wrote:
John, I would agree these guys are fun to watch, but their
experimental designs are often sophomoric. If they worked in my lab
they'd get retrained, or fired.

They are special effects guys, aren't they? They are good at that, and
great at entertainment, but the 'science' I'd seen on some of their
shows made my hair hurt.

Boy - do I disagree with you! I say they _are_ doing science. "Full
Stop." ;-) Here's one checklist for some of the essentials that define
scientific methods of experiments (all IMHO of course):

0) State the nature of the question to be resolved.
Check.
0.5) Write proposal/grant request and do resource budgeting.
Partial Check. ;-)
1) (Mostly optional) Design and build preliminary small scale
experiments where possible.
Check.
2) Make predictions on expected results of small scale experiments.
Check.
3) Run preliminary experiments, record observations, and compare with
expectations.
Check.
4) Run experimental controls (i.e. factor being tested is absent or
otherwise not applied) if at all possible and/or relevant.
Check.
5) Run steps 1 through 4, but using larger or "full" scale.
Check.
6) Compare observations with the original question and attempt to draw
conclusions.
Check.
7) Publish the way the experiment was preformed and the reasoning used
in drawing the conclusions. This should give others enough
information to either replicate the results, critical review the
experimental methods used and the reasoning applied in the
conclusions.
Check (done via their show and their fan site feedback forums).

Last I looked, real science isn't defined by how "clean" the experiments
are but by the methodology employed. On that basis I'd say they show
_real_ science as it really is because they show how difficult or
ambiguous it can be at times, not how wonderfully elegant it is (because
often it isn't). As far as credentials go - if the methodology is
basically correct then I think the main value added by credentials is
that it reduces the probability any given experiment will be
"sophomoric" or poorly designed. It also reduces the need to do
experiments in the first place, because as the old saying goes:

"A couple of months in the laboratory saves spending a couple hours in
the library."

But of course their show isn't about saving time in the library. ;-)

But hell, if I could have as much fun as they seem to, I wouldn't care
that the science part was weak.

Well, I don't think they have to put together grant proposals, so yeah,
lots of fun if someone else is bankrolling your efforts! On the other
hand they do have restrictions on time and budget. Just like real
scientists do! :-)