I like "The Mythbusters," but: strong on science, way short on . . .

[bertha katzenengel]

English skills. And sometimes accuracy.

Tonight the narrator said, "It's a long, complicated and sometimes fraught afternoon." Yeah, that's what he said.

Uh . . . writers . . . you're missing something there. :eyes: The writing on that show is very bad. Not just inane. I mean linguistically bad.

And re: accuracy: I know next to nothing about the sciences, but I know history. One thing I know about history is that in the early decades of the 20th century, the world's only producer of helium was the United States. The United States refused to sell helium to the Third Reich.

In tonight's 8:00 PM episode, in a show about a helium raft that could float a human, they were talking about the immense volume of lighter-than-air gas that it takes to lift things. They showed the Hindenburg, and the narrator said words to this effect: "The Hindenburg was usually filled with helium, and no one knows why it was filled with hydrogen on the day it blew up."

:wtf:

Um . . . fact checkers . . . check your facts. Oh: they weren't your facts -- they were the writers'? Okay then. Check the veracity of the script before it goes out onto the air.

Sheesh!!

:rant:

[BigMcLargehuge]

1. that gets on my nerves too...

another example was the special "Before the Dinosaurs" when they named the stones that animals swallow to help with digestion as "gastropods"

Uh... no. Gastropods are animals. GastroLITHS are stones.

[bertha katzenengel]

3. If that were on the Mythbusters, I'd say it was a joke.

That is pathetic. :eyes:

[Archae]

2. At least they aren't like ABC's "20/20"

They send that Hispanic reporter, John Whatsisname to Brazil to do a puff piece on a guy who is an obvious fraud, a faith healer.
Just this week they did a show on ANOTHER damn faith healer, a teenage huckster. :grr:

[sir_captain]

4. The science isn't very rigorous

they don't really follow proper scientific procedure, and they do absolutely no statistical analysis so their results are basically completely statistically meaningless.

That said, it's still a pretty entertaining show.

[fishwax]

5. that's been my impression too

I'm far from an expert in the sciences, but often their procedure seems flawed to me. Also, the logic by which they develop their strategy and apply their results sometimes seems flawed. But I do enjoy the show a great deal :)

[pokerfan]

10. I have a bachelors degree

In SCIENCE! :) :) :)

All I can say is that it's teleVISION. Sure, a lot of the myths could be busted by someone scribbling on a whiteboard, but where's the fun in that?

I would love to have their job!

[TommyO]

12. Entertainment is the key here

not to mention the fact that Jamie is incredibly woofy.

[gkdmaths]

6. nah, weak on science.

Strong on hype and advertising.

I do watch the show, but only when I'm trying to wind down and get some sleep.

[jobycom]

7. Who cares about their facts, they get to blow stuff up!!

WHo wouldn't want that job?

[RoyGBiv]

8. Almost had an aneurysm ...

They did a show about a Civil War rocket, and a nearly flew through the screen at some of the crap the narrator was spouting.

I wonder exactly how that all works with the narrating. Obviously the scenes are all taped and then voiced over later, and I wonder if that's a Discovery channel then exclusively, or if the the Mythbusters themselves have anything to do with it. Not that it matters, I guess, but I'm curious.

Their "science" is kinda backyard type science, but they don't really pretend otherwise most of the time. When they do need more hardcore science, they tend to defer to other experts, such as having labs perform experiments and getting the opinions of other experts in field with which they are completely unfamiliar. They even had a guest one of the shows in the maraton that pointed out the experiments they were doing on, I think, the helium football myth didn't produce statistically significant results.

They're special effects professionals who make a really entertaining and often informative show that can give you a starting point if you really want to explore the science in more detail.

But, you're correct about the writing for the narrator. I find him irritating.

[mwooldri]

9. Well in that case steer well clear of Brainiac.

Show made for a UK satellite TV channel SkyOne. Shows in its budget etc. Similar to Mythbusters, very UK centric, but I found it interesting to watch (best way to escape from a burning apartment on the 3rd floor as an example if your only choice is jump out the window - what to do? they recommend chucking out your mattress first. Only one problem with that: ours is king size and wouldn't fit!

Mark.

[Ellen Forradalom]

11. Mythbusters is more engineering and hacking than science

It's a hugely entertaining show, which is the point, and it may draw some young viewers to engineering and science, where they can learn the real facts. Demonstrating that you can have fun with your knowledge of science and engineering is a great service, I think.