6 ms·

I'm actually far more impressed (or stunned) that there is a paper for "Collective Motion of Moshers at Heavy Metal Concerts". Does this qualify as science?! E

by buster 14y ago

I'm actually far more impressed (or stunned) that there is a paper for "Collective Motion of Moshers at Heavy Metal Concerts". Does this qualify as science?! Edit: Ah well, i always thought a paper would be like a diploma or similar, turns out it is a 2 and a half page article written by 4(!) people who watched youtube to simulate red dots in a mass of black dots. Anyway, i'm underwhelmed.

DanBC 14y ago
Feynman would study what interested him. We got some valuable work because he happened to wonder why X does Z. So long as the work is rigorous there's nothing wrong with studying collective motion of moshers at heavy metal concerts.
- obviouslygreen 14y ago
  Agreed... my initial reaction to this was "maybe this will explain that Slipknot concert!" It doesn't have to be world-changing or life-saving to be interesting (though those things certainly don't hurt... usually).
  - buster 14y ago
    To me it looks like it's ridiculing science papers.. 4 students writing 2 and a half pages about "MASHers", with a bunch of youtube links as source material. Yeah, science! The fact that the story is prominently posted by dailymail filed under "sciencetech" is ridiculous as well. Call me when you find stadiums build on Jesse Silverbergs great principle of MASHers, that save so many lives. To me it's a shame that this appears publicly posted on a universities site. I suppose that, for this to happen, a Professor must have agreed and supported this paper.. ugh. P.S.: I do understand very well that simulation of crowds, especially in buildings, is very important but i feel that this is making fun of serious scientists putting real effort into such work.
    - obviouslygreen 14y ago
      Point taken. I should have paid more attention, I did not realize this was being passed off as something like that.
- buster 14y ago
  It would certainly be interesting to hear Feynmans opinion of a 2 page "science" paper about drunken heavy metal fans smashing their heads together :P
  - elteto 14y ago
    Feynman always seemed to enjoy doing physics for fun and not just because it was necessary to advance science or anything like that. A classic example is his spinning plates story [1]. [1] http://www.physics.ohio-state.edu/~kilcup/262/feynman.html http://www.physics.ohio-state.edu/~kilcup/262/feynman.html
    - buster 14y ago
      Yet, he didn't write a scientific paper about what he considered "just playing around". Same as i wouldn't write a paper about writing "hello world" in visual basic. Yet, i could become a world famous programmer, scientist and then write a paper about whatever started with learning how to program. There is a big difference here. Feynman worked on the plates problem just for his own, he didn't intent to publish a paper on "how does a sign on a plate look when the plate wobbles" and certainly he didn't expect people to tell him how important his scientific research on plates could be for the world :P Or, to put it another way: I wouldn't find the paper ridiculous if it would just be a Javascript on github by a guy who finds it interesting how people move in a rock concert. In fact, it's not even a realistic simulation. I think you may agree when you have ever been at a heavy metal concert.
      - elteto 14y ago
        Don't get me wrong, I partly agree with your stand. My problem is that is hard to dismiss something just on the basis of "it is not science since is not useful", because is almost impossible to draw a dividing line. Many useful discoveries were the product of people just "fooling" around and I believe that this attitude should be encouraged in science. Yeah, you will always have those guys who go and analyze how people slam into each other in rock concerts, but they are just outliers, most people out there are producing research that has some kind of usefulness.
fusiongyro 14y ago
If you'd rather go meta, there's a metal song about moshing: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sWWdgCqh-1g http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sWWdgCqh-1g "Toxic Waltz" by Exodus. Great song, fantastic album.
- buster 14y ago
  I'd rather let the paper simulate this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KuiZTV39Mh0&feature=player_detailpage#t=235s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KuiZTV39Mh0&feature=play... :) edit: Oh well, 2007 was a much better year: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qs0LvyuiqjM&feature=player_detailpage#t=180s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qs0LvyuiqjM&feature=play...
- crowbar 14y ago
  Agreed fully! Now, if only this simulation did more with the "Wall of Death" and circle pits you see at most thrash metal shows.
- malkia 14y ago
  My favourite: S.O.D. The Milano Mosh - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pNKKAXtaxco http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pNKKAXtaxco You think that, you're really hard You think that you can mosh Got your suspenders, and got your boots You'd better wear armor, you fuckin' fool WE MOSH, until we die, WE MOSH, until you try. You think, that you can try, But can you do ... the MILANO MOSH ! REPEAT VERSE
- davidw 14y ago
  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LpClopxgGFY http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LpClopxgGFY - Fishbone's "Swim" is in the same category. Shit... that's 20 years old.
tinco 14y ago
Ofcourse this is science. Science is observing something and writing down what you observe. If you read the research group's page about their mosh pits research you'll find that their intention is to model the behaviour of riots (as in the potentially dangerous situations that sometimes erupt from large gatherings of people). Not that it needs any relation to real world problems for it to be qualified as science.
adrianm 14y ago
I first read this on New Scientist a couple of weeks ago. Link here: http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg21729055.700-mosh-pit-physics-could-aid-disaster-planning.html http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg21729055.700-mosh-pit-.... It mentions that the physics studied here could have practical applications in emergency planning. Answering questions like, "How does a chaotic crowd behave in an emergency?".
wamatt 14y ago
>Does this qualify as science? That's a surprisingly common, yet elusive and involved inquiry in the philosophy of science. Rather, than attempting to reach consensus on what "Science" is, perhaps we should be interested in research that aims to follow the scientific method and related principles, irrespective of the subject matter?

by buster 14y ago

DanBC 14y ago

Feynman would study what interested him. We got some valuable work because he happened to wonder why X does Z. So long as the work is rigorous there's nothing wrong with studying collective motion of moshers at heavy metal concerts.

obviouslygreen 14y ago
Agreed... my initial reaction to this was "maybe this will explain that Slipknot concert!" It doesn't have to be world-changing or life-saving to be interesting (though those things certainly don't hurt... usually).
- buster 14y ago
  To me it looks like it's ridiculing science papers.. 4 students writing 2 and a half pages about "MASHers", with a bunch of youtube links as source material. Yeah, science! The fact that the story is prominently posted by dailymail filed under "sciencetech" is ridiculous as well. Call me when you find stadiums build on Jesse Silverbergs great principle of MASHers, that save so many lives. To me it's a shame that this appears publicly posted on a universities site. I suppose that, for this to happen, a Professor must have agreed and supported this paper.. ugh. P.S.: I do understand very well that simulation of crowds, especially in buildings, is very important but i feel that this is making fun of serious scientists putting real effort into such work.
  - obviouslygreen 14y ago
    Point taken. I should have paid more attention, I did not realize this was being passed off as something like that.
buster 14y ago
It would certainly be interesting to hear Feynmans opinion of a 2 page "science" paper about drunken heavy metal fans smashing their heads together :P
- elteto 14y ago
  Feynman always seemed to enjoy doing physics for fun and not just because it was necessary to advance science or anything like that. A classic example is his spinning plates story [1]. [1] http://www.physics.ohio-state.edu/~kilcup/262/feynman.html http://www.physics.ohio-state.edu/~kilcup/262/feynman.html
  - buster 14y ago
    Yet, he didn't write a scientific paper about what he considered "just playing around". Same as i wouldn't write a paper about writing "hello world" in visual basic. Yet, i could become a world famous programmer, scientist and then write a paper about whatever started with learning how to program. There is a big difference here. Feynman worked on the plates problem just for his own, he didn't intent to publish a paper on "how does a sign on a plate look when the plate wobbles" and certainly he didn't expect people to tell him how important his scientific research on plates could be for the world :P Or, to put it another way: I wouldn't find the paper ridiculous if it would just be a Javascript on github by a guy who finds it interesting how people move in a rock concert. In fact, it's not even a realistic simulation. I think you may agree when you have ever been at a heavy metal concert.
    - elteto 14y ago
      Don't get me wrong, I partly agree with your stand. My problem is that is hard to dismiss something just on the basis of "it is not science since is not useful", because is almost impossible to draw a dividing line. Many useful discoveries were the product of people just "fooling" around and I believe that this attitude should be encouraged in science. Yeah, you will always have those guys who go and analyze how people slam into each other in rock concerts, but they are just outliers, most people out there are producing research that has some kind of usefulness.

fusiongyro 14y ago

If you'd rather go meta, there's a metal song about moshing: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sWWdgCqh-1g http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sWWdgCqh-1g "Toxic Waltz" by Exodus. Great song, fantastic album.

buster 14y ago
I'd rather let the paper simulate this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KuiZTV39Mh0&feature=player_detailpage#t=235s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KuiZTV39Mh0&feature=play... :) edit: Oh well, 2007 was a much better year: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qs0LvyuiqjM&feature=player_detailpage#t=180s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qs0LvyuiqjM&feature=play...
crowbar 14y ago
Agreed fully! Now, if only this simulation did more with the "Wall of Death" and circle pits you see at most thrash metal shows.
malkia 14y ago
My favourite: S.O.D. The Milano Mosh - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pNKKAXtaxco http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pNKKAXtaxco You think that, you're really hard You think that you can mosh Got your suspenders, and got your boots You'd better wear armor, you fuckin' fool WE MOSH, until we die, WE MOSH, until you try. You think, that you can try, But can you do ... the MILANO MOSH ! REPEAT VERSE
davidw 14y ago
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LpClopxgGFY http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LpClopxgGFY - Fishbone's "Swim" is in the same category. Shit... that's 20 years old.

tinco 14y ago

Ofcourse this is science. Science is observing something and writing down what you observe. If you read the research group's page about their mosh pits research you'll find that their intention is to model the behaviour of riots (as in the potentially dangerous situations that sometimes erupt from large gatherings of people). Not that it needs any relation to real world problems for it to be qualified as science.

adrianm 14y ago

I first read this on New Scientist a couple of weeks ago. Link here: http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg21729055.700-mosh-pit-physics-could-aid-disaster-planning.html http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg21729055.700-mosh-pit-.... It mentions that the physics studied here could have practical applications in emergency planning. Answering questions like, "How does a chaotic crowd behave in an emergency?".

wamatt 14y ago

>Does this qualify as science? That's a surprisingly common, yet elusive and involved inquiry in the philosophy of science. Rather, than attempting to reach consensus on what "Science" is, perhaps we should be interested in research that aims to follow the scientific method and related principles, irrespective of the subject matter?