Last night I watched a series of assorted science documentaries.
I haven't done that in years.
I'm astounded at the garbage which passes for science now.
I'm amazed at how gullible the general public is, from reading the comments.

Not only are these so-called scientific videos wrong, they make assumptions and treat them as facts.
Its not how science works.

A common thread in nearly every documentary I watched last night is the fact they ask more questions than they answer. The answers they presume are inconsistent with the actual science related.

Its no wonder most armchair scientists are misinformed.
Most have no idea what constitutes actual science.
Their gullibility echoes the gullibility of the public in general.

I seriously doubt the producers and directors of these documentaries ever read a scientific paper.
Even the actual scientists appearing in the show/video are clipped and segmented to support whatever agenda the director intends.

Presentations featuring the "Science Stars" are merely meant to inspire curiosity in the general public and are often manipulative more than informative.

Its common to pass theoretical science off as fact. A theory is nothing more than an informed guess. A proven theory is no longer theory, it is fact. Science makes no assumptions because science is fact.

Couldn't agree more Tom.

I also agree. Years ago the BBC Science program "Horizons" was informative without being speculative. Now, or at least until I gave up on watching television, its become a forty five minute program, forty minutes of which was flashy graphics with about five minutes of actual information, most of which I was already aware of.

I used to watch Horizons too.

When my kids were in high school, I would send them to school with different science journals on the subject matter they were being taught in science class.
I remember helping them with homework finding the science books they were using were wrong, dead wrong on many subjects.

When I got a hostile phone call from one teacher, I stopped sending the actual science to school with them.
I told my kids the school required them to learn what they teach but much of what they taught was inaccurate if not down right wrong. I took it upon myself to teach the actual science to my kids, they love science now.
Their grades came up because they learned what the school required in addition to the actual science. I believe it was that distinction between understanding the learning requirement and the actual science which gave them the ability to recognize the difference between actual and implied.

There are people who actually work in scientific fields who assume things that are not known. These known scientists portray themselves as the authority on science but all they are authoritative about is the assumptions they base their ideas on.

Nearly everyone asserts Stephen Hawking was a pillar in the scientific community. The 'known' authority on black holes. Yet much of his work demonstrates more of what he guessed at than actual science.
A black hole is neither black, nor a hole. Matter does not fall into a black hole it is pulled onto a singularity.

Based on the assumption a singularity is a 'black hole' people make wild guesses related to their nature.

Another assumption is the maximum speed of the Universe. The misinformed idea nothing can exceed the speed of light in a vacuum. Since we don't know for sure, its a guess.

Its said the smallest possible measurement is the Planck Length. Another assumption based on our own lack of reference. It is often expressed as a certainty yet we have no actual measurements proving the assumption one way or the other.

Its the same certainty of assumption which caused people in the past to think the smallest particle was an atom. That the Earth was the center of the Universe. That a plague was witchcraft. That the Sun moving across the sky was a God.

Much of what is considered actual science is based on assumption.
The actual science known has reality results.
Problem is, we assume those real results are the final authority and fail to realize the result is linked to specific circumstances.

It is said known science breaks down at the quantum. Things in quantum have different rules, different results. Many people fear the word quantum because they don't actually understand what the word means.
Quantum is another way of saying very, very small.
Quantum science is the science pertaining to the very, very small.
Quantum theory is a theory pertaining to the very, very small.

Science documentaries use the word quantum to mean a wide range of things that are not related to quantum.
Schrodinger Cat is not a quantum theory yet it is presented as one. Its actually a thought experiment based on probability.
Spooky theory is not a quantum theory. It is a dimensional theory based on probability.

There are millions of people who are convinced its possible to travel thru a wormhole. The stark fact is, nobody even knows if a wormhole can exist, what it would look like or the properties it would possess. Yet people think they exist.

We live in a world of gullible assumption. It surrounds us. We construct our lives around it. The science documentary is but one example.

Yes, it's surprising just how much "science" that's not grounded in actual engineering is speculative, best theory only or based on abstract mathematical models and often all three at once.

I understand science moves forward using theories.
My issue is when a documentary or worse, a scientist in public eye, implies theory as fact. People just accept it because they think it makes sense.

Most of us live in a world of media. Media shapes our view of the world.
Its a sign of the times people are apt to believe anything they see, read or hear without looking deeper. We put our faith in authorities and blindly accept what they offer. ('we' as in modern, tech-connected humans)

Documentaries are intended to be non-fiction or non-fantasy. Designed to teach.
Many of us remember the school videos and films used to teach us about the natural world. We are conditioned to accept a documentary as a teaching tool.

Its common in forum communities to see people post videos on youtube as fact.
People are conditioned to believe what they see. A video (or documentary) which shows falsities, teach false lessons. False lessons which are supported by popular figureheads and so-called authorities.

Thing is, most of the scientists who actually do science are unknown. There are real laboratories making scientific break-thrus which the public are not aware. Mainly because the subjects are not popular or staffed by scientists who refuse to cooperate with the public image.

Imagine a documentary about cosmology where a scientist states black holes do not exist, then flips public perception on its ear with the actual science concerning a singularity. No studio will support such a thing.

Here's another example: Last night I watched a documentary which implied the Sun was the hottest thing in the solar system. There are things hotter than the Sun right here on Earth. Just one example is the Z Machine at Sandia National Laboratories. That fact doesn't jive with the awe the documentary is trying to sell you.

I find it all rather sad. How can we expand to a higher level of understanding as a species if we are constantly fed half-truths and supposition? We're shooting ourselves in the foot.

I think it's certainly fair to say that, even in developed countries with what would be considered a post-enlightenment "scientific" world-view, people often only have a very vague understanding of these subjects.

I remember when I got my first computer with internet connection.
At the time I was watching TV and watching documentaries.
I used my computer and internet connection to search out science because I was interested.

I started to find out most documentaries and most NEWS was inadequate and often wrong to reality. I realized the questions those documentaries posed were already answered by actual scientists.

Granted, the graphics and images used in most documentaries are wonderful but the narration and testimonials are rubbish.

I found, then began frequenting the local science center. One of my favorite science station was the Powers of Ten exhibit. It featured a video which focused on a guy on a beach towel in Chicago and changed screen size but powers of ten. First it went outward, showing the universe then it zoomed back in and showed screen views of powers of ten smaller and smaller.
Real science soon made the video obsolete. I liked the idea tho.

Recently I found a nice video which shows a range of size from the smallest to the largest. Its made by Metal Ball Studios.

Universe Size Comparison (Everything) by Metal Ball Studios
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NrRPg0pH9xc

What sets this video apart from documentaries is the fact they are not trying to push their agenda on ya. There's no narrative. Its more of an art project than a science documentary but it is accurate (right now). MBS does a bunch of size comparison videos. I find them all interesting, even the ones based on fictional stuff.

While most documentaries are garbage some are not. Some are good science. Gotta pay attention to who makes them and who directs them. Videos made by NASA & ESA are most likely to be accurate to a higher degree than ones made by commercial industry. However, NASA and ESA have an agenda and try to appeal to the general public so its unlikely you will get much in the way of raw science. You still see supposition and assumption as fact but you see more actual fact.

It's always good to be discriminating in what you choose to watch . It's certainly true that science reporting in the media has declined drastically in quality over the last ten to twenty years, along with their output on most subjects.
I quite like the vids of the German Physicist Sabine Hossenfelder, they are usually quite entertaining and informative.

Your comment inspired a question.
I don't watch the NEWS.
During a normal week, how often does science garner featured stories (not including pandemic related)?

SpaceX? ISS? ESA/NASA? Nanotechnology? Genetics? Quantum Physics?
I imagine there are plenty of stories about the disasters and breakthrus but are there stories which inform the "state of affairs"?

Ya also gotta be careful about the websites ya use for science NEWS.
.org is more reliable than .com sites.
An article in dailymail is less likely to be accurate than an article in sciencemag or AAAS.

I've clicked-thru on links provided by discovery.com and read the actual paper source only to find the discovery version is inaccurate and watered down. Full of supposition and assumptions having nothing to do with what is actually reported in the published paper or journal.

Most university linmks are worthy of reading.
http://arxiv.org/ is a website thru Cornell University.


Using Google Scholar you can search out any topic to find publications where you can get the actual references to the scientists publishing the paper. The REAL people who did the work and made the discoveries. Sometimes you even get contact info like phone nimbers, addresses and email addresses. I know because I have contacted a few.

The average 'Joe Poster' on forums will spout off all the armchair science they can find and truly believe what they write. When you reply with real science data w/references to sources they won't follow thru because they are so conditioned that what they see and read in their commercial media must be true and accurate. Richard Dawkins says its true so it must be. Stephen Hawking said its true so it must be. Neil deGrasse Tyson says its true so it must be.

I always prefer primary sources whenever possible and often visit arXiv and/or university sites. I doubt whether most media articles are accurate rather than "fluff" pieces by people who don't really understand the material that they're commenting on.

You can tell the agenda by the titling or headline.

Most headlines are designed to get you to click-thru.
They use 'grabber' keywords.
Same with NEWS articles.

Example:
Headline Source: http://www.sciencenews.org/article/most-read-popular-science-news-stories-2020

Astronomers have found the edge of the Milky Way at last
Our galaxy spans 1.9 million light-years, a new study finds
http://www.sciencenews.org/article/astronomers-have-found-edge-milky-way-size

The citation article reads

The Edge of the Galaxy
http://arxiv.org/abs/2002.09497

Even a reputable source as sciencenews.org implies fact where no fact is available.
Any documentary using this info will imply this as fact.
The citation clearly states the assumption is based on models and analogues.
They didn't/couldn't measure it.


I highlighted (bold) the NON-science words used.
Its an informed guess at best but its 'sold' as fact as a new discovery.
It will be used to set the standard of our galaxy's size in the future.
Up till now, a galactic year was approximately 225 million years. All science based on 225my galactic year is now wrong. Since the 225my galactic year was an assumption and not a measurement, that science was wrong in the first place but nobody realizes that.

The quoted text above is from the citation on the paper written by Alis J. Deason (Durham), Azadeh Fattahi (Durham), Carlos S. Frenk (Durham), Robert J. J. Grand (MPA), Kyle A. Oman (Durham), Shea Garrison-Kimmel (Factual), Christine M. Simpson (Chicago), Julio F. Navarro (UVic)
Ever heard of any of those scientists? Where's Niel deGrasse Tyson's name?
I bet he will be spouting this as fact, watch and see.

Yes, I see your point. Their research is necessarily based on models and computer simulations and is peppered by words such as "likely", "in most cases" etc. Not exactly something that anyone would be willing to rely upon but these words disappear in the science news article and is presented as "fact" when at best it's a broad guess that might or might not be the case.

I miss real programs about science.

I used to think that the speed of light was an absolute maximum, but recent research suggests that 'spooky action at a distance' means that things can apparently happen at the same time, regardless of distance.

Or can it? Maybe the actions are in a sense pre-planned? Rather like a train that will go where the rails lead it. That would be a good explanation of what happens without contradicting the speed of light maximum.

Taking that idea further it seems very likely (to me) that human beings do not possess 'free will'. Our brains are computers vastly more powerful than any we have made or are likely make in the near future. What they in fact do is take the 'best course' given the input from our senses and our memory. It's just that the calculations are so great that although we 'think' we have free will, in fact we don't!

Just mmy two cents worth.

The way I understand it, The light speed barrier refers to mass. Temperature refers to the vibration rate (speed) of mass. The faster mass moves, the higher the temperature. Mass has a physical limitation spectrum. Sorta like light has a limitation spectrum.
On one end of the scale, mass is frozen at absolute zero. On the other end of the scale mass vibration is so fast the mass converts to energy.
186,000 miles per second is the speed of light in a vacuum. Light travels at different speed in different media. Light is both a wave and a particle. It changes depending on its speed. In a vacuum, the light is so fast it is only a wave. As it slows, it converts to a particle/wave. See http://phys.org/news/2020-06-button-particles.html for the real world science.


I don't see how that applies.
Free will allows for a choice to choose the path you take.
Sometimes choices are made which are not the best choice, our senses get fooled, our reasoning gets distorted and results vary within the limitations of the possible outcomes related to the stimuli and conditions which apply at that moment and the ones which occur from the results.

In other words, actions are not standard multiple choice for a given condition. The brain often writes its own path, ignoring the obvious preset path. Its why we make mistakes and suffer consequences from our actions.
In you powerful computer analogy, it requires knowledge and understanding of condition cause and effect at all times.

Since our brains don't know everything about every thing, every where, every time it is limited to taking the best guess, the wrong guess or no guess at all. That is 'free will'.
If the brain was 'programed' like a computer, you would never make a mistake and your body would always function optimally.
Ignorance and misunderstanding would not exist.
Our brains have the capacity to think 'outside the box' which in and of itself is 'free will'
Free will also over-rides instinct.
There are even examples of people with the ability to over-ride involuntary reflexes and signals to muscles. Many people can control their breathing or calm their hearts. Many people can be ticklish at one time but not at others.
In my opinion, 'free will' is how our brains function, how we exist.

When many people think about 'free will' they align it with the religious reference but 'free will' in and of itself is how we function.

Our brains are similar to computers. It is the body's CPU. It does have sensors and actuators. In a strictly mechanical sense its very similar to a computer but 'cause and effect' and the 'nature of a chaotic Universe' requires the mind to possess 'free will'.

I think you are assuming that the sensory input to the brain is always perfect, but that is not so. If you see a child run out onto the road you will apply the brakes in the hope of not hitting it. But if you don't spot the child your sensory input will tell the brain that it's OK to drive normally.

I maintain that the brain will always take the path that seems to be correct at the time, but obviously not all the relevant information will be evident all the time.

To add to the obvious sensors there is personality. Someone who likes killing people would likely take a different action in a given situation than someone who is naturally kind. Your personality is therefore, from a science point of view, also a sensory input.

I said it was complicated!

I said



Your 'assuming' assumption about me is a perfect example of our brains not having all the information and that it would know the best course of action if it did.


My statements were adressing "Free Will" and your assumption that human beings do not possess free will.
Lack of free will and ignorance of all the facts are different things.


Personally, I pay attention to my surroundings while I'm driving. If I am on a highway at 70 mph, I'm not expecting a child to run out in the road but if I approach a car on the side of the road, I prepare for the unexpected by driving with a bit more caution.

After midnight during the last hurricane there were trees downed everywhere, the electrical grid was out, streets were dark. People were driving with caution. One tree fell across the road in front of my house. People slowed down and used the sidewalk to get around it. Then, one driver, driving as fast as usual plowed right into the tree.
A hurricane just hit, power was out, streets are dark, trees are down.
Its rational to slow down and watch where you are going a bit closer, only an idiot would truck along like it was just another night coming home from work.
The front of their car is now all smashed in abd it was nobody but their fault...because they were stupid.

I'm still wondering what all this has to do with the validity of modern science documentaries?

Lack of free will and ignorance of the facts are of course different things. My point was (meant to be) that where there is that the brain (computer) will always do what is required by the information it has available. There is no such thing as 'free will' - we do not have the ability to choose between one action or another, even though it looks as though we do. When we are percived to make mistakes by others, it is because we didn't have enough information to make the correct decision.

The idiot who drove into a tree was driving at a speed he considered to be safe (possibly under the influence?) and then he discovered, too late to stop the car, that it was not a safe speed. It's all consistent.

I stick to my theory that free will is an illusion due in part to the brain being far more complicated than we could understand for the forseeable future!