|
Post by Dullahan on Dec 16, 2010 20:40:01 GMT -5
Errr....call me an idiot(it'd be more than fair), but what's wrong with their science?
|
|
|
Post by WildKnight on Dec 16, 2010 20:49:40 GMT -5
Errr....call me an idiot(it'd be more than fair), but what's wrong with their science? Aside from the fact that they make a lot of assumptions and strange logic gaps? The primary problem is that they never explain how they arrive at a lot of the comparisons they make. One major example is almost every time I've seen them work in scale. They never seem to address the fact that, frequently, simply scaling something down doesn't work because it changes the variables involved. Other times they do odd things like scale down everything BUT one or two important elements of the experiment. If you're going to make a smaller house, the experiment is no longer valid with a full sized gun (or appliance, or milk jug, or whatever else they're just going to blow up later when they find out that, *gasp!* you can't actually survive walking on the surface of the sun by soaking yourself in KY jelly first)
|
|
|
Post by takewithfood on Dec 17, 2010 9:18:27 GMT -5
Working in scale is a good start, but you're right that they have to follow through with the real thing before they can make any solid claims. Then again, they only rarely say something is busted or plausible or whatever with any degree of certainty.
I was going to complain more about their lack of controlled environments, proper materials (they make a lot of substitutes) and sometimes they dispense with controls. They don't pretend to be good science, it's really just budget science for entertainment and everyone knows it.
~TWF
|
|
|
Post by WildKnight on Dec 17, 2010 11:55:22 GMT -5
proper materials (they make a lot of substitutes) ~TWF Thats what I meant when I said they don't properly explain a lot of the assumptions they make. They change elements in an experiment without bothering to explain that it shouldn't affect the outcome (if in fact that is even the case)
|
|