<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Television and Science</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.skepticblog.org/2008/11/21/television-and-science/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.skepticblog.org/2008/11/21/television-and-science/</link>
	<description>The official blog of the Skeptologists</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Sat, 11 Feb 2012 21:38:44 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: John Sherman</title>
		<link>http://www.skepticblog.org/2008/11/21/television-and-science/#comment-3610</link>
		<dc:creator>John Sherman</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 12 Feb 2009 17:20:14 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://skepticblog.org/?p=460#comment-3610</guid>
		<description>Most scientists are decent, intelligent people working in commercial labs, universities, or government facilities, under a regiment of strict rules and guidelines that, for the most part, insure the safety, quality, and factuality of their work.

Old movies gave us plenty of mad scientists, but these were generally guys working in castles by themselves or with a couple of hunchback villagers. But today we get a nearly nearly stream of science AND scientists as villains. But unlike the old movies, these mad scientists are all legitimate and working in labs where they are sponsored by commercial or government villains. The X-Files, Fringe, and Eleventh Hour are more outlandish example. But even shows like 24 support this terrible stereotype.Heck, you could even include House!

I love these show, in a way, but I also hate these shows. All they do is slowly, but surely, make people ignorant of what real science is, and scared of what they think it is.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Most scientists are decent, intelligent people working in commercial labs, universities, or government facilities, under a regiment of strict rules and guidelines that, for the most part, insure the safety, quality, and factuality of their work.</p>
<p>Old movies gave us plenty of mad scientists, but these were generally guys working in castles by themselves or with a couple of hunchback villagers. But today we get a nearly nearly stream of science AND scientists as villains. But unlike the old movies, these mad scientists are all legitimate and working in labs where they are sponsored by commercial or government villains. The X-Files, Fringe, and Eleventh Hour are more outlandish example. But even shows like 24 support this terrible stereotype.Heck, you could even include House!</p>
<p>I love these show, in a way, but I also hate these shows. All they do is slowly, but surely, make people ignorant of what real science is, and scared of what they think it is.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Steven</title>
		<link>http://www.skepticblog.org/2008/11/21/television-and-science/#comment-1864</link>
		<dc:creator>Steven</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 23 Dec 2008 05:45:50 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://skepticblog.org/?p=460#comment-1864</guid>
		<description>Yep. The Fringe is terrible for science and 11th Hour isn&#039;t much better.

The Mentalist is good. He is a good sceptic. So far.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Yep. The Fringe is terrible for science and 11th Hour isn&#8217;t much better.</p>
<p>The Mentalist is good. He is a good sceptic. So far.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: jjthejetplane</title>
		<link>http://www.skepticblog.org/2008/11/21/television-and-science/#comment-1645</link>
		<dc:creator>jjthejetplane</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 17 Dec 2008 15:14:17 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://skepticblog.org/?p=460#comment-1645</guid>
		<description>C&#039;mon guys!  All you guys are giving it too much credit.  Nobody believes any of the science is real.  Just like the reality shows aren&#039;t really reality.  Quite the opposite.  It&#039;s an escape from reality.  Do people watch CSI and believe it&#039;s all real?  I don&#039;t think so.  Actual CSI folks can&#039;t stand the show because of how inaccurate the episodes are.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>C&#8217;mon guys!  All you guys are giving it too much credit.  Nobody believes any of the science is real.  Just like the reality shows aren&#8217;t really reality.  Quite the opposite.  It&#8217;s an escape from reality.  Do people watch CSI and believe it&#8217;s all real?  I don&#8217;t think so.  Actual CSI folks can&#8217;t stand the show because of how inaccurate the episodes are.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Drew</title>
		<link>http://www.skepticblog.org/2008/11/21/television-and-science/#comment-941</link>
		<dc:creator>Drew</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 24 Nov 2008 17:52:37 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://skepticblog.org/?p=460#comment-941</guid>
		<description>I did not like this show mainly for normal reasons not to like a piece of film: direction, acting, writing, and so on.

But the one thing that I think is really bad about this show is that it perpetuates the myth that things like &quot;telekinesis&quot; is a fringe topic in science.  Meaning it&#039;s a real scientifically studied thing that most scientists just don&#039;t bother with because they&#039;re too focused on boring mainstream stuff.  The opening conflates mysterious things like &quot;dark matter&quot; with utter nonsense, and that seems to be the starting point for much of the science in the plot.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I did not like this show mainly for normal reasons not to like a piece of film: direction, acting, writing, and so on.</p>
<p>But the one thing that I think is really bad about this show is that it perpetuates the myth that things like &#8220;telekinesis&#8221; is a fringe topic in science.  Meaning it&#8217;s a real scientifically studied thing that most scientists just don&#8217;t bother with because they&#8217;re too focused on boring mainstream stuff.  The opening conflates mysterious things like &#8220;dark matter&#8221; with utter nonsense, and that seems to be the starting point for much of the science in the plot.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Skeptico</title>
		<link>http://www.skepticblog.org/2008/11/21/television-and-science/#comment-913</link>
		<dc:creator>Skeptico</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 22 Nov 2008 20:18:37 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://skepticblog.org/?p=460#comment-913</guid>
		<description>I have to disagree with your main positive conclusion - I thought it was terrible.  The characters were unbelievable.  The mad scientist who was just so much more brilliant that anyone else (even after being in a loony bin for, what, years?).  Releasing him only if a &quot;family member&quot; took responsibility.  Why?  when does that ever happen? It was just too stupid and was obviously just a lame reason to bring in the &quot;son&quot; - needed as a romantic interest for the (unconvincing) lead character. We&#039;re supposed to believe this brilliant arms dealer (or whatever he was supposed to be) just gave up his previous life to baby sit his father in this dubious operation.  And the &quot;science&quot; was just too cartoonishly dumb to be entertaining.  Just my opinion,of courser.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I have to disagree with your main positive conclusion &#8211; I thought it was terrible.  The characters were unbelievable.  The mad scientist who was just so much more brilliant that anyone else (even after being in a loony bin for, what, years?).  Releasing him only if a &#8220;family member&#8221; took responsibility.  Why?  when does that ever happen? It was just too stupid and was obviously just a lame reason to bring in the &#8220;son&#8221; &#8211; needed as a romantic interest for the (unconvincing) lead character. We&#8217;re supposed to believe this brilliant arms dealer (or whatever he was supposed to be) just gave up his previous life to baby sit his father in this dubious operation.  And the &#8220;science&#8221; was just too cartoonishly dumb to be entertaining.  Just my opinion,of courser.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: NightHiker</title>
		<link>http://www.skepticblog.org/2008/11/21/television-and-science/#comment-910</link>
		<dc:creator>NightHiker</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 22 Nov 2008 16:41:53 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://skepticblog.org/?p=460#comment-910</guid>
		<description>Devil&#039;s Advocate,

&quot;The first tip-off in any show comes before any character so much as speaks one word - everybody onscreen has glowingly white teeth and is Hollywood beautiful.&quot;

That&#039;s why I love the &quot;Jonathan Creek&quot; series from BBC. It&#039;s not exactly &quot;science&quot;, but it&#039;s pretty skeptical and the lead characters are not at all &quot;Hollywood beautiful&quot; - to the contrary, they look very ordinary.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Devil&#8217;s Advocate,</p>
<p>&#8220;The first tip-off in any show comes before any character so much as speaks one word &#8211; everybody onscreen has glowingly white teeth and is Hollywood beautiful.&#8221;</p>
<p>That&#8217;s why I love the &#8220;Jonathan Creek&#8221; series from BBC. It&#8217;s not exactly &#8220;science&#8221;, but it&#8217;s pretty skeptical and the lead characters are not at all &#8220;Hollywood beautiful&#8221; &#8211; to the contrary, they look very ordinary.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Larian LeQuella</title>
		<link>http://www.skepticblog.org/2008/11/21/television-and-science/#comment-908</link>
		<dc:creator>Larian LeQuella</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 22 Nov 2008 15:47:38 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://skepticblog.org/?p=460#comment-908</guid>
		<description>I agree Devil&#039;s Advocate.  As a pilot, I am often more puzzled than bemused by how the aviation industry is depicted in TV and movies.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I agree Devil&#8217;s Advocate.  As a pilot, I am often more puzzled than bemused by how the aviation industry is depicted in TV and movies.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Devil's Advocate</title>
		<link>http://www.skepticblog.org/2008/11/21/television-and-science/#comment-905</link>
		<dc:creator>Devil's Advocate</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 22 Nov 2008 13:26:58 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://skepticblog.org/?p=460#comment-905</guid>
		<description>I think it&#039;s typical for specialists to bemoan how their specialty is depicted in TV &amp; movies. Ask a genuine crime scene investigator about the reality of any of the CSI franchise shows. The first tip-off in any show comes before any character so much as speaks one word - everybody onscreen has glowingly white teeth and is Hollywood beautiful.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I think it&#8217;s typical for specialists to bemoan how their specialty is depicted in TV &amp; movies. Ask a genuine crime scene investigator about the reality of any of the CSI franchise shows. The first tip-off in any show comes before any character so much as speaks one word &#8211; everybody onscreen has glowingly white teeth and is Hollywood beautiful.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Aj</title>
		<link>http://www.skepticblog.org/2008/11/21/television-and-science/#comment-904</link>
		<dc:creator>Aj</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 22 Nov 2008 13:21:24 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://skepticblog.org/?p=460#comment-904</guid>
		<description>Bill Nye and Neil Degrasse Tyson were on Stargate Atlantis this week. I didn&#039;t like the first episode of Fringe, so I didn&#039;t watch it. The &quot;science&quot; or lack of didn&#039;t bother me, I don&#039;t mind if tv shows aren&#039;t realistic. If a show did include some science that would be great. I like House and The Mentalist this season.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Bill Nye and Neil Degrasse Tyson were on Stargate Atlantis this week. I didn&#8217;t like the first episode of Fringe, so I didn&#8217;t watch it. The &#8220;science&#8221; or lack of didn&#8217;t bother me, I don&#8217;t mind if tv shows aren&#8217;t realistic. If a show did include some science that would be great. I like House and The Mentalist this season.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Peter Vlasveld</title>
		<link>http://www.skepticblog.org/2008/11/21/television-and-science/#comment-901</link>
		<dc:creator>Peter Vlasveld</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 21 Nov 2008 23:02:57 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://skepticblog.org/?p=460#comment-901</guid>
		<description>I started watching fringe from the day it aired and I too enjoyed watching it for it&#039;s interesting plot. Though I was a bit turned off when I started noticing how much of the science was off from real science and yes the whole &quot;theory&quot; problem which you talked about. Overall though I do agree that it sucks you in due to good writing, but if they would have consulted an actual scientist when writing it, it would have made the show much much better.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I started watching fringe from the day it aired and I too enjoyed watching it for it&#8217;s interesting plot. Though I was a bit turned off when I started noticing how much of the science was off from real science and yes the whole &#8220;theory&#8221; problem which you talked about. Overall though I do agree that it sucks you in due to good writing, but if they would have consulted an actual scientist when writing it, it would have made the show much much better.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

