I didn't say anything negative about Grant. I said Grant was great and the show in general was great.
If anyone decides not to be a scientist or an engineer because of me saying that Myth Busters was a great show that was not always scientifically rigorous, they weren't really that interested in the first place.
Its OK to learn from and be inspired by things that don't 100% follow the scientific method. Saying something isn't scientifically rigorous in the context of talking about a TV show focused on entertainment doesn't detract from the show's value.
I stand by my statement that it was a show about cool hacks more than strictly adhering to scientific rigor. Cool hacks are cool and I am often inspired by them, I'm not sure how you arrived at such a negative interpretation of my comment.
If anyone decides not to be a scientist or an engineer because of me saying that Myth Busters was a great show that was not always scientifically rigorous, they weren't really that interested in the first place.
Its OK to learn from and be inspired by things that don't 100% follow the scientific method. Saying something isn't scientifically rigorous in the context of talking about a TV show focused on entertainment doesn't detract from the show's value.
I stand by my statement that it was a show about cool hacks more than strictly adhering to scientific rigor. Cool hacks are cool and I am often inspired by them, I'm not sure how you arrived at such a negative interpretation of my comment.