Hacker News Reader

Comment by r0fls | Hacker News Reader

>Mythbusters tremendously advanced the cause of science, and they did it in no small part by not taking themselves too seriously.

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.

View on HN

I have very mixed feelings about Bill Nye. I've never watched his show. The only time I've ever seen him in action is during his debate with Ken Ham, and that performance made me cringe. (If you want to know why, see the footnote in http://blog.rongarret.info/2015/02/this-is-why-prominent-ath...) More generally, I think he promotes a negative stereotype of scientists by choosing to wear a bow tie.

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.

Debunking conspiracies is not science, although surely it uses similar methods. Few scientists question whether we landed on the moon. Being a scientist relies on the ability to see true from false accurately -- Einstein and other great scientists questioned scientific phenomena and developed hypothesis to explain them. Whether some people believe we landed on the moon is a social phenomenon, and lies entirely outside the realm of science.

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

> Debunking conspiracies is not science

Why not?

> theirs don't seem to exist

http://mythresults.com

> 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?

>Nonetheless, a scientist wearing a bow tie reinforces negative stereotypes. It's sad, but true.

Can you extrapolate on this? Is there something about bow ties that I'm completely ignorant about?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bow_tie#Stereotypes_of_bow_tie...

I'm not seeing how his wearing a tie reinforces any negative stereotypes. If anything it just shows he's "an example of the stereotypical perception of a bow tie wearer" (a professor/teacher wearing a bow tie) which is... uh.. harmless? I see nothing else but some out-of-context quote form a short term Times writer.

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...

So let me put this in perspective by saying that Bill Nye's bow tie is a minor detail compared to the bigger problem, which is that his pedantry is atrocious. And reasonable people can certainly disagree about fashion. So what follows is just my personal opinion of what is (or at least should be) ultimately an unimportant matter.

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.

> 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).

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.

> 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.

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.

>Wearing a bow tie in an informal setting broadcasts an unawareness of (or an uncaring for) social norms

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.

> The sooner "social norms" die out, the better.

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.

>> Debunking conspiracies is not science >Why not?

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.

IMHO it is important to distinguish between doing science and being a professional scientist for the same reason it's important to distinguish between (say) playing a sport or a musical instrument and being a professional athlete or musician. Sports and music are democratized in ways that science is not. It is taken for granted that people can play sports or musical instruments without being professionals, but for some reason this is not the case in science. The profession of science oozes with disdain bordering on contempt for those who are not members of the club. This is a very serious problem in our society. It's the reason that climate-change denialists and young-earth creationists get as much traction as they do.

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.

I believe the point was that they draw positive attention to science, not that they do science or improve on scientific methods.

Science classes in school rarely advance anything other than the number of scientists in the world and the lay public's understanding.

No no no! The Mythbusters actually did real science! And most (though not all) of the time they did it quite well.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com