Sometimes when I watch Mythbusters, I feel as though they're going about solving a myth the wrong way. How do you feel?
Poll: Do you like Mythbuster methods?
- Thread starter sonicmaster1989
- Start date
Recommended Videos
Everything has SOME issues because everybody thinks in a different way so they may not notice things others will. However, they do usually prove or disprove the myths fairly well.
Most myths take between a week and a few months to film. I'm not saying they have proper scientific rigor, but the only show a small part of the tests they do the air.
For instance, there's and important test that obvious has an margin of error, you're shocked to see they only perform the test once, but really they've done it again and again for hours, they only show the shot when something interesting happens.
For instance, there's and important test that obvious has an margin of error, you're shocked to see they only perform the test once, but really they've done it again and again for hours, they only show the shot when something interesting happens.
I think their method is about as scientific as can be expected. They do, however, admit that they can overlook things by having the occasional myth revisited episode. On the mass they are great. I particularly like their use of extreme exaggeration of the cause to produce the supposed effect. (If one lighter in a deserted car won't produce a disastrous explosion, could 1,000 lighter?)
They do good work, but they could afford to lose the sidekicks.
They do good work, but they could afford to lose the sidekicks.
they do a good job of things, tho there is always room for improvement. i do like how they try the fan site myths and stuff the fans said they did wrong, tho sometimes the fans themselves are wrong about the methodology
One thing I didn't like is a general decrease in quality ever since the build team became co-stars. They used to all have interesting, human-if-slightly-hammed-up personalities. It seems like now the directors are having them fit into mear charactitures of their actual personalities. I swear if I hear tori yell like a frat boy after one more experiment I'll put a fist through my TV.
I love the show, but obviously they lack rigorous examination. Also, usually they miscalculate the variables involved. They're just kinda winging it. But that's what I like about the show! Their methods are flawed from a strictly scientific point of view, but protip: strict scientific experimentation and methodology does not good television make.
That's not what I meant. I'll answer your response with an example. Remember the "Hit the Ground Running" myth? Either way, there are many ways to test that myth. The one that Grant, Torri and Carrie chose was to use a zipline and try running before they hit the ground. I just thought there had to be an easier way to test that myth. Jamie and Adam usually have a good way of doing things and I have nothing against the show itself. It's just their methods.Doug said:I shall answer this with a XKCD comic:sonicmaster1989 said:
I can usually see flaws in their methods, but that's to be expected. It's cool, it's not 100% scientific, it's 'popular science' but at least it values the core of science: experiment, and try to falsify your hypothesis. And I love them for that.
And explosions, yeah, well...duh?
And explosions, yeah, well...duh?
I enjoy it, as mentioned, mostly for the quality that they get people thinking about doing science. Sure they ignore lots of actual method, but then again, I'm not a scientist, so explosions and a halfway proved theory are fine for me.
Seems that most of the issues they state as they're testing the myth. Still it's unavoidable in some cases to have small issues. I still think they do a very good job.
They don't do everything perfect, but they get the general concept, besides they are entertainers, not solid scientists. All they need is the basic idea to work with and it is vaild enough to make or break the theory.
Also I am a big fan and find it one of the best shows on TV, as they explore some scientific material rather than the stupid teen soap idea.
Also I am a big fan and find it one of the best shows on TV, as they explore some scientific material rather than the stupid teen soap idea.
They might not test myths under true laboratory cicumstances, but usually they do it pretty well. They also listen to criticism and even revisit myths if a lot of people don't agree with their methods.
Oh, great to hear I'm not the only one to think that!vivaldiscool said:
I've always loved Mythbusters, but lately they have become more... commercial or something like you said.
Before, they started drawing the different parts of the myth on some blue paper... Now they always start by having them explain it to each other. And it's really getting on my nerves!
It does not seem random like before but set-up... A shame.
Still, I think they're great and generally do a good job. At least way better than all the other shows like Crash Test and Brainic ; d
I usualy agree with how they do things except for the one about the steel toe shoes. They do the weight dropping with an artificial foot with real bones to see if it would cut off the toes and all, ok I agree with that, but then they randomly decide to replace it with like silly putty or some shit. The steel toe one barely changes while the normal shoe gets flattened, WHO COULD OF SEEN THAT COMING?