As a young person, Nova provided me with a means of easily understanding subjects of science which the average person found difficult to grasp. The program provided a nicely balanced version of popular science - not to difficult - not too easy. Each subject was carefully worked by the producers into a visually pleasing presentation that imparted a passable understanding. Then, I went to college again in mid-life to study engineering, science, and mathematics. As my understanding of the basics of physics and math began to grow, Nova began to reveal its weaknesses more and more. Rather than go into great detail about how this program is worked and simplified to ninth grade levels, I'll simply make a few observations. First it is science popularized and approved by an establishment that has in many respects perverted the very meaning of what science is supposed to represent. For a strong example of this problem, research the issue of fluoridation, and you will see how science can be manipulated by money and politics until a policy no longer services the best interests of the public it is supposed to protect. You'll find very limited or meaningless arguments and alternative explanations in a Nova presentation. Real science is not clean and simple like this program. It is complex and full of doubts and debate. You will never see any meaningful mathematical explanations either, but simple graphics repeated over and over in a beautiful pattern with a droning voice that teaches us very little. We are never challenged to think for ourselves. Controversial theories that could be presented by their most ardent proponents are very rare. Nothing brought this fact home to me more strongly than when Nova attempted to demonstrate the collapse theory of the World Trade Center from 9/11. The computer graphics were extremely simplified, and there was absolutely no doubt presented that the government's extremely flawed report had holes in it that were large enough to navigate a supernova through. Very little information was presented that made good, logical engineering sense when compared to the known facts. And, when I checked the source of the digital graphics from the program, the source turned out to be funded by an organization with an agenda that was far too closely attached to the Bush administration. This is not science. There was no mention of the alternative theory that the building exhibited every aspect known to occur when a structure is deliberately brought down by controlled demolition. Nothing was mentioned about the puzzling mystery of Building 7. I could present many other brazen examples of how Nova is edited into brutish simplicity by the selective hand of its editors and the National Science Foundation. But, I think you get the picture. So, before you give these programs a nine or ten rating, go do some deeper research concerning their subject matter, and make up your own theories concerning their cut and dried conclusions. Express doubt, consider the alternatives. Debate. This is what true science is about. Nova is good brain food for those who want everything explained to them with no doubts or challenge.
I'm proud to see that the majority who have read my review do not think it useful. Thank you for at least taking the time to read it. Now think about the science instead of your emotions. It's time to challenge NOVA to do a better job. And, I've noted of late that they seem to be doing a little better this year. Think. Challenge. Learn.
