Science in the Media
The Dismal Portrayal of Science in the Media
Science is a toy that writers and producers play with. They make up things and twist them about to their liking, usually with complete and utter disregard for real science. The problem with this is that people believe what they see and hear in the media. People seem to be impressed by science but lack the patience to see an explanation all the way through to full understanding. They are happy with partial explanations and fill in the rest with their imaginations, which sadly leads to awful misunderstandings.
To add some legitimacy to my argument I reference a book review in the August 2006 issue of Scientific America. “By citing scientific terms, drama may suggest a claim to scientific accuracy and power, while in fact only using those terms impressionistically.” What I take as a fictional Playwright offers a counter to what the book reviewer said. “But there are so many deeper elements to the artistry: for instance, in contriving textual structure and dramatic form to illustrate content.” It’s sad to think that makers of media think they have the ability to use science to advance a story with no intent of reflecting it realistically; however what’s worse is that the audiences stand for it, and accepts it.
After a little more discussion the Playwright goes on to say, “The point is that the artist must meet the challenge posed by science...” Science does not control the media only the audience can do that. All that the media needs to do is be consistent to what the audience expects and knows, that is they have to seem to be plausible. So as more pseudoscience is portrayed in media more people start to believe it and the more they believe it the more of the same false science can be passed away by the media. It’s a self feeding cycle; people get dumber as a result the standards are lowered so they get dumber still.
The phenomenal spread of pseudoscience has real impacts, one of which is “the CSI effect”. There are eight CSI shows on that were rated in the top twenty shows on TV this last October. This phenomenon is new and still under research but the apparent trend is that people expect CSI like science in the real courtroom. But there is a huge disparity between real forensic science and that which is portrayed on television. One example given in the July 2006 issue of Scientific America is that forensic personnel on TV do not exist as they are a combination of police officer, detective, and forensic scientist. These three fields are too large to be mastered by a single person; after all there is a separate course of study for each discipline. Another problem with CSI is that what science that they do discuss they fail to address when where and how to use that science. Josh Marquis VP for NDAA said, “Jurors now expect us to have a DNA test for just about every case…”
I have experienced the fanatical devotion that people have for the pseudoscience that they believe because of the media. I watch the SciFi channel series Stargate Sg-1, and Atlantis. I tried to discuss the real science of the shows on one of the Stargate forums; I was not given a warm welcome. There was one user who denied the real science I presented and became downright confrontational when I was able to deflate their arguments with real science.
It also seems that some of the producers of media seem aware of what they are doing. In a behind the scenes “Science of Stargate” the lead writers were discussing what mistakes they had made in the past, which lead them to making a statement about how they had overstepped the bounds of plausibility, and they knew it. If they know the boundaries then do they know what they are doing? If they know what they are doing do they care? What are the bigger implications of this trend?
The trend of inept science and technology knowledge/education among the population can be seen in other fields, one of which is Information Technology. Computers now come with user accounts and administrator accounts. User accounts for people who don’t know computers and administrator accounts for the knowledgeable people. As technology encroaches more and more into everyday life the technology will be left to be run by “the smart people.” This could lead to classes of people: the knows and the knows not. It’s said that knowledge is power, if so then the smart will have power and they could use it to control the rest of the people. That in turn could lead to a class struggle…
Science is a toy that writers and producers play with. They make up things and twist them about to their liking, usually with complete and utter disregard for real science. The problem with this is that people believe what they see and hear in the media. People seem to be impressed by science but lack the patience to see an explanation all the way through to full understanding. They are happy with partial explanations and fill in the rest with their imaginations, which sadly leads to awful misunderstandings.
To add some legitimacy to my argument I reference a book review in the August 2006 issue of Scientific America. “By citing scientific terms, drama may suggest a claim to scientific accuracy and power, while in fact only using those terms impressionistically.” What I take as a fictional Playwright offers a counter to what the book reviewer said. “But there are so many deeper elements to the artistry: for instance, in contriving textual structure and dramatic form to illustrate content.” It’s sad to think that makers of media think they have the ability to use science to advance a story with no intent of reflecting it realistically; however what’s worse is that the audiences stand for it, and accepts it.
After a little more discussion the Playwright goes on to say, “The point is that the artist must meet the challenge posed by science...” Science does not control the media only the audience can do that. All that the media needs to do is be consistent to what the audience expects and knows, that is they have to seem to be plausible. So as more pseudoscience is portrayed in media more people start to believe it and the more they believe it the more of the same false science can be passed away by the media. It’s a self feeding cycle; people get dumber as a result the standards are lowered so they get dumber still.
The phenomenal spread of pseudoscience has real impacts, one of which is “the CSI effect”. There are eight CSI shows on that were rated in the top twenty shows on TV this last October. This phenomenon is new and still under research but the apparent trend is that people expect CSI like science in the real courtroom. But there is a huge disparity between real forensic science and that which is portrayed on television. One example given in the July 2006 issue of Scientific America is that forensic personnel on TV do not exist as they are a combination of police officer, detective, and forensic scientist. These three fields are too large to be mastered by a single person; after all there is a separate course of study for each discipline. Another problem with CSI is that what science that they do discuss they fail to address when where and how to use that science. Josh Marquis VP for NDAA said, “Jurors now expect us to have a DNA test for just about every case…”
I have experienced the fanatical devotion that people have for the pseudoscience that they believe because of the media. I watch the SciFi channel series Stargate Sg-1, and Atlantis. I tried to discuss the real science of the shows on one of the Stargate forums; I was not given a warm welcome. There was one user who denied the real science I presented and became downright confrontational when I was able to deflate their arguments with real science.
It also seems that some of the producers of media seem aware of what they are doing. In a behind the scenes “Science of Stargate” the lead writers were discussing what mistakes they had made in the past, which lead them to making a statement about how they had overstepped the bounds of plausibility, and they knew it. If they know the boundaries then do they know what they are doing? If they know what they are doing do they care? What are the bigger implications of this trend?
The trend of inept science and technology knowledge/education among the population can be seen in other fields, one of which is Information Technology. Computers now come with user accounts and administrator accounts. User accounts for people who don’t know computers and administrator accounts for the knowledgeable people. As technology encroaches more and more into everyday life the technology will be left to be run by “the smart people.” This could lead to classes of people: the knows and the knows not. It’s said that knowledge is power, if so then the smart will have power and they could use it to control the rest of the people. That in turn could lead to a class struggle…
posted by MMM at 7:27 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home