Big Bang Theory



This clip from the TV show, The Big Bang Theory, could be a documentary of my life, although as an empiricist I spend somewhat more time collecting and analyzing data, and then staring at computers, rather than staring at equations on whiteboards. But I can easily stare at an analysis for a few days too, so this scene isn't all that far off.

Comments

Sonic Ghost said…
Watching that clip in the context you put it in was so hilarious.
Sunday, October 18, 2009
Paprika said…
I just watched your video at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g55krVOV9EY

and I LOVE the part when you say "this ought to be FUCKING interesting"

that is superb
Sunday, October 18, 2009
Christina Georgiou said…
That is HILARIOUS...I'm not in a scientific discipline myself, but I can definitely relate.

BTW, I just checked out the video link Patrick provided, and it is brilliant. Thank you.
Monday, October 19, 2009
butterfly said…
I had a meeting with my thesis committee yesterday where all I really showed them was two graphs. One graph presented the data in a very traditional format, the way that one member of my committee had insisted it be done. My biggest problem with that format was that you pretty much needed a PhD in a very narrow area of specialization to be able to understand it. And it only provided a very limited amount of information.

The second graph was my idea. I took all the information that would have been traditionally shown on about 500 graphs and used a 3D graphing program to create a contour plot of all the info. And I used very pretty colors. And any idiot could look at it and understand where the major changes in the sorts of information presented were occurring. Even my thesis supervisor understood that graph and he never has a clue about what I’m up to.

The first response to the second graph was a “what the f**k?” Then they got all excited about it. It took a little longer for the guy who preferred the traditional way of doing things, but even he started to see the usefulness in my graph after a minute or two. Seeing a bunch of grown men get that excited by a graph is kind of funny.

Such is the drama of being a nerd.
Tuesday, October 20, 2009
Anonymous said…
Sandy, wow, congratulations! That difference in formulating an abstraction might turn out to be more memorable than a lot of short-term results that are obsolete in five years. Be sure to back up your data so that if you need to remember why that graph was good ten years from now, you can find at least one backup copy.

(I once made the mistake of losing too many backups and had to plead with an old department to send me a copy of their copy ... such is the shame of being a sloppy nerd.)

By the way, Rense linked to a UK article about retrocausality.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/science/biology_evolution/article6879293.ece

The theory is that retrocausality might be preventing the discovery of a Higgs boson or something, I don't really keep current with physics.
Tuesday, October 20, 2009
butterfly said…
FB, Thanks. I don't always get along very well with my thesis advisor. He tells everyone how smart I am, but I think I make him uncomfortable. The thing with lab equipment malfunctioning in my immeadiate vicinity doesn't help either.

I saw a similar article to the one you commented on here.
Tuesday, October 20, 2009
David Bailey said…
LOL - I kept expecting him to find an expression like E=MC^3 and slowly rub out the 3 and replace it with a 2 - maybe that would have been too obvious!
Wednesday, October 21, 2009
A. Shadow said…
LOVE this show!
Sunday, October 25, 2009
Paprika said…
Dean, what are your thoughts on Braude's "Limits of Influence"?

In your personal opinion, do you think large-scale PK exists?
Saturday, October 31, 2009
Er. said…

The Big Bang Theory is an American sitcom created and executive produced by Chuck Lorre and Bill Prady. It premiered on CBS September 24, 2007
Monday, November 02, 2009
Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Feeling the future meta-analysis

Before Cornell University psychologist Daryl Bem published an article on precognition in the prominent  Journal of Social and Personality Psychology, it had already (and ironically given the topic) evoked a response from the status quo. The New York Times  was kind enough to  prepare us to be outraged .  It was called " craziness, pure craziness" by life-long critic Ray Hyman. Within days the news media was announcing that it was all just a big mistake .  I wrote about the ensuing brouhaha  in this blog .  But the bottom line in science, and the key factor that trumps hysterical criticism, is whether the claimed effect can be repeated by independent investigators. If it can't then perhaps the original claim was mistaken or idiosyncratic. If it can, then the critics need to rethink their position. Now we have an answer to the question about replication. An article has been submitted to the Journal of Social and Personality Psychology  and is available here .  The key
Read more

Skeptic agrees that remote viewing is proven

Image
Excerpt from a January 2008 item in the UK's The Daily Mail newspaper: In 1995, the US Congress asked two independent scientists to assess whether the $20 million that the government had spent on psychic research had produced anything of value. And the conclusions proved to be somewhat unexpected. Professor Jessica Utts, a statistician from the University of California, discovered that remote viewers were correct 34 per cent of the time, a figure way beyond what chance guessing would allow. She says: "Using the standards applied to any other area of science, you have to conclude that certain psychic phenomena, such as remote viewing, have been well established. "The results are not due to chance or flaws in the experiments." Of course, this doesn't wash with sceptical scientists. Professor Richard Wiseman, a psychologist at the University of Hertfordshire, refuses to believe in remote viewing. He says: "I agree that by the standards of any other area
Read more

Show me the evidence

Image
Critics are fond of saying that there is no scientific evidence for psi. They wave their fist in the air and shout, "Show me the evidence!" Then they turn red and have a coughing fit. In less dramatic cases a student  might be genuinely curious and open-minded, but unsure where to begin to find reliable evidence about psi. Google knows all and sees all, but it doesn't know how to interpret or evaluate what it knows (at least not yet). In the past, my response to the "show me" challenge has been to give the titles of a few books to read, point to the bibliographies in those books, and advise the person to do their homework. I still think that this is the best approach for a beginner tackling a complex topic. But given the growing expectation that information on  virtually any topic ought to be available online within 60 seconds, traditional methods of scholarship are disappearing fast. So I've created a SHOW ME  page with downloadable articles on psi a
Read more