Hacker News Reader

Comment by phaus | Hacker News Reader

>Embrace the Scientific Method, and you just might solve any problem that comes your way.

Mythbusters was a great and inspiring show, but they weren't always great at following the scientific method IMO. It was always more about cool hacks than scientific validity. They decided people being injured by bullets being shot into the sky was a myth mostly because they couldn't locate the bullets they fired into the sky, in spite of talking to one of the leading experts on the phenomenon, talking to a doctor that performed surgery on people injured by bullets fired into the sky, and discovering there are people in prison for seriously insuring people miles away by, once again, shooting bullets into the sky.

That was before Grant's time though, he was awesome.

View on HN

I just rewatched this out of curiosity and I think you’re seriously misremembering that episode (S4E11), the final conclusions wasn’t “busted”. They asked “busted, plausible or confirmed” and they concluded “all of the above”.

Grant actually was part of the show already at this point, they did actually find 9mm bullets they fired up, but couldn’t find 30-06 rounds. They did conclude that “straight up and down” was safe but said multiple times that bullets on a trajectory are still lethal. They present the medical evidence at the 21 minute mark, and a simulation around the 25 minute mark.

I don’t hold Mythbusters to be a scientific end-all to a discussion but I think they made that episode in good faith and portrayed it ok, even if they bulk of the testing footage was on the very narrow (and filmable) straight up and down terminal velocity aspect.

I remember being disappointed with their testing and results at the time but it was 14 years ago maybe I didn't get it right.

I don't think they are overly rigorous with in general but its still a great show and I actually dont think they tried to portray themselves as strictly following the scientific method either.

I remember them talking about this complaint on one of the episodes, or maybe in an interview.

They explained that the episodes definitely don't always show rigour in their tests, and that there probably wasn't the rigour you would want for a paper in every test they did, but they would still do more than was shown to test different theories and add rigour. A lot of that would be left on the cutting floor.

In fairness, if I remember correctly, the bullet myth was testing the narrow condition of "shot straight up into the air" such that the bullet would be returning at terminal velocity and no longer be on a ballistic trajectory. Whereas, most people struck by bullets fired into the air are probably being hit by bullets that are still on a predominantly horizontal trajectory.

Fair enough, but IMO if they are holding themselves to that narrow and frankly completely useless condition then 90% of the episode was wasted effort talking to people about things that, by the definition of their own condition were completely unrelated.

I wouldn't consider 46 degrees to be a predominantly vertical trajectory, but its closer to being that than it is horizontal. I'd bet money that people have been injured by bullets between 46 and 70 degree angles at least. I wouldn't rule out higher angles than that either.

It could end up having less energy sooner than I imagine, but I would have to see it simulated far more convincingly than they did on the show.

Fair, I should have said "still on a ballistic trajectory". Given that a bullet fired not straight up may travel miles, I'm just guessing here, but legal was probably not too keen on them testing the more likely scenario. And, of course, every wants the payoff of full scale.

I totally agree that simulations of the most likely events would have been nice. The show could have benefited from more strict adherence to the scientific method. Alas, that probably would have made the show less appealing for a large segment of the audience.

While I agree, I think XKCD had a great take on this: https://xkcd.com/397/

They weren't rigorous, and the results weren't always correct, but they were showing the core of science.

Ugh - I want to scream whenever I hear some idiot spout "the science is settled!" - there's so much wrong with that statement it would be less painful if my head literally exploded.

I haven't found this video but I got this one about the terminal velocity of a penny: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PHxvMLoKRWg

Long story short, it's not enough to kill you or even really hurt you (Adam Savage even shot his own hand to prove that).

That being said a bullet's terminal velocity is probably much higher thanks to it's much more aerodynamic shape. I can't be bothered to see if the math adds up because Mythbusters uses feet per second and miles per hour and I just refuse to touch this nonsense.

Wow, just wow. Grant’s dead at a young age of a tragic event. He inspired a lot of people and probably didn’t push anyone out of a technical field in the process. I know how he was in the show was how he was personally, too. I just think this isn’t the time to over analyze. If anything your comment is the sort of comment that makes science and technical fields lose people.

I didn't say anything negative about Grant. I said Grant was great and the show in general was great.

If anyone decides not to be a scientist or an engineer because of me saying that Myth Busters was a great show that was not always scientifically rigorous, they weren't really that interested in the first place.

Its OK to learn from and be inspired by things that don't 100% follow the scientific method. Saying something isn't scientifically rigorous in the context of talking about a TV show focused on entertainment doesn't detract from the show's value.

I stand by my statement that it was a show about cool hacks more than strictly adhering to scientific rigor. Cool hacks are cool and I am often inspired by them, I'm not sure how you arrived at such a negative interpretation of my comment.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com