posted
Last night I was watching a show I really like on DVD, they were talking about a survey of 40 people and their percentage answers to various questions. At one point, the key point actually, they said that the group responded “69% in favor of…”. Do they even try? If each person was required to vote, which it appears they were, that would mean that 27.6 people responded in the affirmative, pretty impressive huh? And if they didn’t all have to respond, then here’s how it would look:
You have to have 11 people abstain (not likely) before you even get something that could be close to a round to 69%!
OK, I admit it, this is obsessive, but my point isn’t the math, or that they should do this level of analysis, but can’t they at least try? I mean this is such a glaring and obvious error, just make it 70%! 28 people said yes, it’s that simple! It bugs me to know end when an inconsequential detail is left with such a glaring error. Do they not care, do they not notice, what?
And of course this gets worse when it comes to things like even rudimentary science, especially in movies. Every movie that deals even remotely with a scientific topic hires at least one adviser, if only for show, there’s always someone there to ask, so ask him/her! Why do writers think that with no grasp whatsoever on scientific concepts they can still write a convincing scientific explanation or speech? They can’t! And when they’re writing for characters that are supposed to have advanced degrees in physics, don’t have them talk about quantities of negative volts please. Pay me 20 bucks and as a laymen in just about every aspect of scientific thought I’ll write something 20 times as convincing and realistic. Why shouldn’t they be doing this? Most of the time it’s not integral to the plot, they just want to have someone who sounds smart, or in some cases, have a bogus excuse for plot development. But no, writers in Hollywood all took advance chemistry classes and know that just by making an acid more potent they can get it to react with an inert substance.
posted
I'm no math major, but if 1 person abstained or otherwise threw their vote and 27 people were in favor of it that means 69.2% of people were in favor of it. Then apply your sig fig rules and badda bing, you get a nice round number of 69%. That doesn't sound too far fetched... does it?
Ummm... very frequently the pH of an acid will determine whether or not something reacts. I do it all the time. "Huh... that reaction didn't go. I know! More acid! Weee!" But, anyway, there are far more people who don't understand SuperScienceLingo than do, I think oftentimes it's dummed down to the point where it still sounds smart but doesn't sound inaccessable. Star Trek has terrible science, but everyone watching it understands what they're getting at. If you're eyes glazed over every time Data said something you'd have a real problem. I'm generally quite willing to grant a far amound of artistic liscence, for the simple fact that most people don't accept movie science as reality. Or at least I've had to have someone suggest they divert power from their CD player to their steering during a winter storm.
Posts: 3243 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think that surveys tend to take a percentage and round it down to allow for the margin of error.
Posts: 3003 | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Actually, what's funny is that sometimes star trek has excellent science. Every now and then one of the writers is an actual scientist, and he usually includes some stuff from his field which (while dumbed down on the show) is actual cutting edge science.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Group Hug]](graemlins/grouphug.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
