What do youse guys think of MythBusters

[DaveC426913]

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.

You miss the point. Everyone has their own idea of what is "obvious". Obvious is synonymous with "no need to question". This is often touted as "common sense". It's sure common enough, but there's no sense to it.


Case-in-point (forgive the recursivity of the example): You think the following statement is obvious: "everyone knows tattoos don't explode in an MRI". But that is not common knowledge (even though many of us might deduce it), thus your assumption that "everyone knows it" is wrong. What you thought was obvious, isn't.

The point of the show is "Stop assuming you know everything; test it".

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

No point really, since it never happened.

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

While it may be about good television; I think it is just as much about good science. Your calculations will not override an empirical observation. There might be hidden factors heretofore not considered in the calculation, but the actual test will nail it (or highlight flaws in the theory and assumptions).

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.

The side stories make for a good show, but they do more: they address the source of the myths. This is an important part of laying the foundation for why the myth is being tested in the first place.

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".

I have never seen them suggest that an anecdote can be substituted for a real experiment.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

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 would wonder if maybe someone who had a prison tattoo that could possibly have higher concentrations of metal in it might have a reaction. I don't remember the episode so I don't know if they tested that. Of course we might guess that any person with a tattoo that had significant enough amounts of metal in the ink to have a reaction would likely be suffering from metal poisoning.

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 have never found many people who hate science or scientists any more than there are people who look down upon people in other professions. I find that people tend to dislike those who look down upon them. Many people though may not like to admit that they are not so bright or that the person they dislike for looking down upon them may have reason to look down upon them so they wind up targeting the knowledge and profession rather than the person and sometimes the person as well. Though reading the sorts of things people post here on PF I have no clue why anyone would think that scientists and academics look down upon them.

I don't know many people who dislike science fiction. You'd think that anyone who hates science and scientists would hate science fiction and have trouble relating to or rooting for a scientist as a protagonist yet I do not see this happen. Most people seem to enjoy even shows about science and engineering so long as they are entertaining and made so that they can understand them. Really I find that if you talk to just about anyone you will find them more than happy to share and explain what ever tidbits of scientific and technological prowess that they possesses (even if it is based on myths).

As far as I can tell the vast majority of people are rather in awe of science and technology. They enjoy it, find it fascinating, wish they understood it, and get excited about things like Mythbusters which make them feel as though it might actually be somewhat accessible for them.

(I don't know why but Kari appreciation weirds me out for some reason)

Maybe it is because she has "blemishes". ;-)

 

[DaveC426913]

Maybe it is because she has "blemishes". ;-)

A pox upon you, blasphemer!

Those are battle scars, and nothing is sexier on a woman who likes to blow things up.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

A pox upon you, blasphemer!

Those are battle scars, and nothing is sexier on a woman who likes to blow things up.

I call them "freckles". Cyrus calls them "blemishes". I am figuring that Cyrus is weirded out by it because he does not consider her very attractive.

 

[Cyrus]

I call them "freckles". Cyrus calls them "blemishes". I am figuring that Cyrus is weirded out by it because he does not consider her very attractive.

Partially yes, and partially because I think she gets a lot of weird creepers as a following. If you Google myth busters you get page after page of her, not the actual mythbusters. It's a bit disturbing. If I were her it would freak me out.

Q:Mythbusters?
A: Drool...Kari...

...yokay, not asking that anymore.

 

[DaveC426913]

Partially yes, and partially because I think she gets a lot of weird creepers as a following. If you Google myth busters you get page after page of her, not the actual mythbusters. It's a bit disturbing. If I were her it would freak me out.

Q:Mythbusters?
A: Drool...Kari...

...yokay, not asking that anymore.

No, you want creepy, look at Lois Griffin fans (Ok, Lois is kind of hot) - but Marg Simpson fans??

 

[Cyrus]

No, you want creepy, look at Lois Griffin fans (Ok, Lois is kind of hot) - but Marg Simpson fans??

Sorry, I caught you being creepy. Just be shameless about it, don't dig the hole deeper.

 

[DaveC426913]

Sorry, I caught you being creepy.

Seriously though, not really sure what's creepy about it. Is it creepy to have the hots for Eva Longoria? Does Kari not qualify for the 'sexy celebs' club?

 

[mynameinc]

You miss the point. Everyone has their own idea of what is "obvious". Obvious is synonymous with "no need to question". This is often touted as "common sense". It's sure common enough, but there's no sense to it.

I'm using that quote, assuming you don't mind. :)

Case-in-point (forgive the recursivity of the example): You think the following statement is obvious: "everyone knows tattoos don't explode in an MRI". But that is not common knowledge (even though many of us might deduce it), thus your assumption that "everyone knows it" is wrong. What you thought was obvious, isn't.

The point of the show is "Stop assuming you know everything; test it".

I deem "obvious" as "can be deduced with basic logic and basic knowledge." Of course what's obvious to one person is not always obvious to another (obviously! ;) ), but there are widespread ideas of obviousness. And of course I didn't mean everyone, there's always an exception.

Back to the original statement, a good peer review could probably challenge the validity of any MythBusters experiment.

I'm using that last sentence, also, if you don't mind. :)

No point really, since it never happened.

Shouldn't we test it? There could always be copycat incidents, and why not know in advance if a balloon in that style and approximate size could actually hold a child?

While it may be about good television; I think it is just as much about good science. Your calculations will not override an empirical observation. There might be hidden factors heretofore not considered in the calculation, but the actual test will nail it (or highlight flaws in the theory and assumptions).

Or the "actual test" may be flawed, as experiments are prone to be. And do you honestly think MythBusters is as much about science as producing a good show?

The side stories make for a good show, but they do more: they address the source of the myths. This is an important part of laying the foundation for why the myth is being tested in the first place.

So it deserves as much, if not more, emphasis than rigorous testing itself?

I have never seen them suggest that an anecdote can be substituted for a real experiment.

Anecdote over watching every episode. :)

 

[diazona]

Shouldn't we test it? There could always be copycat incidents, and why not know in advance if a balloon in that style and approximate size could actually hold a child?

I imagine they think it's too similar to the time they launched one of the production staff's kids using party balloons. I even remember them running commercials about it... "blah blah blah blah Balloon Boy blah, but did the Mythbusters beat them to it?" (in dramatic announcer voice) Although I have no doubt that if they hadn't already done so, they'd at least be strongly considering testing that hoax on the show after the news broke.

So it deserves as much, if not more, emphasis than rigorous testing itself?

Well... there are a lot more people who do rigorous testing than there are Mythbusters...

P.S. I have no doubt that the Mythbusters' experiments wouldn't hold up under standard scientific peer review, but passing peer review is not their goal. Trying to do so would probably even be counterproductive.

 

[mynameinc]

I imagine they think it's too similar to the time they launched one of the production staff's kids using party balloons. I even remember them running commercials about it... "blah blah blah blah Balloon Boy blah, but did the Mythbusters beat them to it?" (in dramatic announcer voice) Although I have no doubt that if they hadn't already done so, they'd at least be strongly considering testing that hoax on the show after the news broke.

I remember that episode! I forgot how many balloons they had to use.

Well... there are a lot more people who do rigorous testing than there are Mythbusters...

But that doesn't call for the manner in which they currently allocate the emphasis of the show.

P.S. I have no doubt that the Mythbusters' experiments wouldn't hold up under standard scientific peer review, but passing peer review is not their goal. Trying to do so would probably even be counterproductive.

Lol. There would be several months, if not several years, between episodes.

I like these forums. There seem to be less (I've not encountered any!) "I'm right, you're wrong, about everything, no matter what. LALALALALALA" people on here. :)

 

[Dembadon]

... I have never found many people who hate science or scientists any more than there are people who look down upon people in other professions. I find that people tend to dislike those who look down upon them. Many people though may not like to admit that they are not so bright or that the person they dislike for looking down upon them may have reason to look down upon them so they wind up targeting the knowledge and profession rather than the person and sometimes the person as well. Though reading the sorts of things people post here on PF I have no clue why anyone would think that scientists and academics look down upon them.

I don't know many people who dislike science fiction. You'd think that anyone who hates science and scientists would hate science fiction and have trouble relating to or rooting for a scientist as a protagonist yet I do not see this happen. Most people seem to enjoy even shows about science and engineering so long as they are entertaining and made so that they can understand them. Really I find that if you talk to just about anyone you will find them more than happy to share and explain what ever tidbits of scientific and technological prowess that they possesses (even if it is based on myths).

As far as I can tell the vast majority of people are rather in awe of science and technology. They enjoy it, find it fascinating, wish they understood it, and get excited about things like Mythbusters which make them feel as though it might actually be somewhat accessible for them. ...

Nice post, Ape.

I should have mentioned that I grew up in an extremely religious (conservative Christian) home. Most of my parents' friends and relatives were being told in church, and amongst themselves, that science is bad. I have a very jaded, and likely stereotypical, view of "the general public." I am now 26 and am finding my experiences are becoming more like what you mention in your post. It's encouraging to see more and more people who think for themselves, and someday I'll get over my pretentious attitude towards those who don't.

Back on topic -- Mythbusters does well, as you've said, at making science and technology approachable.