Re: [Phys-l] ingenious? or just perverse?

[John Denker <jsd@av8n.com>]

On 07/11/2008 08:34 PM, Marc "Zeke" Kossover wrote:
> For what it is worth, it is considered part of the charm of the show
> that they don't always find the most optimal solutions or that their
> investigations are always the most scientific.

And in addition to the charm, it provides us with innumerable topics 
for classroom discussion:  "Explain 10 ways that this could have been 
done easier and  better by someone who knew a little bit of physics."

> The show wishes to promote the idea that it is possible for
> relatively normal people to do some science and engineering. 

This is "relatively normal"?  I often refer to these guys as "teenagers 
with a budget."  In more detail, they have:
 -- an adolescent sense of what is "fun" 
      (the more explosives, the better)
 -- a huge shop
 -- dozens of staff
 -- a multimillion dollar annual budget.


> They are
> rough and ready, like most people out there. They are under tight
> time pressures, partly because of how the show is filmed, but also to
> cause them to make mistakes like normal folk would have done.

If by "normal" you mean non-scientists, we can agree that these
guys are non-scientists.  Adam Savage was a child actor, and got
whatever education child actors get.  His official bio says he has 
a "high school diploma" but doesn't mention any schools actually 
attended.

Jamie Hyneman reportedly earned a degree in Russian language and 
literature.  I reckon that degree program didn't require a whole 
lot of college physics.

Also keep in mind that they are pretending to be a lot dumber than
they really are.  They are /actors/ first and foremost, actors playing
a part.  Having actors do dumb things and narrowly survive has been
considered entertainment since forever.

> Whether this succeeds in making viewers more scientific in their
> outlooks is debatable, 

Science?  These guys don't pretend to do science.  They even apologize 
("warning: science content") on the rare occasions where they bump up 
against anything slightly analytical.

What they're good at, and where students could benefit from thoughtful
watching, is _fabrication techniques_.  You can see on the show:
 -- basic machine shop tools (band saw, lathe, et cetera)
 -- basic woodworking and carpentry
 -- pneumatic components such as cylinders, torque motors, fast
  acting valves
 -- lots of other stuff that most people rarely get to see.

They don't always emphasize the techniques, so you have to look closely.  
In particular, in the lead balloon story, they "said" they were putting
it together with cellophane tape ... but there is also a wordless scene 
where they do a lot of patching using _spray glue_ to hold the patches 
on.  Take-home message:  spray glue exists, and is very valuable when 
you're building something out of thin film.

IMHO, this show is
 -- lots of explosions
 -- fabrication techniques
 -- science maybe rarely by accident, if at all.

If this show is science, we're all in big trouble.  If this is what the 
population at large /thinks/ is science, we're all in big trouble.  Arguing 
that it is relatively "more" science than other things you see on TV 
(such as roadrunners dropping anvils on coyotes) is not much comfort.

If this show is "science", then the next thing you know, UFOs will be
considered "history".  Oh, wait, never mind.