Busting Mythbusters

[gnome]

True, but that does not stop programs like Nova presenting complex science topics in non-dumbed-down ways. In case "but that's PBS" is a response, I've seen plenty of commercial programs that go for more than 'wait through three more cycles of commercials to see the big explosion while Kari dances around in a swimsuit.'

The Kari stuff is played up once in a while, but it seems to me in most episodes she's dressed sensibly and participating in a manner similar to the rest of the staff.

 

[JeanFromBNA]

Comments on "Mythbusters" scientific setup. What do you all think? Two special effects guys and a girl that all do math. What science degrees do they have? Is the show presented as science to the general/ do they accept it as such? I always thought of it as entertainment but a lot of people i know take it as science and think the hosts are all PhD'd.

I can't speak to what someone might infer from the show's personages, but why is a science degree required to perform credible scientific experiments? Copernicus, Tesla, and Edison didn't have science degrees. Einstein eventually received a doctorate but wrote several Nobel worthy (back when the Nobel was worth something) papers prior even to receiving his teaching certificate.

Mythbusters encourages scientific thinking and puts it in reach of everyman and his kids, who may be hungry for something else besides Family Guy reruns.

 

[Dinwar]

True, but that does not stop programs like Nova presenting complex science topics in non-dumbed-down ways. In case "but that's PBS" is a response, I've seen plenty of commercial programs that go for more than 'wait through three more cycles of commercials to see the big explosion while Kari dances around in a swimsuit.'

It's a question of appropriate gravitas. When Sagan was discussing, say, black hole physics and how the univers formed, that's something that we need to show a certain amount of respect for, and is targeted at an educated (though not in this field) audience. Whether or not you can make a safe rocket out of 2 liter bottles and launch yourself in it is likely restricted to the red neck crowed, and needs to be addressed in a more jovial manner.

To put it another way: They're doing stupid things so we don't have to. They KNOW they're doing stupid things so we don't have to. They're Ray Stevens to Cosmos's Vivaldi. (If you've heard Ray Stevens' attempts at serious songs it makes sense...)

 

[KingMerv00]

...but it does reinforce her as a real person rather than an object of lust.

Those two things are not mutually exclusive.

 

[Chris L]

Those two things are not mutually exclusive.

Yeah what he said.

 

[roger]

The Kari stuff is played up once in a while, but it seems to me in most episodes she's dressed sensibly and participating in a manner similar to the rest of the staff.

Oh, I know, I should have put a smiley on that last phrase.

 

[roger]

It's a question of appropriate gravitas. When Sagan was discussing, say, black hole physics and how the univers formed, that's something that we need to show a certain amount of respect for, and is targeted at an educated (though not in this field) audience. Whether or not you can make a safe rocket out of 2 liter bottles and launch yourself in it is likely restricted to the red neck crowed, and needs to be addressed in a more jovial manner.

To put it another way: They're doing stupid things so we don't have to. They KNOW they're doing stupid things so we don't have to. They're Ray Stevens to Cosmos's Vivaldi. (If you've heard Ray Stevens' attempts at serious songs it makes sense...)

I can't really disagree with that, but I don't find it entertaining to sit for 40 minutes sitting through endless 'when we come back you'll finally get to see that explosion.' I think essentially the same content, edited to a tight 30 minute episode, would be quite interesting for me.

 

[Gawdzilla Sama]

The Kari stuff is played up once in a while, but it seems to me in most episodes she's dressed sensibly and participating in a manner similar to the rest of the staff.

But she's a whole lot easier to look at than Tori.

 

[gnome]

Those two things are not mutually exclusive.

I will call a semantic difference.

"person" and "object" do tend to be mutually exclusive the way I was using them.

Someone you think of as a person can inspire lust without it being the most significant characteristic about them. Being an "object of lust" implies that it is.

 

[GlennB]

It's not the hard theoretical science people seem to stereotypically assume "real" scientists do. But it's still real. They do the math to see if their myths are even reasonable. They do quite a few experiments to see if the myth could actually happen. Then if it fails, they show what it would require for the myth to work as stated.

The main point of the show is to get people interested in testing their beliefs. They do that well.

http://xkcd.com/397/

Edited to remove repetitive words.

^^ that ^^ especially the xkcd strip

Mythbusters does a great job. Cory, Snory and Bory could use a lesson in how many times it's OK to say 'cool' or 'awesome' in one episode, though.

 

[grunion]

It gets my kids thinking scientifically. My daughter uses language like "confimed," "plausible," and "busted" when referring to hypotheses (like in her science fair project.) But no, they are not scientists, and their tests are kinda back-of-the-envelope swags.

 

[Gawdzilla Sama]

It gets my kids thinking scientifically. My daughter uses language like "confimed," "plausible," and "busted" when referring to hypotheses (like in her science fair project.) But no, they are not scientists, and their tests are kinda back-of-the-envelope swags.

Which is what the people want. Sneaking in actual science in the mix is a bonus. Me, I just watch for the explosions.

 

[zooterkin]

Doesn't make me cross her off my list, but it does reinforce her as a real person rather than an object of lust.

False dichotomy?

I agree. It's not the content (for me), but the friggin editing. It all seems to be done on the presumption that people are just looking for a tiny excuse to flip channels, so they try to build 'suspense'.

Not confined to this show, sadly, it seems to be de rigeur for anything that TV execs think might not hold people's attention.

Haven't those guys appeared at some TAM's?

I saw Adam Savage at TAM London I and TAM 8, and was pretty impressed by his attitude; they are pretty rigorous, but are aware of what they need to do to keep the show entertaining. This covers both what sort of demonstrations they need to do (anything with explosions will go well), but also what sort of myths they will try to bust. (I haven't seen much of Mythbusters on TV, in fact, I think I've seen more of him live than on TV. ) No, it's not "science" in the sense of what might happen in a research lab, but I don't think they make things up to fit a preconceived conclusion, and they are designing experiments to test a hypothesis. They're covering the basics of scientific inquiry, and for some people just seeing somebody questioning received ideas in a practical way can be an eye-opener.

 

[pipelineaudio]

Am I the only person who watched the episodes where she was eight months pregnant and just crossed the woman off my list?

Right there with you

 

[Jorghnassen]

Yeah, it's not rigorous science; but real life science is a long, slow and mostly boring process that is done in generally small steps: not the most entertaining stuff for TV. Explosions are fun no matter what (and so is Kari), and what's important is to get kids (young and old) into critical thinking and excited about science. I think Mythbusters has succeeded so far in that area.

 

[John Albert]

What science degrees do they have?

Is the show presented as science to the general/ do they accept it as such?

I always thought of it as entertainment but a lot of people i know take it as science and think the hosts are all PhD'd.

Science degrees are not necessary for the doing of science, nor are PhDs. Science is a method, not a doctrinaire certification of authority.

The quality of their experiments may vary, but what they're doing is the basic methodology of science. They start out with a claim and honestly set out to verify it through experimental testing. They assume the claim is false until proven true, engineer various methods to test it, and then they assess their results.

In many cases where they've failed to confirm the urban myths, they will even take the extra step of figuring out what forces would have been necessary for the effect described in the myth to really manifest. That also helps put the situation into a realistic perspective.

Sure it's a TV show, with all the restrictions, goofiness and sensationalism that goes along with that, but they are essentially showing the basics of the scientific process and teaching critical thinking.

 

[Gawdzilla Sama]

TV =/= lab.

Get over it, folks, and have some fun in front of the babble box for a change.

 

[John Albert]

The thing is, they're doing exactly the same kind of thing scientists do, they're just doing it in a fun and entertaining way.

I'd argue that Mythbusters is more inherently scientific than, say a show like Mr. Wizard was. While Mr. Wizard taught science, he was not making discoveries on his show. He was repeating experiments for illustrative purposes to teach scientific facts that are already known. The Mythbusters are actually designing experiments to test hypotheses, then performing those experiments, assessing the results, and assigning a conclusion. That is the methodology of science.

 

[Spektator]

(snip) The Mythbusters are actually designing experiments to test hypotheses, then performing those experiments, assessing the results, and assigning a conclusion. That is the methodology of science.

They also are willing to re-test if others suggest a flaw in their methodology. They found that under exceptional circumstances, a hypothesis they once thought they had disproved--that it's possible literally to knock a person's socks off (more accurately, knock a person out of his/her socks)--could actually be possible, and they changed their views accordingly. This is also something scientist do when presented with strong evidence.

 

[not_so_new]

I really like the show myself.

For everyone complaining that it isn't real "science" I think others have said it already but, while it isn't hard or cutting edge science is it still following the scientific method.

Furthermore, with all the noise coming from shows geared to the lowest common denominator, junk about aliens, haunted houses, paranormal abilities, real housewives, child beauty pageants, fake "science" crime dramas, talent shows, wrestling, ultimate fighting and bad sitcoms, I think a show that does ANYTHING even moving in the direction of truth backed up by repeatable evidence is a breath of fresh air. Why knock that?