How Do Slient Sounds Break Glass?

[Keltest]

Thank you for expressing what I was trying to get at, much better than I did. (^_~)°

We might disagree, but that never bugged me... but to me it seemed like on rare occasions the converse could also happen. I.e. if it was more entertaining to "bust" a possibility, sometimes they would push the envelope to make it not possible.

While i have no doubt that there was bias in achieving a particular outcome, whether based on them wanting it or just in budget and infrastructure limitations, i do think they at least did a pretty good job of acknowledging when something prevented them from being as "correct" as they would like.

As far as rigor goes Peelee, im not sure what you would be expecting from "proper" scientists in their position. Theyre working with incredibly vague and non-specific myths most of the time, its very rare when they have a lot of hard and specific information to work with. There is going to be a lot of speculation and interpretation to begin with.

[Peelee]

As far as rigor goes Peelee, im not sure what you would be expecting from "proper" scientists in their position. Theyre working with incredibly vague and non-specific myths most of the time, its very rare when they have a lot of hard and specific information to work with. There is going to be a lot of speculation and interpretation to begin with.

Yes? I don't hold that against them, I just don't overlook it either. And you yourself admitted that they're experimenting to achieve a specific, desired end (ie confirming the myth). That's not science. That's alchemy.

Again, very smart people doing very talented things. A lot of expertise is involved there. A ton of talent is used. These people were all fantastic at what they did. So why isn't that enough? Why can't it be simply amazing engineering fun that's probably good enough? Why does it have to be science? Thats the real question. I have absolutely zero loss of enjoyment knowing it's not science, that they don't go by the scientific method, that there's no controls for bias, and that's OK.

[Keltest]

Yes? I don't hold that against them, I just don't overlook it either. And you yourself admitted that they're experimenting to achieve a specific, desired end (ie confirming the myth). That's not science. That's alchemy.

Again, very smart people doing very talented things. A lot of expertise is involved there. A ton of talent is used. These people were all fantastic at what they did. So why isn't that enough? Why can't it be simply amazing engineering fun that's probably good enough? Why does it have to be science? Thats the real question. I have absolutely zero loss of enjoyment knowing it's not science, that they don't go by the scientific method, that there's no controls for bias, and that's OK.

If i go to the top of a tree and drop a bunch of stuff off to see if it all falls, is that not science then? Testing to confirm a result is absolutely science.

[Peelee]

If i go to the top of a tree and drop a bunch of stuff off to see if it all falls, is that not science then? Testing to confirm a result is absolutely science.

If one of the things you drop is a helium-filled balloon, is your conclusion not completely the opposite of what it would be if you had actually done it by following the scientific method?

Or, if you would like a more direct answer: no. No it is not.

[Keltest]

If one of the things you drop is a helium-filled balloon, is your conclusion not completely the opposite of what it would be if you had actually done it by following the scientific method?

Or, if you would like a more direct answer: no. No it is not.

If my conclusion is "no, not everything falls" then i would be correct. If the literal answer is all i need, then im done. If i want to learn more, then i have an excellent jumping off point for trying to figure out what is different.

[Ionathus]

In many ways Mythbusters operated at the level of late 18th, early 19th century scientific rigor, only using modern tools and equipment (especially explosives). You couldn't do a statistical analysis on basically any experiment they conducted but in many cases the results were sufficiently obvious that they could offer conclusions anyway.

I'm now picturing 18th-century idle rich Renaissance People going out and doing wacky crap in the pursuit of "The Scientific Arts" because they're rich and have nothing better to do. I would make a joke about how it'd be funny to see them match the zany-ness of Mythbusters, but none of the Mythbusters ever died stuffing snow into a chicken so I think the past has got them beat.

Old-school "science" was hardcore.

[Peelee]

If my conclusion is "no, not everything falls" then i would be correct.

... The balloon still falls. It's just less dense than the surrounding air. Get that balloon in low earth orbit and watch it plummet (this is a strong balloon).

Thank you for illustrating exactly how it's not science because it leads you to the wrong conclusion due to bad procedure!

[tomandtish]

I will defend the Mythbusters approach to science with my dying breath.

...except for the part where they almost killed themselves because they forgot to properly secure a cannon. Thats not something that needs repeating.

Not just almost kill themselves. There's the time they hit someone's house (and someone else's car) with a cannonball. Fortunately no one was hurt.

[Keltest]

... The balloon still falls. It's just less dense than the surrounding air. Get that balloon in low earth orbit and watch it plummet (this is a strong balloon).

Thank you for illustrating exactly how it's not science because it leads you to the wrong conclusion due to bad procedure!

Only if you define "fall" as "is affected by gravity" and not "has motion in the direction of the surface of the earth"

[Peelee]

Only if you define "fall" as "is affected by gravity" and not "has motion in the direction of the surface of the earth"

In that case, you already wasted a good amount of time and effort; you could come to the conclusion of "not all things fall" by observing the tree instead of climbing it, and since it has no motion in the direction of the surface of the earth, deduced that not all things fall. Congratulations, you have just invented Aristotlean physics!

[Bohandas]

In any case, ideas being tested by practical experiment is the core of the scientific method

[Peelee]

In any case, ideas being tested by practical experiment is the core of the scientific method

Absolutely. But just like how sand is the core of glass, unless you go through the process correctly the end result can be wildly different.

Im not against expert engineers experimenting with popular myths. I'm in favor of that! I'm not against them inspiring others to go into STEM fields because of how well they do. I'm in favor of that too! I'm simply against calling what they do science, because its not.

And here's the rub. I always get pushback on this from fans. Always. To a T, could set a clock by it. Invariable. Which never ceases to amaze me because the Mythbusters crew openly and readily disagrees with those people. They do a great job with what they have, they are absolute masters of their craft, they do things as well as can be reasonably expected given time, budget, and production constraints. But they will say in an instant that they don't stand by their conclusions. So the fact that others are so willing to when the Mythbusters themselves, who are far more knowledgeable about their own experiments, refuse to, sometimes boggles my mind. Because they don't need to be scientists to inspire others to be scientists. They don't need to perform rigorous scientific experiments to get others to wonder about the world around them. They don't need to have decent sample sizes to get people to challenge ideas. There is absolutely nothing wrong with saying that what they do is not science, because that's not a complaint. That's not an attack levied against them. They themselves don't mind, so long as you don't call their work shoddy (which I will wholeheartedly come to their defense against). They do a good job. They inspire people. They get people to think differently. Doing science is not required for any of that. The only reason to want them to be scientists doing science is to try to elevate them needlessly into a position of authority. That's wholly irrelevant and misses the forest for the trees.

[Keltest]

Absolutely. But just like how sand is the core of glass, unless you go through the process correctly the end result can be wildly different.

Im not against expert engineers experimenting with popular myths. I'm in favor of that! I'm not against them inspiring others to go into STEM fields because of how well they do. I'm in favor of that too! I'm simply against calling what they do science, because its not.

And here's the rub. I always get pushback on this from fans. Always. To a T, could set a clock by it. Invariable. Which never ceases to amaze me because the Mythbusters crew openly and readily disagrees with those people. They do a great job with what they have, they are absolute masters of their craft, they do things as well as can be reasonably expected given time, budget, and production constraints. But they will say in an instant that they don't stand by their conclusions. So the fact that others are so willing to when the Mythbusters themselves, who are far more knowledgeable about their own experiments, refuse to, sometimes boggles my mind. Because they don't need to be scientists to inspire others to be scientists. They don't need to perform rigorous scientific experiments to get others to wonder about the world around them. They don't need to have decent sample sizes to get people to challenge ideas. There is absolutely nothing wrong with saying that what they do is not science, because that's not a complaint. That's not an attack levied against them. They themselves don't mind, so long as you don't call their work shoddy (which I will wholeheartedly come to their defense against). They do a good job. They inspire people. They get people to think differently. Doing science is not required for any of that. The only reason to want them to be scientists doing science is to try to elevate them needlessly into a position of authority. That's wholly irrelevant and misses the forest for the trees.

Honestly, this just sounds like gatekeeping to me. "well its not REAL science because they didnt have a ten million dollar lab available to them to isolate every single variable going on and collect a whole bunch of data thats largely unnecessary for their specific experiments." Its always possible to push the "required" amount of rigour further and further back, keeping it always out of reach. Frankly, it seems like an entirely arbitrary limit that youre placing on them almost exclusively to deny it the title of "real" science.

[Peelee]

Honestly, this just sounds like gatekeeping to me. "well its not REAL science because they didnt have a ten million dollar lab available to them to isolate every single variable going on and collect a whole bunch of data thats largely unnecessary for their specific experiments." Its always possible to push the "required" amount of rigour further and further back, keeping it always out of reach. Frankly, it seems like an entirely arbitrary limit that youre placing on them almost exclusively to deny it the title of "real" science.

Again, they themselves agree with me and refuse to stand by their results (if not the Confirmed results, then absolutely the Busted results). Unless you want to say they are gatekeeling themselves....

Also, i would be doing the weirdest form of gatekeeping where I keep heaping praise upon them and saying how much good is coming out of their work. Tell me, assuming your last assertion is true, what would granting them the title of "real" science change? I already think they're great, entertainment, I already think they are wonderful role models, I already think they are responsible for more curiosity in the world, I already think they are among the best in the world at what they do.... What would change? What possible gain would giving them the title of "real" science give them? Hell, that is exactly what I just said in my last post! It doesn't change anything, there's no reason to try to conflate them with science when it makes no practical difference whatsoever.

Actually I was wrong. It does change one thing. It gives them an illusion of authority when they already have legitimate authority. It'd like painting a Maserati logo on a Porsche. It just seems so completely needless.

[Keltest]

Again, they themselves agree with me and refuse to stand by their results (if not the Confirmed results, then absolutely the Busted results). Unless you want to say they are gatekeeling themselves....

Also, i would be doing the weirdest form of gatekeeping where I keep heaping praise upon them and saying how much good is coming out of their work. Tell me, assuming your last assertion is true, what would granting them the title of "real" science change? I already think they're great, entertainment, I already think they are wonderful role models, I already think they are responsible for more curiosity in the world, I already think they are among the best in the world at what they do.... What would change? What possible gain would giving them the title of "real" science give them? Hell, that is exactly what I just said in my last post! It doesn't change anything, there's no reason to try to conflate them with science when it makes no practical difference whatsoever.

Actually I was wrong. It does change one thing. It gives them an illusion of authority when they already have legitimate authority. It'd like painting a Maserati logo on a Porsche. It just seems so completely needless.

I think if i met a so-called scientist who refused to even acknowledge the possibility for error in their work, i would consider them a pretty poor scientist. Science doesnt require 100% confidence in your work, and admitting to the possibility that there is something going on that you dont understand is one of the most important parts of the scientific process.

[Peelee]

I think if i met a so-called scientist who refused to even acknowledge the possibility for error in their work, i would consider them a pretty poor scientist. Science doesnt require 100% confidence in your work, and admitting to the possibility that there is something going on that you dont understand is one of the most important parts of the scientific process.

There's a difference between acknowledging the possibility for error and straight up saying that you don't stand by your results.

ETA: Can't help but note there's no answer on "what would be different".

[Willie the Duck]

Now that is a fantastic rebuttal! Short version, they don't follow any scientific rigor or use the scientific method. I've never found the claim of "that show isn't scientifically proving anything" to be a knock against them any more than "that show is not animated" would be; it's a simple statement of fact that just days "they weren't trying to be that though". And while yes, your issue that I never said why absolutely has a buttload of merit, I do still stand by my claim that whenever I say that it's not scientific, almost invariably people respond by trying to bring scientific methods down to the way Mythbusters operates instead of trying to elevate the way Mythbysters operates to the level of scientific methods.

Fair enough. I don't know your personal experience, but merely have a general distrust about self-seen outspokenness on the internet.

If you want my breakdown on why you might be getting pushback here, I refer to this post:

Mythbusters is a great TV show. Everyone on it was an amazing engineer.
**** scientists, though.

This one sure seems like 'a knock against them,' and really confuses me. Are they **** scientists, or are they not scientists? Metaphorically, instead of getting a D or F in a class, they were never enrolled in said class. In the rest of your posts, you pretty much have been good about saying they aren't scientists and that's not knocking them (so why are you getting this flack?), but here I think you're breaking that tendency and I think a reasonable person would interpret that as a suggestion that they are going something wrong/not living up to an expectation.

[warty goblin]

Honestly, this just sounds like gatekeeping to me. "well its not REAL science because they didnt have a ten million dollar lab available to them to isolate every single variable going on and collect a whole bunch of data thats largely unnecessary for their specific experiments." Its always possible to push the "required" amount of rigour further and further back, keeping it always out of reach. Frankly, it seems like an entirely arbitrary limit that youre placing on them almost exclusively to deny it the title of "real" science.

Science is a process for extracting knowledge about reality, which is necessary because the human brain is astonishingly good at coming to terrible conclusions. Literally the entire point is gatekeeping, not in the sense of keeping the unwashed peasants from doing science, but in the sense that most ideas - even the ones that seem right - are quite possibly wrong, and rigor is the best defense we have against accepting incorrect ideas.

So sure "not rigorous enough" is gatekeeping. Good. That's what allows us to reject vaccines causing autism when somebody has their kid vaccinated and then they're diagnosed with autism a couple weeks later.

[Peelee]

Fair enough. I don't know your personal experience, but merely have a general distrust about self-seen outspokenness on the internet.

If you want my breakdown on why you might be getting pushback here, I refer to this post:

This one sure seems like 'a knock against them,' and really confuses me. Are they **** scientists, or are they not scientists? Metaphorically, instead of getting a D or F in a class, they were never enrolled in said class. In the rest of your posts, you pretty much have been good about saying they aren't scientists and that's not knocking them (so why are you getting this flack?), but here I think you're breaking that tendency and I think a reasonable person would interpret that as a suggestion that they are going something wrong/not living up to an expectation.

That's totally fair, I went overboard there with my penchant for dramatization and hyperbole. I fully retract that statement. I don't think they are **** at anything they did on that show (and probably anything in their professional lives).

[georgie_leech]

That's totally fair, I went overboard there with my penchant for dramatization and hyperbole. I fully retract that statement. I don't think they are **** at anything they did on that show (and probably anything in their professional lives).

Well, except for cannon safety occasionally, it seems

[Bartmanhomer]

Scientists focus on facts, data, research, and truth based on science. As I said before, I never even watch Mythbusters but Peelee knows exactly what's he talking about.

[KillianHawkeye]

The Mythbusters are to the scientific method what hacking on TV is to actual computer hacking. They hit the general notes of what they're emulating, but speed things up and dumb things down enough for viewers to understand it in twenty minutes or less.

[Beeftank]

I once saw an episode of NCIS where McGee and Abby both typed together on the same keyboard to fight a hacker so I think you’re either giving tv hackers too much credit or the mythbusters not quite enough.

[Keltest]

The Mythbusters are to the scientific method what hacking on TV is to actual computer hacking. They hit the general notes of what they're emulating, but speed things up and dumb things down enough for viewers to understand it in twenty minutes or less.

As somebody who is actually somewhat versed in hacking, i can assure you that TV hacking bears no similarity to real hacking at all. A large majority of the time, its going to be as simple and unexciting as visiting somebody's facebook page, maybe your mom's facebook page, and then going through the "reset your password" process.

[Manga Shoggoth]

Scientists focus on facts, data, research, and truth based on science. As I said before, I never even watch Mythbusters but Peelee knows exactly what's he talking about.

The Mythbusters are to the scientific method what hacking on TV is to actual computer hacking. They hit the general notes of what they're emulating, but speed things up and dumb things down enough for viewers to understand it in twenty minutes or less.

While I am neutral on the "Are they scientists and to what degree" question, it's worth pointing out that they spend anything between days and weeks on a myth, and you only see about 15 minutes of the entire process per myth - and then only those parts that are likley to make good television.

That excludes most of what you might call the "scientific" parts, most of the calculations and a lot of the intermediate experiments. There is no comparison with Hollywood Hacking.

[Bartmanhomer]

While I am neutral on the "Are they scientists and to what degree" question, it's worth pointing out that they spend anything between days and weeks on a myth, and you only see about 15 minutes of the entire process per myth - and then only those parts that are likely to make good television.

That excludes most of what you might call the "scientific" parts, most of the calculations, and a lot of the intermediate experiments. There is no comparison with Hollywood Hacking.

What about Bill Nye The Science Guy? Does he fall under that category?

[Manga Shoggoth]

What about Bill Nye The Science Guy? Does he fall under that category?

I don't know - I've never watched him, so have absolutely no information on which to base an opinion. I have, however, watched rather a lot of Mythbusters and seen some of the background material.

...Although I imagine that it is safe to say that for any such program you are only seeing the tip of the iceberg.

[Beeftank]

I mean, Bill Nye, if I remember, isn’t really like the mythbusters in that he isn’t performing actual experiments on the show so much as he is just teaching science to the audience.

[Bartmanhomer]

I mean, Bill Nye, if I remember, isn’t really like the mythbusters in that he isn’t performing actual experiments on the show so much as he is just teaching science to the audience.

He's a real scientist, so yes.

[Bohandas]

As somebody who is actually somewhat versed in hacking, i can assure you that TV hacking bears no similarity to real hacking at all. A large majority of the time, its going to be as simple and unexciting as visiting somebody's facebook page, maybe your mom's facebook page, and then going through the "reset your password" process.

https://www.smbc-comics.com/comic/2012-02-20