|
Post by ironhold on Aug 16, 2014 22:09:35 GMT
Heck, when you think about it, the entire premise of Mythbusters is "Anyone can be a scientist if they are willing to abide by basic scientific protocol when exploring the world around them."
Knowing the ins and outs certainly helps (such as when we see the team having to make extensive calculations), but anyone with an internet connection, a few bucks, and an afternoon to kill can easily go "Mr. Wizard" right in their own kitchen if they felt like it.
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Aug 16, 2014 22:19:17 GMT
Heck, when you think about it, the entire premise of Mythbusters is " Anyone can be a scientist if they are willing to abide by basic scientific protocol when exploring the world around them." Knowing the ins and outs certainly helps (such as when we see the team having to make extensive calculations), but anyone with an internet connection, a few bucks, and an afternoon to kill can easily go "Mr. Wizard" right in their own kitchen if they felt like it. right. science is the process of forming a theory, doing an experiment, and then revising the theory according to the results of the experiment.
|
|
|
Post by ironhold on Aug 16, 2014 22:39:06 GMT
Heck, when you think about it, the entire premise of Mythbusters is " Anyone can be a scientist if they are willing to abide by basic scientific protocol when exploring the world around them." Knowing the ins and outs certainly helps (such as when we see the team having to make extensive calculations), but anyone with an internet connection, a few bucks, and an afternoon to kill can easily go "Mr. Wizard" right in their own kitchen if they felt like it. right. science is the process of forming a theory, doing an experiment, and then revising the theory according to the results of the experiment. Research, too. Earlier this year, I got involved with a project for TF Wiki.net in which we attempted to catalogue who aired what in which market during those years in which the assorted seasons of the cartoons were broadcast on over-the-air stations in the US as opposed to airing on cable or digital channels. When the list was originally being drawn up, the guy who did it - by his own admission - made a series of assumptions: 1. All networks which aired the original 1980s cartoon debuted it by late September 1984. 2. All networks aired the 1984 season on Sunday mornings. 3. Only one broadcaster aired the show per media market. Back in February, I began going through the archives of the newspaper I work for. 1. KCEN delayed the broadcast of the series until January of 1985 as they were using it as a mid-season replacement for another syndicated series. 2. As they used it for a mid-season replacement, KCEN aired the show on Saturday mornings that season. 3. For at least the 1985 and 1986 seasons, there were two stations in Austin (Texas) broadcasting the series. The guy who did up the chart changed it accordingly to reflect my disccoveries, we learned more about some of the quirks inherent in the way syndicated shows were handled in the 1980s, and we all moved on with life.
|
|
|
Post by silverdragon on Aug 17, 2014 11:37:15 GMT
Just a side note and possible tangent that is worth the discussion...
Taking someone else's hypothesis and bending results to see how they fit. This is considered an important tool in science.
If the results fit, wear them, If the results have to be "Massaged", then is that because the results were a little vague in the first place. If the results fail badly to even fit where its suggested they fit, then, and only then, do you have grounds for dismissing the hypothesis. However, in all cases, repeat the science thoroughly to get the results to make sure the results you have and had beforehand are not blemished.
However part two, first find out whet "science" was used to create the hypothesis..... Does it actually warrant investigation.
I say this because I am aware of a certain trilobite who inundated his main adversary with false hypothesis not to create science but to prevent science, whilst his adversary was tied up proving his own past results, trilobite was busy forging ahead to claim "The prize"........
|
|
|
Post by ironhold on Aug 17, 2014 20:33:55 GMT
For the study in question, we had numerous issues. We had a questionably small sample size (66 persons), we had the authors admit that they excluded people because the design of the survey did not account for them, and we had the authors make a pronouncement that covered multiple categories of people... including the ones who the authors excluded because the test was not set up for them in the first place.
In other words, we had a shoddy test administered in a shoddy fashion. At best, all rational schools of thought in regards to the scientific say "do it over again."
|
|