Available via license: CC BY 3.0
Content may be subject to copyright.
Selection of our books indexed in the Book Citation Index
in Web of Science™ Core Collection (BKCI)
Interested in publishing with us?
Contact book.department@intechopen.com
Numbers displayed above are based on latest data collected.
For more information visit www.intechopen.com
Open access books available
Countries delivered to Contributors from top 500 universities
International authors and editor s
Our authors are among the
most cited scientists
Downloads
We are IntechOpen,the world’s leading publisher ofOpen Access booksBuilt by scientists, for scientists
12.2%
170,000
190M
TOP 1%
154
6,300
Chapter 11
How the Science Entertainment Television Show
MythBusters Teaches the Scientific Method
Erik A. Zavrel
Additional information is available at the end of the chapter
http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.72605
© 2016 The Author(s). Licensee InTech. This chapter is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons
Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution,
and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
Teaches the Scientic Method
Erik A.Zavrel
Additional information is available at the end of the chapter
Abstract
All too often, high school—and even university—students graduate with only a partial or
oversimplied understanding of what the scientic method is and how to employ it. The
long-running Discovery Channel television show MythBusters has aracted the aen-
tion of political leaders and prominent universities for having the potential to address
this problem and help young people learn to think critically. MythBusters communi-
cates many aspects of the scientic method not usually covered in the classroom: the
use of experimental controls, the use of logical reasoning, the importance of objectivity,
the operational denitions, the small-scale testing, the interpretation of results, and the
importance of repeatability of results. In this content analysis, episodes from the show’s
10-year history were methodically examined for aspects of the scientic method.
Keywords: science education, television, science entertainment, popular science,
MythBusters scientic method, repeatability, objectivity, experimental design
1. Introduction
The importance of understanding and internalizing the scientic method can hardly be exag-
gerated: “The future of man depends upon his skill in solving problems … Recent successes
in problem solving have brought about enormous changes in agriculture, industry, transport,
medicine, and communications, which have considerably changed the paern of human life
and death” [1]. Unfortunately, it is all too common for high school—and even university—
students to graduate with only a partial or oversimplied understanding of what the scien-
tic method is and how to employ it.
Help in remedying this situation may come from an unlikely source: television. While most
educational pundits bemoan the hours children spend transxed by television, a few select
© 2018 The Author(s). Licensee IntechOpen. This chapter is distributed under the terms of the Creative
Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0), which permits unrestricted use,
distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
programs are teaching the scientic method and how it is applied. One television show that
is conspicuously good at teaching the scientic method in an easy-to-understand, pedantic-
free, entertaining manner is the Discovery Channel’s MythBusters, which began airing in 2003.
Indeed, MythBusters has aracted the aention of political leaders and prominent universities
for having the potential to help young people learn to think critically.
For those unfamiliar with the show, its premise involves the hosts (Adam Savage, Jamie Hyneman,
and build team members Tory Belleci, Kari Byron, and Grant Imahara) testing the validity of vari-
ous urban legends, folk tales, common idioms, historical accounts, and internet viral videos using
the scientic method: “Mr. Hyneman and Mr. Savage employ thinking and processes that are
grounded in scientic method … They come up with a hypothesis and test it methodically” [2]. A
myth can be deemed “conrmed,” “busted,” or “plausible,” if possible though highly improbable.
While the focus of the show is on entertainment, the hosts rigorously adhere to the scientic
method: “The show’s genius is that beneath the kinetics and risky stunts – spectacular car
crashes, explosions and other dangerous merriment – is a cleverly veiled science show that
instructs as it entertains, which any teacher will tell you, is a real feat” [3].
MythBusters provides such a wealth of insight into the process of scientic discovery, in fact,
that recently Stanford University created an entire course based on the show [4]. In the fresh-
man course, “The Science of MythBusters,” students learn the scientic method and how to
think critically using excerpts from the show [5].
Indeed, MythBusters is so eective at communicating the scientic method that President
Barack Obama has appeared on the show commending the hosts and stressing the impor-
tance of the show’s contributions to the society: “[N]othing is more important to our country’s
future than geing young people engaged in math and science. A lot of the challenges that
we face as a country are going to depend on how engaged young people are in science and
so I’m just thrilled that you guys do such a great job making it fun [“President’s Challenge”
[Original Air Date (OAD): 12/8/2010].
The scientic method is far richer and more nuanced than the abridged “ve-step” system com-
monly disseminated in classrooms (dene the problem, make observations, formulate a hypoth-
esis, test the hypothesis by experiment, and draw a conclusion—conrm, abandon, or modify the
initial hypothesis) [6]. The scientic method is “the method by which … knowledge is … won …
an intellectual tool … a probe for exploring the unknown” [1]. MythBusters teaches many aspects
of the scientic method not usually covered in the classroom: the use of experimental controls,
the use of logical reasoning, the importance of objectivity, the operational denitions, the small-
scale testing, the interpretation of results, and the importance of the repeatability of results.
2. Methodology
Complete seasons of MythBusters were downloaded from Apple’s iTunes Store, and the episodes
were systematically analyzed in chronological order for aspects of the scientic method. The
most common aspects quickly became evident, and examples illustrating those were sought in
the content analysis of the remaining episodes. Narration and dialog were transcribed, and in
Advanced Learning and Teaching Environments - Innovation, Contents and Methods174
cases of ambiguity, subtitles were consulted. The examples contained in this treatment should
not be taken as exhaustive nor necessarily the most compelling, i.e., cherry-picked. For the sake
of brevity, many equally illustrative examples could not be included. The analysis conducted
was qualitative (descriptive) in nature [7–9]. Further work would be needed to treat the show
in a quantitative manner (such as determining the frequency of certain aspects of the scientic
method per episode and season) and was beyond the intended scope of this text.
Additionally, we designed and implemented a classroom activity to introduce the scientic
method with a particular emphasis on experimental controls that utilized myths from the
show. We did this with two sections (10 and 12 students) of the twelfth grade Regents Physics
(designed to prepare students for statewide standardized examinations) at Onondaga High
School near Syracuse, New York. The time commitment was approximately 90 min (1.5 days
on an A/B schedule of alternating short and long classes). Complete activity details and mate-
rials are available online [10]. Because the format of each episode is to feature several dierent
myths and to jump back and forth between them, we found that it is highly useful to make a
note beforehand of the times of the specic segments we wanted to show, allowing us to pres-
ent a myth in an uninterrupted manner, improving coherence and saving time.
3. Proposing a hypothesis
Before conducting an experiment, the MythBusters oer their opinion on what they think
will happen; that is, they formulate a hypothesis: “Hypotheses can be considered as possible
answers to problems … hypotheses do not as yet constitute real knowledge … [they] are …
‘candidates for truth’” [11].
In the “Anti-gravity” myth [“X-mas Lights and Anti-Gravity Device”—OAD: 12/19/2007],
Tory, Kari, and Grant test internet-bought gadgets that purportedly employ antigravity in
their operation (Table 1 Entry 1). Table 1 provides a brief summary of all myths discussed
Myth Episode Title OAD Description Result
1. Anti-Gravity X-mass Lights
and Anti-Gravity
Device
12/19/2007 Various internet-bought gadgets
employ anti-gravity in their operation
Busted (for now)
2 Depth Charge
Disaster
Paper Armor 6/29/2011 A person can increase the chances of
surviving an underwater explosion
by oating on his back at the surface
rather than diving or treading water
Conrmed
3. Brain Drain Tablecloth Chaos 10/27/2010 People only use 10% of their total
brain capacity
Busted
4. Diet Coke and
Mentos
Diet Coke and
Mentos
8/9/2006 Why does dropping a Mentos point
into a bole of Diet Coke create a
geever eect
N/A
5. Cockroach
Survival
Airplane on a
Conveyor Belt
1/31/2008 Cockroaches on the only organisms
able to survive the radiation exposure
from the fallout of a nuclear war
Busted
How the Science Entertainment Television Show MythBusters Teaches the Scientific Method
http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.72605
175
Myth Episode Title OAD Description Result
6. Red Flag to a Bull Red Flag to a Bull 8/22/2007 The color red provokes bulls to
change
Busted
7. Eye Patch Pirate Special 1/17/2007 Pirates wore eye patches to preserve
night vision
Plausible
8. Talking to Plants Exploding House 11/14/2004 Talking to Plants or playing music can
help them grew
Plausible
9. Animal
Magnetism
Shark Week
Special
7/27/2008 Magnets can repel sharks Busted
10. Play Dead Shark Week
Special
7/27/2008 In shark-infested waters, it is beer to
‘play dead’ than to thrash about
Conrmed
11. No pain, No
Gain
No pain, No Gain 4/28/2010 A person's threshold to pain can be
increased by cursing
Conrmed
12. Request Fest Mini Myth
Madness
11/10/2010 Underinated tires can signicantly
reduce fuel economy
Conrmed
13, Eye Block Viewer Special2 2/13/2008 Base players wear black makeup
under their eyes to reduce glare from
the sun
Plausible
14. Vodka Myths:
Top Shelf Filtration
Bullets Fired Up 4/19/2006 One can turn cheap low-quality
vodka into high-quality vodka by
ltering it repeatedly through a
chargoal lter
Busted
15. Bale of the
Sexes
Bale of the Sexes 4/22/2012 Tested whether men or women are
beer at various tasks including
reading facial expressions driving and
cooling
Mixed
16. The Smell of
Fear
Fright Night 10/28/2012 Humens give o a detectable scent
when scared
Plausible
17. What is Bullet
Proof?
Con Punch 11/5/2008 A suciently cloese person will have
his internal organs protected from a
bullet by the overlying layer of fat
Busted
18. Beer Goggles Alcohol Myths 10/22/2008 Consumption of alcohol can
make one perceive others as more
physically aractive than while sober
Plausible
19. Taking Candy
From a Baby
Mini Myth
Madness
11/10/2010 It is easy to take condy from a baby Busted
20. Square Wheels Square Wheels 4/8/2012 Square wheels can provide a smooth
ride if the vehicle is driven fast
enough
Plausible
21. Driving
Dangerously
Driving in Heels 4/29/2012 Certain types of shoe can seriously
compromise a person's ability to
drive car
Busted
22. Tryptophan
Turkey
Surreal Gourmet
Hour Food Fables
11/18/2012 Eating turkey makes people drowsy
due to its tryptophan content
Busted
23. Water Heater
Rocket
Exploding Water
Heater
11/7/2007 A malfunctioning pressure release
can cause a water heater to explode
through the multiple oors of a house
like missile
Conrmed
Advanced Learning and Teaching Environments - Innovation, Contents and Methods176
Myth Episode Title OAD Description Result
24. Bourne
Magazine
Bule Ice 4/13/2011 A room lted with ammable gas
can be made to explode by igniing a
magazine with a toaster
Busted
25. What is Bomp
Proof?
Running on Water 4/20/2011 Various objects including tables,
dumpsters, cars, and cinderblock
walls will prodect a person from an
explosion
Plausible
26. Let There be
Light
Let There be Light 6/22/2011 A system of mirros can redirect
sunlight to illuminate a tomb
sueciently to navigate safely
through
Plausible
27. Down with the
Titanic
Goldsh Memory 1/25/2004 A sinking ship generates a vortex
powerful enough to suck people in
the sorrounding water down with it
Busted
28. Bubble Trouble Bubble Trouble 4/27/2011 It is impossible to swim in bubbly
water
Plausible
29. Wrecking ball
Baloney
Newton's Crane
Cradle
10/27/2010 It is possible to construct a working
Newton's cradle using wrecking balls
Busted
30. Tablecloth Chaos Tablecloth Chaos 10/27/2010 It's possible to use a motorcycle to
pull a tablecloth free of a banquet
table without distubing a single place
seing
Busted
31. Surng with
Dynamite
Lead Balban 1/23/2008 A person can surf on a wave
generated by dropping a few pound
of explosives in a body of water
Busted
32. Drain Disaster Drain Disaster 11/2/2011 A methene explosion in a sewer can
launch a manhole cover into the air
Conrmed
33. Vatkyrie Boom Vatkyrie Boom 12/22/2010 An aempted assassination of
Hitler failed because the explosion
occurred in an aboveground room
with windows and not in an enclosed
bunker
Busted
34. Trench Torpedo Trench Torpedo 10/14/2012 WWI trenches were built with right
angle corners to limit the prooagation
of shock waves
Plausible
35. The Haunted Fright Night 10/28/2012 A 19 Hz inaudible tone may be
responsible for peoples’ perceptions
of certain buildings as being haunted
Busted
36. Primary
Perception
Deadly Straw 9/6/2006 Plants are conscious and capable of
exhibiting emotions, such as fear and
anger, detectable by polygraph
Busted
Note: Myths appear in the order in which they are discussed.
Table 1. Synopsis of myths discussed herein to be consulted by the reader for clarication.
How the Science Entertainment Television Show MythBusters Teaches the Scientific Method
http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.72605
177
herein for convenient reference. Grant explicitly states his hypothesis for the audience: “My
suspicion about what’s going on here is that the large DC voltage is ionizing the air around
the lifter and it’s creating a ow of ions, which is bringing air along with it, creating thrust.
Now, what we can do to prove this, or disprove it, is to remove all of the air. If that’s the case,
then there should be no thrust.” Inherent in all good hypotheses is testability. A hypothesis
must be capable of being either supported or refuted, as Jamie explains, “That’s science: you
come up with a theory, you test it, either it works or it doesn’t” [“Walk a Straight Line”—OAD:
10/12/2011].
No maer how eloquently formulated, a hypothesis must be empirically tested before gain-
ing credibility. As the narrator notes, “[T]his is MythBusters and it’s not a fact until you test it”
[“Blue Ice”—OAD: 4/13/2011]. In the “Depth Charge Disaster” myth [“Paper Armor”—OAD:
6/29/2011], the MythBusters test whether it is safer to lie supine on the surface rather than div-
ing or treading water in the event of an underwater explosion (Table 1 Entry 2). Before geing
underway, both Adam and Jamie voice their skepticism about the myth, but as the narrator
cautions the audience, “So both MythBusters are skeptical, but science is an evidence-based
discipline.”
In addition, no maer how well accepted or long standing, a hypothesis is still subject to
reevaluation and scrutiny, as demonstrated in this exchange among the build team members
in the “Brain Drain” myth (Table 1 Entry 3) [“Table Cloth Chaos”—OAD: 10/27/2010]:
Kari: “We are testing a myth that is so prevalent that it’s just taken for granted that it’s fact: humans
only use 10% of their brain.”
Tory: “You hear that everywhere. It’s like ingrained in our society.”
Grant: “Denitely. But that doesn’t necessarily make it true.”
Occasionally, competing hypotheses to explain a phenomenon exist: “Rival hypotheses
constitute alternative, incompatible or disjunct answers to some problem” [11]. This is viv-
idly demonstrated in the “Diet Coke and Mentos” myth [“Diet Coke and Mentos”—OAD:
8/9/2006] when Adam and Jamie test dierent hypotheses for the vigorous reaction that
ensues when Mentos mints are added to a bole of Diet Coke (Table 1 Entry 4). Various
tendered explanations implicated the ingredients of the soda and the pied surface of the
mints. If dissolved CO2 were the only factor, then a mint added to soda water should bring
about the same reaction as a mint added to Diet Coke: “If CO2 is the only factor, these two
things should spurt the same height,” explains Adam. When the reaction with the soda water
proves anemic by comparison, the MythBusters conclude that some other component of the
Diet Coke is responsible for the energetic nature of the reaction. They go on to test each pos-
sible culprit—aspartame, citric acid, phosphoric acid, caeine, and potassium benzoate—by
mixing with soda water and noting the intensity of the reaction with a Mentos mint. On the
contribution of the mint to the violent reaction, Adam states “The most common theory about
what’s going on in this reaction between the candy and the soda is what’s called nucleation.
Basically, the idea is that the surface of the candy is covered with microscopic pits and more
surface area than you can actually see and each lile pit, each lile corner, provides what’s
called a nucleation site or a place where a carbon dioxide bubble can form and escape.” To
test this hypothesis, the MythBusters compare the reaction intensity of Diet Coke with two
Advanced Learning and Teaching Environments - Innovation, Contents and Methods178
kinds of Mentos mints—one pied and one covered in glaze—both made by the same com-
pany: “These two candies are made by the same manufacturer … using the same process but
the colored version of this actually has a glazing over it – it’s a wax coating or a sealer – that
inhibits the nucleation process that the other one achieves quite readily,” explains Jamie. If
nucleation sites are what permit the CO2 to rapidly bubble out of solution, then the reaction
of the Diet Coke with the smooth mints should be much less vigorous than with the pied
mints. The MythBusters enumerate various competing hypotheses to account for an observed
phenomenon and design experiments to systematically test each one.
4. Designing and carrying out an experiment
The MythBusters are thorough in their design of experiments, carefully noting to use controls
and employing single-blind and double-blind techniques to avoid introducing bias and taint-
ing the obtained results.
The use of controls in experiments is of paramount importance: anticipating and accounting
for confounding variables are essential in the design of a good experiment. In “Cockroach
Survival” [“Airplane on a Conveyor Belt”—OAD: 1/31/2008], Tory, Kari, and Grant test the
commonly held belief that the only life forms to survive the radioactive fallout from a nuclear
war would be cockroaches (Table 1 Entry 5). They expose cockroaches and other insects to
varying levels of radiation (1 kilorad, 10 kilorad, and 100 kilorad) and maintain a fourth set
as a control with no exposure to radiation. This establishes a baseline for comparison. While
none of the insects in the control receive any radiation exposure, they could die from other
factors: “Scientic studies must adequately control for alternative explanations of observed
data” [12].
In “Red Flag to a Bull” [“Red Flag to a Bull”—OAD: 8/22/2007], the build team tests the idea
that bulls are angered by the sight of a red ag (Table 1 Entry 6). In the design of the experi-
ment, the build team tests not just the eect of dierent colors (red, blue, white ags) but the
presence of motion and the presence of a person. They come up with an experimental check-
list to determine whether it is color or some other variable that provokes a bull to charge:
1. Single static ag—red, white, and blue
2. Comparative static ag—all three ags
3. Moving ag compared to color
4. Human form with moving ags
In part 1, only one ag is present in the arena at any one time as it might not be color that
angers a bull but the fact that it is the only salient object in an otherwise featureless pen. The
result is that the bull charges all three ags. In part 2, all three ags—red, white, and blue—
are hung in the arena to see if the bull prefers a certain color but charges all three. In part 3, the
experiment tests the idea that it is a moving ag and not a red ag that infuriates a bull. This
part of the experiment consists of a red stationary ag and a blue ag on a pulley being pulled
How the Science Entertainment Television Show MythBusters Teaches the Scientific Method
http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.72605
179
back and forth with the result that the bull only charges the moving blue ag, not the station-
ary red ag. Therefore, it is movement that triggers an aggressive charge response and not
the color red. In part 4, foam dummies in human form with waving and apping ags—red,
white, and blue—add a human element to the experiment. The last ag left standing is the red
one with the blue and white ags taken down rst. In this way, the MythBusters account for
factors other than color: “Any extraneous variable that could provide an alternative explana-
tion for the observed statistical relationships should be accounted for to show that none of
these alternative explanations are the real explanation for the ndings” [12].
The use of controls also factors prominently in the “Eye Patch” myth (Table 1 Entry 7) [“Pirate
Special”—OAD: 1/17/2007]. The build team tests the myth that pirates did not wear eye patches
to cover an eye gouged out in bale but rather to keep one eye constantly night vision ready. In
this way, one eye would always be dark-adapted so that if the pirate had to go below deck or
enter a bale at night, he could see without diculty. The build team designs an obstacle course
to test the myth. As the designers, they are not permied to navigate the course themselves: “If
we’re building this obstacle course, we’re not going to be able to test it,” notes Tory. Instead, they
have Adam and Jamie each navigate the obstacle course, rst using the eye that was exposed to
bright light (with the dark-adapted eye kept under the patch) and then using the dark-adapted
eye. To prevent Adam and Jamie from clocking a faster time owing to familiarity with the course,
the obstacle course is rearranged before the second run. As an additional control, Adam and
Jamie are made to run the course a third time to prove that the faster times are due to enhanced
night vision provided by the dark-adapted eye and not due to familiarity with the course by
leaving the course unaltered from the second trial and having them run it without dark-adapted
vision. As Kari explains, “We’ve left the course exactly the same as when they went through it
with the adjusted night vision eye. This way we can totally, empirically prove that if they can
get through this course and it takes them twice the time or any more time than it took them with
their adjusted eye, we’ve … proved this myth … And as one last variable of nal control, we sent
them through that obstacle course one last time with their daylight vision, taking out the them
knowing the course, and they still messed it up just as bad as the rst time they went through.”
While some of the myths tested on the show strain plausibility, a robust scientic methodol-
ogy is still employed. This dichotomy between silly myth and sound science is no more evident
than in the “Talking to Plants” myth (Table 1 Entry 8) [“Exploding House”—OAD: 11/16/2004].
To test whether sound can inuence the growth of plants, the build team set up several green
houses with pea plants inside. Some houses are exposed to recorded dialog, some to music, while
silence is maintained in others as a control. As the narrator explains, the only variable is to be
the sound: “As far as possible, conditions will be identical for all the plants except, of course, the
sound.” When a timer that controls watering fails, all plants experience a lack of water and wither.
However, as the narrator explains, “The only upside: every green house was aected in exactly
the same way. So, although the plants aren’t a picture of health, the experiment is still valid.”
The MythBusters also incorporate the use of controls in their experiments for testing of
“Animal Magnetism” (Table 1 Entry 9) [“Shark Week Special”—OAD: 7/27/2008]. The
essence of this myth is that sharks are repelled by magnetic elds, which interfere with
their sensory apparatus. An initial test employs a control: “I’m puing a plastic card over
the shark’s eye so that we can be sure that he’s reacting to the magnetism itself and not to
Advanced Learning and Teaching Environments - Innovation, Contents and Methods180
the sight of the magnet being brought close to him,” explains Adam. In a second test, the
MythBusters place a line of magnets across a tank to see if a shark will cross the magnetic
boundary. As a control, they put down a line of similar looking lead weights to make sure
the shark is not responding to the visual cue. As Adam explains, “You’re going to say, ‘But
the shark is just disturbed by seeing a big line of stu in their tank.’ Well, we’ve already
thought of that, that’s why we’re going to start with a control. We’re going to lay a line of
these innocuous lead weights across the tank and hopefully we’ll see the shark not care
about these at all from a visual standpoint … For the control, we expect to see the shark
swim up and down this track with no inhibitions. Then, we’re going to place a line of mag-
nets somewhere along that track and see if the shark either resists crossing that line of mag-
nets or doesn’t care that they’re there at all.” The MythBusters anticipate and account for
possible alternative explanations of an observed phenomenon, just as students should be
encouraged to use their imaginations to think of possible alternative explanations for the
observed relationships between variables [12].
In the “Play Dead” myth [“Shark Week Special”—OAD: 7/27/2008], the build team tests
whether sharks are aracted to erratic, jerky movements (Table 1 Entry 10). In the experiment,
Tory thrashes about in shark-infested waters, while Grant oats calmly nearby in the same
waters. As a control, they reverse roles: Grant then thrashes about, while Tory plays dead.
This is done to ensure that the sharks are aracted to movement and not something unique to
the individual, as Kari explains, “They might have just been aracted to Tory; he might have
been a bigger target.”
In testing whether swearing helps increase one’s threshold to pain [“No Pain, No Gain”—
OAD: 4/28/2010], the MythBusters recognize that they must isolate the act of swearing from
the act of speaking (Table 1 Entry 11). To do so, Jamie and Adam have participants vocal-
ize similar sounding non-swear words as a control while having their hands submerged
in ice water.
When testing whether underinated tires reduce fuel economy [“Mini Myth Madness”—OAD:
11/10/2010], the MythBusters stress the importance of accounting for other factors that may
aect fuel economy (Table 1 Entry 12). As Grant notes, “We have to have a very specic route.
We’ll have to drive the same route every time at the same speed in the exact same way … the
weight of the car cannot change between tests. That’s the only way we’ll be able to compare our
results.”
In addition to accounting for other variables through the use of controls, the MythBusters also
frequently employ single-blind and double-blind experimental procedures to avoid introduc-
ing bias into the obtained results.
In the “Eye Black” myth [“Viewer Special 2”—OAD: 2/13/2008], the MythBusters test
whether applying black makeup to the skin beneath the eyes reduces glare in bright light
(Table 1 Entry 13). To ensure the validity of the results, the test subject is not told if he is
wearing the black makeup. As a control, regular esh-tone makeup is applied in one trial
and the eye black in another trial. The test subject is not allowed to know if he has received
the control or the variable under question as knowledge could inuence the self-reported
results.
How the Science Entertainment Television Show MythBusters Teaches the Scientific Method
http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.72605
181
In the “Top Shelf Filtration” myth [“Bullets Fired Up”—OAD: 4/19/2006], the MythBusters test
whether it is possible to turn cheap, low-quality vodka into premium, high-quality vodka by l-
tering it repeatedly through a charcoal lter (Table 1 Entry 14). Three participants are each given
eight samples of vodka: one from each of six ltration stages, one shot of high-quality vodka,
and one shot of unltered cheap vodka. They are asked to rank them in order of perceived qual-
ity. The experiment is conducted in a double-blind setup; participants and the administrator of
the test are kept ignorant of the identity of each sample. As Grant elaborates, “These samples
have been prepared and randomized. Even I won’t know which is which until the very end.”
In the “Bale of the Sexes” [“Bale of the Sexes”—OAD: 4/22/2012], the MythBusters test
whether men or women are beer at various activities, such as driving and cooking (Table 1
Entry 15). In each of these experiments, they ensure that those conducting the assessments are
kept unaware of the gender of the participants to prevent potential bias. As Adam explains,
“[T]o eliminate bias we should make sure that the driving instructor does not know the gen-
der of the person he’s testing at any given moment.” Later, Jamie reminds the audience of the
need to avoid introducing potential bias: “The grilling will be assessed by a panel of judges.
[T]his is a blind test, which means that the judges will not know the gender of the people that
are preparing the food that they’re tasting.”
In the “The Smell of Fear” myth [“Fright Night”—OAD: 10/28/2012], the MythBusters test
whether fear-induced perspiration noticeably diers from exertion-induced perspiration
(Table 1 Entry 16). To test this myth, they collect samples of sweat exuded during exercise
and exuded while experiencing fear and see if volunteers can distinguish between them. To
prevent the introduction of bias, a double-blind format is employed, as Grant explains, “So
for our smell of fear experiment, it will be double-blind, meaning neither the volunteers nor
Tory, who is administering the test, will know what sample is what.”
In their design of experiments, the MythBusters are careful to incorporate controls and to
employ a single-blind or double-blind format to prevent introducing bias.
5. Formal logic
MythBusters demonstrates the importance of logical reasoning in science. This syllogistic logic
is best explained by way of a simple example:
“B = A.
B = C.
Hence A = C″ [13].
The use of formal logic is demonstrated in the “What is Bullet Proof?” myth (Table 1 Entry 17)
[“Con Punch”—OAD: 11/5/2008]. The myth centers on the idea that a suciently obese person
will have his internal organs protected from a bullet by the overlying layers of fat. Two impor-
tant examples of formal logic are used to legitimately simplify the experiment. First, containers
of lard are placed in front of a human analogue dummy in an amount corresponding to the
Advanced Learning and Teaching Environments - Innovation, Contents and Methods182
world’s faest person: if the amount of lard corresponding to the fat possessed by the world’s
most obese person is insucient to stop a bullet, then no person’s fat can stop a bullet. This logic
is also used in choice of the rearms employed. If a round from a 45-caliber gun with the low
muzzle velocity of 900 ft/s passes through unimpeded, it is futile to try larger caliber rounds as
all have greater penetrating power: “If this makes it all the way through our fat and vital organs,
every other kind of round we could re would as well,” succinctly explains Adam. While the syl-
logism example utilizes mathematical variables and symbols and the myth utilizes containers of
fat and the penetrating power of bullets, the principles are the same: “The validity or invalidity
of a deductive argument depends on its form, and not on its content” [12].
6. Objectivity
MythBusters eectively communicates the jurisdiction and constraints of science. Science
deals with maers in an objective fashion, and it is important that “students develop an
understanding of … what science can and cannot do” [14].
Oftentimes, the MythBusters are confronted with having to assess something for which there is
no obvious way to measure. In the “Beer Goggles” myth [“Alcohol Myths”—OAD: 10/22/2008],
the MythBusters test the commonly held belief that the consumption of alcohol makes people
perceive others as being more physically aractive (Table 1 Entry 18). Early on, Jamie points
out that this myth will be especially dicult to test empirically: “This seems to be a really sub-
jective thing. We need to be objective if we’re going to be scientic.” In an aempt to quantify
an essentially qualitative, subjective choice, the MythBusters employ a large sample size and
numerically rate dozens of photographs of people while sober and while intoxicated: “The
researcher may turn to rating as a last resort, when any more precise and explicit convention
for scoring cases is either impossible or is deemed too much trouble” [15].
In the myth of “Taking Candy From a Baby” [“Mini Myth Madness”—OAD: 11/10/2010], the
MythBusters are confronted with having to devise a method to measure something seemingly
subjective in testing the idiom that taking candy from a baby truly is the epitome of eortless-
ness (Table 1 Entry 19). They decide to “reduce the myth to a single quantiable measure-
ment – grip strength” by measuring the amount of force required to take candy away from
newborns and infants (consenting parents were present) using a mechanical gripper.
In the “Square Wheels” myth [“Square Wheels”—OAD: 4/8/2012], the MythBusters test
whether if above a certain speed, square wheels can provide a smooth ride (Table 1 Entry
20). Testing the “smoothness” of a ride seems like an inherently unquantiable, unscientic
proposition, as Adam notes, “If these [square wheels] have any chance at all of giving us a
smooth ride, how are we going to know beyond our own subjective experience? We need an
objective measuring system for telling us how smooth our ride is.” The MythBusters decide to
place vibration sensors on the suspension and steering column of their vehicle as well as on
the passengers inside the vehicle. After reviewing the data from the vibration sensors, Adam
concludes “[T]he data is prey compelling and it actually seems to match what Jamie and I
felt in the truck …”
How the Science Entertainment Television Show MythBusters Teaches the Scientific Method
http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.72605
183
Oftentimes, the MythBusters are confronted with having to assess something for which there is
no obvious way to measure. In the “Driving Dangerously” myth [“Driving in Heels”—OAD:
4/29/2012], Adam and Jamie test whether certain types of footwear make driving dangerous
(Table 1 Entry 21):
Jamie: “[H]ow do you propose we test them?”
Adam: “[W]e each wear a strange piece of footwear with our foot all the way down on the accelerator.
Then we time how long it takes to get from the accelerator all the way to the brake.”
In the “Tryptophan Turkey” myth [“Surreal Gourmet Hour”/“Food Fables”—OAD:
11/18/2012], Tory, Kari, and Grant test whether eating turkey makes you sleepy (Table 1
Entry 22). As sleepiness is inherently subjective, they decide to measure their reexes by
playing a game of Whac-A-Mole. They compare their scores obtained after consuming tryp-
tophan capsules, a turkey-laden meal, and a meal without any turkey but containing the
same number of calories.
7. Operational denitions
MythBusters demonstrates the importance of operational denitions in scientic experiments.
Operational denitions involve comparison of phenomena of interest against a standard:
“Operational denition means dening the phenomena under investigation in such a way
that they can be observed and measured, at least indirectly, in terms of other phenomena that
can also be observed and measured” [12].
In “Water Heater Rocket” [“Exploding Water Heater”—OAD: 11/7/07], the MythBusters test
whether a malfunctioning pressure release can cause a water heater to explode through mul-
tiple oors of a house like a missile (Table 1 Entry 23). To ensure the validity of their results,
the scale house they create is built to California building code specications. They rigorously
adhere to uniform standards and codes so that they can apply the results they obtain to existing
houses.
Many of the myths tested by the MythBusters involve explosives. Operational denitions fea-
ture heavily in these myths. In the “Bourne Magazine” myth [“Blue Ice”—OAD: 4/13/2011],
the MythBusters explore the combustibility of dierent ratios of air and methane gas (Table 1
Entry 24). In their initial testing, they make use of operational denitions when employing the
concept of standard temperature and pressure (STP) in determining the exact stoichiometric
ratio of fuel to air that is explosive.
In the “What is Bomb Proof?” myth [“Running on Water”—OAD: 4/20/2011], the MythBusters
employ Oseco burst disks as a way of determining whether blasts are harmless or would
have resulted in injury or death (Table 1 Entry 25). As the narrator explains, “We’ve used
burst disks before on the show to nd out if various shock waves were survivable without
actually resorting to a human sacrice. So in this control blast, they’re testing the outer lim-
its of two dierently calibrated disks: one set for certain death, the other for injury.” Grant
Advanced Learning and Teaching Environments - Innovation, Contents and Methods184
provides a more detailed description of how these metal foil membranes, calibrated to burst
at certain pressures, can be used to infer whether an explosion would have inicted serious
bodily harm or caused death: “We’re going to set up a number of radii from the epicenter
of the blast. At each of these radii, we’re going to put two burst disks: one that goes at 13
[PSI], which is the threshold of injury, and one that goes at 75 [PSI], which is the threshold
of instant death.”
Operational denitions again feature in the “Let There Be Light” myth [“Let There Be
Light”—OAD: 6/22/2011], in which Adam and Jamie test a scene from the movie The Mummy
that depicts an elaborate system of ancient Egyptian mirrors redirecting light from the sun
to illuminate a dark tomb (Table 1 Entry 26). The concept of operational denitions is intro-
duced at the onset as this excerpt of dialog illustrates:
Adam: “[T]his myth is all about lighting up the darkness with the sun’s rays reected. We need to
answer the question: What does it mean to light up the darkness?”
Jamie: “We need to dene that: What’s the minimum amount of light necessary to move around in an
unfamiliar space?”
Later in the myth, Adam emphasizes the use of operational denitions yet again: “Before
we start bouncing light around … with mirrors, we need to determine a couple of bench-
marks that we’ll be aiming for in these tests … What is the minimum amount of ambient light
required to see?”
The MythBusters excel at nding ways inherently dicult to measure and quantify phenom-
ena using operational denitions.
8. Small-scale testing
MythBusters demonstrates the importance of small-scale testing in scientic experiments. It
often behooves researchers to experiment with a small-scale model before investing substan-
tial amounts of capital and time in a full-scale version. Technical concerns caught at the small-
scale experiment can be remedied before the full-scale experiment is implemented.
In “Down with the Titanic” [“Down with the Titanic”—OAD: 1/25/2004], the MythBusters
test the idea that a sinking ship generates a vortex powerful enough to suck people in the
surrounding water down with it (Table 1 Entry 27). They start o not by sculing a boat but
rather with smaller proof-of-concept tests using an aerator (bubbler) and hydrometer in a
swimming pool.
In “Bubble Trouble” [“Bubble Trouble”—OAD: 4/27/2011], the MythBusters test whether it
is impossible to swim in bubbly water (Table 1 Entry 28). They begin with a small-scale test
involving an aquarium tank and aerator along with a hydrometer to measure the density
of bubbly water. This small-scale test yields a surprising result, with the MythBusters nd-
ing that the decrease in water density is oset and counteracted by the upwelling current of
bubbles.
How the Science Entertainment Television Show MythBusters Teaches the Scientific Method
http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.72605
185
In “Wrecking Ball Baloney” [“Newton’s Crane Cradle”—OAD: 10/5/2011], Adam and Jamie
test an internet viral video of a giant Newton’s cradle (a classic tabletop demonstration of
elastic collision and energy transfer) made from wrecking balls set in motion by a crane at a
construction site (Table 1 Entry 29). The MythBusters decide to approach the myth cautiously
rather than rush headlong to replicate the viral video:
Adam: “How do you want to proceed?”
Jamie: “[S]ince this is all about scaling the Newton’s cradle eect … why don’t we do it gradually?”
Adam: “You mean incrementally bumping up the size of our Newton cradles?”
Jamie: “Exactly, and see if we can tease out any kind of problems dealing with the increase in scale.”
Later, Adam reiterates the rationale for implementing a small-scale version of the experi-
ment rst: “Before we go to full-scale, we’re going to try a scale experiment with the simplest
arrangement possible … it … ought to give us a good guide as to the viability of our concept
for the large-scale one.”
In the “Square Wheels” myth (previously discussed), Adam and Jamie test whether it’s pos-
sible for square wheels to provide a smooth ride to a vehicle. They conduct small-scale tests
involving a model vehicle on a treadmill to elucidate which wheel conguration gives the
smoothest ride. This setup serves to provide crucial data on which congurations lead to dan-
gerous resonance eects that might shake a vehicle apart at the full scale. As Jamie explains,
“Our small-scale tests showed that the best conguration was to have two opposing corners
with their points down, the opposite two corners with their ats down. That balances things
out the best and so that’s what we’re going to do full-scale.”
In “Tablecloth Chaos” [“Tablecloth Chaos”—OAD: 10/27/2010], the MythBusters aempt to rep-
licate another internet viral video that purports to show a quickly accelerating motorcycle being
used to whisk a tablecloth free of a fully laden banquet table without disturbing a single place
seing (Table 1 Entry 30). Adam decides to start with small-scale testing for obvious reasons:
“We’re going to scale this up to a fairly impossible dimension and I suspect that a lot of factors
– object heaviness, cloth type, table type – all of these things – might aect our success on that
scale. Thus, in the small-scale, we need to learn what factors are critical to making it work.”
The use of small-scale, proof-of-concept testing features prominently in myths involving
explosives. In “Surng with Dynamite” [“Lead Balloon”—OAD: 1/23/2008], the build team
conducts a small-scale demonstration before detonating dynamite in a quarry lake (Table 1
Entry 31). Using plastic boles lled with subliming dry ice, they test wave generation at the
surface of a pool while varying the depth of the explosion. This small-scale test tells them at
which relative depth explosions create surface waves with the greatest amplitude. As the nar-
rator explains, “So the guys have their proof of concept; an explosion will make waves and
depth is a factor in the size and quality of those waves.”
In “Drain Disaster” [“Drain Disaster”—OAD: 11/2/2011], Adam and Jamie test whether
a methane gas buildup in a sewer system can ignite and launch manhole covers skyward
(Table 1 Entry 32). Again, the MythBusters choose to begin at the small scale. As Jamie explains,
“[B]efore we lock in on a full-size plan, let’s do a small-scale one rst and see if we can learn
anything.”
Advanced Learning and Teaching Environments - Innovation, Contents and Methods186
In “Valkyrie Boom” [“Operation Valkyrie”—OAD: 12/22/2010], the MythBusters test whether
a last-minute change of venue from an underground bunker to an aboveground conference
room prevented an aempted assassination of Hitler from proving fatal (Table 1 Entry 33).
Adam decides to start with a small-scale test to illustrate the dierence between an explo-
sion in a closed space, such as a bunker, and in an open space, such as an aboveground room
with windows. In his small-scale test, Adam visualizes the wave mechanics by dropping
weights into a tank of water. From the behavior of the ripples in water, Adam is able to col-
lect evidence in favor of the myth that allows him to condently proceed to the full-scale
experiment.
In “Trench Torpedo” [“Trench Torpedo”—OAD: 10/14/2012], the MythBusters test whether,
in World War I, building trenches with abrupt, right-angle corners served to prevent shock
waves from exploding artillery shells from propagating (Table 1 Entry 34). Adam starts
exploring this myth at the small scale with wave tanks of dierent geometries: straight with
abrupt, right-angle corners and with gradual, rounded corners. From this small-scale test,
Adam nds a denite reduction in the amplitude of ripples in the tank with right-angle
bends, lending credence to the myth and supplying the evidence needed to proceed with the
full-scale experiment.
9. Interpretation of results
The MythBusters convey the intrinsic conservatism of science by not making sweeping general-
izations or unjustiably extrapolating the results they obtain: “[S]cientists and educators must
resist the urge to state the case of science in terms that are stronger than the data support” [16].
In the myth of “antigravity” (previously discussed), the build team arrives at a conclusion of
busted: “So anti-gravity is busted,” Kari summarizes. This prompts Tory to retort, “I don’t
know if we can bust anti-gravity. I mean we can bust our devices.” To which Kari replies,
“Alright. Revised. Anti-gravity busted … for now.” This exchange demonstrates how scien-
tic explanations are tentative and that the current understanding of a phenomenon may not
be the nal word on the maer [17, 18].
In “The Haunted Hum” myth [“Fright Night”—OAD: 10/28/2012], Adam and Jamie test
whether an infrasonic hum may be responsible for peoples’ perceptions of certain buildings
as being haunted (Table 1 Entry 35). In this experiment, the MythBusters select four identical
cabins in the remote woods as an appropriate venue for the myth. They apply the auditory
stimulus in only one of the four cabins. They have participants spend 2 minutes alone in
each cabin and report which cabin they found to be most unseling. Most participants in
the experiment found the rst cabin to be the most unnerving, while the infrasonic tone was
applied in the third cabin. As Adam concludes, “Ten tests. Ten test subjects. And I think we
can denitively state that cabin 3 – the sound we put through it – did not make it the spookiest
cabin. If anything, cabin 1 was the spookiest cabin, cabin 4, the least spooky. Now this could
be because of one of two reasons. Either, because we had everyone enter the cabins in numeri-
cal order, the newness of the experiment and the weirdness of siing alone in a room for
two minutes made them the most frightened at the beginning and the least frightened at the
end. The other reason is that cabin 1 could actually be haunted. But I don’t think so.” In this
How the Science Entertainment Television Show MythBusters Teaches the Scientific Method
http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.72605
187
way, Adam masterfully demonstrates how scientists are cautious and conservative in draw-
ing conclusions from their experimental data. The MythBusters excel at identifying alternative
explanations to account for a nding: “Even a statistically signicant relationship must not be
taken as supporting a causal hypothesis unless all plausible alternative explanations for the
observed statistical relationship have been eliminated” [12].
10. Repeatability of results
One central tenet of science that is often omied from the classroom is the importance of
repeatability. The essence of science is that any result should be able to be reproduced on
demand: “We do not take even our own observations quite seriously, or accept them as scien-
tic observations, until we have repeated and tested them … Only by such repetitions can we
convince ourselves that we are not dealing with a mere isolated ‘coincidence’” [19].
In science, one person or team publishes its ndings, and other people or teams seek to rec-
reate the results. If the same materials are used and the same conditions are observed, then
the results should be the same regardless of who conducts the experiment or where it is con-
ducted: “The essence of the scientic method lies in the repeatable result: if you perform an
experiment in the same way, nature will do the same thing again. This is the heart of science
and is the sign that an observable phenomenon in nature has been found” [20]. This is what
sets the scientist apart from seer, shaman, and oracle who purport to have a unique ability
unable to be taught or communicated to others.
Lack of repeatability is often the deciding factor in the collective rejection by the scientic
community of a new claim.
In 1977, SETI (Search for Extraterrestrial Intelligence) astronomers at the Big Ear radio telescope at
Ohio State University picked up an intensely strong, narrowband radio signal. The unique nature
of what was dubbed the Wow! signal seemed to imply an articial (intelligent) origin, but because
the signal did not repeat, the existence of extraterrestrial intelligence could not be conrmed.
In 1989, scientists Stanley Pons and Martin Fleischmann claimed to have achieved cold fusion: the
fusion of heavy hydrogen at room temperature. The claim caused a global sensation, promising
to usher in an era of cheap, clean, limitless nuclear power. However, the inability of others to
obtain the same results quickly led the scientic community to excoriate cold fusion propo-
nents [21]. Indeed, the failure of other scientists to reproduce the results claimed by Pons and
Fleischmann dealt a credibility blow so severe that the entire eld has never recovered and is
even today looked upon by the overwhelming majority of scientists as lile more than alchemy.
The importance of repeatability is frequently emphasized on MythBusters. As the narra-
tor reminds the audience, “Reliable results should be repeatable” [“Running on Water”—
OAD: 4/20/2011]. This point is succinctly communicated in the “Primary Perception” myth
(Table 1 Entry 36) [“Deadly Straw”—OAD: 9/6/2006]. The build team tests the myth that
plants are conscious and capable of exhibiting emotions, such as fear and anger, detectable
Advanced Learning and Teaching Environments - Innovation, Contents and Methods188
by polygraph. When subjecting plants connected to bioelectrical monitoring equipment to
physical abuse, the build team initially obtains some startling results that seem to indicate
that the myth has some validity. However, upon further testing, they are unable to duplicate
the surprising results. This prompts the MythBusters to classify the myth as busted, with
Tory concluding, “If you can’t repeat it, it’s not science.”
11. Summary
Educators must use all tools at their disposal, including television, to improve their stu-
dents’ understanding of the scientic method and instill in them an appreciation of its
wide-ranging versatility. Understanding the scientic method and how to use it is more
widely applicable and transferrable than the accumulation of disparate facts that can be
recalled on a whim [22–25]. While formal student assessment was not conducted, feed-
back (via informal conversation) showed increased student condence in identifying
experimental controls and greater appreciation of the importance of controls in experiment
design following the classroom activity we designed to introduce the scientic method uti-
lizing myths from the show. MythBusters communicates the scientic method (proposing
a hypothesis, designing and carrying out an experiment, etc.) along with its lesser-known
components of experimental controls; the importance of logical reasoning, objectivity,
operational denitions, small-scale testing, and interpretation of results, and the impor-
tance of the repeatability of results: “If the decades ahead produce another Thomas Edison
or Steve Jobs, odds are that he or she will have grown up watching MythBusters” [3].
Educators are encouraged to familiarize themselves with the show, starting with the epi-
sodes mentioned herein. These episodes can be purchased on DVD from the Discovery
Channel website. They can also be downloaded individually or by season from Apple’s
iTunes Store for immediate streaming.
12. Postscript
After a run of 14 seasons and 282 episodes, the MythBusters nale was aired in spring
2016; however, reruns continue to air on Discovery Channel’s sister network The Science
Channel [26]. In addition, the Science Channel has announced that it is relaunching the
show with new hosts to be determined through its new reality show Search for the Next
MythBusters. Also, build team members Tory, Kari, and Grant will be investigating unusual
events from pop culture, science, and history in the Netix original White Rabbit Project.
Lastly, a hands-on exhibition with artifacts from the show, interactive exhibits, and live
demos called “MythBusters: The Explosive Exhibition” was installed at the Mall of America
in Minneapolis, MN, in 2016 and at the Liberty Science Center in Jersey City, NJ, in 2017.
With reruns, a reboot, a spin-o, and a touring exhibition, the nal pedagogical legacy of
MythBusters is not yet wrien.
How the Science Entertainment Television Show MythBusters Teaches the Scientific Method
http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.72605
189
Author details
Erik A. Zavrel
Address all correspondence to: eaz29@cornell.edu
Cornell University, Ithaca, New York, United States of America
References
[1] Bassey M. Science and Society: The Meaning and Importance of Scientic Method.
London: University of London Press; 1968
[2] Schwar J. The best science show on television? The New York Times. November 21,
2006. Retrieved from: hp://www.nytimes.com/2006/11/21/science/21myth.html
[3] Webster L. The Mythbuster guide to Gonzo engineering. Popular Mechanics. Sep. 2009.
pp. 48-57
[4] Mehta R. Classy Classes: THINK 1 teaches students how to fail for science. The Stanford
Daily. November 17, 2014. Retrieved from: hp://www.stanforddaily.com/2014/11/17/
classy-classes-think1-teaches-students-how-to-fail-for-science/
[5] Carey B. At Stanford, 'The Science of MythBusters' teaches the scientic method. Stanford
Report. November 19, 2012. Retrieved from: hp://news.stanford.edu/news/2012/november/
science-myth-busters-111912.html
[6] National Research Council (NRC). America's Lab Report: Investigations in High School
Science. Washington, DC: National Academies Press; 2005
[7] Elo S, Kääriäinen M, Kanste O, Pölkki T, Utriainen K, Kyngäs H. Qualitative content
analysis: A focus on trustworthiness. SAGE Open. January–March 2014;4(1):1-10
[8] Suon J, Austin Z. Qualitative research: Data collection, analysis, and management.
Canadian Journal of Hospital Pharmacy. May/Jun. 2015;68(3):226-231
[9] Kohlbacher F. The use of qualitative content analysis in case study research. Forum:
Qualitative Social Research. Jan. 2006;7(1):1-23
[10] hps://www.researchgate.net/prole/Erik_Zavrel
[11] Harsing L. Scientic Reasoning and Epistemic Aitudes. Budapest: Akademiai Kiado;
1982
[12] Bueno A, Ellis R. The Craft of Thinking: Logic, Scientic Method, and the Pursuit of
Truth. Atlanta: Clark Atlanta University Press; 1999
[13] Jevons S. Principles of Science. New York: Dover Publications; 1958
Advanced Learning and Teaching Environments - Innovation, Contents and Methods190
[14] National Research Council (NRC). National Science Education Standards. Washington,
DC: National Academies Press; 1996
[15] Stephens W. Hypotheses & Evidence. New York: Thomas Crowell Company; 1968
[16] Pedicino J. Teaching critical thinking in an age of political disinformation and perceived
anti-intellectualism: Helping to build a responsible citizen in a community-college set-
ting. Journal of College Science Teaching. Jan./Feb. 2008;37(3):10
[17] Williams J. The scientic method and school science. Journal of College Science Teaching.
Sep./Oct. 2008;38(1):14-16
[18] McLaughlin J. A gentle reminder that a hypothesis is never proven correct, nor is a the-
ory ever proven to be true. Journal of College Science Teaching. Sep. 2006;36(1):60-62
[19] Popper K. The Logic of Scientic Discovery. New York: Harper & Row; 1959
[20] Preston R. The Demon in the Freezer. New York: Ballantine Publishing Group; 2002
[21] Browne M. Physicists debunk claim of a new kind of fusion. The New York Times. May
3, 1989. Retrieved from: hp://partners.nytimes.com/library/national/science/050399sci-
cold-fusion.html
[22] Dykstra D. What should elementary science education be about? Journal of College
Science Teaching. Jul./Aug. 2005;34(7):7-8
[23] Firooznia F. Giant ants and walking plants: Using science ction to teach a writing-
intensive, lab-based biology class for nonmajors. Journal of College Science Teaching.
Mar./Apr. 2006;35(5):26-31
[24] Hohman J, Adams P, Taggart G, Heinrichs J, Hickman K. A ‘nature of science’ discus-
sion: Connecting mathematics and science. Journal of College Science Teaching. Sep.
2006;36(1):18-21
[25] Shibley I, Dunbar M, Mysliwiec T, Dunbar D. Using science popularizations to promote
learner-centered teaching alternatives to the traditional textbook. Journal of College
Science Teaching. Nov./Dec. 2008;38(2):54-58
[26] Zavrel EA. In: Cavero OB, editor. Pedagogical Techniques Employed by the Science
Television Show MythBusters. InTech; 2018. In Press
How the Science Entertainment Television Show MythBusters Teaches the Scientific Method
http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.72605
191