You can’t see the applicability in investigating the creation of surface indications of handheld objects on skin being subjected to various degrees of force, or demonstrating a method of investigating that question to the general television viewing public? Not even being slightly sarcastic or insincere here, I’m very curious what qualities qualify something as being ‘science’ to you. Not being in a lab excludes archaeology, and not publishing your findings to Nature excludes me the unfathomably vast majority of scientists from counting as ‘scientists’.
The priority on Mythbusters is always entertainment first, not science. It’s not best practices, it’s what is visually appealing. It’s not data driven, it’s shooting schedule. The skulls are not necessary tools, they are props. Adam Savage himself states that the goal is to “replicate the circumstances, then duplicate the results”, or in other words, create a spectical. Which again, is fine, but is not hard science. If you can’t tell the difference between hard science and television I don’t know what to do for you.
But I suspect you understand this already, and are motivated more by the excitement of eliciting a response by adopting a posture of “enlightened” objectivty, blowing the minds of us lesser beings, us superstitious cave dwellers, than by legitimately considering the finer points of profiting off of human remains or the needless destruction therof.
Hard science / soft science typically refers to the distinction between disciplines like mathematics or physics vs. less quantifiable fields like sociology - it has nothing to do with the entertainment value, presentation or perceived testing rigor. nor my own personal feelings towards you or your beliefs. The difference in our opinion seems to come down to my opinion (that science education is both socially valuable and is science) vs. your opinion (that the presentation of results reflects their value and that the treatment of human remains with deference should be a primary concern of any scientific investigation involving them)? Is that broadly correct?
You can’t see the applicability in investigating the creation of surface indications of handheld objects on skin being subjected to various degrees of force, or demonstrating a method of investigating that question to the general television viewing public? Not even being slightly sarcastic or insincere here, I’m very curious what qualities qualify something as being ‘science’ to you. Not being in a lab excludes archaeology, and not publishing your findings to Nature excludes
methe unfathomably vast majority of scientists from counting as ‘scientists’.The priority on Mythbusters is always entertainment first, not science. It’s not best practices, it’s what is visually appealing. It’s not data driven, it’s shooting schedule. The skulls are not necessary tools, they are props. Adam Savage himself states that the goal is to “replicate the circumstances, then duplicate the results”, or in other words, create a spectical. Which again, is fine, but is not hard science. If you can’t tell the difference between hard science and television I don’t know what to do for you.
But I suspect you understand this already, and are motivated more by the excitement of eliciting a response by adopting a posture of “enlightened” objectivty, blowing the minds of us lesser beings, us superstitious cave dwellers, than by legitimately considering the finer points of profiting off of human remains or the needless destruction therof.
Hard science / soft science typically refers to the distinction between disciplines like mathematics or physics vs. less quantifiable fields like sociology - it has nothing to do with the entertainment value, presentation or perceived testing rigor. nor my own personal feelings towards you or your beliefs. The difference in our opinion seems to come down to my opinion (that science education is both socially valuable and is science) vs. your opinion (that the presentation of results reflects their value and that the treatment of human remains with deference should be a primary concern of any scientific investigation involving them)? Is that broadly correct?