PDA

View Full Version : Dumber than a 5th Grader



Mr Q
2008-May-09, 08:07 PM
Last night I watched this (becoming) infamous TV program and, once again, was :sick: with the host's comments on a contestant's right answer. The question was, " True or false, the Sun is the only star in our solar system?" Commenting on the contestant's right answer, Foxworthy then stated, "... the stars we see at night in the sky are actually from other solar systems". WHAT?
PBS and a lot of other "educational" programs on TV are also going down the drain with such pseudo-science nonsense:sad:.
Being a program targeting the education level of a 5th grader, I can't imagine what nonsense is going on in colleges today, since the producers of these idiot programs, I'm sure, were boasting all kinds of degrees when applying for the job.
What a sorry state the world is coming to when we can't even get 5th grade education right for our children. :mad: Mr Q

aurora
2008-May-09, 08:10 PM
The statement that the stars we see at night are from other solar systems is correct, although maybe stated poorly. They are actually the center of their own solar systems.

Why do you consider that to be pseudo-science nonsense?

Matherly
2008-May-09, 08:13 PM
Well, since there is only one star called Sol, technically they are not in other Sollar systems. But that's getting a might bit pedantic.

aurora
2008-May-09, 08:17 PM
I think that is a little pedantic, because stars are frequently referred to as suns. And a solar system has to have a sun.

Don't we call systems with planets as solar systems? Or is there another phrase in use, such as extra-solar systems?

BigDon
2008-May-09, 08:29 PM
Mr. Q,

Welcome to BAUT and all but Jeez mon, lighten up! You'll live longer, really.

Delvo
2008-May-09, 10:21 PM
"Stellar systems", for those who don't refer to other stars with planets as "other suns". If you do call those "suns", then there's nothing wrong with "solar".

But maybe the real problem is that not all stars actually have planets and such orbiting them at all. Just a star by itself isn't much of a system.

SkepticJ
2008-May-09, 10:58 PM
But maybe the real problem is that not all stars actually have planets and such orbiting them at all. Just a star by itself isn't much of a system.

Not really. While we can't know yet, unless this system is really freakish, virtually all stars would have something orbiting them. How many billions of objects orbit the sun? Eight planets, millions of asteroids, billions of comet fragments, billions of Kuiper belt and Oort cloud objects...

Moose
2008-May-10, 01:20 AM
Just a star by itself isn't much of a system.

Doesn't really have to be, does it?

novaderrik
2008-May-10, 09:05 AM
Well, since there is only one star called Sol, technically they are not in other Sollar systems. But that's getting a might bit pedantic.

i just had a flashback to the episode of Family Guy where Peter thought he was super intelligent because he won a game of Trivial Pursuit when Lois was reading him questions out of the preschool edition. he said that Lois's dinner was "boring and pedantic" or something like that because he saw some smart guys on PBS say it..

hhEb09'1
2008-May-10, 10:51 AM
Commenting on the contestant's right answer, Foxworthy then stated, "... the stars we see at night in the sky are actually from other solar systems". WHAT? Maybe he said "... the stars we see at night in the sky are actually from other 'solar systems' ". :)

i only ponder
2008-May-10, 05:46 PM
we have 'Are You Smarter Then a 10-Year-Old?' in the UK.
I recall: which planet has only one moon? She didn't know the answer.
The contestants are always so dumb it's depressing. So I don't watch it anymore.

Mr Q
2008-May-10, 07:37 PM
Mr. Q,

Welcome to BAUT and all but Jeez mon, lighten up! You'll live longer, really.

I can't lighten up. It's the only thing that keeps my blood flowing in old age :shifty: (I don't drink - maybe I should start?). Mr Q

Moose
2008-May-10, 07:42 PM
I recall: which planet has only one moon? She didn't know the answer.

Alderaan. Duh. :doh:

The Supreme Canuck
2008-May-10, 07:45 PM
Alderaan. Duh. :doh:

That's no moon...

Mr Q
2008-May-10, 07:50 PM
The statement that the stars we see at night are from other solar systems is correct, although maybe stated poorly. They are actually the center of their own solar systems.

Why do you consider that to be pseudo-science nonsense?

Sorry, but who knows if ALL stars have a solar system? We don't. So when he says "the stars in the night sky", I have to assume the statement means all of the stars, which :mad: me that such answers on an educational oriented program are allowed. Sure I'm knit-picking but if we don't when learning something, how will we ever know if the info is correct in the first place?
Critical thinking - The best tool in such a pseudo-science rampant society (in the media, anyways). I say pseudo-science because of other such idiotic statements on TV, like Bill Nyes, the science guy, who stated on his show that fossil fuels come from dinosaur bones:doh:. :naughty::hand::shhh: I say to such pseudo-science. Mr Q

Moose
2008-May-10, 09:43 PM
Sorry, but who knows if ALL stars have a solar system?


The Solar System (or Solar system, solar system[a] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_System#endnote_Anone)) consists of the Sun (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sun) and those celestial objects (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Astronomical_object) bound to it by gravity (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravity).


The sun together with all the planets and other bodies that revolve around it.

Now, these definitions are specific to our solar system (they usually have secondary definitions referring to "similar" systems to our own). But what I want you to note is the star is always included within the system, as are everything else that happens to be orbiting it, including wandering dust and solar ejecta.

A single star with nothing orbiting it would still be a solar system.

Veeger
2008-May-10, 10:37 PM
So when he says "the stars in the night sky", I have to assume the statement means all of the stars, which :mad: me that such answers on an educational oriented program are allowed.

He said "all the stars we see at night", which, if he was implying "all the stars we see at night from our studios in L.A." then he was only talking about 4 or 5 tops.

:)

-V

aurora
2008-May-12, 12:24 AM
Sorry, but who knows if ALL stars have a solar system? We don't. So when he says "the stars in the night sky", I have to assume the statement means all of the stars, which :mad: me that such answers on an educational oriented program are allowed.

I'm confused. Is the whole point of this thread that you think he should have said that we do not know yet whether all stars have planets?

I'd think it a pretty good bet that most or even almost all stars have planets.

jamesabrown
2008-May-13, 03:30 PM
I'm confused. Is the whole point of this thread that you think he should have said that we do not know yet whether all stars have planets?

I'd think it a pretty good bet that most or even almost all stars have planets.

Whether they have planets or not, it's a better bet that all stars have at minimum a disk. Since stars by definition form from collapsed dust fields, it would be some kind of physics to find a star with absolutely nothing orbiting it. Whether all stars have enough debris and enough time to form planets remains to be seen on a case-by-case basis.

tdvance
2008-May-13, 05:01 PM
collapsed "gas fields" actually--remember there are plenty of first-generation stars left. ok, they might have all-ice comets or something though.

Mr Q
2008-May-18, 02:58 AM
I'm confused. Is the whole point of this thread that you think he should have said that we do not know yet whether all stars have planets?

I'd think it a pretty good bet that most or even almost all stars have planets.

My point was that how do we know if EVERY star has anything orbiting it? There is no possible way to find this out definitively. So he should have said, "Some of those stars in the night sky....", NOT ALL the stars. It's this type of general statement that is usually wrong because the originator did not check into the background of the facts stated. The show gives the impression that all its answers to its questions are correct, which some are not. So who is going to make a big deal when something incorrect is said? Myself, for one. I say :hand: to these stupid TV game shows. Too many people are using these game shows for their source of education. They would be better going out at night and gazing at the stars (with all their solar systems) :doh: Mr Q

darkhunter
2008-May-18, 04:27 PM
The producers of the show will just say that its about what a Fifth Grader should know...but even at that age they should be able to understand (and thus be taught) that some stars have planets, some don't, and others have just dust or other small stuff...

aurora
2008-May-18, 06:37 PM
My point was that how do we know if EVERY star has anything orbiting it? There is no possible way to find this out definitively. So he should have said, "Some of those stars in the night sky....", NOT ALL the stars.


The phrase "much ado about nothing" comes to mind in reference to this thread.

Peace Makes Plenty
2008-May-19, 03:57 PM
"True or false, the Sun is the only star in our solar system?"

True, as far as we know. Although it has been suggested that theres a brown dwarf on the outer edges.

You're not objecting to that, surely?


"...the stars we see at night in the sky are actually from other solar systems".

Okay, i've read it 3 times now, Mr Q. I simply do not see your objection to the 2nd statement.

Mr Q
2008-May-20, 09:08 PM
True, as far as we know. Although it has been suggested that theres a brown dwarf on the outer edges.

You're not objecting to that, surely?



Okay, i've read it 3 times now, Mr Q. I simply do not see your objection to the 2nd statement.

My only objection is that the words "most of " the stars...." should have been added or "some of" so that the statement does not refer to every star in the galaxy, which we can not determine directly as being so. Maybe most of the stars do have a solar system (planets, etc.) but "all"? Every one? How can we know this with our current technology? Mr Q

P.S. Although I think the kids on the show are smart, some of the guests and people behind the scenes in producing the program are not, allowing such statements to be aired.

Peace Makes Plenty
2008-May-21, 10:32 AM
Ah, i think i see now what you are driving at.

I would say that the only thing that defines a 'solar system' is its star. It does not neccessarily need any orbiting bodies to be described as such.

Mr Q
2008-May-23, 06:09 PM
The producers of the show will just say that its about what a Fifth Grader should know...but even at that age they should be able to understand (and thus be taught) that some stars have planets, some don't, and others have just dust or other small stuff...

This is my point exactly. The key word here is "SOME", not all but some. Just like our Sun has a system of planets orbiting around it (what a 5th grader would be taught) and other smaller objects, it's the planets orbiting other stars that, to me, would classify the system as "solar", in the minds of a 5th grader. I doubt very much if a 5th grader is taught about the smaller objects, if any, around any particular star.
Sure, we all agree that probably all stars have something orbiting around them and that most of them may even have planets in their systems but "all" (every one) having planets? This may be alright for a theory but stated as a fact? I believe that most 5th graders are taught that "solar systems" at least include planets. In other words, if a star has no planets orbiting around it, to a 5th grader, that star has no solar system. We adults may include those minor objects in our definitions but I doubt a 5th grader would.
I have to point out that the issue here is about 5th grade levels of education, not the kind of level of knowledge that would be expected on a show like Jeopardy.
I hope this explains my argument with some of the previous post replies. Mr Q

formulaterp
2008-May-23, 07:09 PM
Just like our Sun has a system of planets orbiting around it (what a 5th grader would be taught) and other smaller objects, it's the planets orbiting other stars that, to me, would classify the system as "solar", in the minds of a 5th grader.

Wait, so you are suggesting that the existence of planets makes something "Solar"? Solar means relating to the Sun, it has nothing to do with planets.


I doubt very much if a 5th grader is taught about the smaller objects, if any, around any particular star.

I would wager 5th graders have a passing familiarity with asteroids and comets, not just planets.


In other words, if a star has no planets orbiting around it, to a 5th grader, that star has no solar system.

Stars don't HAVE solar systems, they are a part of such systems.

parallaxicality
2008-May-24, 01:27 PM
Personally, I think Jupiter is a star, so I would probably have said, "Depends..."

Besides, arguing over such fine points is kinda silly when discussing that show, especially when compared to incidents such as this (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ANTDkfkoBaI).

Mr Q
2008-May-24, 06:12 PM
I originally started watching this show figuring that the 5th graders were NOT as smart as the contestants. Where I got that idea from, who knows. But yes, it's getting to the point that arguing any longer on solar systems definitions is starting to get my head spinning. I thought my original point was clear and simple enough but I guess I was wrong.
I guess that means I'm NOT smarter than a typical BAUT poster. If so, where's my money so I can go home, look up into the night sky and wonder about all those solar systems in the galaxy. Mr Q