When the typical tv audience tunes into more
sensationalized programs, into apparently well-thought -out
science-reporting shows such as NOVA on PBS or the science news show
on the DISCOVERY Channel or into science information programs on THE
LEARNING CHANNEL, that audience probably retains a healthy amount of
awareness and even skepticism about the claims they find there. They
realize that more speculative show--by their nature. They
oversimplify in order to sensationalize. So, they distort the small
amount of science that might possibly underly the show's
conjectures.
But those more serious science shows often contain more
abstract types of distortion and oversimplification that are rampant
on in those shows. Audiences are often less aware of that.
We call these Level 2 oversimplification problems. They
are much more subtle than the sensational Level 1 oversimplifications
and conceivably are more damaging to our ability to define and
nurture scientific ways of thinking.
Many of the more high-minded science reporting shows,
including NOVA, repeatedly display the most common type of Level 2
oversimplification: constantly treating theories as if they are
absolute facts.
Most references to Evolution, especially those in
passing, are examples of this. That evolution is a theory (or set of
theories), not an established fact, is obvious to some members of the
audience. Who? Presumably many scientists. But also their strange
bedfellows, those viewers with fundamentalist religious beliefs who
are for their own reasons, and with their own problems, inoculated
against that Level 2 confusion.
But more subtle treatments of THEORY AS IF FACT are
everywhere and go largely unnoticed. For example, consider the
theories of ice ages and, more recently, plate tectonics. This
blurring is not of much help to a public that already tends to equate
theory with any old kind of personal belief.
Further, the theories--not labeled as such--are often
treated ahistorically. They are disconnected from their origins, as
if they are not only facts, but have ALWAYS been facts. Referring to
theory this way does nothing to educate the public and, in fact,
smacks more of indoctrination than information or education. Marx
would have called such presentations ideological. The seem to be
focused on creating false consciousness by-- among other
things--making what has been artificially constructed appear to be
naturally occuring and therefore inevitable: the hardest of hard
facts.
Such behavior seems more like religion than
science.
