"I'm miffed that a single experiment gets described as 'this is science, dude!'".
A single data point is still a data point and this is still science.
A single data point is still a data point and this is still science.
Both presenters are enthusiastic and engaging, undeniably. And yes, this is a data point.
But this isn't science.
Partly because they claim they've 'proved it because we eliminated variables' (3'57"), when they clearly haven't.
Partly because one of the basic tenets of science is repeatability. As I noted above, there's a 1 in 4 chance of getting this result if you assume equal probabilities of clockwise / counter-clockwise. That assumption should be the starting point of any experiment around this effect.
Food colouring should have been put in - for some of the repeated experiments at least - before the valve was open, to confirm the water was in fact still motionless. (Or to show that it wasn't.)
Similarly that little match-stick cross on one of the pools - those should have been present on both pools, probably several of them, spread around the surface (though surface motion is not necessarily indicative of sub-surface movements).
I could go on.
We've had pop science before (Mr Wizard anyone?), and we're just seeing more of it today. Real science is slow, methodical and doesn't infer causality from one experiment. It says, "Maybe x caused y; let's do some more tests." It's the QA person who says "Happy path works. Let's break it and see if we can inject some Javascript."
Bill Nye is a mechanical engineer/comedian/kids host. Tyson is physicists. They're smart, but they're not experts on everything.
Like I said, I like these guys, but I realize it's not science. It's half entertainment/half makes you think. In these videos it's fun, but in the political arena, _science_ presented this way can be weaponized:
From the video description:
"For the record Destin and I repeated the experiment 3-4 times each in each hemisphere and got the same results every time."
'3-4 times' sounds a bit wobbly -- I'm hoping that they meant they repeated it 3 times in one place, 4 in the other.
My other half is a science educator, so I'm also very aware of the problems of getting kids (or even adults) excited about science.
On the other hand, I don't like the pseudo-science cruft the media and our society is full of, and I suspect there's some vague links between misrepresenting what the scientific method actually looks like, and people taking advantage of that growing murkiness.
I'm not questioning the credentials of these guys. Just the validity of this ersatz experiment.
> ... gotten some sensor experts to see if they could quantify the "stillness" of the water, etc.
They did have some archetypal (glasses-wearing) geek do a quick sound bite towards the beginning describing the effect being observed at small scales as 'bunk', but that's all we get from that side of the argument.
Interestingly in the video you can clearly see there's direct sunlight hitting one side of the indoor pool, and parts of the outdoor one. And during the time lapse section of the video, you can see surface debris on the indoor pool swirling around.
If the Coriolis effect worked at this scale, then you'd see consistent circular motion of water in these sized tubs even without emptying.