Talk:Brainiac: Science Abuse

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is part of WikiProject British TV shows, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to British TV shows on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project British TV shows, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.

[edit] 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)

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

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

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)

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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

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

[edit] 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.

[edit] 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.

[edit] 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)

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)

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)

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)

[edit] 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)

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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

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

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)

[edit] Hi,my name is Simone and I want to ask about Thermite.

Hi my name is Simone,I am 14 yers old and I am from Romania.I like your show verry much and I am interested about the effects of Thermite on electronics.I hope that somebody from BRAINIAC will see my e-mail.Fenk you.Bye Bye.

Hi, you'll probably get a better answer by asking here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Science My guess is that it'll just burn through and ruin the electronics like anything else in its path. --Krackpipe 01:56, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

What? We didn't make Braniac... Wikisquared 19:06, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Are you stupid? This isn't a forum, that wasn't an email. Also, sign your comment. You know, like it instructs you to on this page by typing four tildes like this(68.54.174.43 00:19, 10 November 2007 (UTC)). 68.54.174.43 00:19, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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))

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)

[edit] 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)

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

[edit] scientific

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

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

'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))

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

[edit] Aimed at male audience?

I'm a female and I love Brainiac (so does my sister). This should be removed, it's complete crap. Siouxsie18 (talk) 02:53, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

WP:Be bold Gnevin (talk) 09:43, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Categories: WikiProject British TV shows articles