Ask Adam Savage: Testing Myths With "No Basis in Science"
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 20 мар 2021
- In this Q&A, Adam answers Tested member Derald Porter's question, "How did the teams mentally get into the myths that had no basis in science? I'm thinking especially about Free Energy and 300MPG carburetor add-ons." Thank you, Derald, for your support and question! Join this channel to support Tested and get access to perks, like asking Adam a question:
/ @tested
Tested Ts, stickers, mugs and more: tested-store.com
Subscribe for more videos (and click the bell for notifications): ruclips.net/user/subscription_c...
Twitter: / testedcom
Facebook: / testedcom
Instagram: / testedcom
Discord: / discord
Amazon Storefront: www.amazon.com/shop/adamsavage...
Savage Industries T-shirts: cottonbureau.com/stores/savag...
Tested is:
Adam Savage / donttrythis
Norman Chan / nchan
Joey Fameli www.joeyfameli.com
Gunther Kirsch guntherkirsch.com
Ryan Kiser / ryan.kiser
Jen Schachter www.jenschachter.com
Kishore Hari / sciencequiche
Sean Charlesworth / cworthdynamics
Jeremy Williams / jerware
Kayte Sabicer / kaytesabicer
Bill Doran / chinbeard
Ariel Waldman / arielwaldman
Darrell Maloney / brokennerd
Kristen Lomasney / krystynlo
Intro bumper by Abe Dieckman
Set design by Danica Johnson / saysdanica
Set build by Asa Hillis www.asahillis.com
Thanks for watching! 
Наука
![Roddy Ricch - Survivors Remorse [Official Music Video]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/J5IeFzr2GgE/mqdefault.jpg)
Join this channel to support Tested and get access to perks, like asking Adam a question:
ruclips.net/channel/UCiDJtJKMICpb9B1qf7qjEOAjoin
Watch MythBusters on DiscoveryPlus: www.discoveryplus.com/show/mythbusters
More Adam Q&A here: ruclips.net/p/PLJtitKU0CAeg88RBY08TZkB7dcVmJLJLJ
You helped cover up 9/11 what the fuck is your problem
@@lucashenry9734 And the Moon landing!!!
@@lucashenry9734 He is only doing what he is told to do by his Masters!
@@lucashenry9734 LOL
What are you idiots talking about you get a stupid idea in your head and gob off at anyone who disagrees. You are entitled to your opinion just as I am you don't need to troll anyone who disagrees with you
Adam, standing in the brightest, most well-lit room I've ever seen: "Am I dimly lit?" lmfao
And then makes imperceptible changes until he's satisfied :-)
That's what working in television will do to you!
Most youtubers haven’t been TV stars...
"overly" dimly lit, no less.
Because the room is so outrageously bright, him wearing a black shirt and reflective glasses = subject in foreground shadows.
"Science is not a compendium of knowledge. It's a process" What a marvelous way to describe what science is.
When I was studying science, I was taught that the process of science can not add to knowledge; it can only chip away at what is false.
T-shirt when?
I actually disagree. Science is process where you try to disprove the things.
As such it does accumulate a compendium of knowledge about all things that are wrong and doesn't work.
The truth is among the things that haven't been disproved.
A lot of people think that science is like mathematics where you prove one thing using another you know to be true.
Most education system present knowledge in a final form. They simply do not have time to present all possible hypothesizes that have been tested and proven false, until the final form have been reached. And thus a lot of people don't even think that the final form is not actually final, it could become obsolete if a new edge case is found. Just like Newton laws have been updated by Einstein.
@@user-jp7tw3sd3x We definitely accumulate knowledge over the years and the work that is done. But the important thing is that nothing is written in stone. Anything can be disproven. So, in this way, the process is much more important than the accumulated knowledge, because it can all change.
And all scientifically determined knowledge is applicable within a certain scope. Newtonian physics is perfectly adequate for many purpose at many scales and velocities. Go outside of those bounds and you have to start looking at other laws. It's not that Newtonian physics is "wrong", it's just only applicable within certain bounds. Same probably goes for general and special relativity, quantum physics/mechanics. There could be larger or smaller scopes where those rules break down and there are other laws which govern/describe what happens at those scales and scopes.
Adam, Thank You for answering my question!! I really appreciate you taking the time to unpack my conception and giving me another way to think about learning, science, etc. I'm still over the moon that my question was picked! Thank you for all the time you share with us. 😁🌟
Except you were correct, but just used bad examples and Adam just completely copped out on the fact that they absolutely did run out of myths and started testing way more movie happenings and odd sayings that had no basis in reality whatsoever. I don't know why he couldn't just say, ya we ran out of good stuff.
@@NoMoreBsPlease More like they needed filler b stories. They always did movie happenings, odd sayings and anecdotes. Lead balloon was one of the best episodes and it was from an odd saying. Plus they were constrained by what they could feasibly do and afford with the budget the show would have. With all the materials, permits, location costs and machinery hiring they could only have a few big extravagant myths per season.
Also free energy was Season 3 and 300 MPG carb was season 4 .... out of 20 seasons. So yeah they were really running out of myths by season 3 and 4.
@@NoMoreBsPlease Just because YOU thought they "ran out of good stuff" does NOT, in any way shape or form mean that you are correct. They just ran out of stuff that YOU (arrogantly) decided was valid to check.
@@NoMoreBsPlease Read your RUclips handle. It's good advice.
I honestly sort of interpreted your question as more meaning “it’s so ridiculous it’s not even testable” either because it’s not falsifiable or because someone could always say “you did it wrong” for some mystical reason, yknow like the free energy people will always just be able to say “well YOUR free energy machine doesn’t work but OURS does because we’re smarter!” Cause the only real way you can falsify it is by inventing thermo dynamics. Knowing Adam Savage, I knew this whole “well what IS science? Discussion was coming when I clicked on the video, but it does feel a bit like the point of the question flew over his head, no basis in science more meaning no way it could even fit into a scientific process rather than whether it agrees with known scientific literature.
If that’s not what you meant by the question and he answered it perfectly that’s great, it’s just not what I would have thought you meant had I been the one reading it. It feels pedantic to me but I’m not judging Adam, it’s just how his brain works
Also bear in mind the show was literally called "MythBusters!" Can't think of a better myth to bust than those which have "no basis in science."
Well said
Exactly!
The person asking the question didn't mean "those things aren't based in science, you shouldn't have done that" or "why did you tackle this silly idea?". As you said, MB did lots of silly myths that every normal person would not have believed. The question is rather, how someone can test a myth that has no basis in science, where can we even beginn to dismantle it? And Adam gave a pretty good answer!
@@gknucklez but the attitude of not investigating things because they “have no basis in science“ is the attitude of most people and is a barrier to genuine inquiry. People looked askance at me for inquiring into flying saucers. They would tell me “I don’t believe in flying saucers.“ my answer was “I don’t believe in flying saucers either but I investigated the subject, you decided on the basis of no information.” UFOs, on the other hand, are an actual phenomenon but no one knows what they are; the evidence does not warrant a conclusion that they are manufactured objects inhabited by intelligent beings - the tired Hollywood stereotype.
@@denvan3143 anything’s a UFO if you’re bad enough at identifying things
It's such a subtle detail, but I really appreciate how the tested logo+sound effect always waits for Adam to introduce himself (as opposed to it always starting right at the beginning of the video).
I felt the EXACT same way when watching this episode
Good editors avoid obvious problems. Great editors work on things that might go unnoticed!
I've recently noticed that the editor has been doing some really interesting things with transitions, for example showing Adam working on something and another Adam walks past the first Adam into a different scene of Adam working on something, if that makes sense. Totally unnecessary from an editing standpoint but just a cool little visual trick for the observant viewer
if a gambler were to sum up the whole of thermodynamics he would make three simple statements.
1: you can not win
2: you can not break even
3: you can not get out of the game
Oh, so The Game in a nutshell.
(you lost, BTW.)
Underrated comment. Smiled a lot seeing this. Not nearly enough people know The Wiz.
0: On average you ...
That only applies to a closed system.
If I place a solar panel outside during the day, it will generate "free energy".
A crystal radio works with no local power source.
The problem with a lot of free energy claims is that they have a closed system and try to say that it's open. Or seriously fail at understanding the scale (yes, in theory, you can use the energy from radio waves to charge a battery, in practice, it will provide you with less energy to even compensate for self-discharge of the battery, unless you live near a 500kW radio station).
@@Pentium100MHz gotta appreciate the quotes around "free energy."
Respect.
I love that these vids aren’t edited at all. The consistent single take makes these so much more authentic and relatable. It feels like I’m actually sitting and having a conversation with Adam and it’s awesome.
Agreed. Watching his brain work, without revision, is an odd joy.
@@jenji7870 indeed.
"these vids aren’t edited at all." That's simply not true.
There are *almost* no edits, but there *is* the occasional edit when some kind of interruption occurs.
I completely agree with the general sentiment of what you're saying, but I felt like that specific wording was a nit that simple had to be picked :)
@@SirMethos As a fellow nit-picker of language, I respect that comment %100
Specificity and accuracy of language matters, especially online where not everyone is a native English speaker. It's nice to see another nit-picker, there are far too few of us around. :)
My favorite unrealistic myth on this subject is jumping in a free falling elevator. It must have been interesting building the mechanism for Buster to jump on time when you undoubtedly knew that it was physically impossible for it to save the passenger.
That is my favorite one. Just simply because the elevator drop. I loved Adam's reaction to it, I wanted to be there. What made that a great myth was it is something cooked up in the minds of young children and in the show they demonstrate that the elevator falling is the least of your worries.
the sound that elevator made as it fell 😭
"Science is not a compendium of knowledge; science is a process."
This! A thousand times this!
This reminded me of a line from one of Dara O'briain's stand ups.
"Of course science doesn't know everything. If it knew everything it would stop and we wouldn't need it anymore"
Ive always loved watching him roast plebs. Especially when it would be one of the posh English people and you could practically hear the "well I say i didn't see his sort at eton!"
"it's bullshit... I'm being careful on my wording here." 😂😂😂
You left out "...by our current understanding of science"
When the question said, "had no basis in science," my first thought was Pyramid Power.
And as Adam alluded to in his answer, even Pyramid Power could be based in science (as in the method, not the consensus). They went out, got “expert” opinions on what properties could be influenced by the power of pyramids and designed and ran experiments to test those.
@@mrb692 yes, they did.
My junior high science teacher had us test pyramid power back in the late 80s. It was a fantastic moment on how to approach things with an open mind and healthy true skepticism. Test everything, but avoid preconceptions.
Homeopathy was my first thought....
He talked about Pyramid Power in another episode about episodes he regretted doing
Now I want a t-shirt that says “Science is not a Compendium of Knowledge”. I could watch these Q&A videos forever. So good. 🔥🔥🔥
Wasn't it Carl Sagan that originally said: Science is not just a compendium of knowledge. It's a means of understanding the world around us. Would bet it's already on a shirt, hat and coffee mug.
I always say "science is a process, not a conclusion."
The climate change act-ivists would like to have a word with you.
@@superadventure6297 Are you a climate change denier?
@@superadventure6297 Very mature response. Are you a science denier? Flat earther? Theologian? Do you deny reality Beacuse your conspiracy theories make you feel special?
@@Sergei_kv82 Mature, compared to all the name calling you're doing? You are clearly not interested in science when if you don't like someone's words the first thing you do is call them deniers, flat earth's, and a bunch of other terms. Because you don't understand what the scientific method is, you are more interested in politics. And then you throw in conspiracy theories, when nobody made any. What a joke. So take your politics and go away, everyone is sick of you.
@@Sergei_kv82 did you miss the entire point? "Science is not a compendium of knowledge. Science is a process."
It wasn't until many years after watching Mythbusters that I actually realised that the team already knew the answer to many of the myths they were testing.
Modern day renaissance man: father, teacher, protégé, videographer, creator, friend.
Wish this finds you all well, miss seeing everyone at cons.
You forgot artist, duh. Dude's a professional model maker and sculptor. Watching some of his build videos just blows me away with that sort of raw artistic talent, something I don't have 1 iota of in my bones lol.
@@AaronSmith-kr5yf I knew I'd forget a few, but I am glad we can all enjoy the tenacity and passion he brings to everything he does. Definitely challenges us to try out new stuff and give it our best shot.
@@SuperSpyKindaGuy class..
That wisp of hair clinging onto Adam's head had me mesmerized
Adam Savage is secretly a unicorn.
I didnt notice till I read this comment, and it looks awsome.
Same
My dad’s hair does this. Lol
That lock of hair is standing by, ready to replace Adam's eyebrow the next time it goes missing...! ;-)
Adam uses "science" to refer to the "Scientific method", which is used to prove - or disprove - theories. Meanwhile Derill uses the word "science" to refer to the "Scientific consensus", that is our current understanding on how the world works, built over a few millenia. Both can be called "science".
Agreed - Things like Over Unity have no "basis in science" because the so called 'operating principles' that are used for such machines are not only unproven by scientific method but have been disproved time and time again.
@@petertopp7877 Generally speaking, you can question any scientific conclusion or theory. Including relativity, quantum mechanics, etc. As long as your reasoning is good enough... With one exception, and that is thermodynamics and statistical mechanics.
Yeah, his rant is just a way to avoid discussing the stupidity of the "myths" they had to do sometimes.
Wrong. There is no scientific consensus, unless you want Nazi "science" to run your life. You are some of the people who still don't get it. You have been raised in propaganda centers known as modern public schools.
@@JCisHere778 I don't understand what you're trying to say? Are you confusing theory with hypotheses? Either way, I didn't mention them at all. I was talking about the operating principals which the so called "free energy machines" etc use to work. These are neither theories (a well- documented explanation of some aspect of the world, based on facts that have been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment.) or hypothesies (a proposition that can be tested by observations or experiments, about the natural world. To be considered scientific, hypotheses are subject to scientific evaluation and must be worded in such a way that they can be proven to be incorrect.) They cannot be tested because nothing yet built works using those princples. In fact the theory of the conservation of energy - something that HAS been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment, states that such a thing can not exist.
Before I clicked on the video, I read the "no basis in science" part, and Pyramid Power automatically came to my mind.
To so kindly quote Jamie Hyneman, it is an "oogy boogy myth."
I appreciate how Adam breaks things down to components and then explains how everything works (or doesn't work) together.
Will you make an book about building and tools? Like “Every Tools A Hammer” but just about use of tools and construction?
And Jamie should put out a book called " every hammers a tool"
@@onespecies-human344 Every nail is a problem
If Adam writes any other book, I'm probably going to buy it!
I love when Adam's answers to questions also include some tidbits about how we can improve future questions for him.
I remember Adam talking about his Eureka moment after his Ted Talk. "It could be a great little talk", he was told, and he went on a rampage of improvement, and most importantly, public speaking coaching. It's like looking at a master violinist, the way he works his cadence in order to allow himself time to think, not use crutches and be compelling in his narrative.
Amazing to watch.
Now I need to find his ted talk. I may have seen it before but I don’t remember.
Many years ago after reading Mark Twain's "A Connecticut Yankee in King Arthur's Court" a fellow student or my instructor made this statement that has stayed with me. " Yesterday's magic is today's science and science is always incomplete." Food for thought.
That's just the inverse of Clarke's Third Law when you think about it.
"Science is not a compendium of knowledge. It's a process!"--Adam Savage. I've been saying this for _decades_ now! There are _sooo_ many things where people claim things like "it's science based" or "the science is settled," and they've got the same problem. They view "science" as a compendium instead of a process for uncovering truth and expanding our understanding of the world and our place in it.
Science is a process of rigorously testing reality with our sense to arrive at knowledge. There are a lot of things that have no basis in science because they don't derive their knowledge claims from observations of reality. Religion is a clear example with its reliance on supernatural revelation as its foundation.
I love Adam, he's a friend I wish all of us had such a great person in every aspect, I know we don't see everything but from what we do
The best pitch about the nature of science I've ever heard. "Science is not a compendium of knowledge" will stay with me for the rest of my life. Thanks for that!
"Science is not a dictionary, science is a process.." around this bit I thought of it as a database, endlessly being updated and changed. I guess that's kinda true but Adam's description is getting the same point across so much better. Appreciate the unpacking of "No basis in science". That he takes time to run through these things, and the detail with which he does, is one of the myriad of reasons I'm watching Tested. Constantly keeping us engaged.
Also, obligatory comment about "Am I dimly lit?" while having all the bloody light you could need 😂
Guess that's what working in TV does to you!
I cannot take my eyes from the shiny new piece of equipment over his left shoulder.
What do you mean?
@@Coconut7403 the iron man suit perhaps
@@Coconut7403 the giant silver drill press
@@boscorner the drill press
Not a drill press, that’s a Bridgeport mill
I've always found people to use science and what we know "so far" too rigidly. Rather than take in the structure of what science is telling us and use it to shape a paradigm of understanding the world around them , they treat it like you said - a dictionary. Southpark made a really good stab at this in the episode where cartman gets stuck in the future and instead of religion they are warring over interpretations of science.
As well:
Layperson: "Anything is possible"
First year physics student: "It is not possible"
Studied physicist: "It's most likely not possible"
The Vulcan Science Academy has determined that time travel isn't possible.
I agree with you. I feel like it's *mostly* younger people who like feeling right about things using science is the be all and end all to answering a question when in reality science is broad and vast and constantly changing as our understanding of things change.
@@erikswanson4022 it's not just younger people, younger generations just have more casual access to scientific teaching/literature/general knowledge than previous generations. I hear the same bs from 45 year olds. On the other side of the spectrum, however, science not always being right doesn't mean that every quacks "theory" is worth investigating beyond a few minutes in the shower
@@CharlesCorbett that's why I used the word *mostly*. I agree with you that's it's because they just have readily available access to scientific literature and information regarding pretty much any topic imagineable. Technology is amazing but like Adam said it feels like some people view science as singular source of information one can reference when proving a point and not every topic can be so readily proven/disproven. Haha but, I don't tend to give much thought to crackpot theories. Thank you for this respectful discussion, it's quite refreshing.
On the other hand, you have people claiming science is always changing when our understanding hasn't changed at all. The science CAN change, but doesn't mean that it HAS just because some people want it too.
Proving something can’t happen is harder than showing something can happen.
True. Harder to prove something doesn't exist than proving its existence by showing it "tadaah there it is!"
It's too bad you can't just "tada~ here it isn't" or something
@@_lol69_17 As I look around my room and out my window I don't see a zebra. Therefore zebras don't exist no matter how many superposed sightings there are. A ludicrous claim to be sure, but you can never really say that it is impossible that something exists but simply was not in the location you were looking at the time you were looking.
Imagine you have a theory that there exists a rock that will grant magic powers. Can’t disprove it unless you test every rock in existence.
He mentioned that when talking about why they didn't tackle Big Foot or other similar myths. They couldn't prove the Big Foot didn't exist, they'd only prove that they couldn't find him / make themselves look like fools.
It's why meta-studies can be better, studies of other studies, if 100 groups set out to prove that ghosts don't exist, no one group can prove ghosts don't exist, but by checking the results of all the groups you have a far greater breadth of data.
*Adam appears, the room's light casting a blinding glare over his skin*
"Guys, do I seem dimly lit to you?"
*turns on another light*
Time to buy a new computer monitor. LED’s dim with age - the harder you drive them the faster they dim.
4:14
“Science is more than a body of knowledge; it’s a way of thinking.” - Carl Sagan
"Hello, explosion? Hello?"
i like to put it as science is "our best answers so far" cause new answers fond using the scientific process can disprove old answers, but that doesnt mean our old answers weren't good or wrong its just means we have fond better ones.
found*
@no no
Haha right
I like to think that science works a bit like a lens in a camera. At first things are out of focus and we really don't know what we are looking at. Then as we focus the lens the picture gets clearer and clearer and more details can be resolved. In the beginning we just didn't see all the details but we also don't exactly know whether the lens is in perfect focus yet.
@no no not always the case. For example, newton's view of gravity. Is ISN'T wrong. The idea that it describes the universe is wrong. But the model itself is extremely accurate at low speeds and low gravity. If you take general relativity and substitute in low speeds and gravity, you get newton's equations. In this situation, Newton wasn't wrong. He just described a subset of general relativity just as general relativity described a (larger) subset of the universe. Thing's aren't always as simple as you assume. Your argument hinges on the idea that X and Y are mutually exclusive and completely different. That's rarely the case.
"Science is not a compendium of knowledge, it is a method." I love it! That might be the most succinct way of describing it, bravo Adam!
It is also important t understand that very often when the scientific method is applied to a question, it often ends up raising more new questions than it answers, and this is a feature not a bug.
I love how Adam tackles questions, giving the asker utmost respect and still teaching along the way
The free energy we all want is the one we don't have to pay for.
JoelshonestyisJoelsmodesty
Preach it Brother.
I live in Central Texas. All I want is energy that doesn't stop because it got cold...
@@EvilBonsai We could already have it. Nuclear combined with renewables would stop climate change AND completely get rid of our dependence on foreign oil, but the men in charge would rather make a dollar today than have a livable earth tomorrow. :/
@@WhyDidIJustEatThat: Renewable energy is nuclear, just that the power plant is far enough away to be totally safe and runs whether we want it to or not.
“Science isn’t there to give us incontrovertible facts about the universe”
Every science “teacher” I’ve ever had would flunk you for that
Then you've had bad science teachers. I'd never do that to my kids.
@@Karajorma I entirely agree. That was the point of initial comment
@@claywilliams6480 Yep, it's pretty sad when you get science teachers who don't understand what science is or isn't. If they don't understand it, how can they possibly hope to explain how it works to kids?
It's sad, but I had science teachers that taught Creationism and Young Earth theories as "alternative facts" as part of school policy :-(
@@thomashowlett8295 oh my gosh seriously?
I love your process of thought in answering the questions..... I think the same way and your narrative is compelling and fascinating
Watching the very first few seasons of Mythbusters, and comparing that Adam with the Adam that we see today is very inspiring. It is far to rare to find a man (or woman) who publicly accepts and points out the mistakes and errors of their past self and then further celebrates the process and growth they have undergone to become who they are today. As different as Adam and Jamie are there is definitely Jamie fingerprints left on the characteristics of Adam today that come out when he shows his creative and making process on this channel. Truly, a gem of media that many (including myself) will be able to learn and apply even years from now.
Absolutely loving these Q&As, they're keeping me sane during lockdown. Thankyou!
When we talk about meaningless phrases.... "Believe the science" or "go by the science" are the best examples..... There is no "the science" only "science"
Using the principle of charity I interpret "go by the science" as "go by the best science we have".
Well, often that's shorthand for the scientific method that was used to prove a specific thing. "the science" usually means - "the data that was collected, documented and analysed in this specific case"
@@zoeherriot go by the scientific method makes 100% sence.... But there is still no "the science" as it's fluid and not monolithic... There are too many people who think there is settled science on allot of issues where it really isn't settled....
It's pretty clear when someone means go by the scientific method or go by where the science takes us. I'm talking about when we go into something and people have a preconceived notion and don't actually mean go by the scientific method
Adam said it well that there are very few things there is settled science on
There is a scientific body of knowledge though, that consists of data collected using the scientific method, some of which has become consensus among scientists. If you had to start over from scratch every time because science is a process then you’d get nowhere.
And “the science is settled.” 🤮
You had and still have a fourm. A way to reach many people, busting myths to entertain and inform people. It's a valuable service.
My favorite free energy joke is a picture of a power strip plugged into itself
It was obvious that Adam was tired going into this video. Thank you for your labor, Adam. 💙💜
I think a better phrasing would have been "testing myths that we know are not possible due to the laws of physics as we understand them"
'If an old and respected scientist says something is possible, he is almost ceratinly right; if an old and respected scientist says something is impossible, he is almost certainly wrong.'
We do not know something is impossible by failing.
We can know that something is possible by doing it.
Loved the Mythbusters show and the process of determining how to test ideas.
I love it when Adam digs into linguistics and philosophy. I haven't heard such a deep chat with Adam since the Tim Ferris podcast he was on, which I highly recommend.
I didn’t expect to have to come to RUclips to have one of my friends pull the old, look at the phone in mid sentence. Lol.
If i was with Adam he could check his phone all he wanted!
When I read the title, I thought, how could something not have a basis in science? That doesn't make sense. You can look at anything scientifically.
If only it was so simple
Well no - you can't look at the supernatural scientifically. By definition, it is outside nature and therefore there is nothing that is testable.
@@zoeherriot well yeah, but... ok
@@zoeherriotI I think you can look at it scientifically. Ghost sightings might be caused by optical illusions caused by atmospherics....or heave drug use...or psychosis. Belief in god and miracles could be caused by a psychological need we have evolved to have or by mass delusions. The "supernatural" as something experienced by humans can be brought to bear against the scientific method. The results are messy and inconclusive but you can certainly look at the issue scientifically.
I see that by "supernatural" we mean outside of the realm of nature and thus outside of the realm of science...but we can simply resist that conclusion...tell ourselves that nothing is outside of the realm of nature because then it would not be real or true and continue to apply science to it. Interesting proposition.
@@MugRuith The only thing I can think of right now that might be outside the realm of science is the issue of life after death. Sure, you can study the people who claim to have after life experiences, or who claim to communicate with the dead, and hypothesize about whether it's this chemical or that thing that might induce those type of experiences, but I don't think there's a way to objectively conclude whether or not there's something more after this.
I understand exactly why you treaded as carefully as you did in your answer, and I appreciate it. I probably would have asked the question the same way, but wish I wasn't so quick to jump to that way of thinking. The reason being that, at least in the US, there is very much a mindset among people who consider themselves, we'll say, "science literate", to disparage people whom they consider to not be science literate. We have a tendency to make science feel like an exclusive club for smart people, and it's very exclusionary. It keeps people from wanting to learn about science and the process of science. Certain other "science personalities" in mainstream media have a tendency of being this way in a very public way, and it really turns people off from science when you're advocating for it and then calling everyone who doesn't understand it an idiot. Thank you for being a better role model.
Thank you Adam, for continually reminding others of the importance of defining what science is and how the process helps us. That is so important.
I'm waiting Adam telling story "....there's a burglar get in the workshop, I try find thing that can scare him, then I see my Iron Man Mark I....."
I'm not gonna lie, when I was a kid I though that most of these types of myths were made up. That when you said someone believed this it was almost like a cartoon character that you guys had made up. In a funny way took me awhile to realise that these were actually myths, hope a lot of those people watched the great episodes that I also watched :)
I expect to use the 'science is a process' line on an almost daily basis for the rest of my life.
Once again Adam Savage has enriched my entire existence! Thank you.
It is refreshing to have a such a fantastic explanation of science.
This video is so great, I feel like a lot of quotes could be used in a future civilization game.
Unpacking the gatekeeping we hold unconsciously :)
Subconsciously*
It's more of a poor choice of words than gatekeeping. Gatekeeping in this context would be "this idea is not possible because of the law of energy conservation so you can't do it" and Darryl isn't trying to deny anyone from attempting it.
It's not really gatekeeping so much as a misunderstanding of what science is. This is a fairly common understanding (think of all the well-meaning people telling others to "trust the science" when talking about climate change and vaccine safety).
Thanks for the careful explanation of the airplane on a conveyor belt! I was thinking along when you told the story, and I reasoned first it could never take off, as it would not generate any lift under the wings. Only when you explained the way an airplane on a conveyor belt would work - it would still move forward and thus generate lift, no matter how fast the conveyor belt goes in the opposite direction - did I see it. You enlightened my day!
As for what science is, you say it is a process, which I really like as a description. I would say it is also a way of thinking and of acting - exploring questions, trying things out, testing assumptions, making an argument.- And, for sure with Mythbusters science, it is also about storytelling. Because we often make sense of the world around us through storytelling.
Anyone remember the online-only additional free-energy myth video for this episode that was deemed plausible (but extremely dangerous and impractical) involving wrapping wires around high-tension wires and creating "free" current from the AC magnetic fields around said wires. Even back then I knew this was a different kind of "free" energy compared to the physics-breaking topic the episode was discussing.
WHERE IS THE RAPTOR CONCLUSION? im dying
That upright tuft of hair atop Adam's head makes him look at times like a question mark and other times an exclamation point, which is so fitting.
Adam!
I loved Mythbusters, and I’m here to tell ya that it was GREAT to see a BUNCH of the old episodes over the 2021 Holidays! I honestly don’t think you guys ever turned out a bad show in ten years of doing that it! Take it from a guy who, in another life, Directed LIVE TV News, five days a week.
The gas mileage myth was always one that messed with me. I’m a mechanic and I know that with a carburetor, a gas can, and a few hoses I was able to get about 50-60 miles per gallon out of a 79 Ford pickup. It was a really cool experiment that helped me learn a lot more about stoichiometry.
Adam, that brown bottle with the yellow label looked suspiciously like some, I have. Was that Bundaberg Ginger Beer from Australia?
I think that's what it was. Pretty sure Adam has talked about Bundaberg before. He always has some stocked in his man cave fridge.
It may not be 300 but my Metro averages 60 with it's fuel injection setup :) close enough
The current record is over 1000 miles per gallon but it is not exactly a standard car. A similar design is used for solar cars that run at freeway speeds...
Can we just take a minute to appreciate how well Adam can navigate correcting someone that in no way conveys judgement or criticism. Not to mention communicating complex topics that may not be accessible for everyone without dumbing down the information.
Also, dictionaries are not compendiums of rules either. They don't define words for us to use, they describe the ways we use words. They are constantly changing, preserving past definitions but always adding new ones.
Adam's one tuft of hair is his first step toward mad-scientist supervilliany. The flood gates are opened, the process cannot be stopped.
"I'm being careful on my wording here." we all know that mythbuster been muzzle up by their corporate overlords.
Much more likely is Adam being careful to not use the phrase he just took 4 minutes unpacking and pointing out its flaw.
As a chem/bio major....that is the best explanation of “science” I have heard yet. Dozens of science courses, mentorships, conventions, and this hit every explanation on the head.
I'm not even five seconds in but ADAM IS THAT A BUNDABERG?! I LOVE those! They've been so hard to find until recent years in the US since they're imported, I'm so glad to see them more frequently as of late though!
Boy, how timely this is in today’s world. I’m sick of how the term “ The science is in.” Is misused when it come to Covid.
I totally knew someone would misinterpret what Adam said. The protocols, vaccines, treatments we have, the CDC: they all base their recommendations on the best science available from teams of the best scientists in the field. This is the best we've got. That doesn't mean that a miracle molecule is not out there sitting quietly and not yet discovered. In other words: we do have such a thing as an updatable knowledge based on science, but to update it, you have to bring very robust new evidence acquired through a strict scienctific process. Every pseudo internet researcher's opinion really doesn't count.
Science says for now: wash your hands, put a mask on and get the vaccine. I don't care if you can find a quack doctor who says he doesn't believe in vaccines, I can find 100 000 who'll say otherwise.
@@gregoirepainchaud Nice Job Greg, well said.
People who say things like "no basis in science" or "I believe in sCiEnCe" are lacking in basic understanding of science and the scientific method.
Ye like,,, the whole base of science is that you don't have to belive in it, there is proof??? You can stop believing in something but you can't not say that 1+1=2
@@oammaslastnamethei3063 You are confusing scientific proof with mathematical proofs, they are not the same thing. Minor knitpick.
@@oammaslastnamethei3063 Yes I can #BooleanGang
@@oammaslastnamethei3063 I am not referring to the belief in a proof - like the earth is round - but rather a "belief" in a process that comes to null results more often than positive results.
Of course this is the essence of the scientific method: to test a hypothesis, be wrong, rethink the hypothesis and test, retest, build on the work by those prior, and so on until an informed conclusion can be made, all while maintaining the humility and understanding that we only know what we can see and verify to the best of our instruments, and that it stands to reason that we dont know the actual "truth", but rather our best interpretation of it given error in our instruments, insights, and testing methods.
I truly enjoyed both the subject, and the INTENSITY of this video.
This may be the most important message you’ve ever said into the camera. Thank you for tackling this so eloquently.
I keep coming back to pyramid power and his refusal to do those kinds of myths again. Is it because they "have no basis in science" or something else?
Dowsing. Another myth that was never tested (I understand why, and I agree with their decision). But I think, in this video, that Adam focused in too much of 1 possible interpretation of the question instead of looking at it more broadly. I enjoyed this video but think that the initial question deserves a more complete answer.
I think it's because (as he mentioned) there a countless different variations and "but you didn't try this" replies. It would require an ungodly amount of time to test them all.
I admire Adam's empathy towards those more obtuse than him.
Public felatio is against the law
I didn't know it, but I kinda needed to hear that last bit about a process to expand our understanding. While I've never put expectations on Myth Busters - the letters they received from viewers criticizing the efficacy of some experiments was a huge revelation when I first heard of them - I think it was a healthy reminder that scientific findings are just a step and, as we branch out further, may not apply universally.
*I love that this could have been edited out, but nope.* @1:30
Makes these videos that much more authentic.
Anytime I hear the phrase "the science is settled" or "follow the science" I want to throw up. I now have a better response. "Science is not a compendium of knowledge, it is a process."
I dry-heave every time I hear people spout that crap and have been for years. Especially those of us who are enthusiasts for scientific processes and problem solving, nothing is more frustrating, enraging or heartbreaking than to hear people who know none of those things hijack the term science for their political slogans. It is truly a shame.
Thank you so much for the discussion. Framing science as a process to gain knowledge was very appropriate. Just think how the public’s response to the Covid pandemic would be more grounded if we all understood the process. Results are secondary to understanding the process and underlying science.
Regarding the Free Energy episode- being a fan of Junkyard Wars / Scrapheap Challenge, I was excited to see George (aka 'Geo') appear in that ep. I always wondered why he didn't return, as I thought he was a perfect fit for the show.
Hence the reason why anytime someone uses the phrase “settled science” they are not talking about science at all.
“They are believing in something not possible”
All religions: ...
All I'm going to say is: it takes a lot of faith to believe that everything around us was made by a glorified supermassive explosion with ludicrously low chances of ever having the right set of situations lining up in the first place.
We've only covered the big bang so far. Another disproportionately large cosmic event would be every single other detail that brought us exactly where we are, or the complexity of our nervous systems.
If you've read this far: my point relies on that I don't have enough faith to believe that all these things did line up perfectly without any help. Other people have this faith, and belief, and that's great for them! I can only hope they believed in this conclusion of their own volition, and not by anybody's over-infatuation with religion.
AH, the undertone of the whole thing:
A creator is arguably Moore possible than pure chance resulting in where we are now. That's why I don't have enough faith to believe we're alone.
Anyways...
Have a good day, all.
I'm so glad you skirted around saying free energy will never be possible, people seem to forget we don't know everything yet, sure, as far as we know, free energy isn't possible, but remember, it wasn't really all that long ago that humans walking on the moon was considered impossible, i mean, how could one build a ladder high enough right? it must be impossible!
We regularly prove that things we once considered impossible are in fact possible, science was never about being THE answer, just a tool for finding the best estimate of the answer that we can, which, at any time, could prove our once correct answer to be incorrect.
Yep, it’s the process that’s most important for verifying theories or disproving them. Our procedural approach is “what happened, and did what we expect to happen actually happen do so or not, and why?” Being invested in this process is a way of thinking that leads to understanding and reliable results.
Hi
u got first nice!
I mean, the show is called _Mythbusters._ So why not address the _myth_ of free energy?
Man I never really thought about it but I think mythbusters was genuinely the first thing to introduce me to skepticism as a concept. Or at least it lead the way to me learning more about basically what you're saying in this video.
the more i watch these Q&As, the more i am convinced that Adam would be an unbelievably good university lecturer
It was unwatchable to hear Adam, once again, tear down a patron because he got all uppidy about the word of the question and ignored the spirit of the question
"unwatchable to hear"? No offence, but you do realise that makes no sense, right?
@@Stettafire funny then that you do the exact same thing with his comment, would you prefer for him to have said unhearable?
It is how friends who are all engineers talk to each other. It isn't to tear them down, but instead to have a more accurate discussion about the topic.
Beautifully put.
I love the way the videos start but the intro sound doesn't happen until you're ACTUALLY ready lol
That's reminded me of a client I had what must be more than 10 years ago now, he wanted me to illustrate his free energy machine it had something to do with a series of chambers all at different pressures all connected in a loop and I tried my best to not take the job as I didn't want him to waste his money. I told him exactly why it wouldn't work and we had a long discussion about it. He didn't listen so I did illustrate it as simple and as quick as I could so my fee was very low. I hope he didn't completely bankrupt himself in trying to get it manufactured.
Preach it brother I think we often get confused both as believers in the process of science and scientists that we are only proving something until it can be unproven by either advancements in technology or the process.
What a truly awesome, inspiring answer to the very root of humans being human. Truly sir, kudos, and admiration.
I appreciate your careful wording in regards to saying what we don't know vs. do know -- while it might seem unlikely, there's always the possibility that we might find another level of science that totally destroys or current understanding and the current limits.
Love the "computer says no" reference 😂