William Sommerwerck wrote:

That's not even close to the Best Obstructionist Story Ever.
That's this ( sorry, long URL ):


http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00...v=glance&n=130

But this isn't (exactly) the same sort of obstruction. It was the denial of
his achivement -- not quite the same thing as blocking other people's
researdch.


Dunno - I see a lot of similarity. No telling how
many people died, nor how much economic cost was borne
because of the withholding of the chronometer.

Point is, the process in question involves some
person or small group of people who , through perverse
incentives and personality disorder, hold up things.

In the xample of Mr Coe's book, one sufficiently
hardheaded person could have simply routed around the
guy - which is what Harrison ultimately did, through
appeal to the King.



Nuh uh. Those guys are *engineers*. There's a very real difference:


I respectfully disagree.



They're pretty hackerish. And not necessarily in a good way...
It's more a caricature of engineering, really.


In science, you failed when it blows up when it's not s'posed to.


That's engineering, not science!



Not so much! In engineering, you just write papers about it,
as in Galloping Gertie. Failures are a sort of
"opportunity wearing work clothes"...

In science, the whole theory goes over the side.... it's
a harsh muse.

--
Les Cargill

William Sommerwerck wrote:
That is completely laughable. Mythbusters is a comedy for cryin' out
loud.
They are SFX guys. And having been around these kinds fo guys for ten
years
I can tell ya.. Science is a last resort! I get a kick out of how
these
two simply add explosive to make things work.. or fail..

I dunno. Granted that their experimental technique, and even their
conclusions, can often be faulted, but they do expose lots of people to
the method that defines science.

I wouldn't say often, just sometimes.

Perhaps. I've not been trying to analyze their work at that level. Now
I'll be looking a bit harder.

As we know, you start with a
hypothesis and design an experiment whose outcome will either verify (a
weak experiment) or falsify (a strong experiment) the hypothesis. They
do in fact demonstrate this basic principle. It's the first time since
Mr. Wizard that I remember that process being repeatedly impressed on
minds which could be turned to science having an idea of what that
really means as well as showing how much fun it can be.

No offense, Bob, but you're missing the point. Jamie and Adam DO NOT start
with a hypothesis. Rather, they start by analyzing the situation and trying
to figure out just what it is that they'll be investigating. THEN they
design the experiment.

The hypothesis they start with is the myth itself. Then they design an
experiment that attempts to verify or falsify the myth/hypothesis.
Analyzing the situation is very much a part of good experiment design.
I agree that, for the most part, they demonstrate the whole process
rather well. Sometimes I find it to be rather a caricature but
illustrative nonetheless.

Although the quality of the experiment is critical, it is the quality of the
thinking that precedes the experiment that is even more important.

I don't see how you can separate the two but it's hard to argue with the
value of thinking about things before you do them. :-)


Bob
--

"Things should be described as simply as possible, but no simpler."

A. Einstein

Jay Kadis wrote:

Arny, you're a master of oversimplification. Everything is black or white to
you, isn't it? Must be nice to have such a simple view of the world.

A cubular world wouldn't keep rolling off the table like this.

--
ha

Gareth Magennis wrote:

You should maybe branch out into providing alternative therapies

Phil's family tree goes straight up - no branches.

--
ha

But the show does demonstrate good science. Just because it's funny,
doesn't mean it isn't valid.

I disagreee wholeheartedly. Good science doesn't require extra gasoline.

Oh, but it does. As I pointed out in a previous posting, their pushing
things to the breaking point demonstrates the correctness of their
conclusions.


I loved the episode where they went about designing hovercraft with pretty
much NO science and ended up having to push them across the sand.

I love that show.. the girls are great too. But often they are simply
hacking away until something happens.

That's not part of science? As Dr. Land like to say, one of the great things
about science was that it let you make mistakes until you found what you
needed to know.


More than anything, science is about how you think. And Adam and Jamie do it
very well.

wrote in message
...
On Thu, 26 Jan 2006 10:46:57 -0500, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

if you compare the costs and benefits of say aspirin (200 years old)
versus
accupunture (2,000 years old+) for pain relief, you'll find that its darn
hard to beat aspirin.

I think you'll find that aspirin was used for longer that acupuncture
in it's original form, willow bark tea. It was herbal before herbal
was alternative. If you harvest it yourself it's free, but your
neighbor might not like his tree barked
I don't like how the alternative medicine and therapies have gotten
boutique and expensive. Neither do I like the lack of whole body and
lifestyle approach taken by modern medicine that treat symptoms
instead of root causes.
The mind body relationship should be investigated scientifically
because any therapy that works, even if it's just your mind is a good
one.
Laughing produces chemicals in your body that help fight infection and
that is no laughing matter.



I very much agree with you. The Eastern Holistic approach, treating Mind
and Body as a single system, seems to me to be a definate technological
advance over the Western system of treating only the body. (funny how the
West so often sees Eastern technology as "ancient" or even "primitive"). On
the other hand, Western science has done some amazing work with their
technology that Eastern science can't touch. Combining the two
appropriately seems to me to be advantageous to all.





Gareth.

"Jay Kadis" wrote in message

In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

"Jay Kadis" wrote in message

In article
, "Arny
Krueger" wrote:


There are parts of the real world that do seem to be
black or white, such as being dead or alive...



Have you ever had to determine whether someone was dead
or alive?

Yes, my father whose brain was ravaged by a 14 year
battle with Parkinson's.

Yes, my brain dead teenaged son - who had a spontaneous
brain hemhorrage while driving to school.


Unless you're a licensed physician, you did not make
those judgements.

Not in the legal sense. But that's not the only relevant sense.

It is not as black and white as you imagine.

Really?

Really.

There are stories about coffins designed to have alarms
that could be set off by an interred person who happened
to awake after burial. Why do you suppose that might
have happened?

Sloppy medical work?

There are documented cases of people thought to be
clinically dead, even with modern electronic monitoring,
who are in fact still living. It's difficult for
physicians to tell in some cases if a patient is dead or
not. Not every time, but on occasion. I seriously doubt
you have expertise in this area.

See sloppy medical work.

Also, a few exceptions don't disprove general rules.

But the real question is how can you be so certain about
EVERYTHING?

-Jay

"Les Cargill" wrote in message
...

They're pretty hackerish. And not necessarily in a good way...
It's more a caricature of engineering, really.

Well said.

"William Sommerwerck" wrote in message
...
But the show does demonstrate good science. Just because it's funny,
doesn't mean it isn't valid.

I disagreee wholeheartedly. Good science doesn't require extra gasoline.

Oh, but it does. As I pointed out in a previous posting, their pushing
things to the breaking point demonstrates the correctness of their
conclusions.


No.. they only decide to push things to the breaking point after their first
attempts fail miserably. Then, in order to entertain, they simply add extra
fuel.. or weight.. or rpm.




I loved the episode where they went about designing hovercraft with
pretty
much NO science and ended up having to push them across the sand.

I love that show.. the girls are great too. But often they are simply
hacking away until something happens.

That's not part of science? As Dr. Land like to say, one of the great
things
about science was that it let you make mistakes until you found what you
needed to know.

Science? They were building hovercraft. When you BUILD something that is
supposed to work you ought to do some math and planning first.
Simple test would have indicated that neither of their 'designs' would have
worked.

It is the Rube Goldberg system of 'science'






More than anything, science is about how you think. And Adam and Jamie do
it
very well.

They're hacks. SFX guys. Not scientists in any way. I am amused that you
would give them so much credibility.

I disagreee wholeheartedly. Good science doesn't require extra gasoline.

Oh, but it does. As I pointed out in a previous posting, their pushing
things to the breaking point demonstrates the correctness of their
conclusions.

No.. they only decide to push things to the breaking point after their
first
attempts fail miserably. Then, in order to entertain, they simply add
extra
fuel.. or weight.. or rpm.

I suppose this is a matter of interpretation. However, if jamming a
ballistics-gel head against a conventional fan does not produce
decapitation, using a higher-powered (but not conventional) fan to slice the
kopf is further evidence that the original "busted" conclusion is correct.

William Sommerwerck wrote:

If you want to see real science, watch "Mythbusters" on The Discovery
Channel. (There's a new episode tonight.) Messrs. Hyneman and Savage
actually actually understand science

No. Two examples:

bridgebusting: It is about a stone bridge built without mortar that
disintegrates not because of a resonance but because of the shockwaves
from an on time stomping.

Gold varnish: in the book a gold paint is used that removes with
turpentine, their busting used water based latex paint.

-- in particular, how to ask the right
questions and how to set up valid experiments.

Generally yes, goldbusting as described it the book would have been
extremely dangeous because the skin is not a barrier for organic
solvents. The described mode of death is probable, but the mechanism
incorrectly described.

Their bridgemyth busting using two other construction than a roman stone
bridge was plain silly, this no doubt because of the propagation of
resonance as the method of destruction, a stone bridge does not
resonate, it rattles apart.

"Mythbusters" is arguably the
best science show on TV, because it shows good science.

Yes, it shows good science, but just like real people they have the
occasional lame moment.


Kind regards

Peter Larsen

--
*******************************************
* My site is at: http://www.muyiovatki.dk *
*******************************************

Yes, it shows good science, but just like real people
they have the occasional lame moment.

Agreed. Why do you think they pay attention to viewers' criticisms?

"Jay Kadis" wrote in message ...
snip
I've been a bit disappointed with TV's approach to science. Yes, Mythbusters
is quite entertaining and uses a scientific approach to answering questions,
but it is not science in the traditional sense. Science is not very entertaining
to watch. It is meticulous and tedious and not really a spectator sport. And
the answers are often still ambiguous.

Even Nova has swung in the direction of entertainment from where it started,
but since the main goal of these shows is entertainment that may be expected.
I think the Nova Science Now program comes closest to providing a real
science education, though.

-Jay

Unfortunately I don't get Mythbusters, but I've found many dry Nova shows
to be absolutely fascinating, including the one which recounted a solution to
Fermat's Last Theorem. I watched it three times. Nova Science Now is
well done, and I've always liked Krulwich's way of cutting to the heart of
things, but it's dumbed down compared to classic Nova, which I consider
to be the gold standard. It seems that almost all aspects of PBS are being
*******ized, probably due to lack of public support. They're out of touch.

L David Matheny wrote:
"Jay Kadis" wrote in message ...
snip
I've been a bit disappointed with TV's approach to science. Yes, Mythbusters
is quite entertaining and uses a scientific approach to answering questions,
but it is not science in the traditional sense. Science is not very entertaining
to watch. It is meticulous and tedious and not really a spectator sport. And
the answers are often still ambiguous.

Even Nova has swung in the direction of entertainment from where it started,
but since the main goal of these shows is entertainment that may be expected.
I think the Nova Science Now program comes closest to providing a real
science education, though.

-Jay

Unfortunately I don't get Mythbusters, but I've found many dry Nova shows
to be absolutely fascinating, including the one which recounted a solution to
Fermat's Last Theorem. I watched it three times. Nova Science Now is
well done, and I've always liked Krulwich's way of cutting to the heart of
things, but it's dumbed down compared to classic Nova, which I consider
to be the gold standard. It seems that almost all aspects of PBS are being
*******ized, probably due to lack of public support. They're out of touch.



Not lack of public support, rather manipulation by the current
administration--the 'global warming doesn't exist' crowd--which has been
loading down the board of directors with Bush appointees of late.

jak