- #36
diazona
Homework Helper
- 2,176
- 8
lol :tongue2: So what, did everyone just stop watching when Kari went on maternity leave?
turbo-1 said:I'm going to push your face in some dough and make gorilla cookies!
mynameinc said:Television force feeds Americans (which is why the USSR won the Cold War).
Borek said:Wow, I have spent spent all my life east of the iron courtain and never realized we have actually won.
mynameinc said: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.
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.?
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.
skeptic2 said: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.
ideasrule said: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.
mynameinc said: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?
BobG said: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 said: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 said: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 said:Some of those myths are obviously true or false, also.
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. ...
leroyjenkens said: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 said: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 said: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.
Dembadon said: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 admit freely that I don't think any of these are obvious, though I would probably guess correctly.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.
rasmhop said: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.
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 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'm betting that most people have seen a goldfish conditioned to go where the tank is tapped.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.
Cyrus said:They should Mythbust if Balloon boy could actually be carried in said craft.
rasmhop said: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.Dembadon said: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'm all for spreading science to as wide an audience as possible, but I think this reason is flawed.
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.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.
There's no way that little half-inflated balloon could carry anything. That thing could barely lift it's own weight.They should Mythbust if Balloon boy could actually be carried in said craft.
mynameinc said: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.
mynameinc said: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.
Sorry to both of you. I misunderstood the comments, and in that case I actually agree.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.
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.There have been stories of soldiers in the Iraq War jumping to cover grenades with their bodies, saving the other troops.
rasmhop said: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.
leroyjenkens said: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.
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.mynameinc said: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.
No point really, since it never happened.Cyrus said:They should Mythbust if Balloon boy could actually be carried in said craft.
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).Cyrus said:We could just calculate the buoyancy force in the balloon in about five minutes, but that wouldn't make for good television.
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.BobG said: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.
I have never seen them suggest that an anecdote can be substituted for a real experiment.BobG said: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".
mynameinc said: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?
Dembadon said: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.
Cyrus said:(I don't know why but Kari appreciation weirds me out for some reason)
A pox upon you, blasphemer!TheStatutoryApe said:Maybe it is because she has "blemishes". ;-)
DaveC426913 said:A pox upon you, blasphemer!
Those are battle scars, and nothing is sexier on a woman who likes to blow things up.
TheStatutoryApe said: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 said: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 said:No, you want creepy, look at Lois Griffin fans (Ok, Lois is kind of hot) - but Marg Simpson fans??
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?Cyrus said:Sorry, I caught you being creepy.
I'm using that quote, assuming you don't mind. :)DaveC426913 said: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 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.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".
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?No point really, since it never happened.
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?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).
So it deserves as much, if not more, emphasis than rigorous testing itself?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.
Anecdote over watching every episode. :)I have never seen them suggest that an anecdote can be substituted for a real experiment.
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.mynameinc said: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?
Well... there are a lot more people who do rigorous testing than there are Mythbusters...mynameinc said:So it deserves as much, if not more, emphasis than rigorous testing itself?