Science! and House!

[kallistii]

Well, over on Digg.com, there was an article stating that Mythbusters is the best science show currently on American TV. I would have to agree with that, since not only do they make science fun, but they show science outside of the lab, which I think is important as science mostly takes place outside of the lab, and only specific bits are lab based.

But someone else suggested that House is a better science show...and most disagreed. But one person, username mikejonas, stated that s/he likes the show, but it has gotten a little formulaic lately...as in:

"Aw, come on. I love House, but

1. Patient collapses
2. Opening credits
3. Patient is admitted
4. House is an a-hole + miscellaneous subplots
5. Much jargon is thrown around
6. The disease is misdiagnosed, the wrong treatment is applied and the patient gets worse
7. Repeat steps 4-6 until 9:50 p.m.
8. House or a Cottage gets an epiphany from an otherwise unrelated subplot
9. The patient gets the right treatment and finally gets better

...does not make for a good "science show." Nice depiction of the scientific method, but not exactly scientifically enlightening."

What do you think, about either Mythbusters being the best science show on US TV, or House being formulaic?

Comments

[kallisti.livejournal.com]

I have to agree...much as I like the program, it's more like science/engineering porn than actual science/engineering. But Science and Engineering is at an all-time low in terms of popularity in the US, but that could simply be because it is not a "Faith based" initiative...Bush Jr. will have a lot to answer for when history looks back, and it's not just the stupidity in Iraq.

ttyl