Also, Mythbusters is all applying the scientific method to common notions and myths, then finding an excuse to blow stuff up. Bullshyt is more about making fun of people who believe things. (In fairness, the people who show up on BS know what show they are on, and likely know that Penn is going to call them an a**hole, but they go on willingly anyway.)

I wouldn't say that Mythbusters is balanced, they just aren't dealing with the same topics. And frequently (not most of the time but frequently) the methodologies used on Mythbusters are entertaining but not actually of much use in determining results and create a false sense of scientific rigor where they haven't created any.

I prefer Bull**** because they look at more interesting deeper topics. And Mythbusters has mostly run out of good many good myths to examine. That may be true of Bull**** as well. As I said, I've only seen the first two seasons.

I watched the new Mythbusters last week.

The boffo big ticket myth they used for the grand season opener was.... Wait for it.... Can you tenderize steak with explosives.

Wow. Gripping.

The show may have indeed jumped the shark. We'll have to see i things pick up or not.

And that's what makes it even more appealing. ;)

We just watched a rerun of the MB "Alaska Special" last night, and it was hysterical - they were testing "cabin fever", and Adam got totally freaked out when they had a guy in a yeti costume tap on his window. It's definitely entertaining while provoking some thought too.

She can easily make up for any flawed science.

Actually, I heard that the episode was funny. I thought I heard that they also tenderized the meat by letting it run in a dryer all night (which I understand blew up the dryer).

It was funny.

I don't watch them for great science. I watch them because they make me laugh. Incredibly entertaining.

They also shot steaks outs of an air cannon at over 300mph.

Yeah, they're funny. I just think they started out as a show that humorously applied rational methods to interesting questions to a show that does humorous stuff and occasionally applies rational methods to an interesting question.

But the ones that actually annoy me are when they spend an hour exploring a subject that has plenty of existing evidence already answering the question. For example, the show where they looked into whether you can really drive up a ramp into the back of a moving semi without shooting yourself through the front of it. Stunt drivers have only been doing this exact thing on film for about 50 years, there really isn't a myth being busted.

And I really wanted to scream at their methodology for determining whether great whites are wary of dolphins.

Most of their methodology sucks, but I just like them blowing stuff up - that is what the show is about!

The water heater episode was one of my favorites.