Slashdot Mirror


Busting the MythBusters' Yawn Experiment

markmcb writes "Most everyone knows and loves the MythBusters, two guys who attempt to set the story straight on things people just take for granted. Well, maybe everyone except Brandon Hansen, who has offered them a taste of their own medicine as he busts the MythBusters' improper use of statistics in their experiment to determine whether yawning is contagious. While the article maintains that the contagion of yawns is still a possibility, Hansen is clearly giving the MythBusters no credit for proving such a claim, 'not with a correlation coefficient of .045835.'"

17 of 397 comments (clear)

  1. Well... by Dyeane · · Score: 5, Insightful

    If they find out, they may very well make an announcement on the show. Wouldn't be the first time.

    1. Re:Well... by nocomment · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I still wouldn't care if they did. I just like to watch them blow shit up. I'm not a fan of the show because of thorough statistical analysis.

      --
      /* oops I accidentally made a comment, sorry */
      /* http://allyourbasearebelongto.us */
    2. Re:Well... by Overly+Critical+Guy · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Hey, they're teaching kids to go out and prove things for themselves rather than believe them off the bat, and that's never a bad thing.

      --
      "Sufferin' succotash."
    3. Re:Well... by nametaken · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I always laugh a little when people feel clever pointing out little problems with MB episodes. Anyone who thinks they're meant to be rigorous experiments is missing the whole point of the show. Mythbusters is like a YouTube series with a fun cast and a budget... and I love it that way. As Kari and Grant said on tour recently, they're often figuring this stuff out as they go... learning cool stuff as they shoot.

      Besides, I think most of us already know that the best ways to test most myths would be so boring it would never make TV in the first place.

    4. Re:Well... by cyphercell · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Mythbusters is no different than Bill Nye, Mr. Wizard or who ever the hell came first. They use the same basic methods for all of their problems. There are some differences though:

      1. Budget (much higher, but it doesn't always meet the problem at hand)
      2. Problems (completely open ended)
      3. Math (same level as most jr. high - high school science, however, sometimes severely short for the issue at hand - see 2)
      4. End result is not known. (again see 2)
      5. Time (they have time constraints - see 1-4)

      When I was ten I know I'd much rather watch two guys drive two semis into a small economy car rather than watch Mr. Wizard mix baking soda and vinegar again and again. Mythbusters rocks, because it is exactly what the 10+ set is capable of and it also shows them the constraints of their knowledge because the Mythbusters actually do discredit themselves on the show, you'll hear them say things like "I think you're way off base with your method" or "I'm really happy with the results" and if you hear that from the old guy in the beret it's usually because it was an effective (or ineffective as the case may be) low-level experiment. It's a simple formula:

      1. Find a problem.
      2. Conduct an experiment.
      3. Measure the results (for better or worse)!
      4. Blow something up!!
      5. Profit!!!

      Now I'm not saying that all of their experiments are 100% right for all levels of science, I'm just suggesting that they are about as good as you get with pre-algebra to algebra level math. And that isn't that bad, after all that's where we get things like the lever, steam engine, plumbing, and a lot of other cool crap (like higher math). I remember building a trebuchet for a lower level physics class (10*?), they mostly sucked but we did the algebra (Newtonian mechanics) some of us got A's, most of us didn't, but when we were done we had learned a little (by trial and error) about trajectories and conflicting forces, not to mention recording our results. It wasn't in vain, it was a nice precursor for things to come. Between Mythbusters and American Idol I'd easily rather have my kids watch Mythbusters even if they're wrong 80% of the time.

      I'm not apologizing for the Mythbusters in the least.

      --
      Under the influence of Post-Cyberpunk Gonzo Journalism
    5. Re:Well... by shadwstalkr · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Maybe we should be teaching kids how to do science in school instead of letting the Discovery channel do it. Mythbusters can inspire kids to be passionate about science, and I think that's about all we can expect from a TV show.

  2. well... truthfully... by evwah · · Score: 5, Insightful

    it always seems to me that their conclusions are specious. I can't think of any specific episodes right now but they over simplify the data, build elaborate setups that are prone to error, and use inadequate controls.

    not to mention that they always try to prove stupid crap like "a rolling stone gathers no moss". I'm waiting for them to try "the grass is always greener on the other side", or "it takes one to know one".

    1. Re:well... truthfully... by alshithead · · Score: 5, Insightful

      They also tested tailgate up or down on a pickup truck for mpg. Up won and they fully explained why. I also really enjoyed the show that included bullets being shot into a pool including a big .50 cal. with the idea of being submerged could save your life if you're being shot at. I don't think you can completely pan them for a couple of specious results when overall their show is REALLY cool.

      --
      I reserve the right to think for myself. Others' opinions are optional. Puppy on lap = typos...not illiteracy.
    2. Re:well... truthfully... by Jussi+K.+Kojootti · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Water does not stop bullets no matter how you slice the Method.
      You keep saying that. Do intend to imply that the Mythbusters episode is faked? It pretty clearly shows that some bullets at some velocities seem to have serious problems going through the surface...

      Speaking of that: You seem to have some misunderstanding of their conclusions: They specifically stated that high-velocity weapons seemed to have problems penetrating the surface, not that 3 feet of water will keep you safe from any gun.

      Their testing seemed pretty good to me (not exactly scientific, but enough to warrant the claim "supersonic bullets in general do not seem to be effective after a few feet in water"), and you have so far provided zero evidence to the contrary. Come on, why just say "there are other arguments as well" -- if you know about some evidence, please link to it and don't just weasel out...

  3. Precision? by Bill+Walker · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I dunno, the fact that he's willing to state the correlation coefficient so precisely makes me leary of his own statistical expertise.

    --
    Please, for the love of God, no more car analogies.
  4. Science by Turn-X+Alphonse · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Science and entertainment do not play well together, it is mostly true because science requires real thought and watching TV basicly does not. If you attempt to put real science on TV today you will watch the other 6.9 million TV stations each gain 1 more viewer while you get a dust bowl rolling through. Maybe it's time we started to realize what the mass public want are crappy reality shows, cooking and some bullshit made to look information but that is infact 75% CGI or "docudrama".

    The above is why I wouldn't trust Mythbusters as far as I could throw them. The entire show screams entertainment rather than Science. Unfortunaely I can't find the name of a program that aired in the UK about 6 months ago. It took a team of 4 people to a deserted island and each week they had a task to complete each, they were only allowed to use what was on the island and what was given to them each week (as well as a tool set because, well no tools = screwed). They had to do things like make fireworks, record a song and various other "minor" things which required them to render down various things to achieve the chemicals they needed to complete each task. What they did and what it resulted in was very clearly labeled, having real science explained behind it.

    Saddly as I recall it basicly got replaced with some crappy school based soap opera where the kids say "innit" and the teachers fuck anything with two legs (including the kids as the current trailer at least implies). So after this long rant, I guess we just give up on science and go back to the discoery channel, maybe we can catch the 3 minutes of it that isn't Nazis or some form of sport!

    --
    I like muppets.
  5. Submitter gets an F on this one by paiute · · Score: 4, Insightful

    You do not report five significant figures derived from data with only two.

    --
    If Slashdot were chemistry it would look like this:Cadaverine
    1. Re:Submitter gets an F on this one by drewski3420 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Er, aren't significant figures supposed to tell you to what degree a measurement is accurate?

      I mean, since there can't be any fractions of a person, if we know there are 50 people, we know that there are 50.0, 50.00, 50.000000000000 people, right?

      It doesn't seem like sig-figs is applicable here.

  6. references by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I like his references, too..

    reference 5 is an episode that won't air for 2 days (maybe he's from the future!)

    references 7 and 8 are forum posts (ref. 8 has just 2 replies)

    two references are news stories..

    these do not suggest a thorough exploration of the matter, but he cites them as if they are authoritative sources

  7. TV is entertainment, not science by EmbeddedJanitor · · Score: 4, Insightful
    Anyone who watches Mythbusters for scientific reasons should maybe start watching Startrek instead. This is all entrtainment, it has nothing to do with scientific accuracy.

    --
    Engineering is the art of compromise.
  8. Oy by Billosaur · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Look, to spare everyone the continued arguing over which statistical test to use at what probability level and the lack of proper control groups, let me say that MythBusters has never claimed to be a science show like Mr. Wizard. The guys are special effects designers for crying out loud! They are good at what they do, and while their scientific methodology and statistics may be a bit wonky at times, there are some experiments I've seen in peer-reviewed journals that aren't much better. Science education in the United States gets worse all the time, and if these guys can inject some life and curiosity into the current generation to get them interested in science, I applaud the effort.

    --
    GetOuttaMySpace - The Anti-Social Network
  9. Why the busting on the Mythbusters? by SilentChris · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I've been reading through the comments and I'm fairly alarmed by how many people think Mythbusters isn't worthwhile based solely on scientific merit.

    Look, the show never said it was teaching people about science. Adam and Jaime themselves have said many times they're more entertainment than science. They're special effects people by trade, not scientists. They build things and blow shit up. It's what they enjoy doing. You can even see it on Jaime's face when they're doing myths that don't involve blowing things up (e.g. Adam building a wind tunnel for the penny drop myth).

    When the show first started, there wasn't even mention of science. They looked at urban legends such as rocket car and getting airborne in a lawnchair. The show was about the stories themselves, not the methods. Only in about season 2 or so did they start including things like "controls" and "variables" (probably by Discovery's request), but they never lost sight of the fact that they're a TV show, and television (by and large) is meant to entertain.

    But that leads to an interesting question: even if they DID follow proper scientific method, how do you even apply that to some of the myths they examine? For example, they did a myth where a hillbilly chased a raccoon into a sewer pipe, decided to throw gas down it, attempted to fill the thing with fire to kill the raccoon and was purportedly "shot out". How on earth do you test that scientifically? Nowhere in the myth does it says how big the pipe was, how much gasoline was used, etc. Nowhere does it mention if he was stuck (which is important, as they found the man could only be shot out of he was wrapped in a sabot). All they have is a fun story to go off of.

    If nothing else, Mythbusters gets people interested in the process of examining life, not teaching how to use proper scientific method. If their only accomplishment is making people critically question things that are usually taken at face value, they'll have succeeded in my mind.