• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Busting Mythbusters

Is Mythbusters science?

  • Yes

    Votes: 125 51.4%

  • No

    Votes: 51 21.0%

  • Hello Hot Redhead Don't Care!

    Votes: 67 27.6%
  • Total voters
    243
Halfcentaur said:
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.
Click to expand...

One myth they did that annoyed the heck out of me was the one with a "thirty-foot fireball from a pan of oil on the stove" thing. They set up the scale, and were pretty much calling it "busted" because the fireball was only 25 feet on a breezy day...

"No...it has to be THIRTY FEET cuz that's what the myth said"

As I think about it...how would whoever came up with the myth know that the fireball off a pan of oil on a kitchen stove would be thirty feet high? Did this originally happen in a kitchen with a ceiling higher than thirty feet?

As for the redhead, there's an unaired myth that they did (you can find it on youtube or wherever such fine videos are found) to test the myth that women don't...er...poot. So they followed her around all day. Turns out they do...quite a bit...

eta: Wow - it took over seven and a half years, but I finally hit 300 posts. Yippee.
 
Last edited:
JCM said:
True but even children's programs like Mr. Wizard or Bill Nye had more science
Click to expand...
But did they provide that most HUMAN science lesson: that a pregnant woman can still be hot?

You may snort with derision, but "science" is not only about dry facts. It is also, in some cases, about our interaction with the environment, with others, and hot gingers. Gorillas and chimps might be offended by illegitimate fatherhood. Bonobos, our closest relatives, as well as thems of us what came up in the 60s and 70s or don't end up on Maury, are more open-minded.

I don't believe I've ever heard, "That's cool," on Maury, and I regret the loss to human culture. On an episode of Nature I'm pretty sure I saw a male Bonobo cock his head to the side in a fully-human, "It's a fair cop," gesture.
 
Last edited:
I think it's more science then a lot of the other History and Discovery Channel 'reality' shows Also I love some of the myths they test out.
 
jnelso99 said:
<snip>
As for the redhead, there's an unaired myth that they did (you can find it on youtube or wherever such fine videos are found) to test the myth that women don't...er...poot. So they followed her around all day. Turns out they do...quite a bit...
<snip>
Click to expand...
There are several youtubes with it. This one is the most popular.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RHcDP_Yew-g

Warning. They discuss farting.
 
JCM said:
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.
Click to expand...

It's educational entertainment. They teach people to question things, and its great fun.

The scientific quality of their tests is generally low; always low numbers, often poor controls, and sometimes rather unrealistic set-ups.

Hans
 
roger said:
I agree. It's not the content (for me), but the friggin editing. It all seems to be done on the presumption that people are just looking for a tiny excuse to flip channels, so they try to build 'suspense'.

They start 3 different story lines, finishing none.. Before every commercial break you get a 'coming up' description. Then, they come back and recap what they've done so far. Then they switch to a different story line. Ad nauseum. Just drives me crazy, and builds my desire to switch the channel.I'm not on the edge of my seat to find out if you can build a bridge from duck tape, believe it or no, I'm just watching for gentle amusement, and if you switch topics, force me to sit through a "what we've done so far.." segment, well, no, I'm switching channels to a show that stays on topic and doesn't treat me like an Alzheimer's patient.
Click to expand...

A lot of shows do that unfortunately. Over here, many of those shows are shown without or with less ads (not necesseraly Mythbusters), so you have an uninterrupted 'coming up next', 'what we've done so far' segment which is even more annoying.
Oh, and it's duct tape :)

Loss Leader said:
Am I the only person who watched the episodes where she was eight months pregnant and just crossed the woman off my list?
Click to expand...

So far, I guess you are.
 
Doesn't make me cross her off my list, but it does reinforce her as a real person rather than an object of lust.
 
steve s said:
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. ...
Click to expand...

I agree. This isn't work meant to be turned into a peer-reviewed journal. It's fun science, and there's nothing wrong with that.

BTW, I liked Law & Order for being a pit pro-science. For example, I can recall at least one episode where a quack therapy practitioner was busted. And L&O remains, as far as I know, the only crime drama which ever featured the stability of the proton as a plot element!
 
JCM said:
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.
Click to expand...



The History channel, the Discovery channel, the Learning channel and so on are entertainment. The channels have television shows and as such are written for 22 minute or 44 minute chunks of time devoted to a regular theme to interest viewers. The more viewers then the more the channel can sell advertisements for.

While "Mythbusters" might or might not use the scientific method to a successful degree, it is important to remember television is entertainment. If the audience is interested in the actual subject of engineering or science they should learn those subjects from credentialed people in an educational setting, as opposed to a television show. Or if they want scientifically oriented entertainment, they can find that on some television shows, radio or popular, non-scholarly books.
 
Last edited:
Questioninggeller said:
The History channel, the Discovery channel, the Learning channel and so on are entertainment. The channels have television shows and as such are written for 22 minute or 44 minute chunks of time devoted to a regular theme to interest viewers. The more viewers then the more the channel can sell advertisements for.

While "Mythbusters" might or might not use the scientific method to a successful degree, it is important to remember television is entertainment. If the audience is interested in the actual subject of engineering or science they should learn those subjects from credentialed people in an educational setting, as opposed to a television show. Or if they want scientifically oriented entertainment, they can find that on some television shows, radio or popular, non-scholarly books.
Click to expand...
True, but that does not stop programs like Nova presenting complex science topics in non-dumbed-down ways. In case "but that's PBS" is a response, I've seen plenty of commercial programs that go for more than 'wait through three more cycles of commercials to see the big explosion while Kari dances around in a swimsuit.'
 
roger said:
I agree. It's not the content (for me), but the friggin editing. It all seems to be done on the presumption that people are just looking for a tiny excuse to flip channels, so they try to build 'suspense'.

They start 3 different story lines, finishing none.. Before every commercial break you get a 'coming up' description. Then, they come back and recap what they've done so far. Then they switch to a different story line. Ad nauseum. Just drives me crazy, and builds my desire to switch the channel.I'm not on the edge of my seat to find out if you can build a bridge from duck tape, believe it or no, I'm just watching for gentle amusement, and if you switch topics, force me to sit through a "what we've done so far.." segment, well, no, I'm switching channels to a show that stays on topic and doesn't treat me like an Alzheimer's patient.
Click to expand...

I knew there was a reason I don't bother watching the show. It's so *********** infuriating.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom