Royal Institute Christmas Lectures

We have something in common then! Perhaps they’ll be more appealing next Christmas. It sounds as though they were something you enjoyed. It’s a shame when you find that a potentially enjoyable experience has been dumbed down below the level you hoped to receive. I often feel that about historical programmes which I wish would do more to satisfy my craving for academic knowledge rather than trying to appeal to one and all. I’m sure I expect too much as what I want to watch or hear is probably not commercially viable. Thank goodness for good journals and books!

I thoroughly enjoyed this year’s lectures. Picking someone very much in the public eye was a good choice as hopefully they will have reached more people. I’ll be interested to know what the viewing figures were.

I remember reading years ago that the RI were hoping to reach a wider audience by moving to BBC, together with using more ‘familiar’ names.

The Royal Institute do state that by tradition The Christmas Lectures are for those aged between 11 and 17 years. This year’s format, I consider, hit that brief.

I fully accept that I am an outlier

Well you’re not alone!?

My DH and I thoroughly enjoyed all the lectures. They were very informative. We have watched many of these series of programmes, and this was one of the best.

A lot of children must be very worried about the virus and the way it has affected their lives. So to have these lectures done by someone who can make them entertaining and informative is so empowering for them.

I thought they were put over very well for ALL to understand instead of someone blinding you with science so much so that they become boring and a turn-off.
I really enjoyed the one last week which was made to be understood by everyone and not just a chosen few.

I think its a pity that people think science needs dumbing down or it becomes boring and a turn off.

Its a pity too that people think you need to be one of the Chosen Few to understand science. I Just want to yell, Just pay attention, its not hard!!

But yes, I'm biased

There is a world of a difference in presenting a scientific paper revealing new research findings to fellow scientists and explaining important new science to lay-people - adults and children.

The Royal Institution Christmas lectures are not directed at professional scientists,

Yep, I'm still here....

When there are Shakespeare plays on TV, or documentaries about historical events, or operas, if someone was to come on here and say they liked them because they were simplified versions of them, and didn't really present anything difficult would that be OK? Of course not. Science isn't impenetrably hard, and you don't need to be a professional scientist to appreciate it. I was 15 when Sagan did his lectures and 12 when Laithwaite did his and tried to convince us that he'd discovered perpetual motion. I wasn't a professional scientist but I was inspired. It doesn't need to be whoosh bang.

Sorry, I think its important that people don't put science in a box that says too hard for ordinary folks

But for a lot of people science does become boring and a turn off. You've only got to look at the way people have jumped on half baked theories they've found on Facebook. They are never going to sit down to hours of research, however much they exhort us to do our own.

My daughter has had a lot of research published and has address many international seminars. She also sometimes does presentations for 10 year olds when the approach is quite different and more fun, but still scientifically correct. The important thing is to get the basic facts across and if playing games does that then play games.

Alegrias1

I think its a pity that people think science needs dumbing down or it becomes boring and a turn off.

Its a pity too that people think you need to be one of the Chosen Few to understand science. I Just want to yell, Just pay attention, its not hard!!

But yes, I'm biased

There’s a difference between dumbing down a subject and explaining it in a way that people can understand. It’s a bit patronising to say that some of us don’t understand scientific things because we’re ‘not concentrating’. Which is probably why you think Dr John is a waste of time and many people like me feel that he’s helped us through the pandemic

I've never said Dr Campbell is a waste of time but he does make unfounded and inaccurate assumptions and conclusions. ?.

But I do think some people have a preconceived idea that what they're going to hear is hard so give up too easily. Not everybody, I know. But I know this from experience.

alegrias my mistake then.
I presumed over the years that as the audience at the Christmas Lectures were all young people it was directed at that age group..

You are not mistaken PamelaJ1. I saw your post and thought the same.

The Royal Institute do state that by tradition The Christmas Lectures are for those aged between 11 and 17 years. Their website explains how they have been "captivating young audiences for over 200 years" and continue to do so.

Gosh. I'm surprised at some of the intellectual snobbery on display here. It seems perfectly reasonable to present this information in a palatable way suitable for children. There are plenty of seminars for scientists and researchers to attend.

Could this be why you think they're for children?

Adults and juniors are not seated together in the theatre

From the Ri website.

Aveline its not intellectual snobbery to think there is something between seminars for professional scientists and whoosh bang fun things for kids. Why can't seminars be for the interested amateur? That's the opposite of intellectual snobbery. I find it depressing beyond belief that there is no middle way between the two. The Ri was set up to educate the general public about science, in an era when the general public thought it was something that they should know about, not something that was only suitable for experts or children.

Di you know many children Alegrias? I'm not meaning to sound unpleasant but you seem to disparage a form of presentation that meets the brief of these lectures. They were intriguing enough to pique the interests of the majority of viewers that they were aimed at. Not many children crowd in to see scientific seminars.
An interest in science and scientific enquiry has to start somewhere. These lectures are a good potential jumping off point.

Actually I don't know many children at all.

There's two things going on here and none of them are about me disparaging anybody.

1)I think it’s disappointing that JVT was asked to do these lectures as I don’t think he is the right man for the job. The Christmas lectures are traditionally given by scientists at the top of their game who are also good communicators. JVT has done a sterling job in the pandemic but he is not a scientist at the top of his game. (I checked Google Scholar. DH has been cited about twice as often as JVT, on different subjects, obviously. DH is at the top of his game. Not a great communicator ) It does rankle too, that he is a government spokesman. Not an independent voice, whatever he says.

2)In my opinion, most general science education in this country is aimed at children when adults need to have a better understanding as well; its about bangs and flashes and things that make you go “ooohhhh”. I watched a bit of the lectures and saw someone tearing their shirt off, setting fire to a map of the world and a child blowing up a virus so that we could see what was inside. Gimmicky. There is a dearth of science education aimed at adults and children which is set at a level which does not infantilise those watching and which doesn’t make out that science is all about things that go bang. There are many people who can make science riveting for everyone without having to make things explode.

You say you don't know many children at all, Alegrias - so presumably you don't know how children between 11 and 17 react to traditionally presented lectures. Their attention wanders, that is how they react, and once it has gone, it is very hard work to get it back. An auditorium full of bored youngsters sitting in tightly packed rows within kicking distance of the seats in front of them is a powderkeg.

The adults in the audience are probably more sophisticated in their reactions, but they probably include plenty of people whose scientific knowledge is at or below that of the 11-year-olds. Explanations have to be at a level that children and science virgins can follow, and must contain a lot of graphics and/or simple and obvious experiments that illustrate the theme and - an important detail - stick in the mind

A school lesson is constructed in a completely different way from a lecture to students or people who already have a scientific background and are seeking more detailed information. Some celebrity scientists with highly public profiles can put over complex ideas so that they can be understood by a five-year-old. Others are not understood by their PhD post-grad students. If someone has already been shown to be able to put things over on the media, and are known to their audience, they are more likely to be in the former group - they are educators, not just experts.

Ah, you " . . watched a bit of the lectures " so you didn't follow a whole lecture. I haven't watched any of them yet, but I shall be ready for the blowing up of the virus when it comes, so it won't surprise me. Those children whose attention was starting to falter will have been woken up and pulled back into the narrative by the explosion - that is what is in there for.
I am not sure what purpose ripping off a shirt has - maybe it is graphically illustrating stripping the virus of its protective outer surface?

Watched any of the earlier series of lectures Elegran? Where real, actual science was presented and the children managed not to wonder off?

Sagan. Longair. Laithwaite. Look them up. No patronising of children expected or shown. People who think you need things that go bang to keep the kiddies awake and interested are patronising and underestimating their audience.

Alegrias1

No, sorry, they're not aimed at young people. They are aimed at a general audience. But everyone seems to think that the only way to make science interesting to people is to dumb it down and have things that go whoosh. For instance, ripping off your shirt in a cloud of smoke at the start of the lectures and setting fire to a map of the world .

Oops! No doubt others have disabused you upthread Alegrias but the history of the Royal Institution Christmas Lectures (unless I am wrong I used to know them as Young People’s Lectures)) is well enough known

History

The CHRISTMAS LECTURES have been inspiring children and adults alike since 1825. The Lectures were initiated by Michael Faraday at a time when organised education for young people was scarce. He presented 19 series himself, establishing an exciting new way of presenting science to young people
What was good enough for Faraday is good enough or me !
I think Sir JVT is an entertaining speaker more than capable of engaging the attention and interest of intelligent young people - his skills as a communicator have been remarked on many many times in those Government briefings.
If as you say you don’t know many/any young people you may be unaware of how to engage and inspire them.
You say
The Christmas Lectures have usually been delivered by world class scientists who are good communicators
They have included
Kevin Warwick John Sulston
Tony Ryan
Monica Grady Lloyd Peck
John Krebs Marcus du Sautoy Hugh Montgomery Chris Bishop
Sue Hartley
Mark Miodownik Bruce Hood Peter Wothers Alison Woollard Danielle George Kevin Fong
With topics as diverse (and fascinating) as these
?The engineer in Wonderland?
?The Intelligent eye?
?Gulliver?s Laws: the physics of large and small?
?Time machines?
?Monkeys without tails: A Giraffe’seye?view of Man? ?Sounds of music: the science of tones and tune?
?Ripples in the ether: the science of radio communication? ?The language of animals?
?The engineer through the looking glass? ?Signals from the interior?
?The natural history of a sunbeam?
?The planets?
?Mathematics into pictures?
?Atoms for enquiring minds: a circus of experiments?
?The chicken, the egg and the molecules?
?From Magna Carta to microchip? ?Common sense?
?Machines in motion?
?The message of the genes? ?Communicating?
?Frankenstein’s quest: development of life? ?Crystals and lasers?
?The home of the future? ?Exploring music?
?Origins?
?Growing up in the Universe?
?Our world through the looking glass? ?The cosmic onion?
?Journey to the centre of the brain? ?Planet Earth, an explorer?s guide? ?The history in our bones?
?The magical maze?
?Staying alive?
?Arrow of time?
?Rise of the robots?
?The secrets of life?
?Smart stuff?
?Voyage in space and time?
?To the end of the Earth: surviving Antarctic extremes?
?The truth about food?
?THE NUM8ER MY5TERIES?
?Back from the brink: the science of survival? ?Hi-tech trek?
?The 300 million years war?
?Size matters?
?Meet your brain?
?The Modern Alchemist?
‘Life fantastic’
‘Sparks will fly: How to hack your home’ ‘How to survive in space’
Sorry about all the brackets- no idea where they came from, but dry and “academic” they are not

I've watched lots, and some years I was there in person as a student (round about 1960), when they were also given in provincial cities.

Contrary to your views, it is possible for presenters who no-one has ever heard of to do an excellent presentation.

I am sure you could give us all lessons in being patronising and putting down an audience.