Busting the MythBusters' Yawn Experiment 397
markmcb writes "Most everyone knows and loves the MythBusters, two guys who attempt to set the story straight on things people just take for granted. Well, maybe everyone except Brandon Hansen, who has offered them a taste of their own medicine as he busts the MythBusters' improper use of statistics in their experiment to determine whether yawning is contagious. While the article maintains that the contagion of yawns is still a possibility, Hansen is clearly giving the MythBusters no credit for proving such a claim, 'not with a correlation coefficient of .045835.'"
Well... (Score:5, Insightful)
well... truthfully... (Score:5, Insightful)
not to mention that they always try to prove stupid crap like "a rolling stone gathers no moss". I'm waiting for them to try "the grass is always greener on the other side", or "it takes one to know one".
Precision? (Score:5, Insightful)
Surprising how many people take them seriously! (Score:2, Insightful)
I'm all for watching their show for its entertainment value. But that's about it. I'd feel like a vagine if I were to use one of their "experiments" to back up my claims.
Science (Score:5, Insightful)
The above is why I wouldn't trust Mythbusters as far as I could throw them. The entire show screams entertainment rather than Science. Unfortunaely I can't find the name of a program that aired in the UK about 6 months ago. It took a team of 4 people to a deserted island and each week they had a task to complete each, they were only allowed to use what was on the island and what was given to them each week (as well as a tool set because, well no tools = screwed). They had to do things like make fireworks, record a song and various other "minor" things which required them to render down various things to achieve the chemicals they needed to complete each task. What they did and what it resulted in was very clearly labeled, having real science explained behind it.
Saddly as I recall it basicly got replaced with some crappy school based soap opera where the kids say "innit" and the teachers fuck anything with two legs (including the kids as the current trailer at least implies). So after this long rant, I guess we just give up on science and go back to the discoery channel, maybe we can catch the 3 minutes of it that isn't Nazis or some form of sport!
Re:Mythbusters is not scientific (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Well... (Score:5, Insightful)
Submitter gets an F on this one (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:well... truthfully... (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Surprising how many people take them seriously! (Score:2, Insightful)
Poor statisticians. (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:well... truthfully... (Score:5, Insightful)
references (Score:3, Insightful)
reference 5 is an episode that won't air for 2 days (maybe he's from the future!)
references 7 and 8 are forum posts (ref. 8 has just 2 replies)
two references are news stories..
these do not suggest a thorough exploration of the matter, but he cites them as if they are authoritative sources
Re:Well... (Score:3, Insightful)
Sure, it's popular on
Re:Well... (Score:4, Insightful)
No one ever said trolls were smart. (Score:1, Insightful)
TV is entertainment, not science (Score:5, Insightful)
Oy (Score:5, Insightful)
Look, to spare everyone the continued arguing over which statistical test to use at what probability level and the lack of proper control groups, let me say that MythBusters has never claimed to be a science show like Mr. Wizard. The guys are special effects designers for crying out loud! They are good at what they do, and while their scientific methodology and statistics may be a bit wonky at times, there are some experiments I've seen in peer-reviewed journals that aren't much better. Science education in the United States gets worse all the time, and if these guys can inject some life and curiosity into the current generation to get them interested in science, I applaud the effort.
Re:Submitter gets an F on this one (Score:3, Insightful)
I mean, since there can't be any fractions of a person, if we know there are 50 people, we know that there are 50.0, 50.00, 50.000000000000 people, right?
It doesn't seem like sig-figs is applicable here.
I see you've bought into the myth of sig figs... (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:Surprising how many people take them seriously! (Score:1, Insightful)
Sure some of the tests can't be done properly without unrealistically large amounts of effort and or money, but they do pretty damned good with what they've got most of the time. The episode where they defeated a bunch of security devices was pretty interesting. And the myth that someone can shatter a wine glass with their voice? They had a guy do it on TV, are you going to claim the results were worthless and didn't proving anything?
I just laugh every time some know-it-all slashdotter comes here with their nose in the air looking down on the show thinking that it makes them look so much more knowledgable.
Re:Well... (Score:5, Insightful)
Besides, I think most of us already know that the best ways to test most myths would be so boring it would never make TV in the first place.
Re:Well... (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:Well... (Score:5, Insightful)
Mythbusters is no different than Bill Nye, Mr. Wizard or who ever the hell came first. They use the same basic methods for all of their problems. There are some differences though:
When I was ten I know I'd much rather watch two guys drive two semis into a small economy car rather than watch Mr. Wizard mix baking soda and vinegar again and again. Mythbusters rocks, because it is exactly what the 10+ set is capable of and it also shows them the constraints of their knowledge because the Mythbusters actually do discredit themselves on the show, you'll hear them say things like "I think you're way off base with your method" or "I'm really happy with the results" and if you hear that from the old guy in the beret it's usually because it was an effective (or ineffective as the case may be) low-level experiment. It's a simple formula:
Now I'm not saying that all of their experiments are 100% right for all levels of science, I'm just suggesting that they are about as good as you get with pre-algebra to algebra level math. And that isn't that bad, after all that's where we get things like the lever, steam engine, plumbing, and a lot of other cool crap (like higher math). I remember building a trebuchet for a lower level physics class (10*?), they mostly sucked but we did the algebra (Newtonian mechanics) some of us got A's, most of us didn't, but when we were done we had learned a little (by trial and error) about trajectories and conflicting forces, not to mention recording our results. It wasn't in vain, it was a nice precursor for things to come. Between Mythbusters and American Idol I'd easily rather have my kids watch Mythbusters even if they're wrong 80% of the time.
I'm not apologizing for the Mythbusters in the least.
Why the busting on the Mythbusters? (Score:5, Insightful)
Look, the show never said it was teaching people about science. Adam and Jaime themselves have said many times they're more entertainment than science. They're special effects people by trade, not scientists. They build things and blow shit up. It's what they enjoy doing. You can even see it on Jaime's face when they're doing myths that don't involve blowing things up (e.g. Adam building a wind tunnel for the penny drop myth).
When the show first started, there wasn't even mention of science. They looked at urban legends such as rocket car and getting airborne in a lawnchair. The show was about the stories themselves, not the methods. Only in about season 2 or so did they start including things like "controls" and "variables" (probably by Discovery's request), but they never lost sight of the fact that they're a TV show, and television (by and large) is meant to entertain.
But that leads to an interesting question: even if they DID follow proper scientific method, how do you even apply that to some of the myths they examine? For example, they did a myth where a hillbilly chased a raccoon into a sewer pipe, decided to throw gas down it, attempted to fill the thing with fire to kill the raccoon and was purportedly "shot out". How on earth do you test that scientifically? Nowhere in the myth does it says how big the pipe was, how much gasoline was used, etc. Nowhere does it mention if he was stuck (which is important, as they found the man could only be shot out of he was wrapped in a sabot). All they have is a fun story to go off of.
If nothing else, Mythbusters gets people interested in the process of examining life, not teaching how to use proper scientific method. If their only accomplishment is making people critically question things that are usually taken at face value, they'll have succeeded in my mind.
Re:I see you've bought into the myth of sig figs.. (Score:3, Insightful)
You're making the assumption that either we cannot measure anything to the precision guarenteed by a scale, or that we can measure past the precision guarenteed by a scale. In either case you'd be wrong. In the former case, you'd even be suggesting that measurement is useless.
Also, if you're in a laboratory setting collecting data for a scholarly work, you'd better damn well be collecting data to the maximum precision allowable by your instrument. What would be the point of the science if you didn't go as far as you could in obtaining a precise measurement?
Calling it a myth is pushing it.
Re:well... truthfully... (Score:3, Insightful)
What was stupid is how small their sample was - they were planing on driving a whole tank off but then said that would take too long so they sucked it down to a gallon in each car or something. Which I don't think is a fair test; how do you know if the AC performs better as it runs longer or something?
Also it'd dumb that they had the AC running full blast as that's not a realistic scenario - once the cabin got cool enough people would turn the temp to a more normal level and the compressor would kick off more often making it even better.
Re:well... truthfully... (Score:4, Insightful)
Speaking of that: You seem to have some misunderstanding of their conclusions: They specifically stated that high-velocity weapons seemed to have problems penetrating the surface, not that 3 feet of water will keep you safe from any gun.
Their testing seemed pretty good to me (not exactly scientific, but enough to warrant the claim "supersonic bullets in general do not seem to be effective after a few feet in water"), and you have so far provided zero evidence to the contrary. Come on, why just say "there are other arguments as well" -- if you know about some evidence, please link to it and don't just weasel out...
Re:TV is entertainment, not science (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:Well... (Score:2, Insightful)
Cheers
JE
Re:Well... (Score:5, Insightful)
Making statistics say what you want (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:TV is entertainment, not science (Score:3, Insightful)
Layne
Re:Well... (Score:3, Insightful)
<trim>
It all depends on what your question is. "Do things always fall down?" is quite a different question than "Why do things always fall down?" Describing the nature of gravity is an entirely different field than describing its effects. There is a lot more math and laboratory rigor in designing and proving cold fusion than there is in launching a car off of a large mound of dirt to see if it would still be drivable*. There is also a lot less of the process that would make for compelling television. The drive, though, the desire for understanding, is not so different between the two.
* And, I dare say, as special effects artists, the Mythbusters are probably uniquely qualified to speak with authority on the viability of ballistic automobiles.
Re:Well... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:TV is entertainment, not science (Score:3, Insightful)
Isn't the real crux of science documentation and repeatability? I mean, if someone comes by examines their methods, and finds out that they did it wrong and can show it, isn't that proof that they're acting in the spirit of science?