"Unscientific" Discussion

[gmalivuk]

http://xkcd.com/397/

Alt text: Last week, we busted the myth that electroweak gague symmetry is broken by the Higgs mechanism. We'll also examine the existence of God and whether true love exists.
---
While I kind of agree with the zombie's point that testing things experimentally is the core of all science, it's also true that Mythbusters lacks pretty significantly in the rigor department. Also, does anyone else ever feel like they sometimes test "myths" that no one actually ever heard of before that episode aired?

Edit: also, it seems the forum clock is off by like 8 minutes, relative both to my own computer and to when this new comic went up...

[ICDB]

Oh hush, who doesn't love mythbusters!?

Although it is true episodes have a tendency of degrading into exploding things. But that's cool too!

[hipp5]

The show is good for proving myths true, because once we've seen it once we know it can happen. It definitely fails at proving myths wrong though.

[AstralRunner]

The decomposition must be damaging Feynman's brain. You'd never find string theorists in a lab.

[Contrabass]

Also, what's the deal with testing "myths" that no one actually ever heard of before that episode aired?

You have to keep a good series alive somehow. Unlike the vast majority of TV programs, it makes people think.

[aleflamedyud]

BRRRAAAAIIIIINNNNNSSSSS!!!! Zombie Feynman is my new favorite superhero.

Randall, if you can hear me, can you do another zombie comic next Wednesday to commemorate the second game of Humans vs. Zombies played at UMass? KTHXBAI.

The decomposition must be damaging Feynman's brain. You'd never find string theorists in a lab.

Don't you read Sluggy Freelance? To keep his wits about him, he must eat the wits about him. Hence seeking after a ready source of BRRRAAAAIIIINNNNSSSSS!

[gormster]

The decomposition must be damaging Feynman's brain. You'd never find string theorists in a lab.

I could be mean here and say you'd find them in a church, but honestly I think string theory is the best explanation we've got right now, even if it's basically a step down from "god did it".

And I fucking love Mythbusters. People complain because there are things they missed (including me) but hey, have you never done any experiment where you missed something? Let he who is without sin cast the first stone, said Graham Chapman.

[william]

No "braaaaaaaanes" joke?

[ysth]

While Richard is quite familiar to me, I felt obliged to google "zombie feynman" to see if this was a widely used way to posthumously refer to him and got a laugh. His top four friends were particularly amusing.

[e946]

I love how a zombie bursts in and the girl is able to continue her argument without missing a beat.

[Azrael001]

The xkcd homepage doesn't yet link to this comic for me, I have got to go back then forward twice. Irritation.

[gmalivuk]

No "braaaaaaaanes" joke?

I thought that's what was implied in the last panel. Why else would it mention physics and string theorists in particular?

[Linux0s]

I love how a zombie bursts in and the girl is able to continue her argument without missing a beat.

Hahaha!!! No doubt. Maybe they should try to bust that myth.

[mudge]

Sweet Zombie Feynman! Is that the girl from http://xkcd.com/377/?

[mudge]

No "braaaaaaaanes" joke?

I thought that's what was implied in the last panel. Why else would it mention physics and string theorists in particular?

I'm pretty sure it was just a diss against brainless string theorists

edit: Dammit. anti-ninja'd. I was pretty sure someone was going to post as I was writing this and I wouldn't be double posting.

[bcdm]

The alt-text in this one was made of pure gold win.

[Malbert]

After reading that alt text I really want them to air an episode about true love. I can see it already, the narrator voice as they switch between two myths...

"As Adam tests our myth about expanding dinosaur bones by detonating them, Jamie continues his search... for love."

[AstralRunner]

Feynman's arguments may not necessarily be valid. The question is, could MythBusters become more rigorous without sacrificing the ability to teach people to hold their beliefs up to experiment? If so, then they can still be legitimately criticized for their lack of it.

[Catdrake]

If you want to talk about a science show being unscientific, watch Brainiac, which is a teenager's version of Bill Nye from britain. Their experiments make mythbusters look damned good.

[deckerinflux]

Shame on the Feynman reference. He would never confuse arbitrary experiment with one that validates/disproves the prerequisite hypothesis. Such was the core of Feynman's popular message. Mythbusters fails to grasp this fundamental aspect of the scientific method. This comic hurts mah feelingz

I find the Hollywood Ninja Sword episode/mythbustage to be the most atrocious example: results were thrown out/unreported because they didnt fit the desired outcome

[LordOtori]

My favorite comic in a while. Very true, multiple punchlines, and the alt-text was priceless. Good work, old boy.

[abb3w]

While I kind of agree with the zombie's point that testing things experimentally is the core of all science

I'm sorry to disagree.

First and most obvious, the observed data is the true core. Experiment is merely a way of looking where you think you'll find some data that will be interesting. If interesting data falls out of a tree on you while you're trying to nap, it's still usable. (It just tends to take longer that way.) The essence of theory is the competition between candidates for how concisely they represents the data. The current "best" theory and the mystical process of seeking new ones are the other parts referred to as science. However, the former is only a temporary title holder at best. As for the latter, if the theory gets handed to you on golden tablets by an angel from Heaven, the Nobel Committee may insist you share the prize, but as far as experimental testing goes, no-one in science worth their salt seriously cares where it came from.

If you are willing to accept the Robbins Axioms, Zermelo-Fraenkel set theory, and Strong Church-Turing Universe Thesis as valid philosophical assumptions, this can eventually be shaken out as corrollary. See the two (PS format, not my) papers:

"Minimum Message Length and Kolmogorov Complexity", by C. S. Wallace and D. L. Dowe
"Minimum description length induction, Bayesianism, and Kolmogorov Complexity", by P.M.B. Vitanyi and Ming Li

Of course, if you aren't willing to start with the Strong Church-Turing Universe Thesis as your basis for establishing science, then your mileage may vary. And if you reject either Robbins or ZF, you'll have trouble calculating your mileage.

[Phasic]

Zombie Feynman!

<fervently hoping he'll be a recurring character...>

[Cryopyre]

Wait, how'd they break the electroweak gauge symmetry one? Do we have the power to heat stuff up that well? I never knew...

[top1214]

While I kind of agree with the zombie's point that testing things experimentally is the core of all science

I'm sorry to disagree.

First and most obvious, the observed data is the true core. Experiment is merely a way of looking where you think you'll find some data that will be interesting. If interesting data falls out of a tree on you while you're trying to nap, it's still usable. (It just tends to take longer that way.) The essence of theory is the competition between candidates for how concisely they represents the data. The current "best" theory and the mystical process of seeking new ones are the other parts referred to as science. However, the former is only a temporary title holder at best. As for the latter, if the theory gets handed to you on golden tablets by an angel from Heaven, the Nobel Committee may insist you share the prize, but as far as experimental testing goes, no-one in science worth their salt seriously cares where it came from.

Data existed before science and the scientific method.

What is special about science is formulating hypotheses, testing, and then accepting or rejecting these hypotheses. This is most often done through designing experiments that have different predicted results for the competing hypotheses. All the data in the world doesn't help you if you can't distinguish between two models. Similarly, hypotheses don't help if they don't make testable predictions (the problem w/string theory).

Mythbusters often tries science.

Hypothesis: A ninja can catch an arrow.

Test: Measure reaction time, arrow speed, grip strength, etc. See if it's physically possible. Compare if what it takes is feasible for a person.

Conclusion: It's not possible for a human to catch an arrow.

Now whether or not their tests are always perfect, who here designs and performs an experiment that goes perfect the 1st time? They have no established protocols to follow. Just imagine if you only had enough $ to try to extract a protein once or twice, can you guarantee purity? I think not. For some of the things they try, there's no real way to test, and they muddle along the best they can.

[jimic79]

I'd like to interject with a semi-related side-argument and say that Mythbusters seems like the epitome of scientific rigors compared to Smash Lab. That show is only funny to watch because it is so poorly done. Exhibit A: The terrible bank-prevention aerated sand pit. "oh, we only need a pit the size of a football field and 20000000 tons of sand to prevent this van from escaping the parking lot"

Discuss...

[Cryopyre]

I've never seen smash lab, but I love Mythbusters, that and Survivorman... and Nova, but that's PBS.

[Mounky]

They are not string theorists anymore. They added another dimension to their equation and the string became a membrane. They call it the m theory. Supposedly it suggests that there are an infinate amount of universes that exsist in a multiverse. Supposedly.

[AvalonXQ]

I'd give a lot more credit to Mythbusters if the crew were actual engineers rather than movie set designers.

[btarlinian]

While I love the comic, I'm afraid I'll have to disagree with xkcd on this one. Experiments are meaningless without rigor. Even if argued that the show serves as a demonstration of the scientific method, I would say that that the scientific method has serious flaws.
A typical Mythbuster episode goes something like this:
1) Hear myth.
2) Create experiment that tests myth in the most implausible manner (without giving some measure of implausibility, i.e., uniformity of gunpowder trail, variation in hardness of desert sand/salt flat, etc. (Extra bonus points and cookies if you can guess which myths these refer to)).
3) Repeat experiment with greater degrees of deviation from hypothesis until positive result is achieved. (Usually, they are good enough to not take these tests into account when issuing their final verdict.
4) Issue of verdict of confirmed, plausible or busted. This is my biggest beef with the show. A real experiment can never completely confirm a theory. Without some measure of the uncertainty of your results you can't get any measure of the validity of your experiment.

Besides Zombie Feynman's basic idea of people understanding that their beliefs should be tested by experiment is probably not much of an issue among Mythbusters' audience.

[++$_]

Thank you thank you thank you thank you thank you thank you thank you thank you thank you thank you for having the guts to go on record as saying that string theorists don't have brains.

Although, that's not really fair. String theorists DO have branes.

EDIT:

<If you are willing to accept the Robbins Axioms, Zermelo-Fraenkel set theory, and Strong Church-Turing Universe Thesis as valid philosophical assumptions, this can eventually be shaken out as corrollary. See the two (PS format, not my) papers:

"Minimum Message Length and Kolmogorov Complexity", by C. S. Wallace and D. L. Dowe
"Minimum description length induction, Bayesianism, and Kolmogorov Complexity", by P.M.B. Vitanyi and Ming Li

Of course, if you aren't willing to start with the Strong Church-Turing Universe Thesis as your basis for establishing science, then your mileage may vary. And if you reject either Robbins or ZF, you'll have trouble calculating your mileage.

Aha! You forgot the possibility of a triple axle-switch through the Metropolitan line, so I can now play Hammersmith with a decisive advantage.

Or something like that.

EDIT 2: I was referring to the Hammersmith of the Hammersmith and City line, which is of course the better move (as anyone who has read Hortensnik knows). But I figure I'd better be safe and clarify what I meant.

[Wes Janson]

Damn you XKCD for stealing twenty more minutes of my time reading Feynman's commentaries on school district textbook evaluation comittees!

[bdude]

I find it creepy that I where my mouse was resting to view the alt text was on top of the TV screen.

[RWW]

"Ideas are tested by experiment." That is the core of science.

Thanks for completely excluding mathematics from the realm of science. 'Preciate it.

[ModerateClasshole]

Sweet Zombie Feynman! Is that the girl from http://xkcd.com/377/?

Nah. The "Classette" -- for lack of a better name -- has longer hair.

[++$_]

"Ideas are tested by experiment." That is the core of science.

Thanks for completely excluding mathematics from the realm of science. 'Preciate it.

Well, mathematics isn't really a science, in a sense. It's more like philosophy, except you are required to actually define the terms you use.

[RWW]

Sounds like Scientism to me. Science is just the pursuit of knowledge. It doesn't exclude a priori methods.

[Maseiken]

Oh hush, who doesn't love mythbusters!?

Although it is true episodes have a tendency of degrading into exploding things. But that's cool too!

Since when is such a progression a "Degradation"?

[mudge]

Sweet Zombie Feynman! Is that the girl from http://xkcd.com/377/?

Nah. The "Classette" -- for lack of a better name -- has longer hair.

but there's no "asshole" in the name.

"Clunt" comes close, but doesn't quite work.

[Scigatt]

Thank you thank you thank you thank you thank you thank you thank you thank you thank you thank you for having the guts to go on record as saying that string theorists don't have brains.

Although, that's not really fair. String theorists DO have branes.

EDIT:

<If you are willing to accept the Robbins Axioms, Zermelo-Fraenkel set theory, and Strong Church-Turing Universe Thesis as valid philosophical assumptions, this can eventually be shaken out as corrollary. See the two (PS format, not my) papers:

"Minimum Message Length and Kolmogorov Complexity", by C. S. Wallace and D. L. Dowe
"Minimum description length induction, Bayesianism, and Kolmogorov Complexity", by P.M.B. Vitanyi and Ming Li

Of course, if you aren't willing to start with the Strong Church-Turing Universe Thesis as your basis for establishing science, then your mileage may vary. And if you reject either Robbins or ZF, you'll have trouble calculating your mileage.

Aha! You forgot the possibility of a triple axle-switch through the Metropolitan line, so I can now play Hammersmith with a decisive advantage.

Or something like that.

EDIT 2: I was referring to the Hammersmith of the Hammersmith and City line, which is of course the better move (as anyone who has read Hortensnik knows). But I figure I'd better be safe and clarify what I meant.

Well, I don't see how that helps at all. In fact, I believe that leaves you open to a Euston-Paddington triangle manoeuvre.

About the comic: You know, Mythbusters was on just as i was reading this. Also, yay to zombie Feynman!