draco, the one that stands out the most (at the moment) was the chicken cannon and cockpit windows, iirc, it took them 3 tries (first episode and 2 revisits) to figure out what they were doing wrong and come up with the correct result and conclusion. When you repeat the same mistakes, each time you'll get the same wrong results.
I always make my comments positive and constructive; being a "critic" doesn't have to mean bashing something or someone. Just some thoughts on the subject...... JON
typical_is_back, ask draco what HER definition of "REAL" science is (page 1), since it was his post I was replying to. As for what I mean, it's a methodology of applying a set of practices, princpals and standards that are acknowledged by the scientific and or engineering community at large, when conducting reasearch or experiments. These standards include looking at ALL facets of a problem, not just the flashy ones on the surface. This is something which the mythbusters do NOT do.
This message has been edited. Last edited by: arcmaster2010,
I agree that the MB may not look at all the factors. But then again you really can never look at all the factors, especially in a show like this. You can try but you will not always succeed. That is why this board exists, Although ideas are better recieved if done in a professional manner. That is my issue with most of the posters on this board.
draco is a she?? indeed, then my appologies. As for my earlier post, I understand that there may not be time enough to catch ALL of the details, but they should at least catch the major ones!
I can agree with that. But hindsight is always 20/20. Now I have a theory as to why they sometimes miss things that are obvious to some people (I am not a scientist, I just have a somewhat scientific mind or so I like to think). Controversy breeds interest. So if they miss things people will get involved through the message boards and via email. They then revisit a myth and use some of the ideas they see here. The viewers then see what they think is their ideas being used and feel intimately involved in the inner workings of the show. They then tell more people about it because they feel special. These people then tune in and watch. Thus boosting ratings.
Yes, Draco is a female, and a practicing biologist in a medical lab. So, I am very familiar with the scientific methods. I am also familiar with something called 'Human Error'. From what I have observed on the show the majority of time they do a very good job covering the basics. It is rarer that something truly result changing enters the equation that is stated upon this board. A lot of the criticism is off base and inconsequential... often the poster has ignored statements made on the show concerning steps taken off camera <i.e calibrations> or the actual wording of the myth being put to the test.
Now arcmaster, concerning flashy surface details. Statistically one myth that had to be revisted twice compared to the amount of myths they've tested is insignificant. Unless in fact there are more, but I am not the one defaming their methods. If there is more than just one with 'fan-based' corrections that worked that would make a difference. One 'myth-take' is not worth burning at the stake.
typical, actually, you've hit the nail on the head! As far as I can tell, no one on the show is an engineer except for Grant, and he's a EE. When the show's website says that "they use modern-day science" when infact they don't have anyone on staff that qulifies as an engineer or scientist, and their major blunders are mechanical and physics.
A scientist is an expert in at least one area of science who uses the scientific method to do research. Yes they are SE artists, but SE is a science in itself. So you could call then scientists.
But even experts make mistakes. We just don’t see them all the time. Because mistakes are not always published with accomplishments.
Research, a big chunk of the medical field, is more about failing and learning why the goal was not achieved. Yes, SE require a lot of science behind them. Once more, I state that the Mythbuster Crew is doing a great job in a highly visible medium. The bulk of the criticism they receive is uncalled for.
[quote]I state that the Mythbuster Crew is doing a great job in a highly visible medium. The bulk of the criticism they receive is uncalled for.[/quote] That I agree with.
[quote][quote]I state that the Mythbuster Crew is doing a great job in a highly visible medium. The bulk of the criticism they receive is uncalled for.[/quote] That I agree with.[quote]I also agree with that too!
typical, actually Special Effects (as defined by the labor unions in Hollywood) is a craft, not a science. I will grant you that the Mythbusters as a team, are great at creating "Rub Goldberg" contraptions as are many of the special effects people I've known and worked with over the years are, as for getting it right the first time…
Draco you're a biologist, I'm a mechanical engineer, I work building large and complex antenna systems, it’s my job to get it right the first time, otherwise people could be seriously hurt or worse.
If our company had engineers who did the kind of engineering and designs like they do, they wouldn't be working for us, as we cannot afford to have anyone who misses the kinds of details as Jamie and Adam do. I will put forth the observation that there is a level at which the Mythbusters seem to operate where they are pretty competent, it’s when they exceed that threshold that they falter.
As for the number of revisits vrs change of result, the chicken cannon is the first one that came to mind when you asked, but to give you an exact count, no, I can't. Now I’ll put it to you, how many “Revisit” shows have they done, and why have they done them? I know it’s a lot more than just one or two. I’ve watched a number of them, and as I said before, if you keep making the same mistakes over and over (like the MB’s often do) you’ll reach the same wrong conclusions. As for the number of “revisits” they SHOULD do, I can’t even begin to count!
As for positive comments, here’s mine, as often as Jamie and Adam have been wrong, they have also been right, and when the are (right) I have supported their conclusions. I agree with you that there are a lot of posters in these forums who are WAY off the mark, however there are many more who are not.
Guess what arcmaster: if a biologist in the medical field is wrong, people die. But I am in the research area, where we test procedures pre-patient treatment and constantly learn from attempts to succeed in our goals.
As far as Revisits a simple click on the Episode guide and a flip through reveals: Episode 14: Myths Revisited, Episode 38: MythBusters Revisited, Episode 51: Myths Revisited, Episode 64: More Myths Revisited, Episode 75: More Myths Revisited. Unless I missed one in my research here, that's five episodes out of 78 to date. And off the top of my head the majority of the revisits in those episodes that employed the tactics suggested upon this board by the fans did not alter the outcome with any significance. You're the one stating they have messed up so badly, more than one 'myth-take' is needed to support that charge as any true scientist who understands statistics would know. The burden of proof returns to your court.
[quote] Guess what arcmaster: if a biologist in the medical field is wrong, people die. But I am in the research area, where we test procedures pre-patient treatment and constantly learn from attempts to succeed in our goals. [quote]
However I will say that you DO have the luxury of “trial and error” before a treatment ever goes before the FDA, where as what I build has to work (and work correctly) the first time out.
As I said before, the Mythbusters are pretty good to a certain point, its when they go PAST that point they run into problems, and it’s those that I’m referring to. Also, (again as I said) a lot of the people on the forums are off in left field, as are they’re suggestions. Even if you revisit a “myth” doing it wrong a second time (with a different method) gets you the same wrong conclusion.
Here as a few that they (MB) missed the mark on that have NOT been revisited
Break Step Bridge Bifurcated Boat Tesla’s Earthquake Machine Voice Flame Fire Extinguisher Hindenburg Mystery Pirate Cannon and Splinters Killer Cable Snap Shattered Sub-Woofer (car) Walking on Water Catching an Arrow with your Hand Sound on Pottery Concrete Glider
Each one of these had numerous engineering flaws, which led to incorrect conclusions (both confirmed and busted).
I am pretty good at what I do. But I still make mistakes, unfortunately I do not have the option of "trial and error". Everyone makes mistakes. I am sure that you have made many previous errors. But they did not come to light because a peer caught it.
[quote]Here as a few that they (MB) missed the mark on that have NOT been revisited[/quote]
I disagree. I have seen the arguments for and against. I am still unconvinced that they did anything wrong with what they were allowed to work with (minus maybe the Sub-Woofer).
typical, actually your incorrect, if I have ANY doubts about a design or problem you bet I'll ask for input, and yes I've made my errors. The issue I have as I've said, is that it's a matter of scale, past a certain point the MBs have serious problems. As for the myths I listed, I stand by my contentions.
As is your right, I just do not agree with it (for the most part). To date I have not seen any data to support the claim of errors. But I am sure we will see a few revisits. As for the mistakes made in the past, I have to believe that they were not an over site, but instead overlooked for the purpose I stated earlier.
Forums 
JON
