Movies and Kiddos
Science
| August 17, 2007
| Tim
From PhysOrg.com, via Instapundit:
UCF physicist says Hollywood movies hurt students' understanding of science
Movies such as Spiderman 2 and Speed generate excitement among audiences with their cool special effects. But they also defy the laws of physics, contributing to students’ ignorance about science....
Some people really do believe a bus traveling 70 mph can clear a 50-foot gap in a freeway, as depicted in the movie Speed. And, if that were realistic, a ramp would be needed to adjust the direction of motion to even try to make the leap, said UCF professor Costas J. Efthimiou, who co-authored the article.
“Students come here, and they don’t have any basic understanding of science,” he said. “Sure, people say everyone knows the movies are not real, but my experience is many of the students believe what they see on the screen.”
And that’s not just a UCF problem. Efthimiou said students across the United States seem to have the same challenge with science. It starts young.
I'm also concerned about children getting bad science lessons from movies. But shouldn't we be a bit more concerned about them absorbing bad moral and behavioral lessons from movies?
If you haven't read the paper, I have a nice link to the preprint of it on my blog. (Follow link above) It's a relatively entertaining read for anyone with enough math background to do elementary physics. (It's not a hard paper, and that's intentional.)
Also, speaking of bad moral lessons, it's almost as if we take that for granted now. Even last night, the television was left on "ABC Family" for some reason, and there was this horrifying animated show about cats talking about and doing some things that were just atrocious. This is on a 'family' network?!?!?!
I just have to think of the brain donors who would turn it on since it was on a 'family' station, and walk away, only to hear their children asking "What's sex?" and "What are they doing with that dead cat?" in 30 minutes.
'Family'
Yikes...
By link above, I meant my name below. :-)
I don't know how they can call it the "Family" Channel. Just seeing the commercials for this show made me want to cover my kids eyes:
link
Tim...btw, I had my daughter read this entry (10 years old) and she had a good laugh at kids believing buses could across 50 foot gaps on bridges.
I can live with the poor science on tv because I can answer those kind of questions. It's really not horribly inconvenient to explain to my nephew why buses can't really clear 50 foot gaps in freeways (it usually leads to some very educational discussions). It gets a little messier trying to explain the morals and ethics in a tv show (or lack there of in many cases). That to me is a bigger concern too. A lot of "adult" shows are marketed to kids who like to think they're older then they are. For instance the entire adult swim line up on cartoon network http://www.adultswim.com/index2.html. I wouldn't let kids watch most if any of those shows and yet depending on whether you get cable or dish you can access those shows as early as 8 or 9. Too many parents assume that because it's a cartoon or on a "family" network that it's perfectly appropriate for their kids. I think people need to rely less on tv to educate and police their children's behavior. I have great respect for parents that take the time to be involved and informed about what their child is being exposed to and great dissapointment for those that let other people (or the tv) do that for them. In the long run I'd say whether the science involved is correct or not is the least of our problems.
link
Hmmm... since when was "Animal House" supposed to be a family film???
Rusty's sister Casey has a problem of her own–namely Rebecca–Senator's daughter, ZBZ pledge and the woman who made it with Casey's boyfriend, Evan. In hopes of doing her in, pledge chair Casey gives Rebecca an all but impossible (and possibly X-rated) scavenger list to complete. When Rebecca is picked up by campus police for doing what's on the list, she makes the most of the opportunity, scoring Casey's room... [1]
The people we 'invite into our living room' are becoming increasingly vulgar and crass. The classic argument that what we do in our own privacy doesn't affect others certainly breaks down when you're a screenwriter.
The retort has always been (contradicting the FCC's own charter): "If you don't like it, just turn it off." Of course, then Newsweek portrays such families as out-of-touch fanatics whose attempt to insulate their children borders on child abuse.
But increasingly, concerned parents have having to choose between having any TV at all, and being hit with tacky "surprises" in shows and/or commercials.
Tim...btw, I had my daughter read this entry (10 years old) and she had a good laugh at kids believing buses could across 50 foot gaps on bridges.
Congratulations! You've proven that a reasonably bright ten-year-old knows far more about physics than the collective intelligence of the Hollywoodites who make the average blockbuster movie. Too bad they have far more influence over her peers than she does!
I have great respect for parents that take the time to be involved and informed about what their child is being exposed to...
I do too, Michelle. I also hope that if/when I have my own kids, I can follow through on my current conviction my kids should be able to grow up in a minimal-TV environment.
Not being a parent myself I can't say I understand 100% what its like to have your children see these type things and ask those uncomfortable questions, but I can say that over the last 10 years or so it seems to me things have gone from genuine and understandable concern over some things children can be unknowningly subjected too through television to bordering on extreme paranoia that letting a child see anything at all that might be "adult" in nature is going to scar them for life and prevent them from becoming good people and responsible citizens. To me its almost getting to the point where TV is being treated like playgrounds. On modern day playgrounds we have soft foundations or thick layers of fertilizer covering every inch of ground, we have plastic wrapped around the swing set chains so kids don't pinch their fingers, we have slides and monkey bars made out of plastic because God forbid our children burn themselves in the hot sun on get a scratch anywhere.
I'm not saying being careful of what your children watch isn't warranted, but some people do indeed go to far with it in my opinion.
Anonymous!
Welcome, and thanks for your input!
... over the last 10 years or so it seems to me things have gone from genuine and understandable concern over some things children can be unknowningly subjected too through television to bordering on extreme paranoia that letting a child see anything at all that might be "adult" in nature is going to scar them for life...
I'm sorry: when was wife-swapping openly being discussed on TV ten years ago? And when did we hear the word "erection" every 15 minutes or so? And let's not forget the episode of Happy Days where the Fonz experimented with BDSM...
You give the analogy of playgrounds (and you're right about us being more paranoid there) but it's inapt. There's nothing that's gotten more dangerous about sliding down a slide or swinging on a swing (if anything it's gotten safer), so it must be us who has changed, there.
But TV has changed, and I don't see how you could say otherwise. For example, can you really say that people in the 1970s or 80s would not have minded if primetime sitcom characters openly discussed oral or anal sex?
Yet that's what you're implying here.
To me, it seems as if we're getting ever more worried -- paranoid, even -- about our bodies and health, and less and less concerned about our morals and manners.
Yet there's this (apparently pervasive) idea that TV (etc.) hasn't changed at all -- not one tiny bit! -- but people are just suddenly getting sensitive about things we've never cared about before, for no reason at all. I don't mean to be blunt, but, uh...
What *are* you SMOKING???
Ahem. Sorry.
We now resume our regularly-scheduled programming.
Based on the last part of this discussion, it looks like the rate of social change is perfect to keep most people from noticing the decline.
The comment rules will apply. Please post only once.
« Mike Huckabee's Tax Policies |
Front Page |
Page Two
| Russian Facist Youth Movement? »
|
If you haven't read the paper, I have a nice link to the preprint of it on my blog. (Follow link above) It's a relatively entertaining read for anyone with enough math background to do elementary physics. (It's not a hard paper, and that's intentional.)
Also, speaking of bad moral lessons, it's almost as if we take that for granted now. Even last night, the television was left on "ABC Family" for some reason, and there was this horrifying animated show about cats talking about and doing some things that were just atrocious. This is on a 'family' network?!?!?!
I just have to think of the brain donors who would turn it on since it was on a 'family' station, and walk away, only to hear their children asking "What's sex?" and "What are they doing with that dead cat?" in 30 minutes.
'Family'
Yikes...
Posted by: Michael Zappe on August 17, 2007 09:47 AM