Uncommon XKCD L. Mythbusters experiments rarely hold up to the standards of the scientific method. Controls are basically non-existent and the experiments are regularly flawed. They DO fail at basic rigor.
I think the problem stems from the fact that “professional” isn’t properly defined anywhere. Is science valid if it wasn’t performed in a funded lab by PhD students? At what point does it become exemplary of junk science rather than hard science? Basic controls being absent means, IMO, that it doesn’t fit any proper definition of science. Motivating kids and adults to think more “scientifically” is all well and good, but promoting MB as if it represents honest-to-goodness science is bad press. Getting people excited about science, and then demonstrating a bad way to do science is counter productive.
Okay. I don’t see how that refutes any of my prior statements. Promoting junk science and then defending junk science as the only way to get people interested in STEM is a flimsy debate tactic.
If you like the show you like the show. I’m not here to poo poo people’s taste in programming. But promoting it as culturally important and “it gets kids into STEM!” is disingenuous.
But it is culturally important due to how many people watched it and reference it and it did get kids into STEM, just because it is flawed in other ways do not discount those two facts.
Getting people excited about science, and then demonstrating a bad way to do science is counter productive.
While I understand the spirit of your argument, I think you’re being a bit too pedantic in a forum where the audience isn’t primarily academic or hard science oriented.
Think of shows like Mythbusters and Bill Nye as modern day equivalents to the big “scientific demonstrations” you’d see people like Edison doing for audiences at the turn-of-the-century. They are in no way there to demonstrate an authentic experience of the scientific method because the minutiae of actual scientific research would never make good television.
That being said, Mythbusters does explain the process of how they design their experiments pretty well. A viewer who works in experimental sciences can easily spot any flaws in their methodology, and a non-scientifically inclined person would never spot them anyways.
Bill Nye taught viewers about the scientific method and regularly referenced classic experiments. Bill Nye actually taught kids the importance of rigor in doing science, and he regularly criticized junk and pseudo science in the program. But, I guess pedantry as it relates to science is a no-no now.
I disagree. Zombie Feynman completely disregarded the lack of controls and the flawed nature of their “experiments”. You can’t just whip up one ballistics gel mannequin, blow it up, and come out with a definitive answer to a question raised by folklore.
By Feynman’s own standards as a Phd Theoretical Physicist who worked on the Manhattan Project, would his Zombie counterpart’s claims exceed or fail to exceed his own metric?
No single experiment is ever going to be definitive. More rigor makes an experiment more reliable as a data point, but informal testing is still useful. It can be a “gut check”, or a launchpad for further, more formal, experimentation. Fuck around and find out is a tried and true staple of science.
Ironically the Manhattan Project’s Trinity test is a great example of this kind of testing. There was extreme uncertainty going into the test. There was no way to create a small-scale version of the experiment, no control to compare against. They didn’t know if the bomb would fizzle or ignite the atmosphere. They set it off to see what would happen, and then tweaked their future experiments and designs based on their observations.
“Professional Science” is just as vulnerable to “eh, I know what I’m doing”, bias, politics, funding, feuds, ignoring details-that-dont-fit and shortcuts, as the rest of the human experience.
That’s why we see “breakthrough discoveries” falling apart to scrutiny on a regular basis and new facts/theories are only gradually accepted into the “body of accepted knowledge” after lots of peer reviewing, reproduction, general chewing-it-over and when the old “that can’t be true” generation has retired/died.
On the other hand, quick and dirty gut-check experiments and goofing around with a new idea are a valuable way to easily check for falsification and narrow down what actual, rigorous tests might have to look like. They’re also a major source of lab accidents.
In the context of the Manhattan Project, the demon core is a perfect example of this.
I think the point is’t that they are rigorous. It is that that it doesn’t matter if they fail at basic rigour because you can teach that after you inspire the interest, and that is the thing you need to do to get more scientists and engineers.
Bill Nye is fine if you are in a country where he was broadcast and already have a predisposition towards science. That Mythbusters came at it from a pop-culture direction, and that it wasn’t aimed at children gives it a big boost.
They don’t, but they say least show a process of testing beliefs and they will rerun experiments based on feedback from the audience to see if they missed something.
And it isn’t like they are testing bleeding edge science. It is more teaching skepticism and inquiry on sayings and others information which have dubious veracity.
No it doesn’t. It purports to know exactly what a PhD scientist who was critical in the invention of the atomic bomb is thinking. Feynman would not have advocated for the propagation of junk science.
Here are some direct quotes from Feynman regarding his thoughts on the value of science:
“With more knowledge comes a deeper, more wonderful mystery, luring one on to penetrate deeper still. Never concerned that the answer may prove disappointing, with pleasure and confidence we turn over each new stone to find unimagined strangeness leading on to more wonderful questions and mysteries —certainly a grand adventure!”
“It is true that few unscientific people have this particular type of religious experience. Our poets do not write about it; our artists do not try to portray this remarkable thing. I don’t know why. Is no one inspired by our present picture of the universe? This value of science remains unsung by singers: you are reduced to hearing not a song or poem, but an evening lecture about it. This is not yet a scientific age.”
“Hardly anyone can understand the importance of an idea, it is so remarkable. Except that, possibly, some children catch on. And when a child catches on to an idea like that, we have a scientist. It is late—although not too late—for them to get the spirit when they are in our universities, so we must attempt to explain these ideas to children.”
And the full story is too long to quote, but in one of his books Feynman recounts performing his own little Mythbusters style experiment in front of NASA to show how temperature affects O-rings when they were trying to figure out what caused the Challenger to fall apart. An experiment he performed because he was getting sick of the stacks of papers piling up as the discussion went on and all they were doing was ruminating over the minor details. In his own words:
“I say to myself, “Damn it, / can find out about that rubber without having NASA send notes back and forth: I just have to try it! All I have to do is get a sample of the rubber.” I think, “I could do this tomorrow while we’re all sittin’ around, listening to this Cook crap we heard today. We always get ice water in those meetings; that’s something I can do to save time.” Then I think, “No, that would be gauche.” But then I think of Luis Alvarez, the physicist. He’s a guy I admire for his gutsiness and sense of humor, and I think, “If Alvarez was on this commission, he would do it, and that’s good enough for me.””
A lot of his autobiographical stories are filled with examples of him doing these types of experiments, big and small, ever since he was a kid. Ones without a ton of “rigor”. The same style of experiments that Mythbusters tended to do.
So Feynman would totally agree with Xkcd here about what’s really important when it comes to science, sorry to break it to ya. He was a Mythbuster at heart.
Did mythbusters not start with a hypothesis, decide a way to test it, and come to a conclusion based on experimental results? That’s the scientific method. It is science.
Of course it’s not rigorous, has tons of holes, is not breaking new ground, but it’s fun, and shares a scientific approach its viewers can relate to. If I wanted to know the truth beyond an urban legend, I’d probably just take an online opinion and base it on my own knowledge. That’s a horrible way to find “truth”. We’d all be better off (and happier) if we injected some Mythbusters scientific method into our decision making
Uncommon XKCD L. Mythbusters experiments rarely hold up to the standards of the scientific method. Controls are basically non-existent and the experiments are regularly flawed. They DO fail at basic rigor.
Mythbustets do not meet the standards of professional science. The point is that not all science needs to be done at standard set by professionals.
I think the problem stems from the fact that “professional” isn’t properly defined anywhere. Is science valid if it wasn’t performed in a funded lab by PhD students? At what point does it become exemplary of junk science rather than hard science? Basic controls being absent means, IMO, that it doesn’t fit any proper definition of science. Motivating kids and adults to think more “scientifically” is all well and good, but promoting MB as if it represents honest-to-goodness science is bad press. Getting people excited about science, and then demonstrating a bad way to do science is counter productive.
nobody calls themselves a scientist because they watched Mythbusters, but they might get interested in it through watching it. That’s the point.
I would argue that that point is weak and of dubious merit.
I would argue you’re just picky.
Okay. I don’t see how that refutes any of my prior statements. Promoting junk science and then defending junk science as the only way to get people interested in STEM is a flimsy debate tactic.
If you like the show you like the show. I’m not here to poo poo people’s taste in programming. But promoting it as culturally important and “it gets kids into STEM!” is disingenuous.
But it is culturally important due to how many people watched it and reference it and it did get kids into STEM, just because it is flawed in other ways do not discount those two facts.
While I understand the spirit of your argument, I think you’re being a bit too pedantic in a forum where the audience isn’t primarily academic or hard science oriented.
Think of shows like Mythbusters and Bill Nye as modern day equivalents to the big “scientific demonstrations” you’d see people like Edison doing for audiences at the turn-of-the-century. They are in no way there to demonstrate an authentic experience of the scientific method because the minutiae of actual scientific research would never make good television.
That being said, Mythbusters does explain the process of how they design their experiments pretty well. A viewer who works in experimental sciences can easily spot any flaws in their methodology, and a non-scientifically inclined person would never spot them anyways.
Bill Nye taught viewers about the scientific method and regularly referenced classic experiments. Bill Nye actually taught kids the importance of rigor in doing science, and he regularly criticized junk and pseudo science in the program. But, I guess pedantry as it relates to science is a no-no now.
Oo! Oo!
Now do Beakman’s World!
Zombie Feynman literally addressed that exact point!
I disagree. Zombie Feynman completely disregarded the lack of controls and the flawed nature of their “experiments”. You can’t just whip up one ballistics gel mannequin, blow it up, and come out with a definitive answer to a question raised by folklore.
By Feynman’s own standards as a Phd Theoretical Physicist who worked on the Manhattan Project, would his Zombie counterpart’s claims exceed or fail to exceed his own metric?
No single experiment is ever going to be definitive. More rigor makes an experiment more reliable as a data point, but informal testing is still useful. It can be a “gut check”, or a launchpad for further, more formal, experimentation. Fuck around and find out is a tried and true staple of science.
Ironically the Manhattan Project’s Trinity test is a great example of this kind of testing. There was extreme uncertainty going into the test. There was no way to create a small-scale version of the experiment, no control to compare against. They didn’t know if the bomb would fizzle or ignite the atmosphere. They set it off to see what would happen, and then tweaked their future experiments and designs based on their observations.
At no point during the Manhattan Project was any plutonium haphazardly experimented on with poorly designed experiments and “gut checks”.
Ever heard of the Demon Core?
Holy fucking hell.
The absolute madmen.
Scientists are human and fallible.
“Professional Science” is just as vulnerable to “eh, I know what I’m doing”, bias, politics, funding, feuds, ignoring details-that-dont-fit and shortcuts, as the rest of the human experience.
That’s why we see “breakthrough discoveries” falling apart to scrutiny on a regular basis and new facts/theories are only gradually accepted into the “body of accepted knowledge” after lots of peer reviewing, reproduction, general chewing-it-over and when the old “that can’t be true” generation has retired/died.
On the other hand, quick and dirty gut-check experiments and goofing around with a new idea are a valuable way to easily check for falsification and narrow down what actual, rigorous tests might have to look like. They’re also a major source of lab accidents.
In the context of the Manhattan Project, the demon core is a perfect example of this.
I think the point is’t that they are rigorous. It is that that it doesn’t matter if they fail at basic rigour because you can teach that after you inspire the interest, and that is the thing you need to do to get more scientists and engineers.
Is the issue motivation? If that’s the issue, then I would argue that Bill Nye the Science Guy is a better resource for aspiring scientists.
Bill Nye is fine if you are in a country where he was broadcast and already have a predisposition towards science. That Mythbusters came at it from a pop-culture direction, and that it wasn’t aimed at children gives it a big boost.
They don’t, but they say least show a process of testing beliefs and they will rerun experiments based on feedback from the audience to see if they missed something.
And it isn’t like they are testing bleeding edge science. It is more teaching skepticism and inquiry on sayings and others information which have dubious veracity.
Common dangblingus L, the xkcd comic literally explains why your take is lame and dumb.
No it doesn’t. It purports to know exactly what a PhD scientist who was critical in the invention of the atomic bomb is thinking. Feynman would not have advocated for the propagation of junk science.
Here are some direct quotes from Feynman regarding his thoughts on the value of science:
“With more knowledge comes a deeper, more wonderful mystery, luring one on to penetrate deeper still. Never concerned that the answer may prove disappointing, with pleasure and confidence we turn over each new stone to find unimagined strangeness leading on to more wonderful questions and mysteries —certainly a grand adventure!”
“It is true that few unscientific people have this particular type of religious experience. Our poets do not write about it; our artists do not try to portray this remarkable thing. I don’t know why. Is no one inspired by our present picture of the universe? This value of science remains unsung by singers: you are reduced to hearing not a song or poem, but an evening lecture about it. This is not yet a scientific age.”
“Hardly anyone can understand the importance of an idea, it is so remarkable. Except that, possibly, some children catch on. And when a child catches on to an idea like that, we have a scientist. It is late—although not too late—for them to get the spirit when they are in our universities, so we must attempt to explain these ideas to children.”
And the full story is too long to quote, but in one of his books Feynman recounts performing his own little Mythbusters style experiment in front of NASA to show how temperature affects O-rings when they were trying to figure out what caused the Challenger to fall apart. An experiment he performed because he was getting sick of the stacks of papers piling up as the discussion went on and all they were doing was ruminating over the minor details. In his own words:
“I say to myself, “Damn it, / can find out about that rubber without having NASA send notes back and forth: I just have to try it! All I have to do is get a sample of the rubber.” I think, “I could do this tomorrow while we’re all sittin’ around, listening to this Cook crap we heard today. We always get ice water in those meetings; that’s something I can do to save time.” Then I think, “No, that would be gauche.” But then I think of Luis Alvarez, the physicist. He’s a guy I admire for his gutsiness and sense of humor, and I think, “If Alvarez was on this commission, he would do it, and that’s good enough for me.””
A lot of his autobiographical stories are filled with examples of him doing these types of experiments, big and small, ever since he was a kid. Ones without a ton of “rigor”. The same style of experiments that Mythbusters tended to do.
So Feynman would totally agree with Xkcd here about what’s really important when it comes to science, sorry to break it to ya. He was a Mythbuster at heart.
You must be fun at parties
The parties I generally attend aren’t hosting salons on how great Mythbusters is at doing science.
I’m dead now.
I’m gonna spook the salons hosted at your parties, like a proper ghost.
If Mr. Wizard, and Bill Nye can claim to be science shows, Mythbusters and Crash Labs can as well. There’s a spectrum.
Bill Nye the Science Guy regularly references classic experiments and teaches viewers about the scientific method.
Did mythbusters not start with a hypothesis, decide a way to test it, and come to a conclusion based on experimental results? That’s the scientific method. It is science.
Of course it’s not rigorous, has tons of holes, is not breaking new ground, but it’s fun, and shares a scientific approach its viewers can relate to. If I wanted to know the truth beyond an urban legend, I’d probably just take an online opinion and base it on my own knowledge. That’s a horrible way to find “truth”. We’d all be better off (and happier) if we injected some Mythbusters scientific method into our decision making
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophy_of_science