I agree, and what’s most laudable about what they do (and true to the spirit of science) is they actively invite criticism and feedback. You can email them or post at their website and they consider what the audience has to say. They revisit myths. They want the viewers to do what we’re doing - think about their experiments skeptically.
They’ve outfoxed us. 
How diabolical!
or, lazy.
I strongly disagree with lumping Mythbusters in with the “ancient aliens” shows and other dreck that clutters the basic cable channels. Adam and Jamie are skeptics who detest woo in all its forms.
Expecting “proper science” from the Mythbusters is setting the bar way too high, in my opinion. It’s an entertainment program, and Adam and Jamie aren’t academics. The show’s original concept was simply to examine urban legends and debunk popular misconceptions. Personally, the episodes I’ve found most interesting and satisfying involved relatively straightforward tests that required no sophisticated science (such as the “bull in a china shop” experiment, and determining if elephants are really afraid of mice).
I understand the criticisms of their lack of rigor, such as too-small sample sizes, overlooked variables, and inadequate controls. This is particularly true of their many tests of gender stereotypes (such as pain sensitivity and willingness to ask for directions). I’m uncomfortable when they flatly declare something “confirmed” or “busted” after testing a handful of subjects. But I would argue that the results aren’t particularly important in those cases; what’s important is that they showed the process. We live in a society where a disturbingly large number of people think that the universe is 6,000 years old. The Mythbusters show a huge audience that it’s good to be skeptical, that assumptions should be questioned and tested rather than accepted at face value, and that you don’t need a Ph.D. to think rationally and critically about the world. Dismissing the show with snooty condescension because they don’t do double-blinded experiments overlooks their positive, constructive influence.
However, I’d be perfectly happy if the Mythbusters never again fired a gun or set off a bomb. I’m hoping that the departure of Kari, Grant, and Tory results in more detailed, in-depth episodes with less padding.
You forgot the fish tank and the filing cabinet. And they actually found three things that did work – the bed, the fish tank, and the garbage truck. All three directed the blast in a direction that would have let someone nearby but not in the path of the explosion survive. I actually thought that was an unexpected and (in very unusual circumstances, useful) result.
I agree. I also confused the filing cabinet for the microwave.
I thought it was a good, if incomplete test. It kinda seemed to be a random and arbitrary selection of things.
My only complaint was the silly destruction of the garbage truck. I was thinking, for all the money and time spent blowing it up, they could have tested a few more things, like a fridge, tub or oven.
Not a line heard very often, I expect.
Not true. While common, not everyone in the US is embalmed or required to be. It is basically a scam for funeral homes to tack on an additional fee.
http://www.funerals.org/frequently-asked-questions/48-what-you-should-know-about-embalming
I would find it more intellectually dishonest if they were moving the goalpost after every experiment.
Nothing is meant to be conclusive in science and it’s wrong to hold a positive or negative result as being meaningful in any way, when you hear one reported. But before someone performs an experiment, it is recommended for them to state the question that they are testing, the method that they intend to use to answer the question, and the results that they require to consider a result positive. There’s no requirement that the methodology actually be relevant to the question being asked nor for the result cutoff points to be statistically sound, since basically those are impossible to require when some percentage of people doing science are idiots and will always believe that their methods are perfect and their results sound, simply because they’re deluded. The important thing is that they accurately describe what they did, so that the reader/viewer can decide whether to attribute any value to the conclusions.
Science doesn’t care about a single test. It cares about the one test that is convincing, reproducible, and where no one can find any countervaling cases that are just as convincing and reproducible. All the half-assed tests with their questionable results along the way are still science and still have value, in that they hinted at some result and provided a first step in creating a methodology - even if that methodology had some flaws.
At least someone actually set out to try and discern reality based on evidence, rather than just pontificating on internet forums.
The one that always annoyed me was the Mythtanic one. Where they attempted to test if you could be dragged down by a ship sinking beneath you. With a what? 100 ton lighter slowly sinking in about 30’ of harbor. From which they concluded a 10’s of thousands of tons hurtling through the water beneath you into the deep ocean couldn’t drag you down.
This was after the pool test,in which they dropped a heavy fast sinking slab of metal beneath Adam and he was instantly sucked down to the bottom after it.
Now i’m not saying that the phenomenon definitely exists or always happens, whether it would work through suction, turbulence or aeration of the water, but it was ludicrous to claim they had proved anything from their test.