The TV presenters fawned admiringly, including the lovely Kate Humble who really should know better.
You'd think so - but it seems to be the state of BBC "science" programming. A few (well alright twenty) years ago, this kind of thing was "entertainment" (remember "That's Life" with "talking" dogs, and counting horses). That's fine, I've no problem with that. But packaging the show in quasi-scientific wrapper - is all wrong. :-(
I don't know why I'm ranting about this, except that shouldn't a programme that professes to be some kind of survey on the intelligence of animals have even the vaguest smattering of scientific method and skepticism about it?
Don't be ridiculous. We don't want to confuse the viewers with anything as complex as "facts". Besides it would get in the way of showing us cute puppies, kittens, and other random fluffy animals... :-)
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
zvi and
no subject
Date: 2004-06-26 05:23 am (UTC)And there was your first mistake...
The TV presenters fawned admiringly, including the lovely Kate Humble who really should know better.
You'd think so - but it seems to be the state of BBC "science" programming. A few (well alright twenty) years ago, this kind of thing was "entertainment" (remember "That's Life" with "talking" dogs, and counting horses). That's fine, I've no problem with that. But packaging the show in quasi-scientific wrapper - is all wrong. :-(
I don't know why I'm ranting about this, except that shouldn't a programme that professes to be some kind of survey on the intelligence of animals have even the vaguest smattering of scientific method and skepticism about it?
Don't be ridiculous. We don't want to confuse the viewers with anything as complex as "facts". Besides it would get in the way of showing us cute puppies, kittens, and other random fluffy animals... :-)