Slashdot Mirror
The Mismatched 'MythBusters'
biohack writes "Most fans of the MythBusters would agree that the two hosts of the show, Adam and Jamie, are 'diametrically opposed in every aspect of their lives'. The Christian Science Monitor story about the MythBusters explores the connection between the backgrounds of the hosts (who knew that Jamie had a degree in Russian literature?) and their creative differences on and off camera." From the article: "It took Hyneman a of couple years to feel comfortable talking in front of a camera, let alone to strangers on the street. 'You have to remember that I'm a guy who is happiest in a dark room just thinking,' he says. 'I'm not a sociable person. I don't like to talk.' Savage, on the other hand, is outgoing. They're clearly the Oscar and Felix of myth busting ... 'Jamie is all about total, complete, and utter control. Thinking first and then acting. Adam is about acting first and then thinking.'"
You can really feel the anti-social vibe that Jamie gives off even with a single viewing of the show. His science is stellar, but he sometimes seems to be a little too aloof.
His science is far from "stellar". Often, it's quite poor. One should never watch MythBusters for anything but its entertainment value. More often than not they completely misunderstand and incorrectly describe scientific and engineering concepts that are in reality quite simple.
Their methodologies make many professional product testers and scientists cringe. We can clearly see their mistakes, but those who don't have much scientific training may not. To take their "findings" seriously is a big mistake, but many people do it anyway.
Their show is far more educational and entertaining than most of the shit that is on TV. But the educational value it does provide is quite petty, and often quite bad, as it misinforms the viewer.
And not just the entertainment side, mind you. The science side also benefits from the mix of personalities.
Some problems require finesse and fine planning. Others require repeated blows with a hammer. I think that's why the producers occasionally pit Adam vs. Jamie on some myth-type task. To see which works best for a given situation: The Thinker, or the X-Factor.
It's a damn good show on a lot of levels, really.
Weaselmancer
rediculous.
As soon as they start building death rays or chicken guns, that's when.
Mythbusters is science, done in a fun way. Ever watch Mr. Wizard or Bill Nye? Or Jearl Walker? That's the schtick these guys are in. Science as fun. You know, so that the next generation of kids will think science is cool and keep making/building/inventing stuff.
Science isn't just a field of study - it's also an establishment. And good PR is part of any successful establishment.
Weaselmancer
rediculous.
I'm an atheist too, but I'll be damned if the CSM isn't a good paper. You just have to ignore the last couple of pages. Yes Christian Scientists believe in crazy things, that doesn't mean that they can't hire good reporters.
Does this sig remind you of Agatha Christie?
It's a valuable resource for stories that often won't make the mainstream press. For a news outlet it's unique in the fact that it isnt funded through advertising so outside the contempory pressures imposed on the media by big business. Thats not to say it isn't subject to other outside pressures. I often skim it for anything interesting, the religous stuff doesn't interest me but you know what there's a simple soultion don't read those articles. Even so you should be critising everything you read as news, religous dogma is the easiest stuff to spot and filter out.
If you want a true picture of the world you should be looking to as many sources as possible.
Is it just me, or do these guys have the coolest jobs on the planet? Spending your time designing experiments, building stuff, and then if all else fails, blowing it up! Does it get any better than that?
You can learn a lot about a person if you just take the time to inject them with sodium pentathol
Sorry,
Is it just me or is the "scientific method" these guys employ full of it.
I watched all of three shows, and each of them had incredible experimental flaws in them. If it wasn;t so long ago, I'd recount exactly the flaws I saw, but I forget.
Is it entertaining, perhaps, are they busting myths, no way.
It seems to me that when the show started Jamie and Adam had more freedom to do what they wanted.
Also it was very clear that Jamie had an introverted personality and is a smart thinking kind of guy.
Anyhow some of those originals, they spent the WHOLE EPISODE on a single myth and you got to see fascinating detail on what they were trying to do, plus I felt I was learning a little bit - not a lot but a little bit.
Now, it seems to me that with the Mythterns (Kari etc) and the amount of stuff they put in an episode it's all somewhat slickly edited for the masses.
Also the narrator, who I liked originally, he FUCKING REPEATS EVERYTHING THEY SAY! etc, there's an interview with Grant he says "Ok so we need to put the flux capacitor in Jamie's whoo hooo in order to see if X will happen" - then the goddam narrator says "Grant has just told us they need to get that flux capacitor in Jamie's whoo hoo, if he gets this right we will see if X happens"
I KNOW HE JUST TOLD ME YOU FUCKER! >:(
(He also summarises what happened 5 minutes before the commercial break for another 30 seconds after each break)
Why do they have to dumb it down for the lowest common denominator??? (sp?)
The editing makes it so that they break up the myths and split them up across the episode but I find that annoying, I want them put together like the older episodes.
What happened to us seeing Jamie and Adam in a scrap yard looking for things! Sure it's not important but it was interesting damnit.
Also, I feel Jamie is being forced to behave in a way which is not normally him, you could clearly see in around mid season 2 he was somewhat agitated at this and uncomfortable, he's coming out of his skin a little bit now.
Also Adam is NOT as stupid as he's being portrayed, he's a very cluey guy and more outgoing than Jamie but I dunno - he's been turned into the "homer" of the show.
Ultimately a lot of documentaries on discovery suck now and heck I don't even get the full range of discovery over here in Australia.
Docu's used to be slow paced, informative and somewhat quiet, mythbusters didn't exactly follow this formula since it's not a docu but it was simpler and more charming originally.
Now documentaries need to have hardcore music and cgi sections, instead of just showing what is happening or speculating on what might happen from a proffessor no no they have to render something add that boomy music, have the excitable sounding narrator go at it hardcore etc.
(Don't get me wrong, I do love stuff like megastructures and so on, but still the editing seems so damned dramatic for dopey people)
Before anyone says it, I'm 28, not 50 and I still recall the good old days of somewhat intelligent television.
What is science? The distinguishing characteristic is that it comes as close as possible to the ideal of "gather data - hypothesize - test hypothesis" feedback loop as possible. There are some additional useful criteria, like using controls, etc., but the feedback loop is the basic element of science.
By this criteria, this is nearly the most scientific show on television, and they've gotten better in the past couple of seasons too. For actually showing the scientific process, I can forgive much.
(The process may not always be perfect, but news flash: If you think every peer-reviewed study has perfect, impeccable controls and rock-solid statistics and complete coverage of the relevant topics, you're on crack. Real experiments often look uncomfortably like a Mythbusters production. No fair holding Mythbusters to semi-mythical ideals when "real" scientists generally don't make it either.)
The other aspect of science is the large body of knowledge and experience that has been built up by the human race by the repeated application of that feedback loop. Sometimes they do OK, sometimes they do poorly; the farther they stray from application of mechanical principles, the worse they tend to do. (On the other hand, they sometimes surprise me; IIRC, they pointed out that sharp pointy things attract lightning better than flat things in one of the lightning episodes, which is something I only covered in calc-based electromagnetism in college and I daresay most people have never been exposed to.)
Yes, they aren't perfect in this department. However, I'm not sure it's possible for them to be perfect. First, I've seen a lot of so-called criticisms that are more wrong than the show is, so for those people even if the show actually improved, they'll believe it's getting worse. Second, by its very nature, it covers an extremely large array of topics, and you're just not going to be able to put together a team of experts in chemistry (all kinds), physics (any kind you'd encounter in normal life), psychology (all kinds), history (all kinds, including the actual building of historical devices), and random misc. (all kinds), and still be able to afford to put it on TV.
Personally, I think they're better than nothing, and doing a decent job, all things considered.
Could they be better in theory? Certainly! Could you get much better in practice? That's much less clear. It's not fair to compare Mythbusters to the show that exists in your head that has an infinite budget and unlimited access to the best experts of all kinds. That's not an alternative.
But the point here though is that science is about science is being able to document and explain what happend.
When you say, "oh, the mythbusters got it wrong here, here, here and here" then you're proving the point that what they're doing is for science since they followed the scientific method of documenting and reporting what they expected, what they saw, and how they came to those conclusions. It might not be as thorough as youd' want it to be, but the fact is, science isn't e=mc^2, it's the proof that e=mc^2.
Non impediti ratione cogitationus.
Good Lord. Relax. Its a TV show not a doctoral thesis.
Everything about the way they produce and edit the show says edutainment. Also keep in mind each one hour show (minus commercials) covers between three to five different "myths". Their accuracy of measurement is dependent on the topic. In your example, we have a "fun" myth with low danger. Plus we have a high probablity of it looking cool on tape whether it works or not, which it probably will since the internet has several videos. I'd say "I think that was about twice as high" is a reasonable margin of error in that scenario.
Second, numbers and graphs don't mean much to most normal people. Take the "Will driving fast on a washboard make the ride smoother?" segment. They had some very good data from an accelerameter that actually had them questioning their perceptions. They also had a pyramid of wine glasses filled with water. The splashing water is easier for a normal person to translate into something they can relate to. A "horizontal acceleration of blah point blah blah m/s^2" means little, while most people have some idea the amount of force it takes to shake some water out of a glass (even if they don't know what force is).
In fact I thought they did a pretty good job of using the scientific method in that segment. When they got data they didn't expect they refined their experiment to eliminate variables and try to narrow in on what was *generally* happening.
Also I think when you hear someone mention science its usually Adam. Its safe to say that Adam doesn't always think things through. My guess is that what Adam usually means is he is *using* science, not *doing* science. Most people do not differentiate using scientific knowledge and using the scientific method. The show often uses scientific knowledge to make educated guesses about what will happen. Basically this is used to narrow "likely" outcomes. They use a fair amount of scientific knowledge for safety reasons as well. I'll even grant you that probably a good deal of the "using science" is some anonymous producer calling up a subject matter expert.
I will grant that they are taking short cuts. However, off hand I can't think of an episode where Jaime has stated that they were publishing their results in a peer reviewed journal.
I almost couldn't tell who it was under all that airbrushing? I think FHM doesn't get why people find her attractive.
Indeed... he might just be *gasp* shy and anal. God forbid such people should exist and not have some sort of "condition".