is it just me or does there need to be a myth buster for the myth buster show?

Question

it seems the way they test the "myths" are very non-scientific and non reproducable.

Answer 1

One thing about the show that doesn't come up much is that they actually test much more than we see. They've shown this in the DVD commentary and some special episodes.



This doesn't mean I agree with everything they've said. And sometimes logic seems lost on them. Some verdicts annoy me because I find they've missed an important element.



An example is the straw through a palm tree episode where, instead of using the tiny surface area of a single straw they sent down a bundle. Or that a rifle round that was set off by accident probably wouldn't really hurt because it didn't mark up a crash test dummy, though it made a hole in his pants. Or the infamous chicken cannon one.



To their credit, they do 'revisit' episodes now and then, and have changed their verdict after fans corrected them on their methods.



BTW: Confirmed/plausible myths include:



The chicken cannon (an accident involving using a frozen chicken in a bird-strike test for a train)

Gas cylinder rocket

Exploding water in a microwave

Certain submerging car myths

Exploding pants (partial confirmed, as the fertilizer caused pants to burn extremely quickly, not explode)

Rifle round used as a temporary headlight fuse going off and injuring driver.

Bullets fired into the air returning with lethal velocity (both busted and confirmed as they found that a bullet fired straight up is non-lethal, but at about 80 degrees or so it returns lethal.)

A shotgun (slug) can take out a lock

Weather balloon armchair flight.

Eyepatch nightvision (plausible due to no historic evidence they could find)

Steel-toed boots being safer than not



And I'm sure there are others, but I can't remember them.



The point is that it's a fun show overall. One of the hosts even let slip that it's in his contract to have at least one explosion per episode. The people, while well trained and very smart, aren't experts in all fields and the myths they test are urban legends that fans want to see.

Answer 2

Erica has it right. Most of the myths they work on are ones sent in by viewers. They have found many myths to be true, and have busted more. These guys DO use a scientific approach to everything they do and the reason why they can't be reproduced by you and I are because 1) We generally don't have the skills and knowledge to pull off the experiments, 2) We generally don't have the funds to pull off the experiments, 3) We are generally not crazy enough or don't care enough to try to pull off these often extremely dangerous experiments. The cast of Mythbusters are all experts in various fields, although Grant Imahara is the only one I know of with a Bachelor Degree (Electrical Engineering).



Not all scientific experiments are done in a lab.

Answer 3

okay, look, it's a TV show. they chose the "myths" based on what ther viewers will want to see. and the crew are actually pretty skilled - if you need proof of that, check out the episode where they try to build a personal hovering jetpack.



and yeah, the myths arent' meant to be repdroduced by us, they're supposed to make use of resources we'll never have to be entertaining. i mean really, there is no scientific reason to blow up a dummy with 40 sticks of dynamite, but it's fun! and they do still have their moments, like the jetpack or when they got on tape a guy shattering crystal with only his voice.



it's just fun to watch, don't take it too seriously.



and in response to a previous answer, they have found myths to be true before, including that sound will help your plants grow better.

Answer 4

You mean you think it's strange they never found a myth to be true?

If they have someone please let me know.



Or do you just not like the way they set up the weakest possible experiment (this is known in logic as the straw man fallacy) to put a myth to the test?



You mean they should try to show their results more than once like all good science experiments?



All that said the show has some value because it does show that there are ways to test things (even if they do it poorly) and experiment and science can be used to explore and examine commonly held beliefs.

However, real science tends to get lower TV ratings.



Michael John Weaver, M.S.

Answer 5

I'm so with you on that, there's nothing scientific about that show. So many of the so called "myths" they bust are just stuff they saw in a movie. Someone needs to tell them movies aren't real.



Plus the show was much better before those three jerk offs showed up.

Answer 6

I really don't like the myths that they try to bust.

"Today we're going to see if a person really could run across the surface of a lake if they ran very fast."

Answer 7

I just think Adam Savage is really funny. Besides, who has a cooler name than Adam Savage? I wish I had a cool name. My name's Gary. Ugh.

Answer 8

Yes, I agree. That show disappointed me. :(