What do youse guys think of MythBusters

[Cyrus]

I know. Sanford and Son is the only fictional show I watch on a regular basis. The rest are MythBusters, The Universe, etc.

Sanford and son isn't fiction, its a classic: you big dummy.

 

[diazona]

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.

Definitely agreed. I don't know what anyone sees in reality TV (and it's not even real, the situations are so contrived)

 

[mynameinc]

Sanford and son isn't fiction, its a classic: you big dummy.

Really? YOU HEAR THAT, ELIZABETH? I'M COMING TO JOIN YA, HONEY! THIS IS THE BIG ONE!

 

[turbo]

Really? YOU HEAR THAT, ELIZABETH? I'M COMING TO JOIN YA, HONEY! THIS IS THE BIG ONE!

I'm going to push your face in some dough and make gorilla cookies!

 

[DaveC426913]

And Kari.

Another excellent reason to watch the show.

 

[diazona]

lol So what, did everyone just stop watching when Kari went on maternity leave?

 

[mynameinc]

I'm going to push your face in some dough and make gorilla cookies!

You better watch it, fish-eyed fool!

 

[Borek]

Television force feeds Americans (which is why the USSR won the Cold War).

Wow, I have spent spent all my life east of the iron courtain and never realized we have actually won.

 

[mynameinc]

Wow, I have spent spent all my life east of the iron courtain and never realized we have actually won.

I say that because a Soviet citizen (Leon Theremin) invented the television, which has drained Americans' ability to think, and has become a baby-sitter for American parents who don't want to raise their children themselves. In a few decades, the United States will fall, and a Russian or Chinese puppet state (not sure which) will take over.

 

[skeptic2]

it is the public school system's fault, who refuse to teach critical thinking, and diminish its importance in the minds of young children. Instead, they teach facts for a standardized test.

I Strongly agree. My daughter is in sixth grade and hates science. All they do is memorize facts. That isn't science. Science is about how to find answers and being sure those answers are correct.

Her class is studying geology right now and there isn't a lot of experimentation that can be done by sixth graders about how the continents were formed. Still I think the emphasis should be about how the information about the continents was obtained rather than on the information itself.

 

[BobG]

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.?

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.

Yes, they could be watching Tonya Harding give a science lesson on "Smoking Gun: World's Dumbest ... "

("Smoking Gun... " should be renamed "Celebrity Hell". If you wind up as a host on this show, you know you've trashed your life beyond all redemption. Tonya Harding, Danny Bonaduce, Leif Garrett, Todd Bridges, Gary Bussey, ... It's fascinating to see so many wrecked careers hosting on one show, but you feel a little dirty afterward ... as if you'd blown an entire afternoon watching people die in train wrecks.)

 

[ideasrule]

I Strongly agree. My daughter is in sixth grade and hates science. All they do is memorize facts. That isn't science. Science is about how to find answers and being sure those answers are correct.

It isn't science, but do you think most people want to do experiments to find things out for themselves? I certainly do, but then I'm quite unique.

If teaching the scientific method isn't going to make people more objective or more curious, I think the facts are more important.

 

[Cyrus]

It isn't science, but do you think most people want to do experiments to find things out for themselves? I certainly do, but then I'm quite unique.

If teaching the scientific method isn't going to make people more objective or more curious, I think the facts are more important.

This couldn't be further from the truth. Known facts that no one will use in their daily lives is ineffective. Teaching the fundamentals of science that works across all disciplines is paramount.
skeptic2 is exactly right.

 

[BobG]

Almost every religious person on Earth has tested their religion by experiment, and found it true. 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?

This is a valid knock. Mythbusters winds up "proving" or "disproving" by anecdote more than scientific experimentation. Try playing a game of Balderdash and you'll see the problem with this (an incredibly obscure word is given, players make up a definition for it, and the players' definitions are read along with the real definition and players try to pick the correct definition out of the list). Even with educated competitors, the winning strategy is to give a definition that people wish were the correct definition; not a definition that would make the best sense. You should modify your style of writing occasionally, but it's not that important. It's surprising how many times someone will say, "I know X had to have written that one, but I have to vote for that one anyway."

"Proving" or "disproving" by exciting explosion is a very dangerous way of perpetuating new myths stronger than the first.

I'd also note the irony in using an anecdote to make my point, but that would be self-defeating.

 

[leroyjenkens]

This is a valid knock. Mythbusters winds up "proving" or "disproving" by anecdote more than scientific experimentation. Try playing a game of Balderdash and you'll see the problem with this (an incredibly obscure word is given, players make up a definition for it, and the players' definitions are read along with the real definition and players try to pick the correct definition out of the list). Even with educated competitors, the winning strategy is to give a definition that people wish were the correct definition; not a definition that would make the best sense. You should modify your style of writing occasionally, but it's not that important. It's surprising how many times someone will say, "I know X had to have written that one, but I have to vote for that one anyway."

"Proving" or "disproving" by exciting explosion is a very dangerous way of perpetuating new myths stronger than the first.

I'd also note the irony in using an anecdote to make my point, but that would be self-defeating.

From what I've seen, they rarely say definitively that the myth is true or false. If their test recreates the myth, then they say it's plausible, since they were able to make it happen. If they aren't able to do it, before claiming it's busted, at the end of the show they include statements from other sources backing them up, or just simply explaining the scientific evidence, independent of their tests, that preclude the myth from being possible.

I haven't seen every episode, though, so do you have any examples of explosions busting myths?

 

[DaveC426913]

From what I've seen, they rarely say definitively that the myth is true or false. If their test recreates the myth, then they say it's plausible, since they were able to make it happen. If they aren't able to do it, before claiming it's busted, at the end of the show they include statements from other sources backing them up, or just simply explaining the scientific evidence, independent of their tests, that preclude the myth from being possible.

I haven't seen every episode, though, so do you have any examples of explosions busting myths?

Sometimes they can't get a definitive answer, but I do find quite a number where they can pretty confidently say 'this Myth is totally Busted' or 'this Myth is totally possible'.

 

[mynameinc]

Sometimes they can't get a definitive answer, but I do find quite a number where they can pretty confidently say 'this Myth is totally Busted' or 'this Myth is totally possible'.

Some of those myths are obviously true or false, also.

 

[DaveC426913]

Some of those myths are obviously true or false, also.

Well, one of the things about myths is that what seems obvious is not always what is true.

Even Jamie and Adam have been wrong on their sure-things more than once.

 

[Dembadon]

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. ...

That is something that I will never understand.

Science is bashed and hated by people who happily drive around in cars, use electricity and electronics, visit the doctor, etc. Call it ignorance on their part; it still pisses me off.

If shows like Mythbusters help people realize that virtually everything they use is a product of science, then such shows will have my support.

 

[BobG]

From what I've seen, they rarely say definitively that the myth is true or false. If their test recreates the myth, then they say it's plausible, since they were able to make it happen. If they aren't able to do it, before claiming it's busted, at the end of the show they include statements from other sources backing them up, or just simply explaining the scientific evidence, independent of their tests, that preclude the myth from being possible.

I haven't seen every episode, though, so do you have any examples of explosions busting myths?

I should clarify to say it's the image of "science" that's presented more than the actual conclusions presented by "Mythbusters". They actually do more behind the scenes experimentation than is seen on the show when feasible (possible, affordable, etc). I think a few wouldn't qualify as a valid experiment ("Rat Pee Soda" for example - they proved that it would be unlikely to buy a can contaminated by rat pee; not that ingesting rat pee from a contaminated can was safe - a response similar to airplane mechanics telling you they were unable to recreate an autopilot malfunction when the plane was on the ground).

The show is still entertainment and the "great story" side gets a lot more emphasis than any rigorous testing that may or may not have been done. It promotes the idea of declaring a general, proven principle because "it happened once to my ex's brother-in-law's professor while he was sitting on a bar stool in Thailand".

(Seeing as how we've circled back to Richard Feynman and a myth about abacuses ... )

 

[mynameinc]

Well, one of the things about myths is that what seems obvious is not always what is true.

Even Jamie and Adam have been wrong on their sure-things more than once.

I said some are obvious. Can tattoos explode in an MRI? No. Does a goldfish's memory last three seconds? No. Can sacrificially jumping on a grenade save others' lives? Yes. And so on.

That is something that I will never understand.

Science is bashed and hated by people who happily drive around in cars, use electricity and electronics, visit the doctor, etc. Call it ignorance on their part; it still pisses me off.

If shows like Mythbusters help people realize that virtually everything they use is a product of science, then such shows will have my support.

I never understood that, either. High school students complain about how badly they hate mathematics, when their cell phones, cars, clothes, all of their status symbols couldn't have been made without.

 

[rasmhop]

Science is bashed and hated by people who happily drive around in cars, use electricity and electronics, visit the doctor, etc. Call it ignorance on their part; it still pisses me off.

I don't see the contradiction. Why can't people hate to do something, but still like the products it can produce? I don't like sewing, but I don't mind wearing clothes. I don't like doing woodwork, but I like my desk.

I'm all for spreading science to as wide an audience as possible, but I think this reason is flawed.

I said some are obvious. Can tattoos explode in an MRI? No. Does a goldfish's memory last three seconds? No. Can sacrificially jumping on a grenade save others' lives? Yes. And so on.

I admit freely that I don't think any of these are obvious, though I would probably guess correctly.

I have little knowledge of tattos and don't know what kind of material can be used to perform them, so I wouldn't have ruled out some reaction to MRI (sure I know it wouldn't be a grand explosion). There are actually cases of people dying while being MRI scanned due to being struck by objects attracted by the scanner (see http://www.nytimes.com/2005/08/19/health/19magnet.html"), and while these objects are usually fairly large I wouldn't rule out the danger of tattoos without proof of safety.

I have little understanding of the neurology of most animals and it would seem possible to me that some small animals that operate in large groups have very short memory span.

I don't really know the power of a grenade and what the effect of covering it would be. Sure I would expect it to lessen the blow, but I wouldn't rule out either that it would make most shrapnel fire at an angle closer to ground level which could make it more deadly. Also I wouldn't have been surprised if the body had negligible effect on the blast.

Sure these can probably be figured out be people knowledgeable in these areas, or by reading some articles, but I wouldn't call them obvious especially to laymen.

 

[mynameinc]

I don't see the contradiction. Why can't people hate to do something, but still like the products it can produce? I don't like sewing, but I don't mind wearing clothes. I don't like doing woodwork, but I like my desk.

I'm all for spreading science to as wide an audience as possible, but I think this reason is flawed.

But you don't bash or hate those. You didn't make fun of and harass the students in school who pursued a career in those options, and don't actively oppose any developments in them.

I admit freely that I don't think any of these are obvious, though I would probably guess correctly.

I have little knowledge of tattos and don't know what kind of material can be used to perform them, so I wouldn't have ruled out some reaction to MRI (sure I know it wouldn't be a grand explosion). There are actually cases of people dying while being MRI scanned due to being struck by objects attracted by the scanner (see http://www.nytimes.com/2005/08/19/health/19magnet.html"), and while these objects are usually fairly large I wouldn't rule out the danger of tattoos without proof of safety.

How many people with tattoos go through an MRI every day? Why do MRI technicians not ask if you have a tattoo? Shouldn't there be more stories in the news of people dying due to tattoo explosions in an MRI?

I have little understanding of the neurology of most animals and it would seem possible to me that some small animals that operate in large groups have very short memory span.

I'm betting that most people have seen a goldfish conditioned to go where the tank is tapped.

I don't really know the power of a grenade and what the effect of covering it would be. Sure I would expect it to lessen the blow, but I wouldn't rule out either that it would make most shrapnel fire at an angle closer to ground level which could make it more deadly. Also I wouldn't have been surprised if the body had negligible effect on the blast.

Sure these can probably be figured out be people knowledgeable in these areas, or by reading some articles, but I wouldn't call them obvious especially to laymen.

There have been stories of soldiers in the Iraq War jumping to cover grenades with their bodies, saving the other troops.

Paying attention to the world around one is beneficial to one's mind.

 

[Cyrus]

They should Mythbust if Balloon boy could actually be carried in said craft.

 

[mynameinc]

They should Mythbust if Balloon boy could actually be carried in said craft.

They should. The news said it was an "eh" thing. It depended on how full the balloon was, etc.

They should also mythbust if "holy moly" is actually edible.

 

[Dembadon]

Science is bashed and hated by people who happily drive around in cars, use electricity and electronics, visit the doctor, etc. Call it ignorance on their part; it still pisses me off.

I don't see the contradiction. Why can't people hate to do something, but still like the products it can produce? I don't like sewing, but I don't mind wearing clothes. I don't like doing woodwork, but I like my desk.

I'm all for spreading science to as wide an audience as possible, but I think this reason is flawed.

I was referring to people who actively bash science; people who look down their noses at scientists and those who take interest in it.

That is very different than simply not being interested in science. Do you insult those who have an interest in carpentry or sewing? I see what you were saying, but hate and disinterest are two different things. You don't have to like something, but there is no need to insult those who do.

I realize you probably misunderstood what I wrote. Hopefully I've brought some clarity.

Edit: started writing my response before I saw mynameinc's reply. Sorry for the redundancy. =)

 

[leroyjenkens]

Well, one of the things about myths is that what seems obvious is not always what is true.

Even Jamie and Adam have been wrong on their sure-things more than once.

You're right. For instance, it seems obvious that leaving your tailgate down would increase gas mileage. But like they said in the show, once they got the counter-intuitive result (decreased gas mileage from the tailgate down), they went to find out why that happened.

They should Mythbust if Balloon boy could actually be carried in said craft.

There's no way that little half-inflated balloon could carry anything. That thing could barely lift it's own weight.

 

[Cyrus]

They should. The news said it was an "eh" thing. It depended on how full the balloon was, etc.

They should also mythbust if "holy moly" is actually edible.

We could just calculate the buoyancy force in the balloon in about five minutes, but that wouldn't make for good television.

I want to see exploding balloons with a kid sized crash dummy falling several thousand feet - while on fire. And Kari in the background. (I don't know why but Kari appreciation weirds me out for some reason)

 

[rasmhop]

But you don't bash or hate those. You didn't make fun of and harass the students in school who pursued a career in those options, and don't actively oppose any developments in them.

I was referring to people who actively bash science; people who look down their noses at scientists and those who take interest in it.

That is very different than simply not being interested in science. Do you insult those who have an interest in carpentry or sewing? I see what you were saying, but hate and disinterest are two different things. You don't have to like something, but there is no need to insult those who do.

I realize you probably misunderstood what I wrote. Hopefully I've brought some clarity.

Sorry to both of you. I misunderstood the comments, and in that case I actually agree.

There have been stories of soldiers in the Iraq War jumping to cover grenades with their bodies, saving the other troops.

I'll give you the first two, but in this case it's hard to say what the result would have been without the body. These types of anecdotal stories can't really be relied on as few people have seen many grenade explosions wounding people under similar conditions (and therefore are not qualified to make a judgement on the relative effect). It only takes a couple of stories to start a rumor. A person surviving a grenade blast may just have been lucky, but swear that his mate saved him.

 

[mynameinc]

I'll give you the first two, but in this case it's hard to say what the result would have been without the body. These types of anecdotal stories can't really be relied on as few people have seen many grenade explosions wounding people under similar conditions (and therefore are not qualified to make a judgement on the relative effect). It only takes a couple of stories to start a rumor. A person surviving a grenade blast may just have been lucky, but swear that his mate saved him.

And I'll give you that one. ;)

You're right. For instance, it seems obvious that leaving your tailgate down would increase gas mileage. But like they said in the show, once they got the counter-intuitive result (decreased gas mileage from the tailgate down), they went to find out why that happened.

How many "obvious" things were consistent with the obvious answer and how many contradict?