xkcd

by **ruby-lang** » Mon Mar 17, 2008 2:36 pm UTC

To their credit, the Mythbusters were willing to go back and review their results when fans pointed out their mistakes. In at least one case they revisited a myth twice.

by **tetsujin** » Mon Mar 17, 2008 2:44 pm UTC

That Zombie brain-eating thing is actually just a myth... Zombies don't eat brains unless commanded to by their Zombie-master...

by **Skispcs** » Mon Mar 17, 2008 2:48 pm UTC

Yes some of the experiments could be a bit more rigorous, however it is a show and it must entertain its audience.
I doubt that any show that was sufficiently rigorous would be on the air for more than one season at the most.

results were thrown out/unreported because they didnt fit the desired outcome

You mean this isn't how everyone secures more research funding? :shock:

I still think the episode where they checked the MPG of a pickup with the tailgate down needs to reverified again.

by **LarrySDonald** » Mon Mar 17, 2008 2:52 pm UTC

I always thought the point of mythbusters was to *not* be overly rigorous (at least openly) and do scientific testing in the same sense an average person without splendid amounts of resources might (albeit with cooler toys to do it with). This will indeed imply that the results will be less trustworthy then a more rigorous series of tests, but is still a *vast* step forward from saying "I (don't) think so" and calling it a day which is how most people seem to make up their mind regarding how things work or are.

You can still hit a bucket of balls off the driving range even if you're not Tiger Woods (should you want to). You can still apply scientific methods, also to lesser accuracy and success, even if you don't happen to be very well endowed with time and resources. The results will still be more accurate then had you done nothing, although as always open to future changes if more data comes in. I might agree that they could lean a little harder on "how sure are we of this?", but they do do revisits off and on when they have fresher ideas or notice mistakes in previous tests. The point isn't to be the best research on the planet, but rather to do "much better then none" research that hint at methods someone actually could use, not what most people consider science which is something mystical and apparently very expensive, time consuming and difficult.

by **Gldm** » Mon Mar 17, 2008 2:56 pm UTC

I've only seen Mythbusters a couple times, as I don't really have access to TV much anymore. But one I did see was the "Can a ninja catch an arrow?" episode.

In this episode they talk about how a ninja would turn so that his hand is moving with the arrow and then try to grab it. But the people on the show couldn't manage it. So to simulate a highly trained and in-shape ninja, they build a robot hand which doesn't move at all and then conclude it's impossible.

Good job guys, way to shoot down your own experiment by failing to duplicate the main component of the experiment in the simulation.

Kinda lost interest in the show after that.

by **ZLVT** » Mon Mar 17, 2008 3:02 pm UTC

AstralRunner wrote:The decomposition must be damaging Feynman's brain. You'd never find string theorists in a lab.

yeah that seemed odd to me too. Also the Mythbusters often lack a basic amount of engineering/physical/mathematical/chemical knowledge, many of their myths could be confirmed or denied by means of a pencil and some paper, if that.

E.g. tonight they threw a dummy out of a plane to test whether it could freefall for 90sec before hitting the ground from 4,000ft (1,200m in the "real" world). Given an average value for C (drag coefficient) they could have solved it on a peice of paper, or, they could just plug it into a computer. Either way, the dummy fell for ~30sec, that much error would easily come out on paper. Also, the chicken cannon one, christ, I'll throw a wet sponge and a frozen wet sponge at you. which will hurt more?!

by **segmentation fault** » Mon Mar 17, 2008 3:34 pm UTC

so string theorists dont have brains?

im down with that.

by **Akula** » Mon Mar 17, 2008 3:45 pm UTC

I wouldn't be averse to running true love experiments with/on Kari.

by **lindee** » Mon Mar 17, 2008 3:48 pm UTC

jimic79 wrote:I'd like to interject with a semi-related side-argument and say that Mythbusters seems like the epitome of scientific rigors compared to Smash Lab. That show is only funny to watch because it is so poorly done. Exhibit A: The terrible bank-prevention aerated sand pit. "oh, we only need a pit the size of a football field and 20000000 tons of sand to prevent this van from escaping the parking lot"

Discuss...

second on the smash lab comment. when a show's hosts are described "ideas guy", "scientist", "engineer", and "designer" you can almost smell the cheapness coming from your tv. at least adam and jamie are professionals and have an extensive background in special effects. i wonder how much they struggle with their production team over quality vs entertainment/marketing value/viewer retention/some other bullshit mass media metric.

by **Spiraling Shape** » Mon Mar 17, 2008 3:49 pm UTC

If Mythbusters were rigorous, it would not be entertaining, so people wouldn't watch it. And no one is going to learn anything from a show that they don't watch. I agree that Mythbusters has its low points. For example, they decided "brekstep bridge" was busted because their bridge fell apart before they could test it. But they often go a long way in showing implausibility. For example, they demonstrated that a gunshot through the side of a plane will not cause explosive decompression.

by **slightlymadscience** » Mon Mar 17, 2008 3:58 pm UTC

jimic79 wrote:I'd like to interject with a semi-related side-argument and say that Mythbusters seems like the epitome of scientific rigors compared to Smash Lab. That show is only funny to watch because it is so poorly done. Exhibit A: The terrible bank-prevention aerated sand pit. "oh, we only need a pit the size of a football field and 20000000 tons of sand to prevent this van from escaping the parking lot"

Discuss...

Definitely agree with you there. Mythbusters attempts to use sound scientific principle. But, I keep in mind that they're a tv show, and they have limited time to perform the testing - and must do so in a way that is appeals to their audience (that's how they get PAID, after all). Since they come from a special effects background, not only can they whip up creative rigs to get the job done, but know how to make them entertaining in the process. They aren't a science lab - dealing with long-term research projects and writing peer-reviewed journals - and aren't pretending to be. I don't know if anyone else could do what they do, and do it better. What's more, they accept criticism, and frequently revisit myths that come under fire in the attempts to have a better test.

Smash Lab is a farce. Once in a great while I've seen a halfway decent idea come from these people, which then loses merit during implementation. It's clear that it's a poor clone of Mythbusters. I've yet to see any "solution" they've produced be even remotely practical to implement...and that's supposed to be the point of the show. "Making the world safer through blowing stuff up - er - science."

Instead of a group of special effects guys going at it (MB), taking their work seriously while not taking themselves seriously. Smash Lab's "crew" takes themselves WAY too seriously, and their work seems poorly thought out at best. And the lack of "chemistry" amongst the cast doesn't help.

I'll get off my soapbox now.

by **Tirian** » Mon Mar 17, 2008 4:04 pm UTC

ZLVT wrote:yeah that seemed odd to me too. Also the Mythbusters often lack a basic amount of engineering/physical/mathematical/chemical knowledge, many of their myths could be confirmed or denied by means of a pencil and some paper, if that.

Of the three episodes that I've ever seen, they did eventually get around to admitting that one of their "myths" was defeated by obvious first-semester physics. But it's hard to fault a television show for wanting to chew up time SHOWING the failure first.

On the other hand, it is easy to fault them for overbroadening the results of their experiments. The one that made me swear off the show was determining that Batman's tools were fantasy because they were unable to recreate them on a cable show budget. Doi. The entire point was that Batman was an obsessed billionaire technocrat: of course the Batmobile has infinitely better components than your test car! (However, like Marilyn Vos Savant, I am concerned that they are sloppy on purpose because uptight scientific criticism increases their visibility, so I will shut up now.)

And this is quite enough about string theorists not having brains. They are obviously brilliant enough to convince real scientists that their crap is worth funding. It would be like saying that the tailors in The Emperor's New Clothes weren't smart because they didn't actually make any clothes.

by **Loyal2NES** » Mon Mar 17, 2008 4:36 pm UTC

Randall, if you can hear me, can you do another zombie comic next Wednesday to commemorate the second game of Humans vs. Zombies played at UMass? KTHXBAI.

Wait, which UMass? Boston? If so, why haven't I heard of this game?

by **pyroman** » Mon Mar 17, 2008 4:50 pm UTC

As much as i love myth busters in concept i have to admit that their use of scientific method, to put it bluntly, sucks. i can usually find several obvious flaws in every single experiment. it used to be better but unfortunately someone probably read a survey that showed a direct correlation between the number of explosion ( and their magnitude) and the shows ratings.

although the show does teach people to use science to figure things out they need to be really careful. by having so many wholes in the experiments they could possibly teach people that even though something was "scientifically proven" its still not true. While this may be the case on the show, real experiments generally don't suffer from this flaw and you are teaching the wrong message.

despite all of this working on myth-busters would still be my dream job. I mean who wouldn't want to be paid to build random stuff just to see if it works and in all likely hood blow it up? Seriously does ti get any better?

*EDIT: for all of its flaws myth busters is still worlds better than smash labs. At least in myth-busters even at their worst there is still stuff to debate over the validity the experiments (and i an not going to hold it against them for doing real life experiments for thigns that could be proved on paper in less than 30 sec cause the point of the show is to be a visual demostration of experimentation). I remember watching one episode of smash labs where they were attempting to use aerated concrete to replace the high way barriers most commonly seen today. the called their "test" a "success" when a car traveling 60 mph slowed to about 30 mph after traveling some thousand (?) feet over aerated concrete. i don't know about you but at the very least the roads by me don't have over 1000 feet in between the two opposing directions. every step of their "experiment" was ridiculous. It makes mythbusters look like nobel prize winning material. Smash labs basically consist over everything that was wrong with mythbusters concentrated into one show.

by **jdmack** » Mon Mar 17, 2008 4:55 pm UTC

jimic79 wrote:I'd like to interject with a semi-related side-argument and say that Mythbusters seems like the epitome of scientific rigors compared to Smash Lab. That show is only funny to watch because it is so poorly done. Exhibit A: The terrible bank-prevention aerated sand pit. "oh, we only need a pit the size of a football field and 20000000 tons of sand to prevent this van from escaping the parking lot"

Discuss...

Thank you for mentioning that show. I've only seen one episode - the one you mention - and I was screaming at my TV because the science was so poorly done. And with all due respect to Deanne Bell, a bachelor's degree does not make one "the scientist."

J. D.

by **abb3w** » Mon Mar 17, 2008 5:05 pm UTC

top1214 wrote:
abb3w wrote:
gmalivuk wrote:While I kind of agree with the zombie's point that testing things experimentally is the core of all science

First and most obvious, the observed data is the true core. Experiment is merely a way of looking where you think you'll find some data that will be interesting. If interesting data falls out of a tree on you while you're trying to nap, it's still usable. (It just tends to take longer that way.) The essence of theory is the competition between candidates for how concisely they represents the data. The current "best" theory and the mystical process of seeking new ones are the other parts referred to as science. However, the former is only a temporary title holder at best. As for the latter, if the theory gets handed to you on golden tablets by an angel from Heaven, the Nobel Committee may insist you share the prize, but as far as experimental testing goes, no-one in science worth their salt seriously cares where it came from.

Data existed before science and the scientific method.

What is special about science is formulating hypotheses, testing, and then accepting or rejecting these hypotheses. This is most often done through designing experiments that have different predicted results for the competing hypotheses. All the data in the world doesn't help you if you can't distinguish between two models. Similarly, hypotheses don't help if they don't make testable predictions (the problem w/string theory).

Of course data existed first. This is why I say it is the true heart: without data, you have no hope of science. If your "hypothesis" does not describe data, your "tests" do not provide you with more data, and your means of acceptance or rejection is not based on the data you have at the time of acceptance or rejection, you're talking pure philosophy. The best you can muster is mathematics, which potentially leads to abominations like the Banach-Tarski sphere dissection. At worst, you get theology of the likes of Biblical Inerrancy.

As to formulating hypotheses, I repeat: it doesn't matter how you come up with it. If you get it handed to you on stone tablets by the Archangel Gabriel, the most that means is you need to list another co-author on the paper when you publish. If the hypothesis describes the data, it can hope to be science.

As for comparing models and their distinguishability, I point you back to those two papers from my original post. (You didn't even look at them, did you?

) Testable predictions is not necessary in universe that is not hypercomputationally complex; extant data and candidate theories are sufficient (barring rare cases of equal minimum induction lengths). What experiment does is provide a means for trying to force more data to appear in areas where theories predict different results. Thus, if theory one predicts A here and B there, and theory two predicts A here and C there, you can start repeatedly checking over there to help the choice... by getting more data. If you can't tell whether the results look more like B or C, "both suck equally" and you're back were you were. And if theory one predicts A here and B there, theory two predicts C here and D there, and you repeatedly find A here and D there (as with quantum theory versus gravitation), again "both suck equally" and you need to keep working.

by **Devilot** » Mon Mar 17, 2008 5:16 pm UTC

Their methods, as shown on a typical episode, are needlessly flashy and don't pass rigor, with weeks of testing carefully gauged to eliminate unnecessary variables and ensure reliable results. They have to be -- no-one would watch it, otherwise. So I don't fault them for that. I wouldn't cite them for a scientific paper, but for just a reasonable look at whether something is or is not possible, they're not bad -- especially if one considers that they'd obviously have to do much more preparation and work that isn't shown. The one I mostly object to, though... was their Hindenburg episode. They were testing entirely the wrong hypothesis. They were testing whether the doping was the only contributing factor, which no sane person has actually argued. They should have been testing whether the doping was a significant or even primary contributing factor to the ease of ignition and speed at which the dirigible was consumed, and whether hydrogen alone could yield similar results.

by **Lumpy** » Mon Mar 17, 2008 5:25 pm UTC

I'll get myself to believe string theory when I can handle 'dark matter'.

by **skine** » Mon Mar 17, 2008 5:29 pm UTC

For those of you who enjoy Mythbusters, but worry more about correctness than theatrics (though not too much), the Straight Dope is a good website.

As for the airplane on a conveyor belt problem: go here , then here.

by **The Finn** » Mon Mar 17, 2008 5:33 pm UTC

Naturally, we should be thanking MythBusters; They allow us to say "But, they lack rigour!" and "That much error would have come out in a back-of-the-envelope model!" and thereby prove our geek cred.

My wife dragged me to the bedroom last week when I immediately spotted an implementation flaw in one of their projects and within two minutes had a way to not only fix the flaw but had sourced manufacturing facilities.

MythBusters: Ueber-geek's charismatic wingmen.

by **zmef** » Mon Mar 17, 2008 5:34 pm UTC

I like to think of Mythbusters as an exercise in problem solving as well as testing the validity of myths.

The fact that they aren't particularly rigorous at the outset means they run into unforeseen problems (like the shotgun destroying their tank when investigating whether water protects you from bullets). And that is what life is like. Most of us, whether busting a myth at home or just trying to build shelves run into unforeseen problems. What the Mythbusters does well is come up with ways to get around problems creatively.

by **squeakywaffle** » Mon Mar 17, 2008 5:49 pm UTC

Mythbusters is a great show. Obviously they lack rigo(u)r but come on, they're making a TV show. It would take them entire seasons just to bust a single myth if they went about it in proper scientific fashion. Instead, they set it up, see what happens, and reveal a little bit of truth about how the world works, as opposed to the lies and fiction that we are constantly bombarded by in movies, etc. Additionally, I think most of their results are valid. And it's entertaining as hell to watch (and Kari is hot blah blah).

I think they messed up in a few episodes but it doesn't really bother me too much. The vast majority of them seem to have been done with a decent understanding of the fundamental principles involved and a desire to get the full story before calling it either way.

by **Ubertakter** » Mon Mar 17, 2008 5:51 pm UTC

Three points:
1. This comic is made of win.
2. I am an engineer. I like the Mythbusters even though they irk me almost every episode. I understand why they do things the way they do, but it still bothers me that they don't have some kind of engineering consultant on the show. The engineer on the show would have two responses: "No that's not going to work" and "Yeah that might be cool." I would still have the Mythbusters test both. My favorite episode is probably the exploding water heaters. I like to watch things blow up.
3. The airplane conveyor belt question again? Jeez. I declare the troll and smite thee with my sliderule+2 (+10 vs. trolls ;-)

. It has been discussed on these message boards before.

by **tanvach** » Mon Mar 17, 2008 5:53 pm UTC

I liked this one a lot, one of the best physics related strip, ever.

In Higgs we trust!

by **lambage** » Mon Mar 17, 2008 6:07 pm UTC

gormster wrote:
AstralRunner wrote:The decomposition must be damaging Feynman's brain. You'd never find string theorists in a lab.

I could be mean here and say you'd find them in a church, but honestly I think string theory is the best explanation we've got right now, even if it's basically a step down from "god did it".

And I fucking love Mythbusters. People complain because there are things they missed (including me) but hey, have you never done any experiment where you missed something? Let he who is without sin cast the first stone, said Graham Chapman.

Also, they have 43 minutes to cram as much info in as possible, so "boring scientific" stuff won't make the cut, explosions do.

by **Mulch** » Mon Mar 17, 2008 6:15 pm UTC

I would imagine Mythbusters is at least partially responsible for decreasing the amount of urban legend and "fact" e-mails my friends and relatives used to deluge me with. So, regardless of their rigor, I thank them for that. And, of course, for making nearly every investigation somehow end up with an explosion.

"An *exploding* duck's quack does, in fact, echo. Myth busted"

by **Linux0s** » Mon Mar 17, 2008 6:21 pm UTC

Mounky wrote:They are not string theorists anymore. They added another dimension to their equation and the string became a membrane.

Are you sure? I heard it became a ball of yarn in the paws of an multi-dimensional kitten.

by **roboducky28** » Mon Mar 17, 2008 6:40 pm UTC

On behalf of the ATLAS Collaboration (of which I am a mere graduate student slave worker), I can say with a large degree of certainty that we have not yet busted the myth that the Higgs mechanism breaks electroweak symmetry...we haven't even turned on the LHC yet!

Though secretly I hope we don't find the Higgs...that would be so BORING....

-Em

by **benjhuey** » Mon Mar 17, 2008 7:55 pm UTC

While Mythbusters is an entertaining show, I would have to agree that some of their experiments have room for improvement.

Cryopyre wrote:Really, Mythbusters isn't always right. They are, however, entertaining; a good dose of science, physics and explosions; and one of the better shows on Discovery channel, which seems to be getting worse. (Or is that just me?)

This seems to be a general trend with most all of television.

by **zenten** » Mon Mar 17, 2008 8:10 pm UTC

pyrocrickett wrote:
Random832 wrote:"basic physics of lift" has nothing to do with it. The premise of the myth is NOT that a plane can't take off if it's kept stationary - that's obviously true, and a plane will not lift off if, for example, it is chained to a wall. The premise of the myth is that a plane can be kept stationary by a conveyor belt. And that is what was busted.

I had this argument on usenet a few years ago - one of the most frustrating things was how people kept begging the question (yes, I am correctly using that term) of whether the conveyor belt could in fact keep the plane from moving forward.

THANK YOU! That is the best phrasing of the "myth" that I've yet heard & will hopefully aid greatly in getting some of the naysayers' branes wrapped around it correctly! A plane's forward movement is independent of it's landing gear & whatever surface it's resting on, moving or not! Get that through your heads, people!!

Oh, and ("real" science or not) MythBusters + xkcd FTMFW!

Well, unless it melts the wheels and then the whole landing gear fuses to the treadmill. Mind you, at that point the plane will start moving in the other direction.

by **Cryopyre** » Mon Mar 17, 2008 8:58 pm UTC

Okay, so I do get my physics knowledge from Brian Greene, and therefore, all the stuff I know about string theory is put in a positive light, what is so bad about it?

by **tetsujin** » Mon Mar 17, 2008 9:00 pm UTC

Cryopyre wrote:Okay, so I do get my physics knowledge from Brian Greene, and therefore, all the stuff I know about string theory is put in a positive light, what is so bad about it?

Well basically it just wasn't a very good explanation for why Dr. Beckett traveled through time trying to solve everybody's problems...

by **You, sir, name?** » Mon Mar 17, 2008 9:03 pm UTC

What they're doing may be good for the cause of science, but I'm not comfortable with calling it science.

They are not testing ideas with experiment, they are making sweeping generalizations based on all too few runs of dubious experiments and presenting it as scientific truth (at least that's what we see on TV, I'm sure they cut out a lot of test runs and theoretical preparation.) But that's nothing I hold against them, watching them collect data for hours upon hours to finally crunch numbers for another few hours, to finally arrive at an ambiguous answer would be absolutely terrible television. Not only would it be more boring than watching paint dry, it would also be so esoteric that only people with an academic background would understand it. My point is, it's entertainment: Mythbusters is to science what Rambo is to the military. That's not bad thing.

by **Mr. Timms** » Mon Mar 17, 2008 10:04 pm UTC

I really like Mythbusters, and most of the myths they test do follow a loose scientific method. BUT, however, I have found fallacies, uncounted variables, and small differences in the tests that do make a difference. But mostly I like Mythbusters for the explosions.

by **Ezbez** » Mon Mar 17, 2008 10:14 pm UTC

I recently saw an episode of Penn and Teller's "Bull Shit". It's the same idea as Mythbusters, but completely terrible. They loose any shred of credibility by swearing obscenely all the time. Mythbusters may have flaws, but it's a heck of a lot better than that show.

I just don't like it when Mythbusters goes completely out of their way to make it work, and they end up putting together some massive and highly dangerous device which ends up falling down/blowing up/breaking, and the contraption has nothing to do with the original myth.

by **CZeke** » Mon Mar 17, 2008 10:33 pm UTC

"Unscientific darkness"... bleah. I hate it when Zombie Feynman gets like this.

by **Kalos** » Mon Mar 17, 2008 10:56 pm UTC

So what if it's not rigorous? Sure, you could do the experiments with a pen and paper with less time.... but you have a studio, nearly limitless access to supplies, and a fairly good sized budget... why on earth wouldn't you have some fun with it?

by **libra** » Mon Mar 17, 2008 11:00 pm UTC

tetsujin wrote:That Zombie brain-eating thing is actually just a myth... Zombies don't eat brains unless commanded to by their Zombie-master...

Traditional zombies don't eat at all. The bokor creating them stitches their mouths shut, because if a zombie does eat anything (piece of brain, salt, consecrated wafer) it dies in its tracks, or rushes into the sea and decays, its second death final and forever.

George A Romero was a clueless hack. Voudoun's the real thing.

by **Darkscull** » Mon Mar 17, 2008 11:01 pm UTC

ysth wrote:While Richard is quite familiar to me, I felt obliged to google "zombie feynman" to see if this was a widely used way to posthumously refer to him and got a laugh. His top four friends were particularly amusing.

this post is the 9th google result I get for "zombie feynman", lol.

anyway, I loved this comic.

it combines my love of telling people what science is and is not, zombies, feynman, and pointing out the lack of brains in string theorists

zombie feynman rocks!

in fact, every reference to feynman in xkcd has had me literally rolling about laughing (not on the floor, but sort of side to side in my chair).

I also lol'd at:
"braaaaaaaaaanes" and
"the higgs is a lie".

by **Yuri2356** » Mon Mar 17, 2008 11:14 pm UTC

libra wrote:
tetsujin wrote:That Zombie brain-eating thing is actually just a myth... Zombies don't eat brains unless commanded to by their Zombie-master...

Traditional zombies don't eat at all. The bokor creating them stitches their mouths shut, because if a zombie does eat anything (piece of brain, salt, consecrated wafer) it dies in its tracks, or rushes into the sea and decays, its second death final and forever.

George A Romero was a clueless hack. Voudoun's the real thing.

To be fair, he initially called tem Ghouls. They didn't pick up the zombie label until later on.

Who is online