I think experimentation is hard-wired into the brain (its partly how we're able to learn so much so quickly as children), but rigor isn't. So is Mythbusters' approach to experimentation without rigor a net win? I spend probably a third of each episode wondering about that. Its very frustrating, but then something blows up, so generally it works out ok.
Mythbusters is close to correct, which is good enough.
They actively involve their community, which goes the rest of the way. If there is a serious lack of rigor, their audience will point it out, and an experiment will be rerun.
I sometimes think the lack of rigor is serious: most Mythbusters' viewers could probably create similarly rigorous experiments if they had the inclination, what is lacking isn't so much holding beliefs to experiment, but interpreting the validity and applicability of experiments.
Some of Mythbusters' experiments are reasonable enough, but a lot of others are a little too sloppy for my taste, teaching a lazy habit of confirming beliefs by constructing plausible narratives.
Key words "if they had the inclination." Imprinting minds with the idea that ideas should be tested by experiment is of tremendous value. Rigor can follow once the inclination is there.
Agreed, absolutely. You have to motivate rigor. I actually think the show does a fine job of that.
Sometimes they'll do a half-assed experiment, bust some myth, and then get viewer mail criticizing their technique. Then they'll revisit the myth, with better controls! This is pretty much exactly how real science works. Nobody does rigorous science because they want to spend enormous amounts of time and money doing the same boring experiment over and over, gradually imposing tighter and tighter controls on everything. They do it because otherwise their half-assed papers will get rejected by their extremely critical peers.
Sure, but convincing yourself of the validity of your own theories is always easier than it should be. That's human nature.
Among other things, rigor costs money and time. People's self-criticism tends to taper off as the deadline looms. This is a particularly important factor in Mythbusters -- my impression is that the Mythbusters folks are exactly as self-critical as their budget allows them to be.
I wouldn't be too convinced it's that close to correct... Usually the set up a handful of experiments, get as close to the original situation as they can (which is often not that close - sometimes they're basing their experiments on movie events and guessing metrics), and give it a go a few times. But that said, the show is about entertainment rather than hard-core scientific vigour, so I'll continue to watch and enjoy :-)
Sometimes their basic science has been lacking. (Compressed air jet-boat was supposed to work by "pushing against the water"?) Though they have been improving, I've noticed.
xkcd can actually be quite good. Most of his comics don't reach the top.
Today's comic is actually similar to recent posts on being creative and another Feynman quote on good problems. I wouldn't be surprised if the latter inspired today's comic. This means xkcd is part of the serious hacker conversation on the internet.
Can we hardcode no-karma for any posts with "xkcd" in the title? I honestly think that's really fair. People might want an XKCD once in a while on the front page if it's really good, and comment on it, but I don't think the submitter should get credit since we all read XKCD anyways.
P.S. Notice I'm not proposing we set no-karma for xkcd.com related entries. Sometimes a thoughtful and non-comical (literally) entry from the xkcd blag is posted.
Can you really blame the system? This site is about submitting awesome links. The second you start limiting sources in anyway, is the second you start limiting awesome.
Me posting is about me posting awesomeness. The moment you don't vote me up is the moment Chuck Norris votes his foot through your face. Make sure you vote me up.
How do I write "xkcd"? There's nothing in Strunk and White about this.
For those of us pedantic enough to want a rule, here it is: The preferred form is "xkcd", all lower-case. In formal contexts where a lowercase word shouldn't start a sentence, "XKCD" is an okay alternative. "Xkcd" is frowned upon.
C'mon guys, I complained about the xkcd "manual RSS feed" we have here, but this one was good and relevant. Let the pain and backlash die down, then let's submit the appropriate ones. Lots of them get 2-3 upvotes, this one got 24. The system IS working.
The bongos were only a small part of what made him Feynman.
When The Feynman Lectures were published, a picture of him playing the bongos appeared in the preface. Feynman was a bit mystified as to why they used that picture, but he let it slide.
A few years later, a Swedish publisher wanted to use the bongo photo in an encyclopedia article about him. Feynman was pretty upset by this, saying:
"The fact that I beat a drum has nothing to do with the fact that I do theoretical physics. Theoretical physics is a human endeavor, one of the higher developments of human beings - and this perpetual desire to prove that people are human by showing that they do other things that a few other humans do (like playing bongo drums) is insulting to me.
I am human enough to tell you to go to hell."
(letter to Tord Pramberg, 4 January 1967)
OK,but one of his books, perhaps Surely You're Joking, had an offer to buy a cassette that had a mix of him telling his stories, and him playing bongos.
