MythBuster Developing Light-Weight Vehicle Armor

gearystwatcher writes "MythBusters' Jamie Hyneman has been developing blast-resistant, light-weight armor for use on US military vehicles in Iraq and Afghanistan based on his work with show co-host Adam Savage. 'We had a lot of experience in the show dealing with explosives, obviously in ways and situations that are outside the norm. This is very revealing, because when you see something outside the norm you get to see what the boundaries of the phenomenon are,' Hyneman tells The Reg during an interview for the new MythBusters' season."

Comments

To all "They're not REAL scientists!" posters

[elrous0]

These always seem to pop up on any Mythbusters thread. No, they're not scientists. They're not pretending to be scientists. And nope, they don't have time to spend years with a research team adjusting for every variable in every experiment in some carefully controlled lab somewhere.

What they *are* are very knowledgeable laymen, applying basic scientific methodology to fairly straight-foward questions in an entertaining fashion. They bring the basics of scientific testing to the masses. They teach concepts such as skepticism and empiricism to a population that too often relies on hearsay and superstition in their beliefs about the physical world.

No, they're not scientists. But that doesn't mean they have nothing to teach or that there is no value in their experiments. As the Wright Brothers and Thomas Edison could probably attest, sometimes even a layman has insight to offer.

Re:To all "They're not REAL scientists!" posters

[Svartalf]

At most, I'd call them Engineers. But, yeah, NO, they're not posing as Scientists. And you'd be right (Must not go for the nasty pun...must not go for the nasty pun...) as you mentioned with the Wrights and Edison.

Re:To all "They're not REAL scientists!" posters

[RsG]

I'd be more inclined to call them engineers. Yes, they do experiments, as that's kinda the point of the show, but if you examine their skill sets and techniques, it's pretty obvious what we'd call them if they applied those skills to another field. They make blueprints, run computer simulations, build small scale prototypes, build large scale tests, etc. In particular the "keep at it til something breaks/blows up" approach is engineer thinking.

So, they're Hollywood SFX guys putting engineering skills to work testing popular science. The fact they're sneaking lessons about control groups and repeatable results into what is ostensibly an entertainment show is an added bonus. The purists who shout "it's not REAL science" are just setting up a "no true Scotsman" argument, since while "science" has a clear meaning "REAL science" does not.

Re:To all "They're not REAL scientists!" posters

[Anonymous Coward]

And they're so often wrong.

Forgive me, but I'm going to take the word of the Royal Goddamned Navy on the grevious effect of massive oak splinters, and not a few stuntmen on cable TV.

Re:To all "They're not REAL scientists!" posters

[dkleinsc]

In a lot of ways, a big part of their message is that you can do science without being some nerdy guy in a lab coat and goggles. Watching them feels a lot like watching that crazy high school science teacher who would have their students build bottle rockets or potato cannons.

And of course their show is all built around the basics of the scientific method, even if it never makes it explicit:
1. Myth = Hypothesis
2. Experiment to try to replicate the hypothesis.
3. If it fails, do another experiment to see what the hypothesis might have gotten wrong.

Is it the most rigorous version? No. Is it repeating the experiment many times? Heck no. But the basic idea is sound.

Re:To all "They're not REAL scientists!" posters

[fmobus]

And again, randall munroe has summarized your post into a comic.

Re:To all "They're not REAL scientists!" posters

[elrous0]

Yes, and they frequently do follow-up shows when people dispute their results (some of which have resulted in them reversing their initial conclusions). They're way more open to criticism than many of the "real" scientists I've known.

Re:To all "They're not REAL scientists!" posters

[corbettw]

They use the scientific method to prove or disprove hypotheses. So yeah, they're real scientists, they're just not academics.

Re:To all "They're not REAL scientists!" posters

[Barryke]

Adam's bio on twitter "I play a scientist on TV". And i think he is right. He plays a scientist.

http://twitter.com/#!/donttrythis

Re:To all "They're not REAL scientists!" posters

[MonsterTrimble]

As an Mechanical Engineer I'd be proud to consider these two my peers.

Re:To all "They're not REAL scientists!" posters

[RsG]

See, I think the way some people react to the idea ("no, they're scientists, not engineers") suggest that they think engineering is somehow more vulgar than science.

I'd call them engineers first and foremost, and call it label of respect. They're also non-academic scientists, since the "scientist" label simply means "someone who does scientific research" but engineering is clearly their focus.

Re:To all "They're not REAL scientists!" posters

[jandrese]

And certainly more open to criticism than most of their critics on the net.

Re:To all "They're not REAL scientists!" posters

[elrous0]

most of the time their results are wrong

That's a bold proclamation for someone who offers no countervailing experiments of his own. From what I've seen, *most* of the time the questions they answer are pretty straightforward. "Can you build a lead balloon?" Why yes, you can (which they demonstrated by actually doing it--pretty compelling evidence methinks). And, what's more, they have consistently shown themselves to be open to criticism (as I said in another post, way more open than many "real" scientists I've known). Some of their follow-up episodes are legendary (such was when they invited a group of critical MIT students out in an attempt to recreate Archimedes' legendary "death ray"), and many have resulted in reversals of their original conclusions.

So, why don't you enlighten us with some specifics to back up your blanket generalizations? Or were you just reflexively talking out of your ass?

Re:To all "They're not REAL scientists!" posters

[Yetihehe]

This may be more appropriate to mythbusters: http://xkcd.com/699/ (Did you know you can just BUY lab coats?)

Re:To all "They're not REAL scientists!" posters

[Golddess]

You seem to have a fairly firm idea of what isn't a scientist. Care sharing your idea on what is a scientist?

Re:To all "They're not REAL scientists!" posters

[slackzilly]

What would happen if real scientists tried to make a chicken cannon? They wouldn't know where to begin, because they are scientists not engineers. So Mythbusters with real scientists would suck big time. Every episode would be about looking at stuff in a microscope.

Re:To all "They're not REAL scientists!" posters

[CAIMLAS]

An appropriate title would be "engineer" - and no, I don't mean in the 'officious legal meaning of the word', either.

Scientists deal with the abstract properties of elemental components. The pure scientific process is somewhat boring and repetitive, IMO. Lots of wrote memorization, result interpretation, and dealing in absolute numbers with .0001 variance.

Engineers typically deal with the results of science to produce a usable, practical device. They use scientific concepts and practices, but it isn't creating or discovering anything 'new'.

"Inventor" would also be appropriate, maybe moreso, as it seems to sit somewhere between "engineer" - someone who deals with what is known to make something of utility - and "scientist" - someone who looks outside the known - because an inventor must do a bit of both: they look at what is known, but also consider what is unknown, trying to fill the gap between knowledge and application. In these cases, playing hard and fast with numbers for the purpose of applicability, or skipping numbers outright with some planned demolitions to test real-world applicability (all that really matters for things used in the real world) is the way to go.

Re:To all "They're not REAL scientists!" posters

[MaWeiTao]

As someone who has little patience for most tv shows, I have to say you're quite hypersensitive if you're that bothered by Mythbusters. The experiments may be flawed but I don't ever recall seeing one that wasn't close enough to provide a satisfactory conclusion. And anyway, for me, the most entertaining aspect of the show is how ingenious and efficient they are with the builds that allow them to perform those experiments.

Re:To all "They're not REAL scientists!" posters

[Anonymous Coward]

Publishing incorrect results is part of being a scientist.
They publish results prior to getting the R values down.
I mean even Einstein said that the most interesting phrase isn't "that was expected", it's "that's a funny result".

Re:To all "They're not REAL scientists!" posters

[metalmaster]

One of the two, Jamie i think, was awarded an honorary doctoral degree if im not mistaken. Thats gotta account for something

Re:To all "They're not REAL scientists!" posters

[Eponymous Coward]

They often rely on the scientific method (predict, experiment, observe, repeat) and are very pleased when the outcome is not what they predicted up front. Why not call them scientists? IMHO, scientist or engineer is a false dichotomy.

Re:To all "They're not REAL scientists!" posters

[mdielmann]

They use the scientific method to prove or disprove hypotheses. So yeah, they're real scientists, they're just not academics.

If they were 'real scientists', they'd do more research, and more rigorous testing. Sure, they use some science, but so did the first agriculturalists who determined that x days after the shortest day in the year, in their region, was a safe time to plant crops. A 'real scientist' would have figured out what the minimum soil temperature had to be before seeds could germinate, and how much sun per day was needed, and could use that to give you the optimum time this spring for when to plant a given seed.

I'll acknowledge that 'real science' takes too long to do in a weekly show, and that they often do interesting and relevant experiments. OTOH, often their research is far too light. One example is the whole Archimedes Death Ray (which has been beaten to death). In virtually every experiment I've seen, they're eyeballing where the light is being reflected. That's pretty hard when you have a hundred lights doing the same thing. This page gives a simple, basic method to determine where your light is going, and if it doubled their consistency with the mirrors, the results would have been different. I'm sure the boy scouts have a training manual, too, if you're looking for a more formal source. I'm not even saying that the death ray would have worked. I'm just saying that their experiments sucked. And bad experiments give bad results.

Re:To all "They're not REAL scientists!" posters

[Shadow Wrought]

Perhaps the most important thing they do is accept when their pre-conceived notions do not match the data. They talk about what they're expectations are, and how surprised or shocked they'd be if it was the opposite. Then, when it is the opposite, they delve into why, and how cool it is.

"Failure is always an option," and they learn fromt hem, too.

Re:To all "They're not REAL scientists!" posters

[Joce640k]

You forgot the obligatory xkcd

Re:To all "They're not REAL scientists!" posters

[asher09]

Adam and James may or may not be scientists, but I think there are "scientists" that are on the production team for the show. I'm a PhD chemist in the field of medicinal chemistry, and we've had TV documentary crews come in and film something about our work before. When they do the filming, they just merely ask us to pipet some random liquid into another container for no reason other than to provide some "science" looking video footage. So in effect, even though we are "real" scientists, when we're on TV, we're just actors, but there's science behind the info being disseminated. I tend to think of the mythbusters in a similar way.
I understand that even their methods are not up to the standards of science publication, but even we do try out things in the beginning in a way not too dissimilar to the Mythbuster way (ie not statistically significant, using some mock-up equipment, or whatever) before we fully commit to an experiment or before we purchase the proper equipment that would cost $50,000 or something. So yeah, the Mythbuster show is pretty scientific.

Re:To all "They're not REAL scientists!" posters

[elrous0]

I think that would be a more appropriate question for all the "They're not REAL scientists" critics, since they seem to have such a handle on what a REAL scientist is. I can only presume they mean a person with a Ph.D. in a classical science field (chemistry, biology, etc.) actively working in their field.

Re:To all "They're not REAL scientists!" posters

[ProppaT]

Trust me, MythBusters look like rocket scientists compared to a lot of people developing this stuff. Sometimes experience and common sense will get you a lot farther than book learning...

Re:To all "They're not REAL scientists!" posters

[0100010001010011]

Agreed, although funny enough, neither of them are "trained" Engineers.

Jamie has a degree in Russian linguistics and Adam is an acting college dropout. Although they have more lay person building skills than I could ever hope to have. Screw you high school guidance counselor that refused to let me take Welding since I was "college bound"

The rest of the cast:
Grant has a BSEE.
Kari is a sculpting artist.
Tory just started out as a stage manager running errands and just worked his way up the ranks.
------
*There are a few old guys from my company that started out from the bottom. Starting at the loading bay and some how ending up as master engineer despite having no degree what so ever. It's really rare any more, but it does still happen. Not everyone has the chance or opportunity to go to college to be an engineer.

Re:To all "They're not REAL scientists!" posters

[bill_mcgonigle]

They're way more open to criticism than many of the "real" scientists I've known.

A consensus of Death Ray episodes agrees that Archimedes's Death Ray leads to substantial heating, but not ignition (solar thermal generation plants, not withstanding).

Re:To all "They're not REAL scientists!" posters

[infalliable]

To prove something doesn't work, you have to do it more than once and do it in more than one way.

Re:To all "They're not REAL scientists!" posters

[elrous0]

In virtually every experiment I've seen, they're eyeballing where the light is being reflected

Yes, just as the soldiers in ancient Greece would have done. Part of the criteria of that experiment that they made clear from the get-go was that it had to work in the real world, using materials and resources available to Archimedes, and be executed in a realistic fashion. They've had two follow-up episodes now where they've given critics a chance to prove themselves (including the MIT students who so ardently claimed they could do it) and none have been able to replicate this supposed accomplishment in anything resembling real world conditions.

People hold on to the Archimedes myth because they WANT to believe it, not because it really happened. That's exactly the kind of quasi-religious belief that REAL scientists are supposed to question, not accept blindly (as so many Mythbusters critics seem to).

Re:To all "They're not REAL scientists!" posters

[RsG]

By that logic, there are no engineers. Anywhere. Ever. Every engineer is an applied scientist.

I think you need to reexamine the way you use those terms. Using the word "scientist" instead of the word "engineer" to describe someone who does engineering, simply because what they're doing is applied science, doesn't leave a single person on the planet who can legitimately be called an engineer. Well, except for a few cases where a job title includes the work "engineer" to make it sound more complex than it actually is, but I don't count those.

I count someone a scientist if they work in a scientific field and spend most of their time on projects that they intend to publish the results of. I call them an engineer if they spend most of their time designing, building and tinkering with technology. Obviously there are people who are somewhere in between those two, but the Mythbusters are engineers first.

Re:To all "They're not REAL scientists!" posters

[elrous0]

Actually, the burden of proof is on the person who asserts that something DOES work--not the other way around.

Re:To all "They're not REAL scientists!" posters

[Kleen13]

I think that's a very relevant point.

Re:To all "They're not REAL scientists!" posters

[gmurray]

I'd go further than calling them laymen. I think the right word is "heroes".

Re:To all "They're not REAL scientists!" posters

[asher09]

That is very true. In the "real" academic science world, there is often little or no grant funding that could be allocated to address criticism or disputed results that came from your lab. Consequently, disputed matters get left behind because "scientists" are more interested in doing new experiments that they could put in their next grant proposal. So in a weird way, the mythbusters are more scientific than "real scientists".

Re:To all "They're not REAL scientists!" posters

[gstoddart]

One of the two, Jamie i think, was awarded an honorary doctoral degree if im not mistaken. Thats gotta account for something

That, and $2 will get you a coffee in most places.

It's only $1.50 without the honorary degree. ;-)

Re:To all "They're not REAL scientists!" posters

[mini me]

They often state that they do use other methods to prove the hypothesis, it just doesn't make it on air. They only have an hour to fit in what could be weeks or months of scientific study while keeping it entertaining to boot. Who really wants to watch them repeat the same experiment 1000 times over?

Re:To all "They're not REAL scientists!" posters

[Rei]

Actually, "real" scientists are encouraged when their experiment fails. Failure is where they get to expose the true nature of whatever it is they are studying.

The greatest phrase in science, the phrase that most often proceeds revolutionary breakthroughs, is not "Eureka!" but "Huh... that's odd...."

Re:To all "They're not REAL scientists!" posters

[Captain Spam]

Except most of the time their results are wrong.

Science is falsifiable. Science can get something wrong.

What happens when someone comes by later and proves it wrong? Get this: That's also science.

Science is not about getting everything right the first time. Methods can be improved later with more knowledge or experience. Heck, there was a time way back when when "science" understood there were exactly four elements (earth, water, fire, air)*. That was wrong. Then knowledge improved. Some of the most brilliant minds in scientific history have come up with theories and models that were accepted as fact back in the day. There was a time the "plum pudding" model of an atom stood up as THE model of an atom. That was wrong. Then knowledge improved. There was a time the Bohr model of an atom stood up as THE model of an atom. That was wrong. Then knowledge improved.

Science is knowledge. Science is testable knowledge. The Mythbusters run their tests to the best of their abilities, resources, and experience. Sometimes they get things wrong. Science is falsifiable, testable knowledge. The Mythbusters are open to criticism and challenges to their results and testing methods. Challenge them sometime.

The only thing they don't have are science doctorates and journal-published papers. And that's not a part of science.

*: Yes, smart guy, I just mean western science.

Re:To all "They're not REAL scientists!" posters

[gmurray]

In my mind, what they do is actually more important that what Scientists do in a lot of respects. Science has less worth if most of the population rejects its findings because they don't align with their world view.

What the Mythbusters do is help us see where our physical intuitions about the world, that evolution has built for us, are inaccurate in the face of our understanding of the physical sciences. You can read something 1 million times in a text book, and it might not sink in unless your (often incorrect) intuition of physics is challenged by a physical demonstration right in front of you.

The Mythbusters, through their style of presentation and their frequent failings on-air, have built up a mysterious credibility in our minds that let them easily dismantle some of our errors of intuition in a style that sticks with us. I think this is valuable beyond measure, and wish there were more shows like this, and less like GhostHunters, for example.

Re:To all "They're not REAL scientists!" posters

[DerekLyons]

They use the scientific method to prove or disprove hypotheses. So yeah, they're real scientists

They use something that kinda looks like the scientific method - when it doesn't get in the way of making a big boom or doesn't interfere with the entertainment value. When it does, even that fig leaf goes overboard.
 
No, they're not real scientists.

Re:To all "They're not REAL scientists!" posters

[Rei]

I think it'd be safe to say that the quality of work they produce is often equivalent to what your average scientific team produces *before* it goes through the peer-review process.

The TV show is not the equivalent of a journal publishing results, but of the team submitting to a journal. The Mythbuster Forums are the closest thing they have to peer-review. They then often "resubmit" to the journal to address the criticisms.

It's not a perfect analogy, but it's not too far off. A team of "not on TV" scientists is hardly immune to mistakes, even stupid ones. The difference is that the peer-review process (usually) catches them.

Re:To all "They're not REAL scientists!" posters

[Onuma]

I have not failed. I've just found 10,000 ways that won't work.
Thomas Edison

Re:To all "They're not REAL scientists!" posters

[mldi]

"World English Dictionary
scientist

— n
a person who studies or practises any of the sciences or who uses scientific methods"

So, what exactly would you consider a "scientist"? It might not be their profession per se but when they are using scientific methods on the show to test out various hypotheses, they are technically "scientists".

Re:To all "They're not REAL scientists!" posters

[Joce640k]

I'd say "scientist" is "someone who follows the scientific method" but that's just me.

Re:To all "They're not REAL scientists!" posters

[elrous0]

It's sad that the Mythbusters ratings rank FAR behind shows like "16 and Pregnant" and "American Idol." Can you imagine a world where this were reversed?

Re:To all "They're not REAL scientists!" posters

[metalmaster]

ya, as if that joke isnt old enough.....

There's never a practical use for a degree, but it does show that someone thinks he is worthy of the distinction.

Re:To all "They're not REAL scientists!" posters

[Terrasque]

What annoys me most is the "If we can't do it, noone can" attitude.

I remember one myth (some details might be slightly wrong here, been a while since I saw it) where a stewardess survived a plane crash by sitting strapped into her seat in the tailpart of the plane. They tried to reproduce it, failed, and then had to label it "plausible", because, well.. After some research, they found out it did actually happen, and was well documented. Before they found that, it was clearly in the "busted" bin.

What does that say about the rest of the tests they do? Not much, admittedly, but it at least gives one case where they got the wrong conclusion.

I like the show a lot, but mostly for entertainment value. I generally find some annoyances regarding their "scientific" testing around every 2-3 episodes. Which, for me, makes it hard to take the show seriously :)

Re:To all "They're not REAL scientists!" posters

[johanatan]

There have been numerous episodes where they attempt feat X in a very particular way, fail, and then say X cannot possibly ever be done under any other particulars. How anybody *could* think that is science is beyond me.

Re:To all "They're not REAL scientists!" posters

[labnet]

Except most of the time their results are wrong. I have seen them perform so many flawed experiments that I no longer watch that show.

Which is why you will always be a worker drone.

Re:To all "They're not REAL scientists!" posters

[gstoddart]

There's never a practical use for a degree, but it does show that someone thinks he is worthy of the distinction.

Oh there are practical uses for degrees, just not so much the honorary ones.

Oh, absolutely. The honorary degrees really are intended to recognize you as having done something of significance.

And really, in terms of showing hands-on engineering and other cool things, I think Jamie likely deserved his honorary degree. Judging by some of the calculations I've seen him pull out, I'd say his practical experience in such things is probably more than some freshly minted engineers.

He's not just some TV host, but someone who actually runs a business and creates such things.

Re:To all "They're not REAL scientists!" posters

[Lord Ender]

Are QA Engineers scientists, too? These people design and run tests based on scientific principles every day. But they never publish in scientific journals and their titles use the word "engineer" not "scientist."

Re:To all "They're not REAL scientists!" posters

[elrous0]

I have never once seen them act with such arrogance. A mainstay of the show almost from the beginning has been their follow-up shows and their general willingness to not only tolerate, but openly encourage, their critics. I have rarely seen any real world scientists that were as quick to admit their mistakes and reverse their conclusions as Jaime and Adam. In fact, they seem to take a kind of joy in being proven wrong (or when they initial hypothesis is wrong, and the experiment surprises them).

Re:To all "They're not REAL scientists!" posters

[camperdave]

Adam did portray a lab technician on CSI once. That would qualify.

Re:To all "They're not REAL scientists!" posters

[tophermeyer]

What annoys me most is the "If we can't do it, noone can" attitude.

But that's the premise of the show. It's not Mythinvestigators. The whole model is them exploring a myth, replicating the event, and making a declaration. The show wouldn't work if all their results were "plausible".

Re:To all "They're not REAL scientists!" posters

[camperdave]

Curse you Slashdot! Why can't I click on links anymore!

Re:To all "They're not REAL scientists!" posters

[Miseph]

I'd say "follows the scientific method" is assumed in "does scientific research"... since, by definition, not doing the former precludes doing the latter.

Re:To all "They're not REAL scientists!" posters

[RsG]

Eh, I'd include "someone who does scientific research" under "someone who follows the scientific method". You can't call it "scientific" research if you aren't following the scientific method after all. So I'd agree with you, but point out that my criteria implicitly included yours.

Re:To all "They're not REAL scientists!" posters

[Profane MuthaFucka]

Because they don't publish in a peer reviewed refereed journal.

Re:To all "They're not REAL scientists!" posters

[guruevi]

Some of those things you will never be able to prove or disprove. The stewardess in the back of the airplane one is one of those things where if you crash a 1000 planes in those situations maybe 1 stewardess will actually survive. In academics, people don't have that type of grant money to actually crash planes. They'll crash 3 planes on a pilot grant, publish it, put in a grant request and get more grant money to crash 20 maybe 50 planes and interpolate a result out of that. Statistically it's improbable with a 99.9% chance of dying, anecdotally it has happened before but you can't really put real people through these experiments, you have to have crash dummies and shock recorders that have much lower limits on what it means to die than an exceptional human body.

What MythBusters does to me (I do actually work in the scientific field and I am involved in the process of grant writing) is pilot studies based on anecdotal evidence. If you want to do real studies you should get your PhD, apply for a grant and work in academics but I warn you: it's boring, nobody will ever read your findings, studies, papers or ideas except maybe for the editor of a scientific paper (and even then, many don't read past the first page) unless it's earth shattering and you will definitely NEVER appear on TV doing your experiments, at most you'll give a soundbite to journalists who will misinterpret it anyway in their news report.

Re:To all "They're not REAL scientists!" posters

[Eponymous Coward]

That's funny.

Re:To all "They're not REAL scientists!" posters

[N!k0N]

Curse you Slashdot! Why can't I click on links anymore!

^^ this (posting to retract fail moderation)

Re:To all "They're not REAL scientists!" posters

[CBravo]

I always considered the dichotomy to be true: An engineer has to deal with stuff that is practically interesting and a scientist does not. For instance in EE (my field) there is little interest in radio bulbs but a lot of interest in silicon. These are all practical/monetary considerations (even though I hardly touch any of the stuff itself).

Re:To all "They're not REAL scientists!" posters

[Miseph]

Perhaps GP considers engineering an applied science. That would make all engineers applied scientists, but not all applied scientists engineers.

You sum up where this leaves engineers who do not appreciably use applied science in their work quite nicely: engineers by title.

Re:To all "They're not REAL scientists!" posters

[thoromyr]

As someone who recently posted on the subject you bring up... my comment was not about *them* but their *show*. While things like this may cloud the issue for those who can't distinguish between the two the *show* is entertainment, and as such abides by the rules for a successful entertainment show.

But to claim that Mythbusters teaches scepticism? They may talk about scepticism, but the show doesn't do a good job of illustrating it. The empiricism they teach is on the level of shooting wet telephone books to test bullets. Or blowing apart melons to demonstrate the effect of hydrostatic shock.

I know, they'd do a better job than that, but it is on the same "feel good" level. It serves to reinforce reliance on anecdotal data (which is all they *ever* offer on the show -- do they even mention confidence levels?).

I'm not arguing against the show's entertainment value. Clearly it entertains a sizeable segment of the population sufficiently to justify continued production. I'm not saying the people involved aren't good people, or that they don't do things which are more than entertainment. But entertainment is what the show is all about.

Re:To all "They're not REAL scientists!" posters

[sarahbau]

I was wondering if I was the only one. I can't click on them in Firefox in Windows or in Safari on my Mac. I can at least right click and copy them in Safari though (can't have any interaction in Firefox).

Re:To all "They're not REAL scientists!" posters

[camperdave]

By that logic, there are no engineers. Anywhere. Ever.

My dad runs a train, you insensitive clod!

Re:To all "They're not REAL scientists!" posters

[thoromyr]

and kind of necessary when done without any concern for confidence in the result... See the "real" scientists generally at least believe they are doing things in a statistically meaningful manner. But when you don't you *will* get wrong results from time to time, no matter how good the general principles are.

Maybe I'm the only one that remembers physics labs, but considering they demonstrate very well established principles its amazing how often they don't. But then you consider the typical procedure in a freshman physics lab and realize there's a lot of room for variance. And even a good engineer with good procedures will still have variance, hence concerns about statistics.

Re:To all "They're not REAL scientists!" posters

[CBravo]

Practically you are right, theoretically one can discuss that. Practically it is discussed in topics 'larger than life' (religiion, ...) and the largest denominator 'is right'.

Re:To all "They're not REAL scientists!" posters

[Anonymous Coward]

A particular episode (in which they test the myth that driving faster on a bumpy road = smoother ride) they end up completely mis-interpreting their data.

Data collections methods:
1) 3 axis accelerometer: Good - measures acceleration of the car body; differentiating acceleration yields jerk
2) A guage to measure the delta between car body and wheels: Bad - Does not isolate delta due to car body bouncing from delta due to car body NOT bouncing when the road is rough
3) Wine glasses full of water: Bad - round-bottomed glasses do more to measure lateral acceleration than vertical acceleration. Lots of liquid spilled during peel-out and power-slide finish OBVIOUSLY invalidate this as a decent measurement device.

This is when I stopped watching

Re:To all "They're not REAL scientists!" posters

[emaname]

...sometimes even a layman has insight to offer.

Someone should share your insight with our politicians.

Re:To all "They're not REAL scientists!" posters

[Drakkenmensch]

Though they may not be scientists, they certainly apply the scientific methodology.

Re:To all "They're not REAL scientists!" posters

[Cytotoxic]

As full evidence of falsifiable tests and sciencey goodness, the Mythbusters made a car with golf ball dimples to prove that giant golf ball dimples won't improve car mileage. This experiment promptly demonstrated a fairly large improvement in cruising mileage by putting large golf ball dimples on a car. That's science! (and cool too.)

Re:To all "They're not REAL scientists!" posters

[pulse2600]

Mod parent up! Science is not about your idea being right. It's about determining if your idea is correct or incorrect through a repeatable, reproducible process utilizing the scientific method. Acquiring grant money is about your idea being right.

Re:To all "They're not REAL scientists!" posters

[mdielmann]

Honestly, did you READ the linked article? Do you think Archimedes couldn't have thought of guide sticks for his soldiers to use for aiming their mirrors? That's not eyeballing, that's simple triangulation. It also removes the distraction of everyone else's lights, since you're focussing your light based on an item that no one else is using. As I said, not one aiming mechanism, not even something that simple. And for the record, even the most basic bow and arrow uses triangulation to aim with (presuming the bow is good enough to be aimed), even if the user doesn't realize it. I only expect slightly better of Archimedes.

Re:To all "They're not REAL scientists!" posters

[sirsnork]

FF4 on Win7 x64 here and links are ok

Re:To all "They're not REAL scientists!" posters

[Cytotoxic]

I'd say "scientist" is "someone who follows the scientific method" but that's just me.

Precisely. They design experiments (whether good or not) to test hypotheses. The show documents the engineering that is done to conduct the experiments. That is how science is done.

I used to do work in soft tissue transplant research (honest to goodness NIH and NCI funded scientific research!). As a part of that work I built liquid nitrogen freezers, designed auto-plating robots, wrote database synchronization programs, did statistical analysis... lots of different "professions". But the actual task at hand was scientific research.

Now I apply those skills in the financial world. The questions I apply my skills to are no longer in the realm of "science", but I still bring a scientific mindset to the work.

The Mythbuster's task at hand is entertainment. In the course of that task they test various hypotheses. The tests they design are scientific experiments. The engineering they do during the implementation of those experiments constitutes the bulk of the show. The very large percentage of time spent preparing to do an experiment on the show matches my experience in actual scientific research. The education that Mythbusters provides in approaching a question scientifically is immensely valuable, even if it is incomplete.

Re:To all "They're not REAL scientists!" posters

[Talderas]

That's just it. The goal is to recreate myths to see if it's possible. Why should they do anything more than eyeball the death ray? When it's operated by hundreds of soldiers do you expect each and every one to do precise calculations or eyeball where they're supposed to hold the mirror.

Re:To all "They're not REAL scientists!" posters

[Cytotoxic]

One example is the whole Archimedes Death Ray (which has been beaten to death). In virtually every experiment I've seen, they're eyeballing where the light is being reflected. That's pretty hard when you have a hundred lights doing the same thing. This page gives a simple, basic method to determine where your light is going, and if it doubled their consistency with the mirrors, the results would have been different. I'm sure the boy scouts have a training manual, too, if you're looking for a more formal source. I'm not even saying that the death ray would have worked. I'm just saying that their experiments sucked. And bad experiments give bad results.

If you had seen the follow-up you'd know that they modified their experiment by adding a fine netting in front of the mirrors to allow the "soldiers" to better aim their spots. This is a technical improvement on the method you suggest. They also increased the number and size of mirrors used. They learned from their experiment, listened to peer review and improved their methods. They performed additional experiments which gave similar results. They then published their findings publicly.

Exactly how is this not science? Other than the less-than-earthshattering nature of the questions they pose, they generally do exactly what research scientists at major universities do every day.

Re:To all "They're not REAL scientists!" posters

[thesandtiger]

That's largely because "real" scientists have to navigate politics to get funding and have their careers. If you prove an academic's theory wrong it can tank their career. If you prove the Mythbusters are wrong it just leads to a new show idea and more opportunities for them to blow shit up.

I *wish* it were different, but alas - them's the breaks.

Re:To all "They're not REAL scientists!" posters

[VolciMaster]

people don't have that type of grant money to actually crash planes. They'll crash 3 planes on a pilot grant

now THAT made me laugh

Re:To all "They're not REAL scientists!" posters

[sznupi]

(@sig) Depends what kind of Lord. Sith, by chance?

(and hey, dubious results aren't very cited, for one ...so there are ways to tell what the community thinks about them, even when not blessed with resources allowing to address such)

Re:To all "They're not REAL scientists!" posters

[Captain Splendid]

you could have just said INB4 not real scientists.

Yeah, he could have. But, this being slashdot, there's a few of us who enjoy complete sentences, good grammar, and all that other old-timey stuff. The Xbox generation still has a few years before they take over everything.

/owns an xbox
//get off my lawn

Re:To all "They're not REAL scientists!" posters

[yabos]

One that comes to mind was can you take off in an airplane if the plane is on a treadmill and the plane is going the same speed as the treadmill. i.e. the plane isn't moving at all through the air, has zero velocity relative to the ground and the wheels are moving at the exact rate as the treadmill. They didn't seem to understand the concept of relative movement. Of course the plane's engine can overcome the backwards movement of the treadmill and get enough airspeed to still achieve lift. The same thing happens if you try and take off in a tail wind. If you have a 10kt tail wind, the plane has to be going 10kt forward relative to the ground in order have zero airspeed. The plane engine can of course propel/pull the plane more than 10kts so it can overcome this tailwind or treadmill.

Re:To all "They're not REAL scientists!" posters

[Loether]

same specs here and links are NOT ok. weird. I can't even select post anon... weirder

Re:To all "They're not REAL scientists!" posters

[elrous0]

Hush, you fool! Everyone here thinks that academic science is completely apolitical and that no scientist would ever dare cook the numbers or exaggerate in an effort to grant-whore.

Re:To all "They're not REAL scientists!" posters

[Altus]

The real mind fuck in that example is trying to figure out how fast the treadmill needs to be going. If it goes "the same speed as the wheels are" then when the plane starts to move forward (say 10 mph) the treadmill should be going backward at the same rate (10mph) but that would spin the wheels up to 20mph (the plane is still moving forward at 10, relative rate at the wheels is 20) which means the treadmill has to speed up to 20mph. Without the plane even accelerating from 10mph the treadmill ends up accelerating out of control because it can never truly match the speed of the wheels!

Of course the plane still takes off and cares not for the trials and tribulations of the poor treadmill.

Re:To all "They're not REAL scientists!" posters

[Altus]

Yea but they wont make your car go faster... for that you need Speed Holes!

Re:To all "They're not REAL scientists!" posters

[Altus]

Although in that follow up I think the error was in using a bunch of elementary school kids. I get why they did it, but bored and distracted children are not exactly soldiers who are defending their city from invasion.

Re:To all "They're not REAL scientists!" posters

[camperdave]

Double right clicking? How about Slashdot coders undo the damage they've done to this website?

Re:To all "They're not REAL scientists!" posters

[Ihmhi]

Well then everybody would be mad about losing their accounts. To undo the damage they've done to this website, they'd have to format the hard drives and the backups, take the server racks out to the desert, and bury them in the landfill next to all of those copies of E.T.

Re:To all "They're not REAL scientists!" posters

[dougisfunny]

Turn on no script for slashdot, it fixes it.

Re:To all "They're not REAL scientists!" posters

[burnit999]

I am also now unable to click on the links in comments on slashdot, other sites work fine. I have tried using Google Chrome 10.0.648.204 and Firefox 3.6.16 on macOSx 10.5.8. I have to use the right click and open in new tab... not sure about when this behavior started...

Re:To all "They're not REAL scientists!" posters

[barrtender]

Win7 Chrome and I can't click. Post Anon doesn't check for me either.

Re:To all "They're not REAL scientists!" posters

[Em Adespoton]

Watching them feels a lot like watching that crazy high school science teacher who would have their students build bottle rockets or potato cannons.

Bottle rockets or potato cannons?

"That crazy high school science teacher" had us pair off to see who could make the most effective black powder... and tested (with everyone safely behind blast shields) how the interaction between all the alkali metals and H2O changes when you move from grams and litres to something several orders of magnitude larger....

Actually, what went on in my highschool science classes was very similar to what the Mythbusters do; weeks of boring prep, culminating in large explosions (or, sometimes, in HazMat evacuations as someone dropped the vial containing the highly toxic gas, etc.)

The thing I learned most in that class was proper handling procedure and cleanup for WHMIS materials.

I still remember the many ways to effectively use a fume hood, clean up toxic liquids, stay outside the blast radius of an active experiment, and what the A B and C stand for (and are useful for) on a fire extinguisher. Getting my Propane/Methane ticket was a breeze years later, because I already knew first hand exactly how those gases behave in differing situations :)

Re:To all "They're not REAL scientists!" posters

[Clsid]

They are scientists. More to the point, they used Applied Science. That they don't follow the traditions of academia is one thing, but they do use the scientific method to bring solutions to everyday issues.

Re:To all "They're not REAL scientists!" posters

[Libertarian001]

Go back to your toilet, Wolowitz.

(http://bigbangtheory.wikia.com/wiki/Howard_Wolowitz)

Re:To all "They're not REAL scientists!" posters

[Clsid]

You have any idea of how many failed experiments Edison had under his belt? I don't see your point.

Re:To all "They're not REAL scientists!" posters

[Clsid]

I would call them Applied Scientists. That is the people who use science to solve everyday issues instead of studying fundamental sciences.

Re:To all "They're not REAL scientists!" posters

[blair1q]

Bite me.

On the next episode of Mythbusters!

Re:To all "They're not REAL scientists!" posters

[Plekto]

Exactly. There have been times when they have been completely proven wrong and/or found out something that they or nobody knew before. The bathroom tiles and fiberglass composite material was a perfect example of this. They never expected it to actually work as well as it did. The aforementioned dimpled car was also something that proved them wrong. And I kind of still expect NASCAR to be using it soon as even 1MPG difference for a little tweaking of the fiberglass shell on a race car seems to be worth trying. I envision a lot of small 1/4 inch or so dimples - just enough to barely be visible but have some effect.

Science is testing things with the scientific method. Everything else is B.S. and fluff that we've invented around it or that has been invented to make people feel important about themselves. There's still a lot to be said about the guy who is working on things in his garage and actually trying things as opposed to writing some report for a journal.

Re:To all "They're not REAL scientists!" posters

[Qzukk]

I think the problem people have in comprehending this is that people assume that taxiing planes are like any other wheeled vehicle: the forward motion is caused by force of the wheel on the ground. Since planes use the engines to move forward, the ground doesn't really matter.

If you want a car analogy, you could build a "treadmill" that sits under the car wheels and spins with the wheel so the car can "drive" while going nowhere (they exist, you'll see them in plenty of mechanics' shops) but if you hooked the car up to a tow truck and pulled it, it'd roll right off the treadmill because its forward motion won't have anything to do with the action of the wheels on the ground.

Re:To all "They're not REAL scientists!" posters

[evilWurst]

Yeah, at the same time I can't click 'post anonymously' either.

I found that in FF4, if you right click the link several times you'll eventually get the menu to show up, and then you can open it in a new tab. In Chrome a single right click gets the equivalent menu.

Re:To all "They're not REAL scientists!" posters

[Shotgun]

Stupid guidance counselor. Learning to weld **gave me the opportunity** to learn more about true engineering, creating a structure that will stay together under expected conditions, than anything else I've ever done. In all of education, there is NOTHING in a classroom that can compare to seeing your creation come apart, inspecting it, and knowing what you should have done to make it stay together. That counselor should be fired immediately for having her head so far up her ass that she can't realize that there is a LOT of world outside of a classroom.

Re:To all "They're not REAL scientists!" posters

[bhtooefr]

I didn't miss the joke, but aerodynamic mods reduce the amount of power needed push the car through the air at given speeds. Therefore, assuming that the car isn't limited by its gearing or an electronic speed limiter, top speed will increase.

Re:To all "They're not REAL scientists!" posters

[Shotgun]

No one is stopping you from clicking. They're just not obligated to take you anywhere.

Re:To all "They're not REAL scientists!" posters

[realityimpaired]

They also don't make assertions about the theories of others, or try to disprove existing theories. Just because somebody doesn't publish doesn't make them "not a scientist." What makes them "not a scientist" is that they explicitly say they aren't scientists when asked.

They do still follow scientific method, and they do still submit their findings for review, just that they're doing things for entertainment value, not scientific merit/progress. When they start talking about scientific theory and basis behind what they're talking about/doing, they go out of their way to find an expert to give credible testimony on the show, at least for anything beyond a high school level.

Re:To all "They're not REAL scientists!" posters

[X0563511]

... and that designates one a scientist how?

Re:To all "They're not REAL scientists!" posters

[Shotgun]

An engineer is a person who is trained to get the desired result with the least input.
QA engineers are attempting to construct tests that will insure the highest quality product with the least amount of testing.
Aeronautical engineers are attempting to build the lightest/fastest/safest airplane for the least size/weight/cost.
Automotive engineers are attempting to build the lightest/fastest/safest car for the least size/weight/cost.
Civil engineers are attempting to build the most durable/safest bridge or highway for the least cost/environmental disruption.

Sometimes, the engineer has to optimize more than one variable.

Re:To all "They're not REAL scientists!" posters

[Imrik]

I'm having the same problem but I discovered through annoyance that clicking repeatedly works for some reason.

Re:To all "They're not REAL scientists!" posters

[realityimpaired]

Not OK here. FF4 on Win7 x32 (my netbook) or FF3 on Win7 x64 (my laptop). Doesn't work on either.

For shits and giggles, I tried it on IE on Win7 x64. It worked perfectly. I think it's time to abandon Slashdot.

Re:To all "They're not REAL scientists!" posters

[Imrik]

None, he successfully found many ways that didn't work.

Re:To all "They're not REAL scientists!" posters

[Imrik]

Even when you do things in a statistically meaningful manner you will get wrong results from time to time, the only difference is that you have a fairly good idea of how often you will get wrong results.

Re:To all "They're not REAL scientists!" posters

[cynyr]

chromium 64bit gentoo: no link clicking for me either.

Re:To all "They're not REAL scientists!" posters

[realityimpaired]

The plane's forward momentum is provided by the prop or turbine, not the wheels. The wheels are free to turn at whatever rate, and whether a plane has enough lift to take off depends on the airspeed, not the groundspeed. You could put a plane on a treadmill moving at Mach 1, and a simple prop-driven fixed wing aircraft would still be able to take off (though it'd probably blow a tire at that speed).

Re:To all "They're not REAL scientists!" posters

[jackchance]

They are certainly scientists. They are just not very good scientists.

Science is a method that involves using experiments to test hypotheses.
The mythbusters are definitely doing that. However, there conclusions are often too broad considering the specifics of their experiments. The ice bullet episode comes to mind. They attempt to make ice bullets in a few ways, and fail. They conclude that you can't make an ice bullet, but they certainly did not exhaust the ways in which one could make an ice bullet.

Additionally, they often make conclusions from a single experiment. In the case of showing something can work, a single sample, an existence proof is enough. But demonstrating something is impossible is much harder.

FYI, I am a scientist. Also, the best scientists are generally pretty good engineers because testing new ideas often requires building new devices.

Re:To all "They're not REAL scientists!" posters

[camperdave]

Yes. Each time you click you move from the post to that parent's post. Once you've reached the root post, it'll work.

Re:To all "They're not REAL scientists!" posters

[Gorshkov]

In theory, theory and practice are the same. In practice, they're not.

Re:To all "They're not REAL scientists!" posters

[Gadget_Guy]

Did you see the episode where they used netting directly in front of the mirrors to allow the participants to focus their mirror on a close point without any distractions from all the other lights? They also tried a focussing system that used a similar principle to your cited idea, but that didn't prove to be successful (can't remember why now). They still didn't get any burning boat, so even with the aiming system the myth result still stands.

Re:To all "They're not REAL scientists!" posters

[Algae_94]

You raise a good point about flaming arrows being more effective at the ranges that the reflections began to raise the temperature. I think it's quite plausible that the "death ray" didn't work as we expect. It's possible that the combination of blinding light distracting the approaching vessels combined with some well placed flaming projectiles combined to be the seed of a myth that the reflected sun alone caused the fires. Or it's also possible that the distraction of the reflected light alone was enough of an advantage and it got translated through the years into a "death ray" setting fire to the ships.

Re:To all "They're not REAL scientists!" posters

[syousef]

What they *are* are SOMEWHAT knowledgeable SPECIAL EFFECTS GUYS, MIS-applying A BASTARDISED TV VERSION OF scientific methodology to fairly straight-foward questions in a MISLEADING but who cares it's entertaining fashion. They MIS-REPRESENT the basics of scientific testing to the masses. They INCORRECTLY teach OVER-SIMPLIFIED VERSIONS OF concepts such as skepticism and empiricism to REDNECKS WHO WOULDN'T RECOGNISE A PROPER CONTROL IF IT BIT THEM

Fixed it for you. There is good reason they are criticized. Sometimes teaching a subject badly is more dangerous than not teaching it at all. Suddenly you've got an army of TV viewers who think they know science when all they really know is how to make cool explosions. Then when their techniques fail to produce others rightly ridicule these viewers but wrongly come to the conclusion that science is all just BS and equally valid with mythology.

When they're older, if my kids are interested in Mythbusters, I'll be encouraging them to play pick the scientific flaw. "That's right, that was a logical leap and the conclusion isn't valid. That's right, that was a very weak excuse for a control . That's right, they didn't think of X Y or Z".

Re:To all "They're not REAL scientists!" posters

[syousef]

The problem is that they teach scientific principles so loosely and with so little rigor that it's actually damaging. Anyone who walks away from their "lessons" thinking they understand science has fooled themself. The trouble is that they then go out and represent this shoddy methodology to others who, when the techniques fail, judge all of science to be of limited validity.

Re:To all "They're not REAL scientists!" posters

[calmofthestorm]

And how many more trials you need to run to achieve a given certainty level.

Re:To all "They're not REAL scientists!" posters

[calmofthestorm]

My suspicion is that few scientists would actually publish something they knew was false at the time (sure sure Wakefield, but I don't think they're the norm). There's a good chance that someone /extending/ your work will find it false, even if no one recreates it. No, scientists who fake data fake things they believe strongly to be correct to save the time to actually run the data. This is very helpful, eg, for being the first to discover the Hugs boson or whatnot that theory predicts: you publish and hope the community proves you right. Bad science is eventually wrung out. It can take embaressingly long but the odds are still good it'll happen in your lifetime. And then you're done. You'll never work in R&D, let alone academia, again.

Re:To all "They're not REAL scientists!" posters

[Skywolfblue]

However, there conclusions are often too broad considering the specifics of their experiments.

This. It drives me up the wall when they only test one case, ignore all other cases, and then their conclusion is stated in such a fashion as to say that the myth is definitively "busted" even though they forgot to test those other cases.

Re:To all "They're not REAL scientists!" posters

[Maxo-Texas]

A more obscure ending punchline pun would have been to say, "No their brains are too stringy".

Re:To all "They're not REAL scientists!" posters

[Vastad]

Isn't this the irony of the "Guidance Counselor" concept? If you have the advice and the answers to a great career or future....why are you doing this job? Why aren't you out there making your mark on the world?

The position might have some relevance if they allowed ageism and a level of prejudice not generally allowed by labour laws.:
Don't allow anyone younger than 45, without a proven career track record, respectable travel experience or at least 3 years living and working abroad to apply. Mixture of corporate and self-employed, white-collar and blue-collar experience is favoured. Wife and children are a bonus to round out the pool of knowledge to pass on. Only then would you have the real world experience to actually advise anybody at all.

Hmmm...that ended up a bigger comment than I first intended.

Re:To all "They're not REAL scientists!" posters

[Neil Boekend]

At a treadmill speed of Mach 1 the wheel bearings would have to be very low friction to allow the plane to take off.
Assume the bearings are not perfect, and they create a force (with the direction of the treadmill, thus against the flying speed) of 100N. If the plane only has 80N of thrust it will accelerate backwards due to a force of 20N. This may cause it to lift because wings work (poorly, but they do work) backwards, but that is a bit outside of the scope of the myth.

Re:To all "They're not REAL scientists!" posters

[sumdumass]

Well, what makes it even more ridiculous is he is supposedly a grown adult now and nothing is stopping him from either taking a welding class at a community college, or simply buying a cheap welder and a book and getting busy learning.

There is no reason to blame anyone other then himself for not learning to weld. You can be set up with a cheap rig and all the crap you need to learn for less then 500 bucks- cheaper if you look for deals and you won't need to spend it all at once. It can get more expensive if you want to do some of the fancier welding or work with some of the more exotic metals, but for the most part, you wouldn't get that in high school unless you were in a trade class either. Chances are, once you start welding things and talking about it, you will know people who know how to do it too and they will be willing to show you some stuff to boot.

Re:To all "They're not REAL scientists!" posters

[sFurbo]

Opera 10.60 on linux here, links and Post Anonymously doesn't work.

Re:To all "They're not REAL scientists!" posters

[tehcyder]

"You may abuse a tragedy, though you cannot write one. You may scold a carpenter who has made you a bad table, though you cannot make a table. It is not your trade to make tables."
- Doctor Johnson.

Re:To all "They're not REAL scientists!" posters

[Eponymous Coward]

One of the definitions of scientist is one who follows the scientific method. I have no problem calling them scientists.

Re:To all "They're not REAL scientists!" posters

[realityimpaired]

Oh, I know.... but assuming we're able to engineer a treadmill large enough for an airplane with a track speed of Mach 1, I'm going to put forward that we could also engineer a frictionless bearing (since that's about what'd be needed to keep the treadmill motor from burning out :P) You'd also have to take into account the heat from friction between the wheel and the track, which would probably be enough to cause a normal air-filled tire to explode. :)

It'd be interesting to see them try to engineer such a treadmill just for the sake of experiment, hehe.

Re:To all "They're not REAL scientists!" posters

[Zanadou]

Thank you. I was wondering if it was just me too. (FF4 (32bit) Win x64.) Also, the right-click menu doesn't work ("check speeling") inside the comments box. Seriously, what the fuck has Slashdot done now? (Compounding this, it DOES work in the nightly Chromium I just downloaded (12.0.730.0 (Developer Build 80758) ). Come the fuck on.

Re:To all "They're not REAL scientists!" posters

[WillDraven]

I wouldn't be able to resist the chance to do something that causes lots of (harmless) smoke while they were filming and start shouting "Oh my god! It's out of control! RUN! RUNNNN!"

Re:To all "They're not REAL scientists!" posters

[elrous0]

You don't have to outright falsify data to cook it. You can just *interpret* it in such a way as to support your hypothesis, while still leaving yourself enough wiggle room to back off if someone else challenges it. If worse comes to worse, you just claim faulty equipment, a flawed test, or a faulty sample. It's not like anyone can prove you were intentionally fraudulent (unless you're dumb enough to openly admit it to someone).

This is even easier to do in gray areas where conclusive testing is impossible, or requires a lot of interpretation. And it happens all the time, particularly when large grants or tenure is on the line.

Don't kid yourself, "hard" science is not nearly as hard as we pretend.

Re:To all "They're not REAL scientists!" posters

[0100010001010011]

Well, what makes it even more ridiculous is he is supposedly a grown adult now and nothing is stopping him from either taking a welding class at a community college, or simply buying a cheap welder and a book and getting busy learning.

There is no reason to blame anyone other then himself for not learning to weld. You can be set up with a cheap rig and all the crap you need to learn for less then 500 bucks- cheaper if you look for deals and you won't need to spend it all at once. It can get more expensive if you want to do some of the fancier welding or work with some of the more exotic metals, but for the most part, you wouldn't get that in high school unless you were in a trade class either. Chances are, once you start welding things and talking about it, you will know people who know how to do it too and they will be willing to show you some stuff to boot.

Other than in high school it was free and I had TIME. Now I have a real job and other obligations. Fitting into a welding class (Which I've looked, always fill up near instantly and with actual students because of the economy) is hard.

I had both the opportunity and time to take it in highschool. For free. I even ended up having an extra study hall my senior year (when welding wasn't offered) but could have easily shifted other classes around in 9/10/11th and welded then.

Re:To all "They're not REAL scientists!" posters

[Profane MuthaFucka]

A participant in the scientific process is the definition of a scientist. And a portion of the scientific process is allowing others to look at your results. This activity has been formalized as the peer review process, typically but not always through a peer reviewed journal.

Re:To all "They're not REAL scientists!" posters

[X0563511]

Apologies, but I still do not see how journals or peer reviews have anything to do with the scientific process itself.

Re:To all "They're not REAL scientists!" posters

[hitmark]

Also, a whole lot of background work on each episode is left on the editing room floor.

One specific instance indicated that a conversation about how to build a balloon platform that could potentially list Adam aloft ran for 3 hours between the two of them. That is 6 episodes combined, just for the conversation alone.

What is shown are the more spectacular results and whatever else the producer considers entertaining, while staying within the premise of the show.

Re:To all "They're not REAL scientists!" posters

[hitmark]

These days the "work your way up" rarely happens because the insurance premium would be insane.

Re:To all "They're not REAL scientists!" posters

[hitmark]

mmm, string theory pretzels.

Re:To all "They're not REAL scientists!" posters

[hitmark]

I guess engineers are more inclined to follow existing guidelines, while scientists write and rewrite guidelines based on experimental results. One do not experiment when designing something that can kill if it fails.

Re:To all "They're not REAL scientists!" posters

[sumdumass]

Oh, I see.. It's the free education your pissed about and not the experience you could get on your own.

I just seems to me that if you still feel like you have missed out on something that could aid you in your present career, then it's your failing at this time and not some high school guidance councilor's from years ago.

Re:To all "They're not REAL scientists!" posters

[0100010001010011]

It's not something that could aid me in my present career. It's something I just want to know. I learned how to Sew in Public School (because it was mandatory) along with numerous other life skills.

But when you're a 14 year old freshmen that has no clue what to do, but would like to learn something. Your guidance counselor shouldn't tell you you can't do something because "that's for people who aren't going to college.". Same goes for vocational autoshop. I couldn't take it because I was college bound. Welding really isn't something you can just 'pick up' like I did auto repair. I started off with a $20 set of sockets and worked my way up from changing the oil to changing the head. Welding you need a welder and shit to weld, a high cost of entry.

tl;dr
A high school guidance counselor should never tell someone they can't do anything. Maybe that it's unlikely or will be difficult, but not can't.

Re:To all "They're not REAL scientists!" posters

[sumdumass]

Actually, welding is something you can just pick up like auto repair. In fact, it's relatively easier because you can purchase scrap metal and practice on it until you start perfecting your skills. To this day, when I need to weld something, I grab some scrap and lay a bead or two to get back into the groove as I do not do it enough to stay good at it.

I have picked up old farm welders for $50 at estate auctions. Like I said before, you can be fully outfitted with a working rig for less then $500, substantially less if you look for bargains.

Granted, the second hand welders were not the best, but neither was your $20 socket set. I'm willing to bet that you eventually purchased some better tools and more tools. and if you are only welding once or twice a year like me, they are more then fine for almost every job you need to do.

A high school guidance counselor should never tell someone they can't do anything. Maybe that it's unlikely or will be difficult, but not can't.

A guidance counselor should very well tell someone they cannot do something. The entire job of a guidance counselor is to giude the student into areas they will excel in.If your parents said you are going to college, he made the right call. But that is neither here nor there because continuing to blame him and not yourself will not correct anything you see wrong. Man up, take some responsibility for your own fate, and just do it. You are the master of your own destiny now, not some puke fumbling his way through a job trying to make your guardians happy.

Re:To all "They're not REAL scientists!" posters

[rhook]

No, I'm saying that because many of their experiments are flawed and the say "we proved this" when in fact they didn't that their science is flawed. You verify your results in science.

Re:To all "They're not REAL scientists!" posters

[rhook]

Yep, just like the times they "busted" the "myth" of the USMC sniper shooting another sniper right through his scope. Well this was a confirmed kill from back in the Vietnam War. The man who did this was no other than Gunnery Sergeant Carlos Hathcock.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carlos_Hathcock#Legacy

"One of Hathcock's most famous accomplishments was shooting an enemy sniper through the enemy's own scope, hitting him in the eye and killing him.[2] Hathcock and John Roland Burke, his spotter, were stalking the enemy sniper in the jungle near Hill 55, the firebase from which Hathcock was operating. The sniper had already killed several Marines and was believed to have been sent specifically to kill Hathcock.[10] When Hathcock saw a flash of light (light reflecting off the enemy sniper's scope) in the bushes,[2] he fired at it, shooting through the scope and killing the sniper.[5] Surveying the situation, Hathcock concluded that the only feasible way he could have put the bullet straight down the enemy's scope and through his eye would have been if both snipers were zeroing in on each other at the same time and Hathcock fired first, which gave him only a few seconds to act.[10] Given the flight time of rounds at long ranges, both snipers could easily have killed one another.[9] The enemy rifle was recovered and the incident is documented by a photograph."

Re:To all "They're not REAL scientists!" posters

[cffrost]

[A] "treadmill" that sits under the car wheels and spins with the wheel so the car can "drive" while going nowhere (they exist, you'll see them in plenty of mechanics' shops) [...]

That device is called a dynamometer.

Re:To all "They're not REAL scientists!" posters

[Profane MuthaFucka]

I think I already explained it. Science requires that you allow others to look at your results. If you keep your results a secret, it's not science, and you could be fooling yourself. Or you could have made an error. Peer review reduces greatly the chance that an error will go uncaught.

Re:To all "They're not REAL scientists!" posters

[X0563511]

Yes, I get that.

But peer review does not define that, it's merely a means to that end.

Re:To all "They're not REAL scientists!" posters

[RoFLKOPTr]

Well, what makes it even more ridiculous is he is supposedly a grown adult now and nothing is stopping him from either taking a welding class at a community college, or simply buying a cheap welder and a book and getting busy learning.

His comment wasn't about welding. It was about the many career aspirations and opportunities that could have opened up from learning to weld. The knowledge of welding itself has very little to do with it and any sort of unconventional skills could definitely take the place of "welding" in this instance. Learning how to weld today (unless he has a particular interest in welding, in which case he would probably have learned by now anyway) would be useless for somebody who is already ingrained in a particular career.

Re:To all "They're not REAL scientists!" posters

[Profane MuthaFucka]

I think I said that.

From what I originally wrote:

"And a portion of the scientific process is allowing others to look at your results. This activity has been formalized as the peer review process"

Did I say that nothing other than a peer reviewed journal would work? It so happens that's what we have now for peer review. I didn't say that something else would not work.

Re:To all "They're not REAL scientists!" posters

[Clsid]

Wait, what?

Curious

[SethThresher]

So, is it going to be made out of 18 layers of pizza, or 6 layers of phone books?

Re:Curious

[Svartalf]

Nahh... Bunches of plates of glass...

Re:Curious

[DeadDecoy]

Well they said it was a thin layer of armor, so I'm assuming duct tape.

Re:Curious

[Bobfrankly1]

So, is it going to be made out of 18 layers of pizza, or 6 layers of phone books?

Both, in interwoven delicious layers. A nice advantage to this solution, after you take a blast, you just browse the armor plating for the number of the local pizza place, and you can have repair parts delivered!

Re:Curious

[RsG]

It's actually composite plating. Duct tape over electrical tape, with explosive reactive armour on the outside. The ER plates are made of C4 and disassembled microwave ovens.

Re:Curious

[Skidborg]

You very nearly owed me a new keyboard there.

"Mythbusters, brought to you by

[Slutticus]

Mountain Dew and DARPA"

If anyone could do it

[p51d007]

I'd say he could. Pretty smart individual.

No way!

[MrEricSir]

Next I bet you're going to tell me that Scientologists aren't scientists!

Re:No way!

[Abstrackt]

Nah, they just study them.

"Bulletproof glass" mistake?

[Puzzleer]

Aren't these the same guys who for several years were shielding themselves from explosions with what they thought was bulletproof plexiglass, until they finally tried shooting it with a gun in an episode on bulletproof glass and only then realized that it wasn't bulletproof at all?

Re:"Bulletproof glass" mistake?

[rhook]

The only true "bullet proof" glass is actually several composite layers layers bonded together.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NDSG0I8TFdk

Re:"Bulletproof glass" mistake?

[rhook]

Checkout the video I posted above, same stuff only much thicker (Mythbusters use closer to 1/8" Lexan)..

Re:"Bulletproof glass" mistake?

[CAIMLAS]

There is no such thing as "bulletproof glass". Usually, what you have is a combination of two things:

* a polymer and glass layered sheet
* of a specific thickness and ply count

For instance, most 'bulletproof glass' is just rated for pistol calibers (as I believe bank teller glass tends to be). Rifle calibers will punch right through. I think you'll need something close to 6" or so to withstand a shot or two from a 30 caliber, high velocity rifle (eg. think mostly anything from WWII, 7.62 NATO, 7.62R, etc.). A .50 Browning is likely to put a nice 'little' pock in such a plate. I wouldn't stand on the other side voluntarily.

And, with all frangible materials, with repeated impacts they will start to be less effective at fulfilling their role.

I believe there's a new polymer/glass/transparent aluminum glass out there, too, but they're all variations on the same theme.

Re:"Bulletproof glass" mistake?

[SethThresher]

Sort of. It was pretty bulletproof, but only for lower calibers. When they literally brought out the big guns they made holes left and right. I'll always remember that episode if only for the awkward looks they were all giving each other as they were looking at their hole-ridden safety shields!

Re:"Bulletproof glass" mistake?

[infalliable]

Yeah, this is what most people don't realize.

There is a hell of large difference between different calibers and even different types of ammunition at the same caliber.

Saying something is bulletproof only means something if you specify against what projectile AND what projectile velocity.

You can get away with much thinner than 6" for .30 cal, but it's still a fairly thick piece of armor.

Re:"Bulletproof glass" mistake?

[Charliemopps]

They never said it was "bullet proof" is was there to protect them from flying debris. When the show got enough money to start playing with high velocity stuff they had to change what they were using and one of the hosts decided to make light of it on the air.

Re:"Bulletproof glass" mistake?

[DerekLyons]

For instance, most 'bulletproof glass' is just rated for pistol calibers (as I believe bank teller glass tends to be).

As 'pistol calibers', and the resultant energy, tend to vary wildly - that's pretty much a meaningless statement. But most teller glass tends to be rated for rifles anyway.
 

Rifle calibers will punch right through. I think you'll need something close to 6" or so to withstand a shot or two from a 30 caliber, high velocity rifle (eg. think mostly anything from WWII, 7.62 NATO, 7.62R, etc.).

Nope - as little as two inches or so will stop those kinds of rifles. (UL level 8.) You're a decade or two behind state-of-the-art.

Re:"Bulletproof glass" mistake?

[svartbjorn]

I remember that show and previous ones where he extolled the properties of the barrier by saying "This is the stuff they make bulletproof glass out of". I knew that what he had was Lexan (polycarbonate) the same stuff the Astronaut's helmets were made of, as well as CD's. When he said that I got nervous for him because he was clearly putting faith in something that did not deserve it. Lexan is the main component in bulletproof glass but it is a highly specialized (and thick) laminate that works as an effective bulletproof glass. The finny thing is it may stand up to a bullet but it can't handle windshield wipers. the tiny bits of grit scratch the surface too easily to be practical. That is why they are still looking for good scratch proof coatings for it. I think he really did believe he was using a very good protection that wasn't up to bulletproof glass level which would be much more expensive. I also think the look on his face when he saw how easily it was compromised was genuine.

Re:"Bulletproof glass" mistake?

[Urkki]

Exactly, there is pretty much no such thing as bullet-proof anything. You can always find a fancy new bullet.

Also, if at first you don't succeed (at breaking the glass), just keep shooting (at about the same spot).

Re:"Bulletproof glass" mistake?

[Greyfox]

IIRC it was bulletproof for some values of bullets. Just not very large values.

Re:"Bulletproof glass" mistake?

[barrtender]

I prefer this video.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IIX7K8D0mFM
"BULLET PROOF GLASS SAVES SOLDIERS LIFE!!!"

It's pretty damn impressive, though it doesn't explain the specifics of the glass. The deformation is crazy, but it caught the bullet before it got to the guy's body.

Re:"Bulletproof glass" mistake?

[clockwise_music]

Yeah, what morons. Imagine shielding yourself from explosions by using the strongest transparent material available!

Re:"Bulletproof glass" mistake?

[tokul]

You're a decade or two behind state-of-the-art.

But he is still right about .50 cal. Those carton boxes are not rated for anything bigger than 7.62 NATO, Even if other side can't get M2 or M82, they still can get NSV, DShK, Type 77/85 or PTRS/PTRD

Re:"Bulletproof glass" mistake?

[DerekLyons]

I know he was right - which is why I didn't address that point, only his mistakes with regards to common bulletproof glass.

This is also why the military uses windows much more resistant than commonly available commercial ones.

Re:"Bulletproof glass" mistake?

[circletimessquare]

you're quibbling on specifics when his larger point is correct: there's no such thing as bulletproof glass

additionally. take the toughest glass, and a stupid pistol, and if you keep firing in the same spot, you'll break through eventually: all bullets will chip away at any type of glass. they don't bounce off, they keep chipping through. depending on bullet and glass, it could take 600 shots, could take 6 shots

if you meet a gunman who is content to keep shooting in the same spot, such as with an automatic or a machine gun, and has enough time and enough rounds, he's going to get a shot through to you at some point

this doesn't mean bullet proof glass is useless. no one is going to be able to take pot shots at the pope mobile and get a shot inside. if they get one shot off, then that pope mobile is busy squealing away while vatican security is bearing down on you. therefore, bullet proof glass is of immense value: it takes away the scenario where one assassin's bullet is going to take out a dignitary on the street (well, if he has a sniper rifle with a certain kind of round, or he just plants the right bomb, it still can be done). but the austrian archduke franz ferdinand mode of assassination is, indeed, only historical, because of the development of bulletproof glass

the point is, the common man's perception, that neat tidy mental image that glass xyz is impervious to bullets, end of discussion, case close, is obviously false

Re:"Bulletproof glass" mistake?

[hitmark]

And promptly set out to improve on their system, iirc.

Re:"Bulletproof glass" mistake?

[cffrost]

a stupid pistol

What do you mean, a zipgun?

It will be reactive armor...

[bmo]

... composed entirely of water heaters with the safety features defeated.

--
BMO

They should compete for the best solution

[slackzilly]

Just like they do in the show. And film it.

Re:Fresh episode????

[FrostDust]

It's a British article. They even mention on the third page how the season about to air in the UK is last year's US season. This lag is quite common in international distribution of TV shows.

are they doing a revisit?

One of the behind-the-scenes web videos had Adam and Jamie answering fan-mail about that myth, and saying although it may not have been a 100% accurate replication of the bunker, they were satisfied enough to not do a revisit.

As usual

[Sycraft-fu]

XKCD does a good job summing it up: http://xkcd.com/397/.

While careful controlled tests are important to science and critical to many discoveries, that is not the core of what science is. The core is that ideas are tested by experiment. It is the process of saying "Hmmm, maybe X causes Y, let's try it and find out!"

That's the basis of what they do, and the basis of science. The higher level of rigor are important as well, but they aren't the main thing. Scientific thinking and action in every day life does not mean doing a laboratory based double blind study of every little thing. You'd never make it to work if you did that for everything. It does mean holding your idea up to scrutiny and testing them out. Mythbusters helps promote that.

Also as a side note they are often more rigorous than it appears. If you've watched some outtakes/behind the scenes stuff it turns out that they often do more testing than you see on screen. Again that's not to say they do everything grade-A lab proper, but it can be more than it appears.

Re:As usual

[JabberWokky]

Moreover, this is about inventing, which is different than being either a scientist or an engineer. It doesn't matter how it works, if you know why it works, or even if you know the specific limits. It just matters that it does work.

Afterwards, the engineers can descend upon it and find the limits (and probably improve them), the scientists can descend and figure out why it works (and thus apply it to other aspects of life). The inventor only cares that it does the task he or she sees that needs to be addressed.

If you haven't read it, read Ike's exit speech (where he famously coined "military industrial complex") and consider the points he makes about the danger of only trusting sources with large funding, who become dependent upon government and corporate funds -- and thus government and corporate decision making processes.

Re:As usual

[Guspaz]

The rigor also is only useful for negative results. For positive results, rigor is unnecessary; if you aim to prove that something is possible, and you can make it happen, then it's possible.

The lead balloon is a good example. The myth was that a lead balloon is an impossibility. They built a working lead balloon. Therefore, lead balloons are possible.

Now, if they had set out to prove that something is possible, and failed to do so, that does not necessarily mean that it's impossible.

Re:As usual

[DanTheStone]

The rigor also is only useful for negative results. For positive results, rigor is unnecessary; if you aim to prove that something is possible, and you can make it happen, then it's possible.

2 words: Cold Fusion

Re:As usual

[RsG]

Excellent point. You really do need confirmation of positive results, since there are plenty of ways a positive result can be false.

It is possible for a positive result to be resoundingly definitive, such as the "lead balloon" example. In that case, the proof was irrefutable; there floats a balloon made of lead. Not all positive results are that cut and dried.

Re:As usual

[holmstar]

cold fusion isn't a reasonable comparison. You can't just look at a cold fusion experiment and say, "Yup, there's more energy coming out than going in." You can just look at a balloon made of lead floating in a room and say "Yup, that's a functional balloon made of lead"

Re:As usual

[Cytotoxic]

Great example, but I'm not sure how much was rigor and how much was statistics fail. The student T-test is probably the most misused statistical tool on the planet. It is also often held up as the be-all end-all proof that your experiment is beyond reproach.

I once got into an argument with a few famous scientists at the Burly Earl pub near my lab over just this problem. A study that was getting some buzz was being bandied about at the table. I called bullshit on the whole thing. At first nobody was on my side, because the paper cited nice p values. Then I pointed out that the positive and negative controls on their experiment varied so much between runs that the negative control in one run was higher than the positive control in another. The money quote that changed the argument? "I don't care what your statistics say, if you have more than 100% variation between runs, you don't have an assay." That won me a beer. Well, they offered anyway. I actually took a free refill on my iced tea, but still...

25 years later we are still hearing arguments about the need for better understanding of statistics in science. I think it is beginning to get some traction, particularly the use of bayesian tools, but we are a long way away from wide acceptance. Any experiment that shows a very small effect that requires statistics to prove the validity of the effect should be examined very closely. This is exactly the sort of situation that is open to subtle experimental error that can go unnoticed. In the case of Fleischman and Pons they showed a small excess in heat. It would be very easy to have a systematic error in your calculations or measurements that resulted in a tiny error. That is why having others reproduce your results is so important. When they tried, nobody was able to reproduce the results of cold fusion.

We often see this effect at work in epidemiological studies - like the breast implant or power line scares. A single study shows an effect that requires measuring lots of cases. A very small change in the number of positives can look like a fairly large effect if the baseline is very small. Unintentional systematic errors can easily account for this kind of effect. Having others reproduce the results reduces the odds of this impact. In those cases (and many others), followup research failed to validate the initial study. It would be nice if the press knew this about the scientific process.

Re:As usual

[rahvin112]

May I point out that in medical studies where double blind studies are common they are typically the last step in the evaluation and the final proof. Early studies and experiments are much more basic and elementary than the final stage three double blind study. The problem is that the public perceives that the phase three clinical trial is the only science involved where in fact its the last in more than a dozen experiments ranging from rough computer models to early laboratory studies in rats all the way up to the final double blind human studies.

The way your post reads is that science is some secret society where only those who play by certain rules are allowed to call themselves scientists. The reality is that anyone using the scientific method to learn about the natural world is a scientist. Now the value of that science and the scientist to the community IS a factor of the esteem they earn by their colleagues. Don't fall for the right wing anti-science rhetoric which your post is filled with.

Re:As usual

[blair1q]

Actually, they built a lead and scotch-tape balloon.

A nothing-but-lead balloon that would be stable in transportation, filling, and flight would need more space and gas.

A little rigor would help them get there.

Re:As usual

[blair1q]

Aaah! Zombie!

No, wait. Rigor tells me that's just a stick-figure of a zombie. It doesn't even have Feynman's accent, semi-decayed larynx or not.

Mythbusters is to science what tee-ball is to MLB.

Yes, they may be testing things, but no, they famously fail to prove or disprove anything with many of the tests because they don't always understand what science is and why it's how things really get tested to find out if they're real effects or illusions.

And they almost never explain the science behind a phenomenon correctly.

Re:As usual

[EvanED]

True, but how many of the Mythbusters results are positive? I haven't really watched in years, but back when I would watch a fair bit, it seemed that almost all were "busted".

Re:As usual

[Algae_94]

Yes, technically, inventing a new product doesn't require you to know how it works or why, but you are going to have a very long process of randomly trying different armor materials and probably never get anywhere useful if you have no scientific understanding of materials science or engineering know how to create enough of it in the right shape to test. We have long since moved past the low hanging fruit of invention. It's very difficult to just happen across or invent something better than already exists without serious knowledge of the existing state-of-the-art.

Re:As usual

[syousef]

The core is that ideas are tested by experiment. It is the process of saying "Hmmm, maybe X causes Y, let's try it and find out!"

No the core is do not accept anything as true unless it is proven. Experiment is just a means to that end. If the logic surrounding your experiments is flawed, or if you jump to conclusions (as they regularly do), or over-generalise (as they regularly do)., all the experiments in the world won't allow you to prove or predict a single thing.

Example: I decide to work out whether weight affects the speed at which an object falls, so I throw a stone and a feather over a cliff. I conclude gravity is weaker for lighter objects, because I fail to consider wind resistance, or come up with a better experiment that takes it into account.

Re:As usual

[Guspaz]

Stability during transportation, filling, and flight is not a requirement of "Can you make a lead balloon that is lighter than air". Had they not needed scotch tape (imagine some hypothetical giant machine that directly formed the lead into a balloon shape without the need for adhesives except perhaps to close the filling hole), their balloon would have been lighter. Their lead sheets were touching anyhow, despite the tape. If the lead had been bonded, there would have been no need for the tape, therefore the tape was strictly additional mass, and did not influence the results.

Re:As usual

[Guspaz]

They probably have more negative than positive results, but they do have a few. They also often have a result of "plausible", where they were unable to achieve a positive result, but got close enough that they think that it's probably possible. Is that definitive? No, but still a useful result, if only because it indicates where further study would be useful.

Re:As usual

[Guspaz]

They rarely try to test such things. Their results are normally a lot more basic. Can you make a lead balloon? Can an electromagnet in a watch deflect a bullet? Can you surf the shockwave of an explosion? Can cockroaches survive a nuclear apocalypse (that one was actually fairly rigorous, involving controls, although it wasn't even a blind study).

Re:As usual

[blair1q]

imagine some hypothetical giant machine

That is exactly not the essence of experiment, and moots your complaint about my complaint.

A lead balloon has to be able to do all that a balloon does including during the times before and while it's constructed and filled with gas and attached to and given a payload. If you can't "make" one, because it can't tolerate the processes involved in making one, you fail the test. That is the essence of the test.

I can of course imagine a platinum-iridium balloon a parsec in diameter, with Jewel Staite in its gondola. I can't make one.

I can imagine making a lead balloon, and Jaime and Adam demonstrated suggestively that it might be doable, but they did not prove that it can be done.

That is the essence of experiment, and a little more rigor would have told them that.

Re:As usual

[cffrost]

True, but how many of the Mythbusters results are positive?

http://mythbustersresults.com/

Re:Fresh episode????

[halfEvilTech]

If I recall correctly they are refering to the UK season. They make mixed references to the US showings and the UK in the article. They even noted in an episode about to air in the UK about if Bees really can lift an IBM Thinkpad off the ground that it was shown in the US already and the results were already availible on youtube.

Re:Suprised

[GooberToo]

It's just sad when average is seen as something special.

That may well be true for some segment of their viewers. Just the same, a lot of people like watching the show because its applied engineering. They get to build and do things which many of us simply don't have time, budget, or both to tinker. Basically, the show provides an outlet in which many of us vicariously enjoy.

At the end of the day, blowing shit up is fun. Verifying, if even a simpleton approach, classic science experiments is fun. And even though they constantly deviate from the scientific method and constantly completely screw things up, they show can still be fun - even if they are wrong. Its really more about the experience than the result. And if you can get a satisfactory result, its all the better.

Of course, none of that means they are smart, engineers, or scientists.

Re:Suprised

[mangu]

Their worth is not that they are exactly "smart", but that they show that you don't need to be so "smart" to use your brains effectively. There are many times when I see they doing things in a sub-optimal way because they don't know better, but they aren't afraid to question their own beliefs. They are always ready to test things from a skeptic's point of view and that's more than many "smarter" people do.

It's like hardware vs. algorithms. The "typical" scientist would be like a supercomputer, the Mythbusters are a desktop PC running a streamlined algorithm to get equivalent results with less brainpower.

Re:Suprised

[tophermeyer]

Grant can articulate himself in a science-y fashion, and the show gives him the lines to explain the science-y things.

There are plenty of other ways to express intelligence than the spoken word. Grant sounds smart, but there is probably a reason he words for Jaime.

Re:Suprised

[Anonymous Coward]

Having actually met Tori in real life, I can assure you that they are all pretty smart. They do mathematical models behind the scenes to back up what they are saying, and yes, they do dumb it down when they are filming, because most of their audience couldn't give a crap about models and math and everything that science actually is, their audience wants to see myths broken or proven and maybe see something blow up along the way.

Moral of the story: don't judge people based on their TV personalities.

Obviously an expert

[infalliable]

Based on the quotes in the article, we can assume that Heyman "saw some s*** blow up, and now is an expert on blast propagation, terminal ballistics, and high strain rate phenomenon."

Re:Obviously an expert

[paxcoder]

Uffff :-)

Re:Obviously an expert

[bill_mcgonigle]

He had Obama on his show in the Fall. Think that campaign PR was free?

Re:Obviously an expert

[djdanlib]

Well, you never know, they might actually stumble upon something valid. In fact, they might have already discovered something, and the press release could be lagging significantly behind the development like it does so often with military developments.

They have practical experience:
* blowing stuff up in creative but specific ways using improvised explosive devices, of qualities equal to or exceeding what you'd see in the field
* instrumenting the entire scenario for data analysis later in such a way that the instrumentation is not destroyed
* preventing other stuff from getting destroyed by said explosion

You can spend all day failing to come up with a material with the right properties no matter which angle you attack the problem from. Sure, you could model the physics until your brain leaks out of your ears, and you can also waste inordinate time and materials testing via a "Okay, how about now? Now? Now?" methodology. In the end, you can get similar results by calculation or experiment. Check out Damascus steel, for example - we haven't completely figured that out yet, and we certainly can't reproduce it, but people were making it and you can believe they weren't using modern science to design it. I do believe in the value of science, but it doesn't always need to trump experience.

The guys who experience the effective improvised explosives in the field don't make it back to tell you how it was built, ya know? :(

Re:Obviously an expert

[blair1q]

Yup. And more importantly, he knows from experimental evidence what sort of shit doesn't blow up even if the formula said it should.

Development = turning theory into reality, by removing all the parts the theory got wrong, and adding all the parts the theory left out, but only until someone says "that works for me."

Re:Obviously an expert

[circletimessquare]

theoreticians can not appreciate practical value. all theoreticians will be surprised at some point at what the practical can achieve that completely short circuits months of their work. because what you do in front of a computer at a desk does not adequately replace what the guy out in the field sees and does. all it does is make you think you've mastered all scenarios when you haven't even seen all the scenarios or even have the real world experience to imagine all the scenarios. so indeed heyman has valuable useful experience that the expert on blast propagation does not have. this is not to say he can replace the expert on blast propagation, but he can complement the theoretician in ways the theoretician can not make up for, and visa versa. it is to say your smug vanity of the theoretical over the practical is a blind spot on your part, and is more than useless, it is dangerous hubris

Re:Obviously an expert

[AndOne]

To nitpick, I thought several metallurgical historians had pretty much established that Wootz steel ingots and a forging process with a high/medium heat cycle would result in Damascus steel due to the presence of vanadium or molybdenum. They've also found the presence of carbon nanotubes in the steel recently. I can't find the exact article, but there was an excellent article on the subject in the mid 2000's that seemed pretty definitive. The real speculation seems more to do with how the technique was lost and what the precise methods of forging the ancient smiths used, more than how to recreate it.

Re:Obviously an expert

[djdanlib]

This is exactly the sort of thing I like about Slashdot! Please feel free to nitpick with information like that.

I remember seeing a lot of articles in the mid 2000's about it too. There was a brief surge of interest in the stuff, probably because carbon nanotubes were the hot new thing. Someone reported their presence in Damascus steel back then after looking at a sample under a high powered microscope of some sort, and a bunch of TV history shows then ran specials, and you heard about "carbon nanotubes" in the news every five minutes.

What I don't recall ever seeing was that someone had duplicated it. All I saw was a bunch of theory about how it could possibly be made. So, it's pretty exciting news if historians have in fact reconstructed it!

Reminds me a little of how civilizations lost and had to reinvent cement.

Re:Obviously an expert

[hitmark]

It could also be that said steel where overhyped in a era where myth held more weight then reality.

Re:Glad Jamie Hyneman is doing someting useful

[jgtg32a]

I kinda have to agree with this post. Does anyone know if there is some guy out there that makes highlight reel of each episode, because that would be fantastic.

Re:Glad Jamie Hyneman is doing someting useful

[mpthompson]

First and foremost, Mythbusters is entertainment. It may not be your cup of tea, but a lot of people seemingly like to watch the show. I don't watch it that often, but my kids are devoted fans. It allows me to get into discussions with my kids around "what do you think will happen?" or "what are Jamie or Adam doing wrong?". As such, it a lot better value value than 98% of the shows on TV. It's one of the few "Dad approved" shows I let my kids watch on Tivo after all the days activities are done.

Re:Glad Jamie Hyneman is doing someting useful

[WeatherGod]

I know this show is popular with a lot of people, but for me Mythbusters is about the most boring show ever. In any given show, only about five minutes of it is interesting. The rest of it is irritatingly dull, bullshit speculation, or repeating what the viewer just saw right before the last commercial break. And every show, EVERY show has to involve blowing something up. It's nice to see Jamie Hyneman doing something useful for a change. However, I hope he gets to the point if/when he finally demonstrates his armor to the military brass. Otherwise they'll be nodding off, looking at their watches.

Unless, of course, the armor is made of actual "military brass"!

Re:Suprised

[Ellis D. Tripp]

AFAIK, Grant is the only one on the show with a degree in a science/engineering discipline (EE).

What makes Grant unusual is that he can actually BUILD stuff, rather than just simulate it on a computer. Most of the EE's I've worked with over the years are WAY outside of their comfort zone in a shop, and there have been a few that I seriously doubt knew which end of a soldering iron to pick up.

Even Grant has screwed some stuff up on the show, though. I remember the homebrew defibrillator with paddles made from wood-handled kitchen spatulas. Grant and Kari are REALLY lucky that they didn't get knocked on their asses playing with that thing. At the multi-kilovolt level, wood isn't all that great of an insulator, and Grant SHOULD have known that. But neither of them were wearing insulating gloves or taking other precautions.

His attempts at model rocket prototypes for the "Turkish Rocketmen" myth were laughable, as well. Both attempts spiraled around wildly, because he paid no attention to the absolute fundamentals of aerodynamics, like the relation between CG and CP.

Of course, the rest of the team have had a few problems with rockets, as well. Remember the JATO car revisit that blew up as soon as the motors were lit?

Re:Glad Jamie Hyneman is doing someting useful

[asher09]

You're a good dad! Way to go!

Who cares?

[LWATCDR]

I enjoy the show. It is entertaining and informative. I work at a software development firm and I still have to deal with co workers that believe that the shows on how they faked the moon landings are interesting and or that artificial sweeteners are biological weapons! Not to mention that Airborne prevents colds! Mythbusters is a nice break from the stupid stuff I see everyday. It is a million times better than the reality TV shows and may actually get some kids interested in Science and engineering.
So they could be one eyed Episcopalian kangaroos as far as I am concerned. It is a good show so the nit pickers can bit Bender's butt for all I care.
 

Re:Glad Jamie Hyneman is doing someting useful

[spaceyhackerlady]

I'm glad I'm not the only one.

Mythbusters has done some fascinating work, like Crimes and Myth-Demeanors, and their moon hoax episode. Too many recent episodes have been what I call "crowd pleasers". Little, if any science. Maximum use of gratuitous explosives. The Green Hornet special was a particularly pointless example.

...laura

Re:Glad Jamie Hyneman is doing someting useful

[bill_mcgonigle]

Yeah, I'd like to watch all of the MythBusters episodes, but I'm reluctant to invest 40 minutes to learn 12 minutes' worth of information.

What's Adam's uid here anyway?

Re:Glad Jamie Hyneman is doing someting useful

[GooberToo]

Everyone with a DVR has the highlights. I can typically watch a full show in roughly thirty minutes. It could be a little faster if I could instantly skip all commercials. But I have to fast forward through them.

Another example of the Dunning-Kruger Effect

[spinninggears]

Not knowing what you do not know often leads to an optimistic view about one's expertise in a subject. Mythbusters can be fun to watch, but only on television would one spend so much to demonstrate so little.

Education, n.: That which discloses to the wise and disguises from the foolish their lack of understanding.
-- Ambrose Bierce

Re:Glad Jamie Hyneman is doing someting useful

[Xacid]

Seconded!

I look forward to this age range with my kids something fierce (right now one's in processing and the other is 9months).

And what is a scientist, anyway?

[TiggertheMad]

What they *are* are very knowledgeable laymen, applying basic scientific methodology...

Sounds like a scientist to me. I mean, isn't that what science is about? Applying scientific methodology to test a theory is pretty much the whole point. The white lab coat is an optional extra.

Re:And what is a scientist, anyway?

[Americano]

Pssh. "being a scientist" is clearly about having an advanced degree, securing grant funding, and publishing your results in the journal of the american obscure science academy.

Every scientist who has ever existed on earth has been a lab-coated, grant-securing, well-published geek. Didn't you get the memo?

Re:Suprised

[RsG]

Jaime comes off as reserved enough that I can't legitimately judge his intelligence. Given the breadth of skills he's shown, I'd say he's far from average.

Tory and Kari I'll agree are only above average. Yes, I said above; remember how low the average is. Adam comes off as more intelligent, but seems to have ADHD, which is actually pretty common as a combination. Having a short attention span makes others think a person is less intelligent than they actually are, mostly because of the perceived immaturity.

So I'd say calling them, collectively "smart" isn't sad or inaccurate. I wouldn't call them genius, but I don't expect a science entertainment show to be hosted by a genius.

And regardless, Mythbusters is celebrated by /. not because it's hosted by smart people, it's celebrated because so much else on TV is incredibly stupid, lowest common denominator crap. It's the same reason Futurama gets as much love as it does; how many other animated shows slip in quantum mechanics jokes and just expect the audience to get it?

Why the repetition?

[Comboman]

I like the show personally, but I have to agree that the repetition is a bit ridiculous. You can start watching the show half-way in and not feel that you've missed anything. I'm not sure if the reason for that is that they feel the typical audience member is so uninformed about science that they must repeat everything multiple times so they don't get lost, or if it is simple economics (the show is relatively expensive to produce and needs to be padded out to one hour to be viable).

Re:Why the repetition?

[Miseph]

I don't think your hypothesis needs an "or".

Do you have any idea how many Americans sincerely believe that Earth was created in 6 days, 6000 years ago? They are perfectly within their rights to assume that the 'average" viewer is, perhaps, a bit on the dim side.

Re:Suprised

[ShavedOrangutan]

This is TV. Compared to the Kardashians, they're geniuses.

MOD UP

[QuantumPion]

most insightful post of the week IMO! *thumbs up*

IED

[DarthVain]

I agree, what does being a scientist have to do with the price of tea in China.

Considering that most threats the US military vehicles face these days are from IED's and not standard munitions, this sort of makes more sense. It's not like the guys rigging these IED's are chemical engineers or anything.

Myth BUSTED

[Georules]

Follow up article: Mythbuster's lightweight armor fails in the field. MYTH BUSTED!!

Re:Suprised

[Maestro485]

Excellent point. I recall a 'behind the scenes' style episode where they showed how bad Jaime was at doing a quick monologue.

It was actually pretty funny hearing the rest of the cast making fun of him about it.

Re:Glad Jamie Hyneman is doing someting useful

[djdanlib]

I have seen some clips on Youtube where someone reorganized the segments in linear fashion. So you'd see one entire myth busting session, then the other one, and that was a lot better than the ADD method that they use for the show. I suspect it has something to do with getting the audience to stick around for all the commercials or perhaps getting a wider audience to watch it.

Re:Glad Jamie Hyneman is doing someting useful

[WATist]

It's better than most reality TV shows out there.

Re:Glad Jamie Hyneman is doing someting useful

[jgtg32a]

Ya know, I think that maybe an acceptable substitute; now that I think about it, the bouncing around was far more annoying that the cast ever was.

What do you have to do to be called a "scientist?"

[wickerprints]

Do you have to have a degree in the analytical sciences? Does that automatically make you a scientist?
Or do you need to be employed in a relevant scientific field?
What does it really mean to be "doing science?"
Who gets to decide, anyway?

This kind of navel-gazing and picking at terminology is not really very useful or even descriptive. I think it's far more useful to look at one's conduct and the results thereof, rather than one's appellation or pedigree, when trying to make an evaluation of the meaning of that person's work.

New episodes resume tonight. :)

[antdude]

I can't wait!

Re:What do you have to do to be called a "scientis

[spinninggears]

It takes a lot of things for people to seriously consider calling a person a scientist. I can think of a few:

-- Non-trivial investigations that build upon previous research
-- Objective measurements
-- Communicating results to peers in a format that allows conclusions to be verified
-- Advancement of knowledge
-- Funding by other scientific stakeholders

Does Mythbusters meet any/all of these? Maybe, but it would be a real stretch.

Re:Suprised

[Cytotoxic]

This is TV. Compared to the Kardashians, they're geniuses.

Unless you use the universal scorekeeper - cash. Then the promiscuous hotties are the geniuses. I believe they each bring in more than the entire Mythbusters franchise. And yes, that could be a sign of the apocalypse.

Re:Glad Jamie Hyneman is doing someting useful

[Cytotoxic]

... or repeating what the viewer just saw right before the last commercial break.

You just stepped in my favorite rant. This technique began appearing around a decade ago and now it seems like almost every "reality" show spends 10% of their time either telling you what you just saw before the break or what you'll see after the break. My wife loves this BTW. She doesn't have to pay as much attention.

It drives me up a wall. Thank goodness for Tivo. I suppose I shouldn't be too hard on the reality show crowd. The news media has been doing this since TV started covering presidential speeches. I love the way they come on immediately after the state of the union and tell me what he just said. With the advent of the "leaked" text of the speech they can spend the 30 minutes before the speech telling me what he's going to say, then spend an hour after the speech telling me what he just said. Brilliant!

Re:Glad Jamie Hyneman is doing someting useful

[Cytotoxic]

Ok, I gotta back you up on this one. The Green Hornet product placement was horrific. Hopefully not a harbinger of things to come.

Patents

[G4Cube]

OK so the network gets the rights because they did it during show development?

Re:Glad Jamie Hyneman is doing someting useful

[jo42]

for me Mythbusters is about the most boring show ever

Then get off of your fat ass and do a better show.

Depends entirely on what they're throwing at you

[blair1q]

For instance, if they're throwing yellow birds, you want to be in a glass house. If it's little blue birds with MIRV capability, any wood will do.

TFTFY

[denzacar]

FUCK YOU SLASHDOT! Fuck you and your fucking 2.0 interface masturbation.

I also enjoy when I have to keep clicking until every fucking post above the one I am trying to reply to is expanded - just so that the fucking "Reply" link would finally do what it was supposed to.
Hitting "Preview" several times until it catches on is also nice. Almost like stepping barefooted on a piece of LEGO in the dark.

Re:TFTFY

[dakameleon]

1. Scroll to the top
2. Click on "Account"
3. Select "Classic Discussion System (D1)"
4. Save
5. Refresh ... and you're done.

Whole thread?

[tehcyder]

I don't know if every post is discussing whether they're scientists, engineers, or neither, but I got fed up waiting for someone to say something interesting about half way through.

OK... Let's try that... *I* never thought of that.

[denzacar]

Oh look... it works. For about 20-30 random clicks.
Then it for some reason decides to reset to the default D2 crap - all on its own.

And it's not the first time I reverted to D1 mode.
I gave up trying to make it permanent some months ago and decided to get used to the D2 crap.
Except it keeps getting worse and worse. It's like they are actively trying to turn people off the Slashdot.

Re:Glad Jamie Hyneman is doing someting useful

[wcrowe]

I tried that but the producers rejected it because it only lasted seven minutes.

Re:Glad Jamie Hyneman is doing someting useful

[F1re]

Than put your show on YouTube?