Of course, that is your right as well. Inregards to data, if your asking could I provide detailed descriptions of what was done wrong, yes, however the explantions would run far longer than the forums would accept.
[quote]Controversy breeds interest. So if they miss things people will get involved through the message boards and via email [quote]
[quote] As for the mistakes made in the past, I have to believe that they were not an over site, but instead overlooked for the purpose I stated earlier. [quote]
Do I understand you to say that you think the Mythbutsters INTENTIONALLY screw up???
I have read the intelligent explanations from several posters on the myths you spoke of. But if you would like you can contact me on yah00 and give a more detailed description.
[quote]Do I understand you to say that you think the Mythbutsters INTENTIONALLY screw up???[/quote]
If that is indeed true (intentionally screwing up) as you say, then my respect for the show just dropped through the floor, for a great many reasons. As for the myths, take Tesla's earthquake machine, you say you've read intelligent explations, as to why it would NOT work, ok, you provide those details and I'll explain why both they and the MB's are wrong in very great detail. I also can be reached by my name a Yah00, fair deal?
I have read a good deal in regards about how these listed myths were tested wrong and a good lot of it is just plain rubbish, the rest is inconsequential details that aren't even part and parcel of what is being tested. So, I conclude that under the conditions that the Mythbusters are conducting their tests is just fine. Are they infallible? Abso-floggin-lutely not, no more than you or I am. They are in the public light and it makes them a target for nit-picking. And if you're such a stickler for stuff like this why don't you go after NASA for the mistakes they've made.
[quote] I have read a good deal in regards about how these listed myths were tested wrong and a good lot of it is just plain rubbish, the rest is inconsequential details that aren't even part and parcel of what is being tested. So, I conclude that under the conditions that the Mythbusters are conducting their tests is just fine. [quote]
draco, the topics I listed have engineering and physics issues and you being a biologist you know this how? In the myths where Jamie and Adam grew bacteria cultures (which is way out of my league…) if I made such statements, wouldn’t you be asking me the same question?
As for NASA, considering the scale and complexity of what they do compared to the Mythbusters, percentage wise their mistakes are considerably smaller. However yes, when they screw up the consciences are far more catastrophic! Look at Columbia, Challenger and the terrible loss of life. Take the Hubble Telescope and the miss-ground mirror. Apollo 1, a 100% oxygen atmosphere, a badly designed hatch and a chaffed wire that that caused the death of 3 Astronauts. How about a mistake in converting kilometers to miles in a program that caused the loss of a Mars probe. You bet NASA has made mistakes, and people have paid for those mistakes with their lives, but space exploration has been and will always be a very dangerous business.
<typo edit>
This message has been edited. Last edited by: arcmaster2010,
Hrm... I'd know this how, eh? Two things: well rounded education as required by my college degree, and a pension for life-long learning. I may practice biology in the medical field, but my interests vary a great deal. I am far from alone in this regard. Many people I know explore the world outside their discipline and are capable of making conclusions based on scientific deduction. There are different forms of scientists. There's those with degrees ranging from Bachelors to Ph D's. And there's hobbyists who avidly teach themselves and work alongside others with more experience as much as they can. And there's also armchair scientists who learn a great deal from reading and watching educational programs. All of these approaches can and do yield scientific minds... there are also people out there who hold degrees that do not have scientific minds and couldn't think their way outside of a cardboard box. It's more of a problem solving approach frame of mind than anything else.
I can appreciate your love of learning, but I would contend that unless you are in a given field, there is much you would not likely come in contact with, as in the case of mechanical engineering, FEA or Finite Element Analysis.
[quote] there are also people out there who hold degrees that do not have scientific minds and couldn't think their way outside of a cardboard box. [quote]
As for the above, I've worked with my share of those as well (personally I like "wet paper bag...). The last two companies I worked for were top heavy with PhD's, out of about 20 (both companies) only 3 were worth their salt, the rest had no clue (and how they got theirs is anyone’s guess...).
BTW, typical, I'm still waiting for that information.
[quote]I'm still waiting for that information.[/quote]
Ive been waiting on you to provide me with information. I have formed my decision, you stated that you had information that may sway me to the other side.
Currently, I think the Mythbusters is the best show running on any countries networks in this solar system (and I've looked at a lot). By definition a scientist is "someone who does science" and as a scientist myself I think in 99.99% of the time the team sticks to good scientific method. Remember its myths and folklore we are trying to turn into a testable hypothesis. That's what I see and I love it. Its great entertainment which is more that can be said for much of television viewing. If my science teachers in years 11 & 12 had a bit more mythbusters approach a lot more people would have had their curiosity stimulated and we would all as a world be learning more. Avast and belay that criticism. Three cheers for the Mythbusters team!!!!!
Forums 
