Mythbusters

[shinobi dog]

Do watch this show or do you do not watch it anymore

I still watch it.It's a great show .The show can show you about somethings like can rock pops with cola explode your stomach?.

[MomijiTMO]

Explosions are good but sometimes I find the show unbearable.

[Manhattan_Project_2000]

The show is uninformative. The experiments are usually extremely biased, and sometimes completely insane in methodology. Oh, and nether one of the hosts is actually a scientist (I don't mean that in the "degree in science" way, I mean that they do not think like scientists, and ergo are not).

[Indeliable]

I've heard of the show and I watch it sometimes. It's interesting, but I would care if I missed it for a few weeks. So basically I like it, but it's not one of my favorites.

[Beast]

I've seen it once or twice, I usually don't watch TV anymore though.

[Ichiro Matsuchani]

The show is pretty much just TV entertainment, since it's informative value is fairly low. I find the show interest at times when they are blowing stuff up, but boring when they're doing anything else.

[Sagumi Chan]

i personally like it, only because i've met those dudes. they're insane, really.



i miss san francisco .-.

[threekings]

Show is alright but I'm always into anime ^ ^

[Sailor Lunar Eclipse]

I watch it when my brother in law is here, and enjoy him correcting it, but other than that I find it very dry.

[Psychicmind]

I watch it sometimes. Though, there are some methods that I don't agree with. Like the episode where they try to bust the myth that you can't folder a paper more than seven times. They had to use a steamroller with a paper that was the size of an airplane hanger, I believe.

[Rageling]

I watch it sometimes when I get bored and it's kind of entertaining. I like it but it's not one of my favorites.

[(_YvOnSo_)]

i personally like it, only because i've met those dudes. they're insane, really.



i miss san francisco .-.

Wait, u met them, thats pretty kool.

[Darthanime]

I have to admit I love it as one of my favorites. I love knowledge and they have some good information. I prefer documentaries though.

[The_Mother]

It is a COOL show... the hosts are funny and the experiments are crazy...
said in short it is a great show and i watch it as often as possible

[wolfgirl90]

I find it interesting to watch. For some of the experiments (like the one where they test if you can escape gunfire by going underwater) I understand and believe. However, some (like using your cell phone at the gas station) I cannot really say whether I believe them or not (I am not about to use my cell phone at a gas station to prove them wrong).

I have seen every episode more than once (actually, sometimes the show's frequency can get on my nerves) and I base my signature off the show.

[Eris]

The show is uninformative. The experiments are usually extremely biased, and sometimes completely insane in methodology. Oh, and nether one of the hosts is actually a scientist (I don't mean that in the "degree in science" way, I mean that they do not think like scientists, and ergo are not).

Their methodology is to build an experiment a bit haphazardly based on wild assumptions, run it once, and then make audacious deductions from it.

Scientifically, you would first do the theory, then make the experiment as resistant as possible to external variations, and then run the experiment many times to account for random variance. When you've done that, you interpret the result, trying to prove as little as possible (using the principle called "Occam's Razor" to "shave off" unwarranted deductions.)

Naturally, it's possible that they do some of these things behind the scenes and don't film them, but that's also bad. It gives people a false impression of what science is all about.

[Opinionated]

The Mythbuster way generally involves running a myth with different variables in real-world conditions, and if those fail, then to run it in ideal, happens-here-or-doesn't-happen-at-all conditions.

This isn't for a scientific publication. Mythbusters is about busting 'myths.' They don't go to provide a large sheet of results, they just want to know if it's busted, plausible, or confirmed.

And besides, how are you going to apply the scientific method to ways of outrunning alligators?

[Eris]

The Mythbuster way generally involves running a myth with different variables in real-world conditions, and if those fail, then to run it in ideal, happens-here-or-doesn't-happen-at-all conditions.

But that is not a scientific approach! They still only run the test once, when they should run it maybe 25 or 50 times to get any sort of accuracy. And their happens-here-or-doesn't-happen-at-all experiments are generally dubious at best.

For an example, in one episode they "disproved" the myth of urinating on the third rail. They made assumptions about the pressure, and assumed all urine has the same resistive qualities based on one measurement of one particular batch of urine. They omitted air humidity, air speed, and several other variables.

What they should have done was to vary every variable, current, voltage, liquid salinity, initial angle, pressure, beam thickness, height of beam source, air humidity, wind speed, and so forth, and made several measurements per variation, to see if there is a range where electricity does conduct along a beam of urine, and then to see if there is an overlap of realistic conditions and this range. Overall, they should have made maybe 50-60, perhaps even up to 100 measurements in this experiment.

Science is a slow, time consuming process that makes terrible television.

This isn't for a scientific publication. Mythbusters is about busting 'myths.' They don't go to provide a large sheet of results, they just want to know if it's busted, plausible, or confirmed.

Then they shouldn't be flaunting "all in the name of science" four times per episode.

[Ichiro Matsuchani]

Their methodology is to build an experiment a bit haphazardly based on wild assumptions, run it once, and then make audacious deductions from it.

I would agree with you, but since it was just one a second ago, and I'd have to say that you're wrong at one point. It was a myth about getting out of a car underwater, or something like that. They ran different scenarios of that about 10 times before they made a conclusion. Yes, I know that's scientifically incorrect, but at least they didn't just run it once.

[Eris]

I would agree with you, but since it was just one a second ago, and I'd have to say that you're wrong at one point. It was a myth about getting out of a car underwater, or something like that. They ran different scenarios of that about 10 times before they made a conclusion. Yes, I know that's scientifically incorrect, but at least they didn't just run it once.

They've gotten better at that part lately, but they still generally run too few experiments, and they still draw too large conclusions off them.

[spleeee!]

i watch it whenever somebody else watches it and im in the same room

[Ichiro Matsuchani]

They've gotten better at that part lately, but they still generally run too few experiments, and they still draw too large conclusions off them.

Precisely the reason that I can't really stand watching it. Expecially when some of the conclusions that they come up with have already been proven false elsewhere.

[Manhattan_Project_2000]

They should give the show to Bill Nye. Bill Nye is awesome, and actually has a degree in engineering. He has also done a decent job of disseminating science to the plebs. And, since Battlebots, he hasn’t done anything, so it’s not like there are any scheduling conflicts.

[storm sworder]

They've gotten better at that part lately, but they still generally run too few experiments, and they still draw too large conclusions off them.

Yeah, you're right. However, some myths only need to be busted once. Like the one where the three busters tried to cut a reinforced steel gun with a katana attached to a metal thing The myth was if a person can do it. Obviously not.

[Eris]

Yeah, you're right. However, some myths only need to be busted once. Like the one where the three busters tried to cut a reinforced steel gun with a katana attached to a metal thing The myth was if a person can do it. Obviously not.

It's still not valid if you only try once. In these "obvious" cases, intuition tells you it's obvious. But intuition isn't proof. You still need to conduct proper tests to prove it.