Episodes Mathematical And Scientific Inaccuracies Of The Big Bang Theory

[Tensor]

But I think you're missing the intent of the writers.

I wasn't aware that you were in the writing room when that scene was written, or on the set if it was rewritten. Other than that, I don't think any of us know the intent of the writers.

 

If it's a mistake to call the bird a bluejay, then it's the writers making that mistake, not the characters.

Or the writers having Sheldon make a mistake in identifying the bird, simply because he doesn't know what the bird is.

 

If the writers intended for any of the characters to be mistaken in identifying the bird, then SOMEONE in the show would have had to have pointed out the mistake.

Why? I'm not aware of any requirement like that in writing or television. And I'm not aware of any of the characters being an ornithologist or even a bird watcher. So who would have corrected him?

 

It was a case of either the writers being mistaken/ignorant, or the writers being expedient in using the simpler, if incorrect, name.

Or the writers having Sheldon misidentifying the bird, with none of the other characters knowing the difference. Which is the equivalent of the writers being expedient. If you want to look at it as that, that's fine, but Sheldon misidentifying the bird, simply because he doesn't know is also a perfectly legitimate explanation.

From the Shamy topic:

 

How long is it going to take Sheldon to get to the point where he wants to or is capable (emotionally, intellectually) of taking that step.

Don't you mean, how long is it going to take the writers to get Sheldon to that point. Sheldon doesn't want anything, or is capable of taking a step. The writers tell him what to do.

 

Amy has to decide what she wants, what she's willing to put up with, and so forth. Sheldon has to understand what it was he did wrong and figure out how to fix it, make it up to Amy or show her how he really feels, and so forth.

I think you mean that the writers have to decide what Amy wants and what she can put up with. You mean what the writers did was wrong, don't you?

[phantagrae]

I wasn't aware that you were in the writing room when that scene was written, or on the set if it was rewritten. Other than that, I don't think any of us know the intent of the writers.

 

Or the writers having Sheldon make a mistake in identifying the bird, simply because he doesn't know what the bird is.

 

Why? I'm not aware of any requirement like that in writing or television. And I'm not aware of any of the characters being an ornithologist or even a bird watcher. So who would have corrected him?

 

Or the writers having Sheldon misidentifying the bird, with none of the other characters knowing the difference. Which is the equivalent of the writers being expedient. If you want to look at it as that, that's fine, but Sheldon misidentifying the bird, simply because he doesn't know is also a perfectly legitimate explanation.

From the Shamy topic:

 

Don't you mean, how long is it going to take the writers to get Sheldon to that point. Sheldon doesn't want anything, or is capable of taking a step. The writers tell him what to do.

 

I think you mean that the writers have to decide what Amy wants and what she can put up with. You mean what the writers did was wrong, don't you?

 

I think you're being a little ridiculous.  One does not need to be in the writers' room to understand their intent--we all do it when we can differentiate a throw-away line, for instance, from a line that's supposed to figure in the long run.

Does Sheldon really have a peso up his nose after all these years, or was that line simply put there for the punchline?

We know that the writers have no intention to ever bring up Amy's supposed fiance Faisal (according to Bill Prady), so they've essentially forgotten or discounted him, even though she said the line.

 

Since this show is not "LOST" or "The X-Files" or any other show with a serious mythology, we know that they play fast and loose with certain kinds of details, except when it comes to the physics and astrophysics, etc.

 

We know, for instance, that it's almost impossible that Wolowitz would have been recruited as an astronaut, or if he was, that he would have passed the tests, if one were to look at him in real life.

But we buy into the story because it's part of the created reality of the show.

 

Do you have to be in the writers' room to understand that bit of implausibility?  No.

 

Similarly, in writing in general, whether it's a book or a TV show or a movie, if a character says something that is factually wrong, it's either the character making the mistake, or it's the writer, and the way one differentiates is by whether or not the character's mistake is pointed out in some way by the writer.

 

This is why one can say that Sheldon is wrong when he assumes that Howard doesn't know about Richard Feynman, or that Leonard doesn't know what the Anthropic Principle is.  We can tell that Sheldon is wrong because of the words or actions of the others.

 

Similarly, in a book, a character may be wrong about something, and the way the author tells us that is in the words or actions of others, or some way that that character is corrected or proved wrong.

 

That's the ONLY way one can differentiate and understand the intent of the writer, or whether or not the writer knows the actual truth.

 

So, if the writers intended for Sheldon to be wrong about what kind of bird it was, then someone would have had to have pointed it out, or it would have had to be important to the story or the scene.

There's no point in assuming that all of the characters were wrong about the bird, because if no one points out the error, then it is assumed that the characters are correct--or that's what the writers intend for the audience to assume.

 

As for the Shamy related stuff, the same principal is at work.  Yes, the writers have to decide what it is that Sheldon and Amy want or do or think.  I was discussing timeline, which of course belongs to the writers.  How long will it take them to have Sheldon make whatever progress he's supposed to make in the story they're telling.

What is it that the writers want to have Amy do and in what timeframe.

 

Just because I was referring to it in the context of the characters and their actions and feelings doesn't mean that it's not the writers writing it.

 

Sometimes your pedantic dissection doesn't prove your point.

[Tensor]

Sometimes your pedantic dissection doesn't prove your point.

Well, you haven't disproved it as the writers have provided a way to distinguished. They've made him afraid of birds, not something that is conducive knowing what the actual bird is. I might agree with you if they had shown him having any kind knowledge about birds, but they didn't prior to that. The bird was blue, have having him make a mistake in identifying the bird, and calling it erroneously, is the simplest explanation.

[phantagrae]

Well, you haven't disproved it as the writers have provided a way to distinguished. They've made him afraid of birds, not something that is conducive knowing what the actual bird is. I might agree with you if they had shown him having any kind knowledge about birds, but they didn't prior to that. The bird was blue, have having him make a mistake in identifying the bird, and calling it erroneously, is the simplest explanation.

 

No, because, again, if the writers wanted to show that he was mistaken, they would have had someone point it out.  That's they way they've always done it on this show as far as I can remember.

 

What would be the point of having him make a mistake if no one points out his mistake?  There is no point in doing that.  The only point in having any character make such a mistake is to have someone else point it out.

 

There's no value, either in the writing itself or in the service of comedy, to having Sheldon be wrong if no one is going to prove him wrong.

 

So again, we're left with the writers either being wrong or taking the simpler road by giving the bird a simpler desicription.

[lennyx3]

No, because, again, if the writers wanted to show that he was mistaken, they would have had someone point it out. That's they way they've always done it on this show as far as I can remember.

What would be the point of having him make a mistake if no one points out his mistake? There is no point in doing that. The only point in having any character make such a mistake is to have someone else point it out.

There's no value, either in the writing itself or in the service of comedy, to having Sheldon be wrong if no one is going to prove him wrong.

So again, we're left with the writers either being wrong or taking the simpler road by giving the bird a simpler desicription.

True dat[emoji1]

[lennyx3]

Okay...my boyfriend (zoologist) checked out about the cricket.

Actually the "field cricket" Gryllus assimilis doesn't occur in Pasadena.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gryllus_assimilis

"Gryllus assimilis occurs in the West Indies, southern United States, Mexico and parts of South America.[1] In the United States, it is limited to Florida and southern Texas. Its typical habitat is weedy fields, roadside verges, lawns and rough pasture.[3]"

So it's another scientific inaccuracy as I wrote earlier.

Gesendet von meinem HTC Desire X mit Tapatalk

[Tensor]

 

So again, we're left with the writers either being wrong or taking the simpler road by giving the bird a simpler desicription.

So either way, the character is shown as being wrong. Saying Sheldon was wrong, is a simpler description. But, from now on, I'll make sure that I specify the writers and not the characters are the ones that are wrong when I answer you.

[phantagrae]

 

So either way, the character is shown as being wrong. Saying Sheldon was wrong, is a simpler description. But, from now on, I'll make sure that I specify the writers and not the characters are the ones that are wrong when I answer you.

 

You would have to say that the writers got it wrong--like in Star Wars.  It wasn't Han Solo's lack of knowledge, it was the writer's lack of knowledge.

 

So in this case--and apparently in the case with the cricket as mentioned above--the mistake is made by the writers, otherwise, Prof Crawley is also mistaken.

 

There is a difference between a character being wrong and the writers putting wrong information in the script.

 

It was the writers' mistake in identifying the bird as a bluejay, and apparently the writers' mistake in the cricket episode, not Sheldon's mistake with the bird or Prof Crawley with the cricket.

 

I can write a story and have Sheldon say that Beethoven's 5th Symphony is in G Major and nobody disputes it. 

Sheldon can only say what I give him to say, and if nothing in the story proves him wrong, then as far as the story's reality goes, the symphony is in G Major.

And if none of my readers knows what key it's in, then they would assume that Sheldon is correct, as would all the characters, if I write them that way.

 

But someone will come along and tell me that the 5th Symphony is really in C Minor. So I'm the one in the wrong, not Sheldon or the other characters.  That's called doing your research before you make a claim about something.

[djsurrey]

Okay...my boyfriend (zoologist) checked out about the cricket.

Actually the "field cricket" Gryllus assimilis doesn't occur in Pasadena.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gryllus_assimilis

"Gryllus assimilis occurs in the West Indies, southern United States, Mexico and parts of South America.[1] In the United States, it is limited to Florida and southern Texas. Its typical habitat is weedy fields, roadside verges, lawns and rough pasture.[3]"

So it's another scientific inaccuracy as I wrote earlier.

Gesendet von meinem HTC Desire X mit Tapatalk

 

That does not make this a scientific inaccracy. It was found in the building not outside. It could be someone in the building has a pet reptile and it was purchased as live food but this one escapped.

http://scalesandfins.com/Reptile_Food/?section=Reptile_Food&topic=Cricket

[Tensor]

You would have to say that the writers got it wrong--like in Star Wars.  It wasn't Han Solo's lack of knowledge, it was the writer's lack of knowledge.

So either way, the character is shown as being wrong. Saying Sheldon or Han was wrong, is a simpler description. But, from now on, I'll make sure that I specify the writers and not the characters are the ones that are wrong when I answer you.

[phantagrae]

So either way, the character is shown as being wrong. Saying Sheldon or Han was wrong, is a simpler description. But, from now on, I'll make sure that I specify the writers and not the characters are the ones that are wrong when I answer you.

 

Not just in answering me, unless you want to be wrong at other times about whether the character is wrong vs the writers.

 

As with Sheldon and the bird, simplifying it doesn't make it correct.

 

The dialog or writing can be incorrect if it's a matter of research done incorrectly or whatever, but a character can only be wrong if the audience is let in on it through dialog or circumstance point it out.

That does not make this a scientific inaccracy. It was found in the building not outside. It could be someone in the building has a pet reptile and it was purchased as live food but this one escapped.

http://scalesandfins.com/Reptile_Food/?section=Reptile_Food&topic=Cricket

 

Okay, that site kind of creeped me out...

[Tensor]

Not just in answering me, unless you want to be wrong at other times about whether the character is wrong vs the writers.

I'm only answering that way so you know I know that the writers control the character. I just want to make that clear to you, as others seem to know that.

 

As with Sheldon and the bird, simplifying it doesn't make it correct.

Simplifying it doesn't make it incorrect either. If you want to see it the way you do, fine.

 

The dialog or writing can be incorrect if it's a matter of research done incorrectly or whatever, but a character can only be wrong if the audience is let in on it through dialog or circumstance point it out.

According to you, not me, as I've never heard that requirement. Watching that episode, the character of Sheldon was wrong for calling it a Blue Jay.

[phantagrae]

I'm only answering that way so you know I know that the writers control the character. I just want to make that clear to you, as others seem to know that.

 

Simplifying it doesn't make it incorrect either. If you want to see it the way you do, fine.

 

According to you, not me, as I've never heard that requirement. Watching that episode, the character of Sheldon was wrong for calling it a Blue Jay.

 

You're the one who wants to say that Sheldon is wrong.  Differentiating between the character--who is sometimes wrong, when the writers want to point that out--and the script, which is an inaccuracy by the writers is an important point.

 

But if you want to insist on sounding as if you can't tell the difference, feel free.

I don't think Sheldon was wrong about the bluejay.  I think the writers were wrong.  There's a real difference, no matter what you say.

 

Just because you haven't heard of the "requirement" doesn't mean it doesn't exist in terms of internal story logic.  I'm no writing expert, but in all of the lit classes I took, that seemed to be the prevailing understanding.

 

There's a difference between the character's voice and the author's voice.

Edited June 11, 2015 by phantagrae

[Tensor]

You're the one who wants to say that Sheldon is wrong.

Yep, and I'm allowed. You may not like it, you may not agree, but I'm allowed to interpret it that way.

Differentiating between the character--who is sometimes wrong, when the writers want to point that out--and the script, which is an inaccuracy by the writers is an important point.

Not really, it may be for you, but it's not necessarily an important point for everyone. That doesn't make you right or the others wrong.

 

But if you want to insist on sounding as if you can't tell the difference, feel free.

I don't think Sheldon was wrong about the bluejay.  I think the writers were wrong.  There's a real difference, no matter what you say.

And I think the writers wrote it as Sheldon was wrong because, as a character, he really doesn't know one bird from another. See I can tell the difference.

 

Just because you haven't heard of the "requirement" doesn't mean it doesn't exist in terms of internal story logic.

Doesn't mean there is such a requirement. As a matter of fact, I was told (see below) what you think of internal story logic, doesn't have to be what I think of as internal story logic.

 

I'm no writing expert,

Hold on to that thought...

 

but in all of the lit classes I took, that seemed to be the prevailing understanding.

Well, since you've described yourself as not an expert, I asked my non-actress daughter, who has a masters in British and American Lit, and earns about a quarter of her income from writing, as she is the closest I have to an expert. She's read your arguments and says if the writers are wrong, then the character is wrong (she used the example of the writer of "Fifty Shades of Gray" getting the BDSM wrong, so the character is simply wrong) however, she also says it can be interpreted in several different ways, none are wrong. It's up to each individual's own interpretation

If you want to think it was the writers who were wrong, and as a result, the character's comment is correct, because that is the way that universe operates, it's perfectly fine. As that is how you see it.

It's also correct to interpret it as the writers being wrong, which means the character wrong (as in the FSOG example above, this seems to be the prevailing opinion in academia), or the writers simply wrote it as the character being wrong. Any one of those (among other interpretations), can be considered correct, depending on the individual who is reading (or in the case of TBBT, watching).

 

There's a difference between the character's voice and the author's voice.

Not necessarily. It was explained to me that the difference between the author and character voice doesn't have to matter. Once the material is out there, anyone can interpret it as they see fit, by their own internal logic. That doesn't make them correct, or any other interpretation wrong.

[lennyx3]

No it's not, life food is a different species.

[lennyx3]

My reference: David B. Weissman, David A. Gray, Hanh Thi Pham, Peter Tijssen (2012): Billions and billions sold: Pet-feeder crickets (Orthoptera: Gryllidae), commercial cricket farms, an epizootic densovirus, and government regulations make for a potential disaster. Zootaxa 3504: 67–88.

Edit: Since the species was described in 2012 it's not really inaccurate. So whatever[emoji1]

I have to admit that being sheldonish is really kinda fun![emoji16] [emoji2]

Edited June 12, 2015 by lennyx3

[Itwasdestined]

Not sure why I'm getting involved as I'm not really interested in arguing - I only paid John Cleese 1 pound for the 5 minute argument - but if I had to form an opinion I'd side with phanta on the writer v character who is wrong argument. When a character is wrong in a story we find out in the story. But if the story is found to be wrong in real life, we blame the person who made the mistake in real life - the writer. JMO of course, not proveable. And no I don't have masters in literature. (I don't have a Masters in anything. I prefer self belief in my opinions rather than being graded for them[emoji12]) Anyway, it really doesn't matter in the grand scheme of life and my 5 minutes is up ( no it isn't, yes it is, no it isn't etc etc ) and I'm not paying another pound to get another five minutes. Carry on.

Sheldon would love this thread, BTW!!

[Tensor]

JMO of course, not proveable.

Yep, pretty much.

[Dayton Lavon Kitchens]

Well,  think of the several times (I think at least 3) where Howard has used government equipment for his own uses and joked "million dollar camera, ten dollar lock" is complete fantasy by any standard yet it makes for humorous material.

 

If we were being realistic,   Howard would've been serving life in prison several times over probably.    Likewise Sheldon would probably not be working at Caltech or anywhere else by now.      Raj and Leonard,   don't think they've done as much though Leonard came close with the North Korean spy.    If you were being realistic,  if he had even been seen with her it might be enough to get him canned from anything the Defense Dept. is funding though.

[djsurrey]

Well,  think of the several times (I think at least 3) where Howard has used government equipment for his own uses and joked "million dollar camera, ten dollar lock" is complete fantasy by any standard yet it makes for humorous material.

 

If we were being realistic,   Howard would've been serving life in prison several times over probably.    Likewise Sheldon would probably not be working at Caltech or anywhere else by now.      Raj and Leonard,   don't think they've done as much though Leonard came close with the North Korean spy.    If you were being realistic,  if he had even been seen with her it might be enough to get him canned from anything the Defense Dept. is funding though.

 

Yes, jokes trump reality here. These are general inaccuracies rather than scientific or math ones. Overall these guys often act more like under grads than guys with PhDs.

[lennyx3]

Yes, jokes trump reality here. These are general inaccuracies rather than scientific or math ones. Overall these guys often act more like under grads than guys with PhDs.

Disagreed[emoji16]

[vonmar]

Released this month....

 

 

 

The foreword is written by Howard Wolowitz....the real guy that worked with Bill Prady and on whom Simon's character is based.

 

If you go to the amazon site for the book (link below) you can get a peek at the topics covered and read a little of the foreword.

 

http://www.amazon.com/Science-TVs-Big-Bang-Theory/dp/1770412174/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1435097874&sr=1-1&keywords=the+science+of+the+big+bang+theory

 

Author's web site:  http://davezobel.com/bbt/

 

 

[phantagrae]

 

Released this month....

 

 

 

The foreword is written by Howard Wolowitz....the real guy that worked with Bill Prady and on whom Simon's character is based.

 

If you go to the amazon site for the book (link below) you can get a peek at the topics covered and read a little of the foreword.

 

http://www.amazon.com/Science-TVs-Big-Bang-Theory/dp/1770412174/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1435097874&sr=1-1&keywords=the+science+of+the+big+bang+theory

 

Author's web site:  http://davezobel.com/bbt/

 

 

 

 

That looks like a fun book!