Deadliest Warror

There is only one problem with Deadliest Warrior.

Its...completely and utterly unscientific. The makers of the show have no concept of proper testing, and their data is almost always flawed and damned infuriating.

I could write a long ranty post, but I'll just link someone who does it better.

I enjoy the show but I don't take it that seriously. The show is fun, offers some interesting facts here and there, but is no more a science program than UFO Hunters. It is a fun bit of silliness with some interesting historical data here and there.

BTW, that video rant didn't impress me. For one thing, a lot of it consists of making fun of the cast. At the same time they do make some excellent points about how many of these warriors have tactics based on numbers and terrain which are totally ignored.

For the record, I agree that the Apache would beat the Gladiator, Spartan would indeed beat the Ninja, Pirate would kill a Knight, William Wallace would beat Shaka Zulu, and Shaolin Monks would beat a Maori Warrior. Those did make sense. Others are far more problematical.

Bottom line, it is fun, little more.

I watched the first season, then got sidetracked and never went back. It was interesting from the viewpoint that you learned the weaponry of each warrior, but from a practical standpoint, they relied far too much on arbitrary computer data. I rarely agreed with their conclusions.

Fun? Sure. Scientific? Not at all.

And are those two guys in that video any less annoying than the hosts of Deadliest Warrior? No.

Zoombie, that video was a billion times more annoying than the worst Deadliest Warrior episode.

Overall, taking into account the tremendous variability and difficulty in applying science to the question of 'whom would kill whom' I have to say I think the show is okay.

Yes, there will be some fudge factors and S.W.A.G.s (scientific wild ass guess) but overall the methodology isn't that unscientific.

Basically, you could make a very strong case that they use the scientific method and reach scientifically valid conclusions, but that the confidence intervals and error margins on those conclusions/solutions will be fairly wide.

True, I do not have a copy of their computer algorithms, but given the advances in video games (as relates to warfare) and basic mathematical iterative techniques, I'd think that the algorithm would be 'okay'.

And the way they accumulate their field data is very similar to how most labs accumulate field data. So not quite sure how the two monkeys in the link you posted (granted I could only stomach 4 minutes of it) come to their conclusions.

Are there some factors they fail to account for? Sure. But in real life that is always the case. As long as you have most of the principle factors, you can reach a scientifically viable conclusion (though again your confidence interval and error bars are just going to be wider)

Overall, from a scientific standpoint, my opinion is the show is okay. Not Noble worthy, but at the same time, its not like its a complete scam like cold fusion.

Mel...

Bah, I say, bah!

They go into more detail about the failings of the show scientifically. For example, they never take into account the actual tactics of the fighters in question, they are almost always testing the skill of the user rather than the actual weapon, they rarely if ever use the scientific method...that's the one that REALLY bugs me. If you have two grenades, you SHOULD test them in the SAME way, right? But no, they used one grenade on four dummies in a coffee shop, then dumped the other grenade into a WASHING MACHINE! You can't get empirical data that way!

The concept of the show is great, but the execution is just terrible.

But then again, I think I have slightly different tastes from most people...

That show was entertaining, but in no way is it worthy of being called research material.

jennontheisland said:

That show was entertaining, but in no way is it worthy of being called research material.

Click to expand...

You'd be surprised. In the military we do use 'similar' programs to refine tactics, do wargaming, and aid in training.

In one of my leadership Military Arts and Science classes, a significant portion of our grade involved applying principles of warfare to a giant war simulation.

Basically, believe it or not, all of the major militaries (US, UK, France, Israel, etc.) use very similar methods, simulations, and gaming in their War Colleges and various training programs

So it is not as nonsensical as you may think.

Zoombie said:

They go into more detail about the failings of the show scientifically. For example, they never take into account the actual tactics of the fighters in question, they are almost always testing the skill of the user rather than the actual weapon,

Click to expand...

This is a valid point. But the show seems to try to mitigate it by finding experts in the respective fields of both opponents. For example take the Apache vs. Gladiator episode. For an Apache Warroir they got Apaches who were Army Rangers and who were trained in Apache tactics. And for the gladiator they got people who fight in that sort of venue so isn't that somewhat valid?

And actually the use of the weapon is dependant on the skill of the person involved, so overall I think the test is valid, just that the error bars are going to be wider.

Zoombie said:

If you have two grenades, you SHOULD test them in the SAME way, right? But no, they used one grenade on four dummies in a coffee shop, then dumped the other grenade into a WASHING MACHINE! You can't get empirical data that way!..

Click to expand...

I've never seen this. What I do see is that they are trying to test to 'different' sorts of weapons. One may be a grenade while the other may be a Molotov cocktail. So that presents a challenge in trying to determine which one is 'best' when they have different functions and abilities.

Again, they seem to go about the tests in an okay manner.

Zoombie said:

The concept of the show is great, but the execution is just terrible.

Click to expand...

But how do you test asymetric things? How do you determine a solution when you have all manner of variability?

This is something that the military deals with all the time, and believe it or not, you use a similar methodology that the show uses. In short, you do the best you can with what you got, use logical premises, obtain data, generate an algorithm, and compare to historical data and logical deductions.

Just because you aren't able to perform ideal tests doesn't mean that what you do come up with is invalid.

The principle of this show actually applies to other areas of life like business. And not to sound uppidity, it is an incredibly hard thing to think in this sort of manner. To bridge the gap between two things that aren't quite the same (i.e. like IPad vs. Kindle).

Again, i'm not saying the show is rocket science, but at the same time, I think it does an okay job (given the assumption that the computer algorithms are halfway decent)

Mel...

I still don't like the overly macho, getting in the other "team's" face, confrontational style of the show. Its just distracting and annoying...at least to me...

Gotta agree with Zoombie here, the show is total garbage. Entertaining garbage, but please, please do not use it as research material, ever. They get some things right, but only by accident, and data is only as good as it's reliability. If you can't tell when they got things right, it's useless, and if you can, you don't need it.

Zoombie said:

But then again, I think I have slightly different tastes from most people...

Click to expand...

Noooooooooooo!

As I said, from a fun standpoint, it's an ok show. I wouldn't, however, use their research as the basis for a story though.

I have learned some interesting facts about different weaponry.

Oh, and yeah, the confrontation aspect, where the oppositional experts get into these chest thumping, testosterone fueled shows of machismo, really does annoy me.

Shadow Dragon said:

I have to disagree with people saying how unscientific the show is. If nothing else, you do learn plenty about the specific weapons they test. Though of course the outcomes in real life could vary, sometimes greatly, from their outcomes simply due to the different skill level of the people involved.

Click to expand...

The tests of weapons vs. human-like targets are quite nice, the rest is rubbish. Starting with the way they just take whatever one side says about their weapons effectiveness in actual combat for granted, to the results of the "computer analysis" which could just as well be random numbers for all the actual analysis you see them doing.
Hell, even the most basic setup of weapon vs. weapon is total crap. If they're actually using computers, the least they should do is test every single weapon against all the others of the other guy. Wouldn't increase the processing time by much and give a much better result. (assuming the actual comparison isn't wrong)
The way it is done, one weapon vs. one (and only one) weapon is beyond stupid.

I just loved the IRA versus Taliban weapons-fest though...