• plenipotentprotogod@lemmy.world
      0·
      12 days ago

      Remember kids: the only difference between screwing around and science is writing it down.

      Actual quote from Adam Savage on an episode of Mythbusters.

      • rumba@lemmy.zipEnglish
        0·
        11 days ago

        And that’s why you can’t totally trust their findings 100% of the time :)

    • nifty@lemmy.worldOP
      0·
      12 days ago

      My favorite example is of how napalm was invented at Harvard. But yeah, I hate how napalm was used sigh

  • digital_man@lemmy.world
    0·
    12 days ago

    For me, they signify a time when Television/streaming companies produced content promoting science , rational thought, and blowing crap up.

    • wander1236@sh.itjust.works
      0·
      12 days ago

      Their show was running alongside all the Discovery and History crap about ancient aliens, mermaids, and Bigfoot, so I’m not sure about those first two things.

      • saltesc@lemmy.world
        0·
        12 days ago

        Now it’s still all WW2 revisited with “never before seen” enhanced footage, usually centred around Hitler. Clone, clone, clone.

        I’d like to see them challenge themselves to have to actually dig up some info for once.

      • iltoroargento@lemmy.sdf.org
        0·
        12 days ago

        In its first years, it actually ran alongside a lot of interesting and significantly more scholarly shows (than what we have now) on those two networks. The early 2000s actually had some solid programming on the history channel. Pretty quickly devolved into pawn stars and ancient aliens after that, though. So, yeah, half to most of its run was alongside utter garbage.

        Edit for clarification: More scholarly than the current and last decade and a half of shows on history channel and discovery.

        • whotookkarl@lemmy.world
          0·
          12 days ago

          The same people working for David Zaslav who pushed discovery and history to be almost entirely pseudoscience and low effort variety/reality TV are currently running HBO’s streaming service, Max.

        • Annoyed_🦀 @monyet.cc
          0·
          12 days ago

          Yeah, Adam did say they would never have the same opportunity today than they have in 2003, the landscape of edutainment show is just too different today.

          • anomnom@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
            0·
            11 days ago

            They could probably do something similar with YouTube and a big patreon following. But they would have had trouble starting from scratch the way that Discovery’s production money allowed. Would have taken a lot longer to ramp up, but also a lot less lawyers would have been involved probably.

  • Xanthrax@lemmy.world
    0·
    12 days ago

    I grew up thinking that. As I got older, I realized they’re actors like Bill Nye. That style of edu- tainment helped me internalize the scientific method. I loved the explosions growing up, but now I just love the humility, educational content, and entertainment. All that being said, the explosion tests they did were a good wake-up call for any young kids who wanted to play with explosives/ fireworks. Also, Discovery should have better advertised the fact they weren’t scientists. They curtailed it by calling them professionals, which is anyone who’s paid.

    • helpImTrappedOnline@lemmy.world
      0·
      11 days ago

      Why are they not scientists? Sure their profession was in special effects, but you don’t need a degree or a lab to carry out scientific research.

    • RememberTheApollo_@lemmy.world
      0·
      11 days ago

      I don’t understand anyone starting from the premise they’re scientists. Nobody made that claim about the hosts? They’re very much entertainers who have an educational angle (sort of). I follow Adam and one thing he discusses often enough about the Mythbusters is that they were storytellers first, the scientific process was part of the story, and teaching was never really the intent even though we all feel like we learned from the show.

      • Olhonestjim@lemmy.world
        0·
        11 days ago

        You don’t need a degree to be a scientist, all you need is to apply the scientific method to your quest for knowledge.

        Micheal Faraday never attended schools after about the age of 8. He was absolutely a scientist, and certainly one of the greatest. Look around and see the world he gave you.

      • el_bhm@lemm.ee
        0·
        11 days ago

        Adam would have been 9 through 12 at the time. Awful and fucked up, sure.

        I find it hard to hold it over him. Over the past decades he has been nothing but the opposite of his childhood self.

        • zeezee@slrpnk.net
          0·
          11 days ago

          The “r*ping blob” saying “I hope that my sister gets the help she needs to find peace, but this needs to end. For many years, she has relentlessly and falsely attacked me and other members of my family to anyone who will listen” - sounds a lot like denial, deflection and victim blaming - having read her blog all I can see is just someone trying to heal from very real SA trauma and sharing her experience so others know they’re not alone. And suing her abuser for said abuse isn’t a “pursuit of a financial bonanza” but a very real recognition of the trauma she’s been left to deal with while her abuser is praised for his ingenuity and given a “boys will be boys” excuse for r*pe.

      • helpImTrappedOnline@lemmy.world
        0·
        11 days ago

        That whole article basically sums to they settled out of court, which proves nothing.

        Innocent until proven guilty.

        Also a lot of famous people are “alleged r*pists”, unfortunately that seems to come with the fame, especially in the last 10 years.

        • zeezee@slrpnk.net
          0·
          11 days ago

          Settling doesn’t prove innocence nor guilt - but as #MeToo has shown - SA is so prevalent that’s it’s usually better to err on the side of caution and assume the worst instead of claiming “fame” as a reason people try to seek justice from their abusers.

          • helpImTrappedOnline@lemmy.world
            0·
            11 days ago

            #MeToo has also shown that there are people out there will claim SA as a form of revenge or in attempt to get money of the situation.

            As things are, the man is always assumed guilty even when proven innocent.

            I try not to take accusations at face value for this reason. You have to put your self in their shoes; If someone accuses you of SA 30 years ago, what do you do? How do you convince people it never happened or in the case of two consenting adults hooking up, how do convince people it was consensual.

            By the time you prove your innocence, you’ve lost your job, friends, family, possibly divorced, children all have 100 mile restraining orders and have been told terrible things about you…your life is fucked because some saw the #MeToo movement and figured out there are 0 consequences for fucking up someone’s life.

            That being said, if the accused is proven guilty, then feel free to chop of their head (not the one attached to the neck).

  • rumba@lemmy.zipEnglish
    0·
    11 days ago

    For me, it was: you need to think critically, but you also need to employ proper experts. They did a lot of cringe ‘science’ early.

    • EvolvedTurtle@lemmy.world
      0·
      11 days ago

      I hate the trombone episode they did For context I play the trombone

      So the myth was that there was this performer who put a firework in his trombone mute and it ended up launching the slide off

      They used a crappy pawn shop trombone with no oil to test it

      The slide should be so smooth that if you simply hold it upside down and let go of the slide it should fall with near zero resistance

      But if your trombone isn’t properly maintained All it takes is one tiny dent to mess that up and significantly increasing the drag

      Hell all it would of took is one of the producers to drop it or bump into it to dent it ruining the whole experiment

      • MrNobody@sh.itjust.works
        0·
        11 days ago

        would of took

        would have taken. Even without took/taken. would have, could have. never of. The confusion comes from would’ve could’ve.