Talk:Proving Science Wrong (series) - Revision history

72.192.94.145: /* Not Disproving ≠ Confirmation */

2008-07-10T03:41:57Z

‎Not Disproving ≠ Confirmation

68.55.115.149: Not Disproving ≠ Confirmation

2007-04-29T14:38:06Z

Not Disproving ≠ Confirmation

JayHenry: forgot sig

2006-11-05T16:32:45Z

forgot sig

JayHenry at 16:31, 5 November 2006

2006-11-05T16:31:15Z

Brucker: /* Poor Pluto */

2006-11-04T00:49:18Z

‎Poor Pluto

JayHenry: /* Poor Pluto */

2006-11-03T23:44:35Z

‎Poor Pluto

Brucker: Poor Pluto

2006-11-03T19:48:58Z

Poor Pluto

New page

== Poor Pluto ==

I think [[Poor Pluto]] ''is'' part of the series. Do we need to call it to a vote? --[[User:Brucker|Brucker]] 11:48, 3 November 2006 (PST)

← Older revision		Revision as of 03:41, 10 July 2008
Line 18:		Line 18:

	Can anybody REALLY possibly believe that Bree staring at Daniel all day helps confirm the Uncertainty Principle, just because it doesn't disprove it? [[User:68.55.115.149\|68.55.115.149]] 09:38, 29 April 2007 (CDT)		Can anybody REALLY possibly believe that Bree staring at Daniel all day helps confirm the Uncertainty Principle, just because it doesn't disprove it? [[User:68.55.115.149\|68.55.115.149]] 09:38, 29 April 2007 (CDT)
		+
		+	Well, if Daniel's doing absolutely nothing, then yes, it is possible.

← Older revision		Revision as of 14:38, 29 April 2007
Line 8:		Line 8:

	:::She says, "today for proving science wrong I turned Daniel into scissors." She's not serious. Then she says, "instead of proving science wrong." When I said "no science" it's clear I meant "no scientific theory," not "no scientific factoids." But whatever. I thought the new category for videos with science factoids would be a better fit. It's still on the PSW page, but it's grouped with other videos that have more similar format and content. If we are voting I vote [[Poor Pluto]] '''not PSW'''. And the Tolstoy Principle is a real principle, it's from Guns, Germs and Steel, by Jared Diamond. It's called the Anna Karenina principle. It's exactly what Bree says it is, she just calls it Tolstoy, probably so the title of the video isn't too long. It's from Chapter 9 of the book.--[[User:JayHenry\|JayHenry]] 08:32, 5 November 2006 (PST)		:::She says, "today for proving science wrong I turned Daniel into scissors." She's not serious. Then she says, "instead of proving science wrong." When I said "no science" it's clear I meant "no scientific theory," not "no scientific factoids." But whatever. I thought the new category for videos with science factoids would be a better fit. It's still on the PSW page, but it's grouped with other videos that have more similar format and content. If we are voting I vote [[Poor Pluto]] '''not PSW'''. And the Tolstoy Principle is a real principle, it's from Guns, Germs and Steel, by Jared Diamond. It's called the Anna Karenina principle. It's exactly what Bree says it is, she just calls it Tolstoy, probably so the title of the video isn't too long. It's from Chapter 9 of the book.--[[User:JayHenry\|JayHenry]] 08:32, 5 November 2006 (PST)
		+
		+	== Not Disproving ≠ Confirmation ==
		+
		+	"by never actually disproving anything, she indirectly helps confirm it."
		+
		+	No she doesn't! That's absurd.
		+
		+	Bree never actually disproves anything because all of her PSWs are satirical and not really scientific in nature. She doesn't actually TRY to duplicate the experiments that led to those scientific theories.
		+
		+	Can anybody REALLY possibly believe that Bree staring at Daniel all day helps confirm the Uncertainty Principle, just because it doesn't disprove it? [[User:68.55.115.149\|68.55.115.149]] 09:38, 29 April 2007 (CDT)

← Older revision		Revision as of 16:32, 5 November 2006
Line 7:		Line 7:
	::Yes, she says "instead", but she does start of the video with "For today's 'Proving Science Wrong'..." That in particular is to my mind the most compelling point, but to reply to your points: 1) "Proving Science Wrong" episodes ''never'' have proof, despite the title suggesting otherwise, 2) there is plenty of science in this video, certainly far more than in [[The Tolstoy Principle (and Dad "talks" to Daniel)#Notes\|Tolstoy Principal]] (see notes) which has virtually none whatsoever, 3) something is actually wrong, much moreso than in other PSW videos, and 4) as I said above, she says it ''is''. Granted, the format and content of this "Proving Science Wrong" is very different from others; as I said, there is more actual ''science'', and there is no Danielbeast, who appears in every other episode, and a large portion of the video is Bree talking about a personal event in her past. I don't see why these things count it out, though. --[[User:Brucker\|Brucker]] 16:49, 3 November 2006 (PST)		::Yes, she says "instead", but she does start of the video with "For today's 'Proving Science Wrong'..." That in particular is to my mind the most compelling point, but to reply to your points: 1) "Proving Science Wrong" episodes ''never'' have proof, despite the title suggesting otherwise, 2) there is plenty of science in this video, certainly far more than in [[The Tolstoy Principle (and Dad "talks" to Daniel)#Notes\|Tolstoy Principal]] (see notes) which has virtually none whatsoever, 3) something is actually wrong, much moreso than in other PSW videos, and 4) as I said above, she says it ''is''. Granted, the format and content of this "Proving Science Wrong" is very different from others; as I said, there is more actual ''science'', and there is no Danielbeast, who appears in every other episode, and a large portion of the video is Bree talking about a personal event in her past. I don't see why these things count it out, though. --[[User:Brucker\|Brucker]] 16:49, 3 November 2006 (PST)

−	:::She says, "today for proving science wrong I turned Daniel into scissors." She's not serious. Then she says, "instead of proving science wrong." But whatever. I thought the new category for videos with science factoids would be a better fit. It's still on the PSW page, ~~and~~ it's grouped with other videos that have more similar format and content. If we are voting I vote [[Poor Pluto]] '''not PSW'''. And the Tolstoy Principle is a real principle, it's from Guns, Germs and Steel, by Jared Diamond. It's called the Anna Karenina principle. It's exactly what Bree says it is, she just calls it Tolstoy, probably so the title of the video isn't too long. It's from Chapter 9 of the book.	+	:::She says, "today for proving science wrong I turned Daniel into scissors." She's not serious. Then she says, "instead of proving science wrong." When I said "no science" it's clear I meant "no scientific theory," not "no scientific factoids." But whatever. I thought the new category for videos with science factoids would be a better fit. It's still on the PSW page, but it's grouped with other videos that have more similar format and content. If we are voting I vote [[Poor Pluto]] '''not PSW'''. And the Tolstoy Principle is a real principle, it's from Guns, Germs and Steel, by Jared Diamond. It's called the Anna Karenina principle. It's exactly what Bree says it is, she just calls it Tolstoy, probably so the title of the video isn't too long. It's from Chapter 9 of the book.--[[User:JayHenry\|JayHenry]] 08:32, 5 November 2006 (PST)

← Older revision		Revision as of 16:31, 5 November 2006
Line 6:		Line 6:

	::Yes, she says "instead", but she does start of the video with "For today's 'Proving Science Wrong'..." That in particular is to my mind the most compelling point, but to reply to your points: 1) "Proving Science Wrong" episodes ''never'' have proof, despite the title suggesting otherwise, 2) there is plenty of science in this video, certainly far more than in [[The Tolstoy Principle (and Dad "talks" to Daniel)#Notes\|Tolstoy Principal]] (see notes) which has virtually none whatsoever, 3) something is actually wrong, much moreso than in other PSW videos, and 4) as I said above, she says it ''is''. Granted, the format and content of this "Proving Science Wrong" is very different from others; as I said, there is more actual ''science'', and there is no Danielbeast, who appears in every other episode, and a large portion of the video is Bree talking about a personal event in her past. I don't see why these things count it out, though. --[[User:Brucker\|Brucker]] 16:49, 3 November 2006 (PST)		::Yes, she says "instead", but she does start of the video with "For today's 'Proving Science Wrong'..." That in particular is to my mind the most compelling point, but to reply to your points: 1) "Proving Science Wrong" episodes ''never'' have proof, despite the title suggesting otherwise, 2) there is plenty of science in this video, certainly far more than in [[The Tolstoy Principle (and Dad "talks" to Daniel)#Notes\|Tolstoy Principal]] (see notes) which has virtually none whatsoever, 3) something is actually wrong, much moreso than in other PSW videos, and 4) as I said above, she says it ''is''. Granted, the format and content of this "Proving Science Wrong" is very different from others; as I said, there is more actual ''science'', and there is no Danielbeast, who appears in every other episode, and a large portion of the video is Bree talking about a personal event in her past. I don't see why these things count it out, though. --[[User:Brucker\|Brucker]] 16:49, 3 November 2006 (PST)
		+
		+	:::She says, "today for proving science wrong I turned Daniel into scissors." She's not serious. Then she says, "instead of proving science wrong." But whatever. I thought the new category for videos with science factoids would be a better fit. It's still on the PSW page, and it's grouped with other videos that have more similar format and content. If we are voting I vote [[Poor Pluto]] '''not PSW'''. And the Tolstoy Principle is a real principle, it's from Guns, Germs and Steel, by Jared Diamond. It's called the Anna Karenina principle. It's exactly what Bree says it is, she just calls it Tolstoy, probably so the title of the video isn't too long. It's from Chapter 9 of the book.

← Older revision		Revision as of 00:49, 4 November 2006
Line 4:		Line 4:

	:How is this Proving Science Wrong? Bree even says, "'''''instead''''' of proving science wrong we're gonna help pluto adjust..." And, more importantly, she doesn't address any scientific theory (Pluto is not a scientific theory, it's a planet) and she doesn't prove anything wrong. So there's 1) no proof 2) no science 3) nothing is wrong and 4) Bree says it's not proving science wrong. I think that's a pretty compelling case. Clearly belongs in the category of vids where she talks about science related topics, but it's also clearly not PSW.--[[User:JayHenry\|JayHenry]] 15:44, 3 November 2006 (PST)		:How is this Proving Science Wrong? Bree even says, "'''''instead''''' of proving science wrong we're gonna help pluto adjust..." And, more importantly, she doesn't address any scientific theory (Pluto is not a scientific theory, it's a planet) and she doesn't prove anything wrong. So there's 1) no proof 2) no science 3) nothing is wrong and 4) Bree says it's not proving science wrong. I think that's a pretty compelling case. Clearly belongs in the category of vids where she talks about science related topics, but it's also clearly not PSW.--[[User:JayHenry\|JayHenry]] 15:44, 3 November 2006 (PST)
		+
		+	::Yes, she says "instead", but she does start of the video with "For today's 'Proving Science Wrong'..." That in particular is to my mind the most compelling point, but to reply to your points: 1) "Proving Science Wrong" episodes ''never'' have proof, despite the title suggesting otherwise, 2) there is plenty of science in this video, certainly far more than in [[The Tolstoy Principle (and Dad "talks" to Daniel)#Notes\|Tolstoy Principal]] (see notes) which has virtually none whatsoever, 3) something is actually wrong, much moreso than in other PSW videos, and 4) as I said above, she says it ''is''. Granted, the format and content of this "Proving Science Wrong" is very different from others; as I said, there is more actual ''science'', and there is no Danielbeast, who appears in every other episode, and a large portion of the video is Bree talking about a personal event in her past. I don't see why these things count it out, though. --[[User:Brucker\|Brucker]] 16:49, 3 November 2006 (PST)

← Older revision		Revision as of 23:44, 3 November 2006
Line 2:		Line 2:

	I think [[Poor Pluto]] ''is'' part of the series. Do we need to call it to a vote? --[[User:Brucker\|Brucker]] 11:48, 3 November 2006 (PST)		I think [[Poor Pluto]] ''is'' part of the series. Do we need to call it to a vote? --[[User:Brucker\|Brucker]] 11:48, 3 November 2006 (PST)
		+
		+	:How is this Proving Science Wrong? Bree even says, "'''''instead''''' of proving science wrong we're gonna help pluto adjust..." And, more importantly, she doesn't address any scientific theory (Pluto is not a scientific theory, it's a planet) and she doesn't prove anything wrong. So there's 1) no proof 2) no science 3) nothing is wrong and 4) Bree says it's not proving science wrong. I think that's a pretty compelling case. Clearly belongs in the category of vids where she talks about science related topics, but it's also clearly not PSW.--[[User:JayHenry\|JayHenry]] 15:44, 3 November 2006 (PST)