msb@sq.uucp (Mark Brader) (10/14/87)
I spot the following in next week's TV Guide: # Tuesday, October 20 # 9 pm: RING OF TRUTH -- Science; 60 min. # # Debut: Physicist Philip Morrison hosts a six-part series that offers # "a sharp look at how science knows what it knows ... from jelly donuts # ... to distant galaxies." The opener examines illusions to explain how # visual perception is imprecise because "the eye and mind want to find # continuous motion." This listing is for WNED, one of the Buffalo PBS stations, where it is right after Nova. PBS being what it is, the date and time in your area may vary. Philip Morrison is best known to me as Scientific American's excellent book reviewer, though I know there are other things I should know him for. Of course, we can't tell from this what level the show will be pitched at-- but I intend to watch at least the first one and find out.
ekwok@cadev4.intel.com (Edward C. Kwok) (10/15/87)
> > >Philip Morrison is best known to me as Scientific American's excellent >book reviewer, though I know there are other things I should know him for. >Of course, we can't tell from this what level the show will be pitched at-- >but I intend to watch at least the first one and find out. Philip Morrison worked on the Manhattan Project, which - if I remember correctly - has a profound effect on him. In recent years, besides making important contribution to Astro-physics, Prof. Morrison has spent much time working on ethical issues of world peace and nuclear armament. In addition, he has appeared on Nova and other PBS series to make the joy of Physics available to laymen. As you pointed out also, he writes book review for Scientific American (Where does he find time). Every few years (or is it every year?), he will teach undergraduate first-year physics. He also teaches grad classes, holds regular seminars and supervises graduate students. Truely a giant.
hirai@swatsun (Eiji "A.G." Hirai) (10/19/87)
In article <1987Oct13.230923.20975@sq.uucp> msb@sq.uucp (Mark Brader) writes: > ># Tuesday, October 20 ># 9 pm: RING OF TRUTH -- Science; 60 min. I desperately hope that this series will not be as bad as another science program that PBS showed recently. I do not remember the exact title but the program attempted to show some theories on the various fundamental forces in the Universe. It had the narrator climbing up a light tower and opening windows when explaining the march back in time to the beginning of the Universe. The show lacked any depth for those who were Physics majors or were knowledgeable about the field of quantum physics, and was bery confusing for those who were not. Either way, you lost out. Now, this is not an attack on PBS (I love them!) but just a hopeful prayer that this series will offer something to at least the layman or the knowledgeble person, or perhaps to both. I loved the BBC production of the _Adventure of Sherlock Holmes_! I can't get over the fact that Jeremy Brett is THE most suitable actor for the role of Holmes! Arghhh!! He's vonderfull! <Excuse me for my sudden outburst>. -AG Hirai -- Eiji "A.G." Hirai @ Swarthmore College, Swarthmore PA 19081 | Tel. 215-543-9855 UUCP: {seismo, rutgers, ihnp4}!bpa!swatsun!hirai | "All Cretans are liars." ARPA: cbmvax!swatsun!hirai@rutgers.rutgers.edu | -Epimenides Bitnet: vu-vlsi!swatsun!hirai@psuvax1.bitnet | of Cnossus, Crete
dross@umn-d-ub.D.UMN.EDU (David Ross) (10/20/87)
In article <1336@ilium.swatsun.UUCP> hirai@swatsun.UUCP (Eiji "A.G." Hirai) writes: >># 9 pm: RING OF TRUTH -- Science; 60 min. > > I desperately hope that this series will not be as bad as another >science program that PBS showed recently... > > Now, this is not an attack on PBS (I love them!)... > > I loved the BBC production of the _Adventure of Sherlock Holmes_! ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ...Except that this was an _ITV_ production! Nowadays the BBC tends to show boring sitcoms and American soaps, with the ironic result that most PBS imports from the UK are from England's _commercial_ network.
tedrick@ernie.Berkeley.EDU (Tom Tedrick) (10/21/87)
I saw the first episode last night, and it was superb. It got a bad review in the local paper, but I doubt that the reviewer is a scientist ... I guess the reviewer didn't appreciate the subtlety of some of the points that were made. Anyway, I recommend it highly.
eugene@pioneer.arpa (Eugene Miya N.) (10/21/87)
In article <21372@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU> tedrick@ernie.Berkeley.EDU.UUCP (Tom Tedrick) writes: >I saw the first episode last night, and it was superb. >It got a bad review in the local paper, but I doubt that >the reviewer is a scientist ... I guess the reviewer didn't >appreciate the subtlety of some of the points that were made. I plan to watch it again, but I was a bit disappointed. Oh, I enjoyed PM's comments about the role of observation (something sorely lacking in the field of computer sicence)! I enjoyed watching things in the Exploratorium where we hold ACM/SIGGRAPH meetings! But the sequence about Galileo, well, while neat, left me a bit cold. The problem isn't PM and this series (I don't think it's BBC). The problem is science education. I've seen Jacob Bronowski, Carl Sagan, James Burke (got his phone # from Lynn White), and others talk about Galileo and some of the other topics Morrison talked about and will talk about, but we the readers of this list are the converted. I wonder about that reviewer and what it is in science education we do and what the public expects which turns people off to science. We don't have enough scientists (and engineers) in this country. [We have an overabundance of lawyers.] How many times will we have to rehash the above? We need to move on, because that's what most of us (myself included) got into science for (those new ideas, we know the old ones from reading books, thank God for Nova). I just wonder about the `harm' we are doing to our kids to prevent more scientists. I see fewer and fewer each year with that certain "fire in their eyes," but it is neat to see it. From the Rock of Ages Home for Retired Hackers: --eugene miya NASA Ames Research Center eugene@ames-aurora.ARPA "You trust the `reply' command with all those different mailers out there?" "Send mail, avoid follow-ups. If enough, I'll summarize." {hplabs,hao,ihnp4,decwrl,allegra,tektronix}!ames!aurora!eugene
mps@duke.cs.duke.edu (Michael P. Smith) (10/21/87)
Like Eugene Miya, I was disappointed, although perhaps not deeply.
Enough about Galileo already! Is there a PBS science show that
doesn't spend an episode on this guy? What is it, a union regulation?
Regarding Burke: I enjoyed CONNECTIONS tremendously, but found TDTUC
overblown and lacking in real content. In their defense, I should
mention that both shows were essays in the *history* of science, and
not science itself.
What I liked about CONNECTIONS, and what I tried unsuccessfully to
convince my colleagues of when I found myself in an historically-
oriented interdisciplinary course, was that the big picture was
presented in a mosaic of details. He tried to simulate this in TDTUC,
but much of the big picture was merely told us in bold general
pronouncements, rather than emerging from the orchestration of detail.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Michael P. Smith mps@cs.duke.edu / {seismo,decvax}!mcnc!duke!mpslew@ihlpa.ATT.COM (Lew Mammel, Jr.) (10/22/87)
In article <21372@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU>, tedrick@ernie.Berkeley.EDU (Tom Tedrick) writes: > I saw the first episode last night, and it was superb. Hmmm. I liked it alright, but I didn't think it was superb. The picnic thing at the beginning was pathetic, and the whole optical illusion shtick was not really in line with the thrust of the presentation, which was about the importance of instrumentation. It was at least relevant. I liked the Galileo stuff, since I'm something of a buff, and I enjoyed the craftsman angle. I think he erred in not showing the tiny field of view Galileo had to put with. ( He represented the magnification by zooming from a panoramic camera shot. ) There was more he might have mentioned, such as how the crater Copernicus was tremendously oversized in Galileo's drawings ( he did show the drawing and discuss the crater.) I think this was due to his tiny field of view, which prevented him from seeing the whole moon at once. Come to think of it, this would have tied in the optical illusion stuff a little better. And why couldn't he have shown a visual recreation of Galileo's telescopic views of the moon and the Jovian satellites? I would have loved that. He could have showed the successive improvements in resolution, right down to the lunar soil and sodium volcanoes. YEAH!!! But he didn't. Instead we got talking heads. > It got a bad review in the local paper, but I doubt that > the reviewer is a scientist ... I guess the reviewer didn't > appreciate the subtlety of some of the points that were made. Well, I wish it had been MORE detailed and MORE technical. I think he ( "he" is Philip Morrison, by the way ) ended up in a no man's land where he bores the casual viewer and afficianado alike. He should have gone the whole route and made a hardcore educational series out of it, like Mechanical Universe or Earth Explored. Earth Explored! Now there's a science series! > Anyway, I recommend it highly. Ok, I'll watch. Lew Mammel, Jr.
marcula@homxc.UUCP (10/22/87)
In article <1336@ilium.swatsun.UUCP>, hirai@swatsun (Eiji "A.G." Hirai) writes: > In article <1987Oct13.230923.20975@sq.uucp> msb@sq.uucp (Mark Brader) writes: > > > ># Tuesday, October 20 > ># 9 pm: RING OF TRUTH -- Science; 60 min. > > I desperately hope that this series will not be as bad as another > science program that PBS showed recently. I do not remember the exact title > but the program attempted to show some theories on the various fundamental > forces in the Universe. It had the narrator climbing up a light tower > and opening windows when explaining the march back in time to the beginning > of the Universe. The show was called "Creation of the Universe". I thought it was not all that bad esp. since the subject really hadn't been approached in an hour T.V. show before. I don't think it was intended for the heavy weights of physics but as a layperson I thought it was reasonable alternative from the normal bull on network T.V. I'm happy that these subjects are being addressed. Things like Cosmos, Nova, and various other science productions via PBS are absolutely great. > > The show lacked any depth for those who were Physics majors or > were knowledgeable about the field of quantum physics, and was bery confusing > for those who were not. Either way, you lost out. See the above. > > Now, this is not an attack on PBS (I love them!) but just a hopeful > prayer that this series will offer something to at least the layman or > the knowledgeble person, or perhaps to both. Shows like the Creation of the Universe are not very easy to do But they are relative easy to get funding for. There is not a lot of experience in the production of these type of shows. Unlike the Soaps, Sitcoms, and stuff like that. I am sure you would be an excellent candidate to produce a original and decent science show. I know I am gonna give it a try. By the way, I missed "The Ring of Truth. Hopefully, I'll get a chance to see it.
eugene@pioneer.UUCP (10/23/87)
I walked into Printer's, Inc. bookstore last evening and saw the book
based on the series. The writing looks much more interesting as are the
sources. A couple of the next episodes also have interesting topics.
(I did not buy the book, only rarely, I use libraries more, but....)
I will have to talk to a climbing partner who works as a physicist at
the Exploratorium and will ask him for his opinions. P.S. The Nova
on the Exploratorium is more interesting.
Science isn't just sitting around philosphizing. It's a really neat process.
From the Rock of Ages Home for Retired Hackers:
--eugene miya
NASA Ames Research Center
eugene@ames-aurora.ARPA
"You trust the `reply' command with all those different mailers out there?"
"Send mail, avoid follow-ups. If enough, I'll summarize."
{hplabs,hao,ihnp4,decwrl,allegra,tektronix}!ames!aurora!eugene
Albert Eistein: The lights are on, and everybody's home.
--Robin Williamsjohn@frog.UUCP (John Woods, Software) (10/23/87)
In article <1336@ilium.swatsun.UUCP>, hirai@swatsun (Eiji "A.G." Hirai)writes: >In article <1987Oct13.230923.20975@sq.uucp> msb@sq.uucp (Mark Brader) writes: >># Tuesday, October 20 >># 9 pm: RING OF TRUTH -- Science; 60 min. > I desperately hope that this series will not be as bad as another > science program that PBS showed recently. I do not remember the exact title > but the program attempted to show some theories on the various fundamental > forces in the Universe. It had the narrator climbing up a light tower > and opening windows when explaining the march back in time to the beginning > of the Universe. I remember that show, I don't remember what I thought of it. Generally, science shows intended for non-scientists tend to be flat for scientists (or even "scientist-wanna-bes" like myself*), partly because they have to simplify things in order to convey quickly the gist of stuff that would take years to teach in detail, and partly because of a (slightly) mistaken notion that without gimmicks and fancy effects, no one will pay attention. Having said that, I want to state that I enjoyed the first show of The Ring immensely. Even if you "know" everything that he says, it is still enjoyable to be caught up in his joy of exploring and explaining the Universe. I think he conveys the facts and the feelings very well. (To someone who wondered: I don't think he teaches Freshman physics, but he does give one lecture a year to the MIT Freshman physics course; a fascinating experience that is, too!) * B.S. Physics, B.S. EECS, both from MIT. I barely squeaked though Quantum Mechanics, so now I are a programmer :-). -- John Woods, Charles River Data Systems, Framingham MA, (617) 626-1101 ...!decvax!frog!john, ...!mit-eddie!jfw, jfw@eddie.mit.edu "Cutting the space budget really restores my faith in humanity. It eliminates dreams, goals, and ideals and lets us get straight to the business of hate, debauchery, and self-annihilation." -- Johnny Hart
rsk@s.cc.purdue.edu (Rich Kulawiec) (10/26/87)
In article <1880@frog.UUCP> john@frog.UUCP (John Woods, Software) writes: >Having said that, I want to state that I enjoyed the first show of The Ring >immensely. Even if you "know" everything that he says, it is still enjoyable >to be caught up in his joy of exploring and explaining the Universe. I think >he conveys the facts and the feelings very well. I dunno; I watched it and found pace slo-o-o-o-w and boring, even in comparison to sloth-speed presentations such as Sagan's. He makes a few good points, but takes so long in doing so that I wound up using the fast forward control on my VCR several times during the show. On the other hand, this show is clearly aimed at non-scientists, and so I'm not part of the target audience. Personally, I prefer 'Connections' and 'The Day the Universe Changed'. -- Rich Kulawiec, rsk@s.cc.purdue.edu, s.cc.purdue.edu!rsk
tedrick@ernie.Berkeley.EDU (Tom Tedrick) (10/27/87)
->I dunno; I watched it and found pace slo-o-o-o-w and boring, even in ->comparison to sloth-speed presentations such as Sagan's. He makes a ->few good points, but takes so long in doing so that I wound up using the ->fast forward control on my VCR several times during the show. On the ->other hand, this show is clearly aimed at non-scientists, and so I'm ->not part of the target audience. Personally, I prefer 'Connections' ->and 'The Day the Universe Changed'. Strange. It seemed to me that he was making subtle but interesting points all through the program. I like 'Connections' and 'TDTUC' but 'Ring of Truth' was much more subtle and profound.