Hi.

A show like this would be popular, because of the controversy and then people would get the scientific method be default. I also like news shows like Sixty Minutes and Dateline, and lots of radio stories on NPR, which really spend time telling about an event or issue. They may not be scientific, but in the interviewees' stories, we see levelheaded discussion of scientific issues. I still don't know how we'll get the basic ideas of science presented. They're not news and they're not catchy unless sensationalized.

<< 1) A moderator would hold participants in the debate to
rigorous standards of evidence; 2) Topics debated would cover the spectrum
of "certainty" - everything from the shape of the earth to the age of the
universe, genetic engineering, animal rights, the survival of personality
after death, or abortion rights. This would enable listeners to see the
same style of presenting evidence on topics both controversial and
non-controversial, and thus gain a better understanding of the methods of
science in general, rather than just on one issue they may have passionate
beliefs about. >>