Page 4 of 6 [ 96 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6  Next

IsabellaLinton
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 1 Nov 2017
Gender: Female
Posts: 71,062
Location: Chez Quis

11 Jun 2024, 10:47 pm

:lol:

It is possible ...


_________________
And in the end, the love you take is equal to the love you make.


flat_affect
Blue Jay
Blue Jay

User avatar

Joined: 25 Feb 2024
Age: 56
Gender: Male
Posts: 77
Location: Florida

12 Jun 2024, 8:25 am

Oh, no 8O You were actually trying to tell me you're sick, and I was playing word association games? That certainly sounds like something I'd do :oops:


_________________
Aspie Quiz ND : 158 NT: 53 | ASQ: 41 | RAADS-R: 179


blitzkrieg
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 8 Jun 2011
Age: 35
Gender: Male
Posts: 16,787
Location: United Kingdom

12 Jun 2024, 9:19 am

Fnord wrote:
blitzkrieg wrote:
I have read some of his Wikipedia article and apparently his highest academic achievement (excluding his honorary doctorates) is a Bachelor of Science in mechanical engineering gained in... 1977.

His pinnacle scientific achievement is inventing a "hydraulic resonance suppressor tube used on Boeing 747 airplanes".

He is a failed astronaut having applied to NASA four different times and having been rejected with those applications.

His published works consist not of peer-reviewed scientific papers in respectable scientific journals, but 'books' - books that make money.

He is a climate change alarmist despite seemingly having no academic background in geological or climate science.

His profile makes him look like someone who profits monetarily from being a media personality whilst dumbing his 'scientific' subject matter down to the point where probably a lot of the original science is lost.
Those cannot refute the messages often resort to criticizing the messengers, because . . .

Image

Sir Magnus Alfred Pyke, OBE, FRSE, FRIC (1908 – 1992)


I don't wish to refute messages of science. I merely don't like Bill Nye and I think he is overrated.



DuckHairback
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 27 Jan 2021
Age: 45
Gender: Male
Posts: 4,085
Location: Dorset

12 Jun 2024, 1:01 pm

Image


_________________
No hay banda. It is all a recording.


bee33
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 19 Apr 2008
Age: 60
Gender: Female
Posts: 2,687

12 Jun 2024, 1:33 pm

blitzkrieg wrote:
I don't wish to refute messages of science. I merely don't like Bill Nye and I think he is overrated.

Your "skepticism" about Bill Nye is just simply idiotic. But your use of the term "climate change alarmist," in any context, is absolutely unpardonable.



Last edited by bee33 on 12 Jun 2024, 1:34 pm, edited 1 time in total.

bee33
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 19 Apr 2008
Age: 60
Gender: Female
Posts: 2,687

12 Jun 2024, 1:34 pm

DuckHairback wrote:
Image

Love it! The other Bill Nye... with a different spelling. :D



blitzkrieg
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 8 Jun 2011
Age: 35
Gender: Male
Posts: 16,787
Location: United Kingdom

12 Jun 2024, 1:39 pm

bee33 wrote:
blitzkrieg wrote:
I don't wish to refute messages of science. I merely don't like Bill Nye and I think he is overrated.

Your "skepticism" about Bill Nye is just simply idiotic. But your use of the term "climate change alarmist," in any context, is absolutely unpardonable.


There's nothing idiotic about my skepticism of that guy.

Also, there are indeed people who go over the top with climate change speculation and predict all sorts of different future occurrences as a result of climate change, which may or may not come true. And some people even get anxious about those things that are likely not even going to materialize in their own lifetimes, if they ever materialize at all. It is a topic that attracts all kinds of scaremongers.



MatchboxVagabond
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 26 Mar 2023
Age: 43
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,478

12 Jun 2024, 2:16 pm

bee33 wrote:
blitzkrieg wrote:
I am skeptical of someone who presents themselves as a "science guy" in popular culture, from the outset.

Oh come on, it's for a children's show about learning about science!

He's since gone way beyond the children's show, but that's the origin of the name. And even if it wasn't he really is a scientist. How is calling oneself a scientist different from calling oneself the science guy? Which is meant to be silly and funny. And he completely has the goods and is the real deal.


He's an engineer and not a scientist is why. I was a bit old to watch his program when it was on TV, but I did see him filming a segment where he was rowing a boat at a local lake. Personally, I found the program to be a bit much, it was probably one of the most over-stimulating TV shows I've ever seen.

Personally, I was far more interested in Mr. Wizard, more or less the Mr. Rodgers of kids' science programming. A much calmer person that took a backseat to the scientific principles that he was demonstrating.
blitzkrieg wrote:
bee33 wrote:
blitzkrieg wrote:
I don't wish to refute messages of science. I merely don't like Bill Nye and I think he is overrated.

Your "skepticism" about Bill Nye is just simply idiotic. But your use of the term "climate change alarmist," in any context, is absolutely unpardonable.


There's nothing idiotic about my skepticism of that guy.

Also, there are indeed people who go over the top with climate change speculation and predict all sorts of different future occurrences as a result of climate change, which may or may not come true. And some people even get anxious about those things that are likely not even going to materialize in their own lifetimes, if they ever materialize at all. It is a topic that attracts all kinds of scaremongers.

He's an entertainer, his previous job had been on Almost Live! a regional sketch comedy show. I personally, which the show would have put less of an emphasis on being flashy and more on giving the science an emphasis.



blitzkrieg
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 8 Jun 2011
Age: 35
Gender: Male
Posts: 16,787
Location: United Kingdom

12 Jun 2024, 3:11 pm

MatchboxVagabond wrote:
He's an entertainer, his previous job had been on Almost Live! a regional sketch comedy show. I personally, which the show would have put less of an emphasis on being flashy and more on giving the science an emphasis.


Right? In my opinion though, entertainment can sort of degrade science and I have seen clips of this guy and some of them have the graphics of a circus show.



TwilightPrincess
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 28 Sep 2016
Age: 39
Gender: Female
Posts: 24,351
Location: Hell

12 Jun 2024, 3:15 pm

If it was less entertaining, it would most likely appeal to fewer children. As it stands, it’s even enjoyable for kids who might not otherwise be interested in science.

It’s not degrading science. It’s popularizing it which is a good thing. Science is not a sacred topic. Everyone can learn about it and enjoy it on some level. Once one has a basic understanding of a given topic or once they’re interested in it, they can explore with ever increasing depth.

It’s not like Bill Nye or anyone else for that matter is one-stop shopping for all your science needs.


_________________
Il suffit qu’on regarde la Méduse en face pour la voir : et elle n’est pas mortelle. Elle est belle et elle rit. - Hélène Cixous, Le rire de la Méduse


MatchboxVagabond
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 26 Mar 2023
Age: 43
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,478

12 Jun 2024, 3:32 pm

blitzkrieg wrote:
MatchboxVagabond wrote:
He's an entertainer, his previous job had been on Almost Live! a regional sketch comedy show. I personally, which the show would have put less of an emphasis on being flashy and more on giving the science an emphasis.


Right? In my opinion though, entertainment can sort of degrade science and I have seen clips of this guy and some of them have the graphics of a circus show.

I didn't see any episodes at all until my nephew was watching them. And, it was a lot of things popping up on screen, weird noises and the segments themselves were super short. I don't doubt that some portion of his viewership did ultimately get interested in science and contribute something to society that wouldn't otherwise have been produced. But, when I have kids, they're not going to be watching that show, there are just better programs that cover the subject matter.

I'm not even getting into whether there's was, or is, merit to the science that's being covered, it's a lesser concern. Being inspired by scientific ideas doesn't need to have people avoid looking for more information and learning the truth. Plus, a lot of the stuff he was covering was topical and our understanding of it now isn't always the same as it was back then.

One of the reasons why I was such a fan of Mr. Wizard is that Donald Herbert very clearly respected his audience to be capable of getting excited over real demonstrations without a lot of gimmicks. He was kind of like a cool grandpa that had learned a ton over his career and was sharing it with me. It was a similar ethos to Mr. Rogers where the people involved with writing and producing the shows very clearly respected their audience, even if they did have to present things in ways that were developmentally appropriate for kids that age.
TwilightPrincess wrote:
If it was less entertaining, it would most likely appeal to fewer children. As it stands, it’s even enjoyable for kids who might not otherwise be interested in science.

It’s not degrading science. It’s popularizing it which is a good thing. Science is not a sacred topic. Everyone can learn about it and enjoy it on some level. Once one has a basic understanding of a given topic or once they’re interested in it, they can explore with ever increasing depth.

It’s not like Bill Nye or anyone else for that matter is one-stop shopping for all your science needs.


And yet Mr. Rogers and Mr. Wizard both managed to have successful shows that lasted many years without doing so. I'm not sure if it's possible to replicate that now, but back in the '90s it certainly was still possible.



TwilightPrincess
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 28 Sep 2016
Age: 39
Gender: Female
Posts: 24,351
Location: Hell

12 Jun 2024, 3:39 pm

^ Just because Mr. Rogers and Mr. Wizard were enjoyable and successful programs doesn’t mean that they would appeal to everyone. Mr. Rogers is for a younger demographic.

Whatever the case may be, there’s nothing wrong with variety. Different things appeal to different people. We all have different attention spans, different learning styles, and different tastes and interests. Some kids need something a bit more exciting. Others get overstimulated if there’s a lot going on.

Taking our differences into account, it’s good to have diverse options. The important thing is garnering an interest in/promoting critical thinking and science.


_________________
Il suffit qu’on regarde la Méduse en face pour la voir : et elle n’est pas mortelle. Elle est belle et elle rit. - Hélène Cixous, Le rire de la Méduse


MatchboxVagabond
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 26 Mar 2023
Age: 43
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,478

12 Jun 2024, 4:03 pm

TwilightPrincess wrote:
^ Just because Mr. Rogers and Mr. Wizard were enjoyable and successful programs doesn’t mean that they would appeal to everyone. Mr. Rogers is for a younger demographic.

Whatever the case may be, there’s nothing wrong with variety. Different things appeal to different people. We all have different attention spans, different learning styles, and different tastes and interests. Some kids need something a bit more exciting. Others get overstimulated if there’s a lot going on.

Taking our differences into account, it’s good to have diverse options. The important thing is garnering an interest/promoting critical thinking and science.

The only real difference is the level of content being provided. Pre-schoolers are rather notorious for having short attention spans. If such a slow paced program could appeal to them, there's no reason why a show for somewhat older kids couldn't prioritize the content. Being flashy is all well and good, but it shouldn't ever come at the expense of the content. Otherwise, you might as well just watch cartoons that are for the purpose of being entertaining.



TwilightPrincess
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 28 Sep 2016
Age: 39
Gender: Female
Posts: 24,351
Location: Hell

12 Jun 2024, 4:08 pm

MatchboxVagabond wrote:
The only real difference is the level of content being provided. Pre-schoolers are rather notorious for having short attention spans. If such a slow paced program could appeal to them, there's no reason why a show for somewhat older kids couldn't prioritize the content. Being flashy is all well and good, but it shouldn't ever come at the expense of the content. Otherwise, you might as well just watch cartoons that are for the purpose of being entertaining.
I loved Mr. Rogers, but he was too slow-paced for some kids. Once again, we’re all different. Some kids have ADHD or other challenges which can hinder their attention.

Bill Nye didn’t skimp on content, especially not for his target audience. It was not equivalent to watching typical cartoons.

No one is obligated to watch Bill Nye, but I don’t think it’s right to undermine the impact that he had on many people’s lives.


_________________
Il suffit qu’on regarde la Méduse en face pour la voir : et elle n’est pas mortelle. Elle est belle et elle rit. - Hélène Cixous, Le rire de la Méduse


Fnord
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 May 2008
Age: 67
Gender: Male
Posts: 60,295
Location: Stendec

12 Jun 2024, 10:38 pm

MatchboxVagabond wrote:
He's an engineer and not a scientist . . .
That's why he is called a "Science Guy" instead of a scientist.

Even then, having worked with scientists myself (mostly Astronomers and Physicists), I know that Engineers are much more science-savvy than your average person with only a HASS degree . . . or no degree at all.

Is he over-rated?  Opinions notwithstanding, how would anyone posting in this thread ever know that?


_________________
 
No love for Hamas, Hezbollah, Iranian Leadership, Islamic Jihad, other Islamic terrorist groups, OR their supporters and sympathizers.


MatchboxVagabond
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 26 Mar 2023
Age: 43
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,478

12 Jun 2024, 10:49 pm

TwilightPrincess wrote:
MatchboxVagabond wrote:
The only real difference is the level of content being provided. Pre-schoolers are rather notorious for having short attention spans. If such a slow paced program could appeal to them, there's no reason why a show for somewhat older kids couldn't prioritize the content. Being flashy is all well and good, but it shouldn't ever come at the expense of the content. Otherwise, you might as well just watch cartoons that are for the purpose of being entertaining.
I loved Mr. Rogers, but he was too slow-paced for some kids. Once again, we’re all different. Some kids have ADHD or other challenges which can hinder their attention.

Bill Nye didn’t skimp on content, especially not for his target audience. It was not equivalent to watching typical cartoons.

No one is obligated to watch Bill Nye, but I don’t think it’s right to undermine the impact that he had on many people’s lives.

Yes, he probably was a bit slow paced for some kids, but there is a massive gap between that and Bill Nye's show where they can't seem to go longer than a few seconds without hitting the dopamine button. And his show wasn't marketed to ADDers or those with various challenges, it was marketed to a general audience. I'd have far less issues with the show if it were being marketed to an ADHD audience, but this was years before the epidemic of ADHD really hit.

And yes it pretty much is equivalent to cartoons. There's some educational content that's sprinkled in, but for the most part it's not anything that involves any real contemplation or consideration and that can't be explained in a very small bite. Kids of the age that the show was targeted at are capable of paying attention for longer than that. And for the ones that aren't, this doesn't really do much good as they'd do better with shorter segments and fewer distractions anyways. It's just poorly thought out TV.

I don't doubt that some people were inspired by it, but it's a pretty bad show from an educational standpoint.
Fnord wrote:
MatchboxVagabond wrote:
He's an engineer and not a scientist . . .
That's why he is called a "Science Guy" instead of a scientist.

Even then, having worked with scientists myself (mostly Astronomers and Physicists), I know that Engineers are much more science-savvy than your average person with only a HASS degree . . . or no degree at all.

Is he over-rated?  Opinions notwithstanding, how would anyone posting in this thread ever know that?

IIRC, that was the point I was making.

Yep, engineers certainly are more science savvy than the average person, I think for the level of science being covered in the show that his degree should be more than sufficient. Especially when you consider that there were writers and presumably fact-checkers as well.

As far as over-rated, to an extent that's a subjective opinion. But, compare his show with what other children's science programming was offering at that time and you'll probably find that on the balance it doesn't give the science the same level of priority that other shows did. Mr. Wizard is a good one, but there's also The Curiosity Show out of Australia. I've only seen clips, but it doesn't seem to sacrifice the science in order to keep the attention of a typical child the way that The Science Guy does.