Mythbusters [split]

[swansont]

Mythbusters is not to be confused with a credible scientific source.

[RyanJ]

Mythbusters is not to be confused with a credible scientific source.

 

I agree with you but in this case there really wasn't much here to prove in the first place from the other threads which debunked this topic already It was meant more as a not of humour than anything else

[insane_alien]

they still done experiments to test the claims of pyramid power and they came up negative.

[swansont]

they still done experiments to test the claims of pyramid power and they came up negative.

 

But proving a negative by demonstration is the problem. They could have done something improperly in any of the myths they have "busted" where they fail to replicate some effect.

[ParanoiA]

But proving a negative by demonstration is the problem. They could have done something improperly in any of the myths they have "busted" where they fail to replicate some effect.

 

Yeah, I went through a Mythbuster's phase and watched their show for a couple of weeks, but I had the same problem. I'm not even a scientist and I don't know much of the criteria required, but intuitively I can see that their ideas of testing are flawed most of the time. I figured you scientists would really give them a bad grade...

[RyanJ]

But proving a negative by demonstration is the problem. They could have done something improperly in any of the myths they have "busted" where they fail to replicate some effect.

 

true even though apparently they preform the experiment a whole lot more times than is actually show and with more trials with varying parameters its quite fair to say if there is any truth there at all and in this case there didn't seem to be any. Don't get me wrong, I know it cant be proved one way or another as with lots of things.

[CPL.Luke]

they also consult with people on every episode to make sure everythings done right (although they do scew up sometimes)

[swansont]

they also consult with people on every episode to make sure everythings done right (although they do scew up sometimes)

 

Doesn't matter if you are trying to recreate some set of conditions that could vary. They only test one set of conditions, or very few.

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

Split from pyramid energy thread, because it's still a good topic even when off-topic.

[ajb]

I though that Mythbusters was about making statements of the plausibility of certian claims, rather than a "full scientific investigation".

 

I think it lives up to that.

[RyanJ]

I though that Mythbusters was about making statements of the plausibility of certian claims, rather than a "full scientific investigation".

 

I think it lives up to that.

 

Yea, I think that's the case. Sometimes though the science behind the actual myth is impossible to prove or disprove but sometimes, like the case with pyramidal power and a few others like the baking soda explosion, there seems to be nothing there that has any basis for scientific explanation.

 

Can we say that they are actually proven or disproved? I don't think so, there are always freak-of-nature events but as ajb pointed out, its not intended to be a complete scientific investigation simple a pretty good analysis of the information from which a conclusion is based.

[insane_alien]

i'm not saying that they should be regarded as a credible scientific source just that its a goodish indicator

[GutZ]

Yea, I think that's the case. Sometimes though the science behind the actual myth is impossible to prove or disprove but sometimes, like the case with pyramidal power and a few others like the baking soda explosion, there seems to be nothing there that has any basis for scientific explanation.

 

Can we say that they are actually proven or disproved? I don't think so, there are always freak-of-nature events but as ajb pointed out, its not intended to be a complete scientific investigation simple a pretty good analysis of the information from which a conclusion is based.

 

With the Pyramid power, they should be able to test under the assumption that the power affects matter in some physical way. If it doesn't, and we can't sense or interact with it, kinda makes it pointless to even try.

[swansont]

I though that Mythbusters was about making statements of the plausibility of certian claims, rather than a "full scientific investigation".

 

I think it lives up to that.

 

Plus it's entertainment. But one cannot trot out an episode of Mythbusters as actual proof that something is impossible. At best, one could make the argument that it's a demonstration that a phenomenon is difficult to replicate. As such, it depends on whether the claim is that X is impossible (not a credible source), or that X is a routine occurence (credible/your mileage may vary).

 

If they can replicate a phenomenon, then it's probably true that it's something that could happen elsewhere, too.

[RyanJ]

If they can replicate a phenomenon, then it's probably true that it's something that could happen elsewhere, too.

 

Isn't that the whole point anyway? To compile a complete scientific study of all but the simplest phenomenon could take a lifetime if not more. I give them credit though, they do a lot of research and a lot of testing off-set but your point is still 100% valid even though I don't think Mythbusters was ever intended to fully prove / disprove an actual myth.

 

Actually its really a good thing they don't as it leaves interpretation of the results too the viewer plus it allows them to extend beyond the boundaries of the myth to see if there is any truth in any part of it, something you couldn't really do otherwise.

[Dave]

I don't think I can add much to what's been said already, but even as a big fan of the show I agree with swansont. I certainly believe that the hosts and producers don't believe that they're going to categorically prove or disprove particular myths in a purely scientific fashion, simply because they don't have the time nor are properly trained scientists.

 

My opinion is that it's a very good way of getting people interested in science, and definitely encourages a lot of kids to try and get involved - this is a good thing. Of course, the flip side of the coin is that they're not going to learn the proper scientific methods from the show, which is a bit unfortunate.

 

However, I'm always impressed that they are completely willing to take what viewers have seen, re-do experiments and in some cases completely change their verdicts on previous work. Lots of kids (and adults) could learn a lot about this sort of attitude towards science.

[DrP]

- I've a bone to pick with my old chemistry teacher! When we aere at school she told me that most cars, her VW Golf esspecially had their tracking set up so that it would , very slightly, pull to the left if you let go of the steering wheel. This, she said, was so that if someone falls asleep at the wheel on the motorway then they would veer off onto the verge rather than go across into the lanes with the oncoming traffic..... I don't forget things like that - and why wouldn't I have believed her!? She was my chemistry teacher. 15-20 years on now I have just had my tracking done on my car (after small accident) and the guy asked if it felt alright. I suggested that there may have been a very slight pull to the left, but believed that this was OK/fairly normal. They laughed out loud at my expense at the suggestion the tracking should be anything other than dead straight and said that what I had been told was a myth.... Well, it makes sense it should be straight, but how the hell was I to know considering it was my science teacher that told us this! I'm off to vote in Reaper's thread! It is a conspiricy after all!

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

PS - sorry about the threadnomancy - didn't think that this warranted a new thread!

Edited January 23, 2009 by DrP
Consecutive posts merged.