5 ms·

>Sometimes I make a hypothesis and test it, which superficially resembles debugging by superstition but is different. As Adam Savage [1] says, "The only differ

>Sometimes I make a hypothesis and test it, which superficially resembles debugging by superstition but is different. As Adam Savage [1] says, "The only difference between science and screwing around is writing it down." I don't follow this process for every problem I encounter, but when I have a really intractable issue, where nothing I've thought of seems to work, I start a "lab notebook" (usually a few sheets of printer paper). I write down all my assumptions, and start designing experiments to test each one in turn. It's a fair amount of overhead (which is why I don't use this approach for everything), but when all else fails, the scientific method powers through. [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BSUMBBFjxrY https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BSUMBBFjxrY

vacri 12y ago
As Adam Savage [1] says, "The only difference between science and screwing around is writing it down." Not true at all, though publishing is an important step. Understanding what is going on is important. A startling revelation that the MythBusters guys have no understanding of statistics was when they invented their buttery-toast dropper. Doing a 'calibration' dry run (literal dry run!) with toast with one side marked with an X instead of butter, 7 out of 10 trials read one way. Adam remarked "This isn't random enough - it should be 5!". The Mythbuster guys get 11/10 for curiosity and the spirit of investigation, but 4/10 for scientific rigour :)
- quanticle 12y ago
  That's not how I interpreted it at all. To me "writing it down" has nothing to do with publishing. "Writing it down" means that you systematically track the results of your experiments and then you use those results to update your hypotheses. If you don't write anything down, you're debugging by superstition.
  - vacri 12y ago
    I would not categorise that rather complex set of activities as 'only'. It's not just 'writing down', but analysing, predicting, and designing new experiments.
- dredmorbius 12y ago
  I'd have to see the segment in question, but that sounds suspiciously like an ironic comment.

vacri 12y ago

As Adam Savage [1] says, "The only difference between science and screwing around is writing it down." Not true at all, though publishing is an important step. Understanding what is going on is important. A startling revelation that the MythBusters guys have no understanding of statistics was when they invented their buttery-toast dropper. Doing a 'calibration' dry run (literal dry run!) with toast with one side marked with an X instead of butter, 7 out of 10 trials read one way. Adam remarked "This isn't random enough - it should be 5!". The Mythbuster guys get 11/10 for curiosity and the spirit of investigation, but 4/10 for scientific rigour :)

quanticle 12y ago
That's not how I interpreted it at all. To me "writing it down" has nothing to do with publishing. "Writing it down" means that you systematically track the results of your experiments and then you use those results to update your hypotheses. If you don't write anything down, you're debugging by superstition.
- vacri 12y ago
  I would not categorise that rather complex set of activities as 'only'. It's not just 'writing down', but analysing, predicting, and designing new experiments.
dredmorbius 12y ago
I'd have to see the segment in question, but that sounds suspiciously like an ironic comment.