Mythbusters

[Ruptga]

Mythbusters sets out to test urban legends etc, but they're also a TV show so they have to blow up a lot of stuff and show off Kari at least once in every episode. So the question is, are they scientific enough to be taken seriously, just entertainment, or some strange middleground like people seem to think Wikipedia is?

Myself, I take Wikipedia and Mythbusters with a grain of salt, but anymore I do that with everything so that's not saying much. I like reading Wikipedia and watching Mythbusters, and overall they seem pretty reliable, reliable meaning without conflicts of common-sense etc. (Obviously of Wikipedia there's more likely to be vandalism, but you can check out what was changed from the previous version(s) in case the page seems fishy).

edited because I forgot how to spell Kari

 

[hpkeeper]

I think they're scientific enough, thorough enough is questionable in my opinion.

 

[GagHalfrunt]

To be taken 100% seriously? Not even close. They're fairly good about following responsible scientific methods and do make an honest effort at duplicating the supposed circumstances of the myth. But they're also special-effects guys who are working with limited time and limited budgets. They don't have the ability to definitively prove or disprove anything. About the best they can do is to demonstrate that it could not have happened exactly like the myth. Very rarely are they able to demonstrate that it could not have happened at all under circumstances very close to the myth. And every now and then they drop the ball completely and don't even get in the ballpark.

When they say "confirmed" or "plausible" I believe it. If they're able to duplicate a myth given their lack of time and resources that says something. When they're unable to confirm a myth I take that with a giant grain of salt as maybe they just did the test wrong.

 

[waggy]

Originally posted by: GagHalfrunt
To be taken 100% seriously? Not even close. They're fairly good about following responsible scientific methods and do make an honest effort at duplicating the supposed circumstances of the myth. But they're also special-effects guys who are working with limited time and limited budgets. They don't have the ability to definitively prove or disprove anything. About the best they can do is to demonstrate that it could not have happened exactly like the myth. Very rarely are they able to demonstrate that it could not have happened at all under circumstances very close to the myth. And every now and then they drop the ball completely and don't even get in the ballpark.

i do not think they can even demonstrate that it could not happen like the myth.


its just fun to watch. nothing to be taken as fact at all.

 

[spidey07]

Originally posted by: GagHalfrunt
To be taken 100% seriously? Not even close. They're fairly good about following responsible scientific methods and do make an honest effort at duplicating the supposed circumstances of the myth. But they're also special-effects guys who are working with limited time and limited budgets. They don't have the ability to definitively prove or disprove anything. About the best they can do is to demonstrate that it could not have happened exactly like the myth. Very rarely are they able to demonstrate that it could not have happened at all under circumstances very close to the myth. And every now and then they drop the ball completely and don't even get in the ballpark.

couldn't agree more. They somewhat follow the method, but do it haphazzardly.

It's good entertainment. But their results and conclusions are BS.

 

[SonnyDaze]

They are entertainment for me. They have some good theories but I don't believe them for fact.

 

[Aftermath]

I wouldn't go so far as to call it BS, myself. There are plenty of myths that they test where it doesn't really matter if they had a whole team of experts and an unlimited budget.

Random example: A guy falling off of a bridge over water, throwing his hammer down in front of him to break the surface tension of the water so he makes a "soft" landing. You can have experts out there all day with umpteen trillion dollars at their disposal and all of the time in the world, and they probably can't really do a better job of proving that myth wrong than two cut ups with a crash test dummy and a big crane. Sure they might have gobs of scientific data where Jamie and Adam just have some Asian guy with a laptop, but the results are probably about the same. "Busting" the myth.

There are some tests that push the limitations of their capacity, intelligence, time, and budget though where they simply can't test ALL of the variables and do the tests a few hundred times to really chart their results, but I think those sorts of myths are generally few and far between.

They do a fantastic job with what they have to work with.

Edit: 1000 posts! Woohoo!

 

[Atheus]

Mythbusters is just footage of a couple of guys messing around in an awesome workshop. The myths themselves are unimportant - it's the hilarious stuff they build. It's just like Top Gear where the car reviews are secondary to the stunts and jokes.

 

[Queasy]

It really depends on the myth. Some of the myths are easy to bust. Especially the movie-based ones like using piano string to catch sharks or whether or not the General Lee really could have jumped a washed out bridge.

Others are more difficult like whether or not the Chinese could use large vases of water buried in the ground to detect enemy armies marching.

 

[50cent1228]

of course its mostly for intertainment

 

[iamaelephant]

I don't take the show seriously but it is a lot of fun to watch. I particularly like the end of each episode where they take the particular setup they were using and take it to the absolute extreme. Not scientific, but fun. And I don't think anyone with a sig like the OP has any right to comment on science.

 

[drum]

It is entertaining.
some things are harder to recreate than others.

 

[tfinch2]

Originally posted by: 50cent1228
of course its mostly for intertainment

The entertainment as well.

 

[Ruptga]

Originally posted by: iamaelephant
And I don't think anyone with a sig like the OP has any right to comment on science.

I'm more interested in everyone else's comments than in making my own.

Anyway, if we can't lightheartedly poke fun at things, well how boring would that be? Myself, judging from your current sig, I'm not extremely surprised at your reaction to my sig, unless you too are poking lighthearted fun at a well-known topic, in that case we're all good and can return to pondering, or at least arguing about Mythbusters.

 

[opticalmace]

i think that 70% of the time they are scientific enough to appease me.

other times i actually wish i could say "yeah but what about..._______?!" after they've made a "myth busted" decision.

either way i definitely enjoy it. nice to watch something partially scientific/educational.

 

[JLGatsby]

In most they are scientific enough, but on some they jump to conclusions just too quickly.

 

[Lonyo]

Originally posted by: Queasy
It really depends on the myth. Some of the myths are easy to bust. Especially the movie-based ones like using piano string to catch sharks or whether or not the General Lee really could have jumped a washed out bridge.

Others are more difficult like whether or not the Chinese could use large vases of water buried in the ground to detect enemy armies marching.

I watched a movie special thing, where they had ballistics gel busting through a window pane, and it wasn't right at all.
Their movie clips showed someone falling backwards, they used a ballistics gel torse and smashed it head first through a pane by throwing it down a bar.
The two situations aren't even close, yet the myth was apparently busted.

 

[Ruptga]

Originally posted by: opticalmace
i think that 70% of the time they are scientific enough to appease me.

other times i actually wish i could say "yeah but what about..._______?!" after they've made a "myth busted" decision.

either way i definitely enjoy it. nice to watch something partially scientific/educational.

Do they usually cover whatever it was when they revisit myths, or do they skimp on the revisited episodes?

 

[iamaelephant]

Originally posted by: ADDAvenger

Originally posted by: iamaelephant
And I don't think anyone with a sig like the OP has any right to comment on science.

I'm more interested in everyone else's comments than in making my own.

Anyway, if we can't lightheartedly poke fun at things, well how boring would that be? Myself, judging from your current sig, I'm not extremely surprised at your reaction to my sig, unless you too are poking lighthearted fun at a well-known topic, in that case we're all good and can return to pondering, or at least arguing about Mythbusters.

Despite the tone, there is nothing light-hearted about my sig.

 

[sandorski]

Been awhile since I watched them, but they are entertaining. Sometimes I've watched an episode and wondered why they didn't do a certain thing, but overall they seem decently thorough. They also do seem to declare their conclusions a little too quickly sometimes.

 

[imported_griffis]

I love these guys, not %100 factual but I think they do a good job trying to recreate the myths and sticking to the scientific method

 

[grrl]

Originally posted by: iamaelephant
I don't think anyone with a sig like the OP has any right to comment on science.

LOL

I think many of their conclusions are less than definitive, but on some simpler myths I think their results are pretty sound.

I remember shaking my head at the one where they tried to reproduce a harmonic to see if marching soldiers could destroy a bridge. There are just too many variables involved to definitively prove or disprove that one.

 

[91TTZ]

Of course they're not going to be 100% accurate and scientific, but I do think that they're scientific enough to educate the public. Seeing what most people believe just amazes me. These guys can teach those people something.

 

[Eeezee]

I remember the steam cannon episode where they basically tried to grease up a tennisball to shoot it out of a steam cannon. The tennis ball exploded. Technically they should have used a large rock or something that would not be destroyed so easily.

Just an example of one of their tests not being done completely correct. I believe they're primarily entertainment because it's a lot of fun watching them actually conduct their experiments.

 

[opticalmace]

Originally posted by: ADDAvenger

Originally posted by: opticalmace
i think that 70% of the time they are scientific enough to appease me.

other times i actually wish i could say "yeah but what about..._______?!" after they've made a "myth busted" decision.

either way i definitely enjoy it. nice to watch something partially scientific/educational.

Do they usually cover whatever it was when they revisit myths, or do they skimp on the revisited episodes?

unfortunately i don't watch enough to answer your question. i suspect they try to answer a few of the more-debated topics, but not all. i'm sure every experiment they've done has been debated by someone.