 One of the things that you guys do extremely well that I can't say so much for my scientific colleagues is admit when you're wrong and recognize that you make mistakes. Does that happen often? You guys made many errors? Actually that's probably the most important question to ask here. The thing is that we love it when we're wrong. It's like the best possible thing that can happen to us is to be wrong. And the simple reason is that that's an opportunity for us to learn something. If we weren't wrong, then we're just wasting our time. We didn't learn anything. When there's a failure, if we've taken a particular course that has let us down a path that's been unproductive, we have to stop and ask, well, why? And what was it that I was doing wrong? And that's when the light bulb goes off and that's when you're on your road to some new adventure or discovery. Without being wrong, it's just you're just kind of going through the motions. When you construct an experiment and you believe your methodology is as robust as you could have possibly made it and you come to an answer that is the opposite of what you expected to happen and you run and check your numbers and you realize that it is genuinely the opposite of what you expected, it's thrilling. It's absolutely thrilling. Jordan said, do you mind busting things? And we're totally agnostic when it comes to whether it's busted, plausible, or confirmed. We don't really care. But what we genuinely do love is learning something, yeah, like Jamie said, it's learning something new. And science is messy. The two most important science teachers I had in all my schooling, both were willing when I asked a question to say, actually, that's something I don't know. These are people in authority. Teachers generally don't like to say they don't know something. These were teachers who were willing to say that and that showed me that there was a space to be, there was a space that I could perhaps both learn and potentially contribute. And that's totally vital. Have you been surprised before in one of your really surprised, I mean, you've absolutely lined things up. I have a great example of one where we were genuinely shocked. So we did a story a bunch of years ago called Killer Cable Snap. Now, there's not a fisherman in the world who doesn't believe that if a braided steel cable on a boat gets stretched to its breaking strength, that when it breaks, it can whip around and slice right through you. Now, I'm eliminating aircraft carrier cables, because those are about this big around, and that's more like getting hit by a building. That's not a whipping cable. But there's thousands of anecdotal reports, legs severed. And I'm also eliminating things like a boat rope pulling you against the dock because of a storm and slicing your legs off. That's totally happened. We're talking a whipping cable having enough energy to slice through you. So we built a methodology where we figured out how to cut a cable stretch to its strength around a bollard so that it whipped around at this incredibly high speed. We then got several grades of cable and a hydraulic cutter. We got a hydraulic puller that would stretch the cable to within 85% of its breaking strength. And then we'd slice it. And right at the apex of the cables whip, we placed pigs, real pigs. And we really thought we were going to get these beautiful high-speed shots of the cables slicing right through. Pigs didn't like it much. They were already dead. And come lunchtime, we tested three different cables and we'd only been denting pigs. We hadn't even broken skin. And we called up our producer on that, Linda. And we said, she'd been researching this for months. We said, in all of the research, do you have a single firsthand visual account of this happening? And she said, I'm sure I do. I'm sure I do. And she went and she checked. And she called back an hour later and said, I don't. And we realized, we're going to have to bust this because the evidence does not support that this has ever happened. There are plenty of other ways to get sliced in half by ropes and cables on a boat. But whipping is not one of them. And we totally busted it. And we began the day believing we were going to totally confirm. Yeah, those kinds of things happen all the time. The longer we do this, the less cocky we get about our, like, there can be some really stupid, simple question about something that, of course, that's going to happen. And then, darn, I didn't think that wouldn't happen. In fact, given the vagaries of making a television show, there are times that we have to shoot out of order because we lose a location or we have some sort of snafu or something occurs. It's happened. And we are good at doing what we call backfilling, right? And go in and shoot what we need, and then we'll backfill it later when we find out what the actual results are. But occasionally, we have placed ourselves in a position of shooting out of order, going, that's OK. We can shoot out of order because we know what the results of that experiment are going to be. We don't do that anymore. Because every single time we have done it, every single time we've put our eggs in the basket of, well, we know how that's going to turn out, we've been boned. So we've stopped ever expecting. Even when we've seen people do it and we've had experts tell us this is what's going to happen, we don't count on it until we've seen it. Nice. And how about your viewers? Have they been fairly reluctant often to change their opinion if you do bust or confirm a myth that they hold dear? Oh, absolutely. The best known one was playing on a conveyor belt and the idea was that if a conveyor belt is going in one direction fast enough, a plane that's sitting on it can't go fast enough on in the other direction and take off. And that's just it's. The question itself has a trick within it, which leads you to believe that the plane will somehow remain stationary. And the fact is, the plane will never remain stationary. The plane will always push forward no matter how fast the conveyor belt's moving. And we demonstrated this on the show. Much as Jamie's should grin because he was like, why are we even testing this? It's stupid. It's totally obvious what would happen. We tested it on the show. And I mean, back then, Jamie's shop number was you could find it online if you looked hard enough. And when that show aired, people were calling his number all night long and screaming at him that we had somehow cheated the data and we were lying and it was all because we'd come to a different result than they expected. And they were open about saying that. Well, they're wrong. Well, why? Because they came to a result I didn't expect. I think that was one of the first times that I really put it front and center, this whole thing about belief. And that is that people, they just want to believe stuff. If you can present evidence that denies it, it doesn't seem to affect people. I mean, there's a lot of things to do with religion that line up with that. There's a lot of warming, politics, et cetera. And personally, on the other hand, I asked myself, is there anything that I actually simply believe in? Because believe in sort of, or to believe sort of implies believing things or an understanding that does not require proof or evidence. You simply accept it. Well, and this is this. And I can't think of anything that I wouldn't, personally, that I simply accept. I'll accept it until the contrary. Yeah, that's pretty much all there is to it. And it amazes me that in this day and age that a lot of people, if not the majority of people in the world, aren't that way. Yeah, I mean, look, the fact is, and the argument will get put out all the time on the line and in other debate forums that, well, science is a religion. Science is a religion that is based just as much on faith and science as religion is based on faith in a supreme power. Except that, as Tim Mention says, nope, that's total BS. Because science suggests its views based on evidence. It actually will change its understanding of things. And this has happened multiple times throughout the history of science. It's still happening today with major experiments, change whole fields overnight when the data gets confirmed. And that's as it should be. Like we said, it's a messy process. And people would benefit from understanding that it's a messy process, that it's one that we could all contribute to. Well, we get referred to in a lot of cases as scientists. And the fact is that neither of us have science educations per se, like a formal university type science education or degree or background. But I think one of the strongest things that would actually say that we are scientists would be that both Adam and I have sort of a pact that if there is evidence to the contrary, like in particular when we're arguing amongst each other over some particular thing that we're trying to problem solve as to how we problem solve it or what the results are, the minute that there's clear evidence to the contrary, even though this may have been an idea that one of us has been championing, like just to the death, that this is the way to do it. The minute there's anything that pops up on the radar that changes that, it's point of pride for us to do it immediately, immediate without hesitation, backflip and agree with the other person or go off in a new direction. And that's so I would like to think that that's fundamental to science. And it's also fundamental to us wanting to understand and really understand the world and our place in it and the things that we run across. So there again it plays towards science isn't just for scientists, it's for anybody with integrity that really honestly wants to understand their world. I mean yeah, when you learn, when you learn when you're on the belt and you're trying to kill an animal and you learn that one kind of sharpen stick works better at killing them than another, that's a scientific experiment. Humans, by their nature, are scientists. We are explorers, we are tinkers and thinkers and we want to understand the world around us and every time you come up with a better method for doing something, you have applied the scientific method in order to determine that. You've taken variables, you've looked at them, you've compared them and you've chosen the one that works better, that's really, that's it, that's science, baby.