Jump to content

Mythbusters.


Vexer

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 51
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Yes it does. Or, tries to.

 

And best of all, you get to see when their thinking goes wrong. You get to see 'scientific' thinking, 'live'.

 

That's never, ever, been done before.

 

"Well, I figured *this*, but I was wrong. Now, I'll try *this* What if I...".

 

That's Science.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I love what mythbusters are doing. It is a fantastic concept and really good for science education.

 

My only quibble is that the show is too damn slow! These days, no-one will watch a slow TV show. You gotta spend the money and make it fast paced and exciting.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

i never thought of mythbusters as particularly scientific. It's just a lot of fun.

 

And yes, I do like the way that sometimes they'll admit "we thought this one out wrong". I thought it was great when they revisited the "archimedes death ray" because so many viewers felt they could do better.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Good in that it encourages people to take myths and put them to the test. Bad in that it doesn't always set up proper controls and run experiments in the most scientific fashion.

 

They can't always do that. People would get bored with some of the proper controls, which would be worse than a little inaccuracy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Also what they do as replicates are usually not statistically significant. It is often fun, though. Maybe a bit like CSI for the forensic community, only better.

 

Well, Zombie Feynman is quite convincing, though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Also what they do as replicates are usually not statistically significant.

What they lack in replication, they make up for in the amount of different subject matter they cover, and sheer volume of data produced. They usually bust 3-4 myths per episode, right?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, these are two issues. Basically if the data (analysis) is not of sufficient quality one cannot declare an effect as busted. This problem does not go away if you just do something else with the same lack of rigor. Also they usually do not really produce an awful lot of data. Usually there are only two to three data points per experiment. Much of the fun is not in the results but the whacky way they try to approach it. Also the replicates are quite often not really replicates in the strictest sense and so on.

Of course there are limitations due to time and cost and it is an entertainment show after all. However, sometimes they do use the word "science" or "scientifically" quite a bit too often for my taste.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

They do suspiciously go out of their way to say 'science' a lot. But that can be taken in two ways.

 

One; they want to convince you that what they are doing is really science (when you might not think it is, as an educated person).

 

Two; they want to convince you that what they are doing is really science (when you might not think it is, as an school kid or more uneducated person).

 

 

Yes, it's not great science, not ideal "what I would like to see" Science, necessarily.

 

But, compared to it's competitors, (wait a sec, there aren't any?), it's pretty good.

 

 

This puts me in mind of the argument about whether Steve Irwin, the "Crocodile Hunter" is a "naturalist" (or conservationist) or not. Similar question.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Smash Lab does have better science, I think. I've noticed a few other things that seem to have come from the Mythbusters thing too.

 

There's the Reinventors...they take old patents and try to make them work. Sometimes there's good science and sometimes it's kind of goofy, but it's always entertaining.

 

For pure science in the popular media, I think Quirks and Quarks on CBC radio still pretty much sets the standard. It's just interviews with working scientists for the most part, but they actually talk about science in an accessible manner.

 

The Jay Ingram show on Discovery Canada used to be good too...he came from Quirks and Quarks and that seemed to be the model for the original...but it's become a showcase for gadgetry instead of a science show.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But, compared to it's competitors, (wait a sec, there aren't any?), it's pretty good.

 

Well in the UK we have / had 'Brainiac', it hasn't been on for a while, which is quite frankly, a good thing. It's a really awful show, and pretty much, a mockery of the scientific method. We're quite a fan of mythbusters in our house, despite the rigor it lacks, it's certainly better than a lot of the guff you get on TV.

 

'I can do science, me'...<shudders> (Brainiac catchphrase)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well in the UK we have........

 

Have you (or anyone else) ever seen 'Look Around You' ??

 

 

I prefer the 1st series. It's done in a very dead pan way in the style of the old 1970's open university programs. The science is of course - completely off the wall and a load of crap, but it is presented as fact with experiments to back it up. They come up with some interesting versions of teh periodic table...:D Vey funny.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Have you (or anyone else) ever seen 'Look Around You' ??

 

Thanks ants...Thants :)

 

Here's the math episode...http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d9UXw0fQmno

 

Not really comparable to mythbusters, obviously, but yes, I used to really enjoy 'Look Around You.'

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There's the Reinventors...they take old patents and try to make them work. Sometimes there's good science and sometimes it's kind of goofy, but it's always entertaining.
Which network are they with? I like the sound of this show.

 

I remember reading about a guy who used to comb through old patents to see if they'd cover more modern needs (needs that might not have been around when the patent was taken out). He ended up making a small bundle with an old air compression cylinder which he turned into a spud gun pistol.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mythbusters is brilliant. It is not always scientifically correct, but:

 

1. It motivates people to think, and perhaps to pick up science. I hope that kids get enthousiastic. Anyway, I don't expect science at primetime on TV.

 

2. The mythbusters do come back to a topic if replies from fans (or grumpy scientists like you all :D) say that they made a mistake.

 

3. They try to explain the science behind the things they investigate.

 

4. I haven't heard them use any "Discovery Channel Units", ever, (volume expressed in [Football stadiums], weight in [Elephants] and length in [boeing 747's])... which I think is fantastic, given the fact that they're on the Discovery Channel.

 

I don't understand why SkepticLance thinks it is too slow. In the Netherlands, the shows are 1 hour, max. 3 commercial breaks, and imho full of fun. I don't get bored.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4. I haven't heard them use any "Discovery Channel Units", ever, (volume expressed in [Football stadiums], weight in [Elephants] and length in [boeing 747's])... which I think is fantastic, given the fact that they're on the Discovery Channel.

 

I've seen them use wonky units several times(ex: weight in kilograms, current in voltage, and torque in pounds).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4. I haven't heard them use any "Discovery Channel Units", ever, (volume expressed in [Football stadiums], weight in [Elephants] and length in [boeing 747's])... which I think is fantastic, given the fact that they're on the Discovery Channel.

 

The other day I expressed something by saying, "That's a lot of hay," in a conversation about something having nothing to do with hay (we were actually talking about the price of lithium power tools). The guy I was talking to, who knows nothing about agriculture, insisted that I express it by how many pick-up trucks it would take to haul the hay. "Blue trucks or green trucks?" I asked (not such a bizarre question, since I own a green 3/4 ton and a blue 1/2 ton), then wondered, "And what kind of bales?" (also not bizarre if you know about bales)

 

He didn't get my point...that I could say anything and it would be more or less meaningless to him...and actually got a little upset at me.

 

This is a relatively bright guy, but he's been so conditioned by meaningless "measurements" that he expected me to have one ready. So I sent him an e-mail a little later, "Assuming large round bales made on a John Deere hay brake in a filed of prime alfalfa, it's about the same as 50 dozen Two Rivers beer."

 

His reply was, and I'm assuming he'd regained his sense of humour by this time, "Do you mean volume or weight?"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.