Vexer Posted April 15, 2008 Share Posted April 15, 2008 The TV show. Good for Science, or not? (I say yes, in very much deed). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cap'n Refsmmat Posted April 15, 2008 Share Posted April 15, 2008 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vexer Posted April 15, 2008 Author Share Posted April 15, 2008 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 More sharing options...
SkepticLance Posted April 15, 2008 Share Posted April 15, 2008 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 More sharing options...
Vexer Posted April 15, 2008 Author Share Posted April 15, 2008 (And comedy helps) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YT2095 Posted April 15, 2008 Share Posted April 15, 2008 I like it just the way it is in all honesty, and I think it`s also important that they Do revisit old "myths" with new data if a result was challenged. it gets a Thumbs Up from me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hermanntrude Posted April 15, 2008 Share Posted April 15, 2008 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 More sharing options...
Mr Skeptic Posted April 15, 2008 Share Posted April 15, 2008 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 More sharing options...
swansont Posted April 15, 2008 Share Posted April 15, 2008 Zombie Feynman likes it. The issue I have is when they fail to recreate an effect and declare the myth busted; all they have demonstrated is that the incident didn't happen, not that it couldn't. That's the rigor it lacks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CharonY Posted April 15, 2008 Share Posted April 15, 2008 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 More sharing options...
ecoli Posted April 15, 2008 Share Posted April 15, 2008 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 More sharing options...
CharonY Posted April 15, 2008 Share Posted April 15, 2008 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 More sharing options...
Vexer Posted April 20, 2008 Author Share Posted April 20, 2008 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 More sharing options...
ydoaPs Posted April 20, 2008 Share Posted April 20, 2008 But, compared to it's competitors, (wait a sec, there aren't any?), it's pretty good. Smash Lab has better science. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rev Blair Posted April 20, 2008 Share Posted April 20, 2008 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 More sharing options...
Royston Posted April 21, 2008 Share Posted April 21, 2008 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 More sharing options...
DrP Posted April 21, 2008 Share Posted April 21, 2008 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... Vey funny. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Royston Posted April 21, 2008 Share Posted April 21, 2008 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 More sharing options...
Phi for All Posted April 21, 2008 Share Posted April 21, 2008 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 More sharing options...
iNow Posted April 22, 2008 Share Posted April 22, 2008 Is it Patent Bending, in the Science channel? http://www.patentbending.com/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rev Blair Posted April 22, 2008 Share Posted April 22, 2008 Which network are they with? I like the sound of this show. It's on the Canadian History Channel. I'm not sure whether it's a Canadian show or something they bought from the US though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CaptainPanic Posted April 22, 2008 Share Posted April 22, 2008 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 ) 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 More sharing options...
ydoaPs Posted April 22, 2008 Share Posted April 22, 2008 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 More sharing options...
Rev Blair Posted April 23, 2008 Share Posted April 23, 2008 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 More sharing options...
RyanJ Posted April 23, 2008 Share Posted April 23, 2008 Anything that gets kids interested in science (at least as a starting reference place) is a good thing in my book and they get the thumbs up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
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 accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now