What do youse guys think of MythBusters

[mynameinc]

What do youse guys think of MythBusters? The television show and the science involved, only.

 

[chayced]

They used to be pretty lacking in the engineering, confuse things like psig with psia, and otherwise ruin the validity of their experiments. Still loved the show back then.

Recently they have been stepping it up a notch, and I'm impressed.

 

[DaveC426913]

I love the show. It has everything. Cool gadgets. Science. And stuff that blows up.

But I really like the fact that a show promoting science and the scientific method is so popular.

 

[-DB]

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.

 

[DaveC426913]

Scientifically and logically, I would say about 60 to 70 percent of their conclusions are flawed.

Can you give some examples?

 

[waht]

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]

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.

I was surprised with the results of their flatbed truck mileage experiment. No cap, gate down, with mesh gate.

 

[waht]

I was surrprised with the results of their flatbed truck mileage experiment. No cap, gate down, with mesh gate.

I don't quite recall that episode, but it sounds familiar.

 

[rolerbe]

Can you give some examples?

I like the show and am in favor of making science more popular. Like everyone else, I also like seeing things blow up.

But their experiments often don't quite hold together. One example that comes to mind is a test they ran to see if a ship could be pulled under by a whirlpool. The experiment they ran was scaled down to 3 foot backyard pool size. Now, you CAN get some valid results in scaled experiments, but not by just making the boat model smaller. Nearly wrote them a letter about Reynolds number on that one.

 

[gravenewworld]

I watch it just for Kari.

 

[Moonbear]

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]

 

[mynameinc]

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.

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.

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.

One week is obviously not enough time to test (almost) anything.

They also don't have the budget to test each of those myths accurately. For example, look up "The Great Gas Conspiracy." To truly determine the myth's accuracy, the MythBusters should use many different models of car, many brands of gasoline in each, on many different days, and for the year of 2006, Beyond International only had $60M in revenue!

That was a poor comic to use. It fits the stereotype of the hypothetical argument found on the internet: one side completely annihilates the other, even while arguing a not-so-great point (I'm horrible with words :( ). If Randy really wants to believe that "the core of science" is that "ideas are tested by experiment," let him. 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? 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

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.I honestly believe the MythBusters have done little to advance our scientific knowledge, knowing the demographic which are fans and quote their results as if they were a religious text. :)

P.S. Aren't Adam and Jamie both self-described sketpics?

 

[cronxeh]

I think I watch it for Kari and also its a great exercise in how you would've done the experiment differently. Almost in every episode I thought to myself either "well I don't think that proves it conclusively.." or "if I set it up this way it would've definitely blown up!" Other than that, great show.

 

[minger]

Haven't watched since "Plane on a Conveyor Belt"

 

[drankin]

I was surprised with the results of their flatbed truck mileage experiment. No cap, gate down, with mesh gate.

What were the results of that one? I've always wondered.

 

[hypatia]

I watch it because they blow things up.

 

[DaveC426913]

What were the results of that one? I've always wondered.

Just that: the best mileage was attained with the tailgate down instead of up, and a mesh net across the tailgate area.

 

[rasmhop]

I pretty much agrees with Moonbear's response.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

 

[mynameinc]

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.

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.

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.

Their experiments are somewhat well conducted, and they can be somewhat sure of their results, but not absolutely sure. I would like to test the one about a car and a fruit stand. Fruit stands are well constructed, but I think most cars at 30mph (or more) could plow through one.

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.

Most of the people I know who watch MythBusters don't critically think when they hear this stuff. They still spread it, as if the show never existed. This is not Hyneman and Savage's fault; instead, 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'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.

I don't like most xkcd comics. He usually integrates the joke horribly.

They probably do increase intellectual curiosity, to a very small degree. If it's any larger, it's only while the program is airing, and for a short time afterwards. See earlier mini-rant on the public school system, but replace 'critical thinking' with 'intellectual curiosity.'


I'm not on a crusade against the MythBusters; I was just seeking your opinions. I've noticed the more scientific the people I ask are, the less people who like the MythBusters.

I actually watch the show, for the building of gadgets. :)

 

[diazona]

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 ). 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 )

 

[mynameinc]

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 ). 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.

If you're saying that people take what the MythBusters say as if it were absolutely true when it may (or may not) be, I'm agreeing. I do think that you can use it with a idiomatic grain of salt (which is what I think you said).

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 )

Read the rest of the discussion. :)

By the way, I feel that he took Feynman's name in vain.

 

[Kronos5253]

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.

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]

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.

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.

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.

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]

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".

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.?

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.

Or the kid realizes what was happening, and hates broccoli and his parents for the rest of his life. :) I seriously doubt very many people even see the non-blatant science. Television force feeds Americans (which is why the USSR won the Cold War).

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.

If every program people watched interested them in the subject matter, and got them to questioning, the world would be a much weirder place. ;)

Thank you. Can I print your response and read it to my less-scientific friends when they quote the MythBusters as if they were great scientists? This is what I have been looking for, but didn't know it. :)

 

[leroyjenkens]

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.

 

[Cyrus]

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.

 

[Sorry!]

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.

Amen.

Precisely my thoughts.

 

[TurtleMeister]

Many of their exercises are predictable, but I enjoy watching it for the same reasons given by Cyrus.

 

[mynameinc]

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.

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

I included construction, destruction, etc. (includes Kari, apparently). The show is really about the MythBusters building stuff, then using it (not a scientific experiment).

~49% of their episodes contain an explosion, not including firearms.

Note that we concluded MythBusters is more about entertainment than science.

I will poll my friends, and see what they watch MythBusters for. I think this has evolved from an argument on "How scientific is MythBusters?" to "How much does the average American care about science?". :D

 

[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 ... )