Dear All
I hope you are all well. A linky here for a Nat Geo science documentary a few of the UK / scientists / skeptics were involved with (and yes, me :D). All the nauseating spooky TV gimmicks are here and we have all seen and been frustrated by them for years. Fair enough, we just have to put up with that while trying to sell the message.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3SRxC5xKTF8
I wanted to post it, not for shameless self-publicity but to correct a couple of points just in case any of you encounter woo-nonsense on your cyber travels about this programme.
At some point within the programme the narrator claims that the scientific experiment at the UK castle was 'inconclusive'. This was / is most certainly not the case. At the time of filming, the experiment was still 'ongoing' but the results were very clear. If you listen closely to what is said in interviews it is clear that the predictions were confirmed and the experiment worked. So the script seems somewhat out of sync with what is being said in the interviews. However, a couple of other points to note;
1 - before the main filming a number of predictions were made to camera based on the data from previous participants (N=20). These were all confirmed by the volunteers used on the night - but this section was not used in the final film.
2 - a more comprehensive discussion of the signals was given (with camera shots of the signals) while still being accessible to a general public, but because this supported a scientific interpretation - it appears to have been dropped.
3 - all participants picked the reputedly haunted room (blind) as being the most 'unnerving' relative to the baseline room (based on psychological processes it was argued). This was predicted and fits a psychological explanation.
4 - although all had mild effects, one in three showed very strong effects of the power of suggestion and context - which is exactly what we find time and time again - although mentioned, it is played down.
5- one of the participants reacted quite strongly to 'the room' and the psychophysiology was in line with those psychological responses - this material was not used at all. The participant in question gave a very good account fo her experiences, but it was again played down in the final edit and lots of really nice material never made the edit.
Coupled to the inaccurate 'inconclusive' claim, it would appear to me that Nat Geo did not want the scientific approach to look as successful as it was in explaining these experiences, in this case. A real shame when one is trying to promote science in the public domain. Ah Well!
Try to be kind of our efforts and please realise we have no editorial, script control or any say in the terrible soundtrack / scoustic effects. All we can do is talk sense to camera and hope they use it.
I hope you are all well. A linky here for a Nat Geo science documentary a few of the UK / scientists / skeptics were involved with (and yes, me :D). All the nauseating spooky TV gimmicks are here and we have all seen and been frustrated by them for years. Fair enough, we just have to put up with that while trying to sell the message.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3SRxC5xKTF8
I wanted to post it, not for shameless self-publicity but to correct a couple of points just in case any of you encounter woo-nonsense on your cyber travels about this programme.
At some point within the programme the narrator claims that the scientific experiment at the UK castle was 'inconclusive'. This was / is most certainly not the case. At the time of filming, the experiment was still 'ongoing' but the results were very clear. If you listen closely to what is said in interviews it is clear that the predictions were confirmed and the experiment worked. So the script seems somewhat out of sync with what is being said in the interviews. However, a couple of other points to note;
1 - before the main filming a number of predictions were made to camera based on the data from previous participants (N=20). These were all confirmed by the volunteers used on the night - but this section was not used in the final film.
2 - a more comprehensive discussion of the signals was given (with camera shots of the signals) while still being accessible to a general public, but because this supported a scientific interpretation - it appears to have been dropped.
3 - all participants picked the reputedly haunted room (blind) as being the most 'unnerving' relative to the baseline room (based on psychological processes it was argued). This was predicted and fits a psychological explanation.
4 - although all had mild effects, one in three showed very strong effects of the power of suggestion and context - which is exactly what we find time and time again - although mentioned, it is played down.
5- one of the participants reacted quite strongly to 'the room' and the psychophysiology was in line with those psychological responses - this material was not used at all. The participant in question gave a very good account fo her experiences, but it was again played down in the final edit and lots of really nice material never made the edit.
Coupled to the inaccurate 'inconclusive' claim, it would appear to me that Nat Geo did not want the scientific approach to look as successful as it was in explaining these experiences, in this case. A real shame when one is trying to promote science in the public domain. Ah Well!
Try to be kind of our efforts and please realise we have no editorial, script control or any say in the terrible soundtrack / scoustic effects. All we can do is talk sense to camera and hope they use it.
via JREF Forum http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=262779&goto=newpost
Aucun commentaire:
Enregistrer un commentaire