Talk:Brainiac: Science Abuse

	Television portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Television, a collaborative effort to develop and improve Wikipedia articles about television programs. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page where you can join the discussion. To improve this article, please refer to the style guidelines for the type of work.TelevisionWikipedia:WikiProject TelevisionTemplate:WikiProject Televisiontelevision articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the British television task force.

Episode Length

Were these half-hour episode or hour episode that are being cut in half for Americna television? And how many of them are there? Sweetfreek 06:31, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I can tell you that in the UK, that they are a hour long including the commercials. And I cannot think of how many there is. --eddie 20:44, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Unable to answer your second question but they last for 1 hour in Australia Real World 10:35, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know to. But in The Netherlands they are 1 hour. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.151.241.241 (talk) 17:20, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

All episodes last 1 hour including commercials. Any half-hour version has been re-edited from the original 1-hour show. -Bonalaw 13:34, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The version shown on Discovery Channel Denmark is also one hour long, including commercials. But another thing... I've only seen one and a half episode, so far, but in the one I've just caught, they were using the Cheeky Girls to conduct a (barely scientific experiment), having chosen them because they're twins (and obviously also because they're famous, and possibly looking for work). Is that a frequent occurence, or have the girls only been used in one or two episodes? --Peter Knutsen 16:07, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

G4 runs half hour shows. 207.99.90.253 12:29, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am a watcher of Brainiac: Science Abuse who lives in Melbourne, Australia. The show airs on Network Ten here, and the shows are 1 hour long. --DChiuch 08:09, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In Germany they are broadcasted by VIVA (a music channel like MTV) in english with german subtitels and they are about half an hour long I don´t tell a machine my name

well accualy in the UK the episodes are around 50 mins including comercials. each part is around 12-13 mins . and it finishes at 5 mins to that hour. if it started at 8pm it would finish at 8:55pm Bobo6balde66 18:30, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

NI3

In case any of you were wondering like I was, Peter Logan's Exploding Paste is NI3. Al-Kadafi 05:07, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Requests

I was just wondering if anyone who is a large fan of Brainiac: Science Abuse could write an episode list. I would but I only watch it occasionaly. --DChiuch 08:04, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Could someone please fix the margin on the main page? (beginning with the Second Series) - fixed - thanks!

How can I massage to Brainiac: Sience Abuse? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.126.50.149 (talk) 12:27, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not the real Tina Turner

She's quite obviously a rather bad Tina Turner "impersonator", which is of course the intended joke

Yes, that's right, she is bad, indeed. But if she's bad or not is more a matter of personal taste. I found it useful to find that information about Tina Turner and her bunsen burner in the article, and could even add a tiny fact (about Nutbush, where she alledgedly used to blew up cars first) to that portion that someone might like to be just there. Who knows... Trivia knowledge that sometimes appears here. But if it is based on facts I appreciate it. Who knows what it is good for.

Do you think the Tina Turner and her bunsen burner item on the list is too biased?

No, I do not think the Tina Turner item is a bias in itself. I do not like the following pharses because they are not neutral enough, exaggerate without a reason or are irrelevant:

rather obvious - if it is obvious or not is in the eye of the observer. I think she walks like Tina pretty well. ;-)

pop star Tina Turner - if she's a star or not ... maybe she is. she definitely is a singer.

coloured cars - yes, sure ... aren't all cars coloured?!?

explosives such as gunpowder - I think to mention explosives is enough, who cannot imagine an example of an explosive can look it up in the relevant article.

metal burning fireball - sounds like from a star trek movie...

current version:

Tina Turner and her Bunsen Burner - A rather obvious impersonator of pop star Tina Turner "takes a break" from show business to do explosive science with her bunsen burner "like she did in her lab in Nutbush", and with any type of explosives such as gunpowder that she needs to destroy her choice of a coloured car; she lights it up with her burner and waits until it becomes a metal burning fireball.

my suggestion:

Tina Turner and her Bunsen Burner - An impersonator of singer Tina Turner "takes a break" from show business to do explosive science with her bunsen burner "like she did in her lab in Nutbush". She destroys cars with different types of explosives that are ignited with her bunsen burner.

Episode list

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0442633/episodes

That shows 29 in all. Whether that's the 1 hour originals or the half hour G4TV versions...

There were 6 shows in Series 1, 13 in series 2, 8 in series 3 and there will be 9 in Series 4. Each series also had a "Best Of" episode , and there was also a Christmas "special" in 2005.

Validity and Reliability

It has already been hinted in the current article, but I think it would be appropriate to point out how unreliable the results of the experiments carried out in the shows are. The show is, of course, mainly meant for for entertainment, but unreliable results may give the viewer false ideas. Hauberg 18:53, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please state exactly which experiments have incorrect results, what the results "should" be, and the reasons. --207.109.251.120 05:25, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for not being specific. One example would be an episode in which they conducted an experiment concerning which remedy was best for avoiding tears when chopping onions. Three different remedies were tested by having three different people testing one remedy each. The host of the show concluded that holding a lemon in your mouth was the best because the person using this method shred the least amount of tears. This is, by my reckoning, an example on unreliable and possible invalid results, as the fact that the difference in shredded tears could just be a result of the three persons not being equally prone to the tear inducing chemical from the chopped onions.

Hauberg 20:06, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This very point has now been added to the page. Although if you can't tell that the show isn't serious, you do seriously need a sense of humour replacement. However, as i've stated in the Mythbusters section below, i've added this info.

It's not science, it's "science abuse". ~ Strathmeyer 03:37, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mythbusters

This show completely rips off, or should I say attempts to rip off Mythbusters. However, being complete retards with no knowledge of anything, brainiac had to add semi naked woman to make their show seem cooler. I hope you all die of bird flu

..

Congratulations for completely missing the point. I've now removed your blatant trolling from the Brainiac page.

Sigh this show does not rip off mythbusters, it hardly EVER puts myths to the test, in fact I'd say this show is more like Bill Nye than Mythbusters. How would I know, I see both shows. This show is more about experiments, in fact in one episode they tested to see which type of packaging material is the most effective, they did this by chucking TVs out of a van going 65 mph (each one coated with a different protective packaging). I should also remind you about their attempts to destroy a black box flight recorder and of course electrocution now does that sound like mythbusters?

Has anyone else noticed that the show's experiments lack any scientific analysis? The Brainiac team tends to use random guesses and sporadic pieces of inconsistent data to prove uncertain points. Or is that the humor behind the show?

I question the inclustion of a link to the Mythbusters article due to the above valid reasons. It's just another TV show that performs experiments and has no relationship to Brainiac. The only reason I can imagine for the cross-reference is due to the oft-heard "Mythbusters Rip Off" argument. As this argument is debunked above, I think the cross reference should be removed --RickMeasham 07:21, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds a bit like MythBusters mixed with Bill Nye, with just a hint of Beauty and the Geek (you know, weird tasks for smart people that still appeal to the general public), if you ask me. It really doesn't "rip off" anything... I've never seen it but from the description, it sounds like a few key elements fused into one show, which, in theory, sounds interesting.162.83.104.252 01:48, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Obvious bias

Without going into too much detail (because it's fairly clear from the article), the content appears to reflect a negattive bias againts the show. Whilst it's fairly conclusively been established that much of the "science" is either faked or embellished, it should be presented in suh a way that reflects exactly that - that it's not actually been proven. This comment was added 15 July 2006 by User:81.170.50.65

I think most people realise that Brainiac is an entertainment show first, and a science show second. For good or for bad, that's why it is a ratings success. So any alleged "embellishments" are not so bad as they might be on a serious science show. There are some proper scientific segments, but I suspect there are a lot of viewers who just want to see a caravan explode.

I think it's similar "controversy" as to Have I Got News For You being scripted.

--Ritchie333 10:24, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tickle's Teasers section

This section is getting huge and is basically a list. Would it be sensible to split it into its own article List of Tickle's Teasers from Brainiac since it's not adding much to the article? Pseudomonas 01:38, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK if you want Bobo6balde66 18:31, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It appears the entire Tickle's Teasers section has been removed - and the link pointing to it is gone. Anyone have any ideas? Costner 15:48, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fourth season

I thought the fourth season was still airing, and if it is shouldn't that be notified? Wikisquared 19:06, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:BrainiacLogo.jpg

Could someone please sort out the copyright info on this image? It clearly isn't public domain. Mahahahaneapneap 17:42, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hammond Land Speed

It says Hammond was injured during an attempt at the land speed.. this is not confirmed and not that relevant. It should be removed (RuSTy1989 22:31, 21 September 2006 (UTC))[reply]

Especially as, if he was attempting the land speed record, then it wasn't for this show but for Top Gear. It has no relevence to Brainiac --RickMeasham 07:24, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Faking Experiments

If you look here: http://www.guardian.co.uk/life/badscience/story/0,,1826518,00.html

you'll see that they have admitted to faking some of their experiments without informing their viewers of this. I think, maybe it should be in the article?

I fully agree that this should be added to the article. Additional references are here: http://www.badscience.net/?p=270 . Seriously the explosions in this experiment: ( http://youtube.com/watch?v=m55kgyApYrY ) was done purely through dynamite, and not through the chemicals they put in the bath. You can even see the detonating wire going into the bath in some of the shots.

http://www.theodoregray.com/PeriodicTable/AlkaliBangs/ -Explains what really happens in those experiments and links to 3 Guardian articles on the state of Brainiac: http://www.guardian.co.uk/life/badscience/story/0,,1821144,00.html , http://www.guardian.co.uk/life/badscience/story/0,,1826518,00.html , http://www.guardian.co.uk/life/badscience/story/0,,1832906,00.html

Brown note article also says that their experiment was clearly faked. Mieciu K 21:35, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I agree... Should be a title Contraversy or something. 04:32, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

scientific

This show has very little scientific base , i think the articial should say pesudo-scientific (Gnevin 21:05, 17 October 2006 (UTC))[reply]

Experiments - trim down list

Currently that's a huge list, I suggest trimming it down to about ten examples. I don't watch the show regularly, so I wouldn't know which ones best exemplify the show. 84.71.13.145 17:01, 17 April 2007 (UTC) (gotta remember to sign in) LukeSurl 17:02, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

en-US/en-GB

Since the show is created in the UK, would it not be best to put the page in the British spellings? It seems strange seeing "the nation's favorite granny", when really, it's the UK's (being the nation) favourite granny 82.19.143.23 22:42, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Music featured in the show

With the many musical hits played in the show, I propose an article be created with a list of songs played on the show and which episode they are in. --Ted-m 22:07, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

SAPIKAS DIMITRIS

ATHENS 8/6/07

Dear brainiac

I am watching your TV programme from greek TV (ΣΚΑΙ) and I have not lost it zny time .

The cause I sent this letter is because I want to learn how much sound waves come in to our ear per second.

Yours faith fully Diitris Sapikas

P.S. excuse me if I have write any word with wrong way because I do not know very good the English language

Hello. This is not the best place to ask this, but I'll do my best to help. You'll want to look at the article hertz. a single Hz is 1 per minute. the average human can hear sounds between 10 Hz and 20,000 Hz. So, to answer your question, when listening to music, anywhere from 7000 to 15000 sound waves per minute. 24.205.34.217 00:24, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No list of episodes!!!

Every other TV show on wikipedia has a full episode list, and brainiac's entry is sorely missing it! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.107.200.200 (talk) 08:00, July 13, 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. That's what I came here looking for. -- Hi Ev 11:23, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pseudoscience

I've never seen this show before, so I have to ask if pseudoscience means something different in the UK than it does in the US. When I think of pseudoscience, concepts like phrenology and parapsychology come to mind. This show sounds like a another version of a US show called Mythbusters which isn't exactly as scientific as a report from the ORNL, but isn't unproven either.

Would it be more accurate to replace pseudoscience with, pseudo-scientific? Anynobody 03:56, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

'Pseudoscience is any body of knowledge, methodology, belief, or practice that claims to be scientific or is made to appear scientific, but does not adhere to the basic requirements of the scientific method.'

This show fits this 100% , unlike Mythbusters where a base of science can be claimed this has zero scientific method (Gnevin 16:31, 28 July 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Wrong. You are misunderstanding the definition of "pseudoscience" to reinforce your negative opinion of the show. Brainiac doesn't make false claims, or reach conclusions using invalid data. It demonstrates known scientific concepts using "exploitational" methods. That's not pseudoscientific, that's just show biz. - Eyeresist (talk) 01:43, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is pseudoscientific having 4 people sit down and eat a sandwich and then claim the english sandwich is the messiest is not science . Fat v Skinny purely guess work no method their either .It has no scientific base just like the rest of the show .Gnevin (talk) 09:27, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh great, another Wiki troll. Look, just because you don't like the show, that doesn't give you the right to malign it in the article. Your terrible grammar and misunderstanding of the word 'pseudoscience' indicate you're not bright enough to judge one way or the other. But I'm not going to revert your mean-spirited reversion, because you're obviously going to camp the article and make sure nothing reasonable or fairminded gets a look in. Congratulations - you're the reason Wikipedia is still rightly regarded as an unreliable resource. - Eyeresist (talk) 01:29, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Be mindful of WP:Civil please.If you can generate a consensus that Brainiac is popular science i'll have no problem with the changes Gnevin (talk) 11:44, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'd call it faux science. It's like faux Cyrillic, looks the same but means nothing. (Faux means "artificial," "imitation," or "false" according to the dictionary.) --Vuo (talk) 11:54, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The show is not "pseudoscience", it's just poorly designed science and scientific demonstrations. Yes, there could be more controls and a larger number of tests, but with a few rare exceptions, they do make a hypothesis and then test it when they are running tests, rather than assuming a conclusion and either not testing or twisting the facts to suit the assumption. That is the scientific method, just dumbed down for television. Furthermore, some parts of the show are simply scientific demonstrations, so that isn't "pseudoscience" either. I'm changing "pseudoscience" back to "science". -- Hi Ev 11:18, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Vuo reverted my edit without comment here, saying in his/her edit "no, even they make it clear that it's 'science abuse', not science". That's just a silly argument. First of all, "science abuse" is simply a tongue-in-cheek joke about the nature of the show, not a claim of pseudoscience. The show does not actually fit the definition of pseudoscience, because it does use the scientific method when doing tests. They may not run the tests as rigorously as they should for highly reliable results, but the tests are scientific enough for TV. Furthermore, by Vuo's argument, "horse abuse" doesn't actually use horses. The show constantly uses science to blow up and otherwise abuse things, so that is another interpretation of "science abuse" that does not indicate pseudoscience. As such I reverted back to "science". -- Hi Ev 00:18, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The problem with the term "pseudoscience" is that it refers to mystic arts such as astrology. Yet "science" isn't what Brainiac isn't about; better terms could be imitation or parody of science, pretend science, fake science or phony science. --Vuo (talk) 17:08, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You're just begging the question there. They aren't "parodying" science. A "parody" is when you are mocking or making fun of something. They aren't satirizing science, they're celebrating it! Yes, their experiments could be more rigorous and better controlled, but so could lots of other published science! This is just entertainment, so you shouldn't hold it to the standards of peer reviewed journal articles. Seriously, other than the bogus alkali metal experiments, which were pseudoscience, what exactly have they done that is a "parody" of science? Please compare with other science shows like Watch Mr. Wizard, Beakman's World, and Bill Nye the Science Guy, none of which are described as "pseudoscience" or "parodying science". -- Hi Ev 21:43, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If a show's name is "science abuse", not just the content, then it's really hard to believe that it's actual science in any shape or form. --Vuo (talk) 13:19, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is simply absurd to judge the content of a show based on the name of the show, instead of on its content. The title of the show is tongue-in-cheek, and should not be misconstrued as you are interpreting it. If you have an argument based on the content, I'd like to hear it. -- Hi Ev 21:37, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To repeat myself It(the show) is pseudoscientific having 4 people sit down and eat a sandwich and then claim the english sandwich is the messiest is not science . Fat v Skinny purely guess work no method their either .It has no scientific base just like the rest of the show .Gnevin (talk) 09:27, 21 January 2008 (UTC)Gnevin (talk) 01:12, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, what you described is science. If you want to scientifically test which sandwich is messiest, how else would you test it? Having people eat the sandwiches and measuring the splatter is the only objective way. And Fat v Thin isn't "purely guess work" [sic.]. For example, one time they had them both go into a freezer, dressed the same so their only major difference was their weight, to see which could stand it the longest. This tested the hypothesis that weight affects your ability to withstand cold. "Thin" had to leave first, and "Fat" was able to stay much longer, so with a clear result like that I don't see how it's purely guesswork. The test is simple, sure, but it's scientific and the results are objective. Yes, I totally agree that the sample size is too low, but the show would be unwatchable/too expensive if they used a proper sample size. However, MythBusters and other science shows also often have small sample sizes, and they're not labeled as "pseudoscience shows". Other than that one factor, the vast majority of tests on the show conform to the standards of the scientific method as far as I can see. You and Vuo simply state these things are not science, but you never explain why they are not science. If you did I might agree, but merely insisting they're not science isn't particularly convincing. -- Hi Ev 21:37, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The show has very little Scientific method and has no Experimental techniques.The trouble with Fat V Thin is that it imples these two guys are some how representative of Fat or Thin people , they never defined what Fat or Thin is , how do we know the thin guy just didn't like the cold or that Z didn't effect the process of observing X and concluding Y. Humans are notoriously unreliable when involved in experiments,which is why scientist and even programs Mythbusters try to remove this variable as soon as possible.Having people eat the sandwiches and measuring the splatter is the only objective way. Their is are several issues here

Some people are messier than others
Define messy
Define splatter
No measuring appeared to happen or was defined how it would happen
Can the result be repeated?Gnevin (talk) 22:05, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the "Fat v Thin" comments, how could the subjects they used not be representatives of fat and thin people? Besides, they don't have to be representatives of all fat and thin people, they only have to be fairly similar to each other with the exception of being fat or thin. They both usually appear to be about the same age and gender, and they even make them wear roughly the same clothes. In other words, they've tried to eliminate some other possible variables. What exactly would you require of them before you'd call such a test scientific? (And is there anyone who really needs to have "fat" and "thin" defined for them?)

I couldn't find the "cold" experiment for "Fat v Thin" on YouTube, but I did find the "heat" experiment, and you can see it here. They actually used a thermometer to objectively test which one was better able to regulate their own body temperature when exposed to high temperatures for 25 minutes. Is there anything wrong with this design (other than a small sample size)?

Regarding the "messy sandwich" experiment, I saw it a long time ago, so I don't remember the specifics, but I seem to recall that they did measure the splatter in some way, but I don't recall if it was an objective measure. Could the result be repeated? Possibly, they'd have to run the test again to find out. (And, come on, do you really need "messy" or "splatter" to be defined for you? That's way too nit-picky.)

I did find a video of the "What is the squirtiest food?" experiment on YouTube, and it used a somewhat subjective measure of a person rating the amount of splatter. I agree that this particular example shows a poor design in multiple ways.

And while humans may be hard to test, that doesn't mean you can't or shouldn't test them, especially when they are part of the hypothesis, so I don't know what the point of your "Humans are notoriously unreliable" comment is supposed to be. MythBusters has done many tests with humans, such as the test to see whether a person could waterski behind a cruise ship or the recent "cabin fever" test. Were those tests pseudoscience?

It seems to me that you're setting the goalposts way too high for this particular TV show in your definition of science. The major component of your complaint seems to come down to sample size, which I admit is a weak spot, but that doesn't mean that the rest isn't scientific. More fat and thin people or more people eating those four sandwiches would solve both of your complaints, but it would also ruin the show. The results may not be rigorous, but that does not mean that they are not using the scientific method to obtain them.

Most experiments seem to have all of the important points of the scientific method down: form a hypothesis, design a way to test the hypothesis, run test, examine the results, form a conclusion. You say that they have no experimental techniques, but A) this is not a requirement of science, and B) they in fact do use it sometimes. I've seen numerous experiments where they had an experimental subject and a control subject, which is described as the "classical pretest-post test" method (though again they do have very small sample of participants).

Are the experiments on the show optimally designed for strong results? By no means, but they are still experiments as defined on that Wikipedia page. That disproves the claim you made in your edit comment here, where you stated that they were not experiments. The experimental design may be poor sometimes, but it is not nonexistent, as you claim.

I think the problem is that we're kind of going for an all-or-nothing claim here, when really the show is a mix of both. As I admitted earlier, the rigged alkali metal experiment was a clear example of pseudoscience. So, can we come up with a compromise that says "it's a science show, though its experiments are sometimes pseudoscientific" or something like that? The article already mentions in the intro that the experiments aren't rigorous, but I think I've shown that they really are scientific at least some of the time. -- Hi Ev 00:09, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You can't mix science and mumbo jumbo and in fact I've never seen a experiment albeit with my limit experience of the show that could be remotely be called science, i suggest a WP:RFC is needed here Gnevin (talk) 04:33, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Simply repeating your insistence that things are "mumbo jumbo", are not experiments, etc., especially in the face of all of the evidence I've given you that they are indeed experiments and examples of science, is not a valid argument. If you're just going to ignore all of my arguments, and merely repeat your earlier claims with no further evidence or explanation, and then change the article to suit your negative view of the show, even after I've suggested a compromise, then yes, something has to change. (I'm sorry if I sound frustrated here, but you just blew off nine paragraphs of detailed discussion with one sentence that only repeated your earlier sentiments, plus suggested an RfC.) I don't know if an RfC will work here due to a possible lack of interest, but I guess it's worth a shot. So I guess the question is, "Is the Brainiac: Science Abuse TV series showing science, pseudoscience, or something in-between?" Sound good? If so, go ahead and start it. -- Hi Ev 08:25, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

FYI - I alerted all previous participants of this discussion to this RfC. -- Hi Ev 20:13, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I had forgotten this discussion, so took time to re-read the article and sources after which, I'm sorry to say, we should call this a science program. Don't get me wrong, this show is more Jackass meets sorta-science in my opinion but our best source, the Guardian article, calls it a science program so we should too: The new series of Sky's explosion-laden hit science programme Brainiac Also, and I word searched to double check, pseudoscience doesn't appear in the article at all.

I'm also sorry to say that unless a source can be found which calls the program pseudoscience, any argument to do so is based simply on an editor's opinion which can not be verified and is also original research. Anynobody(?) 02:35, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Some references [1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8]Gnevin (talk) 04:55, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

#1 & #3 are quotes taken directly from this Wikipedia article, so essentially they're circular references. #2 & #4 don't call the show pseudoscience (though they're both referring to the faked alkali metal experiment). I don't see anything at #5 referring to pseudoscience at all. And while #6 & #8 actually do call it "pseudo-science", they're both just blogs and thus are not reliable sources. In fact, with the exceptions of #4 and #7, none of the rest of those are reliable sources. #7 is your only possibly valid link, and it's to the TV Week section of the New Zealand Listener, though I have no idea if Fiona Rae is a reliable source on the definition of science and pseudoscience.

On the contrary we have these sources: [9], [10], [11] which are all from real news sources and all call Brainiac a science show. In fact, even Ben Goldacre, who you included twice in your references, calls it a science show here. And he is a reliable source on both the definition of science and pseudoscience and of the content of the show. So the author of two of your references actually contradicts you. He holds Brainiac to a certain standard because it's a science show, and not pseudoscience like those ghost hunt and psychic detective shows are.

In the end, 7 out of 8 of your references are meaningless or contradict you, and the remaining one is iffy, plus Anynobody and I found several other sources that are of equal or better quality to that one which do call the show a science show. -- Hi Ev 00:59, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My biggest problem is that none of these, except Links 1 and 3 which use wording from our article call the show pseudoscience. Sadly most aren't exactly verifiable either as the sites appear to be blogs, user review/content sites, etc. except for your best link, number 4 which also doesn't call Brainiac pseudoscience... it calls a kids show called Brain Gym pseudoscience: The ludicrously pseudoscientific "Brain Gym" programme is still being peddled in hundreds if not thousands of state schools....

I'm sorry but these links do not back the pseudoscience wording for our article. Anynobody(?) 02:44, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

PS link 7, cites Wikipedia also... Anynobody(?) 02:46, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well if Pseudoscience can't be WP:Cite to a WP:V level , then i guess we had no choice but to use science and to highlight just how poor the science is at timesGnevin (talk) 04:38, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, I don't know how I missed that #7 is also based on the Wikipedia entry. So even the one remaining "iffy" example is shot down. Anyways, I think the article already does mention that the experiments are not rigorous and such. And yes, Gnevin, they are experiments, so please stop putting the scare quotes back, OK? As I pointed out earlier, the Wikipedia Manual of Style discourages the use of scare quotes. If you want to say that they're not experiments, then just say that, don't imply it with scare quotes. Oh, and be sure to bring your reliable sources supporting that point, or it's just more original research. I'll let you remove the scare quotes yourself. -- Hi Ev 13:40, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, talk about being gracious in victory Gnevin (talk) 14:31, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The idea was that since you had put them back, you removing them would show that we all agreed now. However, I see you're still inserting your unsourced and disputed opinions into the article. Any chance that before you do that we might discuss those changes? We are still in the middle of an RfC, are we not? I'd like to work on a compromise with you, but you keep trying to have things your way with no discussion. That is not a good way for anyone to conduct themselves on Wikipedia. -- Hi Ev 23:34, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I just noticed you ended the RfC. Also, regarding this, please remember WP:CIVIL. -- Hi Ev 23:40, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What do you disagree with ? i thought that above I did find a video of the "What is the squirtiest food?" experiment on YouTube, and it used a somewhat subjective measure of a person rating the amount of splatter. I agree that this particular example shows a poor design in multiple ways. we agreed on the lack of method and technique ? Gnevin (talk) 13:35, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dude. No. You're overgeneralizing one statement I made, and ignoring the many other statements I made to the contrary. Heck, the phrase "poor design" actually implies method and technique, so you can't say they lack it, merely that this one example shows poor methodology. You have seriously biased the wording of the article by saying that the experiments are done "with sometimes little or no experimental techniques, Scientific method or even forged results", and the statement is yet again original research and also suffers point of view problems as well (i.e. it's just your opinion). In the same comment you quoted from I pointed out above that experimental techniques are not a requirement of science, that the show does indeed follow the scientific method (though sometimes poorly), and we only have evidence of one forged result. You ignored all of that and cherry picked one part you liked. Your wording simply goes too far and appears to be based solely upon your opinion. (Also, "scientific method" should not be capitalized like that.)

Please see Wikipedia:Consensus#How consensus emerges during the editing process. You keep skipping that "seek a compromise" part, and jump straight to "make an edit". It would be really nice if we could come to a consensus on the wording, instead of you running off and changing it, and then having to get your hand slapped again for not following Wikipedia policy. In the past you've shown that you just revert changes you disagree with, with little or no discussion here, so I don't want to get into an edit war with you on this. I'd much rather hammer out a good compromise here that we can both live with, and then edit the main page. Sound good? -- Hi Ev 15:26, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please see WP:BRD, I'd much rather hammer out a good compromise here that we can both live with, and then edit the main page. Sound good? then make a suggestion instead on commenting on my edits , i've been very open too suggestion here and changed puesdoscience as soon as it was pointed out that science could be WP:V but puesdoscience couldn'tGnevin (talk) 17:12, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reference #9

This is a dead link. Please fix. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.152.71.65 (talk) 22:59, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Brainiac: Science Abuse. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:31, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]