Mainstream Scientific Documentaries

[Deleted member 8431]

Hi

Yesterday, I watched a one hour documentary talking mainly about the big bang, quantum physics and the LHC in order to describe mainstream scientific 'theories' concerning the very nature of the universe.

Now after watching it for barely five minutes, I became mildly irritated at some statements. Here is what a bearded physicists roughly said (don't know his name):

"The universe created itself from nothing about fourteen billion years ago. Before, there was no space, no time and absolutely nothing. That's hard to picture but that's really what happened. It came from nothing and there was nothing before."

Everytime I watch such a documentary, there are always many beleifs that are expressed as being reality. Classic example is Hawking's "there is no God" redundant statement.

They never seem to tak about the flaws or anomalies in their theories. Everything is fine. We are about to conclude the UFT. All we need is to find the Higgs boson (which was apparently done after they filmed the documentary) and the graviton. That's all? According to them, it is.

So now that you probably understand my concern, I want to know; are those kind of documentaries meant to disinform people or are we just 'supposed' to consider what they say as being theorical despite the fact they almost impose it as Truth?

Thanks.

 

[mcb]

Try to catch the names. It can help to identify the particular agenda.

I don't know if it is disinfo or simple confusion or both. Have you read The Trouble With Physics by Lee Smolin? It offers an interesting perspective.

 

[mcb]

On a slightly related note, AAAS is presenting a webinar tomorrow entitled "Hollywood & Science: Bringing accurate science to TV and film." It appears to be members-only. I don't know if I will have time for it, but I will try to at least drop in on it if I can.

Some of the documentaries I have seen are possibly more "Hollywood" (i.e. "entertainment") than anything else.

 

[loreta]

I don't believe anymore what I see on tv. That's why I don't have a tv. I even doubt what I read in some articles of National Geographic. This can be a problem because my world is non-sense: I am like someone who is completely ignorant of everything. What little I know is from a year or so, and from articles that I read here, in SOTT. So I have to learn and fast. I have to learn from 0.

I imagine easily that the majority of the programs put on tv, are dis-information. Not all but many I think so.

 

[Deleted member 8431]

Try to catch the names. It can help to identify the particular agenda.

I don't know if it is disinfo or simple confusion or both. Have you read The Trouble With Physics by Lee Smolin? It offers an interesting perspective.

I'll make sure I catch the names next time. There was a problem with the satellite so I missed the presentation on the scientists. There was also one who was working at the LHC (CERN).

I'll check for that book.

On another note, I don't think it's confusion. At least, if they were clear (and especially honnest) about themselves and the scientific theory, they could at least inform people that it is just a theory (not truth). Seems like a big fat lack of objectivity to my eyes. Intentional? We may take it as a possibility...

Thanks.

 

[Maat]

Don't forget that scientist are human before all, and as Harrison said it appropriatly in Cs Hit List N°2 :

It's been my experience that people tend to forget that scientists are 'human' too, or more precisely, scientists can be just as willfully blind, self-serving, conformist, fearful and mendacious as anyone else. Some of them are even unabashed con men who falsify their data, or intellectual prostitutes who will produce the results they are paid to, whether they believe them or not. Just because it's been peer-reviewed, or written by a person with a string of letters after their name, doesn't mean it's true, or even remotely so. And if history tells us anything, it's that the history of science is a long history of wrong or incomplete ideas. So it's best to be skeptical whenever scientists speak in terms of absolutes with certainty, whenever they put the lid on testing alternate hypotheses. Chances are, they're simply deceiving themselves, and you.