DU Scientists and Engineers: How does the methodology of the Mythbusters measure up?

[charlie and algernon]

I like watching The Mythbusters on the Discovery Channel, but am curious to how their methodology really measures up. If they were called in front of a scientific court of law to defend their experiments, would they hold up?

[TZ]

1. Meh

It's pop science as opposed to serious science.oh most of the points are valid but much of is done to more entertain than inform . They are much more interested in blowing things up than scientific validity and it works as entertainment. I would not recommend it for educational purposes

[LynzM]

7. You took my thoughts almost exactly.

Many times, they could prove or disprove whatever by looking at some basic science tenets and an undestanding of the function of things. But just explaining would not be nearly as entertaining as coming up with some hair-brained experiements. (Radio reception through tooth fillings comes to mind. Even if the filling *could* act as an antenna, you still have nothing in the way of a receiver to unscramble what you're getting, so you'd just hear static, if anything. Etc.)

Fun to watch, science isn't usually *wrong*, just entertainment for the sake of blowing things up.

[leftyclimber]

8. Another vote for "meh."

"It didn't work this way, so let's manipulate it to get what we want" is not good science.

OTOH, it's REALLY fun to watch. I wish I could blow my subjects up like that.

Wait. I'm a social scientist. What am I saying?!?!?!

:yoiks:

[TZ]

11. Yeah I couldn't put my finger on it exactly...

but thats what really bothers me is that when they get results they don't like they manipulate their experiments around....

[Xipe Totec]

2. Well, they touch all the bases

so, technically, it is science.

At least, the scientific method.

[NJmaverick]

3. They are reasonably accurate

although they really blew it when they did the tests involving fuel economy with and with out AC. The problem was their lack of depth of understanding, which lead to some serious errors. Still that's really the only glaring error I have seen.

[tangent90]

4. If we actually HAD a scientific court of law, the creationists would all be in jail.

We should lobby to get one.

[Lethe]

5. i would say it's fairly good for a cable show

give em a break.

at times they have pissed me off with some glaring oversights but overall i'd say it's ok

[PVnRT]

10. Adam wants to take on Creation on the show

In one interview, he says that's the myth he most wants to bust. So, for that, he gets mad props.

[sniffa]

6. They do good work

but they won't hold up in a "scientific court of law" no matter how right they are.

Some of the engineering they do is quite impressive though.

[PVnRT]

9. Insufficient number of trials

...and unless you can rigorously prove something impossible, it can't be busted. You can only fail to reject the null hypothesis (the null hypothesis being that something is a myth) at a certain level of confidence (which, with enough trials, can be very high, 99.99999% and up).

Furthermore, some of the measurement they use is iffy at best. They measure, say, force once and write it down, instead of repeating the measurement to make sure they didn't screw something up. Ask any scientist who has, say, forgotten to wipe off the balance before using it again, only to have a bizarre result later.

Anymore, it seems like it's all focused on blowing things up or shooting stuff. Yawn. I know that brings in ratings, but it gets boring after a while.

Their ability to build things from rough concepts is very impressive, and they do take all necessary safety precautions, which I like to see.