Charlie Brooker - how TV ruined your life - Deadliest Warrior - General

I love that show. I could care less whether its innacurate or not. It's a show, and thus is supposed to be entertaining. It achieves that with me so I could care less how it does that.

[QUOTE=Paramud;32706849]Please, do tell, how does this factor into determining whether or not how they test weapons is scientific.[/QUOTE] If there is a better procedure then use it.

[QUOTE=Lazer Loop;32706882]If there is a better procedure then use it.[/QUOTE] Still waiting to hear why this makes the show devoid of science.

[QUOTE=Paramud;32706911]Still waiting to hear why this makes the show devoid of science.[/QUOTE] It doesn't support the idea that the show isn't science. It supports the opinion I hold that the show is shit. But the general idea is that you can't actually use their results for anything because they are flawed. You say that that science doesn't need an objective, but the show's goal is abundantly clear: to show who is the ultimate warrior. But you couldn't really use their Green Berets vs. Spetsnaz results to surmise that the Russia would have won a war against America. You can't use their results for anything.

Brooker forgot to add on how everytime something is compared to the USA, the USA trumps, showing signs of nationalism.

[QUOTE=Keyblockor;32707036]Brooker forgot to add on how everytime something is compared to the USA, the USA trumps, showing signs of nationalism.[/QUOTE] Green Berets lost. To Russian Spetsnaz So not really.

[QUOTE=Lazer Loop;32707000]It doesn't support the idea that the show isn't science. It supports the opinion I hold that the show is shit. But the general idea is that you can't actually use their results for anything because they are flawed. You say that that science doesn't need an objective, but the show's goal is abundantly clear: to show who is the ultimate warrior. But you couldn't really use their Green Berets vs. Spetsnaz results to surmise that the Russia would have won a war against America. You can't use their results for anything.[/QUOTE] plus they mainly base their stats on the damage of the weapon, not how its used, from what I know. a computer program won't do shit to actually test how warriors fight.

Also science is not a subjective term. It either works or it doesn't.

[QUOTE=J!NX;32707111]plus they mainly base their stats on the damage of the weapon, not how its used, from what I know. a computer program won't do shit to actually test how warriors fight.[/QUOTE] Actually, from what I remember from their after-episode specials, they actually count in how the soldiers fight as well. This is especially true for Season 3, where the new and "improved" simulator accounts in the personality of the warrior. [QUOTE=Lazer Loop;32707000]It doesn't support the idea that the show isn't science. It supports the opinion I hold that the show is shit.[/quote] So, again, you're not arguing whether or not it's scientific. You're arguing that the science isn't good. My entire point is/was that just because the science isn't good, doesn't mean you're right in saying that it has no science. [quote]But the general idea is that you can't actually use their results for anything because they are flawed.[/quote] You can't actually use the results anyways, since they're testing stuff like Ninja versus Spartan. Mostly, anyways. Very few of the match ups are realistic, and the vast majority of them are downright impossible considering time gaps between the warriors. [quote]You say that that science doesn't need an objective, but the show's goal is abundantly clear: to show who is the ultimate warrior.[/quote] Actually, the show's real objective is just to entertain, and if it wasn't for the science (albeit poorly done,) it wouldn't be entertaining. It'd just be an hour long fake, poorly written, and poorly edited fight scene. [QUOTE=Lazer Loop;32707204]Also science is not a subjective term. It either works or it doesn't.[/QUOTE] I'm not sure what you mean by this. If you're saying that unclear results means it isn't science, then no. In fact, if you want guaranteed results of any kind, you should stay away from science entirely.

[QUOTE=Paramud;32707617] So, again, you're not arguing whether or not it's scientific. You're arguing that the science isn't good. My entire point is/was that just because the science isn't good, doesn't mean you're right in saying that it has no science.[/quote] Let me change my entire argument because earlier when I tried to tone down my argument I very ignorantly agreed that bad science can be science. It can't. You can't just pretend that science is a subjective term. It relies on fact and nothing else. [quote]You can't actually use the results anyways, since they're testing stuff like Ninja versus Spartan. Mostly, anyways. Very few of the match ups are realistic, and the vast majority of them are downright impossible considering time gaps between the warriors.[/quote] You could use the results (if they were factually correct) to at least draw simple comparisons between fighting strength of particular forces. [quote]Actually, the show's real objective is just to entertain, and if it wasn't for the science (albeit poorly done,) it wouldn't be entertaining. It'd just be an hour long fake, poorly written, and poorly edited fight scene.[/quote] If they spent their budget on just producing staged battles it could be more entertaining than the show they are making now. [quote]I'm not sure what you mean by this. If you're saying that unclear results means it isn't science, then no. In fact, if you want guaranteed results of any kind, you should stay away from science entirely.[/QUOTE] lol what. Science is a tool you can use to figure out a question. Science isn't just a mass of half baked answers to hard questions. Sure sometimes you get an indefinite answer when there isn't enough data or just when you do your experiment poorly. The whole show is just a half an hour of poorly conducted experiments with inconclusive results.

[QUOTE=Lazer Loop;32707874]lol what. Science is a tool you can use to figure out a question. Science isn't just a mass of half baked answers to hard questions. Sure sometimes you get an indefinite answer when there isn't enough data or just when you do your experiment poorly. The whole show is just a half an hour of poorly conducted experiments with inconclusive results.[/QUOTE] Science is rarely absolute. The entire point to science is "what we know might be wrong. Let's find out." CERN, if I remember correctly, just recently found out that the god damned [b]theory of relativity[/b] could very well be wrong. Also, you're using a No True Scotsman fallacy.

[QUOTE=Paramud;32707906]Science is [b]never[/b] absolute. The entire point to science is "what we know might be wrong. Let's find out." CERN, if I remember correctly, just recently found out that the god damned [b]theory of relativity[/b] could very well be wrong.[/QUOTE] The very definition of a theory is that it is open to experimentation. I don't know how we are even comparing Albert Einstein to Deadliest Warrior anyways. Even if he is proved wrong we still can trust the idea that he did Science very well. The fact that anyone even bothers proving him wrong is that it is sound science worth looking into. Their chance of being right is about as close as a coin flip. I don't care if you enjoy watching this show its just that I find it to be particularly devoid of intelligence. Its just dumb fun. Their is nothing scientific or intelligent about it. It airs on Spike for Christ sake. The show isn't Nova or something. It airs on the same channel as Manswers. The fact that I found anyone that actually defends the scientific aspects of this show quite frankly astonishes me sir. I have no idea why I even bothered carrying on this mind numbing and boring conversation. You are a bore sir. I can't really say I can take anything away from this debate. I understand why people find this entertaining, but to consider it science is not something I can come to understand. I really don't give a fuck.

I watch Deadliest Warrior for the weapons demonstrations and the history behind each side. I'm a big history buff. The acted out fights at the end of each episode are also very entertaining. I don't believe in any of the simulation statistics and what not. I know it's crap scientific wise, but still wondering who will win based on the data they do have can be interesting. I also rooted for the Nazis in that episode.

[QUOTE=Paramud;32707906] Also, you're using a No True Scotsman fallacy.[/QUOTE] How about just saying "nope you're wrong fuck you" while you're at it. I'm going to do it. This show fucking sucks and its not worth my time talking about it.

[QUOTE=Lazer Loop;32708127]I don't know how we are even comparing Albert Einstein to Deadliest Warrior anyways.[/quote] We aren't, we're talking about science in general. [quote]Their chance of being right is about as close as a coin flip.[/quote] Actually much more than 50/50~, since they aren't assigning numbers randomly. [quote]I don't care if you enjoy watching this show[/quote] I don't anymore. [quote]Their is nothing scientific[/quote] I thought we went over this. [quote]It airs on Spike for Christ sake. The show isn't Nova or something. It airs on the same channel as Manswers.[/quote] I didn't realize that TV channels factor into whether or not something is scientific. Please, elaborate. [quote]The fact that I found anyone that actually defends the scientific aspects[/quote] So you do admit that the show has science in it? [QUOTE=Lazer Loop;32708260]How about just saying "nope you're wrong fuck you" while you're at it.[/QUOTE] Because then I'd be at your level.

Well played. [editline]10th October 2011[/editline] Wait why the fuck were you defending this show if you don't even like watching it? If it isn't entertaining to you and you admit it is bad science what is there to defend?

[QUOTE=Lazer Loop;32708296]Well played. [editline]10th October 2011[/editline] Wait why the fuck were you defending this show if you don't even like watching it? If it isn't entertaining to you and you admit it is bad science what is there to defend?[/QUOTE] I'll defend something that I believe regardless of whether or not I like it.

[QUOTE=Paramud;32708352]I'll defend something that I believe regardless of whether or not I like it.[/QUOTE] You act like holding an opinion about something is a bad thing even if it is your own opinion. Just say you don't like it and say why. I think it is pretty useless to hold the position that something is still good even though you don't like it. Even though I say all this shit it isn't like I won't allow people to like it. I just can't find a personal reason to like it and it doesn't sound like you can give me one because you feel just about the same way about it. If you don't like it then this conversation has been pretty useless.

The reasons why I don't like the show anymore have nothing to do with the argument, but here you go. I don't the show anymore because they've changed a [b]lot[/b] of it in the third season. They removed one of the hosts and replaced him with an ex-marine who I really don't like, they've changed the simulation software drastically. They've also started choosing just specific warriors, which I especially disagree with since it ends up causing more inaccuracies compared to using a generic unnamed soldier from an army.

hmm *puts finger in head wound* yeah that'd kill ya