Discovery Channel "Documentary" is Shameful

[Hellbound]

Well, it has been classically used by various cryptidites (probably not a word!) like bigfooters. X% amount of the woods are unexplored, so it could be out there!

Obviously when dealing with woods the percentage is way less likely to be a real unexplored % than with the oceans. But that does not make the argument any more logical. The actual claim. There are various very good reasons why we know this creature very likely does not exist anymore in our oceans.

Let me give you a few more common examples for comparison:

"Our oceans remain 95% unexplored, a Plesiosaur could very well be living in there!"

"Our oceans remain 95% unexplored, our undiscovered distant relatives the aqua-men could very well be living in there!"

"Our oceans remain 95% unexplored, space aliens could very well be hiding in there!"

(That last one is probably more likely than Megalodon, surprisingly!)


The "our oceans remain 95% unexplored" is not only a distraction, it is a hook that rubs the "anything is possible" crowd exactly how they want to be rubbed.

Just to add to this, it's also a mostly irrelevent statistic for another reason: the majority of the ocean is wet desert. Most of the animal species are along coasts, with some exceptions. But even those exceptions tend to be in limited areas (geothermal vents, for example). Of that 95% unexplored, there's simply not enough stuff living there to support the existence of any large predator.

ETA: Not to mention that a good portion of that unexplored area is also the parts at extreme depths and pressures, where something like Megaladon could not survive. Just an off-the-cuff guess, but I'd suspect that the truth would show that we have explored about 95% of the parts of the ocean where a megaladon might reasonably be expected to exist. If it did exist somewhere else, there'd need to be some extraordinary convergence of conveniences and coincidences (think "Dan Brown novel" ).

So the actual statistic may be correct, but it's the context it's used in that makes it woo.

 

[Spindrift]

Same woo as the old "we use only 10% of our brain" ...

Actually they are different.

The '10% of our brain' thing simply isn't true.

The '95% of ocean unexplored' is true, but irrelevant.

 

[Flo]

Actually they are different.

The '10% of our brain' thing simply isn't true.

The '95% of ocean unexplored' is true, but irrelevant.

Factually different but psychologically the same argument by ignorance and the powerful action of the god of the gaps

 

[This is The End]

Just to add to this, it's also a mostly irrelevent statistic for another reason: the majority of the ocean is wet desert. Most of the animal species are along coasts, with some exceptions. But even those exceptions tend to be in limited areas (geothermal vents, for example). Of that 95% unexplored, there's simply not enough stuff living there to support the existence of any large predator.

ETA: Not to mention that a good portion of that unexplored area is also the parts at extreme depths and pressures, where something like Megaladon could not survive. Just an off-the-cuff guess, but I'd suspect that the truth would show that we have explored about 95% of the parts of the ocean where a megaladon might reasonably be expected to exist. If it did exist somewhere else, there'd need to be some extraordinary convergence of conveniences and coincidences (think "Dan Brown novel" ).

So the actual statistic may be correct, but it's the context it's used in that makes it woo.

Thanks for expounding on the evidence, I was content in leaving it at:

There are various very good reasons why we know this creature very likely does not exist anymore in our oceans.

There are actually several other good reasons aside from the ones you describe. I believe much of that is discussed in an article linked earlier in this thread.

I wanted to just focus on why the phrase "our oceans remain 95% unexplored" is used by woos (the slingers, the targets (gullible) and the "anything is possible" believers). Mostly as a hook and as a distraction.

 

[ehcks]

You're right, I am not an expert on woo. Perhaps you can explain why NOAA uses a classic woo line?

The statement is either factual or it isn't.

It's a statement of fact that doesn't mean what cryptozoologists want you to think it means.

Just because we haven't seen 95% of the oceans doesn't mean there's dragons down there.

 

[bynmdsue]

Man, now I got to wonder if Amish Mafia is fake.

And I'm still not sure what The Learning Channel wants me to learn from Here Comes Honey Boo Boo.

 

[Dragoonster]

This and the Mermaid "Mockumentary" are both absolutely disgraceful. Totally agree with the OP. There are brief as said, 4 second disclaimers that are not really disclaimers (more vague conundrums) that show up, vs. hours of actors and videos and etc. showing/guessing Megalodon.

Wildcat: so great that you're so smart that you could discern this as not real within the first 0.0003 seconds. Not everyone is as smart and well-traveled. Including the children who you submit will be better off learning about falsities. Why would they learn that, if 70% of their parents think this was an actual documentary? You're putting a great burden on them.

And tangent: to other smarty smart pants who figured out it was a mocumentary, good for you. And I guess you also eschew any dumb people less smart that saw this on a formerly respected Science Channel who they trusted to give them facts and tried to learn, with their wee brain power. Too bad that channel just ********** them.


Take some 12-year old in Miami's Little Haiti watching this, missing the 4-second disclaimer or not undertanding it (since it was indeed utterly ridiculous/not at all admission of mocumentary status), and thus believing this was a real documentary? He should know better! It's his own fault that he was duped!

Most of the world would like to live in your ivory omniscient wealthy towers. Most don't.

Edited by LashL: 

Edited to remove Rule 10 breach.

 

[Spindrift]

Man, now I got to wonder if Amish Mafia is fake.

And I'm still not sure what The Learning Channel wants me to learn from Here Comes Honey Boo Boo.

That the Learning Channel will broadcast whatever it takes to get ratings.

 

[WildCat]

Won't somebody think of the children!

 

[Dragoonster]

Won't somebody think of the children!

Uh, yeah. There is apparently no more real science channel for them. Only BS about mermaids and megalodon. As a child I learned from NOVA/Sagan and Sesame Street. Neither show gave me a mocumentary. Hopefully Neil DeGrasse's new NOVA will introduce more children to science. That is, if the show doesn't feature a two-hour "documentary" about black hole space aliens...

Again, so nice that your intellect is so well beyond falling for such BS. But not everyone's is. Not all children have the luxury of falling for a BS and then being gently taught by their rational parents that it was BS, so learned to distrust anything. Plenty of children watched this utter BS and believed it; and so did their parents; even parents who were trying to maybe only watch real science channels like Discovery.

 

[Cleon]

Uh, yeah. There is apparently no more real science channel for them. Only BS about mermaids and megalodon. As a child I learned from NOVA/Sagan and Sesame Street. Neither show gave me a mocumentary. Hopefully Neil DeGrasse's new NOVA will introduce more children to science. That is, if the show doesn't feature a two-hour "documentary" about black hole space aliens...

Again, so nice that your intellect is so well beyond falling for such BS. But not everyone's is. Not all children have the luxury of falling for a BS and then being gently taught by their rational parents that it was BS, so learned to distrust anything. Plenty of children watched this utter BS and believed it; and so did their parents; even parents who were trying to maybe only watch real science channels like Discovery.

You don't understand; the Free Market has spoken, and Discovery has won the day with their "documentary." They got ratings, and so they made money, and all is well.

All the other considerations - supporting science in television, opposing fraud, etc., - is for silly, immature, hysterical people. Certainly not of concern to skeptical supporters of the James Randi Educational Foundation.

 

[Wirelight]

I gave up on Discovery over a decade ago and as time goes on it just sinks lower and lower. No loss.

 

[Bell]

I gave up on Discovery over a decade ago and as time goes on it just sinks lower and lower. No loss.

All we need is a couple of rough men to dive her up. Wait! I just had a great idea for a new Discovery show!

 

[WildCat]

Uh, yeah. There is apparently no more real science channel for them. Only BS about mermaids and megalodon. As a child I learned from NOVA/Sagan and Sesame Street. Neither show gave me a mocumentary. Hopefully Neil DeGrasse's new NOVA will introduce more children to science. That is, if the show doesn't feature a two-hour "documentary" about black hole space aliens...

Again, so nice that your intellect is so well beyond falling for such BS. But not everyone's is. Not all children have the luxury of falling for a BS and then being gently taught by their rational parents that it was BS, so learned to distrust anything. Plenty of children watched this utter BS and believed it; and so did their parents; even parents who were trying to maybe only watch real science channels like Discovery.

You don't understand; the Free Market has spoken, and Discovery has won the day with their "documentary." They got ratings, and so they made money, and all is well.

All the other considerations - supporting science in television, opposing fraud, etc., - is for silly, immature, hysterical people. Certainly not of concern to skeptical supporters of the James Randi Educational Foundation.

Well you two have convinced me. We need to repeal the 1st Amendment in order prevent such dangerous communications.

For the children.

 

[bynmdsue]

Once upon a long, long time ago we had these buildings and inside these buildings were many bound parchments made from dead trees. They were arranged in a numerical order grouping them by subject. In one such grouping was all these wild books about the Occult and Paranormal and all sorts of out there kind of stuff and I read thru it all. Then in the very same section I came across a book called Flim Flam! and my mind was opened even wider.

But without the nonsense of pyramid power and crystals I never would have found James Randi.

So "woo" can lead to something positive but I don't think kids go to the library anymore.

 

[Gilbert Syndrome]

Discovery and Nat Geo went downhill many beards ago. I'm never suprised to see any of the crap they stick on there these days.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

For those who missed the fun, Megalodon repeats tonight, 9pm PDT.

 

[applecorped]

Well you two have convinced me. We need to repeal the 1st Amendment in order prevent such dangerous communications.

For the children.

The Fonz approves.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Well, I hadn't seen it the first time around so I just watched it for the first time knowing it was fake. That's one of the most dishonest fake shows I've ever seen.

 

[Dragoonster]

Well you two have convinced me. We need to repeal the 1st Amendment in order prevent such dangerous communications.

For the children.

Why in God's name would you cite the 1st Amendment? Did either of us claim that the Megalodon show should be illegal? That woo should not be protected as free speech?

Why are you on this forum?

I'd much rather a response had been something like:

"You've convinced me. Not all youths are as smart as me and not all their parents immediately saw this as BS. So another several million children and adults now believe Megalodon exists. As a JREF forum member, I find this disturbing."

But as Cleon notes, you don't find it disturbing at all, since Discovery Channel got great ratings and is making $$$. I'm sure Sylvia Browne has too. And Uri Geller. And L Ron Hubbard. Have any problem with any of them? Are you a skeptic? Do you care about a future generation of skeptics? I really have no idea what your motivation is. And/or, based on this thread, why you aren't in all Browne threads defending her because she makes $$$.