Busting Mythbusters

[PixyMisa]

They form hypotheses, and test them empirically. It's science.

And yes, Kari is hot.

 

[steve s]

Mythbusters is my favorite show now that Law & Order is off the air. I think they do a pretty good job demonstrating the principles of science given their time and budget constraints, even if they may not use a large enough sample size for some myths or miss out on other possible factors. They often demonstrate the importance of blinding experiments and using controls to rule out bias.

The best part of the show is that they get to do stuff that other people only talk about. Look at the episodes about the plane on a treadmill and the recent one about two cars driving head-on into each other at 50 mph. People have wasted endless hours discussing those things but the MBs put them to the test and settled it.

ETA:Grant Imohara has a degree in Electrical Engineering. I don't think that anyone else on the show has a science degree.

Steve S

 

[cwalner]

The best part of the show is that they get to do stuff that other people only talk about. Look at the episodes about the plane on a treadmill and the recent one about two cars driving head on into each other at 50 mph. People have wasted endless hours discussing those things but the MBs put them to the test and settled it.

Steve S

One could say they specialize in taking the 'thought' out of 'thought experiment'.

 

[Dinwar]

It's really a question of standards of evidence, more than anything else. I mean, if you build a cannon out of a tree stump and fire a cannon ball out of it, you've proven that you can in fact build a cannon out of a tree stump and fire a cannon ball out of it. It's pretty hard to argue with that logic and a single datapoint is sufficient for a proof of concept. If you try to extrapolate from that to "This 13th century town DID build a cannon out of a tree stump" you've misinterpreted the experiment.

In other cases, yeah, I'd like to see a bit more evidence. But those tend to be where they make bolder claims.

Here's the thing, though: This show isn't trying to push cutting-edge science the way an academic journal is, and therefore applying the standards of such a journal is inappropriate. They're testing widely-held beliefs, and at a "Joe Everyman" level. I mean, fluid dynamics is pretty well worked out--we know what happens when you put a raccoon in a pipe and put TNT in the other end. There's really very little for a physicist to learn form it. The average person on the street? They probably learn a lot. And the Mythbusters are smart enough to know that there just aren't a whole lot of physicists watching the show to learn something.

Think of it this way: Mythbusters is like the "experiments" you did in high school. Cutting edge? No. Rigorous? Hardly. Educational? Definitely. Science? Absolutely.

Does everyone agree with me that Kari Byron is the hottest woman on television over the past five years?

Past five? Yeah, I'll agree with you there. I've always been partial to Dark Angel-era Jessica Alba, but that may just be the skin-tight leather.

 

[Ray Brady]

It's entertainment presented by science enthusiasts. I prefer it to entertainment produced by scientific illiterates.

 

[Fnord]

Claim, experiment, observation, conclusion* ... yep, that's Science!

_{(*With the video public serving as a "peer review" group.)}

 

[fuelair]

It's really a question of standards of evidence, more than anything else. I mean, if you build a cannon out of a tree stump and fire a cannon ball out of it, you've proven that you can in fact build a cannon out of a tree stump and fire a cannon ball out of it. It's pretty hard to argue with that logic and a single datapoint is sufficient for a proof of concept. If you try to extrapolate from that to "This 13th century town DID build a cannon out of a tree stump" you've misinterpreted the experiment.

In other cases, yeah, I'd like to see a bit more evidence. But those tend to be where they make bolder claims.

Here's the thing, though: This show isn't trying to push cutting-edge science the way an academic journal is, and therefore applying the standards of such a journal is inappropriate. They're testing widely-held beliefs, and at a "Joe Everyman" level. I mean, fluid dynamics is pretty well worked out--we know what happens when you put a raccoon in a pipe and put TNT in the other end. There's really very little for a physicist to learn form it. The average person on the street? They probably learn a lot. And the Mythbusters are smart enough to know that there just aren't a whole lot of physicists watching the show to learn something.

Think of it this way: Mythbusters is like the "experiments" you did in high school. Cutting edge? No. Rigorous? Hardly. Educational? Definitely. Science? Absolutely.

Past five? Yeah, I'll agree with you there. I've always been partial to Dark Angel-era Jessica Alba, but that may just be the skin-tight leather.

That certainly didn't hurt!!

 

[MG1962]

I like them and they show some good science at times. But they have made their mistakes, one instance at least twice

 

[patchbunny]

They try to follow the scientific method within the bounds of the time limits of the show and the audience's attention span. Overall they tend to do a decent job, but they have had a lot of 'WTF are they doing testing that' moments? They also tend to really suck in pre-myth research, and enter into things not knowing stuff they should. Their firearms research has been particularly poor over the years.

I've not seen the show in a while. Not sure when it's even on now.

 

[Emet]

The Best Science Show on Television?
(...)
Mr. Hyneman and his colleague, Adam Savage, are the hosts of “Mythbusters” on the Discovery Channel. It may be the best science program on television, in no small part because it does not purport to be a science program at all. What “Mythbusters” is best known for, to paraphrase Mr. Hyneman, is blowing stuff up. And banging stuff together. And setting stuff on fire. The two men do it for fun and ratings, of course. But in a subtle and goofily educational way, they commit mayhem for science’s sake.
(...)
Their delight in discovery for its own sake is familiar to most scientists, who welcome any result because it either confirms or debunks a hypothesis. That sense of things can be corrupted when grants or licensing deals are on the line. But the Mythbusters get paid whether their experiments succeed or fail.
(...)
David Wallace, an associate professor of mechanical engineering at M.I.T., praises the program for “getting people interested in engineering, technology and how things work.”
(...)
“I don’t think the ruling on a given myth is all that important,” Dr. Wallace said. “It is more about being curious and trying to figure things out.”
(...)
Mr. Hyneman, however, insists that he and the “Mythbusters” team “don’t have any pretense of teaching science.” His wife, he noted, is a science teacher, and he knows how difficult that profession is. “If we tried to teach science,” he said, “the shows probably wouldn’t be successful.”

“If people take away science from it,” Mr. Hyneman said, “it’s not our fault.” But if the antics inspire people to dig deeper into learning, he said, “that’s great.”

Science teachers know a good thing when they see one, however: Mr. Hyneman and Mr. Savage were invited to speak at the annual convention of the National Science Teachers Association in March, and the California Science Teachers Association named Mr. Savage and Mr. Hyneman honorary lifetime members in October.

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/11/21/science/21myth.html?pagewanted=1

 

[Lucian]

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).<snip>

Not true. My cat has a Doctor of Sciences degree.

 

[AdMan]

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.

It's a good show, that I think does try to use the scientific method (or as much as can be put into each show) to test myths.

Is it entertainment as well? Of course, otherwise it wouldn't be on TV, at least not on the Discovery Channel. You have to keep the target audience in mind--it's mostly aimed at younger viewers (while capturing older ones as well). And I think what viewers are learning from the show is valuable and can help build the foundation for scientific and critical thinking. And we know thinking critically is a skill sorely lacking in many people.

I think the Mythbusters in general do a good job of balancing a scientific approach with entertainment.

Is Mythbusters science? I vote yes.

 

[John Jones]

Does everyone agree with me that Kari Byron is the hottest woman on television over the past five years?

My wife says I can't opine on TV women.

 

[KingMerv00]

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.

Considering your posts from the conspiracy theory forum, I assume you you hold a grudge against them because of their moon hoax episode.

 

[autumn1971]

Mytbusters encourages logical thought, experimentation, and being able to admit mistakes.
Whatever it is, it's pretty good TV.

 

[gnome]

It's been touched on but I wanted to reinforce that the way they phrase the question often does not require the same rigor.

You don't need to blow up 1200 trucks to know if something "can" happen if you've achieved it once.

You might need 1200 trucks to know if it's likely under the myth's circumstances, but that's usually not the question posed.

 

[John Jones]

It's really a question of standards of evidence, more than anything else. I mean, if you build a cannon out of a tree stump and fire a cannon ball out of it, you've proven that you can in fact build a cannon out of a tree stump and fire a cannon ball out of it. It's pretty hard to argue with that logic and a single datapoint is sufficient for a proof of concept. If you try to extrapolate from that to "This 13th century town DID build a cannon out of a tree stump" you've misinterpreted the experiment.

That's why they have "confirmed", "busted", and "plausible" conclusions.

Furthermore, redheads are all exchange students from The Twilight Zone. No exceptions.

 

[Steve001]

For all the grippers in this thread would you prefer more TAPS ?
Sometimes I think some of you just like to b __ch just for the sake of it.

 

[Halfcentaur]

I enjoy the concept of the show and appreciate what they are trying to do, but they often take their findings a bit too literal, I find the conditions are often too arbitrary. I usually find the show a bit too boring to watch, outside of the eye candy.

 

[KingMerv00]

I enjoy the concept of the show and appreciate what they are trying to do, but they often take their findings a bit too literal, I find the conditions are often too arbitrary. I usually find the show a bit too boring to watch, outside of the eye candy.

Turn in your nerd card.