Cox: Sellout or Saviour.

[bigjoe]

The sellout attitude of some towards Cox is to be lamented I feel.

Astronomy and all the Sciences are getting a visual boost from people like him.

A lot of people I talk to, like him immensely and

to myself, he has raised the profile of all the Sciences to make them cool and tasty.

A lot of people I know without any previous interest in the sciences, now have one.

Even though I have been cynical of him in the past, I now feel WE need him.

PS: Just look at the sales of astro gear, going through the roof when his shows are

televised, especially in UK and Europe. HE IS VERY POPULAR.

Just my 2 cents Cheers all

[AstroJunk]

There was a study I heard about in America that demonstrated that every child that developed a passion for astronomy early was twice as likely to do a degree in science than in arts. We need scientists!

Whilst I don't find his tv shows very engaging myself, I am a big fan of his work and how he reaches his audience. I recon I would have been glued to the TV if I was a kid, in much the same way as I was with Patrick Moore.

Saviour.

[taminga16]

Having a science background I find him a little grating but a lot of people do not and he is capturing the next gen in a way that counts for them.
Good on you Brian, but don't expect me to watch your programs.
Greg.

[mr bruess]

brian cox is a superstar in astronomy who is or was actually a rockstar!

[PCH]

Not getting mixed up with Brian May from Queen?

[louisthe2nd]

Cox was in D:Ream which had the number one 'Things can only get better' in the '90s. Plus who else but a rock star could wear those sunnies?

[GeoffW1]

No,
He was the keyboard player in D Ream - Things Can Only Get Better.

Cheers

[jjjnettie]

His TV shows are watered down for the masses. And rightly so. You won't spark the people's interest if what you say goes over their heads. :)
It's a sign he truly knows his stuff if he can explain it simply.
He's interested in all facets of science, not just his own specialty.
Have you listened to the Infinite Monkey Cage podcasts? They are not only entertaining but very educational. The topics are more scientific trivia, but they do touch on deeper stuff.
He's just a genuinely nice fellow too. With brown eyes that can pierce you to the soul when he's talking to you. :love:

[sjastro]

Science needs all the help it can get whether it from the the likes of Cox, DeGrasse-Tyson etc.

The "Badastronomer's" piece on the attack on Science in the States puts it into perspective.

http://www.slate.com/blogs/bad_astronomy/2013/05/01/attacks_on_science_government_antis cience_on_the_rise.html

Regards

Steven

[blink138]

they are only ray bans are they not? every man and his dog wears them last time i checked.......... no THESE are rock stars sunglasses!
pat

[bojan]

Yes, he is popular and he gets to the audience.. especially among girls..
However, I fear that audience doesn't get him properly...

I tried for a moment to forget everything I know (or what I think I know) about science and then I tried to make sense out of all those pretty pictures offered in his programmes (and not only his, there are plenty of others trying to do the same thing) .. and I came to a conclusion that the picture of the world that could be build on that information is simplistic, somehow shaky and full of holes.. easily filled in by various kinds of crackpots and other "alternative" thinkers.

What I really wanted to point out with my post - it is not Brian Cox to blame.. it is the audience and their actual level of education and attitudes - He is only trying (and doing) his best, in a given circumstances..

[jjjnettie]

:) And if he sparks an interest in science with the girls, that can only be a good thing. Right?
At the last talk I attended though, the men out numbered the women easily 10:1. Showing his work at CERN certainly outweighed his popularity as a TV host.

[bojan]

Of course it is good.. I am not disputing this.
But, what about someone who is equally personally attractive, but who is advocating pseudo-science?

My problem with all today's presenters like him is that what they do does not develop critical thinking... Science is beautiful, but science is also hard work.

[sjastro]

I agree but if the mission is to sell science then factors that lie on the periphery or have absolutely no relevance such as sex appeal unfortunately take on importance.

Here is a comparison to Ed Witten. Witten is the Einstein of the 21st century.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zPganhQDnzM&t=2m22s

One particular physicist ( I can't remember his name) summarized him by stating while theoretical physicists are arrogant by nature, whenever Witten walks into a room full of physicists they feel stupid in the presence of his towering intellect.

I would much rather see Witten take on an ambassador role for science than Cox, but on the basis of this video, I think Witten would only end up strengthening the stereotype that science is only for nerds.

Would Jeanette and her female cohorts swarm around Witten.
I don't think think so. :(

Regards

Steven

[avandonk]

Carl Sagan was denigrated by his scientific peers for appealing to the masses with his TV series called Cosmos.

Personally I think that Brian is doing a sterling job of popularising difficult concepts.

There will always be nit pickers that say something is too simplistic or far too esoteric.

I once saw a top guitarist hand his axe to a booing crowd. His simple question was 'show me how you can do better!' His name was Jimi!

Human nature never fails to show me what depths of mediocrity it can attain by criticising the real achievers.

It is just this level of achievement in many facets of science that gives Brian Cox a level of believability as a front person for any documentary.

If I was a cool as him in the sunnies I would be taking advantage of my super stardom level by asking for Lark tongues in Aspic with a side drink of Angels tears.

Bert

[jjjnettie]

:) You're addressing a woman who is a member of the Julius Sumner Miller fan club. LOLOL
Personality and brains trump looks just about every time.
You ask any woman on this forum what they think about Feynman and Einstein and they'll swoon.

[Barrykgerdes]

Brian Cox is a good scientist. He puts up many of his own theories that may not suit a few people.

He is essentially a great presenter of science that is aimed more towards the reasonably intelligent who have not thought about the effects of science on their lives to encourage them to take an interest

There have been many great presenters of science on TV over the years and we should be thankful that they have been given exposure. I loved Prof Julius Sumner Miller. Why is it So!

Barry

[sjastro]

Okay then............

I'll have to ask the question.
You're stranded on a desert island and given the choice of a companion.
Brian Cox or Ed Witten?

Regards

Steven

[Octane]

While we're on the topic:

The Curiosity Show is coming back (with the same presenters), but, on the Web!

H

[multiweb]

:lol: I guess the one with the bigger arms for the row boat. :thumbsup:

[Barrykgerdes]

I don't personally know either. I may prefer to risk the sharks!;):thumbsup::lol:

Barry

[jjjnettie]

That's not a fair question. I'm totally biased, of course I'd choose Brian. ;) I'd rather be stuck on a desert island with someone I know I get along with, than with an unknown personality.

[brian nordstrom]

:thumbsup: No question about it in my book , Savior .
the man does a very good job of popularizing astronomy for all , I like his style , modern .
Brian.

[blink138]

touche' nettie!
I think his science is much much better than his music!
pat

[bojan]

I think I posted this story here on forum before.. not sure.
It happened in Split on 14 October 2011, and it was a clash between the local professor of astrophysics, dr. sc. Dejan Vinković from the Split's university and dr. Charles Jackson, creationist.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=jqHNNpZyXt4

While the title of the video is "Creationists failure", I am not totally convinced it is appropriate, see for yourself (some of the discussion was in English, most was in Croatian but it was simultaneously translated into English for dr Jackson).

The way I see the outcome (after my desperate attempt to distance myself from all facts and "facts" presented during the discussion and observing only body language and general behaviour of the participants, and some comments from the public), regrettably I had to admit to myself that the creationist guy was much better prepared and better presented his view (of course, he is professional creationist, and Dr Vinkovic is not - unfortunately he lost patience and didn't serve his cause (scientific view) as he intended).

The point I am trying to make here (again) is, that you may look attractive and camera may love you (maybe this does not apply to this video), but that doesn't necessarily make your story correct and complete.

Dr Cox is a fantastic presenter, and he is doing an awesome work in popularisation of science - but much more than this has to be done, otherwise another cute guy (or girl) from pseudo-science camp may quickly undo all this effort (unless we consider the rising sales of astro-equipment as sufficient result.. in which case both sides are useful for the business).

[astroron]

Could somone Please Tell Us where his Science is wrong.:question::question::question :
Please give us some examples:question::question::questi on:
I have not seen one put forward by any of his detractors.
As I have mentioned before,Carl Sagen went through the same sort of
negativity,and is now one the most revered astronomers to the astronomical community,both professional and Amateur.
I really enjoyed the series,and would be quite happy to watch it again.:D
Cheers:thumbsup:

[bojan]

Ron,
I am not negative and there is nothing factually wrong with B Cox's science..

OK, let's take an example, this video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Due4fbAdSSU

at 4:17, Brian tells us about success of QED, and how interaction (repulsion) between two electrons can be explained by emission and absorption of photon.. totally technically correct and illustrated by two pretty skaters playing with the ball.

But, tell me one thing: How someone, without any previous knowledge of physics (lets say a politician) could possibly understand what is really going on here?
From the video, someone could understand that the net repulsion force between the two was created because one electron (player) throw the photon (ball) so electron (she) was recoiled by this action, and another electron (player) was then hit by the same photon (ball), so it (she) was pushed away.

Not good analogy to explain repulsion between two electrons in my book.


It needs a lot more reading (for example, Feinmann's book "QED: The Strange Theory of Light and Matter") to better (and well enough, but still not fully) understand what it is all about.
This is what I am talking about.

[Camelopardalis]

Surely the efforts of those such as Brian are intended to get the audience hooked, to inspire people - not take everything he says and blindly accept it, but to go away afterwards and find out more?

I think he does a great job. A celebrity scientist. The world could use a good few more. Sadly the psyche(?) of the typical example of the species buries themselves in their work and rarely comes out into sunlight to interact with the world. Not dissing their work, but in my experience few have that double barrel talent of being a good scientist and being able to articulate their successes, failures and relevance to the public in the hope of making them care.

[bojan]

Unfortunately, in most cases people accept those things for granted and go away.. very few will go and dig for more.

[CJ]

Saviour.
If you assume the technical content is correct, which most viewers, me included, will likely have to, then whether you bother to watch the programme at all comes down to whether you dislike his manner or not. Give me his brand of gentle but clearly genuine love of scientific matters rather than some overly dramatic presenter, seemingly chosen for their high impact style over their technical knowledge, better suited to the kind of show that likes to show super slomo gun cartridge ejection, every time!
IMHO.

[simmo]

You gotta keep it simple if you want people to learn.

Example. Anybody remember that old guy (somebody will know his name) that did experiments on the old chocolate ads in the 80's with the icecubes and string or the egg in the bottle trick. I used to love those ads as a kid and it intrigued my mind about science. Now if he had just talked about calculus then 99.9% of kids would have gone, huh :scared2:, and nothing would have developed in us.

I used to love listening to Dr Karl on JJJ too. He would crack me up with some of the weird stuff he would talk about but there was a serious side to him as well that he could really get into the nitty gritty if pressed and that was a really good presenting style.

You definitely need some bright shiny objects to lure the moths when presenting science so that people can slowly absorb what's going on and God knows that people will do their best and learn the most when having fun.

[astroron]

Bojan, Not much I can say too that except to say,you, who I would say have a greater knowledge of physics than me, How would you explain it to the layman such as myself:question:.
I,after looking at it a few times got the gist of what he was trying to say.
I would also hazard a guess that what you say about people not understanding what he said, could be said about most scientific programs.
I struggle to get my head around stuff by Brian Green and Lawrence Krauss, and others,re Multiverses and other Spooky Physics.:shrug:
Cheers:thumbsup:

[sjastro]

Unfortunately Science presenters are between a rock and a hard place to explain physics to the general public.
As the science becomes more complicated the analogy is usually the only way to explain the concept, yet the more complicated the concept the less effective the analogy.
Then the agenda based opponents of science such as the creationists, the flat earth people, the Universe goes around the Earth people, the electric universe supporters etc all exploit these analogies by suggesting that mainstream consider them real.
So the message is spread that mainstream actually think space time is made out of a rubber sheet or magnetic field lines are real.

Its no wonder that mainstream scientists have been the most vocal critics to this analogy base type of education.

Regards

Steven

[Steffen]

Those BBC programmes are not (nor meant to be) science lectures. They're designed to be engaging and show the fascinating side of science to a mostly not scientifically trained audience, to make science look cool.

I think they achieve that.

Cheers
Steffen.

[bojan]

I would never use two pretty girls to illustrate the problem.. too distracting :wink:

However, this is not an easy task at all... Frankly, I am not sure (yet) how to answer to your challenge in the best way - when I am ready, I will let you know.

I am working on my own better understanding of QED (by reading Feinmann's explanations, and connecting the simplified (but correct in principle) stuff he writes about in his book with what I still remember from uni days about wave functions and Schoedinger's equation and its solutions (which are basically trig functions (or, even better, exponential functions with complex arguments), describing the probability of finding the electron at certain place.. we were studying the behaviour of electron in a potential well of the semiconductor, and I must admit now that I did this then only to pass the exam.. now I want and need some deeper understanding of all this).

I am finding that those analogies offered on TV are sometimes grossly distracting to my own efforts to grasp the QED properly (not only because of pretty skaters).
Maybe this is the reason why I am a bit more fussy than usual...

[astroron]

Quote)
Its no wonder that mainstream scientists have been the most vocal critics to this analogy base type of education.

Steven, then let the mainstream scientist come up with something better:question:
Surely Brian Cox is a main stream scientist?,as is main job is as a particle physicist at CERN

If people want to understand more then they have the opportunity to do so.
Some people will always take things literally,re the use of the rubber sheet,magnetic field lines ect.
Cheers:thumbsup:

[astroron]

Professor Julius Sumner Miller. :)
Used to love them myself.
Cheers:thumbsup:

[jjjnettie]

Brian Edward Cox, OBE (born 3 March 1968) is an English particle physicist, a Royal Society University Research Fellow, PPARC Advanced Fellow, and Professor at the University of Manchester. He is a member of the High Energy Physics group at the University of Manchester, and works on the ATLAS experiment at the Large Hadron Collider (LHC) at CERN, near Geneva, Switzerland. He is working on the research and development project of the FP420 experiment in an international collaboration to upgrade the ATLAS and the CMS experiment by installing additional, smaller detectors at a distance of 420 metres from the interaction points of the main experiments. (Wiki)

Making documentaries and conducting lecture tours is just a side line. A very profitable one at that.

[sjastro]

Ron,

Brian Cox is a mainstream scientist, my point being that mainstream scientists have never been keen on one of their own to expressing theories in terms of analogies which could be misunderstood or are just plain irrelevant.

The example of the pretty girl A passing a ball to pretty girl B to simulate the creation of a photon to explain the electromagnetic force might be visually appealing for the male audience but very superficial in explaining what is actually going on.:)

Regards

Steven

[astroron]

So if it was two men passing the ball,would have that made any difference :question:
Was the illustration wrong or irrelevant in your opinion Steven?

Albert Einstein was also very prolific in his popularizing of physics and at times was also frowned up on by Mainstream Science.
He used props to demonstrate his point.
Cheers:thumbsup:

[bojan]

It wouldn't.
There is no "mechanism" behind the two electron interaction that can possibly be analogous to two persons exchanging a ball.

[Kunama]

+1 for Saviour

Obviously he has to 'dumb it down' for the masses. If he did these programs at his level of intellect most, if not all of us here, would be reaching for dictionaries and particle physics textbooks with little hope of following the conversation at his level.

Brian makes what 95% think to be a boring topic, very enjoyable.

He is not trying to convert the masses but if the programs turn a few minds to sciences instead of contract law etc surely that is a good thing.

[sjastro]

Ron,

At very best the analogy shows that similar charges repel as shown by Girl B recoiling after she receives the photon. So basically the analogy is a demonstration of electrostatic repulsion not Quantum Electrodynamics or QED.
The analogy misses out on a fundamental point, why the photon is created in the first place which is the heart of QED.

Here lies the problem, the creation of photons is so counter-intuitive that it is virtually impossible to illustrate with an analogy.:(
Its the case of having to rely on the power of mathematics to explain the creation of photons.

Physicists take the mathematics and break it down into pictorial representations known as Feynman diagrams (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feynman_diagram). To the untrained eye these diagrams look like squiggly drawings but contain a wealth of information about particle interactions.

These drawings are about the closest one can get to analogies.

While they simplify the job for the theoretical physicist, Feymann diagrams doesn't make life any easier to explain QED to the man in the street.
For example a positron is an electron with a positive charge but in a Feynman diagram they are electrons moving backwards in time.
While this makes sense to a particle physicist, the man in the street would probably see it as science fiction at work.

To set the record straight, in case there was any misunderstanding, I actually applaud the efforts of Cox and co. by taking science to the masses.
The problem is they are walking on a tightrope by making the science understandable to the public at the possible risk of misrepresenting it.

Regards

Steven

[astroron]

Thank you Steven:thanx:
I will shut up now,as I really can't add anything more to this thread.
I for one will keep on watching his programs and try to get as much as possible out of what he says :)
Cheers:thumbsup:

[Ric]

I find his programs very enjoyable.

I think he is doing a great job along with all the other presenters past and present.

[avandonk]

I was forced by my supervisor to give a twenty five minute talk with five minutes of questions. It had to be on a fundamental problem that impinged on our work.

I chose to talk about signal to noise of x-ray crystallographic data of protein molecules and how it's maximisation was critical to elucidating the solution.

Not one person in the audience was below degree standard in fact most had PhD's in science.

There were about 150 people in the audience. I started and it was obvious to me that my dumbing down of the talk did not go far enough! There was a sea of faces with eyes that were glazed over. I persisted hoping they may get it eventually.

I knew I had lost them completely when there was not one question! My supervisor then asked a pertinent question to get things going. I answered him and it was obvious he did not even get what I was talking about!

It is very difficult when you live eat and breathe an esoteric set of concepts for many years to explain them to others.

I overheard one senior scientist say on his way out 'I did not understand anything that Bert said but he must be a very smart bloke'. I wondered how he could even begin to judge, with such a paucity of any knowledge of what I was doing!

I will let you work out how difficult it is to address an audience that is relatively scientifically totally ignorant.

Bert

[asimov]

Here, let me quote an average joe-blow off the street - "Oh? he's got sexy chicks on his show? Ok I might watch it then!"

Onya Brian!:thumbsup::P

[DJT]

I still remember the Irish Comedien Dara O Brien descibing on a jodcast how he had to keep pulling Cox back from going proto nerd during one of the UK's Stargazing live shows the other year. I love that expression.

The likes of Cox engaging with the public on these uber outreach events, whether its a one off show or a high budget tv series, have a huge impact on their audiences. Apparently telescope sales trend big time on Amazon whilst the star gazing live shows are on..

Each telescope buyer in my view is a budding scientist and we need more of 'em. I was stunned into silence by my first encounter with a creationalist stating if you cant see the oort cloud, how can it possibly exist...sob...

[Jen]

Mmm I will have to think about that one :question:
Ok do I want to play with strings or play in the sand and blow bubbles :lol:
Or maybe jump out of coconut trees with Einstein to test the gravity theories
:D

[sjastro]

Dropping apples is far less dangerous.

Regards

Steven

[avandonk]

It is Dara Ó Briain and he sometimes falls back on rational science on Mock the Week to show the comedians he is still rational and in some sort of control of their idiocy!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LHqOG8p0Lkc

or this

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Avfac4zI8l4

Not safe for work!

Bert

[Steffen]

But it can lead to rash conclusions ;)

Cheers
Steffen.