Oops! Mythbusters did something wrong!

TheWriteAlex said:
I've seen a few episode. Something about lighting a gasoline trail with a cigarette, one about thermite cutting through a car, and I dunno, something else. In each episode I saw them make a lot of conclusions and observations that I just couldn't help but think, "Yeah, but what about if you accounted for . . ." and so on. I suppose if I watched more, I might find some experiments that I can approve of, but that sort of inconsistency doesn't appeal to me. I'm kinda surprised you watch this show.

One problem I with this show is how people will use it as scientific fact to refute arguments. How many times have you heard the line, "No, that's not true. Mythbusters proved that already"?
Click to expand...

Well, most of the myths are not technically complicated.....a lot of them are old wives' tales actually.

For example, a myth of Coke being used to clean off stuff or Hollywood "myths" like when one gets shot, the body recoils like 3 feet back as it occurs in the old movies.

So.... you can't really go wrong with those kind of things.

I don't watch it mainly for educational value, although it DID teach me some things. It's just fun to watch.
 
TheWriteAlex said:
They use no controls, no peer reviews, no duplications, etc. etc. All hallmarks of the scientific process.
Click to expand...

Somewhat true. I will say that they do use controls, though. A specific example that comes to mind is the Christmas tree experiment, where they used different things to see which tree would stay the greenest/lose the least amount of needles, and one of the trees they had was their control, which didn't get any extra help.

Cheetah said:
Did you know that the Mythbusters sometimes review their own experiments based on viewers feedback? And the fact that "real scientists" also review and even come to different conclusions is evidence that the show has real value.
Click to expand...

True.
 
Any idea if there is positive reinforcement in there? I do see it, know what I see it? That way, one would say, it is on mythbuster so it is not worth doing it again only to find out Mythbuster was right and send friends to hospital.

Good example, the other day I was talking with my friend and he said one way to cover alcohol breath when doing BAC test. How to hide it? Just eat peanut butter and it will cover up. I said nope, its already tested at mythbuster and it fails! That is one way to discourage people thinking it is ok to drink since can hide using this or that and drive.

The only part that I don't like hearing from you is calling them criminals. They are NOT criminal period.

TheWriteAlex said:
One problem I with this show is how people will use it as scientific fact to refute arguments. How many times have you heard the line, "No, that's not true. Mythbusters proved that already"?
Click to expand...
 
TheWriteAlex said:
I've seen a few episode. Something about lighting a gasoline trail with a cigarette, one about thermite cutting through a car, and I dunno, something else. In each episode I saw them make a lot of conclusions and observations that I just couldn't help but think, "Yeah, but what about if you accounted for . . ." and so on. I suppose if I watched more, I might find some experiments that I can approve of, but that sort of inconsistency doesn't appeal to me. I'm kinda surprised you watch this show.
Click to expand...

As for the bolded, I want to add that many people do this already, for every episode they do, people go "Noooooo!!! You didn't account for so and so. You is wrong, biyatch." They've actually done "part 2" episodes after getting notable viewer's responses to account for certain things that viewers' requested.

I am willing to bet that most of their mail, responses, etc are about proving them wrong rather than "Kudos to you!" type of thing.

Same thing for Marilyn Vos Savant, most people just want to stump her or prove her wrong.
 
diehardbiker said:
Any idea if there is positive reinforcement in there? I do see it, know what I see it? That way, one would say, it is on mythbuster so it is not worth doing it again only to find out Mythbuster was right and send friends to hospital.

Good example, the other day I was talking with my friend and he said one way to cover alcohol breath when doing BAC test. How to hide it? Just eat peanut butter and it will cover up. I said nope, its already tested at mythbuster and it fails! That is one way to discourage people thinking it is ok to drink since can hide using this or that and drive.
Click to expand...

Okay, that is a good example. But anyone with half a brain would know it doesn't work. :)

The only part that I don't like hearing from you is calling them criminals. They are NOT criminal period.
Click to expand...

There's a big difference between calling someone a criminal and saying they should be criminally prosecuted.
 
Daredevel7 said:
As for the bolded, I want to add that many people do this already, for every episode they do, people go "Noooooo!!! You didn't account for so and so. You is wrong, biyatch." They've actually done "part 2" episodes after getting notable viewer's responses to account for certain things that viewers' requested.

I am willing to bet that most of their mail, responses, etc are about proving them wrong rather than "Kudos to you!" type of thing.

Same thing for Marilyn Vos Savant, most people just want to stump her or prove her wrong.
Click to expand...

But that's what they invite. The very nature of the show is to disprove. So wouldn't it make sense that they're inviting more skepticism? They should be flattered. :)
 
You're all criminal for using Mythbuster as scientific fact to refute argument.

It's Wikipedia all over again.
 
diehardbiker said:
LOL there is no differences in there. I can't seem to see the difference. Not all experiments are entertainments. Even some scientist do experiment for their own entertainments.

For example, there are bunch of real scientist that did experiment on how to start the charcoal grill in no time. How? Using pure liquid Oxygen. Is it dangerous? Hell yes, and is it for fun too? Hell yes!
Click to expand...

Read book.
 
now refute this.

381967_2278297836797_1229303699_31974447_485790177_n.jpg
 
Daredevel7 said:
As for the bolded, I want to add that many people do this already, for every episode they do, people go "Noooooo!!! You didn't account for so and so. You is wrong, biyatch." They've actually done "part 2" episodes after getting notable viewer's responses to account for certain things that viewers' requested.

I am willing to bet that most of their mail, responses, etc are about proving them wrong rather than "Kudos to you!" type of thing.

Same thing for Marilyn Vos Savant, most people just want to stump her or prove her wrong.
Click to expand...

Just gotta say, Marilyn vos Savant is awesome. I used to read her column in the newspaper when I was growing up. i think I'll see if she's still writing her column and add it to my RSS reader.
 
Jiro said:
here's a difference - those people were in pursuit of scientific truth. Mythbuster is in pursuit of pure entertainment with lot of explosions and cute tits.
Click to expand...

Hey! I will have you know, I watch Mythbusters purely for the scientific value!!! :D
 
DeafBadger said:
Just gotta say, Marilyn vos Savant is awesome. I used to read her column in the newspaper when I was growing up. i think I'll see if she's still writing her column and add it to my RSS reader.
Click to expand...

You can go through Parade.

Ask Marilyn Quizzes, Puzzles, Photo Galleries and a Daily Blog from Marilyn vos Savant | Parade.com

Not sure about RSS reader though...

Wanted to add: That Monty Hall problem really threw me for a loop..... and this problem too:

http://www.parade.com/askmarilyn/2011/06/Sundays-Column-06-12-11.html
 
TheWriteAlex said:
Good for them. But it doesn't seem to stop them from going out and devising some other ridiculous junk science experiment for their next episode.

I mean, polishing a turd. Really?
Click to expand...

Ah Shoot! I missed that one!!! :mad:
 
Looks like we have a mythbusters party going on here! :popcorn:
 
Back
Top