3/19 This is one of the funniest xkcd's I've seen
http://xkcd.com/397
\_ This xkcd is not funny. This is one of the funniest xkcd's you have
ever seen. Therefore, you do not like laughing. ^
\_ You're an idiot |
\_ O WAU YR RITE |
\_ Yes, this is the level of the argument of the gp.
\_ MythBusters is totally bad science. The kind of bad science that
leads to "proving" theories that are completely invalid. XKCD
is wrong wrong WRONG about this one.
\_ You are precisely the kind of person Zombie Feynman would
bitchslap.
\_ My problem is not rigor. My problem is tests that don't
disprove the hypothosis. Hypothosis is "can x be done".
The test is "can I do x via method y". That may doesn't
disprove "can x be done". (Basically I'm sick of know-it-alls
telling me mythbusters proved something doesn't work
when mythbusters did no such thing. People aren't learning
to create tests and verify, people are learning "trust
the geeks on my tv".)
\_ How would you disprove "x can be done"?
\_ You can't. But you go do a lot better than "Can we go
faster than the speed of light? Well we built a really
cool rocket car and it only got to 300mph, so we are
going to say NO!"
\_ Wow, with strawmen like that I can see how you're a
much better thinker than the MythBusters.
\_ Well, it is probably impossible to show that in an
absolute sense most X cannot be done or some phenomenon
X is impossible. The best that one can hope for is that
if X was possible it would violate the known laws of
physics.
Re Mythbusters - I think they pick things that can be
disproven/proven for pratical purposes via a reasonable
experiement. I think of it as a first approximation,
rather than the final proof. Sometimes an approximation
may "promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts"
as much as a final proof will.
\_ I'm sorry, they are bad science. 0 controls.
Multiple independant variables. This kind of
stuff matters and isn't hard to get right.
Why don't they?
\_ They routinely have controls. So you don't watch
the show, eh?
\_ When did they ever call themselves scientists?
They're special effects engineers putting together
an entertaining program. Seriously people...
And the XKCD isn't putting them forth as
scientists either. Whatever you're arguing is
missing the point.
\_ Okay, so they are engineers rather than scientists
:-). In any case, the presenters are doing
"science" in that they are are verifying claims
via experiment, albeit very crude and imprecise
experiments. Sure you can probably do a better,
more precise experiment, with controls, &c. But
it would probably be far less entertaining.
If you want rigor, watch Nova.
\_ Didn't Nova do a huge string theory special?
-- ilyas
\_ Well, they had a big 2 hour special
with Brian Greene based on "The Elegant
Universe." I think they have had a few
shorter shows on loop quantum gravity,
string/m-theory, &c. with Neil deGrasse
Tyson. Most of the Nova episodes re string
or m-theory have included some discussion
that the theory may not be physics b/c it
is untestable.
\_ I don't remember Nova string theory stuff
being anything other than a huge
cheerleading PR thing for string theory.
-- ilyas
\_ Hmm. I recall the string theory pgms
as being mostly cheerleading, but not
totally one-sided. Also there was a
program on LQG, which, I think, is a
different, testable, theory that
unites GR and QM w/o all the kookiness
of string/m-theory.
\_ Who is more anoying, Brian Greene or
Neil deGrasse Tyson?
\_ Not sure, but Samantha Carter recently
said that she thinks Neil deGrasse
Tyson is hotter.
\_ You're blaming Mythbusters for stupid people. They're
pretty good at narrowing their focus and explicitly saying
what that focus is. Instead of mental wanking (like people
asking about a plane taking off from a treadmill), they
actually try it. That *is* valuable, and that's precisely
what Zombie Feynman's point was. It's also a really good
shot at string theorists.
\_ Mythbusters isn't trying to prove that it impossible for
X to be done by any method. I think it is fairly obvious
from the show that the presenters pick the methods most
likely to accomplish X and then show whether X can be
accomplished via those methods. If it turns out that X
cannot be accomplished via the methods selected, then
the presenters conclude that it is unlikely that X can
accomplished. Although it is not a rigorous proof that
X cannot be accomplished at all, the demonstration can
be considered a sufficient approximation for most purposes.
The show can also be considered to as "educational" in the
sense that it teaches people to disbelieve claims that
cannot be demonstrated via experiment.
\_ Ack this is just bull. Something either is, or isn't.
You're either with us, or against us, it's as simple
as that!
\_ Does this pass for humor in your circles? |
http://csua.com/feed/