Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Itnetlolor]

I don't mind their method of:
-Control benchmark (reality/individual elements (see what needs to be isolated as well as baseline/control))
-By the word of the myth. (following the description)
-Mythic equivalent result (replicate the mythic results)
-Take #2 or #3 up to 11. (Most *explosive* result/conditions; provided the opportunity. Sometimes with elements of #1. Like the bulletproofing myth and the full lean and full fat bullet-proofing (Busted on both. Neither were buleltproof, and they were both most extreme plausible conditions based on world record masses).)

Of course, when they re-tested the JATO rocket car myth for seeing if it would fly like the myth stated, it accidentally turned into #4 and exploded just as they triggered the rockets. That didn't look intentional.

[Nadaka]

Myth busters episodes ARE peer reviewed. They often have people write in and challenge their methods and results. Sometimes resulting in retests of the "experiments".

[Aqizzar]

Of course, when they re-tested the JATO rocket car myth for seeing if it would fly like the myth stated, it accidentally turned into #3 and exploded just as they triggered the rockets. That didn't look intentional.

They also had no blame in that.  The rocket manufacturer screwed up, and Adam was piiissed.

Chalk me up to another person who can't recall a single time they "fudged" results, at least not until the given circumstances had already been sounded demonstrated.

[Sensei]

...its estimated roughly 25% of published reports in some fields have intentionally fudged and distorted elements.

I hope you understand the intrinsic irony of that statement.

[Hubris Incalculable]

80% of all statistics are made up on the spot...

((^ self demonstrating))

[Gunner-Chan]

Oh man. This sounds awesome. If I didn't want to leave the country I'd so want to move there and see if something happened to me while I was there. Would be awesome.

I need to start watching this again. Maybe I should download a bunch and have a marathon night of mythbusters.

[Neonivek]

Though it is still annoying when they intentionally fudge results.

Hmm... Got any good examples of that?

I'm not saying you're nuts but I actually don't think I remember a time when they gave bad results for any reason except evident laziness/deadlines.

During the "Can you trick a guard-dog" test they were seeing if you could use food to distract the guard dog.

It was working, as they were tempting the dog but not giving it the steak, and then they decided to throw it in there anyway and the dog ate it before the person got back... and they said "Myth" by sabataging their results. (Made me hate that woman... and I used to like her)

THEN there is also their experiement that didn't get onto the show about if "deadly vibrations" from marching could destroy a bridge. So they jumped on a model bridge as hard as they could and the bridge still stood. It was considered "fact" inspite of the fact that the experiement was overall a failure. (Mind you this is a passable example as they obvious had the foresight to see that... "Hey, we did this BAADLY maybe we shouldn't make this part of an episode")
-This is also one of the reasons why they added a third result. Myth and Fact were too limited for experiements that hinted of something more happening or when the results were hazy.

There two examples of result fudging.

Mind you they don't do it all the time, the examples are few and far between (For example the car experiement where they forgot to do a blind run)... but BOY does it rub me the wrong way when they do that. I wouldn't have a problem with it if I treated it like a show that is allowed to make these mistakes, but I have SOME regard for the show.

As for OTHER scientific fudging unrelated to mythbusters... There is such a wide variety however there are three I am aware that are most common IN MY EXPERIENCE ALONE!
1) Term fudging: You disassemble a term and break it into a unrecognisable mess. Then put it back together as if it was that all along.
2) Interpretation Fudging: Taking raw data and interpreting it such a way as to create entirely different sets of information.
3) Experiement Fudging: Setting up the experiement as to guarentee your result.

[Impending Doom]

I remember the Bridge myth, actually. As I recall, it was actually busted because they couldn't even destroy the model bridge with a dozen hydraulic piston-driven pairs of combat boots.

[Neonivek]

I remember the Bridge myth, actually. As I recall, it was actually busted because they couldn't even destroy the model bridge with a dozen hydraulic piston-driven pairs of combat boots.

The TV one or the one for their website?

Because the one for their website REALLY bugged me for some reason... but if it wasn't that I don't know what (maybe because they didn't really bust it anyhow)

[Impending Doom]

The one on TV. They ended up ramping the power of the pistons to eleven, tearing apart the bridge like so many jackhammers. But no matter what they did, they could never get the 'harmonic disturbance' the myth called for, so myth busted.

[Neonivek]

The one on TV. They ended up ramping the power of the pistons to eleven, tearing apart the bridge like so many jackhammers. But no matter what they did, they could never get the 'harmonic disturbance' the myth called for, so myth busted.

Ahh, the one for their website they just jumped on the Bridge over and over.

[Duke 2.0]

 Yeah, the website doesn't have episodes, only snapshots of single parts of each show. And never the good parts.

[Neonivek]

Yeah, the website doesn't have episodes, only snapshots of single parts of each show. And never the good parts.

They do have a few that are sort of "Mini-myths" that weren't that exciting anyhow.

Like the egg balancing myth.

So they arn't that bad. Especially if you like the myth busting process and not just the wacky stunts they pull off.

[Powder Miner]

The first one may have just been deciding to screw with the others there-they like doing that. In any case, if people mind they'll complain on the forums. And if you saw the first part on the website then yeah it wasn't the actual thing.

Darvi, the more explosions is not to get result it's because BOOOOOOOOOM explosions are fun!

[Itnetlolor]

Darvi, the more explosions is not to get result it's because BOOOOOOOOOM explosions are fun!

2 words: Cement truck