MythBusters results, question about bias

[Thabiguy]

Okay, may I ask an on-topic language question here?

Everybody in this thread seems to be using the word 'myth' as if it meant 'hypothesis'; something that can be tested and that can be true. I didn't know that it had that meaning. I thought that - as in my native language - 'myth' could only mean either an ancient, typically supernatural story that is either fictitious or unverifiable at best, or alternately, a widely held but false belief. In my native language at least, a myth is by definition never known to be true, and cannot become confirmed; if a belief turns out to be true, then it is proven that it is not a myth after all, but a fact. A 'confirmed myth' or a 'true myth' would be oxymorons.

Does the word 'myth' have a different meaning in English? Can it refer to something that has been confirmed? Do phrases such as '10 popular myths about cars that are true' make sense?

 

[wahrheit]

Okay, may I ask an on-topic language question here?

Everybody in this thread seems to be using the word 'myth' as if it meant 'hypothesis'; something that can be tested and that can be true. I didn't know that it had that meaning. I thought that - as in my native language - 'myth' could only mean either an ancient, typically supernatural story that is either fictitious or unverifiable at best, or alternately, a widely held but false belief. In my native language at least, a myth is by definition never known to be true, and cannot become confirmed; if a belief turns out to be true, then it is proven that it is not a myth after all, but a fact. A 'confirmed myth' or a 'true myth' would be oxymorons.

Does the word 'myth' have a different meaning in English? Can it refer to something that has been confirmed? Do phrases such as '10 popular myths about cars that are true' make sense?

Myth in MythBusters translates to rumor, (urban) legend for me. In other words, stuff that many people think is or might be true - so let's check it out.

 

[JEROME DA GNOME]

and nothing in that video (which has been posted many, many times on the mythbusters forum) has anything to do with splitting an arrow. He shot an arrow into a narrow, empty tube. Kinda different than putting it through 18 inches of wood without turning.
Also, the subtitles look more Korean than Japanese, no?

What if I told you I have seen it done with wooden arrows?

 

[Big Les]

What if I told you I have seen it done with wooden arrows?

I would say; "Evidence?"

 

[technoextreme]

Then you need to read more.

You know absolutely nothing about television whatsoever. The entire series is planned in advance, with a careful distribution of outcomes.

Really now. That's the most idiotic thing I've ever read. Do you have any proof that they do this? Looking at the results they tend to go against planing because the results have become really freaky. I don't think you can plan for a story being busted, plausible, confirmed at the same time.

What if I told you I have seen it done with wooden arrows?

I would say your lying.

No, he wants them to do what proper experimental archaeologists and historians do - use weapons and media as close to historical parameters as possible, to eliminate the chance of something happening that you haven't accounted for. Modern homogenous steel is very different in composition, and forging methods/heat treatments ideally would be considered too.

That's what I said. Also, it would make the odds of it happening worst.

 

[wahrheit]

Really now. That's the most idiotic thing I've ever read. Do you have any proof that they do this? Looking at the results they tend to go against planing because the results become really freaky.

Before you repeatedly accuse someone of being an idiot, you might check on the facts, a.k.a. real life.

I don't know if Teek (tkingdoll) has any proof for what she's saying, but for one, there would be me.

I've been producing television shows, and if you really think nobody at that big telly company has been done some thinking and planning regarding the ratio between busted and confirmed myths, you must be very naive.

You might reconsider your language before using words like "idiotic". Especially, since you don't seem to know what you are talking about, except for watching television, as opposed to making it.

 

[technoextreme]

I've been producing television shows, and if you really think nobody at that big telly company has been done some thinking and planning regarding the ratio between busted and confirmed myths, you must be very naive.

Can you please provide a rational that makes sense? There is none that I can think of. The outcome of the myth really has nothing to do with anything. The entertainment value of the myth comes from the myth itself.

 

[wahrheit]

Can you please provide a rational that makes sense? Face it there is none. The outcome of the myth really has nothing to do with anything. The entertainment value of the myth comes from the myth itself. Even then they've had quite a few duds.

Maybe you misunderstood. I'm not saying the producers would fake the outcome of an episode. Think of it this way: Let's say each and every myth would be debunked in that show. Do you really think anybody would enjoy watching it? Of course the outcome of the myth is important. It's like the punch line of a joke.

 

[Gregory]

Maybe you misunderstood. I'm not saying the producers would fake the outcome of an episode. Think of it this way: Let's say each and every myth would be debunked in that show. Do you really think anybody would enjoy watching it? Of course the outcome of the myth is important. It's like the punch line of a joke.

But how do they plan these ratios when they don't know whether something is true or not until it's tested? I suppose with cheap and easy myths like the ice bullet one, they could do testing before hand, but things like using dynamite to clear out cement mixers? Are you saying that they knew before they started shooting whether that would work? If so, how?

 

[IMST]

What if I told you I have seen it done with wooden arrows?

I would say; "Evidence?"

me too.

 

[wahrheit]

But how do they plan these ratios when they don't know whether something is true or not until it's tested? I suppose with cheap and easy myths like the ice bullet one, they could do testing before hand, but things like using dynamite to clear out cement mixers?

I'm not involved in the production of MythBusters, but this is how it would typically work:

- Make a list of myths that most probably are true
- Make a list of myths that most probably are false
- Make a list of myths with an unknown result

- Make a list of myths which are expensive to reproduce and film
- Make a list of myths which are easy to reproduce, cheap

- Make a list of myths which need to be filmed during good weather outdoors
- Make a list of myths which can be filmed anytime during the year indoors

- Discuss all of the above with the network, hosts, their schedule, the bean counters etc.

Take the above lists, and plan for the next season. Tape one or two back-ups if there's enough money. Then you are pretty sure what will be aired next year.

The last show I personally was involved with that had anything to do with "miracle", i.e. more or less unknown outcome, was produced almost a year before airing the episodes.

Again, I do not know how MythBusters is produced, and I'm not saying any outcome would be faked (though this would be normal in most other formats), I'm just trying to give a general idea how it works.

 

[technoextreme]

Maybe you misunderstood. I'm not saying the producers would fake the outcome of an episode. Think of it this way: Let's say each and every myth would be debunked in that show. Do you really think anybody would enjoy watching it? Of course the outcome of the myth is important. It's like the punch line of a joke.

Ahhh you see this is why I feel it's a bad argument. I know if Buster was supposed to be propelled out of a culvert it will happen. I don't think people care how it happens.

- Make a list of myths which are expensive to reproduce and film
- Make a list of myths which are easy to reproduce, cheap

- Make a list of myths which need to be filmed during good weather outdoors
- Make a list of myths which can be filmed anytime during the year indoor

Just as a side note. I agree with you on this. I never said that cost and ability to accomplish them were not a factor. There is proof that they have done myths that they originally thought they couldn't do. I remember reading that they had done the small scale testing of being sucked by a train but couldn't find anyone to help them on the full scale. I just don't think they perform the experiments with the assumption that they are trying to create a distribution of plausible/confirmed/busted myths.

 

[wahrheit]

Ahhh you see this is why I feel it's a bad argument. I know if Buster was supposed to be propelled out of a culvert it will happen. I don't think people care how it happens.

Sorry, I don't understand this post, I'm afraid you will have to put it in simpler English for me.

 

[technoextreme]

Sorry, I don't understand this post, I'm afraid you will have to put it in simpler English for me.

It was a reference to an episode of Mythbusters. The myth involved the possibility of someone being propelled out of a giant drainage pipe with gasoline. So they tried and they discovered that it was pretty much impossible. Now if they had ended the show I agree it would be really boring. What they ended up doing was turning the drainage pipe into a giant cannon. They sealed a crash test dummy into a sabot and then sent it flying with a large amount of gunpowder. If the results are boring they will spice it up even if it has nothing to do with the myth.

 

[tkingdoll]

wahrheit, you may well be wasting your time. My experiences of trying to explain television to people who know nothing about it is that they are usually extremely allergic to learning what a cynical medium it is. Especially when it comes to favourite shows.

 

[CapelDodger]

Maybe you misunderstood. I'm not saying the producers would fake the outcome of an episode. Think of it this way: Let's say each and every myth would be debunked in that show. Do you really think anybody would enjoy watching it? Of course the outcome of the myth is important. It's like the punch line of a joke.

The outcome isn't important at all. It's a poor punch-line that's revealed before your very eyes, which is the stuff we're watching.

I don't think you understand the appeal of MythBusters ...

 

[CapelDodger]

wahrheit, you may well be wasting your time. My experiences of trying to explain television to people who know nothing about it is that they are usually extremely allergic to learning what a cynical medium it is. Especially when it comes to favourite shows.

Be it a sitcom or MythBusters, the punters just want favourite shows. What could possibly be different?

So anyway, off the top of your head, what "distribution of plausible/confirmed/busted myths" do you imagine its audience demands?

 

[tkingdoll]

Be it a sitcom or MythBusters, the punters just want favourite shows. What could possibly be different?

A sitcom is presented as fiction. A science show is often fiction as well but the audience is not meant to know that.

What keeps your favourite show favourite? What makes it your favourite show in the first place?

So anyway, off the top of your head, what "distribution of plausible/confirmed/busted myths" do you imagine its audience demands?

The most sensible answer to that question is 'the one the next season has'.

If every single myth was busted I assure you they would lose viewers because the show would be predictable. If every single myth was confirmed, ditto. However, I'd say that a 'busted' conclusion is likely to be in the majority because those are more fun and lead to more water-cooler conversations than the others. I also assure you that the ratio, just like the running order of the episodes, is not left to chance. There are many outcomes which can be predicted on paper way before building the exploding kajigga.

 

[tsig]

wahrheit, you may well be wasting your time. My experiences of trying to explain television to people who know nothing about it is that they are usually extremely allergic to learning what a cynical medium it is. Especially when it comes to favourite shows.

Why keep wasting our time then? If we are too stupid to understand then you are more stupid for explaining.

 

[tkingdoll]

Why keep wasting our time then? If we are too stupid to understand then you are more stupid for explaining.

Excuse me? I was referring to wahreit's reply to technoextreme's posts. My own replies were to CapelDodger's posts, his tone being a tad more reasonable than technoextreme's.

I'd be interested to see where I said anyone was too stupid to understand. Feel free to put words into my mouth though, the fact that my posts are right here for everyone to read makes you look, well...you work it out.