Comments on "Mythbusters" scientific setup. What do you all think? Two special effects guys and a girl that all do math. What science degrees do they have? Is the show presented as science to the general/ do they accept it as such? I always thought of it as entertainment but a lot of people i know take it as science and think the hosts are all PhD'd.
Busting Mythbusters
- Thread starter JCM
- Start date
-
- Tags
- mythbusters
Stray Cat
Philosopher
- Joined
- Sep 6, 2006
- Messages
- 6,829
I have thought some of their demonstrations are dubious. But it's entertaining.
If anyone is using purely that TV prog as evidence to support something they are arguing, it is not a good tactic though. However, I do think that at least most (if not all) the information given in the programme is or should be verifiable by other sources.
If anyone is using purely that TV prog as evidence to support something they are arguing, it is not a good tactic though. However, I do think that at least most (if not all) the information given in the programme is or should be verifiable by other sources.
It's not the hard theoretical science people seem to stereotypically assume "real" scientists do. But it's still real. They do the math to see if their myths are even reasonable. They do quite a few experiments to see if the myth could actually happen. Then if it fails, they show what it would require for the myth to work as stated.
The main point of the show is to get people interested in testing their beliefs. They do that well.
http://xkcd.com/397/
Edited to remove repetitive words.
The main point of the show is to get people interested in testing their beliefs. They do that well.
http://xkcd.com/397/
Edited to remove repetitive words.
Last edited:
aggle-rithm
Ardent Formulist
It's WAY closer to being science than most things on TV.
I find Mythbusters very entertaining and that is what it is supposed to do.
As Science goes Mythbusters isn't. However sadly it is the case that the above quote is absolutely true.
Mister Earl
Illuminator
- Joined
- Nov 5, 2007
- Messages
- 3,504
I think of it more along the lines of an introduction to younger folks to science in general. From what I know they are rigorous, but let's be fair here. Most of that doesn't get on TV because it doesn't make for good TV. The Mythbusters and crew got a responsibility to the network to get the ratings they need to keep advertisers interested. That's how the income is done. That's why they gloss over the scut work and do more involving overly elaborate myths, robots, and explosions. Also, i'll note Kary's variant form of the show "head rush", that's on right when the tykes get out of school and doesn't have commercials at all.
Getting the kids interested in science. A worthy goal.
Getting the kids interested in science. A worthy goal.
Wikipedia: Science (from the Latin scientia, meaning "knowledge") is an enterprise that builds and organizes knowledge in the form of testable explanations and predictions about the world.
http://www.gly.uga.edu/railsback/1122science2.html:
Science is the concerted human effort to understand, or to understand better, the history of the natural world and how the natural world works, with observable physical evidence as the basis of that understanding1. It is done through observation of natural phenomena, and/or through experimentation that tries to simulate natural processes under controlled conditions.
I really think Mythbusters, at the very least, tries very hard to fit these definitions. It "builds knowledge" by "testing explanations about the world". It is a "concerted human effort to understand, or to understand better" "how the natural world works." It does a lot of "observation of natural phenomena, and/or experimentation that tries to simulate natural processes under controlled conditions."
How strict are your definitions that experimentation on beliefs that show they're plausible or not is not science?
http://www.gly.uga.edu/railsback/1122science2.html:
Science is the concerted human effort to understand, or to understand better, the history of the natural world and how the natural world works, with observable physical evidence as the basis of that understanding1. It is done through observation of natural phenomena, and/or through experimentation that tries to simulate natural processes under controlled conditions.
I really think Mythbusters, at the very least, tries very hard to fit these definitions. It "builds knowledge" by "testing explanations about the world". It is a "concerted human effort to understand, or to understand better" "how the natural world works." It does a lot of "observation of natural phenomena, and/or experimentation that tries to simulate natural processes under controlled conditions."
How strict are your definitions that experimentation on beliefs that show they're plausible or not is not science?
True but even children's programs like Mr. Wizard or Bill Nye had more science
Hawk one
Emperor of the Internet
They don't have special PhDs, this is certainly true (by the way, nobody simply has a "degree in science", so that's a rather absurd question to ask). But, here's the thing, you don't need a degree to do science. All you need is the knowledge on how to do tests that are a) repeatable, b) independently verifiable, and c) making sure that only the relevant variables play a role, and if necessary, putting in control groups.
Are their conclusions always correct? Nope. Do they sometimes forget to account for Factor X? Sure as hell, they do. On the other hand, should we really expect them to be 100% correct? I don't. Nobody's ever done experiments perfectly every single time, even when it's not being about making entertaining television.
Is it "real science"? That can argued from here to doomsday. But what it most assuredly -is-, is that they do apply simple and sturdy scientific principles as best they can whenever they hear about a claim/myth.
And what I like most about them is that when the results are going against everything they believed... They will accept these results. And that, as the XKCD strip puts it, is really one of the core tenants of science: Always be prepared to admit your ideas can be wrong.
And by the way, special effects jobs are, as far as I can tell, pretty much applied science to begin with. You need to know about physics and chemistry and electronics and other stuff if you want to make the stuff look good. Not enough to earn a degree, but it's definitely not a job for the stupid.
So are there any specific spots they've done that you have a beef with, then?
cwalner
Philosopher
- Joined
- Aug 11, 2008
- Messages
- 6,104
I second this. While they do lack the complete rigor of 'real' science, they do follow the scientific paradigm. Namely
Hypothesis: They present the myth
Experimentation: They simulate what is claimed to see if results match.
Synthesis: They either confirm plausibility or 'replicate the results'*
More importantly, they truly keep open minds about their experiments and the results. They typically get more excited when the results are contrary to their expectations than when they confirm them.**
* In Mythbusters terminology 'replicate the results' typically translates to 'blow **** up'.
** a great example of this was the replicate the results of the myth about a snowplow cutting a car cleanly in half. They built a plow on a rocket sled and fired it at a car. Tory, Grant, and Carie all expected it to completely obliterate the car, rather than cut it in half. While the cut was not completely clean, the car was pretty much bisected without complete obliteration. The three of them were jumping around like teenage girls at a Bieber concert.
Ok so "degrees in a hard science"
I can't think of any spots off hand it's just this:
gets me. Plebs act as if they are being given a lecture by a professor at a university, "well mythbusters said"
And since the public takes it as 'real' science I dislike the lack of rigor and generalization. Maybe a little disclaimer at the beginning.
Last edited:
BillC
Bazooka Joe
I have heard Adam Savage himself say that the level of experimental rigor in Mythbusters falls far short of what might be called science.
I am not sure as you that the public take it as science. In many conversations I have never heard anyone describe it as such.
I am not sure as you that the public take it as science. In many conversations I have never heard anyone describe it as such.
cwalner
Philosopher
- Joined
- Aug 11, 2008
- Messages
- 6,104
Why? Never has anybody from Mythbusters ever claimed to be doing science in their experiments. In fact, earlier episodes would occasionally break to a mini explanation of the scientific principles behind the myth or experiment with a segue way piece that claimed 'Warning: Science Content'
They should not be held responsible for disclaiming that they are not doing science when they have never claimed to be doing science in the first place. If some people cannot figure that out from watching the show it is not the show's fault or responsibility.
rwguinn
Penultimate Amazing
If a Television show that comes on just before "Sons of Guns", and just after "Cash Cab", and shares the network with "American Chopper", "Oddities", "Ghost Lab". "Auction Kings" needs a "Not Real Science" disclaimer for you to realize that it's entertainment, then the "Don't try this at home" thing is REALLY wasted...
John Jones
Penultimate Amazing
It says up-front that they're special-effects guys. It's entertainment. They've been called on some of their previous shows and have revisited them.
They do reproducible experiments and report the results.
I think that's great. They are willing to challenge commonly held beliefs, and to admit when they've been wrong.
That's good science in my book.
Haven't those guys appeared at some TAM's?
Last edited:
dkmuldoon
Scholar
- Joined
- Mar 15, 2011
- Messages
- 69
Is rigor science, or the standard of *good* science?
This is pretty simple, for me: Science is the process of creating a hypothesis, testing it, and analyzing the results. The only thing it requires is the willingness to accept unexpected results.
All of these conditions are satisfied by Mythbusters.
Should we draw any meaningful conclusions from their results? No, of course not. That's what rigor is for, to know what results are truly meaningful. Let's say you set up an experiment, but after taking one data run your experiment is interrupted by a power-outage. You don't have enough data for a valid conclusion, but that doesn't mean you weren't doing science.
This is pretty simple, for me: Science is the process of creating a hypothesis, testing it, and analyzing the results. The only thing it requires is the willingness to accept unexpected results.
All of these conditions are satisfied by Mythbusters.
Should we draw any meaningful conclusions from their results? No, of course not. That's what rigor is for, to know what results are truly meaningful. Let's say you set up an experiment, but after taking one data run your experiment is interrupted by a power-outage. You don't have enough data for a valid conclusion, but that doesn't mean you weren't doing science.
