> they are not doing "science for pedants". They are doing "science for fun"
False dichotomy, my friend! I see two underlying arguments, here:
1. It's disingenuous to claim (or take) credit as a science educator when you're doing piss-poor science.
2. They could easily do better without sacrificing entertainment value.
It's entirely possible to both remain entertaining and better communicate scientific values.
>To meet your requirement they would need to submit a multi hundred page peer reviewed thesis with every assertion of "busted" or "plausible" or whatever. That would be super boring.
Holy strawman...
The only thing that most of us asking for is a more nuanced analysis of results, by which I mean saying something like "we didn't disprove the myth, so it might actually be possible". Nobody is asking for a 50-page grant application.
They have busted, plausible and confirmed as conclusions, you've pretty much defined plausible.
(Many of the myths the tested were fine to label as busted or confirmed as they were vulnerable to a single counter example or verified by a single positive example)
False dichotomy, my friend! I see two underlying arguments, here:
1. It's disingenuous to claim (or take) credit as a science educator when you're doing piss-poor science.
2. They could easily do better without sacrificing entertainment value.
It's entirely possible to both remain entertaining and better communicate scientific values.
>To meet your requirement they would need to submit a multi hundred page peer reviewed thesis with every assertion of "busted" or "plausible" or whatever. That would be super boring.
Holy strawman...
The only thing that most of us asking for is a more nuanced analysis of results, by which I mean saying something like "we didn't disprove the myth, so it might actually be possible". Nobody is asking for a 50-page grant application.