Special 6: MythBusters Revealed

I agree with the comment, and I have often wondered why people think of scientists as anything but the ultimate adventurers--always at the edge between the known and the unknown, searching for a way to cross that line and then to move the line.

I think it may have something to do with the way science is taught, which is generally the reverse of the way it is done. Real science begins when there is something that is baffling. The endpoint is, (as you say) after years or decades of work, some new understanding that can be explained to others. But most science classes, especially undergraduate courses, seem to begin with the explanation, and then go into the lab to verify it. It starts to seem as though the workings of the universe ought to be entirely apparent to anyone in any armchair who thinks logically enough and that lab work is merely a way to check the logic. And thus arises the view that the baffling, rather than being the starting point for the adventure of science, is actually nothing more than a failure to reason correctly.

It might be better to teach science forwards, beginning with the puzzle, following the dead ends, and ending with the theory as understood in light of that struggle, or maybe even with the facts that persist as challenges to the theory. In that sense, Mythbusters is, in my opinion, close to the way science should be taught. There is lots of what comes close to real science on the show. The "frozen chicken cannon" series finally confirmed the myth after many attempts failed. That came close to capturing the puzzle and the struggle of scientific discovery, and hinted how difficult it can be to design a valid experimental test.

The big difference between science and science fiction (or any other fiction) is that fiction has to be believable at some level so that the audience can suspend disbelief. But the real world doesn't have to be believable. Reality has (apparent) plot holes.

 out of  found this valuable. Do you find this valuable?