Es entertaining and inspiring they may be, i will never lose the dislike of their method of claiming busted/confirmed as if it were a fact and not just one result of their test setup which may or may not be flawed.
This reminds me of the common experience where people end up more enamored with a subject (and ultimately learn more about it) if the teacher who introduced them to it was more enthusiastic and effective, as opposed to more skilled in the subject at hand.
Needing it to be 100% rigorous science is missing the point.
To meet your requirement they would need to submit a multi hundred page peer reviewed thesis with every assertion of "busted" or "plausible" or whatever. That would be super boring.
We all know why they mislabel the conclusions - because they prioritize "good tv" over accuracy. It's perfectly reasonable to be disappointed about that.
False dichotomy, my friend! I see two underlying arguments, here:
1. It's disingenuous to claim (or take) credit as a science educator when you're doing piss-poor science.
2. They could easily do better without sacrificing entertainment value.
It's entirely possible to both remain entertaining and better communicate scientific values.
>To meet your requirement they would need to submit a multi hundred page peer reviewed thesis with every assertion of "busted" or "plausible" or whatever. That would be super boring.
Holy strawman...
The only thing that most of us asking for is a more nuanced analysis of results, by which I mean saying something like "we didn't disprove the myth, so it might actually be possible". Nobody is asking for a 50-page grant application.
(Many of the myths the tested were fine to label as busted or confirmed as they were vulnerable to a single counter example or verified by a single positive example)
Another assumption right here.
Deleted comment
My favourite lack of rigour is their lack of statistical knowledge. They had a toast dropper, and were testing the randomness before the mythbusting run. The test toast dropped 7/10 drops on one side. "This is not random enough!", cried Savage, "If it was truly random, it would have been 5 on each side!". Betrays a startling lack of statistical knowledge :) But yes, they have done wonders for promoting the spirit of inquiry.
> Testing is often edited due to time constraints of a televised episode. It can often seem as if the teams draw results from fewer repetitions and a smaller data set than they actually have. During the Outtakes Special, they specifically stated that while they are, in fact, very thorough in testing myths and repeat experiments many times in many different configurations, it is simply impossible to display all of it during a program. Beginning in the fifth season, episodes typically contain a prompt for the viewer to visit the show's homepage to view outtake footage of either additional testing, or other facets of the myths being tested. However, Savage himself has acknowledged that they do not purport always to achieve a satisfactorily large enough set of results to overcome definitively all bias.
But the way they had that big metal plate that they'd drop in slomo with a clang saying "BUSTED!" gave the impression that this was now FACT and TRUTH.
For a fun tv show that's fine, but for science education (which is what a lot of people thought MB was) it's sub-optimal.
[1] although I prefered the remixed versions where each item was run in a single block, rather than the broadcast version which flicked from item to item and back again, with many catchups and coming nexts.
So if they could find a counterexample to a myth it might get the 'busted' result (example: the Lead Balloon)
Nothing has to be rigourous at all times. And certainly not on a TV show meant to entertain.
And people are not stupid, they understand that their methods have flaws. In fact, that's one of the reasons the show is as effective as it is: people discuss both the methods and the results, which is an example of peer review.
1) actual roads have a bigger curve to allow run off
2) dry asphalt has a different coefficient of friction than snow/ice cover roads
3) snow plows put out a heck of a lot of snow