|
Nominations and Campaigning for the 2024 RationalWiki Moderator Election are now open |
Talk:Discovery Channel
|
This Media related article has not received a brainstar for quality. Please consider expanding the article appropriately. See RationalWiki:Article rating for more information. |
| ||
|
| ||||
Undetermined[edit]
- Is It Possible?
- Solving History with Olly Steeds
- Unsolved History
- Weird or What?
- Animal Miracles
- The Last Dragon (2004 film)
- Weird, True & Freaky
- Alien Encounters (TV series)
- The Day the Universe Changed
- Sci Fi Science: Physics of the Impossible
- Prophets of Science Fiction
- ReGenesis
- The Unexplained Files (related to NASA's Unexplained Files?)
- Understanding (TV series)
- 2057 (TV series) (Michio Kaku warning!)
- Perfect Disaster
Carpetsmoker (talk) 03:20, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
- I added both Dark Matterss and Through the Wormhole, though, now that I look back, they both may have too much woo to be "good" shows; Dark Matters comes off as more conspiratorial because of the way the explain some of the crazier stories.--Owlman (talk) 06:41, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
- I haven't seen either; so don't ask me! Personally, I would categorize shows that mix real science and a significant amount of pseudoscience as "crap". In fact, those shows are probably the most "dangerous", as its scientific content gives some authority to its pseudoscientific nonsense, breeds misunderstanding of science. Carpetsmoker (talk) 06:45, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
- I have removed Dark Matters and it now sits in dubious. I haven't watched the series since it aired, but I have forgotten how many conspiracies they cover; I still believe they still have interesting and credible stories though.--Owlman (talk) 16:50, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
- I will also be watching some of these series ASAP probably starting with 2057; as much as I used to like Kaku he endorses far too much bullshit.--Owlman (talk) 16:55, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
- I haven't seen either; so don't ask me! Personally, I would categorize shows that mix real science and a significant amount of pseudoscience as "crap". In fact, those shows are probably the most "dangerous", as its scientific content gives some authority to its pseudoscientific nonsense, breeds misunderstanding of science. Carpetsmoker (talk) 06:45, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
Does anybody else think that Moonshiners should go in the "dubious" section?68.67.109.78 (talk) 12:51, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
Requesting help with cleaning up an addition of mine[edit]
I added in what I think is a useful point to make, though currently, I'm struggling with how to best integrate it, and it might be better getting help from those more experienced with a wiki-style writing flow, as I feel I've made the opening paragraph clunkier than it needs to be. Though of course, if people disagree with the addition, you can remove it instead. - Kitsunelaine 「Beware. The foxgirls are coming.」 07:22, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
- Thanks. How about moving it down to the Discovery_Channel#Crap section instead of putting it in the lead? Carpetsmoker (talk) 07:47, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
- Sounds good. Cheers. - Kitsunelaine 「Beware. The foxgirls are coming.」 07:55, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
What's bad about MythBusters?[edit]
I know their experiments were a little biased towards being good for TV, but other than that... The Moose (talk) 08:27, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
Separate Pages[edit]
Does anybody think we should do a separate page for Animal Planet, and a separate page for the science channel?68.67.109.78 (talk) 12:57, 24 May 2017
Educational reality shows[edit]
There are some reality shows on the Discovery Channel (such as Deadliest Catch and Dirty Jobs that you can still learn a few things from.68.116.124.183 (talk) 23:14, 16 June 2017 (UTC)