It's the only accurate thing about the show.

+Suresh Venkatasubramanian It is a TV show after all. But still, it seems they put quite some effort into the "science" part of the show. Do you have specific examples of inaccuracies worth mentioning?

Where were all the BBT haters when every single scientist on TV was an evil mastermind? This is what progress looks like, folks.

I'm not talking about the "science" part: as far as I can tell the "science" is only for comedic value, unlike in Numb3rs where they got the science/math mostly right. I'm talking about the portrayal of the scientists. 

Me too, but I kind of don't care, as long as they're part of the mind share (or were you angry at portrayal of university professors and actors in Friends, too?)

From what I know, the only two shows on tv to have gotten the portrayal of the "people" correctly are The Wire and Scrubs.

A mathematician is a machine for turning coffee into theorems. So how can there be no coffee in this one then?

Let's just say Ross as a paleontologist is a little pathetic. And yes for the most part scientists are only caricatured in films/tv. Again, numb3rs came the closest to actually doing things right

Suresh, I really have to disagree about numb3rs. Certainly they used real buzzwords, but it was complete fantasy both in the application and practice of mathematics. Hell, he names a theorem after himself...

I said it was a nearest neighbor :). I didn't say the nearest neighbor was close. 

Manhattan is much closer to reality.