[r0fls]

>Mythbusters tremendously advanced the cause of science, and they did it in no small part by not taking themselves too seriously.

Personally I think that's a bit of a stretch, but I'm not trying to say the show isn't great. While scientists could learn from their format (providing videos of their experiments, for instance) I wouldn't say that the mythbusters have advanced the cause of science at all. Would you say that the TV show Bill Nye the science guy advanced the cause of science? Science education he has definitely advanced the cause of, but science: not from the TV show. Similarly, I think the mythbusters have advanced engineering education tremendously, specifically television engineering education.

If you think they have actually advanced the cause of science, I would love to hear why. I'm not trying to be a jerk, I'm just speaking from having watched a few episodes, so I definitely could be wrong.

[lisper]

I have very mixed feelings about Bill Nye. I've never watched his show. The only time I've ever seen him in action is during his debate with Ken Ham, and that performance made me cringe. (If you want to know why, see the footnote in http://blog.rongarret.info/2015/02/this-is-why-prominent-ath...) More generally, I think he promotes a negative stereotype of scientists by choosing to wear a bow tie.

I just now watched this:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PGRRXKek8G0

and it's just horrible. To my eye, Nye is indistinguishable from a Creationist caricature.

Compare that to how the Mythbusters handled the moon landing conspiracy:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wym04J_3Ls0

The Mythbusters actually did real science, and they did it with style and panache and grace. They started with a problem, advanced a hypothesis, designed an experiment (often a series of experiments) analyzed the results, drew conclusions, and often went back and re-did things when a viewer pointed out something they did wrong. That is science. They democratized science in a way that no one else has ever done. A kid watching Mythbusters could come away thinking that science was something that they could do themselves. Ultimately, the Mythbusters advanced science by busting the myth that science can only be done by scientists.

[r0fls]

Debunking conspiracies is not science, although surely it uses similar methods. Few scientists question whether we landed on the moon. Being a scientist relies on the ability to see true from false accurately -- Einstein and other great scientists questioned scientific phenomena and developed hypothesis to explain them. Whether some people believe we landed on the moon is a social phenomenon, and lies entirely outside the realm of science.

Also, before you start hating on Bill Nye so hard, please compare his reported scientific contributions[1] to Jamie Hyneman's and Adam Savage's (spoiler, theirs don't seem to exist). Last point about Nye: bow ties are ok. Seriously though, people don't hate on Feynman for having long hair or being a supposed sex swinger. I know Nye doesn't have the same prestige, but it's just a bow tie; I think you should give him a break.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_Nye#Scientific_work

Note: Bill Nye also engineered a part that was used in the 747 while he worked at Boeing

[lisper]

> Debunking conspiracies is not science

Why not?

> theirs don't seem to exist

http://mythresults.com

> bow ties are ok

Of course bow ties are OK. Nonetheless, a scientist wearing a bow tie reinforces negative stereotypes. It's sad, but true.

> people don't hate on Feynman for having long hair or being a supposed sex swinger

That's because Feynman didn't do those things on TV. If Bill Nye wants to wear a tutu in his private life, more power to him. But if he wears one on a TV show about science I think that would indicate some really poor judgement on his part.

> Bill Nye also engineered a part that was used in the 747 while he worked at Boeing

So? What does that have to do with the Mythbusters?

[r0fls]

>> Debunking conspiracies is not science >Why not?

In the general sense of the word, it does qualify. However, my personal definition of doing science requires devotion toward advancement in a specific scientific field. I don't think that definition is actually uncommon. Specifically, few scientists (physicists, chemists, astronomers, biologists, etc...) will ever reference the work of the Mythbusters in their studies or attempts at explaining the universe or aspects of it. Bill Nye would be more likely to be referenced (at least by an aeronautical engineer), in my opinion, but like I said I don't imagine that's either's main focus; that is education. Mythbusters is specifically devoted to applying the scientific method to debunking myths, and that's awesome, but since they're not devoted to advancing a scientific field, I don't see what they do as science. As a far fetched analogy: if I apply the scientific method to blogging, it doesn't mean I'm doing science.

[lisper]

IMHO it is important to distinguish between doing science and being a professional scientist for the same reason it's important to distinguish between (say) playing a sport or a musical instrument and being a professional athlete or musician. Sports and music are democratized in ways that science is not. It is taken for granted that people can play sports or musical instruments without being professionals, but for some reason this is not the case in science. The profession of science oozes with disdain bordering on contempt for those who are not members of the club. This is a very serious problem in our society. It's the reason that climate-change denialists and young-earth creationists get as much traction as they do.

The Mythbusters were not professional scientists (they were professional entertainers), but they absolutely did science. And they did good science. Your dismissal of them is IMHO a symptom of the problem that they more than anyone else took a step toward solving.

[Nadya]

>Nonetheless, a scientist wearing a bow tie reinforces negative stereotypes. It's sad, but true.

Can you extrapolate on this? Is there something about bow ties that I'm completely ignorant about?

[lisper]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bow_tie#Stereotypes_of_bow_tie...

[Nadya]

I'm not seeing how his wearing a tie reinforces any negative stereotypes. If anything it just shows he's "an example of the stereotypical perception of a bow tie wearer" (a professor/teacher wearing a bow tie) which is... uh.. harmless? I see nothing else but some out-of-context quote form a short term Times writer.

Unless you're going to argue people should never do anything that is "stereotypical" of "that kind of person" I see no reason he shouldn't wear a bow tie.

[0] http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/26/fashion/sundaystyles/a-red...

[NegativeK]

I believe the point was that they draw positive attention to science, not that they do science or improve on scientific methods.

Science classes in school rarely advance anything other than the number of scientists in the world and the lay public's understanding.

[lisper]

No no no! The Mythbusters actually did real science! And most (though not all) of the time they did it quite well.