I am too. Every time someone makes me watch it, their lack of real scientific rigor drives me nuts - and that's half my point. My other half a point is that I'm glad it's there for others, and their "oh yeah? prove it!" attitude is one that our society sorely needs.
Haha! We still watch it but I've noticed myself saying things to Cj about how their process wasn't proper and they left to many things hanging for the myth to be truly busted or proven.
I think half the reason my SO still watches it is because of the opportunity it provides for ranting :) Me, I think it's amusing to watch them blow shit up.
Also, every aerospace myth they've ever done I can bust/prove with about 30 seconds of math.
Possibly. But:
(1) I'm leery of statements to the effect that you can _prove_ things about the physical world with math. (If it helps, I have a degree and a half in the subject, although it's more focused on discrete optimization and such than stuff relating to physical sustems.) Mathematics can give you a rigorous framework in which to explain why you believe that something _should_ happen, but doesn't (IMO) allow you to _prove_ that it actually does. (Put it another way: there was nothing wrong with Newtonian mechanics in terms of his mathematics; they just turn out to be a less accurate model than Einstein's relativistic models, which use different basic assumptions and incorporate data that Newton never had.)
(2) Most mathematical demonstrations of anything that's nontrivial will lose almost all of the TV audience.
which leads us to
(3) The whole point of Mythbusters is to reach the bulk of the TV audience with refutations, or demonstrations, of common (myth)contheptionth (*ahem*). Not to convince people already in the relevant field of facts that they already know.
it's really just a show for pyromaniacs. i feel cheated if i get to the end of an episode and nothing has exploded. in fact, i believe one of them once mentioned that that's in their contract, they have to blow something up each episode.
Heh. Yeah. And I haven't watched it, but there's some new show that seems to be similar to Mythbusters, except with less myth busting and more blowing shit up/utterly destroying it.
I've never seen mythbusters, but from what I gather, the important thing is that they're proving things to their audience's satisfaction, in a way that makes an impression. Sure, the maths can do the same thing, but for 90% of the world that's neither memorable nor convincing. Think of it as evangelism rather than science.
I'm leery of statements to the effect that you can _prove_ things about the physical world with math.
Well, take the "stewardess gets sucked out of the plane when there's pressure loss" one they did. It takes about five lines to show that a <1 atm pressure differential isn't going to blow anything heavier than peanut packets out the hole.
Anytime they do something that involves fluid dynamics or planes, I have to leave the room because I just end up screaming at the TV.
They're NOT scientists and they never claimed to be. They're engineers and quite talented ones. Engineers don't believe in rigor. We believe in one simple question: "Will it work?" That's what Mythbusters is all about.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
no subject
no subject
no subject
Also, every aerospace myth they've ever done I can bust/prove with about 30 seconds of math.
no subject
no subject
no subject
Possibly. But:
(1) I'm leery of statements to the effect that you can _prove_ things about the physical world with math. (If it helps, I have a degree and a half in the subject, although it's more focused on discrete optimization and such than stuff relating to physical sustems.) Mathematics can give you a rigorous framework in which to explain why you believe that something _should_ happen, but doesn't (IMO) allow you to _prove_ that it actually does.
(Put it another way: there was nothing wrong with Newtonian mechanics in terms of his mathematics; they just turn out to be a less accurate model than Einstein's relativistic models, which use different basic assumptions and incorporate data that Newton never had.)
(2) Most mathematical demonstrations of anything that's nontrivial will lose almost all of the TV audience.
which leads us to
(3) The whole point of Mythbusters is to reach the bulk of the TV audience with refutations, or demonstrations, of common (myth)contheptionth (*ahem*). Not to convince people already in the relevant field of facts that they already know.
no subject
no subject
no subject
no subject
no subject
no subject
no subject
Well, take the "stewardess gets sucked out of the plane when there's pressure loss" one they did. It takes about five lines to show that a <1 atm pressure differential isn't going to blow anything heavier than peanut packets out the hole.
Anytime they do something that involves fluid dynamics or planes, I have to leave the room because I just end up screaming at the TV.
no subject
no subject
no subject