Friday, November 24, 2006


The New York Times asks whether Mythbusters is The Best Science Show on Television. Who cares? It's lots of fun even if it doesn't teach very much science. Gets my vote.


  1. I saw the original article, and I would submit that, while it may be true that "it doesn't teach very much science", in one sense, it teaches a great deal about doing science.

    That is, they begin with some hypothesis, and let the viewers see how one goes about testing it, and how one determines how to test it.

    Additionally, much of what they do on "Mythbusters" is closer to doing science than is what is done in science education. One of the things I recall from studying science in school is that, when doing an "experiment", one often already knew what the result was supposed to be. And if one got an unexpected result, it was not a discovery, but an error in the experiment. Whereas, on "Mythbusters", you see people actually trying to discover whether the hypothesis is correct, in a way that can be followed by someone without any significant prior education in science.

    (Greg Byshenk)

  2. Thank you for pointing out that article.

    I find it interesting that the two hosts doen't particularly like each other - they seem to have a great chemistry when they are together on the screen.

    As for the science content, agree with Greg, the show teaches a lot about doing science.