Jump to content

Banner.jpg.b89429c566825f6ab32bcafbada449c9.jpg

AAArrgghh - Louise Minchin

steppenwolf

By steppenwolf
in The Astro Lounge

Recommended Posts

steppenwolf

steppenwolf

Posted
Posted

BBC Breakfast this morning had quite a good interview with an astrophysicist and an amateur astronomer right up until the point where Louise Minchin described Kevin Gaskell as 'an amateur astrologist'!! How difficult can it be to get this right? :rolleyes:

Link to comment
Share on other sites
  • Replies 31
  • Created
  • Last Reply
JamesF

JamesF

Posted
Posted

BBC Breakfast this morning had quite a good interview with an astrophysicist and an amateur astronomer right up until the point where Louise Minchin described Kevin Gaskell as 'an amateur astrologist'!! How difficult can it be to get this right? :rolleyes:

Not difficult, but tying shoelaces is a struggle for some daytime television presenters.

James

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Stargazer_00

Stargazer_00

Posted
Posted

The BBCs quality has been lacklustre in many areas for a long time in my opinion.

The only thing they consistantly do right is Top Gear.

That said Jeremy Clarkson must be getting old.. the last two series he has complained about the hyper car he's in having too much power, or being too much.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Ouroboros

Ouroboros

Posted
Posted

The problem lies in the fact that it contains "ology" which makes it sound like it's a real science - like biology, ecology, neurology etc. The sooner we get the name changed to sky-----sm the better.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Astro Imp

Astro Imp

Posted
Posted

As long as the licence fee continues to get direct debited from my account, I will reserve the right to an opinion on the quality of BBC programming.

I think that's fair.

+1 but does the beeb take any notice or even care. I would have to say no judging by the complaints received over background music.

Going back to the OP it seems that something is lacking when university educated people have such a poor grasp of basic vocabulary.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Andy McK

Andy McK

Posted
Posted

As been witnessed over the years, alienating the enemy just ends in tears,

I think the Beeb should embrace astrology and have a 5min section at the end of S@N

presented by Mr Coleshaw perhaps, or have a guest Druid?

Then the "ill informed" can make up their own minds? With the caveat, Chris should close the show pointing at Brian Cox's book, mouthing the words "read this!!"

(Tongue very "in cheek" here chaps)

Link to comment
Share on other sites
earth titan

earth titan

Posted
Posted
I reckon they should do away with the licence fee and replace it with metered reception. The more you watch, the more you pay :D

James

Sounds like a plan.

If they could charge people in the family Individually!

Just thinking my daughter might be in for a shock!

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Macavity

Macavity

Posted
Posted

I think the problem (back in the 70s!) was that at 14 years of age, I / we had to choose between "arts" or "science"? Like most teenagers, I had quite "intensive" friendships <G> - I did Physics & Chemistry - My best mate did History & Geography! Our friendship (arguments!) survived - Upto pub-going(!) age, and beyond into "college" years? Eventually, we lost touch, but... :)

BUT, in the main, I had little to do with "artists" - Idem, they with me! Back in the 70s, I imagined that things would *evolve* in education... Science and Arts would be "reconciled"? A casual glance at the so-called intelligent papers / the media, suggests otherwise! Still, science is a much a minority interest - an "eccentricity"? Still ANY SCIENCE discussion is invaded by "Politicos", or Oxbridge / media sneerers - Who proudly declare themselves to be "scientifically illiterate"? Frankly I don't think Brian Cox and his (70s NME?) "anti-hippy" rhetoric <yawn> helps the cause of science overmuch - But that's just an ex-Particle Physicist's opinion. :p

For all it's (supposed) faults, I rather like the new Sky at Night formula! If the moderators will forgive a little "politics" - Here we see a young WOMAN controlling a Mars Rover? A BLACK (mixed race?) Astrophysicist? Frankly, as a sometime (for my sins) CERN physicist, I think that grass roots (international, collaborative) SCIENCE has solved far more "real world differences" than "Guardianista" witterings or "Daily Mail" rantings. Many BBC science programs are good, but "Artists" don't have to suffer alternative-comedy "idiocy-advocates" in THEIR programs, right? :D

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Macavity

Macavity

Posted
Posted

I think it'd be quite a funny formula to see a comedian paired with an expert in an art critic show.

You can imagine the comedian doing renaissance.

Too much of a philistine to comment. <G> But I did like a joke that, if the the BBC broadcast a program on...

Dostoyevsky, they would be unlikely to include a comedian to explain / apologise for the BIG words he used. :D

But maybe this could lend something to "Arts" programs (which I now enjoy!)... Uhm, David Starkey, maybe? :p

Link to comment
Share on other sites
JamesF

JamesF

Posted
Posted

Hmmm. I sat on the fence for my A-levels. I did Maths, Further Maths, Phyiscs and Art :)

Perhaps the difference is that art has to relate to people. The value of art is its relationship with the people who "experience" it, for want of a better word. In some senses that means that everyone's opinion is valid because it's about their own reaction to the work. I can decide a book is bad even if I don't understand that it's author was exploring the plight of underage lesbian hedgehogs during the breakdown of their patriarchal society due to prolonged catnip abuse. My opinion, even if uninformed by anything other than my own personal prejudices, is still valid on some level.

Science doesn't work like that though. It tries to create an edifice that is distinct from the observer, in that the observer should be absolutely interchangeable. Opinion is only valid if backed up by theory and evidence, and the skills required are often laborious and difficult to attain. The rigour necessary is not something people tend to experience in their everyday lives. There's no sort of "naive" middle ground. it therefore grates when someone who doesn't have scientific qualifications suggests that there might be some validity in, say, astrology or homeopathy, based on their prejudices rather than theory and evidence.

So perhaps the reason we get comedians and suchlike presenting science programmes is that science is viewed as inaccessible to the majority and something they might be slightly fearful of.

Or I may just be talking cobblers :D

James

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Go to topic listing

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue. By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.