My collection of vacation notes and random thoughts.
Science, History and Television
I just posted a response to a question on evolution that reminded me of one of my annoyances. Thought I'd dig into it here.
There's been a growing trend to make science and history accessable and fun. That's great. More people should understand that the subject matter is exciting and interesting, on its own merits. But to someone not versed in it, it can be hard to understand what's so cool about there being little rods helping to hold up cells, or why everyone's so interested in a little bit of clay with some squiggles carved into it. Okay, so you gotta get them psyched about it.
But to me, there are right and wrong ways to go about it. Mythbusters is a show that, I think, fundamentally gets it right, for its target. I see its target as basic scientific procedure, and getting people to understand the concepts of hypothesis, rigorous testing, looking for flaws in your procedures, and excitement at being wrong. It's, at its core, a show about science, and doesn't spend too much time mucking it up with silly stuff. A counter example that I was just watching is Doing DaVinci. This is a newer show, and one I was kind of excited about. It was a team taking pictures and/or blueprints of DaVinci's inventions (the ones that were never actually built), and attempting to build them and see how practical they are. That's great. Problem is, a lot of the show is how the builders have problems with each other. Not even about how they struggle to figure out how to get the thing manufactured, or practical limitations of the drawing. Yeesh.
Another example. One of the best historical/scientific analyses I've seen on TV is The Day the Universe Changed, narrated by James Burke. It's from the mid-80s, but it was fascinating. He would interleave various historical events within topics to show how one discovery would affect the public consciousness, and help lead to other discoveries. He focused on the interconnectedness of history. He had a subsequent series, Connections, that was similarly connections within a theme, bouncing between each, drawing back to previous bits in the show, etc. Bill Nye has a show that reminds me of it called Stuff Happens (although that's more on current environmental issues). A counterexample is Battles BC. It's in the current line of drek history stuff, going for glitzy dramatizations overwhelming the good stuff (to be fair, even through the glitzy dramatizations, some of the shows can have good analysis of the subject). This, to me, is worse, because three of the episodes are Biblical. On the History Channel. Ugh.
I mean, I get that they're trying to make these subjects cool and accessible. But I think you need to use the right methods so that the core subject is what registers as cool, not the things you use for effect. I don't think using reality gimmicks like contention between individuals, side cameras, and focus on egos helps sell scientific understanding. And I don't think spending half an episode showing a guy in a toga gesturing grandiosely and talking to people in a tent helps people understand what's cool about history. Heck, even computer graphics showing Hannibal leading elephants across mountains in snow doesn't really help get interest in history - it just gets people thinking that this Hannibal guy is bad-ass. And a full, accurate explanation of the battle and tactics going on is good, and is a step in the right direction, but you need more than just the facts of the event. The backstory and subtext of why he's there, why the war's going, why these two cultures are in the positions they're in, to me, are the real story. And if you can get people thinking about that, and wondering WHY and HOW it got to that really cool CGI over the mountains, you've done your job.
There's been a growing trend to make science and history accessable and fun. That's great. More people should understand that the subject matter is exciting and interesting, on its own merits. But to someone not versed in it, it can be hard to understand what's so cool about there being little rods helping to hold up cells, or why everyone's so interested in a little bit of clay with some squiggles carved into it. Okay, so you gotta get them psyched about it.
But to me, there are right and wrong ways to go about it. Mythbusters is a show that, I think, fundamentally gets it right, for its target. I see its target as basic scientific procedure, and getting people to understand the concepts of hypothesis, rigorous testing, looking for flaws in your procedures, and excitement at being wrong. It's, at its core, a show about science, and doesn't spend too much time mucking it up with silly stuff. A counter example that I was just watching is Doing DaVinci. This is a newer show, and one I was kind of excited about. It was a team taking pictures and/or blueprints of DaVinci's inventions (the ones that were never actually built), and attempting to build them and see how practical they are. That's great. Problem is, a lot of the show is how the builders have problems with each other. Not even about how they struggle to figure out how to get the thing manufactured, or practical limitations of the drawing. Yeesh.
Another example. One of the best historical/scientific analyses I've seen on TV is The Day the Universe Changed, narrated by James Burke. It's from the mid-80s, but it was fascinating. He would interleave various historical events within topics to show how one discovery would affect the public consciousness, and help lead to other discoveries. He focused on the interconnectedness of history. He had a subsequent series, Connections, that was similarly connections within a theme, bouncing between each, drawing back to previous bits in the show, etc. Bill Nye has a show that reminds me of it called Stuff Happens (although that's more on current environmental issues). A counterexample is Battles BC. It's in the current line of drek history stuff, going for glitzy dramatizations overwhelming the good stuff (to be fair, even through the glitzy dramatizations, some of the shows can have good analysis of the subject). This, to me, is worse, because three of the episodes are Biblical. On the History Channel. Ugh.
I mean, I get that they're trying to make these subjects cool and accessible. But I think you need to use the right methods so that the core subject is what registers as cool, not the things you use for effect. I don't think using reality gimmicks like contention between individuals, side cameras, and focus on egos helps sell scientific understanding. And I don't think spending half an episode showing a guy in a toga gesturing grandiosely and talking to people in a tent helps people understand what's cool about history. Heck, even computer graphics showing Hannibal leading elephants across mountains in snow doesn't really help get interest in history - it just gets people thinking that this Hannibal guy is bad-ass. And a full, accurate explanation of the battle and tactics going on is good, and is a step in the right direction, but you need more than just the facts of the event. The backstory and subtext of why he's there, why the war's going, why these two cultures are in the positions they're in, to me, are the real story. And if you can get people thinking about that, and wondering WHY and HOW it got to that really cool CGI over the mountains, you've done your job.
Total Comments 0
