A Science Lesson For Children?
April 7, 2006 @ 4:43 pm
Right now, at this very moment, my kids are watching a movie based on the Skydancer toys. I just heard one character proclaim, after making an observation:
“The only scientific explanation for it is, Magic Does Exist! And if it does, then I believe in Magic!”
The character’s faith statement then released her into the air as a spinning propeller, which I would guess enabled her to accomplish some unearthly feat. Based, of course, on science.
15 Comments »
RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI
Leave a comment
Line and paragraph breaks automatic, e-mail address never displayed, HTML allowed: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>
April 7th, 2006 @ 8:30 pm
Two nights ago, I happened on a scifi movie and out of boredom watched some of it. The movie was technically a disaster as one would expect from Hollywood. I have concluded that the creative side of Hollywood is made up of people that are primarily artists or toy salesmen and have little or no idea what is real in science. That is OK as long as they are producing movies that are “fantasy” like “Lord of the Rings” and there is no intent to make it scientifically correct. But the movie I saw was intended to be a pseudo documentary involving a space station rescue and disarming of a nuclear satellite. The science was very badly done and would leave the public with a much distorted view of how things really are done. The movie “2001, A Space Odyssey” is one of the very few movies that involved a major technical consultant (IBM Corporation) and did many sophisticated things technically correct and it was a pleasure to watch that part of it.
With a malfunctioning media, how is the general public suppose to make decisions that involve scientific concepts, cloning, stem cell research, genetically engineered food, global warming, dietary decisions, medical decisions, etc. etc.? Certainly not with the distorted concepts of science your children are already being subjected to and will continue to be throughout their lives. It suggests a fun class to teach in night school, “Science Literacy for Adults”.
April 8th, 2006 @ 5:59 am
Gregg,
I would take that class. I think people would be amazed at what science HAS accomplished, without all of the fictional embellishments.
TLS
April 8th, 2006 @ 10:35 am
I like that idea as well and it would certainly fill the voids left in some minds about the progressive features of science . Might be worth persuing . It would also be a good way to introduce people to secular humanism .
April 8th, 2006 @ 4:34 pm
I would be interested in a “Science Literacy Class for Adults,” too. However, make it interesting please… none of those dry droning professors. LOL
April 8th, 2006 @ 9:40 pm
I remember seeing an article about a year ago (maybe in the New Yorker, or the NY Times) about how a national science organization was fostering realtionships with Hollywood writers, focus groups and meetings and such, in order to encourage more science fiction topics in Hollywood films– with the hope of enticing younger viewers to be more interested in these glamorized scientific careers.
The way the whole thing was stated startled me. It seemed totally backwards. Scientists hiring Hollywood to market science? And not, Hollywood seeking scientific verification or validity of their pre-existing scripts?
What a strange world!
April 9th, 2006 @ 7:37 am
A good scientific base is all you need coupled with logic and reasoning skills, and suddenly supernaturalism doesnt make sense anymore . You are free to move about your brain!!
April 9th, 2006 @ 7:38 am
ding……………….
April 9th, 2006 @ 8:35 am
I think that “Star Trek,” especially “The Next Generation” and subsequent “Star Trek” series dealt with science in a reasonably responsible and positive way. Of course the entire premise of the series - that of intergalactic travel bends the known laws of physics, but overall they made attempts at linking today’s science with a possible future. The day to day lives of the beings populating the Enterprise were filled with science. Virtually all of the crew were scientists of some kind, and appeared to have broad scientific knowledge, but many also displayed a knowledge and appreciation for art, music and theatre. It was just a matter of course.
One of the cleverest “inventions” of the various series was “inertial dampers.” I don’t recall there ever being any attempt at explaining how those babies worked, but it was a necessary convention of the show, otherwise every time a ship went into or out of Warp, the crew, and the ships for that matter, would have been rendered just so much highly condensed goo.
As with any such production, there was always a certain amount of gobbledegook, but the various series dealt with people whose very survival depended in large part on their scientific acumen. The shows also depicted a society wherein people of all kinds - and other sentient beings - were generally accepted as equals who worked together and such interminglings were not considered extraordinary. Often, even the bad guys were shown not to be altogether “bad,” that they had a point of view or a rationale for their churlish behavior.
Hmmm. I wonder if I could get into Starfleet Academy? Maybe they have a “continuing education” curriculum for old artsy-fartsy guys.
Beam me up . . . well - you know the drill.
TLS
April 9th, 2006 @ 8:30 pm
A father’s way of teaching his son about science. See http://www.fotuva.org/feynman/what_is_science.html The son? Richard Feynman
The writing is typical Feynman. Irreverent, almost philosophical, not quite tangible, but communicates a complex concept.
April 10th, 2006 @ 3:29 pm
Hi, new here. *big wave*
In regards to Star Trek, they weren’t travelling intergalactically - only interstellarly. (and boy oh boy is “interstellarly” fun to say) In fact, until the Deep Space 9 era, only about a quarter of the galaxy (alpha quadrant) had been explored. They didn’t really get over to the delta quadrant without worm-holing it, or geting flung by capricious Omnipotants. So yeah, I’d like to think it’s not all THAT out of reach. Hell, in the late 1800s, it was suggested that they close down the patent offices because “…everything that could be invented, had been.” So who knows what those clever physicists will come up with in the next few hundred years?
My favorite Star Trek toy involved the transporters; in order to function, they needed a Heisenburg Compensator. Once I learned what the Heisenburg Uncertainty Principle was, it made me look and listen harder for other references to real science amid the fiction. I credit Star Trek: TNG with a lot of my early interest in science.
April 10th, 2006 @ 5:59 pm
Sorry, I guess I never realized that they had galactic limitations. I think that what made most of the Star Trek shows work for me was again, that the technology was just a part of their reality; important, but nothing special on a day to day basis. No doubt they stretched credibility at times for dramatic purposes (this was still Hollywood afterall,) but most of what they did as regards the science of their time, at least had some basis in that which is known today.
Perhaps my favorite TNG episode, and one that I felt was very well written, was the episode wherein a hearing was set up to determine whether Data had the same rights as living beings, or perhaps more accurately, was Data, in fact, a life form? Picard’s defense of Data was eloquent.
Sorry Noell, hope you don’t mind this little side conversation.
TLS
April 14th, 2006 @ 1:59 pm
B.C. comic strip from April 5th… I’ve written to my newspaper asking that B.C. be dropped, but it still shows up.
I wonder how many people actually agree with this man? And I wondered what you, Noell, have to say about this particular strip.
Sorry it took me so long to getting around to posting.
April 14th, 2006 @ 5:20 pm
Gregg100, the Feynman article was wonderful…inspiring. Thanks for posting. His father is the kind I aspire to be.
April 14th, 2006 @ 5:35 pm
Janet, I don’t read B.C., or any other comic strips, so I have no idea what the issue is. I think you tried to post a link (?) but you didn’t get the address in there. Do you want to try again so we can all view it?
April 16th, 2006 @ 9:00 am
Hi–Sorry; I saw that the link didn’t work, but couldn’t fix it.
Here’s the address: http://www.creators.com/comics_show.cfm?next=2&ComicName=bc
It was the April 5th comic strip that got my goat (most recently). Many of his other strips are anti-women, especially what he considers “fat” women. Thus my request to my paper that they drop “B.C.”