Recently, The Washington Post published an article on John Brenkus and his show ESPN Sport Science.
If you would like to read it, feel free. However, I would like to share two parts of the article:
That was what I said. Well, that wasn't just what I said, but I know how these things go. And here is another part:
So, is Sport Science good for science? Is it even science? What about MythBusters? You know it and I know it - I am biased. However, let me pretend that I am not and compare Sport Science and MythBusters in terms of scienceyness.
Sport Science
What is Sport Science? Let me really try to give an accurate description. Sport Science is a short show on ESPN in which the host, John Brenkus, explores different aspects of sports. Some examples (these are not exact, but approximate topics that are covered)
- What players in football hit the hardest?
- How accurate are football quarterbacks when throwing the ball?
- Who is statistically more likely to win the Super Bowl?
- How powerful is a NASCAR vehicle?
Let me get this out of the way. Sport Science makes some mistakes (in terms of science). Here are some of the problems I have found (well, I have found more but these are the ones for which I have a post):
- What is the difference between power and energy? Sport Science isn't sure and uses the terms interchangeably.
- What is difference between velocity, speed, acceleration, and force? Sport Science: nothing. Also, can you compare an acceleration from a very super short impact and the acceleration in an F-16? Not really.
- Is Troy Polamalu as FAST AS LIGHTNING? Um...no.
- Could Kobe Bryant really jump over a car? Yes. Good job Sport Science, you essentially did this one correctly.
- Does Marshawn Lynch have more pulling power per pound than a truck? Who knows. Sport Science messed this on so much that there is no data.
There are some nice aspects of Sport Science. First, it is obviously entertaining at some level (well, it could be for me if no one would talk). Some of the questions that they ask are actually interesting. The visuals are nice and it does offer an opportunity to bring ideas in science to people that might not otherwise be exposed.
See above. Really, I say that Sport Science's biggest problem is trying to use science as some sort of punch line. While doing that they get it all wrong. Wouldn't it be better just to not make up these fake/wrong terms and have fun? Oh, I see. It might not make sense to call it Sport Science then. So be it. How about a different title: Sport Stuff?
Does it promote science? Honestly, there is a chance it does - but not on purpose. Maybe there are some kids out there that see this and say "hey, that's not right". Maybe they take the analysis to the next step and learn something in the process. I know it can happen - it's me. I have learn some stuff by analyzing Sport Science. Other than that, I don't think Sport Science is good for science. Maybe you could argue it even does harm to science. Either way, they don't have correct concepts and they likely don't spark kids interest in science.
MythBusters
I know you know about the show MythBusters. However, to be fair let me give a short description. The main idea is that the MythBusters (Adam and Jamie) look at myths and try to test if they are true or not. Simple. Here are some examples:
- Do plants grow faster if you don't yell at them?
- Can you build a boat out of duck tape? Note: I am promoting the use of 'duck' tape instead of duct tape. It is water resistant (like a duck) and it is not a very good tape to use on your ducts.
- Can you get a bullet from a gun to curve after you shoot it?
- If you shoot a bullet straight up into the air, can it kill someone?
You get the idea. They do a ton of these things. I would say that their specialty is building stuff. Who can deny their expertude in this area? So, do they make science mistakes? Oh yeah they do. I would classify their mistakes into two types. The first types is stuff they say without being prepared. For instance, suppose Jamie says something like "wow, that car did a lot of damage to the wall because it had a lot of force behind it." Not exactly correct, but also it was clearly not meant to be some type of educational moment.
The other type of mistake is when the show is clearly trying to have a science explanation. This is a much different type of error. Why go through the trouble of making some nice animations and stuff that are just plain wrong? Yet it happens. Here are a couple of examples:
- An incorrect energy explanation.
- Problems with inertia and friction.
- A problem with an explanation of relative velocity.
I guess there is a third type of science mistake on the MythBusters. Sometimes they set up an experiment based on incorrect ideas. Like crashing two speeding cars head on. But instead of doing that, making one stationary and the other at twice the speed (this is not the same thing).
There is some good stuff here. First, Jamie and Adam really try to conduct some experiments to the best of their ability. They do not have a formal science background, so they make some silly measurement and data-type mistakes. But that is ok. Basically they are grown ups doing their own science fair projects without supervision.
It seems like kids and other humans could see this show and say: 'hey, that is interesting. If they can test some stuff, I can test some stuff'.
Again, I guess I described some of their mistakes above. But in terms of 'teaching' science, probably their biggest problem is their data analysis. They will run an experiment once and say 'well, we didn't get the same results as the myth so it is busted.' They have gotten better at this in later seasons by taking multiple sets of data whenever possible.
Does it promote science? I think overall it does. How many episodes could inspire kids (or adults, or me) to try something out. I think the strength in MythBusters is to show that you don't have to have a Ph.D. in science to do science.
Conclusion: I am going to leave the conclusion up to you. Which do you think is better for science?
