Comments on: Brian Cox.

By: Janek

Janek — Thu, 04 Oct 2012 12:43:48 +0000

Yeah there’s definitely a trend in a lot of modern documentaries no matter what they’re about – I think I saw one the other day which was all like “How smart are dogs really? We’ve come to Jamaica to find out!” and then the pretty young expert (who had a degree in zoology or something but was really only there because she was pretty) did some rubbish experiment with dog biscuits while sitting on a beach drinking Malibu or something.

If I were a cynical man (perish the thought) I would suggest that the producers just wanted a free holiday at the license payers’ expense. Just flying around the world for less apparent reason than even a Top Gear special.

By: Hentzau

Hentzau — Thu, 04 Oct 2012 12:29:49 +0000

That Wonders has been quite successful in rousing the public’s enthusiasm for astronomy doesn’t mean it’s a perfect formula. I think toning down the spectacular visuals just slightly would do wonders (ha) for its actual grasp on hard facts. Mix them up a bit. Don’t go 100% helicopter shots of colourful scenery in HD. It does a lot for science education through dint of simply existing (and because Brian Cox is a natural at what he does and that comes through despite the ass-backwards presentation) but it could be *so much better*.

By: Masked Dave

Masked Dave — Wed, 03 Oct 2012 12:24:54 +0000

Fair enough, but if those people already didn’t know the science and they still don’t know the accurate science, but are generally more enthusiastic about science/cosmology then nothing has really been lost but the general attitude towards the discipline (which obvious affects funding etc) will improve.

Don’t get me wrong, I understand what you’re saying, but it just seems there’s more being gained than lost.

By: Hentzau

Hentzau — Wed, 03 Oct 2012 11:16:33 +0000

No, that part is great. The problem is when his explanation is so vague and woolly that people get the *wrong* impression about science and I have to spend time correcting them, which happens far more than you’d think. So he’s getting people fired up about science, which is great, but through his vagueness he’s also giving people the wrong impression about what science can and cannot deal with and what it does and does not understand. I’d hesitate before comparing him to CSI (nobody should be compared to CSI) but it’s the same sort of problem in that CSI has done a huge amount of damage to the popular perception of forensic science by making people think it can do actual, literal magic.

By: Hentzau

Hentzau — Wed, 03 Oct 2012 11:14:32 +0000

Cheers! And yeah, David Attenborough is all very well and good but he didn’t have the resources that have gone into making the Wonders programs. They even mixed in a little bit of ancient history at one point; the episode where Brian Cox went to the desert featured an ancient sun clock constructed by a civilization I’d never even heard of. I wanted to know more about that clock. I wanted to know about it more than I wanted to hear Brian Cox’s nebulous pronouncements on the nature of time.

(Maybe that’s just me, though. There’s definitely a certain amount of bias present in that I’m so familiar with what he *does* choose to talk about that I find the way he deals with it to be tremendously facile.).

By: Masked Dave

Masked Dave — Wed, 03 Oct 2012 11:08:49 +0000

But isn’t the point that “everyone watches these programmes and then [goes and asks about science]” a really good thing? The show is the kicking off point for getting them interested. I had a same reaction to the first Science of Discworld book. I suddenly went “Woah! Physics is awesome!” and went and read Stephen Hawking’s books and did Physics at A Level.

By: pertusaria

pertusaria — Tue, 02 Oct 2012 21:11:40 +0000

The only problem with your idea of a good earth sciences program is that it’s already been done, by David Attenborough. I think I’m thinking of “The Living Planet”. Maybe there is a case for re-doing something that’s 28 years old, though.

In general your description of this series, which I haven’t seen, sounds a lot like someone’s trying to re-create an Attenborough series, only focusing on the stars, which may be one of the few areas of popular science which (a) he hasn’t covered and (b) lends itself well to pretty pictures.

Thanks for the rant – very enjoyable! Also, love the site!

By: innokenti

innokenti — Tue, 02 Oct 2012 16:27:08 +0000

Exactly this.

Sadly this affects most history documentaries as well. There is an obvious temptation to go overblown and dramatic because someone thinks otherwise the general populace won’t find it interesting, but there are more than enough ways of talking about cool history stuff while hedging your bets and saying “we don’t know” or “it could be this, or it could be that”. Part of the fun of history is the stuff that we can’t know for certain or can’t quite pin down.

By: Hentzau

Hentzau — Tue, 02 Oct 2012 13:05:28 +0000

That video has some absolutely cracking lines (“If you think helicopters can fly into space… then you’re fucking *wrong*”) and I’m very sad the BBC got it taken down from youtube. It’s a spot-on parody.

By: Gap

Gap — Tue, 02 Oct 2012 11:59:53 +0000

“A football pitch… that’s on Mars” is one of my favourite popular science phrases.