of American TV science.  Seems
to be the dumbing of the world, not just America!

>Date: Sun, 2 Jun 1996 20:48:40 -0700
>From:T.Loy@mailbox.uq.oz.au (t.loy@mailbox.uq.oz.au)
>Subject:Pseudoscience and TV; a polemic.
>
>In response to Jere's commendable and apparently futile efforts to
>influence the "influencers of american thought" (and Australian as well).
>It particularly distressing to me personally to think how little effect we
>(a group of us in Candada) have had over the years in influencing the
>television/entertainment aspect of US "culture". Our shot across the bows
>concerned the infamous von Daniken series of TV programmes spun out from
>his equally questionable and pseudoscience books (Chariots of the Gods).
>This issue is a serious reminder to me that Television for the most part
>will be accurate about fuzzy cuddly animals, or fierce non-cuddly animals
>on commercial TV. But when it comes to human society, rather than assume a
>reponsible, informative stance, television networks (with the exception of
>publicly  owned stations/networks) opt for a Gee-whizz techno-geek
>type-view of scientists and the doing of science instead of reflecting the
>thoughtful, the accurate and the ultimately informative. If Homer Simpson
>were the spokesman of the scientific world would his ratings go down? Would
>Kellog Inc, or other mega-companies that ride on the backs of research
>chemists and botanists and university teachers abandon him for some other
>symbol of non-science entertainment.
>
>In my most pessimistic view protestations about the scientific content of
>commercial TV are a waste of time and energy (although I do agree that we
>must do some yelling if our toes are stepped on by complete falsehood and
>misrepresentation).The TV stations are not the influencers of cultural
>thought, but the consumers of what their market research tells them the
>viewers want to see.
>It is a sad commentary upon the state of the USA and other countries that
>actually buy this type of scientific Luddism; it disheartens me to see the
>vastness of the numbers of people who would choose to believe unscientific
>programming tarted up with entertainer-expert narrators in preference to a
>programme that deals with things of the mind; that is,  presenting the very
>real science that influences their daily lives and their (knowledge if not)
>understanding of their human past. Pseudoscientific pap does a huge
>injustice to the real potential for clear thinking-- but I guess what
>America and the world wants to see is soap-opera, and to shut out the
>information explosion and retreat to a couple of drinks after dinner;  and
>some junk on TV to add to the stuporous effect of alchololic and a high
>carbohydrate intake. I enjoy and indulge that whim from time to time, and
>unfortunately most of the science shows with at least three exceptions are
>content with news-style 10 minutes grabs about "the oldest dinosaur" or the
>way an induction cooktop works. Stuff that might make it into Time or
>Newsweek magazines; but hardly any really good programming of the
>equivalent of Scientific American, with real thought, with highly
>infomative illustrations and representing the way in which scientists
>really work and think and solve complex puzzles physics an biology-- What
>is it about the human psyche and our educational systems that produces
>donwannaknow's by the age of  13?
>
>I can offer no solutions beyond those that I attempt in my teaching of
>science (residues and molecuar archaeology) to arts undergrads. The heart
>of the pedagogical method is desensitisation of the real fear many of the
>students bring about math, and  chemistry... I fear that scientific logic
>is beyond the ken of a 10th grade science teacher and that if not exposed
>to cause and effect, correlation and the traps of inferential correlation,
>etc.. It is almost to late to teach critical thinking by even 1st year
>university, let alone to people who avoided science for sports, learning
>for entertainment.
>
>A pessimistic view? you bet-- based upon 20 years of battling against
>stupidity and ignorance on television and creationism. Yet, onward ever
>upward and we should do as Jere has done and at least kick them in the
>shins when travesties are perpertrated in the name of "we just buy time no
>sponsorship", " we just give the people what they are interested in". \
>
>Good on ya' Jere and I have sent my own copy of protestation to NBC and
>will do so when and if the program is listed on the TV schedule down under.
>
>
>tom loy
>
>Thomas H. Loy, PhD
>Centre for Molecular and Cellular Biology
>                AND
>Department of Anthropology and Sociology
>The University of Queensland, St. Lucia, Queensland, 4072
>Email t.loy@mailbox.uq.oz.au
>Office +617 - 3365-4483 // Lab +617 -3365- 4391
>After Hours +617- 3378-4487
>