Mythbusters

[Grant Lamontagne]

They used to do all these types of experiments in the desert- I wonder if they were moved to the FBI bomb range so that they could have a more official eye kept on them?

Def

[duckman1975]

It's better they move to a more isolated place for a bigger, better and crazier experiments........ Now where do they keep their stash of depleted uranium

[turnsouth]

They used to do all these types of experiments in the desert- I wonder if they were moved to the FBI bomb range so that they could have a more official eye kept on them?

Def

I think it was to add something to the show, a sort of "coolness" if you will.
"Hey did you see Mythbusters? They were blowing crap up with the FBI!"

[Mercury]

They used to do all these types of experiments in the desert- I wonder if they were moved to the FBI bomb range so that they could have a more official eye kept on them?

Def

I think it was to add something to the show, a sort of "coolness" if you will.
"Hey did you see Mythbusters? They were blowing crap up with the FBI!"

That's probably not far off.  The majority of the US is snowed by thin promotions.  Heck, look at Ghost hunters and what it's turned into, or Idol or Dancing with the stars.  People care more about the "I can't believe it" factor than the content. 

[Heinz Doofenshmirtz]

They used to do all these types of experiments in the desert- I wonder if they were moved to the FBI bomb range so that they could have a more official eye kept on them?

Def

I think it was to add something to the show, a sort of "coolness" if you will.
"Hey did you see Mythbusters? They were blowing crap up with the FBI!"

That's probably not far off.  The majority of the US is snowed by thin promotions.  Heck, look at Ghost hunters and what it's turned into, or Idol or Dancing with the stars.  People care more about the "I can't believe it" factor than the content.

Unfortunately, most of what passes for entertainment these days is seeing other people being humiliated in some way.

[turnsouth]

Unfortunately, most of what passes for entertainment these days is seeing other people being humiliated in some way.

That's why I like Tyrone Biggums:

[Mercury]

They used to do all these types of experiments in the desert- I wonder if they were moved to the FBI bomb range so that they could have a more official eye kept on them?

Def

I think it was to add something to the show, a sort of "coolness" if you will.
"Hey did you see Mythbusters? They were blowing crap up with the FBI!"

That's probably not far off.  The majority of the US is snowed by thin promotions.  Heck, look at Ghost hunters and what it's turned into, or Idol or Dancing with the stars.  People care more about the "I can't believe it" factor than the content.

Unfortunately, most of what passes for entertainment these days is seeing other people being humiliated in some way.

Yep, the more outrageous and confrontational a comment is, the more people want to see it.  That and TV shows are capitalizing on the fact that they can fill an hour with mostly "suspenseful" waiting periods and then go to commercial before revealing the shocking conclusion.

[Grant Lamontagne]

I recorded this episode last night and I'm watching it now.  They made no attempt to hide it or try to downplay the incident.

You have to respect them for owning the bad stuff.

Def

Sent from a digital multitool

[Lynn LeFey]

I love the Mythbusters. I think they've done more to introduce kids to the scientific method than any other humans in recent history. Maybe with Bill Nye as an exception.

They do it in a pretty entertaining way, and I'm sure they learn from their mistakes, and WILL learn from this one.

I bet, along with this, they'll ALSO never stuff 2 dead pigs into a car and seal it inside a cargo container for a month ever again. 

[Grant Lamontagne]

They did learn and they said flat out that they are no longer using the bomb range for this kind of thing ever again.

Def

Sent from a digital multitool

[Landrew]

One of the best shows on television I believe. My favorite is the "marooned on a desert island with only duct tape" special episode.


Without a doubt, our society suffers a bit from believing in false myths, and these guys do a great job in busting them. Very entertainingly as well in most cases.


Once in awhile, they run afoul of the scientific method in my opinion, and what that usually that means is: "bias is bad."  As I recall, they wanted to test whether plants responded to human intention.  As I recall, they invalidated the test due to getting a positive result; this is unscientific.  At the very least, they should have either had a laugh about not being able to bust the "myth" or leave it open for real scientists to pursue.  As it is, I think they were biased by being afraid of being ridiculed, but science is science, after all, and they shouldn't have jimmied the results.

[Heinz Doofenshmirtz]

One of the best shows on television I believe. My favorite is the "marooned on a desert island with only duct tape" special episode.


Without a doubt, our society suffers a bit from believing in false myths, and these guys do a great job in busting them. Very entertainingly as well in most cases.


Once in awhile, they run afoul of the scientific method in my opinion, and what that usually that means is: "bias is bad."  As I recall, they wanted to test whether plants responded to human intention.  As I recall, they invalidated the test due to getting a positive result; this is unscientific.  At the very least, they should have either had a laugh about not being able to bust the "myth" or leave it open for real scientists to pursue.  As it is, I think they were biased by being afraid of being ridiculed, but science is science, after all, and they shouldn't have jimmied the results.

As a trained scientist, and a professor who has taught scientific research methods classes for a number of years now, I can say that for the most part they do a pretty good job with being scientific, but there's definitely more to it than just "writing down what you do" as Adam says.  There's controlling conditions, systematic manipulation, operationalization of independent and dependent variables, and so on.  Just writing down what you do doesn't make something scientific, or mean you're using valid scientific methodology.  I think that's where they tend to go wrong.

Some of the things they try to do are definitely out of their league, and the talking to plants one was definitely one of them.  They do consult real scientific experts when they think they need to though, but there's the rub; figuring out when they "need" to...

[Landrew]

One of the best shows on television I believe. My favorite is the "marooned on a desert island with only duct tape" special episode.


Without a doubt, our society suffers a bit from believing in false myths, and these guys do a great job in busting them. Very entertainingly as well in most cases.


Once in awhile, they run afoul of the scientific method in my opinion, and what that usually that means is: "bias is bad."  As I recall, they wanted to test whether plants responded to human intention.  As I recall, they invalidated the test due to getting a positive result; this is unscientific.  At the very least, they should have either had a laugh about not being able to bust the "myth" or leave it open for real scientists to pursue.  As it is, I think they were biased by being afraid of being ridiculed, but science is science, after all, and they shouldn't have jimmied the results.

As a trained scientist, and a professor who has taught scientific research methods classes for a number of years now, I can say that for the most part they do a pretty good job with being scientific, but there's definitely more to it than just "writing down what you do" as Adam says.  There's controlling conditions, systematic manipulation, operationalization of independent and dependent variables, and so on.  Just writing down what you do doesn't make something scientific, or mean you're using valid scientific methodology.  I think that's where they tend to go wrong.

Some of the things they try to do are definitely out of their league, and the talking to plants one was definitely one of them.  They do consult real scientific experts when they think they need to though, but there's the rub; figuring out when they "need" to...

It is reality TV after all, and if they did everything right, they'd be the odd ducks out of place.

[Heinz Doofenshmirtz]

It is reality TV after all, and if they did everything right, they'd be the odd ducks out of place.

True enough...  In the sciences we have to deal with what's usually called "the file drawer effect".  That is, when an experiment doesn't go as planned, not that it gives you contradictory results, but rather that the results just don't make sense, the report tends to get filed away and doesn't get published.  This is because the editorial process by which articles are reviewed when submitted to a journal is fairly rigorous, and selects for results that can be fit within the dominant metatheoretical paradigm of that discipline.  Imagine a physicist trying to publish a paper in a journal when his results couldn't be contexted and explained within the the framework of General Relativity, etc. 

The result is, a lot of research results that don't fit into the larger theoretical view tend to be ignored, if not actively suppressed.  It's only when such results accumulate to a point where they can no longer be ignored are they dealt with by the community of practitioners in that science.  The result is usually that a new theory has to be derived to account for those anomalous results to incorporate them into the larger body of that science.  In severe cases, this causes a metaphysical crisis in that science, where the dominant theoretical paradigm is no longer considered reliable and a new one must be formulated.  Examples of this in history are seen when John Dalton transformed alchemy into chemistry, and when Einstein transformed physics from the old Newtonian perspective by proposing Relativity. 

A really excellent treatment of this process in the sciences is covered in the book The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, by the late Thomas S. Kuhn.  It's very accessable, even to those without an advanced science background, and is a real eye opener as to how progress in the sciences actually works.  Another excellent book about the process of science and how it works is by Bruno LaTour, in Science In Action; also an excellent read.

[Landrew]

It is reality TV after all, and if they did everything right, they'd be the odd ducks out of place.

True enough...  In the sciences we have to deal with what's usually called "the file drawer effect".  That is, when an experiment doesn't go as planned, not that it gives you contradictory results, but rather that the results just don't make sense, the report tends to get filed away and doesn't get published.  This is because the editorial process by which articles are reviewed when submitted to a journal is fairly rigorous, and selects for results that can be fit within the dominant metatheoretical paradigm of that discipline.  Imagine a physicist trying to publish a paper in a journal when his results couldn't be contexted and explained within the the framework of General Relativity, etc. 

The result is, a lot of research results that don't fit into the larger theoretical view tend to be ignored, if not actively suppressed.  It's only when such results accumulate to a point where they can no longer be ignored are they dealt with by the community of practitioners in that science.  The result is usually that a new theory has to be derived to account for those anomalous results to incorporate them into the larger body of that science.  In severe cases, this causes a metaphysical crisis in that science, where the dominant theoretical paradigm is no longer considered reliable and a new one must be formulated.  Examples of this in history are seen when John Dalton transformed alchemy into chemistry, and when Einstein transformed physics from the old Newtonian perspective by proposing Relativity. 

A really excellent treatment of this process in the sciences is covered in the book The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, by the late Thomas S. Kuhn.  It's very accessable, even to those without an advanced science background, and is a real eye opener as to how progress in the sciences actually works.  Another excellent book about the process of science and how it works is by Bruno LaTour, in Science In Action; also an excellent read.

Einstein is a great example of breakthrough science. I think it's doubtful that if today, an amateur such as a patent clerk tried to publish such revolutionary ideas, he would have been taken seriously at all, and probably quite soundly ridiculed and dismissed.  Fortunate for Einstein, he had contact with some brilliant established scientists at the time, who took his ideas forward.  Also fortunate for him, science had not yet learned to devour its own young, stifling any hint of the growth of truly creative thinking, wherever possible.  Unfortunately today, we seem to have more scientists behaving badly, incorrectly confusing ridicule with falsification, and using funding as a tool of control.

[Lynn LeFey]

Also fortunate for him, science had not yet learned to devour its own young, stifling any hint of the growth of truly creative thinking, wherever possible.  Unfortunately today, we seem to have more scientists behaving badly, incorrectly confusing ridicule with falsification, and using funding as a tool of control.

Ah, the MANTRA of pseudoscience.

[Landrew]

Also fortunate for him, science had not yet learned to devour its own young, stifling any hint of the growth of truly creative thinking, wherever possible.  Unfortunately today, we seem to have more scientists behaving badly, incorrectly confusing ridicule with falsification, and using funding as a tool of control.

Ah, the MANTRA of pseudoscience.

Unfortunately, there seem to be two different methodologies for defining pseudoscience;


1) Purported "science" which has been falsified through proper use of the Scientific Method.


2) Purported "science" which has been dismissed without proper use of the Scientific Method.

[Heinz Doofenshmirtz]

Einstein is a great example of breakthrough science. I think it's doubtful that if today, an amateur such as a patent clerk tried to publish such revolutionary ideas, he would have been taken seriously at all, and probably quite soundly ridiculed and dismissed.  Fortunate for Einstein, he had contact with some brilliant established scientists at the time, who took his ideas forward.  Also fortunate for him, science had not yet learned to devour its own young, stifling any hint of the growth of truly creative thinking, wherever possible.  Unfortunately today, we seem to have more scientists behaving badly, incorrectly confusing ridicule with falsification, and using funding as a tool of control.

I think this is very true... particularly in the physical sciences these days.

In some ways, I'm fortunate, because my field is psychology, and more specifically cognitive / perceptual psychology.  Now days, it's moving increasingly toward the biological sciences, particularly neuroscience.  We've benefited tremendously from the cross breeding of cognitive and perceptual psychology with neuroscience, but in general, my specialization in particular (perception and psychophysics) has long been ridiculed by people in the physical sciences as being 'not real science'.  I call myself fortunate because since psychology grew directly out of philosophy in many ways, I have an extensive philosophy background, and have learned a lot about the logic and philosophy of the scientific method as a whole, not limited by the perspective of a single scientific discipline.

It's unfortunate, because that attitude shows just how little even trained scientists know about the scientific method and process, and how it works.  They have the mistake belief that even the "hard" forms of psychology, such as perception and psychophysics "aren't real science".  Doing science doesn't depend on what you're studying, but how you're studying it.  The only difference is the level of difficulty in establishing controlled conditions and operationalizing independent and dependent variables. 

When I teach research methods, either as part of other courses or the stand alone research methods courses that are required of all psychology majors in any college or university, on the first day of class, I always ask students if they get teased by friends who are physical sciences majors about psych not being a "real" science.  I tell them to tease those friends back, that they're the ones who are being intellectual pansies, because purely physical phenomena are a LOT easier to study than biological, perceptual, or social phenomena, because quantifying those phenomena is a walk in the park compared to doing something like quantifying a perceptual response to differences in brightness intensity, changes in chromaticity, and so on that we deal with every day in perceptual psychology.