You know Mythbusters is popular when...

[swede]

...they can blow up 500 pounds of explosives near a small town--breaking windows, frightening schoolchildren, and knocking old ladies off their davenports--and the residents simply say they can't wait to see the show.

http://www.theindychannel.com/entertainment/19017107/detail.html

[Patler]

A couple hacks who wouldn't know true scientific testing if it blew up in their faces. (Pun intended.)

[Little Whiskey]

A couple hacks who wouldn't know true scientific testing if it blew up in their faces. (Pun intended.)

I don't think they claim to be scientist. they are special effects guys that try to recreate urban myths.

[3irty1]

I stopped watching when the "busted" the myth that you can't light a fart on fire. You most certainly can.

[Patler]

A couple hacks who wouldn't know true scientific testing if it blew up in their faces. (Pun intended.)

I don't think they claim to be scientist. they are special effects guys that try to recreate urban myths.

I realize that, but the recreation and verification or busting of urban myths relies on scientific testing and analysis. Their conclusions of whether a myth is "confirmed" or "busted" are often worthless. More often than not they do not accurately recreate the conditions from which to reach a reasonable conclusion.

[Patler]

I stopped watching when the "busted" the myth that you can't light a fart on fire. You most certainly can.

Have you had the singed butt that proves it??

[Zool]

A couple hacks who wouldn't know true scientific testing if it blew up in their faces. (Pun intended.)

I don't think they claim to be scientist. they are special effects guys that try to recreate urban myths.

I realize that, but the recreation and verification or busting of urban myths relies on scientific testing and analysis. Their conclusions of whether a myth is "confirmed" or "busted" are often worthless. More often than not they do not accurately recreate the conditions from which to reach a reasonable conclusion.

Myth Busters is to scientific testing as Survivor is to the study of human behavior.

[mraynrand]

A couple hacks who wouldn't know true scientific testing if it blew up in their faces. (Pun intended.)

I don't think they claim to be scientist. they are special effects guys that try to recreate urban myths.

I realize that, but the recreation and verification or busting of urban myths relies on scientific testing and analysis. Their conclusions of whether a myth is "confirmed" or "busted" are often worthless. More often than not they do not accurately recreate the conditions from which to reach a reasonable conclusion.

Be reasonable. When they lifted the guy in his lawn chair with helium balloons or showed how far a bullet really travels when fired into water, that's good enough to confirm/overturn some basic myths. Some of their stuff is certainly inaccurate and contrived (like the gun they developed to shoot frozen or unfrozen chickens at an airplane windshield), but this isn't peer reviewed material that you'll find published in Cell, Science or Nature, and they aren't taking on highly charged or technical scientific findings either. It's entertainment.

[swede]

I stopped watching when the "busted" the myth that you can't light a fart on fire. You most certainly can.

I didn't see that episode.

I will go on record as confirming that farts can be ignited.

They make a blue flame.

And always wear at least one layer of clothing.

[Patler]

A couple hacks who wouldn't know true scientific testing if it blew up in their faces. (Pun intended.)

I don't think they claim to be scientist. they are special effects guys that try to recreate urban myths.

I realize that, but the recreation and verification or busting of urban myths relies on scientific testing and analysis. Their conclusions of whether a myth is "confirmed" or "busted" are often worthless. More often than not they do not accurately recreate the conditions from which to reach a reasonable conclusion.

Be reasonable. When they lifted the guy in his lawn chair with helium balloons or showed how far a bullet really travels when fired into water, that's good enough to confirm/overturn some basic myths. Some of their stuff is certainly inaccurate and contrived (like the gun they developed to shoot frozen or unfrozen chickens at an airplane windshield), but this isn't peer reviewed material that you'll find published in Cell, Science or Nature, and they aren't taking on highly charged or technical scientific findings either. It's entertainment.

My point exactly. They are just hacks.

[Patler]

A couple hacks who wouldn't know true scientific testing if it blew up in their faces. (Pun intended.)

I don't think they claim to be scientist. they are special effects guys that try to recreate urban myths.

I realize that, but the recreation and verification or busting of urban myths relies on scientific testing and analysis. Their conclusions of whether a myth is "confirmed" or "busted" are often worthless. More often than not they do not accurately recreate the conditions from which to reach a reasonable conclusion.

Myth Busters is to scientific testing as Survivor is to the study of human behavior.

...and MB is equally as lacking in entertainment as Survivor.

[MadScientist]

A couple hacks who wouldn't know true scientific testing if it blew up in their faces. (Pun intended.)

I don't think they claim to be scientist. they are special effects guys that try to recreate urban myths.

I realize that, but the recreation and verification or busting of urban myths relies on scientific testing and analysis. Their conclusions of whether a myth is "confirmed" or "busted" are often worthless. More often than not they do not accurately recreate the conditions from which to reach a reasonable conclusion.

Be reasonable. When they lifted the guy in his lawn chair with helium balloons or showed how far a bullet really travels when fired into water, that's good enough to confirm/overturn some basic myths. Some of their stuff is certainly inaccurate and contrived (like the gun they developed to shoot frozen or unfrozen chickens at an airplane windshield), but this isn't peer reviewed material that you'll find published in Cell, Science or Nature, and they aren't taking on highly charged or technical scientific findings either. It's entertainment.

It's a mix as to how valid the conclusions are. They are weakest where a significant sample is needed, particularly things like the alcohol related tests. It would be a bit much to get dozens or a hundred people drunk to test some of the myths.

On the plus side, they blow things up.

As a side, Mythbusters pays more attention to the science process than most of the other shows. Even Storm Chasers which has a scientist doing research on the show, not much science is shown.

[mraynrand]

On the plus side, they blow things up.

Exactly. And they fire frozen chickens at stuff and watch the impact in slow motion. Stuff you always wanted to do as a kid but didn't have the equipment.

[Patler]

On the plus side, they blow things up.

Exactly. And they fire frozen chickens at stuff and watch the impact in slow motion. Stuff you always wanted to do as a kid but didn't have the equipment.

By the way, did anyone see the show when they discovered that the explosion shielding they had been using for a long time was not explosion rated? Kind of funny actually.

[Lurker64]

http://www.packerrats.com/ratchat/posting.php?mode=quote&amp

My point exactly. They are just hacks.

Are you disagreeing with Zombie Feynman?