# Mythbusters and scientific rigor **URL:** \ **Category:** Cafe Society\ **Created:** [August 26, 2014, 7:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mythbusters-and-scientific-rigor/696581 "2014-08-26T19:46:01Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![Sam\_Stone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ecccb3/32.png) [@Sam\_Stone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sam_Stone)\ **Post date:** [August 27, 2014, 6:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mythbusters-and-scientific-rigor/696581/41 "2014-08-27T06:51:33Z")
What a bunch of downers! I love the Mythbusters. These are people popularizing the use of testing, math, logical deduction and other tools to determine the truth. They are not scientists, and don’t purport to be. They aren’t guaranteeing that the results are scientifically accurate. We’re simply watching two smart, very handy guys try to solve problems intelligently. What’s not to like? Sure, they get the science wrong on occasion. But they usually get the methodology and philosophy right. Hell, it’s fun just watching them build the stuff. They’re a very talented crew. ---
**Author:** ![Amateur\_Barbarian](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/59ef9b/32.png) [@Amateur\_Barbarian](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Amateur_Barbarian)\ **Post date:** [August 27, 2014, 1:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mythbusters-and-scientific-rigor/696581/42 "2014-08-27T13:05:45Z")
> [@Robot\_Arm](#): > > There was an episode several years ago where they were testing whether a squad of soldiers marching in step could bring down a suspension bridge. Adam built a model suspension bridge and they put lots of little marching feet on it that were pneumatically controlled to all march in time. But Adam’s model was all wrong. It was free-standing; the ends weren’t connected to anything and the deck was welded together and probably would have stayed up even if the cables were taken away. In a real suspension bridge, the cables are under tension, and the main cables are attached to massive stone or concrete anchorages at the ends of the bridge. It probably would have been hard to build that, but it would have been a better test. He could have also modeled it easily, but it’s marginally more boring to watch someone set up an engineering model in MathCad or whatever than it is to watch them play a dull version of Robot Wars and mug for the camera for twenty minutes. The whole idea of bridges collapsing under marching soldiers comes from the early industrial era, when iron construction was poorly understood and beams, struts and rivets failed for what were considered mysterious reasons. (Mainly that iron wasn’t wood and didn’t react to time and stress the same way.) Sympathetic vibrations were thought to be the cause of some collapses, so soldiers were taught to break step over bridges, and here we are almost 200 years later… ---
**Author:** ![Sam\_Lowry](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/e95f7d/32.png) [@Sam\_Lowry](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sam_Lowry)\ **Post date:** [August 27, 2014, 1:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mythbusters-and-scientific-rigor/696581/43 "2014-08-27T13:28:41Z")
> [@ftg](#): > > As I’ve said in several other threads, they long gave up explaining basic Physics many years ago. I think Jamie, in particular, is gun shy on Science ever since his infamous two cars crashing head-on vs one car into a wall blooper early on. (Which caused such a howl they were forced to later do a test themselves to settle it. Which came out just as Physics said it would.) Do you know what episode this was? Or could you explain more about what they did? I’m curious about it. I’ve seen some Mythbusters, but usually just random episodes from when there is a marathon of episodes on. ---
**Author:** ![Just\_Asking\_Questions](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/ba9def/32.png) [@Just\_Asking\_Questions](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Just_Asking_Questions)\ **Post date:** [August 27, 2014, 1:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mythbusters-and-scientific-rigor/696581/44 "2014-08-27T13:29:24Z")
> [@Sam\_Stone](#): > > What a bunch of downers! I love the Mythbusters. These are people popularizing the use of testing, math, logical deduction and other tools to determine the truth. They are not scientists, and don’t purport to be. They aren’t guaranteeing that the results are scientifically accurate. We’re simply watching two smart, very handy guys try to solve problems intelligently. What’s not to like? > > **Sure, they get the science wrong on occasion.** But they usually get the methodology and philosophy right. It’s this kind of thinking that leads to Discovery Channel documentaries on modern sightings of megalaodon, Hitler’s Aliens, or whether sharknado is real. Lack of critical thinking leads to anti-vaxxers, moon-landing hoaxers, and the success of Nigerian scammers. Is that the world you want to live in? I expect better from smart people. ---
**Author:** ![Amateur\_Barbarian](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/59ef9b/32.png) [@Amateur\_Barbarian](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Amateur_Barbarian)\ **Post date:** [August 27, 2014, 1:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mythbusters-and-scientific-rigor/696581/45 "2014-08-27T13:35:25Z")
> [@Just\_Asking\_Questions](#): > > It’s this kind of thinking that leads to Discovery Channel documentaries on modern sightings of megalaodon, Hitler’s Aliens, or whether sharknado is real. Lack of critical thinking leads to anti-vaxxers, moon-landing hoaxers, and the success of Nigerian scammers. Is that the world you want to live in? Well, worse, it leads to macgyverism, where the gist of the idea is right but the implementation is nonsense. (Such as cobbling together two radio receivers from the usual scraps and using them to triangulate a transmission signal 25 miles away… with a 10-foot baseline.) ---
**Author:** ![El\_Kabong](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/el_kabong/32/496_2.png) [@El\_Kabong](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/El_Kabong)\ **Post date:** [August 27, 2014, 1:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mythbusters-and-scientific-rigor/696581/46 "2014-08-27T13:45:44Z")
Hey, I loves me some Mythbusters, but there’s no denying they sometimes either get things hilariously wrong, or deliberately use a crappy methodology to string out the suspense a bit. I’ll nominate the otherwise fairly interesting ‘bronze age torpedo’ episode. The first couple of tries, they used fairly large solid rockets as propulsion. When they mentioned that the thrust for one of these was something like five times the weight of the torpedo, then acted shocked when the whole rig went straight up in the air, my eyes rolled like marbles. I’m pretty sure they knew what the result was going to be and just did it to pad out the segment with some entertaining pyrotechnics-gone-wrong action. Come to think about it, however, they’ve had several items legitimmately go off the reservation. I seem to recall a car on one of ther ‘experiments’ leaping over an embankment and almost landing on a busy highway, and another time putting a cannonball through someone’s house. ---
**Author:** ![Amateur\_Barbarian](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/59ef9b/32.png) [@Amateur\_Barbarian](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Amateur_Barbarian)\ **Post date:** [August 27, 2014, 2:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mythbusters-and-scientific-rigor/696581/47 "2014-08-27T14:07:30Z")
> [@El\_Kabong](#): > > …deliberately […] string out the suspense a bit. > > …just did it to pad out the segment… Not to harp on it, but this is why I find the show unwatchable. There are other shows that really have only a minute or two of content but find entertaining and informative ways to frame that bite. MB just mugs and vamps and wastes time in the most tedious and annoying ways - three or four minutes of “discussion” over a point not worth one short declarative sentence, much time spent following someone from point A to point B, long sequences on efforts clearly destined to fail without teaching anyone anything… bleh. ---
**Author:** ![BrotherCadfael](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@BrotherCadfael](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrotherCadfael)\ **Post date:** [August 27, 2014, 2:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mythbusters-and-scientific-rigor/696581/48 "2014-08-27T14:44:39Z")
> [@garygnu](#): > > The bottom line is they test stuff. The details can get ironed out. Obligatory [xkcd](http://xkcd.com/397/). Zombie Feynman:\* “Ideas are tested by experiment. That is the core of science. Everything else is bookkeeping.” \* ---
**Author:** ![Just\_Asking\_Questions](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/ba9def/32.png) [@Just\_Asking\_Questions](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Just_Asking_Questions)\ **Post date:** [August 27, 2014, 2:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mythbusters-and-scientific-rigor/696581/49 "2014-08-27T14:59:36Z")
> [@BrotherCadfael](#): > > Obligatory [xkcd](http://xkcd.com/397/). > > Zombie Feynman:\* “Ideas are tested by experiment. That is the core of science. Everything else is bookkeeping.” > \* As pointed out in the other thread, a poorly run experiment doesn’t show anything. Tell me, what was the “experiment” of blowing up a garbage truck with ANFO testing? ---
**Author:** ![ftg](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ftg/32/2801_2.png) [@ftg](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ftg)\ **Post date:** [August 27, 2014, 3:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mythbusters-and-scientific-rigor/696581/50 "2014-08-27T15:04:29Z")
Re: car into car vs. car into wall. > [@Sam\_Lowry](#): > > Do you know what episode this was? Or could you explain more about what they did? I’m curious about it. I’ve seen some Mythbusters, but usually just random episodes from when there is a marathon of episodes on. In a very early episode, Jamie off-handedly mentioned that a car colliding with another car going the same speed head on suffers twice as much damage as colliding with a solid wall. (Or is the same as colliding with a wall while going twice the speed. I forget.) This raised a howl of protests and so they had to test it and the damage going the same speeds was the same in both cases as a second of thinking about the Physics would tell you. (A lot of Dopers have made this same mistake over the years, surprisingly enough.) The most recent episode I watched was the _Laws of Attraction_ one. Several experimental flaws. E.g., when showing the women photos and info on various men, they had them in a group. They were cheering/moaning/etc., so the test subjects choices were being influenced by others. They should have been shown the pictures alone. Also, given that the Build Team was running the test in the open (they audience even cheered for them), it wouldn’t take much to figure out what the test was for and people could change their responses accordingly. Not a good example of a real Scientific test. (One personal observation: I’ve done the color/word cognitive conflict test on computer screens several times and found it hard. But I had no problem saying the right color while watching the samples in this episode. Distance/small size of the words must play a role.) ---
**Author:** ![Alessan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/alessan/32/465_2.png) [@Alessan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Alessan)\ **Post date:** [August 27, 2014, 3:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mythbusters-and-scientific-rigor/696581/51 "2014-08-27T15:09:40Z")
All of the above is correct. That said, I still agree with [Zombie Feynman:](http://xkcd.com/397/) > [@](#): > > “Ideas are tested by experiment.” That is the core of science. Everything else is bookkeeping. By teaching people to hold their beliefs up to experiment, Mythbusters is doing more to drag humanity out of the unscientific darkness than a thousand lessons in rigor. Show them some love ---
**Author:** ![Mr.Miskatonic](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mr.miskatonic/32/310_2.png) [@Mr.Miskatonic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mr.Miskatonic)\ **Post date:** [August 27, 2014, 3:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mythbusters-and-scientific-rigor/696581/52 "2014-08-27T15:35:19Z")
For a while the science channel had edited versions of the show that were just 1/2 hour. It felt kinda rushed so while folks may complain about the repetition it sometimes has its place. ---
**Author:** ![Just\_Asking\_Questions](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/ba9def/32.png) [@Just\_Asking\_Questions](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Just_Asking_Questions)\ **Post date:** [August 27, 2014, 3:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mythbusters-and-scientific-rigor/696581/53 "2014-08-27T15:36:20Z")
> [@Alessan](#): > > All of the above is correct. > > That said, I still agree with [Zombie Feynman:](http://xkcd.com/397/) And I repeat my opinion. What good is the testing such as that described in post 50? It doesn’t prove a thing. Just muddies the waters of knowledge. And what does blowing up random shit have to do with experimenting? Zombie Feynman has nothing on Actually Once Living (now Dead) Feynman, who would probably put a bullet through ZF’s empty head. ---
**Author:** ![Mr.Miskatonic](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mr.miskatonic/32/310_2.png) [@Mr.Miskatonic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mr.Miskatonic)\ **Post date:** [August 27, 2014, 3:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mythbusters-and-scientific-rigor/696581/54 "2014-08-27T15:41:48Z")
> [@Robot\_Arm](#): > > There was an episode several years ago where they were testing whether a squad of soldiers marching in step could bring down a suspension bridge. Adam built a model suspension bridge and they put lots of little marching feet on it that were pneumatically controlled to all march in time. But Adam’s model was all wrong. It was free-standing; the ends weren’t connected to anything and the deck was welded together and probably would have stayed up even if the cables were taken away. In a real suspension bridge, the cables are under tension, and the main cables are attached to massive stone or concrete anchorages at the ends of the bridge. It probably would have been hard to build that, but it would have been a better test. That was from the 1st season, IIRC, when they had no budget, awkward editing (there was a part of the show where they showed Adam on the phone with a supplier - just his 1/2 of the conversation), and they were completely unknown (plus they had that stupid “Urban Legend Expert” at the end. These days they would probably build a small bridge a foot above a pool and have a Marine Platoon march across it. ---
**Author:** ![bup](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/6bbea6/32.png) [@bup](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/bup)\ **Post date:** [August 27, 2014, 3:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mythbusters-and-scientific-rigor/696581/55 "2014-08-27T15:55:30Z")
> [@Sage\_Rat](#): > > At the end of the day, the results of none of their mythbusting is going to save or help the world in any way and they get paid for butts in chairs, not good science. They are science educators and want to do a good job of teaching some basic science for the home audience I disagree - besides being educators, and getting the next generation excited about science, I bet _they have_ saved a few lives testing whether you can roll down a window or open a car door in a submerged car, by making it fun and crazy to watch. They may have saved a life or two with the water heater shooting 400 feet in the air myth, too. > [@Just Asking Questions](#): > > And I repeat my opinion. What good is the testing such as that described in post 50? It doesn’t prove a thing. Just muddies the waters of knowledge. It gets kids excited about science. It makes being a geek a cool thing. ---
**Author:** ![Little\_Nemo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/little_nemo/32/3120_2.png) [@Little\_Nemo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Little_Nemo)\ **Post date:** [August 27, 2014, 4:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mythbusters-and-scientific-rigor/696581/56 "2014-08-27T16:01:21Z")
> [@Just\_Asking\_Questions](#): > > Tell me, what was the “experiment” of blowing up a garbage truck with ANFO testing? It didn’t prove anything. But the show made no claim that this was an experiment. They had already conducted the experiments, in which they had tried to find out if a small explosion could shatter the hardened cement without damaging the mixer. They found out it wasn’t possible. So the experiments had been completed and the conclusion had been made. That’s when they decided to blow up the cement mixer with the leftover explosives. There was no pretense this was for science. They did it to have fun. Even scientists are allowed to goof off in the lab after the work is done. ---
**Author:** ![DrDeth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b487fb/32.png) [@DrDeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrDeth)\ **Post date:** [August 27, 2014, 4:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mythbusters-and-scientific-rigor/696581/57 "2014-08-27T16:06:39Z")
> [@Just\_Asking\_Questions](#): > > A spinoff of the recent Mythbusters thread. > > Which episodes particularly bugged you, for either lack of scientific rigor, stupid premise, improper testing setup, whatever? What bugs you about the show? > > What do they do right? > > I have three. > > There was the one where the “myth” was that pouring water onto a grease fire would send flames “30 feet” into the air. Now, I have always knew the dangers of pouring water on a grease fire, so I’ve like never actually done it. I figured the water would spread the flaming grease all over the kitchen, causing secondary fires or dropping flaming grease on your skin. I never envisioned it going FOOF! and making a huge flame cloud. So the MB crew set up the rig, and sure enough it FOOFed sky high. But, by their calibrated wall scale, the flames only went 28 feet, so they called the myth “busted”. WTF? When someone says “it blew 30 feet” they don’t mean 30.000000… feet, just close. > > And it was a great video. It should be shown to all HS students, and by fire departments. A lot more instructive than a dry lecture on “don’t do this.” Yes, the experiments are often good, that one was great but I have been :dubious: about the “busted” etc conclusions. I have never heard it as “THIRTY FEET!” ---
**Author:** ![Chronos](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/chronos/32/134_2.png) [@Chronos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chronos)\ **Post date:** [August 27, 2014, 4:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mythbusters-and-scientific-rigor/696581/58 "2014-08-27T16:08:37Z")
> [@](#): > > Quoth **Just Asking Questions** : > > And I repeat my opinion. What good is the testing such as that described in post 50? It doesn’t prove a thing. Just muddies the waters of knowledge. The good of it is that it drives home the point that the way to learn about the world is to experiment. Even if the experiment isn’t very good, they’re trying, which is a heck of a lot more than most people do. ---
**Author:** ![Just\_Asking\_Questions](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/ba9def/32.png) [@Just\_Asking\_Questions](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Just_Asking_Questions)\ **Post date:** [August 27, 2014, 4:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mythbusters-and-scientific-rigor/696581/59 "2014-08-27T16:08:47Z")
> [@Little\_Nemo](#): > > It didn’t prove anything. But the show made no claim that this was an experiment. They had already conducted the experiments, in which they had tried to find out if a small explosion could shatter the hardened cement without damaging the mixer. They found out it wasn’t possible. > > So the experiments had been completed and the conclusion had been made. That’s when they decided to blow up the cement mixer with the leftover explosives. There was no pretense this was for science. They did it to have fun. > > Even scientists are allowed to goof off in the lab after the work is done. Garbage truck, not cement mixer. The test in the cement mixer was actually to see about small explosions cleaning dried cement off the mixer, so blowing it up at the end was an extension of that, if somewhat overblown (so to speak). Actually I enjoyed the cement mixer explosion. But the garbage truck was both unconnected to the test, and repetitive. ---
**Author:** ![DrDeth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b487fb/32.png) [@DrDeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrDeth)\ **Post date:** [August 27, 2014, 4:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mythbusters-and-scientific-rigor/696581/60 "2014-08-27T16:11:27Z")
> [@ftg](#): > > Two major fails that stand out to me are the “tests” on corked bats and cheating a lie detector. Both were clearly set up to give the results the Powers That Be wanted them to get. No real attempts to actually demonstrate contrary results were done. > . Especially since “Lie detectors” do nothing of the sort and are run as more or less complete scams. The operator does a cold reading on you, decides if your guilty or not, then will tell you you passed or failed (usu failed) _depending on that cold reading._ [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mythbusters-and-scientific-rigor/696581.md?page=2) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mythbusters-and-scientific-rigor/696581.md?page=4)