Bernie-56 I watched a few episodes and suddenly got very, very bored. All it is is a lot of readily accessible YouTube clips strung together with lame commentary. You get the same thing without the intrusion if you look for "December Failures" videos or the like.

Matti Kaki Well, I am really tired of these "funny" videos shown everywhere BUT this makes sense because they tell why these odd things happen. So they teach people in a good manner to really understand why not to do something stupid. This also teaches you how to do it right, if you really want to learn something. Moreover I'm sure that masses of people, who are not interested in science, are watching this because of the host and even if they do not follow every scientific nuance, they unconsciously receive important information which you need to survive well. And when there is the one and only Richard Hammond, people do watch this.

CherryBlossomBoy The title is witty and Richard Hammond, the host, is much better than his usual self. Unlike in "Total Wipeout", which he actually managed to ruin with his negative and non-sequitur remarks, and in "Top Gear" where he plays just a third fiddle to May and Hammond, in "Science of Stupid" he finds just the right measure of dark humour and restraint in delivery, thus making it barely work. The funniest thing about him still is his hair, though. Sorry, Dick, keep trying, you'll get there.So, the title and the host make the show watchable. Other than that, nothing sets it apart from hugely annoying American counterpart "Outrageous Acts of Science", shown on Discovery. It's still just a collection of YouTube clips showing stupid stunts by people who, for no discernible reason, abandon safety and common sense. The clips are still accompanied by scientific explanation of what went wrong. And the explanations are still mostly oversimplifying, unnecessary, sometimes completely off the ball or wrong, and only occasionally useful and insightful.And, like in the aforementioned rival show, the word "science" is smugly overused to the point of it losing its true meaning and becoming annoying. It's been repeatedly said in the show that the participants are "ignoring Science" (!), and that the "Science is punishing them for that" (!!!). The authors of the show need to be informed that science is a discipline of systematically collecting, classifying and analyzing observable data. It's not necessary to apply science all the time. You don't need science to realize that a jump from a high place could hurt you badly. So, no, the stupid people in the show don't ignore science, they ignore simple common sense, which apparently, as the saying goes, "isn't that common". And science isn't punishing anybody. You might say that it's the Nature that is punishing them. It might be a bit overly poetic way to put it, but it's certainly better than making the science "a bad guy".

Adela Ursachi Science of Stupid presents an interesting way in which viewers, especially young adults and teenagers can learn some science while marvelling at videos showing the lack of foresight of some people, who put themselves in dangerous situations. It is obviously a great manner to both educate viewers in science and entertain them at the same time. However, it may not be your kind of show if you cannot find it humorous when people sustain injuries, even if due to their own actions.The show is well produced and features thorough research. Richard Hammond is indeed a great host for a show that attempts to combine science and entertainment in an accessible, modern fashion. However, it may be possible that making light of such accidents may lead to a commoditization of pain, a desensitization of individuals in the face of other people's physical suffering. This is not to say that the show is bad, on the contrary. The animation and graphics featured are fun and engaging, the explanations are clear and concise, the puns and references are oftentimes hilarious and one can honestly learn more about physics from one episode than in one year of high school. The concept is interesting and new, most shows which feature accident videos having the tendency of taking it to the extreme of overdramatizing for the sakes of shock value and employing slow motion and the repetition of certain snippets of video just to make you cringe. This is not the case here, where there is no gratuitous focus on shocking moments, and all videos are accompanied by educational comments. However, if you're not a fan of seeing people agonizing in pain after falling, crashing into things, getting hit in their private parts or doing reckless things in general, you may be better off getting your science from somewhere else. While I wouldn't say that Science of Stupid is my kind of show, I wouldn't condemn it either. It is great for educating people that enjoy accident videos and hopefully it makes those that are prone to engaging in risqué behavior think twice before doing something dangerous both for themselves and others. On the other hand, I worry about it potentially having a negative impact at a social level. Nevertheless, if you want to learn why jumping off the roof of your house directly into your pool is a bad idea, Science of Stupid is your show.