DISCOVER Magazine. Science, Technology and The Future
Current Issue
Subscribe Today »
  • Renew
  • Give a Gift
  • Archives
  • Customer Service
  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Newsletter
  • Health & Medicine
  • Mind & Brain
  • Technology
  • Space
  • Human Origins
  • Living World
  • Environment
  • Physics & Math
  • Video
  • Photos
  • Podcast
  • RSS
The Intersection
« Climate Scientists for Better Climate Science Communication–Will it Work?
Earlybird Pricing for the “Two Cultures” Conference »

TV Science vs. Real Science

by Sheril Kirshenbaum

hollywood-science.png

  1. Spaceships would never explode in a loud fiery blast.
  2. Doctors would look like real people.
  3. Stegosaurus would never encounter Tyrannosaurus Rex.

Let’s see how many we can come up with together…

Share

April 7th, 2009 10:41 AM
in Culture, Media and Science | 13 comments | RSS feed | Trackback >

13 Responses to “TV Science vs. Real Science”

  1. 1.   Chris Mooney Says:
    April 7th, 2009 at 11:04 am

    Mutation would not produce superheroes.

  2. 2.   patrick Says:
    April 7th, 2009 at 11:19 am

    Light beer would never be more drinkable than it’s full strength counterpart.

  3. 3.   patrick Says:
    April 7th, 2009 at 11:22 am

    Eating a fast food burger would not make someone more attractive to the opposite sex.

  4. 4.   patrick Says:
    April 7th, 2009 at 11:25 am

    If CSI: Miami runs for a few more years, there will be no more Miami because everybody will be dead but the police.

  5. 5.   Treem Says:
    April 7th, 2009 at 11:36 am

    Mythbusters uses controls in nearly every case.

  6. 6.   Geezer Says:
    April 7th, 2009 at 12:04 pm

    Space fighters would not turn like airplanes.
    Accidents would be actual accidents (not caused by aliens or super intelligent evil people)
    The detective would call the patrol car at the other end of town instead of racing through downtown traffic him/herself. I know this is not science just common sense.

  7. 7.   Billingham Says:
    April 7th, 2009 at 12:07 pm

    Nobody could dodge a weapon that shot laser beams. Or successfully bear children with a partner from a different planet.

  8. 8.   Uncle Al Says:
    April 7th, 2009 at 12:33 pm

    Replace the Mythbusters panel with biology being unstoppable. A shaped charge, an explosively formed penetrator (EFP), or a depleted uranium long rod penetrator does not care what it hits – it goes in. An A-10 Thunderbolt II with its 30 mm GAU-8/A Avenger Gatling gun stops all meat – gorillas, dinosaurs, turtles, moths. (Inefficient against Anopheles mosquitoes and Caulerpa taxifolia. Untested against Enviro-whiners, social engineers, advocates, and carbon credit arbitrageurs.)

    An 8″ diameter EFP tosses a Mach 6, 3100 gram copper slug. An M2 .50 Cal Heavy Barrel machine gun fires a Mach 3, 50 gram bullet. The former’s kinetic energy is 250X the latter’s.

  9. 9.   Jason Says:
    April 7th, 2009 at 12:44 pm

    Computer hacking would be a completely mundane and tedious exercise taking weeks as opposed to frantically pounding on a keyboard to look intensive. Thank you NCIS for your many giggles.

  10. 10.   hardindr Says:
    April 7th, 2009 at 5:26 pm

    I don’t get the Mythbusters crack. Please see here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mythbusters#Experiment_methodology . I don’t know how many “data points” they should try and gather, since it is difficult and expensive to try to reproduce the conditions for each myth multiple times. Also, I controls are not appropriate for many of the myths they try to bust.

  11. 11.   Courtney Says:
    April 7th, 2009 at 6:26 pm

    Thanks to Castle: NYPD Missing Person’s is actually a set of paper files.

  12. 12.   Michael Says:
    April 8th, 2009 at 4:44 am

    but wait Sheril you are a tv scientist!

  13. 13.   MadScientist Says:
    April 8th, 2009 at 5:43 am

    That’s excellent – who’s the artist?

    My sister and a colleague absolutely hate MythBusters because “it’s not science”. I love MythBusters because it’s good mindless fun with a little reality thrown in. Admittedly anyone who thinks MythBusters is a fair representation of scientific investigation is in for disappointment; on the other hand, production costs would go orbital if you got the right people involved to make sure everything would stand up to the scrutiny of scientists. These folks get concepts working in a fairly short period of time (and that’s what cinema props people do); some of the simplest ideas they play with would take me close to 3 months to do in a rigorous (and possibly not as fun) manner.





    • Your Blogger


      Headshot-Jan-2010

      Chris Mooney is host of the Point of Inquiry podcast and the author of three books, The Republican War on Science, Storm World, and Unscientific America. He was recently seen on MSNBC's "The Last Word" discussing "The Science of Why We Don't Believe Science," and recently wrote for The American Prospect magazine about how the reality-based community is moving to the left.

      For more info see Chris's bio and events. You can friend Chris on Facebook, and follow him on Twitter. You can also stream Point of Inquiry, or subscribe via iTunes.

      RSS feed for The IntersectionRSS

    • My Books


      Watch Chris on MSNBC's "Morning Joe"! (Twice!)

      Excerpt; Book Website; Facebook Group; Twitter; YouTube Lecture; CSPAN Book TV Talk; Bloggingheads; Amazon; Barnes & Noble; Firedoglake

      Policy Fellowships For Scientists & Engineers

      Science Debate; in Science



      Picture 4

    • Comments Policy

    • Archives by Date

    • Archives by Category



  • Kalmbach Publishing Co.

    Copyright © 2012, Kalmbach Publishing Co.

    Privacy - Terms - Reader Services - Subscribe Today - Advertise - About Us