Good luck selling plushies, apparel, comics or animated cartoons of lil' fun Sir David Attenborough! Now instead of having the dream name for science outreach and awareness for kids, you have a stark, cynical lesson on democracy.
Incidentally, I think that the boat isn't long enough to have his full name with honorifics painted on the side. It is David Frederick Attenborough OM CH CVO CBE FRS FLS FZS FSA.
This is probably the first time that an open Internet poll has finally chosen a name that is fun and kid-friendly instead of "Hitler did nothing wrong" and they have decided to waste all the PR potential.
I'm being downvoted for this but trust me, that is the message teenagers would takeaway from the name Boaty McBoatface.
"The scientists on this ship have a sense of humour and are fun people" meaning that while they take the science seriously, the are approachable and not too worried about what you call their ship.
Also, Sir David Attenborough is a national treasure and while I would have preferred the funny name, this is a very solid alternative.
My anecdotes and general 'intuition' (as unscientific as these things always are) are opposite to yours.
I think it'd be viewed positively and wouldn't have the opposite effect as you suggest.
However, my children, many of their friends and some of their teachers are now aware that the UK is commissioning a polar research vessel. They definitely weren't before.
I know of at least one junior school science teacher who has used this to seed a lesson. It's a point of interest, it's the start of a conversation. It gives science a different angle and a bit of colour. This is a good thing even if it was by accident. Sometimes we should just take the hand we were dealt and play it.
A rather impressive video [0] of RRS Sir Ernesto Shackleton being droned.
Conversely, they really really hate when government bureaucrats show them that democracy can be a farce and people's choices are worthless.
Teenagers are on a complicated phase of life where adults ask them their opinions as if they were adults too, but then when they don't like the answers, use their power to override them. Which is exactly what transpires of this whole process.
Yes, let's ignore the people who bother to vote because they are not the right sort of people. Instead, we'll do what our idea of a 'rational' voter would want /s
And as I pointed out in an earlier thread, it's not like the Royal Navy ships never had playful names; some past examples include the HMS Speedy, HMS Child's Play, HMS Happy Entrance and HMS Arrogant (later renamed HMS Insolent).
Far fetched I agree, but that's the message being sent.
That being said, I'm happy with their choice. Sir David is a great thing to name something after.
Yap, it is a valuable lesson of how the real world works. The people can only choose as long as they choose what those in power let them choose.
Mind you the current outcome is more "adults don't take public opinion seriously".
Alternately:
"Your suspicions are correct. There is no room for fun or playfulness in Science."
Since the research vessels advanced submersible ROV is being named "Boaty McBoatface", they still essentially can, though to be as accurate it would have to be "Hey, Boaty McBoatface is coming to port this Saturday onboard the Sir David Attenborough! Why don't you bring your kids to a fun science tour?".
I agree though and hhave argued that the campaign was genius -- inspired or accidental. You can't buy this kind of publicity. Especially for science.
Another way of looking at the situation is - the UK Science Minister is hired to fill a spot, and make science seem, "serious," and have "authority," so that the general public feels that their tax dollars are going to something worthwhile. That would actually mean that in a sense, democracy is prevailing, because the majority of society would rather abstract away the details of science, they just see it as some authority which brings, "good things." I'm not talking about people on the internet who vote on social media, I'm talking about everyone--including that grandma in Scotland who is not on the internet at all.
For those who are strictly practicing empirical data collection, who dare I say, are better pure scientists within the online data collection domain, they may say, "this result had the most votes, so therefore this is the name which wins." But if you're the UK Science Minister, you likely are afraid of losing your job, and afraid of a blowback, knowing that a lot of people will reject that name and have never heard of this voting system. He/she likely is aware of the plushy toy opportunity, but has evaluated that and it pales in comparison to how much money the British Government could continue to get from taxpayers. In effect what you are saying is that you could do a better job than him in evaluating where money comes from for these types of endeavors.
According to your logic we should all feel cynical and contemptuous that Mountain Dew is not now named, "Hitler Did Nothing Wrong."
Why does science need to seem serious? The Mythbusters tremendously advanced the cause of science, and they did it in no small part by not taking themselves too seriously.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4cvGGxTsQx0
(Video of the first SpaceX attempted landing and explosion).
Personally I think that's a bit of a stretch, but I'm not trying to say the show isn't great. While scientists could learn from their format (providing videos of their experiments, for instance) I wouldn't say that the mythbusters have advanced the cause of science at all. Would you say that the TV show Bill Nye the science guy advanced the cause of science? Science education he has definitely advanced the cause of, but science: not from the TV show. Similarly, I think the mythbusters have advanced engineering education tremendously, specifically television engineering education.
If you think they have actually advanced the cause of science, I would love to hear why. I'm not trying to be a jerk, I'm just speaking from having watched a few episodes, so I definitely could be wrong.
Science classes in school rarely advance anything other than the number of scientists in the world and the lay public's understanding.
I just now watched this:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PGRRXKek8G0
and it's just horrible. To my eye, Nye is indistinguishable from a Creationist caricature.
Compare that to how the Mythbusters handled the moon landing conspiracy:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wym04J_3Ls0
The Mythbusters actually did real science, and they did it with style and panache and grace. They started with a problem, advanced a hypothesis, designed an experiment (often a series of experiments) analyzed the results, drew conclusions, and often went back and re-did things when a viewer pointed out something they did wrong. That is science. They democratized science in a way that no one else has ever done. A kid watching Mythbusters could come away thinking that science was something that they could do themselves. Ultimately, the Mythbusters advanced science by busting the myth that science can only be done by scientists.
Also, before you start hating on Bill Nye so hard, please compare his reported scientific contributions[1] to Jamie Hyneman's and Adam Savage's (spoiler, theirs don't seem to exist). Last point about Nye: bow ties are ok. Seriously though, people don't hate on Feynman for having long hair or being a supposed sex swinger. I know Nye doesn't have the same prestige, but it's just a bow tie; I think you should give him a break.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_Nye#Scientific_work
Note: Bill Nye also engineered a part that was used in the 747 while he worked at Boeing
Why not?
> theirs don't seem to exist
> bow ties are ok
Of course bow ties are OK. Nonetheless, a scientist wearing a bow tie reinforces negative stereotypes. It's sad, but true.
> people don't hate on Feynman for having long hair or being a supposed sex swinger
That's because Feynman didn't do those things on TV. If Bill Nye wants to wear a tutu in his private life, more power to him. But if he wears one on a TV show about science I think that would indicate some really poor judgement on his part.
> Bill Nye also engineered a part that was used in the 747 while he worked at Boeing
So? What does that have to do with the Mythbusters?
Can you extrapolate on this? Is there something about bow ties that I'm completely ignorant about?
Unless you're going to argue people should never do anything that is "stereotypical" of "that kind of person" I see no reason he shouldn't wear a bow tie.
[0] http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/26/fashion/sundaystyles/a-red...
The relevant quotes from the wikipedia article are:
"the bow tie is ... an instant sign of nerddom ... not the mark of a ladies' man ... not sexy. Most men ... only wear bow ties with formal dress."
The last sentence is significant. Wearing a bow tie in an informal setting broadcasts an unawareness of (or an uncaring for) social norms (specifically, the social norm that bow ties are formal wear). Hence, it reinforces the negative stereotype of the scientist as someone whose social status is outside the mainstream, an "other", a position to be avoided rather than aspired to.
Its actually not that at all. While "most men ... only wear bow ties with formal dress" is true, that is not because bow ties in general are formal dress. The specific forms of bow ties which are formal dress are not what the small minority of men who wear bow ties in other contexts generally wear. They wear forms that are understood (or were, when they were in fashion) as informal dress, which are quite distinct. They just aren't currently popular fashion.
Well yeah, sure, but that doesn't help the situation at all. Clowns, for example, wear bow ties informally, but that's not exactly the kind of image I would like scientists to associate themselves with either. Yes, there was a time when bow ties were fashionable as non-formal wear among non-clowns, but as you yourself point out, those days are long gone.
Which to me is a good thing. The sooner "social norms" die out, the better. They're the source of many issues - and especially the source of the form of identity politics that exist today. The refusal to accept people who are "outside the social norm" and instead ostracize them for failing to "fit in" is the problem, in more ways than one, from my point of view.
>Hence, it reinforces the negative stereotype of the scientist as someone whose social status is outside the mainstream, an "other", a position to be avoided rather than aspired to.
Another way of saying this: It sends a positive message that you can be whatever you want to be, no matter how "weird" or "different" you are from society. That you can be yourself instead of what others wish to see you as. Even if you have a quirky or dated fashion sense.
I'll agree with you on the pedantry. I feel there is a time and place to be a pedant - and most of that is when it is mission critical or in academic work. It gets in the way of communication more times than it helps.
You surely don't mean that. What you probably mean is something more like, "The sooner social norms that I don't like die out, the better." Humans are social animals, and hence social norms are an indispensable part of the human condition.
I totally agree that the world would be a better place if people didn't have to worry so much about what they wore. But you have to pick your battles, and I think there are bigger fish to fry.
In the general sense of the word, it does qualify. However, my personal definition of doing science requires devotion toward advancement in a specific scientific field. I don't think that definition is actually uncommon. Specifically, few scientists (physicists, chemists, astronomers, biologists, etc...) will ever reference the work of the Mythbusters in their studies or attempts at explaining the universe or aspects of it. Bill Nye would be more likely to be referenced (at least by an aeronautical engineer), in my opinion, but like I said I don't imagine that's either's main focus; that is education. Mythbusters is specifically devoted to applying the scientific method to debunking myths, and that's awesome, but since they're not devoted to advancing a scientific field, I don't see what they do as science. As a far fetched analogy: if I apply the scientific method to blogging, it doesn't mean I'm doing science.
The Mythbusters were not professional scientists (they were professional entertainers), but they absolutely did science. And they did good science. Your dismissal of them is IMHO a symptom of the problem that they more than anyone else took a step toward solving.
Saving face how? It seemed to me he received a ton of criticism for not going with the name the majority voted for.
Gushing Granny was more popular.
Well said. A "cynical lesson on democracy", and the hollow term is currently is (and maybe always was).
yes. Using extremely famous memes only proves the effects they have had on our culture.
As for recent college graduates, they might well take a look at the swift mending hands of bureaucracy in this situation, and draw some pretty accurate conclusions about the stiff deeply unsilly hierarchy under which they'd be working.
In a more serious response, as a young researcher, let me assure you that when a position opens on a superb research facility such as this, we would fight for it even if it was called the RSS Hitler Did Nothing Wrong. The PR main target here is not researchers/employees, it is the public and specially kids.
Whimsy is a good thing.
I have always been a great fan of Dada, Surrealism, and Discordianism. So I am somewhat disappointed that it seems so dreadfully important to unwaveringly maintain the illusion that science is Serious Business. There is a time and place for both whimsy and gravitas in all aspects of life.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mister_Splashy_Pants
> After their initial reluctance Greenpeace embraced the result of the popular vote and used the name at the center of its campaign. The added publicity, at no cost to Greenpeace, gave it enough impact to convince the Japanese government, and the plan to hunt Humpback whales was abandoned in December 2007.
> In Campaign Magazine, advertising guru Russell Davies praised Greenpeace's handling of the campaign as "one of the defining moments in New Media marketing." The name has since spawned clothing, logos, flashvideos, and the slogan "Save Mister Splashy Pants."
Then there is this: http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation-now/2016/04/25/tru...