Sagan and Tyson are the foremost TV science buddies and my cork blew when Tyson was offering a t-shirt on Facebook with some buddy science platitude.
Some took issue with my lack of respect for their TV personalities and I'm well-aware they made good science ... but ... that isn't what they do on TV.
Another being cultivated, to some extent, is Morgan Freeman as yet another science buddy. We're sure his passion for science is real but we're not at all sure television serves that well.
If you're thinking this leads to some skin color differential then you can bite my unscientific crank because the appearance is the show and not that of the persona.
We don't care what our buddies look like and that's why we're buddies. That may matter for everything else but it never does with buddies.
We really don't know where it leads and pop-sci gets spectacular ooh wow effects but we're not sure if it really lights a fire in kids or simply amuses adults.
When television seeks to explain things, it hardly ever does it because we wind up with one-dimensional thinking, whether it's plastiboob journos or hard scientists trying to make things clear. Example: Stephen Hawking says my maths prove there is no God, I believe my maths, therefore there is no God.
Fascinating, Stevie Boy, but remind me not to debate theology with you as that pitch is a one-trick pony ... and the horse is lame. It's valid in concept but it's one-dimensional in reach so it really doesn't explain anything except to try to advertise a particular kind of thinking.
In this way, we see people being routinely insulted by television, from the plastic pundits to pretentious preachers to scientists who really don't seem to have a good idea of that which they seek to accomplish.
Some took issue with my lack of respect for their TV personalities and I'm well-aware they made good science ... but ... that isn't what they do on TV.
Another being cultivated, to some extent, is Morgan Freeman as yet another science buddy. We're sure his passion for science is real but we're not at all sure television serves that well.
If you're thinking this leads to some skin color differential then you can bite my unscientific crank because the appearance is the show and not that of the persona.
We don't care what our buddies look like and that's why we're buddies. That may matter for everything else but it never does with buddies.
We really don't know where it leads and pop-sci gets spectacular ooh wow effects but we're not sure if it really lights a fire in kids or simply amuses adults.
When television seeks to explain things, it hardly ever does it because we wind up with one-dimensional thinking, whether it's plastiboob journos or hard scientists trying to make things clear. Example: Stephen Hawking says my maths prove there is no God, I believe my maths, therefore there is no God.
Fascinating, Stevie Boy, but remind me not to debate theology with you as that pitch is a one-trick pony ... and the horse is lame. It's valid in concept but it's one-dimensional in reach so it really doesn't explain anything except to try to advertise a particular kind of thinking.
In this way, we see people being routinely insulted by television, from the plastic pundits to pretentious preachers to scientists who really don't seem to have a good idea of that which they seek to accomplish.
No comments:
Post a Comment