Sunday, June 26, 2011

Myth busted?

For many years now I've loved watching the show, Mythbusters, on the Discovery Channel. In short, it's brilliant science experiments, explosions, and answers to all sorts of questions that many of us have wondered. In recent years, the show has sometimes become a little too Hollywood for my taste, testing "movie myths" and offering more explosions with less substance, but I abstain. That isn't my real concern. The show works. It's great, but I have to say... the name is a bit misleading.
Let me explain. As with many glamorized, media-driven spectacles, Mythbusters isn't exactly as billed. The problem is that the Busters need to set up a controlled scientific experiment in order for the results to be conclusive; that is the premise. A standard way in which they test myths is to start small scale, prove the concept, move to standard scale and find a repeated result, then if the myth is busted at a standard scale they move on to a large-scale, "above and beyond" situation to test the circumstances under which the myth could indeed be true.

The problem is that this approach only truly "busts" some myths. If the myth is phrased "every time A and B happen, C is the result" then the Busters are golden, because they can test repeated results. No problem. If it happens over and over again, well, as Grant so often says, that's science! But if the myth is phrased "when and A and B happen, C happened once" then we have a bit of a snafu. Mythbusters is predicated on repetition of events. They attempt to find the circumstances under which repeated results can be achieved. If A and B always equal C, perfect. If they did once and never again, then... well, Mythbusters are without the scientific method. It is what Christians might call a miracle. The scientific method has no tools for miracles because it is predicated on the idea that miracles don't happen. This could be true. Or it could be false. Regardless, the method has no tools to suggest one way or another; in short, it cannot "prove" itself.

I am reminded of the episode when Tory attempts to intimidate a plant by thinking evil thoughts about it while Kari has it hooked up to a machine (I believe it was a polygraph) to detect any change in the plants "emotional" state. Surprisingly, when Tory was in the same room as the plant--and thinking about burning it to the ground--there was movement on the needle. The Mythbusters were stunned. They went on to test with Tory outside the room and no similar result was achieved. Flash to Grant telling us that since it wasn't repeatable it wasn't scientific. True... but does that mean it's impossible?

I am a type-7 personality, so I am constantly intrigued by possibilities and I try not to discount anything until it seems to me so unlikely or purposeless that it is not worth pursuing. Mythbusters piques my interest, but they are encumbered by the uniformity of the scientific method. Everything is packaged. It makes for a great show, a formulaic show, and by the standards they have set for themselves it is a nearly perfectly executed show. But only some myths work.

I love the show and realistically there is no way to do it better, but the implications lie just beyond the work. Adam Savage recently talked about doing an episode to debunk creationism. I have no doubt that if he did so, the Mythbusters would have no problem busting the myth. I, too, have serious doubts  with creationism (truth be told), but my point isn't in the result but the methodology. Worse still, we end up at a point where faith and science are pitted against each other, as if one needs to assert its dominance over the other. I'm hopeful that these kinds of questions can open dialogue rather than close it. I believe the Spirit is moving us to discover more about who we are and where we stand every day of our lives. Shows like these break through the monotony of awful messages pumped into our lives, so I want to celebrate Mythbusters while I suggest that there is something profound just beyond the horizon.

In the meantime I intend to wonder: Does that begonia know my feelings?

No comments:

Post a Comment