Is Mythbusters a valid science source?

[Jean in Newcastle]

Ds17 has asked me to post this poll.  Is there scientific methodology accurate enough for accurate conclusions?  Does it matter what age level of science you are talking about?  

[Farrar]

I said yes because my impression is that what they show is accurate. They say they're going to test some very general question but usually they then make it clear that they're testing something very specific. And they they show the results of their test.

 

However, I know they've been called out on misstating scientific background information on several occasions. And I'm sure there are some myths that are really misleading.

 

ETA: Refining my answer... What I'm trying to say is that I trust that what they show is essentially accurate to what happened when they tested something. However, many of their tests don't have enough data to really be said to be correct all the time. Like, take the sneeze one... IIRC, they just tested Adam sneezing over and over. A real scientific test would need to go beyond that to lots of people in lots of conditions before they could say, yes, the best way to block your sneeze is to use your elbow. On the other hand, I trust that their method was solid and they're not lying, if that makes sense. So maybe my answer is actually no... I trust that what they're showing is true, not faked, but I don't really think citing a Mythbusters test is the same as citing a study published in Nature or something.

[hornblower]

I think the show is edutainment but it's as accurate as a show can be..... We went to hear them talk a couple yes ago at a university open house and they're certainly committed to the concept of sceptical inquiry.

[PeterPan]

Isn't that sort of an odd question?  They prove/disprove multiple hypothetical explanations for their question, and that end of it is generally well thought out, though not necessarily repeated so much as say a scientist would do for this and that.  (If we do a lab in school, we basically run it once, compare our data to our classmates' or the teacher's manual, know it matches the expected, and bam we're done. For real life you'd need more trials.)  To me the question is how they arrive at their pool of hypothetical explanations.  For instance, on the christmas tree episode I had someone tell me a method that we began using that works exceptionally well that WASN'T on their list.  So to say you have, of a certainty, disproven something (or found the best method, or whatever) when you haven't examined all the options) won't work.  But just for approaching things hypothetically and making trials, obviously they do that.

 

So does he want to use it for a science credit?  Does he want to know if HE can do mythbusters for a semester?  Hehehe.

[go_go_gadget]

I'd say it's valid for elementary school, and could be used as a jumping off point for further study, but not as a standalone, above that level.

[Farrar]

Yeah, I guess I need to know the purpose of the question.

 

Is Mythbusters a valid source for teaching science? Yes, especially at the elementary and middle school level and possibly as an introductory source - like a teaser to get kids thinking before delving into the real sources - for high school. Above all else, they're excited about science and model that enthusiasm over and over. Plus, the way they approach problems, while not meeting a standard of publishable science, does model the scientific method nearly all the time (until at the end, when sometimes they just blow things up for fun).

 

Is Mythbusters a valid source to cite in a debate about science? I think it really depends, but mostly no. But in the end, I think Mythbusters did it is mostly anecdotal evidence or evidence that should always be trumped by a better source.

[Jean in Newcastle]

Isn't that sort of an odd question?  They prove/disprove multiple hypothetical explanations for their question, and that end of it is generally well thought out, though not necessarily repeated so much as say a scientist would do for this and that.  (If we do a lab in school, we basically run it once, compare our data to our classmates' or the teacher's manual, know it matches the expected, and bam we're done. For real life you'd need more trials.)  To me the question is how they arrive at their pool of hypothetical explanations.  For instance, on the christmas tree episode I had someone tell me a method that we began using that works exceptionally well that WASN'T on their list.  So to say you have, of a certainty, disproven something (or found the best method, or whatever) when you haven't examined all the options) won't work.  But just for approaching things hypothetically and making trials, obviously they do that.

 

So does he want to use it for a science credit?  Does he want to know if HE can do mythbusters for a semester?  Hehehe.

He is arguing against it at any level.  I think that it is ok for middle school and below.  

[SparklyUnicorn]

I wouldn't rely on it as the only source, but along with several sources it seems ok. 

 

I recently proposed a topic to them.  I said they should test the saying that refers to one knowing something as well as the back of their own hand.  So basically I want to know how easily people would recognize the back of their own hand. 

[silver]

The method is good, but they usually don't get enough data. They'll often have just one data point for the control and one for what they're testing. Even when they have more data, it's usually not enough to test for statistical significance.

[silver]

I wouldn't rely on it as the only source, but along with several sources it seems ok. 

 

I recently proposed a topic to them.  I said they should test the saying that refers to one knowing something as well as the back of their own hand.  So basically I want to know how easily people would recognize the back of their own hand. 

 

They've done that one.

 

http://mythbustersresults.com/mini-myth-medley

 

 

(And just to prove my previous post wrong, on that one it looks like they got way more data than typical.)

[SparklyUnicorn]

They've done that one.

 

http://mythbustersresults.com/mini-myth-medley

 

Oh damn!  LOL

[PeterPan]

He is arguing against it at any level.  I think that it is ok for middle school and below.  

That's absurd.  Very few people ever are in a position to examine their hypotheses COMPLETELY.  Progress on examining a hypothesis is worthwhile, even if the results aren't conclusive.

 

I guess he needs to define what he's wanting.  Science source = useful as curriculum basis?  Merely educational?  Hard science?  Obviously it's edu-tainment.  That's a whole genre, and if he can think in terms of genre it will occur to him why it can have worth and not be completely something else (a science textbook, whatever), because that's not the genre it was attempting to be.

[Jean in Newcastle]

That's absurd.  Very few people ever are in a position to examine their hypotheses COMPLETELY.  Progress on examining a hypothesis is worthwhile, even if the results aren't conclusive.

 

I guess he needs to define what he's wanting.  Science source = useful as curriculum basis?  Merely educational?  Hard science?  Obviously it's edu-tainment.  That's a whole genre, and if he can think in terms of genre it will occur to him why it can have worth and not be completely something else (a science textbook, whatever), because that's not the genre it was attempting to be.

He's an Aspie.  He's being black and white on this.  For some reason this became very important to him.  I humored him by putting up a poll like he asked.  :)  But I'm enjoying the discussion on Mythbusters!    

[Mommy22alyns]

I think it's a fun addition for any level, really.  Stand-alone, no, but it's a TV show.  DH and the girls like to watch it and we also saw them on tour a few years ago.

[ElizabethB]

I said yes all ages, but at all levels but especially upper levels more as a starting point. We have had interesting discussions about physics, mechanics, etc. after watching, and have further Googled and researched in books for a few topics.

 

Mostly, we watch for fun, but it does have some educational value and can inspire a love of science and mechanics. I also like that they portray Geekiness in a positive light.

 

My husband is a pilot with a math/engineering background and also very mechanical, so he can usually answer any questions we have, we don't have to Google often. I worked as a statistician and they don't have the time or money to test to the stastically significant level, but they are up front about that and do the best they can with the time and money they have each episode.

[dirty ethel rackham]

I think of Mythbusters as science entertainment.  They are fun to watch, but I would not consider it rigorous education.  They often do not ask the right questions or test the right things to actually answer the "myth" they are proposing to bust.  I am not a scientist, but I can drive a car through the holes in their logic.  My boys told me that I ruined the show for them a little by asking questions or pointing out when they had strayed from their purpose.  But, they thanked me for it because it made them better scientists.  Now they watch because they like to see things blown up :lol:

[Space station]

I voted other because I think that it can be a good starting point for further investigations or for demonstrating something that is too dangerous to do at home. I wouldn't (and don't) hesitate to use it as part of a unit for a fun intro to a topic or wrap-up.

[Bluegoat]

To me it feels like the question is wrong.  What does valid really mean in this context?  I don't think its meaningful.

 

Farrar pointed out that they aren't meant to be like an article in Nature or anything like that.  In some ways though that might be a good thing.  It would be very easy for a student in middle or elementary school to read something from a serious science journal, or more often reporting on something that is a good source, and really misunderstand it.  And most, and even many adults, if they look at the actual study will really not be in a position to understand what its limits are or see any flaws in the methodology.

 

So people can give it a lot of weight when it is not a sure thing or they have misunderstood.

 

With something like mythbusters, everyone knows up front that it is a tv show with limits, so people maintain some skepticism about their results - even kids can understand that.

[wintermom]

I haven't watched many episodes, so maybe there are more relevant experiments being done, but it looks like complete entertainment to me. There was little explanation of the source of the "myth" and the conditions of the source of the myth; there was little explanation of their experiement design, control of variables or even measuring variables; and I don't know whether there is any information available on the credentials of the "researchers."  

 

I agree with your son, that it's not a valid source for science at any level. 

[Ausmumof3]

I'm not a scientist but I think it's a really fun supplement or component of a well filled out science program. I wouldn't want it to be the only thing we did though.

[hornblower]

coming back to say that what it's good at is presenting a sort of skeptical scientific thinking, the very basic thinking that goes like this:  'hey, people say _____ but is that really true?'   That basic level of curiosity and not taking a 'fact' at face value is a good way to start thinking about things.

 

Stupid internet chain letter things & dumb fb memes would never go anywhere if more people actually spent even a split second thinking 'is that really true?'  :glare:

They're not scientists btw. Jamie has a degree in Russian & his other career is in special effects. Adam is an actor.