I absolutely loved mythbusters, but honestly I think it ran it’s course. They were kind of running out of things to test towards the end.
Also search for Streamlined Mythbusters - they’re fan-edits that remove fluff (lots of fluff in the later seasons) and rearranges the shows so each myth is played straight through before going to the next myth in the episode; instead of showing pieces of 3 different myths at a time bouncing between them.
I’ve tried to rewatch the shows but the TV format mostly just kills it for me now. Thanks that sounds perfect for modern audiences tastes.
I feel like there were tons of movie related options had they gone back that direction. Easily a whole season’s worth of action hero stunts they could break down.
Just one episode could be on Commando. Schwarzenegger ripping the seat out of a car, or killing a guy with a thrown saw blade, or impaling another guy with a thrown pipe. Would be interesting to have seen them figure out the actual force requirements.
A thrown pipe through a chainmail vest, through a dude, and out the other side. We gotta be historically accurate
Oh yeah. And into the boiler behind him right?
Leht off some stheam Bennett…
The movie ones are the most boring.
the only reason they ran out of ideas back then is because social media wasn’t as big yet.
in the world of TikTok they’d never run out.
I agree. And it’s not like they didn’t try to do new shows after the original Mythbusters ended.
A lot of the success also came down to the likability of the hosts, and how the show was presented.
They also missed a chance to educate the public about real science that uses blinded measurements and statistical analysis. Those tools aren’t always necessary, but they are incredibly powerful to answer questions where qualitative testing can’t.
instead of showing pieces of 3 different myths at a time bouncing between them.
Mythbusters is one of my favorite series of all time, but for the love of God, please don’t revive it
Jman prob wouldn’t come back anyway.
Savage has a YouTube channel if anyone is feeling nostalgic. He takes questions about making and mythbusters. Sometimes it’s fun to hear him reminisce. I personally like his new builds more than when he’s looking back into the past.
I don’t think any amount of money in the world could bring Jamie back to a revival.
I believe Adam’s already said he’s no longer interested in filming television.
Plus, Grant has since passed away, Kari is a big oil sell-out, and Tory has been floundering around on Amazon’s streaming service for a while now
Yeah it’s been sad seeing some influential people go into really questionable areas. I think reddit shit a brick when Aubrey Plaza went shilling for milk producers of America.
Terry Crews did a commercial for Amazon, right around the time that unionization was lifting off.
I get that you got to eat but these people aren’t without choices.
Being charitable, their agents are typically the ones that secure those deals, and they, being a bit more affluent and marginally more privileged than the rest of America, may not think to push back very hard on the jobs their agents line up for them. And of course their agents may even go as far as to try and convince them it’s not a big deal.
It doesn’t excuse it, but I also am willing to let it slide provided it doesn’t happen routinely after they’ve been called out.
Terry Crews has also been hanging out with Joel Osteen, so that sucks too.
Kari is a big oil sell-out,
I watched the video and a behind the scenes how an off shore rig works isn’t much of a sell out. Showing the behind the scenes complexity of drilling makes solar even more appealing.
Mythbusters regularly featured weapons but they weren’t shilling for the US Military Industrial Complex.
The U-2 Bomber episode was a little shilling, there wasn’t even a myth. But what were they gonna do, not take a cool ass ride to the edge of space?
No, but getting a respected “science person” to go on camera and repeat their clean-sounding PR “Deepwater Energy” name is just one of the ways that Big Oil legitimizes their actions to the public, and I’d have hoped someone who spent a decade plus in both the entertainment and soft-science industries could’ve seen through it. It would be like if Bill Nye or Neil DeGrasse Tyson made a multi-part webseries about Clean Coal.
Regardless, it wasn’t the first time the MB cast was tricked into shilling for fossil fuels, but an episode about clean-burning diesel in 2009 is a lot less aggregious than an episode about underwater oil drilling in 2023, in my opinion.
Mythbusters regularly featured weapons but they weren’t shilling for the US Military Industrial Complex.
Not the MIC, but I have no doubt that the NRA or other gun lobbyists helped produce those episodes.
Hearing that about Kari is super disappointing. I thought she would go into something like joining an advocacy group to fight against climate change. Anything but shilling for oil
TBH I would shill for big oil too if they gave me ridiculous amounts of money.
I prefer https://explainxkcd.com/397/ because it adds explanations, references, and comments.
Uncommon XKCD L. Mythbusters experiments rarely hold up to the standards of the scientific method. Controls are basically non-existent and the experiments are regularly flawed. They DO fail at basic rigor.
Mythbustets do not meet the standards of professional science. The point is that not all science needs to be done at standard set by professionals.
I think the problem stems from the fact that “professional” isn’t properly defined anywhere. Is science valid if it wasn’t performed in a funded lab by PhD students? At what point does it become exemplary of junk science rather than hard science? Basic controls being absent means, IMO, that it doesn’t fit any proper definition of science. Motivating kids and adults to think more “scientifically” is all well and good, but promoting MB as if it represents honest-to-goodness science is bad press. Getting people excited about science, and then demonstrating a bad way to do science is counter productive.
nobody calls themselves a scientist because they watched Mythbusters, but they might get interested in it through watching it. That’s the point.
I would argue that that point is weak and of dubious merit.
I would argue you’re just picky.
Okay. I don’t see how that refutes any of my prior statements. Promoting junk science and then defending junk science as the only way to get people interested in STEM is a flimsy debate tactic.
If you like the show you like the show. I’m not here to poo poo people’s taste in programming. But promoting it as culturally important and “it gets kids into STEM!” is disingenuous.
I would argue you’re not worth arguing with.
Just watching you reply to every comment in this thread is cringe.
Getting people excited about science, and then demonstrating a bad way to do science is counter productive.
While I understand the spirit of your argument, I think you’re being a bit too pedantic in a forum where the audience isn’t primarily academic or hard science oriented.
Think of shows like Mythbusters and Bill Nye as modern day equivalents to the big “scientific demonstrations” you’d see people like Edison doing for audiences at the turn-of-the-century. They are in no way there to demonstrate an authentic experience of the scientific method because the minutiae of actual scientific research would never make good television.
That being said, Mythbusters does explain the process of how they design their experiments pretty well. A viewer who works in experimental sciences can easily spot any flaws in their methodology, and a non-scientifically inclined person would never spot them anyways.
Bill Nye taught viewers about the scientific method and regularly referenced classic experiments. Bill Nye actually taught kids the importance of rigor in doing science, and he regularly criticized junk and pseudo science in the program. But, I guess pedantry as it relates to science is a no-no now.
Oo! Oo!
Now do Beakman’s World!
Zombie Feynman literally addressed that exact point!
I disagree. Zombie Feynman completely disregarded the lack of controls and the flawed nature of their “experiments”. You can’t just whip up one ballistics gel mannequin, blow it up, and come out with a definitive answer to a question raised by folklore.
By Feynman’s own standards as a Phd Theoretical Physicist who worked on the Manhattan Project, would his Zombie counterpart’s claims exceed or fail to exceed his own metric?
No single experiment is ever going to be definitive. More rigor makes an experiment more reliable as a data point, but informal testing is still useful. It can be a “gut check”, or a launchpad for further, more formal, experimentation. Fuck around and find out is a tried and true staple of science.
Ironically the Manhattan Project’s Trinity test is a great example of this kind of testing. There was extreme uncertainty going into the test. There was no way to create a small-scale version of the experiment, no control to compare against. They didn’t know if the bomb would fizzle or ignite the atmosphere. They set it off to see what would happen, and then tweaked their future experiments and designs based on their observations.
At no point during the Manhattan Project was any plutonium haphazardly experimented on with poorly designed experiments and “gut checks”.
Scientists are human and fallible.
“Professional Science” is just as vulnerable to “eh, I know what I’m doing”, bias, politics, funding, feuds, ignoring details-that-dont-fit and shortcuts, as the rest of the human experience.
That’s why we see “breakthrough discoveries” falling apart to scrutiny on a regular basis and new facts/theories are only gradually accepted into the “body of accepted knowledge” after lots of peer reviewing, reproduction, general chewing-it-over and when the old “that can’t be true” generation has retired/died.
On the other hand, quick and dirty gut-check experiments and goofing around with a new idea are a valuable way to easily check for falsification and narrow down what actual, rigorous tests might have to look like. They’re also a major source of lab accidents.
In the context of the Manhattan Project, the demon core is a perfect example of this.
I think the point is’t that they are rigorous. It is that that it doesn’t matter if they fail at basic rigour because you can teach that after you inspire the interest, and that is the thing you need to do to get more scientists and engineers.
Is the issue motivation? If that’s the issue, then I would argue that Bill Nye the Science Guy is a better resource for aspiring scientists.
Bill Nye is fine if you are in a country where he was broadcast and already have a predisposition towards science. That Mythbusters came at it from a pop-culture direction, and that it wasn’t aimed at children gives it a big boost.
They don’t, but they say least show a process of testing beliefs and they will rerun experiments based on feedback from the audience to see if they missed something.
And it isn’t like they are testing bleeding edge science. It is more teaching skepticism and inquiry on sayings and others information which have dubious veracity.
Common dangblingus L, the xkcd comic literally explains why your take is lame and dumb.
No it doesn’t. It purports to know exactly what a PhD scientist who was critical in the invention of the atomic bomb is thinking. Feynman would not have advocated for the propagation of junk science.
Here are some direct quotes from Feynman regarding his thoughts on the value of science:
“With more knowledge comes a deeper, more wonderful mystery, luring one on to penetrate deeper still. Never concerned that the answer may prove disappointing, with pleasure and confidence we turn over each new stone to find unimagined strangeness leading on to more wonderful questions and mysteries —certainly a grand adventure!”
“It is true that few unscientific people have this particular type of religious experience. Our poets do not write about it; our artists do not try to portray this remarkable thing. I don’t know why. Is no one inspired by our present picture of the universe? This value of science remains unsung by singers: you are reduced to hearing not a song or poem, but an evening lecture about it. This is not yet a scientific age.”
“Hardly anyone can understand the importance of an idea, it is so remarkable. Except that, possibly, some children catch on. And when a child catches on to an idea like that, we have a scientist. It is late—although not too late—for them to get the spirit when they are in our universities, so we must attempt to explain these ideas to children.”
And the full story is too long to quote, but in one of his books Feynman recounts performing his own little Mythbusters style experiment in front of NASA to show how temperature affects O-rings when they were trying to figure out what caused the Challenger to fall apart. An experiment he performed because he was getting sick of the stacks of papers piling up as the discussion went on and all they were doing was ruminating over the minor details. In his own words:
“I say to myself, “Damn it, / can find out about that rubber without having NASA send notes back and forth: I just have to try it! All I have to do is get a sample of the rubber.” I think, “I could do this tomorrow while we’re all sittin’ around, listening to this Cook crap we heard today. We always get ice water in those meetings; that’s something I can do to save time.” Then I think, “No, that would be gauche.” But then I think of Luis Alvarez, the physicist. He’s a guy I admire for his gutsiness and sense of humor, and I think, “If Alvarez was on this commission, he would do it, and that’s good enough for me.””
A lot of his autobiographical stories are filled with examples of him doing these types of experiments, big and small, ever since he was a kid. Ones without a ton of “rigor”. The same style of experiments that Mythbusters tended to do.
So Feynman would totally agree with Xkcd here about what’s really important when it comes to science, sorry to break it to ya. He was a Mythbuster at heart.
You must be fun at parties
The parties I generally attend aren’t hosting salons on how great Mythbusters is at doing science.
If Mr. Wizard, and Bill Nye can claim to be science shows, Mythbusters and Crash Labs can as well. There’s a spectrum.
Bill Nye the Science Guy regularly references classic experiments and teaches viewers about the scientific method.
RIP Grant…
It was so shocking, he was only 49 years old. aneurysms are crazy… :'(
Instilling the “Oh, I was wrong, THAT’S SO COOL” mindset in people is one of the best things science education can do.
And it translates to all walks of life.
There’s so much misery in the world simply from people who know nothing convinced they know everything.
“It’s not “Yes! My experiment was a success!” It’s “Yes! My experiment yielded data!””
I seem to recall Adam Savage saying this at some point.
from people who know nothing convinced they know everything.
A lot of it is insecurity. If people feel inadequate, then they may go out of their way to cover-up that inadequacy.
I think part of the blame can be put on those who will admonish someone for being wrong.
“Remember kids, the only difference between screwing around and science is writing it down.” -Adam Savage
That single quote is the core of Mythbusters, and only the original Mythbuster team truly had that chemistry to pull it off on national television.
RIP Grant, you are missed
I don’t think you could revive Mythbusters.
I don’t think Adam and Jamie are at all interested in doing the show anymore. If it wasn’t them, you’d have to re-cast, and it would be really hard to get that kind of chemistry, while also finding people with the right technical background for the show. The Build Team members were fun, but they couldn’t do it, although they tried with projects like the White Rabbit project.
Plus, I think the world has moved on. There are plenty of YouTube channels where people build crazy things, or test myths, or whatever. But, that’s in short, 5-10 minute videos. A full hour (well, 45 minutes) of reality TV is different. Also, they tested so many myths over the years, that the only ones left are TikTok trends or gossip or whatever. Not the kinds of beliefs that go back decades.
the world has moved on
You say true, I say thankya, Gunslinger.
It was revived in 2017. I think that’s all that needs to be said on the matter.
If you like this kind of content, there are loads of YouTube channels doing these kinds of ‘experiments’ they tend to be more specialised, but that’s a good thing and they often interact with each other to share expertise.
I was going to ask about some of those channels, but decided to make a post on askLemmy
Gotta throw Nile Red in there for chemistry.
Also I’m not sure what the right answer is but there should be a better format for your link so people can access it from their instance. Maybe someone who knows can chime in. Kbin always edits the display of proper links so I’m not sure the exact format.
Yea post links on Lemmy are unfortunately really hard to deal with. There are discussions on how to fix it
The current workarounds seem to be
- use an app or browser extension to handle the link for you
- link the instance and tell people to look for the post
- use a third party service to generate instance agnostic links
I use the first option for myself (Boost on mobile, InstanceAssistant on Desktop), but we really need a better solution
Yeah. Probably one of the larger items that makes going between instances a pain in the ass. Once they all have decent apps it’ll probably be better but still. Maybe even if they could have it ask “Hey you clicked this link. Do you want to go there-there or here-there?”
Mythbusters is good just because of how down-to-Earth and raw it is.
They show the audience what they want to see. They ask the questions the audience wants asked. They give rationales that make sense, most of them.
It’s a very human show, even if it requires a lot of science and engineering to make it work.
The producers did a fine job with it. I’m glad it’s not over-edited or following a checklist of what a show needs to be in order to be successful.
Its format and presentation fit the content like a glove.
Yeeeeah, no, that’s weird. Discovery rebooting it with different people would almost certainly suck, if you just want to hang out with that sort of engineery-makery-SFXy content there’s tons of ways to do it now and Savage is a successful youtuber in that space. Pair it with Imahara’s hearbreaking passing and that just sounds all kinds of depressing.
I’d sure love it if Discovery wasn’t actively burying the old episodes, though. That’d be nice.
discovery reviving it with different people would almost certainly suck
No need to say “almost certainly” because Discovery did that exact same thing six years ago and it did suck.
Fascinatingly they actually ran a televised competition to see who the new hosts would be.
Love it. RIP Grant.
Naah, they’d never recapture the magic. Bring back similar shows like junkyard wars and battlebots.
Battle bots is still going on. They have new seasons every year. There is a large break in between for rebuilds and try outs.
I’m personally addicted to the smaller battle bot leagues like NHRL.
I love how creative ant and beetle weight battles are. Folks show up with literal pieces of trash attached to a motor and make havoc.
Did you see Dutch Oven? Holy fuck that’s the scariest robot I’ve ever seen!
You mean the tiny robot that MELTED the arena??
Yes, yes I have.
Scrapheap Challenge! Found some of it on youtube :D
Unfortunately they can’t bring Grant Imahara back :'(
Isn’t there a current bot-fighting league? NHRL or something like that? They keep popping up in my YouTube recommendations, but I haven’t done a deep dive into them.
See, this is why I don’t like debunking shows in general, and I find the skeptic movement to be overrated and simply draws less criticism that it deserves.
MythBusters avoided the one mistake that all debunkers make. First off, they didn’t come off as thinking that they were smarter than anyone else, they don’t mock people for believing false information, and they never bring religion into it.
They just talked about whatever misconception, then they tested to see if it worked or not
I think Jamie comes off as if he’s smarter than everyone else and is wrong most often to boot.
Well then I guess Penn & Teller’s BS series is actually the Dark Side version of Mythbusters.
Loved both of those shows. Learned how to cheat on a polygraph from the Penn & Teller show.
Penn & Teller are hacks
Mythbusters is the reason I went into STEM. On year my parents even bought me tickets to see the tour, as a Christmas present. I also still watch Adam’s YouTube channel weekly (Tested).
