I just ran across this list of some past episodes and thought I'd pass
it on.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MythBusters_(season_3)

dennis
in nca

Hey, I'm kinda on the fence about Myth busters.
Do they promote interest in science or do they encourage unscientific
experiments?
Engineman

On Jul 23, 11:06?am, rigger wrote:
I just ran across this list of some past episodes and thought I'd pass
it on.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MythBusters_(season_3)

dennis
in nca

wrote:

Hey, I'm kinda on the fence about Myth busters.
Do they promote interest in science or do they encourage unscientific
experiments?
Engineman

I've watched that show a couple of times and I find there's an awful lot
of things that are more worthwhile. Seems to me to be just more
lowest-common-denominator stuff.

John

On Mon, 23 Jul 2007 23:54:54 -0700, wrote:


Hey, I'm kinda on the fence about Myth busters.
Do they promote interest in science or do they encourage unscientific
experiments?

Have you watched the show? They're pretty obvious when they launch into
hard science, what with the claxxons and "Warning: Science content"
banner.

And from a kids learning about science while being entertained, what's
wrong with a "Hey, I wonder if I try this, let's measure and observe"
kind of thinking? Sure, most of what they do could be done faster and
more accurately by plugging it into a bit of math but, doesn't make for
such good TV that way.

It would be nice if they would have someone knowledgeable double check
what they're doing and saying. They get some stuff wrong and some
right.
Hardening on the chipped hammer segment was wrong for instance.
Karl



On Jul 23, 8:06 am, rigger wrote:
I just ran across this list of some past episodes and thought I'd pass
it on.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MythBusters_(season_3)

dennis
in nca

wrote:
It would be nice if they would have someone knowledgeable double check
what they're doing and saying. They get some stuff wrong and some
right.
Hardening on the chipped hammer segment was wrong for instance.
Karl

They redid that one, and got it mostly right the next time. However they
changed the goalposts from chipping to shattering. I know about the
revisit because I had a response to them that I was supposed to present at
a convention they were attending and the show with the revisit came out 3
days before the convention.

Plus the format of the panel I was on with them got changed with no
notice, so I didn't get to present anything.

Still thinking about putting the video for it up on youtube.

wrote:

Hey, I'm kinda on the fence about Myth busters.
Do they promote interest in science or do they encourage unscientific
experiments?
Engineman


I can't watch the show. Too much bad science.

Can't stand CSI for the same reason. A cub scout with a public library
computer could do better research than the writers for that show do.

(Ever seen a cartridge case that had it's markings laser etched around
the primer pocket? Featured prominently in one of the few episodes I
watched all the way through.)

Cheers
Trevor Jones

"Trevor Jones"

(Ever seen a cartridge case that had it's markings laser etched around
the primer pocket? Featured prominently in one of the few episodes I
watched all the way through.)

It's deliberate; they obviously can't give away all of the techniques used
by actual forensics scientists, so they blend enough reality with fiction to
fool the overwhelming majority of their viewing audience (and/or those
willing to suspend their disbelief for the purpose of being entertained. )

Myself, I can't stand the show (CSI); it's like watching an hour's worth of
ten second soundbites and flashy post-production tricks.

Jon

wrote:


Hey, I'm kinda on the fence about Myth busters.
Do they promote interest in science or do they encourage unscientific
experiments?
Engineman
--FWIW they turned me on to some until-then unknown treasures in the
junkyard where they get a lot of their stuff, heh.

--
"Steamboat Ed" Haas : A steaming pile of
Hacking the Trailing Edge! : obscure information...
www.nmpproducts.com
---Decks a-wash in a sea of words---

On Jul 24, 8:55 am, Trevor Jones wrote:
wrote:

Hey, I'm kinda on the fence about Myth busters.
Do they promote interest in science or do they encourage unscientific
experiments?
Engineman

I can't watch the show. Too much bad science.

Can't stand CSI for the same reason. A cub scout with a public library
computer could do better research than the writers for that show do.

(Ever seen a cartridge case that had it's markings laser etched around
the primer pocket? Featured prominently in one of the few episodes I
watched all the way through.)

Cheers
Trevor Jones

Their science can be weak at times but we arent their target audience.
Their target audience is either younger or not hard scientific.

I DO give them respect for being the only show on television who takes
prode in the audience publicly calling them wrong and revisiting the
issues (A la Chicken Cannon)

Agreed hard science types are going to find it soft. But in all
honesty i hope at least several thousand (Hundred thousand hopefully)
people who wouldnt watch a science show or documentary at gunpoint
could enjoy watching the dummy get destroyed with an underlying
science theme

I like the idea of monster garage as well to show creativity and
craftsmanship Not for the stupid drama and arguments, Which it had to
entertain some audience members. (American Chopper and Hotrod are
about the arguments/firings and beeped out sections and NOT about
building cars or bikes)

And frankly I'd take Mythbusters over sitcoms any day when i do watch
TV (Ok i allow myself the simpsons on sunday evening) Taken in Context
of Talkshows, Sitcoms, Soap operas (American chopper/hotrod are in the
soap opera department in my books) Mythbusters are IMO near the top of
what passes for TV

But Take TV at whatever value or lack of value you wish.

Obviously YMMV


Brent
Ottawa Canada

On Tue, 24 Jul 2007 13:02:47 -0700, Brent
wrote:



Their science can be weak at times but we arent their target audience.
Their target audience is either younger or not hard scientific.

I DO give them respect for being the only show on television who takes
prode in the audience publicly calling them wrong and revisiting the
issues (A la Chicken Cannon)

Agreed hard science types are going to find it soft. But in all
honesty i hope at least several thousand (Hundred thousand hopefully)
people who wouldnt watch a science show or documentary at gunpoint
could enjoy watching the dummy get destroyed with an underlying
science theme

I like the idea of monster garage as well to show creativity and
craftsmanship Not for the stupid drama and arguments, Which it had to
entertain some audience members. (American Chopper and Hotrod are
about the arguments/firings and beeped out sections and NOT about
building cars or bikes)

And frankly I'd take Mythbusters over sitcoms any day when i do watch
TV (Ok i allow myself the simpsons on sunday evening) Taken in Context
of Talkshows, Sitcoms, Soap operas (American chopper/hotrod are in the
soap opera department in my books) Mythbusters are IMO near the top of
what passes for TV

But Take TV at whatever value or lack of value you wish.

Obviously YMMV


Brent
Ottawa Canada
Scrap heap challenge was good before it got "yankeeized", also full
metal challenge
Gerry :-)}
London, Canada

On Tue, 24 Jul 2007 12:46:12 -0000, wrote:
It would be nice if they would have someone knowledgeable double check
what they're doing and saying. They get some stuff wrong and some
right.
Hardening on the chipped hammer segment was wrong for instance.

They do mention the website a time or three per episode, there is a
lively discussion group there.

I saw the revisit. Myth Busters is actually one of my favorite shows.
It's certainly not just them, there're mistakes on many of the History
Channel and Discovery Channel shows. I'd just like the job to double
check them.
Simpsons is one of the few network shows I watch.
Favorite channels anyone? mine are.
Discovery Channel
History Channel
Food Network
SciFi Channel
Karl


On Jul 24, 2:54 am, Todd Rich wrote:
wrote:
It would be nice if they would have someone knowledgeable double check
what they're doing and saying. They get some stuff wrong and some
right.
Hardening on the chipped hammer segment was wrong for instance.
Karl

They redid that one, and got it mostly right the next time. However they
changed the goalposts from chipping to shattering. I know about the
revisit because I had a response to them that I was supposed to present at
a convention they were attending and the show with the revisit came out 3
days before the convention.

Plus the format of the panel I was on with them got changed with no
notice, so I didn't get to present anything.

Still thinking about putting the video for it up on youtube.

On Wed, 25 Jul 2007 12:14:24 -0000, "
wrote:

Simpsons is one of the few network shows I watch.


South Park is one of my favorites, on the rare occasions I watch the
Glass Tit.

Nothing/no one is sacred G

Gunner

wrote in message ups.com...

Hey, I'm kinda on the fence about Myth busters.
Do they promote interest in science or do they encourage unscientific
experiments?
Engineman

They just encourage me to watch Kari Byron on there ...
Phew! :-)

On Thu, 26 Jul 2007 03:07:55 -0400, with neither quill nor qualm,
"Pogo" quickly quoth:

Kari Byron

Ah, so there's method to your madness, guys! I hadn't watched the
program long enough to have seen her. There's a socially redeeming
feature to that show after all, eh?

http://www.fhmonline.com/articles-1276.asp (bottom left pic)
What's she doing with that pickle, Danger?
(And how do I make my voice do this?)

- Metaphors Be With You -