Does wrong science annoy you?

[Manok101]

Whenever there is a tv show, or someone talking about some sort of science, like astronomy, does it annoy you when they make it up to suit the story, or their theory?

[DirkSteele]

Poor journalism of new discoveries is something that raises my blood pressure a little, especially when epidemiological nutrition studies are presented as a definite causal relationship, and when you see a head line such as doing / eating X increases your risk of Y by so many %. Apparently no one thinks it is worth explaining that the original risk is perhaps 1 in a thousand and now the "new" risk is 3 in a 1000. School maths teaching really seems to struggle getting across percentages!!

As for Sci-Fi shows not at all, they are just a bit if fun. Nice to see consistency though. Dr Who just makes up random stuff to suit the plot, where as something like Stargate sticks with physics principles, even if it stretches then to the limit.

[Macavity]

After a fair old dose of real life I try not to... "sweat the small stuff"?

There are many "Popular Science" [T]witterers to do it on my behalf?

Some do good work - Challenging bad science... Some [iMO] don't.

It irritates (frustrates) me more, if someone writes a science article in

the so-called "intelligent" newspapers, and there is ZERO response,

lame jokes, or the subject is rapidly changed to "religion & politics".

But hey, I now live in a "retirement area" - Mere (mis)placement of

a Wheelie Bin can be of significant local importance / speculation!

I doubt the vast majority worry overmuch about... cosmology...

On the other hand, we do have a *cool* local Astro. Soc.

[Sam]

Yep this really grates me. Our media here are shocking for screwing up the most most simple concepts. I guess it's because the journalists simply don't know the science so are very poor at converting it into main stream interest. The descriptions of Higgs boson give the most laughs. The other good one is any attempt at trying to describe inflation after the Big Bang.

[jason.p]

I've seen this first hand. Having been involved in something which was subsequently reported in the media, and was later the subject of a Horizon programme, I have seen how the facts can be manipulated and distorted. This was something I had a good knowledge of so I know the "truth" in this particular case. It's really worrying how much mis-information we're all receiving. I know it's difficult to strike a balance. The media has to cater for a broad range of audience, but it's a pity if the truth has to suffer along the way.

[jason.p]

....and another thing. It makes me cringe when reporters refer to " the E.coli virus, or the MRSA virus". Everyone knows these are bacteria, not viruses.....or do they

[DaveS]

Probably not

The same way they go to the doctor for antibiotics when they have a cold or 'flu

It irritates me when hacks can't get the usage of bacteria / um right. Does that make me a sad geek?

[Andy_E]

If it means anything pretty much EVERY factual TV programme is full of these. I'm a musicologist and yet to watch a music documentary that is anywhere near close to accurate. I think what annoys me most about this issue is that these shows are often presented by fairly eminent academics in their field... kinda' makes me feel a little let down by them

[Richardisgreat]

I agree it gets my goat also I think these programmes are trying to simplify complicated truths, so that the general population can have some kind of understanding. I think people that dont have an interest in a particular subject generaly "tune out" after a short time if they are not sucked in by pretty graphics or information that that is easy to understand. But yes to just dumb down the truth to dramatise the production is not really the right thing to do if your goal is to educate people. I guess they just want to get ratings regardless of the truth or wanting to educate people. I really only watch Sky at night, Horizon, or Brian Cox programmes when on about science. Oh yeah and of course Star trek

[Richardisgreat]

To add I also find Horizon a little off sometimes - Jason P

[Macavity]

If it means anything pretty much EVERY factual TV programme is full of these. I'm a musicologist and yet to watch a music documentary that is anywhere near close to accurate.

Did you ever watch: http://www.bbc.co.uk...rammes/b01qgd00 (Howard Goodall's "Story of Music)?

- Almost explained the difference between Major & Minor - Chord progression, even?

Sadly: Astronomy, Physics (Maths) - None can equal the current (lay) THIRST for the

"Evolutionary Biologist versus Religionist" debate -- Nor their respective Book Sales?

For it is THAT which drives me to a case of the... Black Bile and Pernicious Ague etc.

[Scott]

My wife loves "Timeteam". Me, not so much but what really annoys me is when one of the diggers (can't spell archeologist) finds a piece of pottery and says " This might have been from such and such a time and who knows maybe king so and so drank out of it" and then Tony Robbins (?) turns around and says "and there we have it , a drinking vessel used by king so and so". Theres just no need to jump to such wild conclusions. It would be interesting to someone interested without the giant leeps of faith.

rant over

[Scott]

Poor journalism of new discoveries is something that raises my blood pressure a little, especially when epidemiological nutrition studies are presented as a definite causal relationship, and when you see a head line such as doing / eating X increases your risk of Y by so many %. Apparently no one thinks it is worth explaining that the original risk is perhaps 1 in a thousand and now the "new" risk is 3 in a 1000. School maths teaching really seems to struggle getting across percentages!!

As for Sci-Fi shows not at all, they are just a bit if fun. Nice to see consistency though. Dr Who just makes up random stuff to suit the plot, where as something like Stargate sticks with physics principles, even if it stretches then to the limit.

It annoys me too, however I think it's more a case of sensationalism than poor maths.

[DaveS]

My wife loves "Timeteam". Me, not so much but what really annoys me is when one of the diggers (can't spell archeologist) finds a piece of pottery and says " This might have been from such and such a time and who knows maybe king so and so drank out of it" and then Tony Robbins (?) turns around and says "and there we have it , a drinking vessel used by king so and so". Theres just no need to jump to such wild conclusions. It would be interesting to someone interested without the giant leeps of faith.

rant over

I think it's not so much what he says as the way he says it, along the lines of "And if you believe that you'll believe anything"

[Knight of Clear Skies]

Yes, it bothers me - it's natural to feel affronted when a subject you care about is abused. Some latitude should be given as science reporting is very difficult, especially given that science 'news' is often at the cutting edge. However, it's a different matter when the inaccuracy is due to other causes, such as indifference or sensationalization. Here's a relevant thread - it doesn't give the impression that the offending paper knows anything or cares about the subject matter.

I'm far more tolerant of unscientific thinking in fiction, as I see no reason why a fictional universe should obey the same rules as ours. On the other hand, I find techno-babble jarring - I think it's best to present 'magic' as a property of that particular world. It should be self-consistent in operation, but trying to explain it is pointless.

Did you ever watch: http://www.bbc.co.uk...rammes/b01qgd00 (Howard Goodall's "Story of Music)?

- Almost explained the difference between Major & Minor - Chord progression, even?

That was a good series, I must watch it again sometime. I think it's available on YouTube.

[OrionTheHunter]

It annoys me no end when you're watching a show or reading an article, and people can't get their facts right...The only one I can actually listen to is Brian Cox. He is at least knowledgeable and you can't go wrong with him.

[jonathan]

At least they appear to have a reasonable science advisor on The Big Bang Theory, even if some of the details aren't exactly correct it all sounds good.

[Macavity]

The only one I can actually listen to is Brian Cox...

The "Life of Brian" (He's not the Messiah etc. etc.) ruined that one for me? [Just Messing]

[tenbyfifty]

To add I also find Horizon a little off sometimes - Jason P

I'll never trust that show again. They did a programme recently about a mega tsunami caused by half of La Palma falling into the sea after

an eruption but the whole show is completely one sided. They could have easily found another group of scientists who think it will never happen

and that the ones who do are sensationalising the scant evidence for this event for their own ends. I'm afraid the BBC is just too shallow and commercial

these days to be trusted with balanced arguments. Ratings and syndication are more important to modern broadcasters than scientific truth.

[Druid]

There's a really funny quote from a special-effects professional about this phenomenon in Hollywood, from the wonderful Atomic Rockets site.

To boil down all the possible reasons, it is because of one or more of the following:

0) It's a business

This is a business venture - you put money in with the expectation that more money will come out. The general audience is historically happier watching space ships woosh by shooting glowing bolts of energy than they are watching a slowly rotating spaceship lazily drift across the screen. If you're putting tens or hundreds of millions of dollars on the line, you go for the shooty-wooshy space ships every time, pure and simple.

1) TPTB (The powers that be) don't care.

If whats on the screen looks good, and the storytelling is sufficient, then scientific accuracy rarely if ever matters. If they don't care that cars don't blow up when shot with bullets, why should they care about the theoretical effects of FTL travel.

2) There isn't time to dissect and fix scientific inaccuracies

Once production on a movie is started, it is an unstoppable steamroller with a tight deadline. If the script says a spaceship wooshes by, the people working on the film don't have time to work out what kind of propulsion it uses - they just make the engine glow, push it across the screen in an interesting way and move on to the next shot.

3) The decisions are made in too many places and it isn't even thought about except by people who aren't in positions to make judgment calls.

A jet fighter shoots missiles at a big space ship hovering above a city. The director tells the visual effects supervisor to make it happen. The visual effects supervisor tells the digital effects supervisor to make a space ship and to make a jet fighter woosh by and shoot some missiles at the space ship while he goes off and directs the on-set pyro effects. The digital effects supervisor tells the modeling supervisor to have his team make a space ship and jet fighter and tells the FX supervisor to have his team make some missiles shoot, engine effects, vapor trails, smoke trails and whatnot. The modelers build a jet fighter and give it harpoon missiles. The modeling supervisor says it looks good. The digital effects supervisor says it looks good. The modelers are done with their job and get put on another production. The FX supervisor hands the model to the FX team who look at the fighter and say "um...that's not really the right kind of missile to do an air-to-air attack..." "Sorry, the modeler is off the show and these have been approved. Can't change it now" is the response. So the FX team launches harpoon missiles at the space ship. The final shot is shown to the director/visual effects supervisor and it looks cool, but don't pick up on the fact that the wrong missile is being used. It's approved and put into the film.

(You're probably sensing that this is a true story and know what movie I was working on at the time.)

4) The script-reader's gauntlet

Writers use descriptive language to express action in their script. They don't often get into technical details because each page of a script is supposed to represent roughly one minute of screen time. A writer who spends his time describing the intricacies of a space ships propulsion system is a writer who finds his scripts in the script-reader's trash can. People who write heavily technical novels are almost always terrible script-writers as they have difficulty working within the confines and limitations of that medium. The scripts that pass through the script-reader's gauntlet will likely be of the less technical variety.

5) People in film making have education in film making, they don't usually have PhD's in physics/astrophysics. And people who have PhD's in physics/astrophysics don't usually know how to make a good film.

It's not that they aren't smart enough, it's that their focus of expertise is in other areas. That's why they hire consultants if they're trying to do something with any degree of accuracy, but even then, accuracy is desirable only if it doesn't interfere with the storytelling. Often, things are set in motion that can't be changed after the fact anyway and you just have to shrug your shoulders and say "That's the way it has to be" if you learn too late of some scientific ramification.

6) The power of ego

You know how people fall all over themselves when a famous actor is nearby? Its worse when companies deal with well known directors. Just yesterday we were kicked out of the screening room during our dailies because Michael Bay was parking and MIGHT be needing it. With that sort of hysteria going on, are you going to be the one that walks up to him and say "this is totally unrealistic and you need to change it" knowing that saying so will mean the end of your employment? What the director says goes, and few people have the will or the power to contradict him. Film making isn't usually done by committee, it is done by imperial decree and if the decree is that cars blow up when shot with bullets, then that is the way it is.

I'm sure there's a few others I've missed but, speaking of unrealism in Hollywood movies, I need to get back to work on a sequence involving bits of LA breaking off and sliding into the ocean because the Earth's magnetic field has collapsed.

I'm not kidding. - Todd Boyce

http://www.projectrh...prelimnotes.php

[rowan46]

Poor journalism of new discoveries is something that raises my blood pressure a little, especially when epidemiological nutrition studies are presented as a definite causal relationship, and when you see a head line such as doing / eating X increases your risk of Y by so many %. Apparently no one thinks it is worth explaining that the original risk is perhaps 1 in a thousand and now the "new" risk is 3 in a 1000. School maths teaching really seems to struggle getting across percentages!!

As for Sci-Fi shows not at all, they are just a bit if fun. Nice to see consistency though. Dr Who just makes up random stuff to suit the plot, where as something like Stargate sticks with physics principles, even if it stretches then to the limit.

Pretty much agree with this post it seems that reporters cannot differentiate between correlation and causation so every correlation becomes a link and consequently a scare or even more scandalous minor studies without peer confirmation are held up as fact (remember mmr?)

[Druid]

A mate of mine writes for New Scientist. He told me this story about standing up at an NUJ conference (or some similar event) and asking for a show of hands from all those out of the hundreds present who had science degrees.

Result?

Him and two (or perhaps three) other people ...

[bujin]

In journalism, I find bad science extremely irritating. Particularly those "drinking/eating/doing xyz causes cancer" stories.

In films, particularly the low budget SyFy movies, I actually like watching them just to see how badly wrong they get the science! It still irritates me a little, but it's also quite funny. I particularly like how any problem in the world can be solved with a few nuclear weapons.