[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.