I saw a news clip of a woman getting vaccinated saying she trusts the vaccine because she "likes science." The vaccines appear to be mostly safe, but because you "like science" isn't a reason to trust them. What she means is she likes Mythbusters and thinks that's science.
Mythbusters is (or was, I haven't watched it in a decade) following scientific principles. To quote Adam Savage, "Remember, kids: The only difference between screwing around and science is writing it down.".
Science is a process, and it doesn't need the trappings of pristine lab coats and expensive labs. Those things help, but it's about the core principle.
The core principle of science is trying to prove your belief incorrect. Mythbusters was basically trying to see if some story was plausible, and can we make the test interesting. Unfortunately this is very common even among scientists, but I using that basic principle it’s almost accidental when they learned something was different than they expected.
A great example of this is their sword breaking setup. Take two swords and whack them together seems like a natural test. Unfortunately, the issue isn’t the strength of the sword when new it’s a question of metal fatigue and defects in craftsmanship. But, rather than run the test for say 2 weeks they just increased the swing strength because that looks cool.
I saw a news clip of a woman getting vaccinated saying she trusts the vaccine because she "likes science." The vaccines appear to be mostly safe, but because you "like science" isn't a reason to trust them. What she means is she likes Mythbusters and thinks that's science.
reply