

Xkcd: Mythbusters and Zombie Feynman - rglovejoy
http://xkcd.com/397/

======
dood
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.

~~~
ivankirigin
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.

~~~
dood
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.

~~~
brlewis
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.

~~~
mechanical_fish
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.

~~~
ashu
For good science to happen, you should convince yourself about the validity of
your theory / experiment as well. You are your own critic.

~~~
mechanical_fish
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.

------
andr
1) Write a script to automatically submit every XKCD and TechCrunch post on
News.YC.

2) ???

3) Karma profit!

~~~
ivankirigin
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.

xkcd != LOLcats

~~~
Tichy
Um, was that a real Feynman quote? I highly doubt it, there was no Mythbusters
during his lifetime, or was there?

I hate people who think it is OK to put their own stupid quotes into the
mouths of famous people to give them more leverage...

~~~
ed
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Feynman>

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MythBusters>

------
phaedrus
+1 for bashing string theory in the last frame of the strip! Haha!

------
bkrausz
From <http://xkcd.com/about/>

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.

------
pchristensen
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.

------
jamesbritt
What, no bongos?

~~~
rglovejoy
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)

~~~
jamesbritt
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.

Both pretty cool.

