MythBusters results, question about bias

I'm not sure if that photo is more attractive or scary. She looks like she's trying to entice come guy to coming over with that inocent cute smile and then slice right through them with that blade thing.
 
DRBUZZ0 said:
I'm not sure if that photo is more attractive or scary. She looks like she's trying to entice come guy to coming over with that inocent cute smile and then slice right through them with that blade thing.
Click to expand...

Oh wow.
I didn't even see that. I'd be dead meat by now.
 
DRBUZZ0 said:
Does anyone know if the rather unrelated myths are done independently and then cut together into the episodes? or do they do each episode independently start to finish?

I can see how they could balance the myth buster/confirmed if they some of them alone and then just stuck them into the episodes. Some episodes are somewhat dominated by a certain myth but they often have other secondary myths that aren't even related.
Click to expand...
They must overlap. Some of the experiments take months. And they probably do a fair number that don't yield interesting results, and never air. So I'm sure they have some leeway to edit for effect.

Of course, they wouldn't need to do this if they simply faked a set of predetermined results . . .
 
Wowbagger said:
I think the (Ming Dynasty Astronaut) myth spread because its perpetrators' understanding of the physics involved was much too basic.
Click to expand...
I agree, but only to an extent. Like yourself, I don't believe for a second that this myth is true--it's just a legend probably invented long after the Ming Dynasty that got passed around because it sounds slightly plausible. And of course, a requirement for any good folklore, is that it's interesting. And, like you say, it's only plausible to those who don't have a good understanding of physics and what gunpowder is capable of.

Wowbagger said:
The Mythbusters were able to demonstrate that it takes a lot more effort to fling an emperor into space, than most laymen would assume. The myth is Busted, because reality is not as simple as the simple innocence the myth takes on.
Click to expand...
Well if you define the myth that the guy had to actually get into space then it becomes a lot easier to bust. But it's not necessary for the guy to go into space for the myth to have started from a real event. Perhaps it was a dark night when he launched, and he came crashing down to his doom someplace nearby, and amazed onlookers simply thought he made it into space.

From what I recall, the MythBuster's crew simply got the chair to flip over, because they failed to sychronize the ignitions of the rockets. They failed to even overcome the most basic hurdle in getting this work. Perhaps if they spent a few more weeks on the project they would have overcome the sychronization problem only to discover a deeper core problem---namely, that of gunpowder-based fireworks being incapable of lifting even the lightest chinaman in that fashion.

But they didn't get that far. They just saw their chair flipped over, concluded that they failed, so called it "busted."

My point, and I still stand behind it, is that MythBusters all too often uses the argument: "If we can't do it then nobody else could have done it." That just doesn't hold water.
 
Last edited:
ponderingturtle said:
You are saying that she did not mean what she said.
Click to expand...

I'll grant that she did say what you quote.

The way I read what she said, in the context of this thread (and I admit I may be guilty of the naivety she alludes to) was that this was a combination of general and specific comments about TV. The comments about MythBusters specifically I took to be about the ratio of busted to upheld myths; I'd also, on re-reading, be prepared to believe that anything shown on the programme might be faked to some degree for effect. Because of the other posts in this thread, however, about the feedback on the series, and how open the presenters are in general, I didn't think that they would knowingly produce the wrong outcome (in the way the UK series Brainiac has done), so didn't take Teek's comments to say that.
 
Big Les said:
They've improved muchly, but in keeping them below a few hundred pounds, they do tend have some significant flaw as you say. There are decent higher end pieces - Albion Armourers in the US are the best I've seen in person, although they're mostly CNCd/stock-removed - taking advantage of modern processes. Great for performance and general aesthetics, but not historically accurate enough for meaningful tests I would say. I have one of their Gladii, plus a low-end custom medieval single-handed sword from Paul Binns. Out-and-out performance swords like Angus Trims' are supposed to be excellent too, as well as some Czech makers. .
Click to expand...

I would expect that. Modern machinery can produce levels of precision greater than was possible then.

It is getting the best dimensions on it.
 
zooterkin said:
I'll grant that she did say what you quote.

The way I read what she said, in the context of this thread (and I admit I may be guilty of the naivety she alludes to) was that this was a combination of general and specific comments about TV. The comments about MythBusters specifically I took to be about the ratio of busted to upheld myths; I'd also, on re-reading, be prepared to believe that anything shown on the programme might be faked to some degree for effect. Because of the other posts in this thread, however, about the feedback on the series, and how open the presenters are in general, I didn't think that they would knowingly produce the wrong outcome (in the way the UK series Brainiac has done), so didn't take Teek's comments to say that.
Click to expand...


Why? Just because most people do not agree with it, why would you interpret that it was not what she meant?
 
Unalienable said:
I agree, but only to an extent. Like yourself, I don't believe for a second that this myth is true--it's just a legend probably invented long after the Ming Dynasty that got passed around because it sounds slightly plausible. And of course, a requirement for any good folklore, is that it's interesting. And, like you say, it's only plausible to those who don't have a good understanding of physics and what gunpowder is capable of.


Well if you define the myth that the guy had to actually get into space then it becomes a lot easier to bust. But it's not necessary for the guy to go into space for the myth to have started from a real event. Perhaps it was a dark night when he launched, and he came crashing down to his doom someplace nearby, and amazed onlookers simply thought he made it into space.

From what I recall, the MythBuster's crew simply got the chair to flip over, because they failed to sychronize the ignitions of the rockets. They failed to even overcome the most basic hurdle in getting this work. Perhaps if they spent a few more weeks on the project they would have overcome the sychronization problem only to discover a deeper core problem---namely, that of gunpowder-based fireworks being incapable of lifting even the lightest chinaman in that fashion.

But they didn't get that far. They just saw their chair flipped over, concluded that they failed, so called it "busted."

My point, and I still stand behind it, is that MythBusters all too often uses the argument: "If we can't do it then nobody else could have done it." That just doesn't hold water.
Click to expand...

If you have read or know anything about rocket guidance then the whole idea seems utterly silly. Sure the Shuttle lifts of on two gun powder rockets (sorta :) ) but it has other engines that do the guidance. A chair with umpteen gun powder rockets strapped on would have flown straight for about 2 seconds or so and then tumbled hopelessly out of control. See the old videos from the 50's/60's of rocket launches that went wrong and you'll know what i am talking about.

Perhaps the mythbusters sometimes are a bit hasty but this time they were 100% correct.
 
wahrheit said:
No, not at all, please read my posts above. I am talking about how a TV show is planned. You simply would not randomly pick 12 myths, shoot them, spend a lot of time and money, and then be surprised when the network guy says: "Uh, kinda boring this time, isn't it. All 12 myths turned out to be true. I don't think we want to air that."
Click to expand...

But that's how a science show should be done. I don't think anyone would get depressed by lopsided outcomes. Them testing the myths is where the entertainment value is at.
 
I daresay that they probably pick the myths, true, but for entertainment and interest. And the most interesting myths are the ones that noone really knows if they're true or not, including the producers. And any producer worth his salt would probably stay away from anything that seems too boring or pedantic to be entertaining, but so what? We're talking about the experiments here, not the outcomes.

Me, I just like watching their creative approach to testing the myths (and the stuff blowing up, of course). The truth value of the myths is much less vital.
 
anticonspiracy911 said:
But that's how a science show should be done. I don't think anyone would get depressed by lopsided outcomes. Them testing the myths is where the entertainment value is at.
Click to expand...

Reality TV shows such as Big Brother use scripts. Talent shows such as the X-Factor are fixed. Science shows such as Tomorrow's World fake the outcome of experiments (or they used to when the show existed). 'Live' TV is often pre-recorded. Magic shows which proclaim they don't use stooges, use stooges. How any TV show should be done and how it is actually done are very different things, sadly. It's a cynical business.
 
Unalienable said:
From what I recall, the MythBuster's crew simply got the chair to flip over, because they failed to sychronize the ignitions of the rockets. They failed to even overcome the most basic hurdle in getting this work. Perhaps if they spent a few more weeks on the project they would have overcome the sychronization problem only to discover a deeper core problem---namely, that of gunpowder-based fireworks being incapable of lifting even the lightest chinaman in that fashion.

But they didn't get that far. They just saw their chair flipped over, concluded that they failed, so called it "busted."
Click to expand...
From what I remember, they did try the gun powder at first, and ruled it was inadequate. Only then, did they try the modern rockets, where the hurdle became synchronization.

Unalienable said:
My point, and I still stand behind it, is that MythBusters all too often uses the argument: "If we can't do it then nobody else could have done it." That just doesn't hold water.
Click to expand...
Ah, I consider this a valid argument. Just 'cause they can't do it does not automatically mean it is utterly impossible.

But, I also think there is more to it than that: There are very well understood scientific laws and theories as to how a myth could not possibly work, which they try to communicate (albeit rather too breifly, sometimes); and they place great effort into trying. Unless they made a mistake, it is unlikely that anyone else would be able to make the myth work, unless they put even more super-human effort into it.

At any rate, if the question is about bias tainting the results of the show, I would say the MB's do about as brilliant a job as anyone at eliminating bias. (which is to say they are not absolutely perfect, but then again, no one else would be.)
 
Last edited:
ArmillarySphere said:
I daresay that they probably pick the myths, true, but for entertainment and interest. And the most interesting myths are the ones that noone really knows if they're true or not, including the producers. And any producer worth his salt would probably stay away from anything that seems too boring or pedantic to be entertaining, but so what? We're talking about the experiments here, not the outcomes.

Me, I just like watching their creative approach to testing the myths (and the stuff blowing up, of course). The truth value of the myths is much less vital.
Click to expand...

Sometimes, it is clear that they absolutely know something is confirmed, and test the myth anyways because it is entertaining. The water heater rocket, for example, has happened in reality and they revealed that fact at the end of the show. That doesn't make launching a water heater 300 feet in the air any less entertaining.
 
JoeEllison said:
Sometimes, it is clear that they absolutely know something is confirmed, and test the myth anyways because it is entertaining. The water heater rocket, for example, has happened in reality and they revealed that fact at the end of the show. That doesn't make launching a water heater 300 feet in the air any less entertaining.
Click to expand...
That was amazing. Perhaps the best visual they've ever done.
 
Wowbagger said:
But, I also think there is more to it than that: There are very well understood scientific laws and theories as to how a myth could not possibly work, which they try to communicate (albeit rather too breifly, sometimes); and they place great effort into trying. Unless they made a mistake, it is unlikely that anyone else would be able to make the myth work, unless they put even more super-human effort into it.
Click to expand...
I agree with that somewhat--I wouldn't even be too hard on them for being terse with their descriptions; they are trying to pack as much punch into 30 minutes as possible. In some rare cases a myth may require a leap of ingenuity or some very special conditions that they fail to duplicate.

I suppose my real gripe is that their category of "busted" included two entirely different situations. In some cases they simply provide compelling evidence that the myth is false, without actually falsifying it. In other cases, the myth is totally, flat out, no two ways about it, busted.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom