this post was submitted on 27 Jan 2025
997 points (98.9% liked)

People Twitter

10294 readers
690 users here now

People tweeting stuff. We allow tweets from anyone.

RULES:

  1. Mark NSFW content.
  2. No doxxing people.
  3. Must be a pic of the tweet or similar. No direct links to the tweet.
  4. No international politcs
  5. Be excellent to each other.
  6. Provide an archived link to the tweet (or similar) being shown if it's a major celebrity, figure or any politician. If you replace the "x" at their site with xcancel (so it beomes xcancel.com), and you're not on mobile, it will save video. https://web.archive.org/save is another great option. Archive.is is no longer recommended because they remove/alter content.
  7. If a tweet (or similar) makes a statement of fact, either mark it as "satire" in the body or provide the original source link backing up the statement

founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] wiccan2@lemmy.world 213 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (3 children)

The difference between screwing around and science is writing it down.

-- Adam Savage

[–] merc@sh.itjust.works 35 points 2 years ago (1 children)

Mythbusters embodied the scientific method, but I do wish they'd stopped to actually properly explain it at some point. "Writing it down" is definitely part of the process, but it's not the whole process. The whole process is what they actually did in most of their episodes:

  1. Make a prediction
  2. Design an experiment to test that prediction
  3. Run the experiment and observe the results
  4. Come up with a conclusion

Sometimes they played fast and loose with some of these steps to make entertaining TV. But, fundamentally, they were doing science.

[–] njm1314@lemmy.world 5 points 2 years ago

I mean presumably they wrote it down when they wrote the script

[–] probably2high@lemmy.world 6 points 2 years ago

[Stares shamefully at sparsely populated Obsidian vault, thinking about all bullshit I tinker with just long enough to set it up and forget how the next time I go back to it]

[–] Flocklesscrow@lemm.ee 6 points 2 years ago

Anything can be observable, but "iterative processes" makes it sound fancy