Brian Cox Effect

[Mik3]

They should have programs like this on every week, people actually learn something and there's obviously a lot of interest in it. Get rid of that rubbish Eastenders and replace with physics/astronomy programs.

[Dunkster]

"Sexing up science" is a great way of putting it!

In these days where the heroes in our society are footballers and reality tv nobodies, science could use a little sexing up... We need more scientists and engineers and the sooner these become more acceptable or cool, the better.

[Lynxi]

I was caught by the "Brian Cox effect" though not through Stargazing live, it was when "Wonders of the Solar System" came out. That struck me to buy a scope and since then I've had 3 but no serious investments into stunning scopes and always buy Refractors and I still have so much to learn!

[M4lcs67]

I totally agree Dunkster. There is/has been far too much of this reality tv rubbish on the tv. Full of "z" list nobodies and people with no decernable talent whatsoever thinking because they can sing, dance, act a little that they are gods gift.

Give me a programme that actually enlightens me and taxes my brain. Something that asks questions, informs me and stimulates my thinking.

[mindburner]

Im not sure if I am into 'sexing up science' too much, as it may cheapen it's value if not handled correctly. I honestly think that the subject matter of the cosmos can stand on it's own. Sure good presentation style, some humor and clear explanation are vital. Brian Cox and others bring excitement and open up topics to wider audiences, which must be a good thing and an antidote to talentless celebrity shows. As I get older, I seem to have less time for so called entertainment and want enlightment and wonder. Cox & co supply these in spades

[Craig20264]

Thouroughly enjoyed both shows again, although it was starting to hurt my brain in parts.

Enjoyed the opening gambit about the Moon Landings conspiracy theories. Good Man.

[Reggie]

I don't see it as sexing anything up, it makes it more exciting, funny and most importantly, accessible. I think they're finding their feet with it and despite the 'mocking' that's going on, they did a program that contained lots of references to UFOs with people explaining why they weren't UFOs. Quite balanced really. It seemed like they were saying, "We think you're wrong but we're still going to humour you and tell you why you're wrong, just don't ask brian".

No sign of wossy this year though, which I personally am glad about, I don't think science suits his 'style', amiable buffoon just doesn't get me excited about science

[scsibear]

Don't get me wrong, I like the guy to be honest, he's deffi watchable,okay his teeth may be a lil out there but all that said and done if he brings more people to the realm of Astro all the better i say. rock on wee man!!

[wrinkly]

My observations regarding the Brainy Cocks Polar region were confirmed last night when he criticised John Culshaw for not having sufficient grey hairs in his wig, during his impersonation. If only I was so successful with the sky.

Brian Cox is an inspirational coach, wish I could lose 64 years of age and be taught by him at my old grammar/independent school.

[Jake Bullit]

FLO etc ,must be rushed off their feet.Expect there will be a few second hand bargains in a few months time;)

[todd8137]

othe down side is that ive tried to order some kit and a lot is out of stock brain cox as a lot to answer for indeed,the other upside is the masive influx of new scopes,andin a few months when people get board with it (which i bet 45% will) the second hand market will be great just like it was last year i hope those who do buy a new scope stick at it and decide to prove me wrong

[jamest47]

isnt it just a good thing getting astronomy on the tv? No matter who's presenting it..........

[scogyrd]

I have been thinking of ways to see whether the Brian Cox effect is real or whether it is pseudo-science that should be mocked, along with all those that believe in it. Personally I'm of the opinion that people are interested in astronomy and would watch his programmes no matter who was presenting them (god knows I've sat through enough of them and I can't stand him) so I think a rigorous scientific test should be done to test the BCE.

To test the BCE I think we should first stop making programmes that feature him and he should be replaced on SGL. I don't think it really matters who replaces him but, for the sake of keeping the test balanced, he should probably be replaced by a real rock star: someone like Brian May.

If, at the end of the year, astronomy programmes are just as popular we will know that it's nothing to do with Brian "beautiful" Cox and he can go let some air out of his overinflated ego. Or, if the viewing figures plummet without him we would know it's real and that most (new) astronomers are really quite shallow.

Can anyone see any flaws in my planned experiment?

:D:D

[jnc71106]

I have been thinking of ways to see whether the Brian Cox effect is real or whether it is pseudo-science that should be mocked, along with all those that believe in it. Personally I'm of the opinion that people are interested in astronomy and would watch his programmes no matter who was presenting them (god knows I've sat through enough of them and I can't stand him) so I think a rigorous scientific test should be done to test the BCE.

To test the BCE I think we should first stop making programmes that feature him and he should be replaced on SGL. I don't think it really matters who replaces him but, for the sake of keeping the test balanced, he should probably be replaced by a real rock star: someone like Brian May.

If, at the end of the year, astronomy programmes are just as popular we will know that it's nothing to do with Brian "beautiful" Cox and he can go let some air out of his overinflated ego. Or, if the viewing figures plummet without him we would know it's real and that most (new) astronomers are really quite shallow.

Can anyone see any flaws in my planned experiment?

:D:D

Yes Brian Mays hair will distract people from the programme

[Macavity]

Can anyone see any flaws in my planned experiment?

Heheh. Not many, frankly. But as the ultimate heresy, I begin to sense that these programs might actually function quite WELL... without Brian Cox.

I've always believed (still do) that science can become popular without all these "sundries and ancillaries". On the other hand, "helpful hints" might be needed for today's uninitiates - There are simply a lot of distractions?

But I think (As you do?) potential (persistent!) astronomers will always find our collective uhm... passion? Oooer, Missus! Perhaps a real-world example of "Darwinian Selection" in action. LOL. You have to be *fairly* crazy to be an astronomer, after all...

Aside: I sense a lot of "celebrity" (band wagon?) "science" enthusiasts will fall by the wayside - They were probably the same kids who made fun of us "nerdy" types at school. LOL. To be frank, idem the "religion bashers", who see science as a "bigger stick" for internet forum debate. (It's far more than that!) But some will stay, settle down... and become "assimilated". We are the Borg etc. etc.

[GazK]

To understand BC et al's point of view, carry out some measurements on the number of well-written science pieces in any major media outlet, vs the number of badly-written psuedo-science articles or articles misrepresenting good science - e.g. "cure for cancer found". Brian is just trying to redress the balance.

[Reggie]

I have been thinking of ways to see whether the Brian Cox effect is real or whether it is pseudo-science that should be mocked, along with all those that believe in it. Personally I'm of the opinion that people are interested in astronomy and would watch his programmes no matter who was presenting them (god knows I've sat through enough of them and I can't stand him) so I think a rigorous scientific test should be done to test the BCE.

To test the BCE I think we should first stop making programmes that feature him and he should be replaced on SGL. I don't think it really matters who replaces him but, for the sake of keeping the test balanced, he should probably be replaced by a real rock star: someone like Brian May.

If, at the end of the year, astronomy programmes are just as popular we will know that it's nothing to do with Brian "beautiful" Cox and he can go let some air out of his overinflated ego. Or, if the viewing figures plummet without him we would know it's real and that most (new) astronomers are really quite shallow.

Can anyone see any flaws in my planned experiment?

:D:D

It's fairly easy to do this test, get Carl Sagans 'cosmos' box set, see if you can cope with more than an hour or 2. Forget the cheesy spaceship, that's allowed cos it's old but his presenting style is absolutely awful, probably the dullest documentary narrator I have heard, EVER.

[GazK]

I have been thinking of ways to see whether the Brian Cox effect is real or whether it is pseudo-science that should be mocked, along with all those that believe in it. Personally I'm of the opinion that people are interested in astronomy and would watch his programmes no matter who was presenting them (god knows I've sat through enough of them and I can't stand him) so I think a rigorous scientific test should be done to test the BCE.

To test the BCE I think we should first stop making programmes that feature him and he should be replaced on SGL. I don't think it really matters who replaces him but, for the sake of keeping the test balanced, he should probably be replaced by a real rock star: someone like Brian May.

If, at the end of the year, astronomy programmes are just as popular we will know that it's nothing to do with Brian "beautiful" Cox and he can go let some air out of his overinflated ego. Or, if the viewing figures plummet without him we would know it's real and that most (new) astronomers are really quite shallow.

Can anyone see any flaws in my planned experiment?

:D:D

But then you're not controlling for the gravitational effects of celebrity. A better-designed experiment would involve a show presented entirely by nobody anybody has heard of. I would like to nominate myself. Anyone want to join me?

[eriss]

I have to say, I love Brian Cox. I have never seen anyone get so annimated by what he is talking about. His little face lights up and he is clearly loving his subject.

Oh yeah, I am a mother. I love Brian LOL

[Parus major]

Like him or loathe him, he did manage to pull 2.3million viewers to watch an hour long lecture on Quantum Physics. Not sure many people could.

[mindburner]

who is Karl Sagan?

If that's Carl Sagan, well Cosmos was and is a superb series and the science stands up very well even today. Sure the video effects are old fashioned but there is something quite cool about them, in todays final cut pro 'edgy' video effects',same Adobe after effects black hole effect, editing world. All this will look cr"p in a few years. i.e. this

even Cosmo's dandelion spaceship is better

Personally I think that BBC 'the planets' is better than any Brian Cox material thus far,but he is getting better and dealing with harder science subjects

[Darth Takahashi]

I like Prof. Cox but I really do wish that the stargazing live shows would actually do some stargazing 'live', some live planetary/lunar video from a small goto scope and a webcam would be a winner, with an explanation, or using a hand driven mount or how about running through a quick alignment routine on a small goto scope? They go to great lengths to tell people how easy it all is, time to show the public I think? It's not about promoting a particular method, just showing how easy the hobby is to get into.

Perhaps this could spill into the sky at night shows, I like hearing about all the wonderful stuff that's happening in the wider world of astronomy but sometimes i feel there is an opportunity missed here.

Regards,

Reggie.

Fully agreed...I didn't see him out with me last night freezing my nuts off. And I find his presenting style patronising!!! He will never be Patrick that's for sure, may he live forever.

Its like most things these days, there dumbed down to the point of almost being useless, but I guess so long as he inspires the next generation of astronomer, what the hell.:rolleyes:

[Parus major]

who is Karl Sagan?

I'd imagine Carl Sagan's cousin:cool:

Funny, he too got a lot of hate from the "hardcore". There's an awful amount of people that like to have their hobbies being niche and as soon as something comes on telly they go off the scale. Bill Oddie used to be used to be universally loved by birders, Springwatch came along and folk whinged about him and the programme. Chris Packham, a naturalist of immense reputation comes on and now he's the subject of snide comments on message boards.

A few types of people just don't like popularisers in any field.

[cptdavep]

It's fairly easy to do this test, get Karl Sagans 'cosmos' box set, see if you can cope with more than an hour or 2. Forget the cheesy spaceship, that's allowed cos it's old but his presenting style is absolutely awful, probably the dullest documentary narrator I have heard, EVER.

Um, what? If you remove the cheese and general 70s vibe of Cosmos it and Carl Sagan Pee all over Cox. I'm 30 so wasn't born when it was first broadcast but watched it recently on Youtube (it's all on there) and found it and Sagan absolutely inspiring.

[che guevara]

Cool ANOTHER Cox thread to keep the fanboys happy.