It's pretty annoying sometimes, the bad science that gets into movies and TV. Society ruining? Nah.
But man, when I saw the new resident evil trailer and someone in the trailer said "Her power is growing at a geometric rate" I groaned and turned to my friend, "A geometric rate eh? So it's growing like a triangle?"
Why wouldn't they say her power is growing as a geometric progression then?
Looking up the wording geometric on an online dictionary turns up lots of results that say "of or pertaining to geometry or the principles of geometry" but only one says "increasing or decreasing in a geometric progression"
You know they meant exponential rate. Cause a geometric rate could be going up, or down, or swapping positive and negative. And you know they are just trying to say that her strength is increasing upwards very, very rapidly by leaps and bounds :P
"Geometric growth" was a term I heard used fairly often when I was getting my math degree.
Geometric growth and exponential growth, in this context, mean the same thing - a situation where the amount of growth is proportional to the current size. For example, if your bank account balance doubles each week, that is exponential growth (it's also a geometric progression).
"Arithmetic growth" describes the other situation, where growth is independent of current size. If your bank account balance increases by $10 each week, that's arithmetic growth.
All I have to say about Milla Jovovich's power level is: "OVER FUCKING 9000?!?!?"
Vrtra Theory on
Are you a Software Engineer living in Seattle? HBO is hiring, message me.
To be honest, I think they're talking more about stuff like the "CSI effect" - that television can distort how we view science used, and that in turn can distort how we approach science in real life.
I've either read some articles or seen some Dateline/Primetime episodes where a jury has come back wondering why the prosecution didn't have more physical evidence like in CSI, then thought their case was worthless. That's fucking scary.
You know what I think is a much larger threat to scientific literacy than TV/movies?
Bad science reporting. Especially of the "we just came across one unreplicated study touting conclusion X so now we're going to report on X as if it's the next big breakthrough and everything before X was clearly wrong!" variety.
Feral on
every person who doesn't like an acquired taste always seems to think everyone who likes it is faking it. it should be an official fallacy.
You know what I think is a much larger threat to scientific literacy than TV/movies?
Bad science reporting. Especially of the "we just came across one unreplicated study touting conclusion X so now we're going to report on X as if it's the next big breakthrough and everything before X was clearly wrong!" variety.
Particularly with medial/health stuff.
Fuck sakes, just read the headlines of Google News>Health over a week, and you will see about 20 reports exalting the merits of some sort of bullshit, and then another 20 saying that those results are all flawed and the product is really is harmfully or at least not benifital.
To be honest, I think they're talking more about stuff like the "CSI effect" - that television can distort how we view science used, and that in turn can distort how we approach science in real life.
I've either read some articles or seen some Dateline/Primetime episodes where a jury has come back wondering why the prosecution didn't have more physical evidence like in CSI, then thought their case was worthless. That's fucking scary.
There's also the fact that, since CSI, juries tend to view forensic evidence as infallible - even to the point where they trust it above eyewitness statements.
To be honest, I think they're talking more about stuff like the "CSI effect" - that television can distort how we view science used, and that in turn can distort how we approach science in real life.
I've either read some articles or seen some Dateline/Primetime episodes where a jury has come back wondering why the prosecution didn't have more physical evidence like in CSI, then thought their case was worthless. That's fucking scary.
There's also the fact that, since CSI, juries tend to view forensic evidence as infallible - even to the point where they trust it above eyewitness statements.
To be honest, I think they're talking more about stuff like the "CSI effect" - that television can distort how we view science used, and that in turn can distort how we approach science in real life.
I've either read some articles or seen some Dateline/Primetime episodes where a jury has come back wondering why the prosecution didn't have more physical evidence like in CSI, then thought their case was worthless. That's fucking scary.
There's also the fact that, since CSI, juries tend to view forensic evidence as infallible - even to the point where they trust it above eyewitness statements.
Is that really a bad thing? I was under the impression that eyewitness testimony was actually very unreliable and there was a significant problem with juries giving it too much credence.
To be honest, I think they're talking more about stuff like the "CSI effect" - that television can distort how we view science used, and that in turn can distort how we approach science in real life.
I've either read some articles or seen some Dateline/Primetime episodes where a jury has come back wondering why the prosecution didn't have more physical evidence like in CSI, then thought their case was worthless. That's fucking scary.
There's also the fact that, since CSI, juries tend to view forensic evidence as infallible - even to the point where they trust it above eyewitness statements.
Is that really a bad thing? I was under the impression that eyewitness testimony was actually very unreliable and there was a significant problem with juries giving it too much credence.
Edit: Gah. Triple-simu-post.
I should have made myself clearer. Yes - eyewitnesses are fallible. But forensic evidence is not the magical solve-all of CSI - it's often inconclusive, and sometimes just plain wrong. Furthermore, it can't be easily challenged by the defence in cross-examination. The nature of the criminal law means that trials based purely on physical evidence are often more complicated, difficult, and less likely to to effect proper justice.
You know what I think is a much larger threat to scientific literacy than TV/movies?
Bad science reporting. Especially of the "we just came across one unreplicated study touting conclusion X so now we're going to report on X as if it's the next big breakthrough and everything before X was clearly wrong!" variety.
Particularly with medial/health stuff.
Fuck sakes, just read the headlines of Google News>Health over a week, and you will see about 20 reports exalting the merits of some sort of bullshit, and then another 20 saying that those results are all flawed and the product is really is harmfully or at least not benifital.
Yes.
If your only exposure to the scientific method is through the popular news wires, you'd probably get the idea that any given scientific field involves a complete position reversal every six months.
And then go read the comments to a fitness blog or food blog like ThatsFit and you'll see plenty of 'tards saying something to the effect of, "Sciences changes its mind on what's healthy and not all the time so I'm going to go smoke a cigar and eat manteca out of a jug!"
Feral on
every person who doesn't like an acquired taste always seems to think everyone who likes it is faking it. it should be an official fallacy.
Reading through the article again, all it seems like they have done is made a subject area that is generally horribly dry and boring engaging and interesting. If more professors put that kind of effort into their courses I think we'd see grades rise across the board.
It's also my opinion that we should just replace all grade school textbooks with these.
I swear to god every time I go into the john I come out smarter. So much interesting information in one spot. I've learned about physics, law, geography, biology and chemistry all from a little book beside my can. Awesome!
Faulty science will leave society as a whole unharmed but continue to frustrate those who know better.
It's more grammar and less science, but a perfect example presented itself recently: I have this bag of pretzels which, on the back, encourages you to take their pretzel quiz and test your "P.Q. - Pretzel Quotient, a measure of your pretzel smarts."
Fucking bag. Would it have been so hard to write P.I.Q. and actually have a term that makes sense? Would it have been so hard?
(pretzels I eat) /
(pretzels in the bag)
There's a pretzel quotient, and it has fuck all to do with smarts.
For some reason it just bothers me when people try to be witty and substitute things into acronyms with apparently no fucking idea of what the acronym means.
I am pleased that the CSI effect came up in this thread. I was expecting it.
If I ever turn to a life of crime and then get caught, I am going to exploit the CSI effect like a motherfucker and then send a case of whisky and cigars to CBS or whoever makes shows that I don't watch.
Tostitos on
The internet gives me a native +2 bonus in Craft (Disturbing Mental Image).
0
Options
Gabriel_Pitt(effective against Russian warships)Registered Userregular
edited August 2007
They won't ruin society, but bad science repeated tends to be ingrained in the social consciousness. For example, most people will understand that nuclear doodads, radiation, and genetic engineering will not actually create well-nigh unstoppable supermutants, but radiation and genesplicing have been the big bads for so many years, that it is accepted common knowledge that these things are inherently dangerous, and only barely understood and controlled. So the knee-jerk reaction against these things is irrational fear and the question 'Well what if-?"
It's also my opinion that we should just replace all grade school textbooks with these.
[img]http://www.a-ball.com/images/ultim.jpg[/ img]
I swear to god every time I go into the john I come out smarter. So much interesting information in one spot. I've learned about physics, law, geography, biology and chemistry all from a little book beside my can. Awesome![/img]
Posts
"Geometric growth" was a term I heard used fairly often when I was getting my math degree.
Then again, math has never really been my favorite subject, been years since I've taken a class of it, being an English major and whatnot.
I still say it's an odd way to describe someone getting stronger, given what it means.
"Arithmetic growth" describes the other situation, where growth is independent of current size. If your bank account balance increases by $10 each week, that's arithmetic growth.
All I have to say about Milla Jovovich's power level is: "OVER FUCKING 9000?!?!?"
There is an entire wikipedia article on it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CSI_Effect
Bad science reporting. Especially of the "we just came across one unreplicated study touting conclusion X so now we're going to report on X as if it's the next big breakthrough and everything before X was clearly wrong!" variety.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
Particularly with medial/health stuff.
Fuck sakes, just read the headlines of Google News>Health over a week, and you will see about 20 reports exalting the merits of some sort of bullshit, and then another 20 saying that those results are all flawed and the product is really is harmfully or at least not benifital.
There's also the fact that, since CSI, juries tend to view forensic evidence as infallible - even to the point where they trust it above eyewitness statements.
Is that necessarily a bad thing?
Is that really a bad thing? I was under the impression that eyewitness testimony was actually very unreliable and there was a significant problem with juries giving it too much credence.
Edit: Gah. Triple-simu-post.
I should have made myself clearer. Yes - eyewitnesses are fallible. But forensic evidence is not the magical solve-all of CSI - it's often inconclusive, and sometimes just plain wrong. Furthermore, it can't be easily challenged by the defence in cross-examination. The nature of the criminal law means that trials based purely on physical evidence are often more complicated, difficult, and less likely to to effect proper justice.
Yes.
If your only exposure to the scientific method is through the popular news wires, you'd probably get the idea that any given scientific field involves a complete position reversal every six months.
And then go read the comments to a fitness blog or food blog like ThatsFit and you'll see plenty of 'tards saying something to the effect of, "Sciences changes its mind on what's healthy and not all the time so I'm going to go smoke a cigar and eat manteca out of a jug!"
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
It's also my opinion that we should just replace all grade school textbooks with these.
I swear to god every time I go into the john I come out smarter. So much interesting information in one spot. I've learned about physics, law, geography, biology and chemistry all from a little book beside my can. Awesome!
It's more grammar and less science, but a perfect example presented itself recently: I have this bag of pretzels which, on the back, encourages you to take their pretzel quiz and test your "P.Q. - Pretzel Quotient, a measure of your pretzel smarts."
Fucking bag. Would it have been so hard to write P.I.Q. and actually have a term that makes sense? Would it have been so hard?
(pretzels I eat) /
(pretzels in the bag)
There's a pretzel quotient, and it has fuck all to do with smarts.
For some reason it just bothers me when people try to be witty and substitute things into acronyms with apparently no fucking idea of what the acronym means.
If I ever turn to a life of crime and then get caught, I am going to exploit the CSI effect like a motherfucker and then send a case of whisky and cigars to CBS or whoever makes shows that I don't watch.
Yes.
So awesome.