Adam Savage: "Mythbusters is Entertainment, Not Science"

  • 235 Replies
  • 39767 Views
*

Raist

  • The Elder Ones
  • 30590
  • The cat in the Matrix
Re: Adam Savage: "Mythbusters is Entertainment, Not Science"
« Reply #30 on: March 10, 2011, 07:55:31 AM »
Anyone that watches mythbusters and can't spot at least 2-3 horrendous flaws in their experiments is mentally handicapped. Also,the amount of repeats of an experiment in order for it to be scientifically rigorous keep science off of the show.

?

trig

  • 2240
Re: Adam Savage: "Mythbusters is Entertainment, Not Science"
« Reply #31 on: March 10, 2011, 10:01:48 AM »
Anyone that watches mythbusters and can't spot at least 2-3 horrendous flaws in their experiments is mentally handicapped. Also,the amount of repeats of an experiment in order for it to be scientifically rigorous keep science off of the show.
You are welcome to repeat, verify or improve on any experiment they do. But you do not have much of a track record in designing and implementing experiments, or in analyzing the results. However appalling the record of the Mythbusters might be, yours is totally non-existent. In my land that is called "a donkey laughing at others' long ears".

*

Raist

  • The Elder Ones
  • 30590
  • The cat in the Matrix
Re: Adam Savage: "Mythbusters is Entertainment, Not Science"
« Reply #32 on: March 10, 2011, 01:56:22 PM »
Anyone that watches mythbusters and can't spot at least 2-3 horrendous flaws in their experiments is mentally handicapped. Also,the amount of repeats of an experiment in order for it to be scientifically rigorous keep science off of the show.
You are welcome to repeat, verify or improve on any experiment they do. But you do not have much of a track record in designing and implementing experiments, or in analyzing the results. However appalling the record of the Mythbusters might be, yours is totally non-existent. In my land that is called "a donkey laughing at others' long ears".

I in no way called them incompetent or said I could do better. I simply said you are an idiot if you can't spot 2-3 horrendous flaws in each experiment. By the way you've got a little brown on your nose.

Just fyi, as an experiment is supposed to be controlled there should be exactly zero glaring unaccounted for inaccuracies in any experiment.

As for my expertise, I've had to devise about 30 different experiments with minimal equipment throughout my engineering classes, I've also independently tested hundreds of different things I've found interesting. Thank you mr kettle, you can go play with the pot some more later.

?

fshy94

  • 1560
  • ^^^ This is the Earth ...die alien invaders!!
Re: Adam Savage: "Mythbusters is Entertainment, Not Science"
« Reply #33 on: March 10, 2011, 03:33:55 PM »
OMG Tom Bishop's still here! How cute!
Proof the Earth is round!
http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=19341.0

Quote from: Althalus
The conspiracy has made it impossible to adequately explain FE theory in English.
^^LOL!

?

trig

  • 2240
Re: Adam Savage: "Mythbusters is Entertainment, Not Science"
« Reply #34 on: March 10, 2011, 06:05:11 PM »
Anyone that watches mythbusters and can't spot at least 2-3 horrendous flaws in their experiments is mentally handicapped. Also,the amount of repeats of an experiment in order for it to be scientifically rigorous keep science off of the show.
You are welcome to repeat, verify or improve on any experiment they do. But you do not have much of a track record in designing and implementing experiments, or in analyzing the results. However appalling the record of the Mythbusters might be, yours is totally non-existent. In my land that is called "a donkey laughing at others' long ears".

I in no way called them incompetent or said I could do better. I simply said you are an idiot if you can't spot 2-3 horrendous flaws in each experiment. By the way you've got a little brown on your nose.

Just fyi, as an experiment is supposed to be controlled there should be exactly zero glaring unaccounted for inaccuracies in any experiment.

As for my expertise, I've had to devise about 30 different experiments with minimal equipment throughout my engineering classes, I've also independently tested hundreds of different things I've found interesting. Thank you mr kettle, you can go play with the pot some more later.
And exactly what is the difference between commiting 2-3 horrendous flaws in each experiment (or more) and being incompetent to make experiments?

You are trying to play with words instead of accepting that you did call them incapable of making an acceptable experiment whatsoever (i.e., incompetent) and do not have the evidence to back up your claims (as always).

I do not want to hear from you the long list of experiments you supposedly have done (for that matter, I could claim to have done more than a thousand important experiments in my life, and nobody could contradict me). I would like to see you do just one of the tens of experiments that have been proposed in this forum. Meanwhile, I could not care less whether you claim to have done one experiment or a million. I want to see how you go around with one.

Re: Adam Savage: "Mythbusters is Entertainment, Not Science"
« Reply #35 on: March 10, 2011, 11:17:46 PM »
Is there a thread I haven't seen? If so could you link it.

I'm finding it very difficult to work out why this matters.

*

Beorn

  • Flat Earth Editor
  • 6543
  • If I can't trust my eyes, what can I trust?
Re: Adam Savage: "Mythbusters is Entertainment, Not Science"
« Reply #36 on: March 11, 2011, 02:48:15 AM »
Anyone that watches mythbusters and can't spot at least 2-3 horrendous flaws in their experiments is mentally handicapped. Also,the amount of repeats of an experiment in order for it to be scientifically rigorous keep science off of the show.
You are welcome to repeat, verify or improve on any experiment they do. But you do not have much of a track record in designing and implementing experiments, or in analyzing the results. However appalling the record of the Mythbusters might be, yours is totally non-existent. In my land that is called "a donkey laughing at others' long ears".

I in no way called them incompetent or said I could do better. I simply said you are an idiot if you can't spot 2-3 horrendous flaws in each experiment. By the way you've got a little brown on your nose.

Just fyi, as an experiment is supposed to be controlled there should be exactly zero glaring unaccounted for inaccuracies in any experiment.

As for my expertise, I've had to devise about 30 different experiments with minimal equipment throughout my engineering classes, I've also independently tested hundreds of different things I've found interesting. Thank you mr kettle, you can go play with the pot some more later.
And exactly what is the difference between commiting 2-3 horrendous flaws in each experiment (or more) and being incompetent to make experiments?

Those flaws are in there because it's a TV show, not a real scientific experiment. While they might be perfectly capable of making a correct scientific experiment (I don't know, haven't seen them do it) that does not mean that it is possible to do while still making entertaining television.
Quote
Only one thing can save our future. Give Thork a BanHammer for Th*rksakes!

?

trig

  • 2240
Re: Adam Savage: "Mythbusters is Entertainment, Not Science"
« Reply #37 on: March 11, 2011, 05:55:10 AM »
Those flaws are in there because it's a TV show, not a real scientific experiment. While they might be perfectly capable of making a correct scientific experiment (I don't know, haven't seen them do it) that does not mean that it is possible to do while still making entertaining television.
Again, pretty strong words from someone who has not, to my recollection, performed a single experiment for this forum.

It is true that the need to produce the results in an entertainment show limits severely the possibility of showing the hard data found. Almost nobody will look through several pages worth of repetitive numbers showing the scientific basis for their conclusions, few people will sit through a 10 minute presentation of the hypothesis, methodology, analysis of possible sources of error, and design issues of the experiment.

Several attempts of the experiment are made and a few of them are posted in the website, but they are, obviously, a bit boring to see.

And the conclusion is reduced to one word, which is, in my opinion, the worst flaw as far as scientific methodology goes, due to the entertainment nature of the show, but they usually do have the analysis for their conclusions. They also could use much bigger samples, but there is a small cost to benefit relation in knowing the truth about any given urban myth.

So, please go and experiment with a boat leaving port, or track the position of the stars, or measure some distances through a couple of methods, or measure the apparent size of the sun and moon, or design an experiment to measure the bending of light. Or something. Only then you can say others are not doing the scientific experiments they say they do.

*

hoppy

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 11803
Re: Adam Savage: "Mythbusters is Entertainment, Not Science"
« Reply #38 on: March 11, 2011, 06:20:29 AM »
Trig, you seem pretty lazy. Where are the results of your experiments.
God is real.                                         
http://www.scribd.com/doc/9665708/Flat-Earth-Bible-02-of-10-The-Flat-Earth

*

Beorn

  • Flat Earth Editor
  • 6543
  • If I can't trust my eyes, what can I trust?
Re: Adam Savage: "Mythbusters is Entertainment, Not Science"
« Reply #39 on: March 11, 2011, 06:31:05 AM »
Those flaws are in there because it's a TV show, not a real scientific experiment. While they might be perfectly capable of making a correct scientific experiment (I don't know, haven't seen them do it) that does not mean that it is possible to do while still making entertaining television.
Again, pretty strong words from someone who has not, to my recollection, performed a single experiment for this forum.

It is true that the need to produce the results in an entertainment show limits severely the possibility of showing the hard data found. Almost nobody will look through several pages worth of repetitive numbers showing the scientific basis for their conclusions, few people will sit through a 10 minute presentation of the hypothesis, methodology, analysis of possible sources of error, and design issues of the experiment.

Several attempts of the experiment are made and a few of them are posted in the website, but they are, obviously, a bit boring to see.

And the conclusion is reduced to one word, which is, in my opinion, the worst flaw as far as scientific methodology goes, due to the entertainment nature of the show, but they usually do have the analysis for their conclusions. They also could use much bigger samples, but there is a small cost to benefit relation in knowing the truth about any given urban myth.

So, please go and experiment with a boat leaving port, or track the position of the stars, or measure some distances through a couple of methods, or measure the apparent size of the sun and moon, or design an experiment to measure the bending of light. Or something. Only then you can say others are not doing the scientific experiments they say they do.

First you say something about my strong words and then you continue to agree with my post. Besides they never said that they are doing scientific experiments, so I'm not saying that they are not doing th scientific experiments that they say they do.
Quote
Only one thing can save our future. Give Thork a BanHammer for Th*rksakes!

?

Thevoiceofreason

  • 1792
  • Bendy Truth specialist
Re: Adam Savage: "Mythbusters is Entertainment, Not Science"
« Reply #40 on: March 11, 2011, 09:50:35 AM »
Adam Savage admits that the Mythbusters is entertainment, not science.


I missed the part where he admitted that.

He clearly said its about the methods, not the validity of the conclusions
« Last Edit: March 11, 2011, 09:56:17 AM by Thevoiceofreason »

?

trig

  • 2240
Re: Adam Savage: "Mythbusters is Entertainment, Not Science"
« Reply #41 on: March 11, 2011, 04:46:37 PM »
Those flaws are in there because it's a TV show, not a real scientific experiment. While they might be perfectly capable of making a correct scientific experiment (I don't know, haven't seen them do it) that does not mean that it is possible to do while still making entertaining television.
Again, pretty strong words from someone who has not, to my recollection, performed a single experiment for this forum.

It is true that the need to produce the results in an entertainment show limits severely the possibility of showing the hard data found. Almost nobody will look through several pages worth of repetitive numbers showing the scientific basis for their conclusions, few people will sit through a 10 minute presentation of the hypothesis, methodology, analysis of possible sources of error, and design issues of the experiment.

Several attempts of the experiment are made and a few of them are posted in the website, but they are, obviously, a bit boring to see.

And the conclusion is reduced to one word, which is, in my opinion, the worst flaw as far as scientific methodology goes, due to the entertainment nature of the show, but they usually do have the analysis for their conclusions. They also could use much bigger samples, but there is a small cost to benefit relation in knowing the truth about any given urban myth.

So, please go and experiment with a boat leaving port, or track the position of the stars, or measure some distances through a couple of methods, or measure the apparent size of the sun and moon, or design an experiment to measure the bending of light. Or something. Only then you can say others are not doing the scientific experiments they say they do.

First you say something about my strong words and then you continue to agree with my post. Besides they never said that they are doing scientific experiments, so I'm not saying that they are not doing th scientific experiments that they say they do.
They say it just about every other show. They say it in almost every public appearance they make. They are promoting science, they are doing science and they are as scientifically rigorous as far as the limitations of the show permit.

What I am saying is that they do not show all the scientific work they do, not that they don't do it. And in every subject they research they produce scientifically sound experiment designs, experiments and data. There is almost always an improvement on the knowledge about the subject.

I think you fall in the mistake of so many others of thinking if any thing at all is questionable in an experiment, then the experiment is not scientific. I can tell you that you are just plain wrong.

*

Tom Bishop

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 17920
Re: Adam Savage: "Mythbusters is Entertainment, Not Science"
« Reply #42 on: March 11, 2011, 05:14:27 PM »
Quote
They say it just about every other show. They say it in almost every public appearance they make. They are promoting science, they are doing science and they are as scientifically rigorous as far as the limitations of the show permit.

They are not doing science. Adam Savage said himself that Mythbusters cannot be relied on to provide scientific facts.
« Last Edit: March 11, 2011, 05:15:59 PM by Tom Bishop »

?

Around And About

  • 2615
  • Circular Logic Falls Flat
Re: Adam Savage: "Mythbusters is Entertainment, Not Science"
« Reply #43 on: March 11, 2011, 05:22:51 PM »
The real question is, which is more entertaining: Mythbusters or this forum?
I'm not black nor a thug, I'm more like god who will bring 7 plagues of flat earth upon your ass.

?

sillyrob

  • Official Member
  • 3771
  • Punk rawk.
Re: Adam Savage: "Mythbusters is Entertainment, Not Science"
« Reply #44 on: March 11, 2011, 05:24:41 PM »
Quote
They say it just about every other show. They say it in almost every public appearance they make. They are promoting science, they are doing science and they are as scientifically rigorous as far as the limitations of the show permit.

They are not doing science. Adam Savage said himself that Mythbusters cannot be relied on to provide scientific facts.
About the moon landing.

*

Roundy the Truthinessist

  • Flat Earth TheFLAMETHROWER!
  • The Elder Ones
  • 27043
  • I'm the boss.
Re: Adam Savage: "Mythbusters is Entertainment, Not Science"
« Reply #45 on: March 11, 2011, 06:39:51 PM »
The real question is, which is more entertaining: Mythbusters or this forum?

This forum, hands down.  Another win for FE!
Where did you educate the biology, in toulet?

*

Beorn

  • Flat Earth Editor
  • 6543
  • If I can't trust my eyes, what can I trust?
Re: Adam Savage: "Mythbusters is Entertainment, Not Science"
« Reply #46 on: March 12, 2011, 03:55:32 AM »
FLAT EARTH VICTORY
Quote
Only one thing can save our future. Give Thork a BanHammer for Th*rksakes!

?

trig

  • 2240
Re: Adam Savage: "Mythbusters is Entertainment, Not Science"
« Reply #47 on: March 12, 2011, 04:58:52 AM »
Quote
They say it just about every other show. They say it in almost every public appearance they make. They are promoting science, they are doing science and they are as scientifically rigorous as far as the limitations of the show permit.

They are not doing science. Adam Savage said himself that Mythbusters cannot be relied on to provide scientific facts.
You just cannot bother yourself for 10 minutes to hear the video that you, yourself, quoted.

Adam Savage said that they are not the definitive source for this subject. He was trying to say that others have better experiments and evidence, that others have better understanding of the subject. But they are a good source. The experiments are sound, some conclusions are as evident as they can be, others are good although not totally conclusive.

They made experiments, showed the experiments' design and methodology, showed the execution and results, and finally explained their conclusions. By comparison, anything you have done comparable to an experiment fails in each one of the steps above, and just declares a conclusion. As Savage would say, "Mythbusters 4, Tom Bishop 0".

*

Raist

  • The Elder Ones
  • 30590
  • The cat in the Matrix
Re: Adam Savage: "Mythbusters is Entertainment, Not Science"
« Reply #48 on: March 12, 2011, 09:49:03 PM »
they are as scientifically rigorous as far as the limitations of the show permit.


Our entire point is that the show does not permit any scientific rigor at all. It is simply a show about anecdotal evidence that is usually fairly similar to a situation in a myth. Hence them determining things "plausible" meaning they have replicated what has happened.

?

sillyrob

  • Official Member
  • 3771
  • Punk rawk.
Re: Adam Savage: "Mythbusters is Entertainment, Not Science"
« Reply #49 on: March 13, 2011, 01:57:59 AM »
they are as scientifically rigorous as far as the limitations of the show permit.


Our entire point is that the show does not permit any scientific rigor at all. It is simply a show about anecdotal evidence that is usually fairly similar to a situation in a myth. Hence them determining things "plausible" meaning they have replicated what has happened.
According to Tom's link, your point is that Mythbusters isn't a source for scientific facts about the moon landing.

?

trig

  • 2240
Re: Adam Savage: "Mythbusters is Entertainment, Not Science"
« Reply #50 on: March 13, 2011, 07:18:28 AM »
they are as scientifically rigorous as far as the limitations of the show permit.


Our entire point is that the show does not permit any scientific rigor at all. It is simply a show about anecdotal evidence that is usually fairly similar to a situation in a myth. Hence them determining things "plausible" meaning they have replicated what has happened.
You really have to look at the definition of anecdotal evidence. Anecdotal evidence is Tom Bishop telling you that all the FE'rs of this forum have made the experiments of ENAG. Anecdotal evidence even covers Tom Bishop saying he saw beach balls and people playing frisbee 50 km away with a 4 inch telescope, but neglected to take a photograph.

Anecdotal evidence is not an experiment performed with lots of cameras all around, with the results in plain sight to anyone who sees the show or the website. If you care to get a dictionary you will see that "anecdote" is a short account of a past incident, not the detailed presentation of something happening in front of several cameras.

There are some limitations in the experiments, mainly the lack of large samples. But experiments are made lots of times with a small sample size when you are testing if a hypothesis merits larger studies. And in the case of the Mythbusters that is what they are doing half the time. That is not what anecdotal evidence means.

*

markjo

  • Content Nazi
  • The Elder Ones
  • 42529
Re: Adam Savage: "Mythbusters is Entertainment, Not Science"
« Reply #51 on: March 13, 2011, 08:08:01 AM »
You really have to look at the definition of anecdotal evidence.

Since you brought it up:
Quote from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anecdotal_evidence
The expression anecdotal evidence has two distinct meanings.

(1) Evidence in the form of an anecdote or hearsay is called anecdotal if there is doubt about its veracity; the evidence itself is considered untrustworthy.

(2) Evidence, which may itself be true and verifiable, used to deduce a conclusion which does not follow from it, usually by generalizing from an insufficient amount of evidence. For example "my grandfather smoked like a chimney and died healthy in a car crash at the age of 99" does not disprove the proposition that "smoking markedly increases the probability of cancer and heart disease at a relatively early age". In this case, the evidence may itself be true, but does not warrant the conclusion.

In both cases the conclusion is unreliable; it may not be untrue, but it doesn't follow from the "evidence".

Evidence can be anecdotal in both senses: "Goat yogurt prolongs life: I heard that a man in a mountain village who ate only yogurt lived to 120."
Science is what happens when preconception meets verification.
Quote from: Robosteve
Besides, perhaps FET is a conspiracy too.
Quote from: bullhorn
It is just the way it is, you understanding it doesn't concern me.

?

trig

  • 2240
Re: Adam Savage: "Mythbusters is Entertainment, Not Science"
« Reply #52 on: March 13, 2011, 09:47:58 AM »
You really have to look at the definition of anecdotal evidence.

Since you brought it up:
Quote from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anecdotal_evidence
The expression anecdotal evidence has two distinct meanings.

(1) Evidence in the form of an anecdote or hearsay is called anecdotal if there is doubt about its veracity; the evidence itself is considered untrustworthy.

(2) Evidence, which may itself be true and verifiable, used to deduce a conclusion which does not follow from it, usually by generalizing from an insufficient amount of evidence. For example "my grandfather smoked like a chimney and died healthy in a car crash at the age of 99" does not disprove the proposition that "smoking markedly increases the probability of cancer and heart disease at a relatively early age". In this case, the evidence may itself be true, but does not warrant the conclusion.

In both cases the conclusion is unreliable; it may not be untrue, but it doesn't follow from the "evidence".

Evidence can be anecdotal in both senses: "Goat yogurt prolongs life: I heard that a man in a mountain village who ate only yogurt lived to 120."
Thank you, this is a good definition and one that can shed light in what I was trying to say.

As far as (1) goes, the Mythbusters do not accept hearsay as evidence for their experiments, they accept it as the starting point for their hypothesis.

As far as (2) goes, the Mythbusters use their own evidence collected through experimentation and draw a conclusion only on the basis of the initial hypothesis and the results of the experiments. You may consider some of the experiments as weak, but you definitely cannot say that they derive their conclusions from some place other than their experiments.

*

Raist

  • The Elder Ones
  • 30590
  • The cat in the Matrix
Re: Adam Savage: "Mythbusters is Entertainment, Not Science"
« Reply #53 on: March 15, 2011, 11:27:38 AM »
You really have to look at the definition of anecdotal evidence.

Since you brought it up:
Quote from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anecdotal_evidence
The expression anecdotal evidence has two distinct meanings.

(1) Evidence in the form of an anecdote or hearsay is called anecdotal if there is doubt about its veracity; the evidence itself is considered untrustworthy.

(2) Evidence, which may itself be true and verifiable, used to deduce a conclusion which does not follow from it, usually by generalizing from an insufficient amount of evidence. For example "my grandfather smoked like a chimney and died healthy in a car crash at the age of 99" does not disprove the proposition that "smoking markedly increases the probability of cancer and heart disease at a relatively early age". In this case, the evidence may itself be true, but does not warrant the conclusion.

In both cases the conclusion is unreliable; it may not be untrue, but it doesn't follow from the "evidence".

Evidence can be anecdotal in both senses: "Goat yogurt prolongs life: I heard that a man in a mountain village who ate only yogurt lived to 120."
Thank you, this is a good definition and one that can shed light in what I was trying to say.

As far as (1) goes, the Mythbusters do not accept hearsay as evidence for their experiments, they accept it as the starting point for their hypothesis.

As far as (2) goes, the Mythbusters use their own evidence collected through experimentation and draw a conclusion only on the basis of the initial hypothesis and the results of the experiments. You may consider some of the experiments as weak, but you definitely cannot say that they derive their conclusions from some place other than their experiments.

Uh, your two doesn't address the second definition. They have insufficient evidence because their experiments are lacking and are usually on a small scale. I was watching their "talking to plants" show today and they admitted on camera that their sample size was too small to draw conclusions from.

*

Raist

  • The Elder Ones
  • 30590
  • The cat in the Matrix
Re: Adam Savage: "Mythbusters is Entertainment, Not Science"
« Reply #54 on: March 15, 2011, 11:28:18 AM »
they are as scientifically rigorous as far as the limitations of the show permit.


Our entire point is that the show does not permit any scientific rigor at all. It is simply a show about anecdotal evidence that is usually fairly similar to a situation in a myth. Hence them determining things "plausible" meaning they have replicated what has happened.
According to Tom's link, your point is that Mythbusters isn't a source for scientific facts about the moon landing.

This is a strawman argument. You can not force me to argue for anything that I myself have not said.

?

sillyrob

  • Official Member
  • 3771
  • Punk rawk.
Re: Adam Savage: "Mythbusters is Entertainment, Not Science"
« Reply #55 on: March 15, 2011, 12:06:30 PM »
they are as scientifically rigorous as far as the limitations of the show permit.


Our entire point is that the show does not permit any scientific rigor at all. It is simply a show about anecdotal evidence that is usually fairly similar to a situation in a myth. Hence them determining things "plausible" meaning they have replicated what has happened.
According to Tom's link, your point is that Mythbusters isn't a source for scientific facts about the moon landing.

This is a strawman argument. You can not force me to argue for anything that I myself have not said.
The entire point of the thread is based on something that was said about the show. It was said about the moon landing. So unless you have come in here to make a completely different point, with new facts, my statement still stands.

*

Raist

  • The Elder Ones
  • 30590
  • The cat in the Matrix
Re: Adam Savage: "Mythbusters is Entertainment, Not Science"
« Reply #56 on: March 15, 2011, 07:18:01 PM »
they are as scientifically rigorous as far as the limitations of the show permit.


Our entire point is that the show does not permit any scientific rigor at all. It is simply a show about anecdotal evidence that is usually fairly similar to a situation in a myth. Hence them determining things "plausible" meaning they have replicated what has happened.
According to Tom's link, your point is that Mythbusters isn't a source for scientific facts about the moon landing.

This is a strawman argument. You can not force me to argue for anything that I myself have not said.
The entire point of the thread is based on something that was said about the show. It was said about the moon landing. So unless you have come in here to make a completely different point, with new facts, my statement still stands.

Then why did you try to tell me what my point was?

?

sillyrob

  • Official Member
  • 3771
  • Punk rawk.
Re: Adam Savage: "Mythbusters is Entertainment, Not Science"
« Reply #57 on: March 15, 2011, 07:20:38 PM »
they are as scientifically rigorous as far as the limitations of the show permit.


Our entire point is that the show does not permit any scientific rigor at all. It is simply a show about anecdotal evidence that is usually fairly similar to a situation in a myth. Hence them determining things "plausible" meaning they have replicated what has happened.
According to Tom's link, your point is that Mythbusters isn't a source for scientific facts about the moon landing.

This is a strawman argument. You can not force me to argue for anything that I myself have not said.
The entire point of the thread is based on something that was said about the show. It was said about the moon landing. So unless you have come in here to make a completely different point, with new facts, my statement still stands.

Then why did you try to tell me what my point was?
You said the view of everyone on your side, not your own. You should re-read what you wrote.

*

Raist

  • The Elder Ones
  • 30590
  • The cat in the Matrix
Re: Adam Savage: "Mythbusters is Entertainment, Not Science"
« Reply #58 on: March 17, 2011, 09:46:40 AM »
they are as scientifically rigorous as far as the limitations of the show permit.


Our entire point is that the show does not permit any scientific rigor at all. It is simply a show about anecdotal evidence that is usually fairly similar to a situation in a myth. Hence them determining things "plausible" meaning they have replicated what has happened.
According to Tom's link, your point is that Mythbusters isn't a source for scientific facts about the moon landing.

This is a strawman argument. You can not force me to argue for anything that I myself have not said.
The entire point of the thread is based on something that was said about the show. It was said about the moon landing. So unless you have come in here to make a completely different point, with new facts, my statement still stands.

Then why did you try to tell me what my point was?
You said the view of everyone on your side, not your own. You should re-read what you wrote.
My use of the word "our" was simply to refer to me and the other person arguing against your claims that they are scientifically rigorous. Please do not assume what is meant by vague pronouns it simply makes you look like a dick.

?

sillyrob

  • Official Member
  • 3771
  • Punk rawk.
Re: Adam Savage: "Mythbusters is Entertainment, Not Science"
« Reply #59 on: March 17, 2011, 09:58:58 AM »
they are as scientifically rigorous as far as the limitations of the show permit.


Our entire point is that the show does not permit any scientific rigor at all. It is simply a show about anecdotal evidence that is usually fairly similar to a situation in a myth. Hence them determining things "plausible" meaning they have replicated what has happened.
According to Tom's link, your point is that Mythbusters isn't a source for scientific facts about the moon landing.

This is a strawman argument. You can not force me to argue for anything that I myself have not said.
The entire point of the thread is based on something that was said about the show. It was said about the moon landing. So unless you have come in here to make a completely different point, with new facts, my statement still stands.

Then why did you try to tell me what my point was?
You said the view of everyone on your side, not your own. You should re-read what you wrote.
My use of the word "our" was simply to refer to me and the other person arguing against your claims that they are scientifically rigorous. Please do not assume what is meant by vague pronouns it simply makes you look like a dick.
So when I said you and everyone on your side, it didn't mean you and the other person arguing "our" claims that they are scientifically rigorous? Anyways, you make yourself look like a dick because I didn't say they are scientifically rigorous, I was only saying that Adam Savage's quote, which Tom looks like a dick for messing up, was about that particular subject, not in general.