At least it tries to a degree. It's a TV show which can get people interested in science, and is interesting... So what if it doesn't always follow the most rigorous of scientific testing? Less testing doesn't mean there's absolutely no science involved in any case. If they are wrong, they'll try to retest the issues. The point is to actually consider things and to test them. Yes, that's the focus of the show. The whole 'pretend science' aspect, as you will is there. The whole 'pet peeve' you seem to have for it seems rather overdone...
Mythbusters is fine wherein it confirms that something can happen.
Proving that something won't happen is another thing. It's roughly equivalent to driving around the block twice and concluding that cars never crash (assuming that a crash doesn't occur in limited time span). Yet car crashes are one of the world's leading causes of death.
They're missing incredibly obvious things a lot of the time, which suggests that they do very little consideration. e.g. forgetting the speed of the car when testing if it makes a difference in terms of whether or not it's more fuel-efficient to use air conditioning or driving with the windows down. (Although at least they did revisit that one).
On a somewhat related note, I'm planning to cancel cable TV this summer. Partly due to the lack of stuff to watch; partly due to Shaw seeming to get rid of student discounts for full cable.
Comments
Ronik
Tue, 2009-04-07 04:43
Permalink
Too much?
An XKCD for the moment.
At least it tries to a degree. It's a TV show which can get people interested in science, and is interesting... So what if it doesn't always follow the most rigorous of scientific testing? Less testing doesn't mean there's absolutely no science involved in any case. If they are wrong, they'll try to retest the issues. The point is to actually consider things and to test them. Yes, that's the focus of the show. The whole 'pretend science' aspect, as you will is there. The whole 'pet peeve' you seem to have for it seems rather overdone...
David
Tue, 2009-04-07 12:25
Permalink
Mythbusters is fine wherein
Mythbusters is fine wherein it confirms that something can happen.
Proving that something won't happen is another thing. It's roughly equivalent to driving around the block twice and concluding that cars never crash (assuming that a crash doesn't occur in limited time span). Yet car crashes are one of the world's leading causes of death.
They're missing incredibly obvious things a lot of the time, which suggests that they do very little consideration. e.g. forgetting the speed of the car when testing if it makes a difference in terms of whether or not it's more fuel-efficient to use air conditioning or driving with the windows down. (Although at least they did revisit that one).
On a somewhat related note, I'm planning to cancel cable TV this summer. Partly due to the lack of stuff to watch; partly due to Shaw seeming to get rid of student discounts for full cable.