this post was submitted on 19 Jun 2024
21 points (74.4% liked)
Skeptic
1247 readers
8 users here now
A community for Scientific Skepticism:
Scientific skepticism or rational skepticism, sometimes referred to as skeptical inquiry, is a position in which one questions the veracity of claims lacking empirical evidence.
Do not confuse this with General Skepticism, Philosophical Skepticism, or Denialism.
Things we like:
- Civility
- Thoughtful discussion based on evidence and facts
- Humor
Things we don't like:
- Personal attacks or disrespectful attitude
- Wild speculation on events with no evidence
- Low-effort comments and posts
Other communities of interest:
"A wise man proportions his belief to the evidence." -David Hume
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Please read more carefully.
My claim is that making the animal sounds clearer so that there is no confusion for the listener is not garbage under any definition.
Replacing the original with a better representation is exactly what you want for education.
Am I learning the sound of a finch or a cardinal? How can I learn if both are singing at the same time because that's what actually happened in the real life filming?
And if that were the only thing I said, you'd have a point.
It was far from the only thing I said.
In fact, you're even misrepresenting that part of what I said. I said that occasionally software is used to clarify audio. Far more often, it's just added in post from a sound effect library or foley artist. It may not even be a noise that animal ever makes.
I didn't claim it was only cleaning the audio. It was my intention that an artificial substitution can the best thing to do for education.
Your original post didn't mention that the wrong sounds are used. That's completely different.
My post did mention other things that you decided not to bring up- namely the bias of the production team and the tone of the narrator.
I mentioned those first specifically because they were the most important.
I could point out that music also creates an artificial mood which might not reflect the reality of what was shot.
Which I already addressed by claiming professors have bias even in hard sciences.
Professors have academic expertise in their subject and try to bring it to bear in their papers.
Producers want the best reaction to get viewers so that the documentary makes money.
They have slightly different goals.
I'm amazed you aren't aware of the fact that the primary purpose of most documentaries is to make money, either directly in theaters or indirectly by bringing viewers in the TV channel or streaming service.
That's a fair point. However I don't think that a profit motive automatically excludes education.
Automatically? No. But that's, as I said, why you can't trust a documentary. How will you know that you're getting an actual education.
If you don't think that's a problem, you should check out how many people got fooled into thinking What the Bleep Do We Know was an actual documentary about quantum physics. They even interviewed some physicists (without letting them know who they were) and cut their interviews to make it look like they were supporting the documentary's ideas.
And then it got into theaters nationwide and made a bunch of money and many people to this day believe the nonsense in that film.
Why wouldn't they believe it? It sounded true, it was being presented authoritatively.