- #1
mynameinc
- 9
- 0
What do youse guys think of MythBusters? The television show and the science involved, only.
Can you give some examples?-DB said:Scientifically and logically, I would say about 60 to 70 percent of their conclusions are flawed.
waht said:They pretty much follow every step of the scientific method. They start with a hypothesis, then design a clever experiment with a control, run experiment with a lot of explosion scenes and then draw conclusion.
Who would have thought that a shape of a car molded with groves like that of a golf ball increases its mileage due to less aerodynamic drag.
DaveC426913 said:I was surrprised with the results of their flatbed truck mileage experiment. No cap, gate down, with mesh gate.
DaveC426913 said:Can you give some examples?
-DB said:Scientifically and logically, I would say about 60 to 70 percent of their conclusions are flawed. It's a TV show. It's successful because it's ENTERTAINING. They blow-up/break/smash stuff all the time, that's why people watch it. Still, I think it is kind of cool to see a show at least illustrate and attempt to use the scientific method, even when it tends to be incorrectly carried out.
Moonbear said:The main thing that's not scientific about what they do is they don't have any replicates. They pretty much run a test once, destroy their set-up, and that's it. You can't really draw a strong conclusion from something like that, especially when trying to DISprove something. Now, for a lot of the myths, just getting one example that it CAN happen is sufficient to say it's "plausible," it's just the other way around of calling a myth busted on one try that's a problem.
There are limitations to some of the tests they do, especially the ones with the crash test dummy, Buster. Since they just use a dummy, it's dead weight with flying limbs. I can't recall the specific myths offhand, but there have been some where I think having muscle tone and control of limbs and maintaining some balance would have altered the outcomes (generally, things like being launched in the air and how you might land).
Still, I agree with others that it's good to see entertainment that draws people into science, even if it's imperfect. If nothing else, just introducing a healthy dose of skepticism into the viewers is a good thing.
NeoDevin said:
DaveC426913 said:I was surprised with the results of their flatbed truck mileage experiment. No cap, gate down, with mesh gate.
Just that: the best mileage was attained with the tailgate down instead of up, and a mesh net across the tailgate area.drankin said:What were the results of that one? I've always wondered.
I don't think they deny that. I remember Adam in one episode (a re-visit one I believe) talking about how they intentionally made the show mainly about entertainment to attract viewers, and then slipped in the science which isn't as easily appreciated, but which viewers nonetheless end up liking.mynameinc said:Exactly. I think they find excuses to make explosions, build stuff, smash stuff, etc. when they could use mathematics and be more accurate. It's a television show first, then a science lab.
You can't. But what they do is often to be reasonable sure about it, but I wouldn't bet my life on any of their conclusions.Not all of them are right, obviously. Also, without rigor, how can you support your claims? How do you know that they're valid unless your experiment was scientifically rigorous?
They aren't teaching people to be scientists, that's for sure. They're teaching people to apply critical thinking in their everyday life, and to have a healthy level of curiosity.And, did MythBusters really teach people anything? If they taught us to experiment ourselves, they would be out of business! "Sell a man a fish, feed him for a day. Teach a man to fish, destroy your business."-Karl Marx
I'm sorry, but just as the show is about entertainment, so is xkcd. Also this describes every xkcd comic, they make Randy's point while having some sort of a joke.Critiquing the comic, it's horrible. It has a bad joke, completely switches topic to make it, and was just Randy's way of making a point, while having some sort of a joke.
rasmhop said:I pretty much agree with Moonbear's response.
I don't think they deny that. I remember Adam in one episode (a re-visit one I believe) talking about how they intentionally made the show mainly about entertainment to attract viewers, and then slipped in the science which isn't as easily appreciated, but which viewers nonetheless end up liking.
You can't. But what they do is often to be reasonable sure about it, but I wouldn't bet my life on any of their conclusions.
They aren't teaching people to be scientists, that's for sure. They're teaching people to apply critical thinking in their everyday life, and to have a healthy level of curiosity.
I'm sorry, but just as the show is about entertainment, so is xkcd. Also this describes every xkcd comic, they make Randy's point while having some sort of a joke.
I don't think the mythbusters do much to further scientific study, but they do help increase intellectual curiosity. I don't think they could have made it much more scientific without losing the mainstream appeal.
diazona said:Mythbusters is actually one of my favorite shows - mostly for the entertainment value, but they do a lot of interesting tests that might never happen if it were left up to the "real" scientists. Sure, I wouldn't really call what they do "experiments" in the technical sense; they're more like demonstrations of concept (like a proof of concept but less rigorous :tongue2:). It's often interesting to see what happens when they try something even if it's not scientifically rigorous, and it does sometimes give some idea of how a real experiment might pan out. The problem lies when you start equating, say, "busted" with "impossible." Just like anything else, it's important to know the limits of the information you get, and I wouldn't blame the Mythbusters if some of their viewers aren't capable of doing that.
By the way, in case it wasn't obvious, I completely agree with Zombie Feynman. The core of science, as far as I'm concerned, is that ideas are tested by experiment - how else can you define truth? (Now that I think about it, Mythbusters may have been responsible for making me consider switching my career goal from string theory to phenomenology :rofl:)
Moonbear said:The main thing that's not scientific about what they do is they don't have any replicates. They pretty much run a test once, destroy their set-up, and that's it. You can't really draw a strong conclusion from something like that, especially when trying to DISprove something. Now, for a lot of the myths, just getting one example that it CAN happen is sufficient to say it's "plausible," it's just the other way around of calling a myth busted on one try that's a problem.
There are limitations to some of the tests they do, especially the ones with the crash test dummy, Buster. Since they just use a dummy, it's dead weight with flying limbs. I can't recall the specific myths offhand, but there have been some where I think having muscle tone and control of limbs and maintaining some balance would have altered the outcomes (generally, things like being launched in the air and how you might land).
Still, I agree with others that it's good to see entertainment that draws people into science, even if it's imperfect. If nothing else, just introducing a healthy dose of skepticism into the viewers is a good thing.
Which is why you have to sneak it in. It's like hiding the broccoli in the mac and cheese so the kid gets it without noticing, and eventually realizes they actually like broccoli.mynameinc said:I don't think viewers would mind if the science were replaced with explosions, or almost anything else. ;) The common American hates science and the scientific method.
They rarely repeat the exact same trial. And, that's not what I'm talking about. Only a few times have I seen them take a single set-up and repeat the exact same thing 3 or 4 or a dozen times (even if they just cut out some of the middle from the aired footage and summarize the results) and then the same with whatever they compare it to in order to see the spread of results and determine if they are really different. In other words, there's no statistical validity.Kronos5253 said:I agree to a point. The only thing I disagree with is that they only do the tests once. I've seen them do quite a few shows where they revisit a myth that they previously tested. Only one I can think of at the moment is whether you get more wet walking or running in the rain. If people send in responses challenging their outcome of the experiments, they'll redo them and see if they come up with another answer. I think they've even done a couple 3 times.
Kronos5253 said:I agree to a point. The only thing I disagree with is that they only do the tests once. I've seen them do quite a few shows where they revisit a myth that they previously tested. Only one I can think of at the moment is whether you get more wet walking or running in the rain. If people send in responses challenging their outcome of the experiments, they'll redo them and see if they come up with another answer. I think they've even done a couple 3 times.
I love the show though, and I agree that it's entertainment. But they make an effort to slip in science and math in a fashion that the layman can still enjoy without getting bogged down with it. Most people aren't going to want to watch a show they don't understand, so they try to slip it in there, and I think they do a pretty good job. Granted, like what's already been stated, it's not flawless. But I think it does a hellofalot better of a job than shows like "The Universe".
Moonbear said:Which is why you have to sneak it in. It's like hiding the broccoli in the mac and cheese so the kid gets it without noticing, and eventually realizes they actually like broccoli.
They rarely repeat the exact same trial. And, that's not what I'm talking about. Only a few times have I seen them take a single set-up and repeat the exact same thing 3 or 4 or a dozen times (even if they just cut out some of the middle from the aired footage and summarize the results) and then the same with whatever they compare it to in order to see the spread of results and determine if they are really different. In other words, there's no statistical validity.
Still, that's not really their goal, I recognize that. It's just not truly science either. I agree with whoever earlier in the thread also commented that it would just be too expensive for them to rigorously test every myth with replicates, especially when they are often destroying expensive items. The show would just go broke if they did that. Again, that's okay. It's more of a teaser, sort of like a teacher doing a demonstration of some scientific principle for their 6th grade class...no replicates or anything, just the "wow" factor to get them excited to keep learning more or questioning things.
mynameinc said:I think youse guys are giving MythBusters' fans too much credit. We're geeks/nerds, we enjoy the science and math. But how many fans actually dislike the science and math on the show, and how many only watch it for explosions/destruction/construction/etc.?
Cyrus said:I love the show. It's guys out in the desert building stuff with their hands. Vastly different from the plethora of TV shows about peoples lives ala 'real world' type Garbage with people texting, having drama, and spreading STDs.
Cyrus said:I love the show. It's guys out in the desert building stuff with their hands. Vastly different from the plethora of TV shows about peoples lives ala 'real world' type Garbage with people texting, having drama, and spreading STDs.
leroyjenkens said:Probably less than you think. If they weren't interested in what the show is really about, they wouldn't be watching it. They could watch some other stupid crap if they just want to see explosions. Mythbusters doesn't guarantee explosions every episode. Most of the myths have nothing to do with anything exploding.
mynameinc said:I know. Sanford and Son is the only fictional show I watch on a regular basis. The rest are MythBusters, The Universe, etc.
Definitely agreed. I don't know what anyone sees in reality TV (and it's not even real, the situations are so contrived)Cyrus said:I love the show. It's guys out in the desert building stuff with their hands. Vastly different from the plethora of TV shows about peoples lives a la 'real world' type garbage with people texting, having drama, and spreading STDs.
Cyrus said:Sanford and son isn't fiction, its a classic: you big dummy.
I'm going to push your face in some dough and make gorilla cookies!mynameinc said:Really? YOU HEAR THAT, ELIZABETH? I'M COMING TO JOIN YA, HONEY! THIS IS THE BIG ONE!