12
2009
No Science to Mythbusters
I enjoy watching Mythbusters. The show is entertaining, and they do cover some pretty interesting material.
But the Mythbusters – Jamie and Adam – have a background in special effects, not science. A lot of the myths that they cover can be easily worked out with the proper knowledge, but they just do a series of off-base experiments instead, and come to conclusions based on ridiculous observations.
For example, the April 8 episode (that I recently watched as a rerun) is titled “Demolition Derby”. Two of the questions it looks to answer are “Is Keanu Reeve’s iconic motoring movie Speed just fake film physics?” and “Will a car dropped from 4,000 feet fall faster than a speeding car?”
The first examines the bus taking a hard right turn at 50+ mph and the effect of moving all 19 passengers to the right side of the bus. The science behind this is no mystery, and can easily be solved knowing basic properties of the bus and its passengers – namely their weight and approximate location of their centers of gravity.
The second sets up a race between a car falling from 4,000 feet and a car driving 105 mph (if I remember correctly), as seen in a commercial. Again, the physics behind horizontal motion and falling objects is not a mystery (not to mention that the distance of each car and the speed of the one driving are factors that can be easily changed).
Because the goal of the show is to decide whether a “myth” is plausible or not, simple calculations in each of these scenarios would suffice. I know that doesn’t make for interesting TV, but when children may regard the show as educational, perhaps a different approach to some myths would be best.
|
Comments
I think XKCD got this right: http://xkcd.com/397/
It’s a great comic if you haven’t heard of it yet. And I’m in the camp that if you show science as it truly should be (rigorous), it will bore anyone not already interested. Mythbusters is a gateway for the masses to real science, IMO.
You’re right, it certainly brings in interest; I cannot argue against your point and I do address the entertainment value of what they are doing. But with the interest to science that they invite, I’m merely addressing that their conclusions do not make the necessary link to the science behind the experiments. Rather than saying something is “plausible” because they came close in a specific test, it wouldn’t hurt to address why it is scientifically plausible, as well.
It is certainly a balance of science and entertainment, but I’m just addressing that the scales tipping more toward entertainment is frustrating for those of us that know better.
Oh, and XKCD is great.
Yeah, I know what you mean. The same applies to Discovery, History etc. I remember reading this a while back, fits the conversation: http://www.theonion.com/articles/science-channel-refuses-to-dumb-down-science-any-f,2897/
“I guess you could say it makes the audience use ‘observation’ by watching what happens on screen.”
Such a great article. But I do agree that it is annoying, especially when they shoot down a myth that you know could be plausible and not busted… but oh well.