3 ms·

Es entertaining and inspiring they may be, i will never lose the dislike of their method of claiming busted/confirmed as if it were a fact and not just one resu

Es entertaining and inspiring they may be, i will never lose the dislike of their method of claiming busted/confirmed as if it were a fact and not just one result of their test setup which may or may not be flawed.

varjag 11y ago
That's why science has peer-review community and replicable experiments part of it. Neither would make a good TV obviously, and I doubt that many of their conclusions would be falsified with independent research.
vacri 11y ago
I used to have the same problem, but really they're following the spirit of the scientific process, just not the rigour. "Think of something and try it out" is the fundamental essence; "try it out rigourously" is the follow-on. My favourite lack of rigour is their lack of statistical knowledge. They had a toast dropper, and were testing the randomness before the mythbusting run. The test toast dropped 7/10 drops on one side. "This is not random enough!", cried Savage, "If it was truly random, it would have been 5 on each side!". Betrays a startling lack of statistical knowledge :) But yes, they have done wonders for promoting the spirit of inquiry.
- DanBC 11y ago
  (I enjoyed[1] mythbusters, and thought it was good.) But the way they had that big metal plate that they'd drop in slomo with a clang saying "BUSTED!" gave the impression that this was now FACT and TRUTH. For a fun tv show that's fine, but for science education (which is what a lot of people thought MB was) it's sub-optimal. [1] although I prefered the remixed versions where each item was run in a single block, rather than the broadcast version which flicked from item to item and back again, with many catchups and coming nexts.
  - vacri 11y ago
    Apparently the ridiculous amount of catchups and re-updating is something the presenters don't like either, but their producer listens to the cuts in her car, and basically demands the catchups so she knows what the current cut is about.
  - raverbashing 11y ago
    Well, depends on the context really (they also have a plausible category) So if they could find a counterexample to a myth it might get the 'busted' result (example: the Lead Balloon)
  - joosters 11y ago
    Streamlined Mythbusters edits: https://www.reddit.com/r/smyths/ https://www.reddit.com/r/smyths/
- gus_massa 11y ago
  An important detail is that they don't show all the repetitions variations for time constrains. From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MythBusters https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MythBusters > Testing is often edited due to time constraints of a televised episode. It can often seem as if the teams draw results from fewer repetitions and a smaller data set than they actually have. During the Outtakes Special, they specifically stated that while they are, in fact, very thorough in testing myths and repeat experiments many times in many different configurations, it is simply impossible to display all of it during a program. Beginning in the fifth season, episodes typically contain a prompt for the viewer to visit the show's homepage to view outtake footage of either additional testing, or other facets of the myths being tested. However, Savage himself has acknowledged that they do not purport always to achieve a satisfactorily large enough set of results to overcome definitively all bias.
johncolanduoni 11y ago
While, I don't entirely disagree I think this is ultimately less important. It's not like someone is going to go straight from watching Mythbusters to writing journal articles. There's plenty of time to learn how real science is done, if you can get them to care in the first place. This reminds me of the common experience where people end up more enamored with a subject (and ultimately learn more about it) if the teacher who introduced them to it was more enthusiastic and effective, as opposed to more skilled in the subject at hand.
CrLf 11y ago
The problem is: that need for rigourous methods at all times is what drives people away from science. It sucks the fun out of it. Nothing has to be rigourous at all times. And certainly not on a TV show meant to entertain. And people are not stupid, they understand that their methods have flaws. In fact, that's one of the reasons the show is as effective as it is: people discuss both the methods and the results, which is an example of peer review.
- protomyth 11y ago
  But even for entertainment there is a breaking point. I stopped watching after their "Episode 56: Killer Whirlpools, Snowplow Flips Car". They tested the snow plow "myth" on a flat[1], dry[2,3] airport runway then claimed it "busted". Since I know its possible and lost a friend who got sucked over by a semi in winter driving. I lost all believability. 1) actual roads have a bigger curve to allow run off 2) dry asphalt has a different coefficient of friction than snow/ice cover roads 3) snow plows put out a heck of a lot of snow
andrewstuart 11y ago
I seem to recall they made it clear that they are not doing "science for pedants". They are doing "science for fun", to make it enjoyable and interesting and engaging, and they seem to have succeeded as suggested by the article. Needing it to be 100% rigorous science is missing the point. To meet your requirement they would need to submit a multi hundred page peer reviewed thesis with every assertion of "busted" or "plausible" or whatever. That would be super boring.
- ourmandave 11y ago
  Plus they're limited by a budget (who isn't?), their building skills, and the need to have at least one myth per episode end with a giant BOOM.
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]
  - andrewstuart 11y ago
    You're raising a concern about the validity of their test setup, which presents your comment as being a curmudgeonly pedantic one. The test setup doesn't matter. It's for fun and entertainment.
    - deleted 11y ago
      [deleted]
- paulsutter 11y ago
  He never said they need to be 100% rigorous, he criticized their overconfident / absolutist conclusions. We all know why they mislabel the conclusions - because they prioritize "good tv" over accuracy. It's perfectly reasonable to be disappointed about that.
- omginternets 11y ago
  > they are not doing "science for pedants". They are doing "science for fun" False dichotomy, my friend! I see two underlying arguments, here: 1. It's disingenuous to claim (or take) credit as a science educator when you're doing piss-poor science. 2. They could easily do better without sacrificing entertainment value. It's entirely possible to both remain entertaining and better communicate scientific values. >To meet your requirement they would need to submit a multi hundred page peer reviewed thesis with every assertion of "busted" or "plausible" or whatever. That would be super boring. Holy strawman... The only thing that most of us asking for is a more nuanced analysis of results, by which I mean saying something like "we didn't disprove the myth, so it might actually be possible". Nobody is asking for a 50-page grant application.
cyorir 11y ago
I feel this is partly made up for by the way they would revisit certain myths if the fans felt they hadn't been tested properly - showing the importance of verification of results in science. A good example is the Archimedes Death Ray myth, which they tested in 3 different episodes. When they claimed a myth was "busted," that didn't mean the myth would not be tested again!

varjag 11y ago

That's why science has peer-review community and replicable experiments part of it. Neither would make a good TV obviously, and I doubt that many of their conclusions would be falsified with independent research.

vacri 11y ago

I used to have the same problem, but really they're following the spirit of the scientific process, just not the rigour. "Think of something and try it out" is the fundamental essence; "try it out rigourously" is the follow-on. My favourite lack of rigour is their lack of statistical knowledge. They had a toast dropper, and were testing the randomness before the mythbusting run. The test toast dropped 7/10 drops on one side. "This is not random enough!", cried Savage, "If it was truly random, it would have been 5 on each side!". Betrays a startling lack of statistical knowledge :) But yes, they have done wonders for promoting the spirit of inquiry.

DanBC 11y ago
(I enjoyed[1] mythbusters, and thought it was good.) But the way they had that big metal plate that they'd drop in slomo with a clang saying "BUSTED!" gave the impression that this was now FACT and TRUTH. For a fun tv show that's fine, but for science education (which is what a lot of people thought MB was) it's sub-optimal. [1] although I prefered the remixed versions where each item was run in a single block, rather than the broadcast version which flicked from item to item and back again, with many catchups and coming nexts.
- vacri 11y ago
  Apparently the ridiculous amount of catchups and re-updating is something the presenters don't like either, but their producer listens to the cuts in her car, and basically demands the catchups so she knows what the current cut is about.
- raverbashing 11y ago
  Well, depends on the context really (they also have a plausible category) So if they could find a counterexample to a myth it might get the 'busted' result (example: the Lead Balloon)
- joosters 11y ago
  Streamlined Mythbusters edits: https://www.reddit.com/r/smyths/ https://www.reddit.com/r/smyths/
gus_massa 11y ago
An important detail is that they don't show all the repetitions variations for time constrains. From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MythBusters https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MythBusters > Testing is often edited due to time constraints of a televised episode. It can often seem as if the teams draw results from fewer repetitions and a smaller data set than they actually have. During the Outtakes Special, they specifically stated that while they are, in fact, very thorough in testing myths and repeat experiments many times in many different configurations, it is simply impossible to display all of it during a program. Beginning in the fifth season, episodes typically contain a prompt for the viewer to visit the show's homepage to view outtake footage of either additional testing, or other facets of the myths being tested. However, Savage himself has acknowledged that they do not purport always to achieve a satisfactorily large enough set of results to overcome definitively all bias.

johncolanduoni 11y ago

While, I don't entirely disagree I think this is ultimately less important. It's not like someone is going to go straight from watching Mythbusters to writing journal articles. There's plenty of time to learn how real science is done, if you can get them to care in the first place. This reminds me of the common experience where people end up more enamored with a subject (and ultimately learn more about it) if the teacher who introduced them to it was more enthusiastic and effective, as opposed to more skilled in the subject at hand.

CrLf 11y ago

The problem is: that need for rigourous methods at all times is what drives people away from science. It sucks the fun out of it. Nothing has to be rigourous at all times. And certainly not on a TV show meant to entertain. And people are not stupid, they understand that their methods have flaws. In fact, that's one of the reasons the show is as effective as it is: people discuss both the methods and the results, which is an example of peer review.

protomyth 11y ago
But even for entertainment there is a breaking point. I stopped watching after their "Episode 56: Killer Whirlpools, Snowplow Flips Car". They tested the snow plow "myth" on a flat[1], dry[2,3] airport runway then claimed it "busted". Since I know its possible and lost a friend who got sucked over by a semi in winter driving. I lost all believability. 1) actual roads have a bigger curve to allow run off 2) dry asphalt has a different coefficient of friction than snow/ice cover roads 3) snow plows put out a heck of a lot of snow

andrewstuart 11y ago

I seem to recall they made it clear that they are not doing "science for pedants". They are doing "science for fun", to make it enjoyable and interesting and engaging, and they seem to have succeeded as suggested by the article. Needing it to be 100% rigorous science is missing the point. To meet your requirement they would need to submit a multi hundred page peer reviewed thesis with every assertion of "busted" or "plausible" or whatever. That would be super boring.

ourmandave 11y ago
Plus they're limited by a budget (who isn't?), their building skills, and the need to have at least one myth per episode end with a giant BOOM.
deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
- andrewstuart 11y ago
  You're raising a concern about the validity of their test setup, which presents your comment as being a curmudgeonly pedantic one. The test setup doesn't matter. It's for fun and entertainment.
  - deleted 11y ago
    [deleted]
paulsutter 11y ago
He never said they need to be 100% rigorous, he criticized their overconfident / absolutist conclusions. We all know why they mislabel the conclusions - because they prioritize "good tv" over accuracy. It's perfectly reasonable to be disappointed about that.
omginternets 11y ago
> they are not doing "science for pedants". They are doing "science for fun" False dichotomy, my friend! I see two underlying arguments, here: 1. It's disingenuous to claim (or take) credit as a science educator when you're doing piss-poor science. 2. They could easily do better without sacrificing entertainment value. It's entirely possible to both remain entertaining and better communicate scientific values. >To meet your requirement they would need to submit a multi hundred page peer reviewed thesis with every assertion of "busted" or "plausible" or whatever. That would be super boring. Holy strawman... The only thing that most of us asking for is a more nuanced analysis of results, by which I mean saying something like "we didn't disprove the myth, so it might actually be possible". Nobody is asking for a 50-page grant application.

cyorir 11y ago

I feel this is partly made up for by the way they would revisit certain myths if the fans felt they hadn't been tested properly - showing the importance of verification of results in science. A good example is the Archimedes Death Ray myth, which they tested in 3 different episodes. When they claimed a myth was "busted," that didn't mean the myth would not be tested again!