sci·ence
ˈsīəns
noun
- 1.the intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behavior of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment.
...um, yeah. Let's go with an easier definition.
noun
1.
a branch of knowledge or study dealing with a body of facts or truths systematically arranged and showing the operation of general laws: the mathematical sciences.
2.
systematic knowledge of the physical or material world gained through observation and experimentation.
3.
4.
systematized knowledge in general.
5.
knowledge, as of facts or principles; knowledge gained by systematic study.
Now, I'm quick to admit that the Discovery Channel isn't always the best source of "science" in the world. Considering they appear to have several "docudramas" that are "dramatized television movies/series based on actual moments" and some appear to be done the same way The Possession was, namely, someone heard something once and decided to make up a whole bunch of lies around it.
But the channel still has enough of my respect to keep me coming back for programs such as Planet Earth, Life, and others. Plus, of course, there's Mythbusters, a show that I think has done more for getting children and adults interested in science again since... well, since Bill Nye went off the air. Or maybe even more than that. Maybe not since people started wondering if MacGyver could really do all that stuff we saw him do.
So let's look at Mythbusters and see if two guys blowing stuff up can really count as "science."
The very first episode of Mythbusters I ever saw was their episode testing if driving while talking on a cell phone was really as dangerous as driving while intoxicated. I was fascinated that such a show existed and I hadn't heard of it before.
The idea that people were taking ideas, rumors, myths, legends, and science "facts" and testing them to see if things were plausible or not was simply brilliant, and I wondered why it hadn't happened before. ...I mean, besides Penn and Teller's Bullshit!
Plus, the show had Kari Byron work in its favor, too.
That never hurts.
Taking place in the Bay Area of California, the show consists of Adam Savage, Jamie Hyneman, Kari Byron, Grant Imahara, and Tori Belleci (with others having been on the show in the past) as they tackle urban legends, science myths, and idioms that people just assume must be true because of how long people have been saying them. They're a personable crew, able to provide clear explanations of basic scientific principles while still being entertaining.
In fact, I've even been to where they work!
Words could not express just how disappointed I was, as being able to go there was one of the things I was most excited about doing when I was across the country in California.
But hey, I got to take the photo, and that's pretty cool, right?
Anyway, back to the show.
Sure, it's entertaining watching people build a cannon out of a tree, build a balloon out of lead foil, or in a recent episode attempt to herd cats, but is it "science?"
Well, in the sense that they could publish a paper on their findings...I somehow doubt it. However, let's look at that definition again. Mythbusters isn't really a branch of knowledge in of itself, but let's look at the second choice.
systematic knowledge of the physical or material world gained through observation and experimentation.
The show is nothing but observation and experimentation. It's true that they don't work out of a sealed, sterile lab, and they're both limited by time, a budget, the law, and what's entertaining... but look at how the standard formula of a show goes:
1. Discuss myth/idea/legend.
2. Study source of myth/idea/legend.
3. Attempt recreation of myth/idea/legend on a small scale to see if there's any possibility of sound science to support it.
4. Attempt to recreate the myth/idea/legend on a full-scale level.
5. Attempt to discover what it would take to get the results from the myth/idea/legend.
It's steps 3, 4, and 5 that are key here, because even if all you do is roll a marble down an incline a few times and observe it, you're still technically doing "science." You're testing something ("Marbles still roll downhill") and recording the results ("True. Next experiment, can I clean up all these marbles before someone steps on them?").
Now, there are those who attempt to discredit the Mythbusters with things like "they didn't test enough samples, they didn't gather enough data, they obviously did it wrong because it didn't work" (or, in the case of the airplane on the conveyor belt, they were told they got it wrong because it did work), but I'd just like to point out that a definition of science that I think should be added is "acquiring results through testing that can be further broken down and discussed further."
Whether it's "are elephants afraid of mice," "can you escape a sinking car," or "can someone survive falling from a plane of a bomb blows up the building under them," no matter what the results are, you can then take those results and study them further. Were the elephants just started by quick movement? Does it matter if the car has electronic locks or not? Does it depend on what the falling person is wearing?
As I said, I wouldn't write my thesis paper off of any tests that the Mythbusters do, but I'd be willing to take anything they do and discuss it further (which is what the people on their forums do with no small amount of fervor) with other people, which might lead to further experimentation.
I've discussed the ending results from shows with friends, family, coworkers...and that, I think, is Mythbusters' best contribution to society in that it makes people think. You can dispute what happened in a show with me all day and I'll be fine with that, but what bothers me is when people just assume that if they heard it on television it must be true without seeing it happen themselves or understanding how or why it happened.
In my opinion, it is science in its truest form. "Take ideas, test, present results." Are they going to change the world? Possibly not, but they've probably made a lot of people take a closer look at the world that's already around them.
One other note, though. In listening to an interview with Adam Savage, when asked about his favorite moments, I remember him saying that something he loved were the letters the show got after they did their episode on how to escape a car that goes into water. Apparently there were several instances people who saw that episode being in accidents that lead to their being stuck in a car as it sank into a lake or other body of water, and they were able to write in later and say that they were able to think back to that episode and use the techniques shown their to save their own lives.
That's a pretty great thing, when you can say you've done something that's helped save lives, even if you didn't know it was going to directly do that when you did it.
No comments:
Post a Comment