5 ms·

Why are you equating what was really a suggestion box to democracy? Isn't it really more of a tale of the UK Science Minister being better at saving public fac

Why are you equating what was really a suggestion box to democracy? Isn't it really more of a tale of the UK Science Minister being better at saving public face rather than following empirical evidence? 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."

lisper 10y ago
> make science seem, "serious," 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.
- dbcurtis 10y ago
  Your comment makes me envision a large research vessel exploding at sea in a giant fireball.... :/
  - squeaky-clean 10y ago
    You mean similar to this? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4cvGGxTsQx0 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4cvGGxTsQx0 (Video of the first SpaceX attempted landing and explosion).
- jcoffland 10y ago
  If you call that science.
- r0fls 10y ago
  >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.
  - NegativeK 10y ago
    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.
    - lisper 10y ago
      No no no! The Mythbusters actually did real science! And most (though not all) of the time they did it quite well.
  - lisper 10y ago
    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-atheists-should.html 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 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 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.
- OnlineCourage 10y ago
  It doesn't need to seem serious...the Science Minister is following more of a risk mitigation strategy - e.g. the vast population of the public will most likely feel OK about the, "Attenbourough," name, whereas a small fringe will leverage, "Boaty McBoatface," to attack the cause of science and say that it's a waste of money. The small fringe's attack has a risk of loss, whereas the larger science fanbase has no risk of loss, only a risk of not as much gain.
enraged_camel 10y ago
>>Isn't it really more of a tale of the UK Science Minister being better at saving public face rather than following empirical evidence? Saving face how? It seemed to me he received a ton of criticism for not going with the name the majority voted for.
- OnlineCourage 10y ago
  He would have received public criticism either way. However, he's going for the safer strategy, which is to mitigate attack rather than expand upon opportunity. Think about politicians like Sarah Palin who attack scientists for studying fruit flies, and then her tons of followers agreeing with her and lobbying to cut science funding because it, "sounds bad." The same effect could occur in the UK, although on a lesser scale.
qbrass 10y ago
>According to your logic we should all feel cynical and contemptuous that Mountain Dew is not now named, "Hitler Did Nothing Wrong." Gushing Granny was more popular.

lisper 10y ago

> make science seem, "serious," 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.

dbcurtis 10y ago
Your comment makes me envision a large research vessel exploding at sea in a giant fireball.... :/
- squeaky-clean 10y ago
  You mean similar to this? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4cvGGxTsQx0 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4cvGGxTsQx0 (Video of the first SpaceX attempted landing and explosion).
jcoffland 10y ago
If you call that science.
r0fls 10y ago
>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.
- NegativeK 10y ago
  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.
  - lisper 10y ago
    No no no! The Mythbusters actually did real science! And most (though not all) of the time they did it quite well.
- lisper 10y ago
  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-atheists-should.html 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 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 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.
OnlineCourage 10y ago
It doesn't need to seem serious...the Science Minister is following more of a risk mitigation strategy - e.g. the vast population of the public will most likely feel OK about the, "Attenbourough," name, whereas a small fringe will leverage, "Boaty McBoatface," to attack the cause of science and say that it's a waste of money. The small fringe's attack has a risk of loss, whereas the larger science fanbase has no risk of loss, only a risk of not as much gain.

enraged_camel 10y ago

>>Isn't it really more of a tale of the UK Science Minister being better at saving public face rather than following empirical evidence? Saving face how? It seemed to me he received a ton of criticism for not going with the name the majority voted for.

OnlineCourage 10y ago
He would have received public criticism either way. However, he's going for the safer strategy, which is to mitigate attack rather than expand upon opportunity. Think about politicians like Sarah Palin who attack scientists for studying fruit flies, and then her tons of followers agreeing with her and lobbying to cut science funding because it, "sounds bad." The same effect could occur in the UK, although on a lesser scale.

qbrass 10y ago

>According to your logic we should all feel cynical and contemptuous that Mountain Dew is not now named, "Hitler Did Nothing Wrong." Gushing Granny was more popular.