After completing my PhD in medicinal chemistry I went straight into sci comm. Biggest mistake I ever made. Sensationalism sells and we are encouraged to twist data to fit a narrative. Ethically didn't sit right with me so I went back into the laboratory. It is true that writers are asked to write outside their area of expertise, which does mean errors are many. Medical advertising is so much worse. Bending clinical data enough to sell a drug whilst staying within the ABPI. It is so unethical. I hated writing advertising copy for one client knowing their drug wasn't as good as a competitor. I felt like I was doing harm writing stuff for sales reps to convince doctors to change their prescribing habits knowing that this could cause harm to patients who might not be getting an optimal treatment.
Are there any real ethical paths in science communication? I do love telling people about the cool stuff I find in science, and I feel I could be good at communicating arcane topics to others. But can it be done without going into a field that's solely designed to twist reality using writing skills?
@@tylercriss6435 Absolutely. There are plenty of TH-cam channels that do their best to present science information in a direct and accessible way. The problem with traditional science journalism isn't that it can't be done - the problem is that you're beholden to the publisher and many science publishers have an agenda. Of course there are also plenty of TH-cam channels that have an agenda of their own. Being self-publishing (or close enough to it) is by no means a magic cure for bias. It just gives individual content creators the ability to choose whether to lean into or try to combat their own biases as they see fit, rather than having to do so at the behest of a faceless boss'-boss'-boss'-boss corporate overlord. But of course no matter how good you are at avoiding bias in your presentation, there's a _lot_ of papers published every year and only so many videos one person can create, even if they're only presenting and have staff to do all of the research, editing, producing, publishing, etc. So its entirely likely that there will be some biases in the selection of which papers to present, regardless of how much they try to avoid bias in the presentation itself. That said, I personally like SciShow (and their many subchannels). Each of their channel tends to have one episode per week or so dedicated to announcing (and attempting to explain in a couple of minutes) one or two new interesting research results. (They also produce many episodes of various other styles each week.. the announcement episodes aren't their only videos, in case you happen to run into one of those other ones first).
@@altrag Great points. I definitely DO think there are ethical avenues for scicomm, but perhaps not many that aren’t inherently biased - even someone like me, who has his own channel, isn’t dependent on it for my livelihood (ie if TH-cam is your full time gig it’s totally understandable to cover topics that will generate clicks), I don’t have an editor etc - and yet I am still likely to suffer from all the usual biases. So whether you feel that’s related to ethics or not is up to you, but by its very nature, mass communication encourages bias. Full time academics know this all too well as well, there’s a big gulf between what they WANT to do vs what they end up doing (as that’s where the grant money is. This year: COVID)
@@altrag I like SciShow and I watch them a lot and support them on Patreon. But even they have an agenda. They are really heavy into the SJW cause pushing at the moment (and I don't say that to be disparaging, but I'm not sure of a better way to put it). I agree with some of it and disagree with some of it. But there is a clear deliberate attempt in their channels (SciShow, CrashCourse, etc) to really push that narrative angle in everything they do. Whether you fully agree with it or not isn't the point. It's that it's clearly an agenda, and a lens through which they present the information. But as long as you know that and turn on your own brain and understand this fact, you can take in the information while understanding where they are coming from, and you can appropriately filter the information coming in with an appreciation that the information is being presented with a bit of a skew towards that perspective. The fact is human beings are both the practitioners of the scientific method and presenters of its results, and that means human opinions, perspectives, and biases are always going to be a part of it.
Reminds me of this meme that was going around: I fucking LOVE science. * *is handed peer reviewed journal* * Haha nonono I meant CGI pictures of space with misattributed quotes as captions
Similarly to: I fucking love music! * *is handed an incredibly complicated classical music score* * Oh nonono, I meant the sounds that come from the radio! Why is it wrong to appreciate science even if one isn't scientifically savvy?
@@Aelipse Because too many people insist that their surface-level views on it are valid solely because of their supposed passion for the field. The key difference between "I fucking love science" and "I fucking love music" is that music is an art form and science is...well, science. Opinions on music need not be validated by rational argument. However, there are too many people who claim to "love science" but don't actually value the scientific method, deductive reasoning, and logical argument. Perhaps worst of all, they are swayed too often by appeals to authority, and view skepticism as dangerous, rather than essential to the search for truth.
Yeah, science is 99.9999% grind and the remote possibility you read an interesting paper before it became really famous. People love to be persuasive, not put the actual work in to know and (maybe) prove something. It's why the _forms_ of science are regularly abused by fields bordering on quackery. The "replication crisis" in some fields is both a genuine problem with shoddy research making bogus claims and a misnomer: we should expect most peer-reviewed experiments to fail in their goals. Failure is how we eliminate errors and keep working towards a better theory.
@@Aelipse Idk I can see where you're coming from with the radio, however it comes across as elitist to expect people to be able to read music to understand it. I'm also disappointed when someone says "Oh I also love music" and they literally only know hits. IMO you're sending the wrong message if you act like a fan of music, and you really haven't even dived into the various genres and albums to even find out what you'd even personally enjoy outside of the absolute mainstream. I get that it's an opinion thing, but this has literally *only* come up in my experience when you have person A who really enjoys music, maybe makes music, then you have person B who basically just listens to the radio on the way to work, and they're trying to compare themselves to person A. It just muddies the scene IMO.
@@Aelipse Music vs classical music is a bad analogy for scientific results vs scientific method, which is what the original meme guns for. Firstly, music IS something that can be appreciated by those ignorant in how to produce it, because it is an entertainment form, and the result is what matters for most people. Science meanwhile is a best-approach philosophy on how to manage information most efficiently. It is a TOOL that has to be used by everyone viewing the results, scientist or not. If you simply look at the results of science without understanding the approach, then it ceases to serve its key role as a METHODOLOGY for analysing information and becomes a form of entertainment you are just experiencing at the sidelines. Besides, classical music is just a genre of music, no different from another like pop, rock, or synth. A peer-reviewed journal is kind of the bedrock of science though, like a list of sheet music. The comparison doesn't even make sense.
I feel like one of the major issue is that people do not accept uncertainty. Something either is or is not but they don’t accept/understand answers like « maybe », « unlikely », or « statistically un/significant ».
Statistical significance is even worse because the vast majority of people have no clue how to interpret what it means. I would include most scientists in there as well.
Nothing is science is certain, but we're taught that it's an invincible truth finding machine. That leads to people dishonestly being shown "contradictions", or the fact that science deals with models and assumptions is introduced by some grifter. Suddenly they feel lied to and start appearing in comment sections advocating quack medicine or starting shit about climate change. Science has a messaging issue that goes back decades.
The other side of this is that individual people can and sometimes do accept uncertainty. But it is very hard for groups to agree on and spread ideas of uncertainty. So the messages that are spread memetically and adopted by the masses are the more sensational and absolute messages.
Ironically, this is a red flag for quackery. Rohin is at work in an actual hospital, so fair enough. But when you see someone dressed in scrubs or, worse, a lab coat and they're not anywhere near a lab or clinic... possible quack alert. They love to cosplay as real doctors.
Science journals usually have synthesised articles describing peer-reviewed journals in more colloquial language. However you will need to learn some of the language / jargon being used, which is needed to understand the science involved anyway. And honestly if those are too hard to follow, the easiest thing you can do is to search for the same headline from MULTIPLE sources and cross-compare all of those. At least you'll be averaging out the sensationalism and bias amongst a host of different sources.
@@dsdy1205 What do you mean by synthesized articles? If it is simply summarizing existing studies in human-readable language, that doesn't solve the problem. Poor-quality studies can be summarized just fine. Meta-studies are my favorite to find, but they are difficult to find unless the topic is highly researched. I also don't love looking at multiple sources, because it is far to easy to find multiple sources saying the same sensationalistic stuff precisely because sensationalism spreads more. Good science is not a popularity vote.
Very good question. The answer for me is: no particular publication. I am aware though that not everyone can read scientific studies in full or at all, let alone several different ones on the same topic. In regards to confirmation bias, I find it usefull to break a question down in as many small pieces as possible and try to evaluate every piece on it's own, since I find it takes away from the emotional attachement to the outcome of a question. Another method for me is to try to evaluate a study by its setup first and only look at any conclusion/the abstract after I determined whether I find the methodology to be of high enough quality/ sufficiently low in bias. Another way to fight confirmation bias in general that has worked for me is to practice admitting to be wrong, I try to reframe being wrong from something negative or even shamefull, to "Hey, I just learned a thing and I'm less wrong now!". At least for me it works really well against confirmation bias, since it keeps me from having negative emotional feedback when whatever I think is true, is not confirmed.
If you think "Yay Science!" is tiresome, try being a mathematician and having to listen to people celebrate "Pi Day" or other attempts to popularise mathematics that amounts to basically numerology.
hi, just here with a quote from the video you watched. "it should be a welcoming place not a sneering snobbish closed shop" it may be you may possibly have maybe missed the point.
@@nomennescio7571 Sounds like me sadly. Taking a break from arguing with other on the internet, especially over science, definetly helped my mental health.
In my experience, a lot of the "Yay Science" crowd often really have no clue what science is, involves, or how scientific consensus is or isn't reached. Basically, it's become a sort of identity or ideological bent for "laymen", unfortunately.
Ｉthink a huge problem is that the kind of people who used to avoid education and quietly do manual labour in the past, suddenly have a very loud voice now that drowns out other people. For example in the 1990s you'd see such people shunning ICQ instant messenger or AOL and IRC and hanging out in school hallways, socializing face to face. The internet had a higher proportion of nerds with more ways of thinking prevalent in those groups of people. But now those outdoors face to face people have a loud voice on the internet, yet they never really studied science and engineering at university.
While I agree, I also think we have a deeper cultural dilemma. Scientist are conditioned, trained and traumatized into being skeptical. The public is presented a very different version of things where the smart people just get it right and they somehow know everything. Science has been mistaken as an answer machine, it's really a questioning machine. Our culture deplores ignorance of any kind, so it's often missed that ignorance is the name of the game in science, the more you learn.... The less you know.
@@notsam498 That's because Science is the new 'sky daddy'. Totally agree that most people see it as an answers machine, with scientists being equivalent to prophets. "Oh sorry, I'm no expert, therefore I can't even have an opinion on this hugely controversial yet somehow very basic topic." You don't question GOD. You just listen to his prophets preach at you and spread the good word to other believers, and you shun and cast stones against non-believers. People are so fking stupid, I just can't.
@@SingmetheSea I guess this is true in the since many people do confuse science with faith. The very fact science applauds doubt and rejects the need for faith of any kind, rather highlights where it goes wrong for many... It's built right into the very nature of the method one should doubt and question anything they are told.
I think one major trouble is that we use the word "science" to mean two quite distinct things--the process, and the currently-accepted body of knowledge revealed through that process.. and this is an important distinction that often gets blurred/muddied. A friend and I settled on using the terms "Capital-S Science" to refer to the process, and "lower-case-s science" to refer to the body of knowledge.
@@hengineer i think it's only religious folks who characterize it as a religion. they want to say "it's the same thing" but it's not.. religion is based on faith. science is, by definition, requiring reproducible evidence in order to believe in something.. it's the opposite of faith.
@@hengineer You mean like "Science VS Religion"? Although that would be quite accurate, right? Equating the two as somehow religion being true or as useful would be a fallacy.
@@hengineer science is the opposite of religion, as the whole point is not to believe things on faith alone. Religious folks like to say "you have a religion too, science is your religion" but it's not. The whole point is the absence of faith.
Everyone needs the maturity to recognise being interested in science doesn't make you a scientist. The flip side of this is academics shaming people who watch "info-tainment" content. There is nothing wrong with taking a casual approach to learning - we don't all have the desire or opportunity to study all our interests at such an in-depth level. Just leave the talking/debate to the real experts and we're all good.
"Just leave the talking to the Experts" is, in theory, a good approach but this leaves the idiots to spread their ideas unoppsed. E.g. if I see someone in my social media bubble or at social events spread climate denialism, should I just let that stand because I am not a climate scientist? and hope that from somewhere an expert materializes to debate them?
I'm no flat earther, but when I see idiots who can't prove the earth is round trying to "debunk" flat earthers by yapping about satellite images or using "why would every scientist lie" as their main arguments I want to punch a wall. It's doing more harm than good.
@@Nico-od4yv The thing with social media is that we don't go log into Facebook/Twitter/etc to be lectured in public about how wrong we are about a subject. I'm really skeptical about the value of acrimonious debates in comments under a Facebook post. At best, I'll leave a link to a video/blogpost/article/etc made by someone more knowledgeable than me or better equipped to explain why something is wrong (or to just offer another perspective). It's less confrontational, you don't waste your time, and the person can read/watch the thing if they wish to, or not. You can also share content on those platforms to counter the stream of misinformation.
The leave it to the experts attitude may apply to cold hard science, but it certainty is not a good position in general. For instance, it is up to science ("the experts") it find a vaccine and prove that it works. But once we have that vaccine, the debate how we should treat vaccinated vs unvaccinated, weather vaccinated should be given more freedoms and weather you need to carry a 'proof of vaccination' is definitely something anyone can and should have a part in.
"Science says..." "Yes, but what about criticisms to that?" "Don't be a science denier!" Criticism is meant to be a part of the scientific method. Don't just dismiss it outright, especially if what "science says" is based on a study that was bad or at least, badly reported and misunderstood.
The whole phrase "Science says" is anti-scientific to begin with. Science not only frequently disagrees with itself, but by definition seeks to disagree with itself as frequently as possible.
Yea, but those criticisms are only meaningful if the intent is to actually question the data, and the question is logically sound. For example, countering "science says that vaccines reduce disease spread" with "I heard that all the data on vaccines are actually fake and the deep state is trying to microchip us all", is firstly, fear mongering in bad faith, and secondly, nonsensical on multiple fronts.
I used to wear a “SCIENCE! (Is boring and unrewarding)” t-shirt and people would regularly complain about it and my response was always “are you a scientist?” and their answer was nearly always no. The only time the answer was yes was somebody who worked as an animal researcher in Australia so her life was all adorable marsupials, so fair. Otherwise scientists found it funny and/or depressing
Flashback to 4 months manually segmenting CMR images, 9 to 5, everyday But it's what you gotta do for research, and those moments where you can wave a lab member over and get a grin realizing you were right (cool) or wrong (just as cool) about a hypothesis makes it worth it
Science is 95% boring maths, shit not working and repeating steps at least half a dozen people have already done. But that last 5% makes it all worth it.
Many years ago, I was in an intro Physics class. The Prof was seeing that a lot of the students weren't getting whatever topic he was covering. After a few tries, he paused, and announced with passion that 'Science... is thinking very very carefully about very simple things'. I've remembered that statement and thought about it for over 30 years. Science is most fundamentally about our ways of knowing, and especially distilling what we genuinely know from what we might not know no matter how appealing the idea seems. People love puzzles, and they love seeing a path through a puzzle that leads to genuine insight. If we can engage the sincere natural curiosity of people, then we can illuminate the pathways without having to resort to cheap sensationalism. Its similar to the difference between a fine wine and cheap plonk. Its harder to make, but oh so much more satisfying. We are all very much hoping that you can help 2021 become a fine vintage for science communication.
this remind me of daniel dennett replying lawrence kraus saying "you can't do science without doing philosophy" you have no idea how much i listened the same your physics prof said about science, but about philosophy. how awesome lol
that man knew what he was talking about. The greatest teachers in my opinion are those who can explain a concept to someone educated on the topic and also to a complete novice who has never stepped foot in a classroom.
I think that science communication needs more self-admitted plonkers. Yourself, Matt Parker, Steve Mould etc are really good at dispelling any implied superiority by showing your working, gaffes and all, while remaining critical and educating in your own fields when possible. Folks like Brady Haran are also super useful; knowing that he isn't the expert but will faithfully represent (and criticise) the experts he films is *really* good for humanising the whole thing. Honestly, as a science student (albeit *still* tragically first-year thanks to chronic health), I am watching many of my friends graduate knowing that they represent the future of science. It is a... sobering thought, as they are not necessarily sobering people. However, it is also a heartening one. Scientists are just people. They're the most just people people I know. Enthusiastically nerds, yes, and not always down-to-earth, but possessed of no more inherent superiority than your average pub-goer. They are as capable of flaw as any other. But that doesn't mean we shouldn't listen to them when they do know what they're talking about. Science is a method. Science Fans are fond of saying that it doesn't care whether you believe in it or not... so why put so much effort into singing its hymns when they could be using the method to do good in the world?
I feel like Science is no longer a humble and honest method in search of universal truths, but has become conceited and transformed into a deceitful religion that practices over reaching its capabilities and selling assumptions and exaggerated claims as fact, and it is now quickly becoming a dangerous cult of personality acting as a hired gun for snake oil salesmen and losing all Integrity.
This is literally what Joe Rogan is. He talks about these things, discusses them WITH scientists on his show, and has even officiated debates among scientists. He's admittedly a fool, and fulfills the role you mention. Then you have people like Hank Green that really annoy me.
The problem is that the _appearance_ of the method is often sufficient to persuade people. Which, when refuted, then discredits the everyday hard work of good scientists. If you can get all the attention and plaudits without actually having to do the necessary work, why would anyone ever move beyond "activism"?
@asdf and here is a perfect example of confirmation bias. You’ve clearly made your mind up and looked at information to support it, so well done! You cannot just look at one country broadly like that and make a sweeping conclusion. For masks to truly be deemed ineffective / effective, then you need to look at the finer points too. There could be all sorts of reasons for differences in infections between areas: population density, housing, predominant genetics, population behaviour such as hand washing/distancing, cultural norms for personal interactions, weather, infrastructure, and the frequency and reliability of testing. Even with all that accounted for there are random elements that we call “chance”, so you would have to compare outcomes in other countries and their mask behaviour. As a question for you - why is it that in most Asian countries where people mostly wear masks without question (individuals often already wear masks routinely whenever they are sick), the infection rates of covid are low? I’m not saying it is just the masks, but how would you justify it according to your philosophy? Not to mention that the medical professionals that recommend mask wearing are not doing this on a whim, there is actual historical data showing the usefulness of masks in a preventing the spread of pathogens.
When I was going through Uni I felt like you do - I was flabbergasted when I saw people who were scientific morons in school go on to get careers in research. Later in work, I met people with PhDs who made me really wonder how much they paid someone to give them the degree. Worst still, I know some fantastically bright and capable scientists who either didn’t pursue a job in science research or ditched it later on, because of the instability or relatively low salaries of the career path especially for the amount of experience/knowledge required. There is some merit to thinking that scientists should largely reflect the demographic of a society, but I also think that in this case the enticements for attracting the best and brightest are not really there - scientists are often expected to do it for the love of it. Many jobs in scientific fields expect a person to have a PhD, and a very capable Undergrad can hit a professional “ceiling” despite being better than the PhDs working around him/her. This means the person has to put in a lot of time and often money into studying further, yet the monetary rewards really aren’t that good, especially when compared to other careers which require long periods of study.
For me debunking is almost never about changing my mind, but more something like "I really don't think it works, but need an explanation why by someone competent"
@@Nukestarmaster Honestly, I think I phrased my original comment quite poorly. The part about debunks almost never changing my mind is not due to any bias or the fact that I'm dead set on believing the author. It's mostly due to 2 things - either I watch a debunk of something I researched and am pretty certain it won't work, but I'm looking for things I missed or misunderstood, or I watch a debunk of something I've never seen before and those won't change my mind since I didn't even have knowledge of its existence. They were times when something I believed in were debunked, but these were rare because I try to do my research before making my mind. Do I think I'm completely unbiased? Absolutely no, I just try to be as aware of these biases as possible.
I feel I mostly watch debunking videos for the rush of adrenaline from the anger at people who made the false claims. Quite sad really. Im like a junky? But I will rationalize this by saying we all have our vices and coping mechanisms.
My overwhelming enthusiasm feels called out, haha! But I found this to be really good food for thought. It's hard: I love being an ultimate skeptic in a journal club, ripping a paper in my field apart to find the weak bits and talk about how they could do it better, even if I think the overall paper is wonderful and I am convinced by its conclusions. But it's very hard to have that kind of nuanced discussion of a paper publicly, without a crowd of people hearing only the negative bits and deciding that means the whole study or paper is "wrong." Figuring out how to balance that is so, so hard.
Hey Alex! Thanks for watching. I really hope I didn't sound like I was criticising enthusiasm; I do think I could've been a lot clearer with what I meant! I definitely don't put you in the category of scicommer in mind when I wrote this. Enthusiasm + ultimate sceptic is a dynamite combo, never change!
@@MedlifeCrisis Oh no, not at all! It's just a thing I think about a lot. How do I talk about true pitfalls in science and research without people focusing only on that and ignoring all the good parts? I'm also definitely not impartial in my communication: I love science, and it's hard to temper that sometimes! I appreciate you starting the discussion with your video!
@@AlexDainisPhD Those are some really good points. I see a lot of good research and well-made points being regurgitated and yote into the echo chamber until it's eventually simplified beyond recognition and reduced to a point much less worth reading about.
Do you ever get told by your peers that you're being rude? Is your criticism of their work ever misunderstood as criticism of their person? I'm experiencing this a lot, I often get told not to be so nitpicky when I'm actually just trying to improve our work or ask questions I'm interested in because I want to understand the topic better, not because I want to find a flaw for the sake of finding a flaw. Have you experienced this and if so, how are you dealing with it?
I've seen a lot of "if you question this study you're a Flat Earther" this year. Science really is a religion to some people and those don't realize how much of a religious fanatic they are. Confirmation bias is something to constantly struggle against, especially because it shows up in all aspects of our lives.
Really insightful comment. A lot of us humans are fanatics. We get disgusted by other people’s fanaticism so we become fanatical about not being the same kind of fanatic as those fanatics, driving us into our own fanaticism.
I see whole flat earther debunking practice, as "look we are better". Most hilarious part is when a "debunker" gets it wrong and uses fallacious arguments, yet the yes science crowd just cheers on. The real question is, how do we know the earth is round, it's a safe question, because it's not really up to debate. As for marking anti-moask people as anti-science, the pope of medical science himself told us that it doesn't work because of practical issues. Those practical issues didn't go away after he reversed his judgement, but now yes science crowd already forgot about it. Official explanation was that the pope of science lied on purpose to get the cloth to the professionals, OK, but why didn't you resign after that? Why would we ever trust you again? Also, debunkers, where were you on that? This was your moment to shine! This platform is also part of it, under the video we see the banners, then we have the automatic comment "moderation", which is why I have to speak in coded language.
@@somedud1140 I think the easiest way to confirm the earth is a sphere is just by looking at the moon and you will see Earth's shadow on it. Who do you mean by pope of science?:D Neil DeGrasse Tyson?
I experienced this "coming across an article about something in your expertise" when I was 13 in English class in a foreign country(I'm a native English speaker that was born there). The teacher had no idea what she was teaching, and I immediately doubted the entire system. I could vet what the English teacher was teaching, but I had no idea if the other stuff was accurate or not.
I graduated in physics a couple years ago, and one of my classmates graduated with a thesis on philosophy of physics. He discussed his thesis while some of the professors on the committee were facing the wall and scrolling on their phones. They ignored him so much that they asked him to repeat a couple points that he stated so clearly that even a friend of him that majored in literature was able to understand. All of the professors were thinking that both his work and the professor of philosophy of physics were utterly useless.
I did my post graduate work in history - one of my major subject areas was the history of science - the history of paradigm shifts (ie from the medieval mindset to the "scientific revolution" - there more to thos but its 4am and I need to try and get back to sleep...
If I was him I would have stopped and politely refused to carry on (and to leave the stage) until they were facing the right way and got off thier phones, some professors can be bastards and your friend deserved better!
@@kawaiilotus then you wouldn’t graduate and waste all your time till then. Academia, very unfortunately, is very hierarchical and you have to show deference to your ‘betters’ if we must describe those who held the titles.
Thesis and dissertation defense is like that. The professors will challenge the candidate on concepts already spoken about so the candidate elaborates on them. That's the defense part of defending your thesis.
@@ginnyjollykidd yes and if your professor suddenly pulls a tough question out of the woodwork at point 99 then that prof is a real asshat. like they would have read the manuscript and the speech is just a formality and they all probably want you to do as well as possible
I'm very glad that you continue to "keep things real" with this video, and your previous videos that take up the issue of "biologism" (that often goes hand in hand with a blind eye for psychological and socioeconomic determinants of health) in medicine.
@@PinataOblongata for an explanation why this is an issue look at US NIH funding of neuroscience vs clinical psychology (very biased towards neuroscience) and then try to find the treatment methods developed through all that neuroscientific research - it's just not proportional
With soooo much information online it's hard to trust 99.9% sources and even when you look up "professional" sources it's hard to know who is right and who isn't. I guess the whole point is to keep your mind open for possibilities. Questioning everything but not making anything your belief system or your entire personality that you'll be offended to ever accept that it was wrong.
After taking college classes on different "science" topics i realized these "yay science" articles are very surface level. Causing a Dunning Kruger effect, where you think you know more about a topic than you actually do. They can be fun, but i don't fool myself that I'm actually learning something.
Some "yay science" papers are deceptively professional. They use incredibly sophisticated methods to come to a conclusion that can't possibly be drawn from the available data (because one or several of the assumptions were left untested). I believe the reason why this happens is because there's no "assumptions" section in scientific papers.
As a librarian, I recognize that the surface level articles, etc. are useful in that they create interest and help people categorize new examples. Then when folks come to me for more information we are at least talking about the same ballpark.
there's so much amazing stuff that comes out of "science" and worth glorification and positivity far more than fluffy religious and "new age" weirdo shit.
I had a science teacher in high school who said whenever you move on to the next stage of science education, you realise you've been fed half truths and oversimplifications on how things actually work. The yay science stuff has to be dumbed down for general audiences because the general audience hasn't got time to listen to an hour lecture on the subject.
I really appreciate the fact Rohin doesn't go for the sensationalism and keeps things in perspective. His ability to be self-critical and show himself to not be perfect is really fresh when so many communicators go to such great lengths to never be wrong. It makes it a lot easier to both trust that he has taken time to consider his opinions as well as admit when he was wrong, even if this won't appeal to the many people that enjoy the larger than life content creators that never seem to be wrong. I hope this never changes and that he keeps growing his (critical) following.
Great video. The "Yay! Science!" strike me ad the same people who just want a simple answer for everything and do not care about the details. Science is a long, ever evolving process that for me, is all about understanding the nuance and details of a given field. Not just some, it's magic and it works because Science! Granted I only have a Bachelors in Exercise Science...
One thing that I definitely want more people in the “Ya Science!” Group to do is have skepticism on what they learn. This is something I’ve been trying to do recently.
Thats exactly how scientific minded people should think, only problem is that if you're skeptical of everything you say you can never be as confident as those screaming that the earth is flat. Science cannot win over close minded people with reason, or confidence though. The only way to do that is basically to ignore them or manipulate them.
Exactly, I'm watching this video face-palming over how much confirmation bias I've been guilty of over the last few months of discussing controversial topics with friends (not covid related) like I would find a study that "proved my point" and feel vindicated, only critically analyzing studies that disagreed with my views. Back to the drawing board for me!
I actually do love science - the method, not the results. Yes, the results have mostly been quite handy; but from a philosophical perspective, it’s really all about the method, not the results. And yes, many who claim to practice the scientific method do fall short; clinging to ideas to feed their ego (or other self-interests) even when the evidence no longer supports them.
Bit premature to discuss this, but debunking videos have helped me realize how easy it is to fall into certain logical traps, like the people who are the subject of the video. Even if I already agree with the debunker, it makes me pause and think "could I be making these same mistakes with the things I believe to be true?"
I think you are doing it wrong if that isn't always a worry, ya know? I constantly worry about it. I say anything remotely important that I'm not suuuuper sure about, with the phrase "I could be very wrong, don't take my word for it." I work in a prison and often find myself having high school like science classes with inmates, and I have to say that a LOT lol.
Could someone help with this question: How does the "beep-device" (the little thingy docotors have, it beeps, they run away) work? And how do you call it?
The technology varies (there are newer systems out there that use wifi or cellphone networks), but historically it's a pretty simple radio transmitter at the hospital and receivers built in to the pagers themselves. They aren't encrypted, so there have been lots of examples of people decoding sensitive information.
This is probably your best quality: your content is always so reasonable and earnest. You approach to science is really sober and you can tell there's always a push to be unbiased on your part.
The problem I have with debunkers are those that do not have a shred of humility. Those that are so sure of themselves that they're never wrong. Because the walk in to the same trap excuse others for falling to. You need to be able to revise, retract and reevaluate your position. You need to be able to correct errors. Everyone makes errors.
They personally helped me weed out a bunch of bs things I believed. And also kinda help me understand a subject better by means of knowing what it isnt rather than what it is. If that makes sense lol. Plus maybe "Debunking" has become a mainstream term now but it's an apped word to use as ppl "debunk" (or counter) positions all the time. Including there own.
@@justcallmekai1554and how are you so sure that those beliefs of yours were completely wrong if you didn't listen to The counter of the counter argument. That's what "dubunk" is Literally just a list of counterarguments. And counterarguments can be wrong
@@denofpigs2575There are good and bad debunk channels out there. The ones I listened to always encouraged me NOT to blindly agree with them and to look it up myself. I listened to them and it really helped me. There are unfortunately a lot of pop debunkers that only do it in the way you described. But I wouldn't judge this guy too harshly just because he said he watches debunkers.
That’s what really keeps people from changing their minds. If you act like the other side is an idiot right off the bat, why would they ever change their position? Just state your findings and don’t be a dick about it
@@denofpigs2575 There's your problem. There is usually weight of evidence and research behind a good debunk. That is what needs to be considered, as well as the fact that most good debunks provide good evidence that the contrarian is either a liar or doesn't understand the scientific literature. The James Tours and Tony Hellers of the World keep coming back with counterarguments that ignore valid objections regardless and after seeing that once or twice there is no reason to pay any attention to them, yet their contrarian fans swear by them. This is what you get when lay people who don't understand the subject think that one claim is as good as another no matter what the demonstrated level of honesty, understanding and competence of the person making it.
"The scientist who thinks their always right, is usually wrong. A scientists that believes their probably wrong, is usually right." Having no background in science or medicine I live by that quote. Because no matter the topic even something i know I'm probably going to get something wrong.
This was good food for thought dude. I’ve been thinking a lot lately about how us science communicators listen to our audiences - are we cheerleading and shouting into the echo chamber, or are we honestly listening to our viewers? How can we communicate in a way that serves them instead of ourselves?
Sure, you can listen to constructive criticism, but you can't be all things to all people. Just be the best you can, and you might lose some viewers, but you'll get new ones too. If someone disagrees with you in the comments, you can use Socratic questions to find out why they think what they think, and maybe help them align their beliefs with reality. But never feed the trolls.
I'm pretty sure due to the way social media is designed, it's basically shouting to an echo chamber. Jaron Lanier and, recently, Tristan Harris with his documentary "Social Dilema" talk about how social media increases polarization and extreme views.
I've read somewhere about trying to attract the marginal votes - i.e. similar to what takes place in political elections, as a communicator you are not trying to reach people with opposite viewpoints to your own, but to those on the fence who have the inclination to change their viewpoints.
I had a 9/11 denial phase in the year or so following the attacks. I was corrected specifically by debunking videos, especially those that took claims from “Loose Change” and examined them in detail to show they were wrong. So although those videos don’t help the hardened believers directly, it can prevent those in the process of being converted from going too far into the rabbit hole unchecked.
I find that most people will believe a conspiracy theory despite overwhelming evidence of the contrary. In the case of 911 they'll say that those studies and expierments debunking them are funded and/or done by the government and cannot be taken seriously.
Fascinating. First time I've seen someone admit to doing a 180 on 9/11 being fake. In hindsight, why do you think you succumbed to it to begin with (if you don't mind my needling).
Yeah, and I think having a seed of doubt sown either by your own intrigue or someone else’s effort, then seeing a “debunking” video recommended that is relevant to that topic, is also one of the pathways to changing your mind through those videos.
I have been subscribed since the end of last year before I got into uni and I really enjoyed all the videos. However, now I find them 10 times as valuable since they are helping me better grasp the real world implications of what I am studying, as well as assume a more critical view of the material. I am mentioning this under that specific video because last month I had a module in one of my courses which was about the demarcation of science and watching this video has been super beneficial to get an idea of the practical application of the material
8:43 "My opinion is that out of all the cognitive biases that the human brain is susceptible to, confirmation bias is the most important; And so far, all the evidence I found supports my view" Nice.
I stopped when he said that to make sure I wasn’t alone in spotting that one. He’s very good. Guess when the robots take over he can take up a career as a comedian 🤣
@@forbidden-cyrillic-handle interestingly this seems to be a cultural / language thing. in germany it is literally called engineering science and also developed, taught and thought of along the other natural sciences. from the quick lookup i did i gathered that at least in the american culture it seems to be only the application of scientific methods (which would make it to me at least an applied science). I got a bachelors of science in systems engineering which made me wonder where this discrepancy comes from.
Your integrity is the main reason I like this channel. Whenever I'm watching one of your videos I feel that I can trust the information to be accurate and any errors to be corrected in follow up content.
As a science degree, masters, and PhD-holder, I'm very pleased to hear someone else share this sentiment! And now I have a name for the 'yay science' crowd!
I love this. I think you did communicate your position well. "Be as critical of yourself and people you agree with, as you are of people you disagree with."
I can't say enough regarding how well you've articulated my internal respect for and yet frustration about science. I've always struggled to explain the nuances of at once having the utmost respect for the tools of science, but at the same time being disgusted at the "scientific elites", if you will, who seem to look down upon all those they deem beneath them with utter disdain and who have a complete lack of perspective regarding where science fits into the broader concept of society, norms, ethics, and so forth. I could talk about the nuances around this subject for hours, but I appreciate that you summed up much of it so nicely in this video.
One thing I found especially during the pandemic is the cherry picking of one science over the other. Everyone is talking to the epidemiologists which is important, but not to the social scientists. I heard nobody talking about balancing the threat of covid with the threat that social isolation poses and the amount of deaths it will lead to in the form of suicide and drug overdose. You hear it sprinkled about in some conversations, but I not in any serious way.
Looking back from 2023, we now have had elevated excess deaths for over a year. Which appears to be due to the predictable bad effects of the social isolation policies: increased cardio-pulmonary diseases from increased substance abuse during the pandemic, less exercise, more eating, generally less healthy living (reduced socialising is intrinsically unhealthy), along with an increase in late-stage cancers due to reduced detection over the pandemic. Though, worryingly, there appears to be an increase in new cancers - which can not be explained by reduced detection.
@mipmipmipmipmip If it turns out that the seatbelt makes human feel so ill, it leads to higher numbers of suicide than the deaths which the seatbelts prevent, then yeah. We need to ask people how the seatbelt makes them feel.
"...and all the evidence so far supports my view." You crack me up! Great video. The best part of a liberal education is when you understand that the world and it's ideas were not created in your image... recognizing bias in all it's forms, questioning the reasons why you believe what you do... it's liberating and somewhat terrifying.
@@bradleyp3655 “The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, and wiser people so full of doubts.” ― Bertrand Russell
It's not forgotten. It's (mostly) in the can. But it's just such a ballbreaker to edit I just haven't had time to get round to it. I might make it a 350k Q&A upload instead. It's not that funny this time, people asked such serious questions!
@@MedlifeCrisis I mean, your humor is honestly just a small facet of why I like your channel. You make me pay attention, get my brain going - then whomp! you throw out a dead-pan zinger.
This video exactly clarified a feeling I've been having for months but couldn't quite put to words. I definitely feel extremely uncomfortable speaking with any authority on a topic even just sorta adjacent to my field. Like most people that get a phd, I had the distinct pleasure of falling headlong off the dunning-kruger cliff. For me, that didn't just affect my view of my field, but it put into sharp relief the fact that I know basically nothing about anything. Anything I think I know in another field is probably on the wrong side of mount stupid. I used to imagine that this Hitchhikers Guide "Total Perspective Vortex" moment was had by everyone with a terminal degree. That scientists would be inoculated against other dunning-krugers (maybe it could be dunnings-kruger?). I was wrong. I see too many ppl that should know better speak with so much authority after basically reading the top paragraph of a wikipedia article. It's really frustrating, even more so when non-scientist cheerleaders parrot these nonsense tweets/videos/tiktoks as fact and/or gospel.
It's not against the law to correct others when you have more substantial info. It's a given that nobody knows all about what they speak of. Still, it would be ridiculous if we would have to embody a perpetual state of uncertainty and insecurity as that would make any man crumble in fear and even madness
@@straightfacts5352Just read about it. So far what I understand from the skepticism around it is that you can recreate the model using random self-estimates. I don’t really get it at the moment but it’s something along those lines. There is a way to recreate the results that Dunning and Kruger got without there being a bias in the data. The bias being the alleged tendency for less skilled people to overestimate their skill way more than the more skilled people. Since you can get the same results with unbiased data, then you cannot say that it was the bias that led to the results. That would imply that there is no tendency for less skilled people to overestimate their ability more than the more skilled people.
The thing is, when you're in field for years you develop intuition. And observatory I'm working and studying in got so many calls from people who said "they know what dark matter is"
@@realdragon I work in corporate, so my decades of web development experience is considered equally as valid as Product Owners, recent graduates and folks who were seconded into a “content producer” role from marketing… so it forces me to produce receipts for my arguments rather than lazily saying “because this is just how it’s done”.
His description of soft scientism made me think of liberal people who enthusiastically read psychology today articles and believe everything said in those because "its science". Aka people who have a positive attitude towards science but only a superficial understanding of it, and who are therefore too uncritical of content that is sold as being scientific. My personal checklist for being reasonably skeptical of things sold as science would be: -understanding that the distinction between science and pseudoscience is gradual - being aware that science can not prove, but only disprove facts - being aware that scientific findings should always be interpreted with an eye on the methods of measurement - understanding the difference between is/ought: things science can vs cannot answer
@@aliciadonadio2597 While I agree falsafiability is important in science and is one of the major criteria for something to even be worth testing... the scientific method can't truly 100% disprove anything either. In theory, we can only ever disprove but not prove something, but in practice, we can't actually do either with 100% certainty. The hypothesis may still be correct even if the experiment said otherwise. The experiment might have been done incorrectly, which can be mitigated by multiple experiments. Or the experiment was just designed poorly from the start. Or maybe the information we used to set up said experiment was faulty. That our underlying knowledge was faulty. A perfect example of this was the solar neutrino problem where the experiment clearly "proved" the hypothesis to be false. The scientific community still believed their hypothesis to be correct despite the failed experiment. However, the scientists and astronomers went through basically every single factor that can contribute to this discrepancy and eventually proved the hypothesis to be correct. It's a interesting story to read about.
One thing i remember is a quote from Neil deGrasse Tyson that went something like, "Star Trek is better than Star Wars because SW doesn't have any physics in it." I instantly thought, "that's stupid..." on account of how... it *is* stupid. But heaven forfend you tell anyone else that NGT said something dumb.
So the solution to the "Yeah, science bitch" crowd is... Science... Specifically a proper understanding on the scientific method and how it's conducted and published.
Honestly I know we were taught about the "scientific method" in school but that shit needs to be hammered home harder. Make a guess, challenge it in every way you can think of it, rinse repeat until you can't defeat a guess. Explicitly teach kids that if they have a strong belief about something, they need to think of ways to test if it's true or not. From grade 4 to high school you should be asking kids to posit their own theories, and then to design tests that would see if they fail or not. I think fundamentally part of the problem is the way that the academic world is structured - negative results rarely get published.
@@AbeYousef Bro our academic system was designed to churn out good little workers that did the bidding of the bosses. Highly regimented and obedient and hasn't fundamentally changed in most places since the industrial revolution. No wonder it's so bad at teaching something as rigorous, creative and sceptical as the scientific method. Most science courses just teach facts. Not how we know these facts.
If I were ill in 1880 I would have gone for the homeopathic hospital. Fresh air, sunlight, clean sheets, clean water as opposed to fetid crowded wards with bleeding and purging.
I would say one definite thing scientists could be doing to help journalists and laymen alike is to simply 1. write their complex dissertations but also make a version that uses more common terms that are a lot more understandable for the average layman. This would do a lot to ease the misinformation that occurs in the pipeline because journalism optimally is trying to translate complex stats and figures and complex concepts for commoners. But journalists also are not scientists. So I think one of the best ways would be the scientists themselves remembering that they arent just talking to other scientists and experts. They are talking to journalists and laymen too. Because science DOES matter to most people. If you want "scientism" to lessen and "understanding of science" to increase. It has to come from the scientists themselves because they are the end all be all on where the information comes from. Another thing scientists could do is simply explain when writing in more common terms things that their paper or study may actually mean and what it doesn't mean. That would do WODNDERS for legitiamte journalists and laymen alike to better understand the scope and limitations of what that paper or study means. Scientism imo is not the fault of the layman. Its the fault of not having good communication from the lofty halls and academics to the common people and non STEM people. And using more common terms that are more commonly understood doesn't mean people are stupid. It means they aren't scientists. Which is most of the world. So science ABSOLUTELY shapes the viewpoint because what they say and what they write are where it starts. 100% of the time .
I definitely agree with you. You've worded a lot of my issues with people promoting science in a really elegant way. One thing that I'd add is how science supporters (myself included) tend to present scientific conclusions as objective and irrefutable facts rather than our best, current, statistically significant, etc. explanation which might get updated or replaced once we get more, better, different, etc. data. I think this is especially problematic during primary education as most people don't go on to do post secondary degrees in science and therefore never come to the realization that scientific conclusions always has some uncertainty in them by design and are therefore subject to change as new information is acquired.
Absolutely. And that inherent 'subject to change' caveat is often taken by lay people as evidence that all professional scientific work is overrated/overpaid/unreliable. The answer scientists are giving changes over time; therefore, throw out everything they've ever said, as it'll probably all be succeeded eventually. As encapsulated in the timeless meme, "Scientists say that alcohol makes you dumb, but scientists say a lot of things."
I recently hit upon Simon Clark's videos - I find he has a great attitude to communicating science (climate science no less), what I like to call 'defiantly optimistic'.
I did a psychology undergrad, in a university that heavily focused on how to apply scientific principles to studying people's behaviour, most my modules focused on neuropsych, behaviourism and cognitive psych (it was a BSc so that's not surprising). It really focused on teaching how to identify good and bad scientific research, and issues within the scientific community (issues with journals, difficulties getting funding for non-medical replication studies etc.). So its odd to me that many people who study harder sciences like physics or biology, don't seem to be as aware of these issues, at least on an undergrad level. Though maybe this was just in my uni, I don't know if it applies to all students
As a Bio-Psych student (albeit very early) in a uni very much like the one you describe, I can definitely agree. Being self-critical has been so important to psychological history that it's become a necessary practice. That said, psychology still has a lot of the bad old way *in* it, so our education isn't necessarily indicative of the field as a whole. It does still prepare us for being vigilant later on, which is always nice.
@@clockworkkirlia7475 100% agree psych is no way near perfect, but I think that applies to most sciences. Though it probably applies a little more to psychology as it's pretty young for a science, and all the different fields vary so much in how scientific they are and a lot of people between feilds are reluctant to work with different feilds.
Probably because the 'reproducibility crisis' is a big thing in Psychology at the moment. Psychology's survival as a science depends on the next generation of Psychologists' ability to correctly design and interpret experiments.
There’s no reproducibility crisis in the physical sciences, that is unique to the less fundamental sciences (biology, psychology, sociology, etc.). Hence why your university feels it necessary to teach you good experimental procedure, because of the dearth of those skills in a good portion of psychological research essentially rendering the information worthless.
Love that you talked about this. Science is in vogue right now. But science popularism and real science are two different things. People get excited by the fun high school physics demos on TH-cam but real science is actually quite tedious and monotonous. People like Neil degrass tyson and bill nye are important in getting people interested in science but it often doesn't go deeper than a superficial interest
As someone who is interested in science communication, I always really appreciate your thoughtful and snarky videos where I think you do a pretty good job expressing your own limits.
When people say "yay science", what they're REALLY saying for the most part is "yay "science" in pursuit of the political agenda I rabidly support" Far too many fields of science abandoned their proper bias toward skepticism years ago.
So true I'm trying to aquire a really refined niche skillset in technology but the mathematical and technological foundation you gotta lay is daunting to say the least. Fun, but not as spectacular as I thought learning it was going to play out haha
After becoming a medical specialist, I quickly learned that the pharmacology behind drugs might as well be magic to laypeople. Most people don't get that you can only "pull the levers" and "push the buttons" in your body that are already there, with the use of drugs.
amazing video. i hadn't heard the term scientism but it had already gotten to my nerves. great to hear a science communicator address this. as carl sagan himself said: "science is not a body of knowledge, but a way of thinking"; you shouldn't be shamed into believing (believing was never the point), nor forced to accept the way of thinking, because it should be oppened to criticism and scrutiny by all people, as well as able to teach them on why that way of thinking is chosen.
What the history of science teaches us is that, while the scientific method is very reliable if applied thoroughly and with integrity, the scientist is only human and, as a human being, the scientist is just as vulnerable as the rest of humanity to all the things which, in excess, lead us into error; characteristically human personality traits like arrogance, envy, rage, cowardice, vanity, sloth, greed, megalomania, and, at the root of all evil, solipsism. I get very frustrated with people who constantly put scientists on pedestals because it is dehumanising and it denies the fact that scientists are not supermen. Nothing tells the story of the human reality of the scientist better then the history of science.
A big problem I perceive is that "science" seems to be referred to as if it is a body of correct answers rather than something that should proceed by falsification - in other words, we have our best nauturalistic explanation that is in principle possible to disprove by new facts and when that happens we either discard the explanation or refine it in the light of the new facts. This is problematic when we have journalists who treat every new finding as established fact. Probably the hardest aspect of what I have described is seeing the signal from the noise - the genuine true facts from the mass of findings. Dogma never changes regardless of the evidence. Conspiracy based beliefs simply allege that the facts are lies. Politically based beliefs cherry pick whatever finding suits their worldview best. Anti-science based beliefs point to the very falsification at the heart of the scientific method to claim that nothing is true because "scientists keep changing their minds" An old quote goes: "When the facts change, I change my mind - what do you do?"
The entire idea of science being based upon falsifiability that has been endlessly regurgitated on the internet is based upon the work of Karl Popper, which has since come under a lot of philosophical scrutony. From what I understand from my philosophy of science course, the core issue is that his theory relies on "critical tests" that don't actually exist in the real world because if you look closely at any experiment, you'll see a long chain of background assumptions that are very shakily founded.
Two points on this: -debunking: I find these helpful, but only if done well, otherwise its just (cheap) entertainment. Debunks can give guidelines on how and where exactly to spot and disprove quackery by showing methods. -Unfortunately I find that the medics crowd is a lot less science-inclined than I would have hoped. Surely, there are great researchers, but many practitioners drop (literature) research once leaving uni. Then you can be happy if they read updated guidelines at all. Feels like a specific variant of Dunning-Kruger: Not being aware that knowledge erodes away as new research is published.
A little exercise- any time you see an article that says something to the effect of "....according to science" or "....according to experts", replace "science" and "experts" with "god" and "priests". Thats not to say its wrong, but realize the framing is an appeal to authority. Look at the sources. Look at the studies posted. See if you can see if they have had their findings reproduced. See where their funding comes from. Its worth looking at context and sources in all things.
Confirmation bias is not a wholly bad trait. You might think all bias is bad...but attention is limited. It's one resource that remains vexingly scarce as our ability to communicate improves. Were it not for our tendency to seek confirmation for what we already think is true, we'd never investigate anything deeply enough to get definitive answers. There is hysteresis in our thinking: It takes more evidence to shake us of our initial belief than would be required initially -- and that's a good thing.
Wow you seriously described concisely and I’n great detail why I have been feeling some deep resentment at much of the science reported in the media/online, despite my participation in it. Very strange thing
Science is a descriptive system, it is not prescriptive, the worst thing I keep hearing is "follow the science", it's like saying "follow the blue van", When people refuse to follow the blue van, they're not denying the fact that the van is blue, they're denying your prescriptive moral philosophy that thinks "blue van" is a good indicator for navigating the city around us.
So my whole career is in “science”. My degree is in molecular biology, I worked in the lab a few years and then worked in sales and business development in the life science/biotech industry most recently in automating various laboratory workflows. Personally I love the societal interest in science. The more educated and curious we are about the natural world the better off we are. What irritates me personally though is when people misinterpret a scientific principle or cherry pick some obscure study to push a personal political agenda and try to shut down any opposition because “science” says they’re right. Well if “science” says so there’s no arguing against it right?! I think one of the most insufferable things someone can utter is “it’s science!” That is the most vague non-sensical, lazy, idiotic things you can say to try to substantiate an argument. Ultimately science at its core essence is simply a quest for truth and understanding. If that’s what you’re genuinely after then it’s really hard to go wrong.
Going into this I was slightly worried I had been doing something wrong being excited about learning chemistry lol Thank you for sharing your perspective on this issue
Science is a tool. I like tools. "Yay, tools!" You should get as excited about science as you would about any tool. But tools get used for bad purposes as well as for good ones.
@@teastrainer3604 Why would you respond to a two year old comment with this? You're literally repeating a worse version of what we both watched being explained for 18 minutes.
It's a shame that medieval scholars and theologians (those two could not easily be separated from one another, being one usually meant being the other) have such a bad reputation contemporarily. Monks like Roger Bacon and Robert Grosseteste were fundamental to the development of modern science yet (medieval) faith is often represtented as too narrow-minded and inflexible despite the many technological advances the middle ages and early modern period opened the door for.
@@chadliampearcy Me: A Belief such as yours really just shows lack of familiarity with modern philosophy of religion Person: It wouldn't have to "philosophy" if there was evidence. It would be "science"
I started getting suspicious about the clarity of the problems he wrote about. I think he and his co-workers are very important - but scepticism and looking up sources is in order. Close up many of the things he wrote about are a lot more complex than he described them. Just my opinion.
I hate this too. I mean, I’m by no means any scientist but I’ll often discover “facts” from those types of pages and find it interesting but when I go to look into it myself with actual scientific references, it turns out to be untrue or misleading in some way, leading me to be pissed off that I was ever tricked into believing it at all
This video does not really address any problem with the yay science crowd, which it does a poor job at attempting to define; the video mostly addresses confirmation bias, which is a problem in any crowd and not inherent nor fundamental to the yay science crowd, and its exploration of confirmation bias is superficial, mostly just whining that it’s an annoying trait.
One of the positives of people already convinced of a proposition watching debunk videos is that they learn to argument their position better or find out why it's unconvincing to others. After all a lot of changing heart happens in your everyday conversations.
After completing my PhD in medicinal chemistry I went straight into sci comm. Biggest mistake I ever made. Sensationalism sells and we are encouraged to twist data to fit a narrative. Ethically didn't sit right with me so I went back into the laboratory.
It is true that writers are asked to write outside their area of expertise, which does mean errors are many.
Medical advertising is so much worse. Bending clinical data enough to sell a drug whilst staying within the ABPI. It is so unethical. I hated writing advertising copy for one client knowing their drug wasn't as good as a competitor. I felt like I was doing harm writing stuff for sales reps to convince doctors to change their prescribing habits knowing that this could cause harm to patients who might not be getting an optimal treatment.
Very interesting insight, thanks
Are there any real ethical paths in science communication? I do love telling people about the cool stuff I find in science, and I feel I could be good at communicating arcane topics to others. But can it be done without going into a field that's solely designed to twist reality using writing skills?
@@tylercriss6435 Absolutely. There are plenty of TH-cam channels that do their best to present science information in a direct and accessible way. The problem with traditional science journalism isn't that it can't be done - the problem is that you're beholden to the publisher and many science publishers have an agenda.
Of course there are also plenty of TH-cam channels that have an agenda of their own. Being self-publishing (or close enough to it) is by no means a magic cure for bias. It just gives individual content creators the ability to choose whether to lean into or try to combat their own biases as they see fit, rather than having to do so at the behest of a faceless boss'-boss'-boss'-boss corporate overlord.
But of course no matter how good you are at avoiding bias in your presentation, there's a _lot_ of papers published every year and only so many videos one person can create, even if they're only presenting and have staff to do all of the research, editing, producing, publishing, etc. So its entirely likely that there will be some biases in the selection of which papers to present, regardless of how much they try to avoid bias in the presentation itself.
That said, I personally like SciShow (and their many subchannels). Each of their channel tends to have one episode per week or so dedicated to announcing (and attempting to explain in a couple of minutes) one or two new interesting research results. (They also produce many episodes of various other styles each week.. the announcement episodes aren't their only videos, in case you happen to run into one of those other ones first).
@@altrag Great points. I definitely DO think there are ethical avenues for scicomm, but perhaps not many that aren’t inherently biased - even someone like me, who has his own channel, isn’t dependent on it for my livelihood (ie if TH-cam is your full time gig it’s totally understandable to cover topics that will generate clicks), I don’t have an editor etc - and yet I am still likely to suffer from all the usual biases. So whether you feel that’s related to ethics or not is up to you, but by its very nature, mass communication encourages bias. Full time academics know this all too well as well, there’s a big gulf between what they WANT to do vs what they end up doing (as that’s where the grant money is. This year: COVID)
@@altrag I like SciShow and I watch them a lot and support them on Patreon. But even they have an agenda. They are really heavy into the SJW cause pushing at the moment (and I don't say that to be disparaging, but I'm not sure of a better way to put it). I agree with some of it and disagree with some of it. But there is a clear deliberate attempt in their channels (SciShow, CrashCourse, etc) to really push that narrative angle in everything they do. Whether you fully agree with it or not isn't the point. It's that it's clearly an agenda, and a lens through which they present the information. But as long as you know that and turn on your own brain and understand this fact, you can take in the information while understanding where they are coming from, and you can appropriately filter the information coming in with an appreciation that the information is being presented with a bit of a skew towards that perspective. The fact is human beings are both the practitioners of the scientific method and presenters of its results, and that means human opinions, perspectives, and biases are always going to be a part of it.
Reminds me of this meme that was going around:
I fucking LOVE science.
* *is handed peer reviewed journal* *
Haha nonono I meant CGI pictures of space with misattributed quotes as captions
Similarly to:
I fucking love music!
* *is handed an incredibly complicated classical music score* *
Oh nonono, I meant the sounds that come from the radio!
Why is it wrong to appreciate science even if one isn't scientifically savvy?
@@Aelipse Because too many people insist that their surface-level views on it are valid solely because of their supposed passion for the field.
The key difference between "I fucking love science" and "I fucking love music" is that music is an art form and science is...well, science. Opinions on music need not be validated by rational argument. However, there are too many people who claim to "love science" but don't actually value the scientific method, deductive reasoning, and logical argument. Perhaps worst of all, they are swayed too often by appeals to authority, and view skepticism as dangerous, rather than essential to the search for truth.
Yeah, science is 99.9999% grind and the remote possibility you read an interesting paper before it became really famous.
People love to be persuasive, not put the actual work in to know and (maybe) prove something. It's why the _forms_ of science are regularly abused by fields bordering on quackery. The "replication crisis" in some fields is both a genuine problem with shoddy research making bogus claims and a misnomer: we should expect most peer-reviewed experiments to fail in their goals. Failure is how we eliminate errors and keep working towards a better theory.
@@Aelipse Idk I can see where you're coming from with the radio, however it comes across as elitist to expect people to be able to read music to understand it. I'm also disappointed when someone says "Oh I also love music" and they literally only know hits. IMO you're sending the wrong message if you act like a fan of music, and you really haven't even dived into the various genres and albums to even find out what you'd even personally enjoy outside of the absolute mainstream. I get that it's an opinion thing, but this has literally *only* come up in my experience when you have person A who really enjoys music, maybe makes music, then you have person B who basically just listens to the radio on the way to work, and they're trying to compare themselves to person A. It just muddies the scene IMO.
@@Aelipse Music vs classical music is a bad analogy for scientific results vs scientific method, which is what the original meme guns for. Firstly, music IS something that can be appreciated by those ignorant in how to produce it, because it is an entertainment form, and the result is what matters for most people. Science meanwhile is a best-approach philosophy on how to manage information most efficiently. It is a TOOL that has to be used by everyone viewing the results, scientist or not. If you simply look at the results of science without understanding the approach, then it ceases to serve its key role as a METHODOLOGY for analysing information and becomes a form of entertainment you are just experiencing at the sidelines.
Besides, classical music is just a genre of music, no different from another like pop, rock, or synth. A peer-reviewed journal is kind of the bedrock of science though, like a list of sheet music. The comparison doesn't even make sense.
I feel like one of the major issue is that people do not accept uncertainty. Something either is or is not but they don’t accept/understand answers like « maybe », « unlikely », or « statistically un/significant ».
Which is sad, because the first step towards acquiring knowledge is to admit that you know nothing
@@battlesheep2552 exactly , there is value in null data
Statistical significance is even worse because the vast majority of people have no clue how to interpret what it means. I would include most scientists in there as well.
Nothing is science is certain, but we're taught that it's an invincible truth finding machine. That leads to people dishonestly being shown "contradictions", or the fact that science deals with models and assumptions is introduced by some grifter. Suddenly they feel lied to and start appearing in comment sections advocating quack medicine or starting shit about climate change. Science has a messaging issue that goes back decades.
The other side of this is that individual people can and sometimes do accept uncertainty. But it is very hard for groups to agree on and spread ideas of uncertainty. So the messages that are spread memetically and adopted by the masses are the more sensational and absolute messages.
The irony is that you are saying this while dressed like you escaped from a 70s psychedelic sci-fi movie.
My lifeclock crystal turned red a while back...I'm on the run!
@@MedlifeCrisis I hear Dr. Durand Durand is looking for a new chief surgeon. Might require some flexible ethics though...
No, the irony is that you think this is accidental.
@@MedlifeCrisis God, I love that movie.
Ironically, this is a red flag for quackery. Rohin is at work in an actual hospital, so fair enough. But when you see someone dressed in scrubs or, worse, a lab coat and they're not anywhere near a lab or clinic... possible quack alert. They love to cosplay as real doctors.
This begs the question: "What can a science consumer trust"? Being aware of confirmation bias doesn't stop confirmation bias from working
Good question, too bad it will be burried in the joke comments that get more likes..
Science journals usually have synthesised articles describing peer-reviewed journals in more colloquial language. However you will need to learn some of the language / jargon being used, which is needed to understand the science involved anyway.
And honestly if those are too hard to follow, the easiest thing you can do is to search for the same headline from MULTIPLE sources and cross-compare all of those. At least you'll be averaging out the sensationalism and bias amongst a host of different sources.
@@dsdy1205 What do you mean by synthesized articles? If it is simply summarizing existing studies in human-readable language, that doesn't solve the problem. Poor-quality studies can be summarized just fine. Meta-studies are my favorite to find, but they are difficult to find unless the topic is highly researched.
I also don't love looking at multiple sources, because it is far to easy to find multiple sources saying the same sensationalistic stuff precisely because sensationalism spreads more. Good science is not a popularity vote.
Very good question. The answer for me is: no particular publication. I am aware though that not everyone can read scientific studies in full or at all, let alone several different ones on the same topic.
In regards to confirmation bias, I find it usefull to break a question down in as many small pieces as possible and try to evaluate every piece on it's own, since I find it takes away from the emotional attachement to the outcome of a question. Another method for me is to try to evaluate a study by its setup first and only look at any conclusion/the abstract after I determined whether I find the methodology to be of high enough quality/ sufficiently low in bias.
Another way to fight confirmation bias in general that has worked for me is to practice admitting to be wrong, I try to reframe being wrong from something negative or even shamefull, to "Hey, I just learned a thing and I'm less wrong now!". At least for me it works really well against confirmation bias, since it keeps me from having negative emotional feedback when whatever I think is true, is not confirmed.
I generally trust information more if I can get the same information from two or more independent sources.
If you think "Yay Science!" is tiresome, try being a mathematician and having to listen to people celebrate "Pi Day" or other attempts to popularise mathematics that amounts to basically numerology.
I vastly prefer tau day, because then I get to eat 2 pis.
@@TheGotoGeek Of course, tau day is twice as important as pi day. At least!
You missed the point of the video
hi, just here with a quote from the video you watched.
"it should be a welcoming place not a sneering snobbish closed shop"
it may be you may possibly have maybe missed the point.
Almost everyone is taught about maths wrong so hate it and celebrate never doing "maths" ever again after school
That's why I stopped arguing with people online. I realized I don't know anything
NEVER STOPPED ME
@@MedlifeCrisis understandable, have a great day.
I stopped arguing with people online because I was heading towards a total mental and emotional breakdown...
@@nomennescio7571 Sounds like me sadly. Taking a break from arguing with other on the internet, especially over science, definetly helped my mental health.
But it is so gratifying to know that somewhere there is some idiot dumber than me.
In my experience, a lot of the "Yay Science" crowd often really have no clue what science is, involves, or how scientific consensus is or isn't reached. Basically, it's become a sort of identity or ideological bent for "laymen", unfortunately.
@Charles Gauthier - Pianist It's a supplement for the desire to be part of a movement or something greater than yourself
Ｉthink a huge problem is that the kind of people who used to avoid education and quietly do manual labour in the past, suddenly have a very loud voice now that drowns out other people. For example in the 1990s you'd see such people shunning ICQ instant messenger or AOL and IRC and hanging out in school hallways, socializing face to face. The internet had a higher proportion of nerds with more ways of thinking prevalent in those groups of people. But now those outdoors face to face people have a loud voice on the internet, yet they never really studied science and engineering at university.
While I agree, I also think we have a deeper cultural dilemma. Scientist are conditioned, trained and traumatized into being skeptical. The public is presented a very different version of things where the smart people just get it right and they somehow know everything. Science has been mistaken as an answer machine, it's really a questioning machine. Our culture deplores ignorance of any kind, so it's often missed that ignorance is the name of the game in science, the more you learn.... The less you know.
@@notsam498 That's because Science is the new 'sky daddy'. Totally agree that most people see it as an answers machine, with scientists being equivalent to prophets. "Oh sorry, I'm no expert, therefore I can't even have an opinion on this hugely controversial yet somehow very basic topic." You don't question GOD. You just listen to his prophets preach at you and spread the good word to other believers, and you shun and cast stones against non-believers.
People are so fking stupid, I just can't.
@@SingmetheSea I guess this is true in the since many people do confuse science with faith. The very fact science applauds doubt and rejects the need for faith of any kind, rather highlights where it goes wrong for many... It's built right into the very nature of the method one should doubt and question anything they are told.
I think one major trouble is that we use the word "science" to mean two quite distinct things--the process, and the currently-accepted body of knowledge revealed through that process.. and this is an important distinction that often gets blurred/muddied. A friend and I settled on using the terms "Capital-S Science" to refer to the process, and "lower-case-s science" to refer to the body of knowledge.
And then there are those that use the term as a religion for the anti-religionists
@@hengineer i think it's only religious folks who characterize it as a religion. they want to say "it's the same thing" but it's not.. religion is based on faith. science is, by definition, requiring reproducible evidence in order to believe in something.. it's the opposite of faith.
@@hengineer You mean like "Science VS Religion"?
Although that would be quite accurate, right?
Equating the two as somehow religion being true or as useful would be a fallacy.
Maybe the body of science could be called scientific capital.
@@hengineer science is the opposite of religion, as the whole point is not to believe things on faith alone. Religious folks like to say "you have a religion too, science is your religion" but it's not. The whole point is the absence of faith.
Everyone needs the maturity to recognise being interested in science doesn't make you a scientist. The flip side of this is academics shaming people who watch "info-tainment" content. There is nothing wrong with taking a casual approach to learning - we don't all have the desire or opportunity to study all our interests at such an in-depth level. Just leave the talking/debate to the real experts and we're all good.
"Just leave the talking to the Experts" is, in theory, a good approach but this leaves the idiots to spread their ideas unoppsed. E.g. if I see someone in my social media bubble or at social events spread climate denialism, should I just let that stand because I am not a climate scientist? and hope that from somewhere an expert materializes to debate them?
@@Nico-od4yv You're adding more fuel to the fire by trying to debunk someone when you don't know virtually anything about the subject matter.
I'm no flat earther, but when I see idiots who can't prove the earth is round trying to "debunk" flat earthers by yapping about satellite images or using "why would every scientist lie" as their main arguments I want to punch a wall. It's doing more harm than good.
@@Nico-od4yv The thing with social media is that we don't go log into Facebook/Twitter/etc to be lectured in public about how wrong we are about a subject. I'm really skeptical about the value of acrimonious debates in comments under a Facebook post.
At best, I'll leave a link to a video/blogpost/article/etc made by someone more knowledgeable than me or better equipped to explain why something is wrong (or to just offer another perspective). It's less confrontational, you don't waste your time, and the person can read/watch the thing if they wish to, or not.
You can also share content on those platforms to counter the stream of misinformation.
The leave it to the experts attitude may apply to cold hard science, but it certainty is not a good position in general. For instance, it is up to science ("the experts") it find a vaccine and prove that it works. But once we have that vaccine, the debate how we should treat vaccinated vs unvaccinated, weather vaccinated should be given more freedoms and weather you need to carry a 'proof of vaccination' is definitely something anyone can and should have a part in.
"Science says..."
"Yes, but what about criticisms to that?"
"Don't be a science denier!"
Criticism is meant to be a part of the scientific method. Don't just dismiss it outright, especially if what "science says" is based on a study that was bad or at least, badly reported and misunderstood.
yup
That is why people shouldn't read pre-prints, where no criticism is given until the paper is published.
The whole phrase "Science says" is anti-scientific to begin with. Science not only frequently disagrees with itself, but by definition seeks to disagree with itself as frequently as possible.
@@diggoran Would that apply more to scientific discourse rather than science itself?
Yea, but those criticisms are only meaningful if the intent is to actually question the data, and the question is logically sound. For example, countering "science says that vaccines reduce disease spread" with "I heard that all the data on vaccines are actually fake and the deep state is trying to microchip us all", is firstly, fear mongering in bad faith, and secondly, nonsensical on multiple fronts.
Rohin: "Science doesn't exist in a vacuum..."
Astronomers, Astrophysicists, and Aerospace Engineers: "...Are you sure about that?"
Philosophers: Do think and do we exist?
Rohin*
:|
But even outer space isn't a total vacuum...
Lol, Rohan?
I used to wear a “SCIENCE! (Is boring and unrewarding)” t-shirt and people would regularly complain about it and my response was always “are you a scientist?” and their answer was nearly always no.
The only time the answer was yes was somebody who worked as an animal researcher in Australia so her life was all adorable marsupials, so fair.
Otherwise scientists found it funny and/or depressing
Flashback to 4 months manually segmenting CMR images, 9 to 5, everyday
But it's what you gotta do for research, and those moments where you can wave a lab member over and get a grin realizing you were right (cool) or wrong (just as cool) about a hypothesis makes it worth it
Goes to show how people like to talk about things they don't know about
Science is 95% boring maths, shit not working and repeating steps at least half a dozen people have already done.
But that last 5% makes it all worth it.
Ha, i like you
There are many noble causes that are more important than they are enjoyable.
YAY! HE LIVES!
_They_ live. OBEY. 🕶
He's just busy getting ready for the UK's third wave
Barely...
@@Runoratsu Money is your god now
I thought he would be partying still on a boat with his friends. ;)
Many years ago, I was in an intro Physics class. The Prof was seeing that a lot of the students weren't getting whatever topic he was covering. After a few tries, he paused, and announced with passion that 'Science... is thinking very very carefully about very simple things'. I've remembered that statement and thought about it for over 30 years. Science is most fundamentally about our ways of knowing, and especially distilling what we genuinely know from what we might not know no matter how appealing the idea seems. People love puzzles, and they love seeing a path through a puzzle that leads to genuine insight. If we can engage the sincere natural curiosity of people, then we can illuminate the pathways without having to resort to cheap sensationalism. Its similar to the difference between a fine wine and cheap plonk. Its harder to make, but oh so much more satisfying. We are all very much hoping that you can help 2021 become a fine vintage for science communication.
i actually hate puzzles
this remind me of daniel dennett replying lawrence kraus saying "you can't do science without doing philosophy"
you have no idea how much i listened the same your physics prof said about science, but about philosophy. how awesome lol
This might be the best quote I've heard in a long time. Figures it came from a physics professor, they usually rock.
that man knew what he was talking about. The greatest teachers in my opinion are those who can explain a concept to someone educated on the topic and also to a complete novice who has never stepped foot in a classroom.
I dunno I think philosophy is thinking and science is practical application and testing I think your teacher was wrong
"It"s 3 AM"
Yup. The eyes check out.
😳😳😳😭
Harsh
Calling Science at 3 AM [PRANK GONE WRONG!]
You mean have checked out
He is a medical doctor, his 3AM is everyone else's 3PM.
I think that science communication needs more self-admitted plonkers. Yourself, Matt Parker, Steve Mould etc are really good at dispelling any implied superiority by showing your working, gaffes and all, while remaining critical and educating in your own fields when possible. Folks like Brady Haran are also super useful; knowing that he isn't the expert but will faithfully represent (and criticise) the experts he films is *really* good for humanising the whole thing.
Honestly, as a science student (albeit *still* tragically first-year thanks to chronic health), I am watching many of my friends graduate knowing that they represent the future of science. It is a... sobering thought, as they are not necessarily sobering people. However, it is also a heartening one. Scientists are just people. They're the most just people people I know. Enthusiastically nerds, yes, and not always down-to-earth, but possessed of no more inherent superiority than your average pub-goer.
They are as capable of flaw as any other. But that doesn't mean we shouldn't listen to them when they do know what they're talking about. Science is a method. Science Fans are fond of saying that it doesn't care whether you believe in it or not... so why put so much effort into singing its hymns when they could be using the method to do good in the world?
I feel like Science is no longer a humble and honest method in search of universal truths, but has become conceited and transformed into a deceitful religion that practices over reaching its capabilities and selling assumptions and exaggerated claims as fact, and it is now quickly becoming a dangerous cult of personality acting as a hired gun for snake oil salesmen and losing all Integrity.
This is literally what Joe Rogan is. He talks about these things, discusses them WITH scientists on his show, and has even officiated debates among scientists. He's admittedly a fool, and fulfills the role you mention. Then you have people like Hank Green that really annoy me.
The problem is that the _appearance_ of the method is often sufficient to persuade people. Which, when refuted, then discredits the everyday hard work of good scientists.
If you can get all the attention and plaudits without actually having to do the necessary work, why would anyone ever move beyond "activism"?
@asdf and here is a perfect example of confirmation bias. You’ve clearly made your mind up and looked at information to support it, so well done!
You cannot just look at one country broadly like that and make a sweeping conclusion. For masks to truly be deemed ineffective / effective, then you need to look at the finer points too. There could be all sorts of reasons for differences in infections between areas: population density, housing, predominant genetics, population behaviour such as hand washing/distancing, cultural norms for personal interactions, weather, infrastructure, and the frequency and reliability of testing. Even with all that accounted for there are random elements that we call “chance”, so you would have to compare outcomes in other countries and their mask behaviour. As a question for you - why is it that in most Asian countries where people mostly wear masks without question (individuals often already wear masks routinely whenever they are sick), the infection rates of covid are low? I’m not saying it is just the masks, but how would you justify it according to your philosophy?
Not to mention that the medical professionals that recommend mask wearing are not doing this on a whim, there is actual historical data showing the usefulness of masks in a preventing the spread of pathogens.
When I was going through Uni I felt like you do - I was flabbergasted when I saw people who were scientific morons in school go on to get careers in research. Later in work, I met people with PhDs who made me really wonder how much they paid someone to give them the degree.
Worst still, I know some fantastically bright and capable scientists who either didn’t pursue a job in science research or ditched it later on, because of the instability or relatively low salaries of the career path especially for the amount of experience/knowledge required.
There is some merit to thinking that scientists should largely reflect the demographic of a society, but I also think that in this case the enticements for attracting the best and brightest are not really there - scientists are often expected to do it for the love of it. Many jobs in scientific fields expect a person to have a PhD, and a very capable Undergrad can hit a professional “ceiling” despite being better than the PhDs working around him/her. This means the person has to put in a lot of time and often money into studying further, yet the monetary rewards really aren’t that good, especially when compared to other careers which require long periods of study.
For me debunking is almost never about changing my mind, but more something like "I really don't think it works, but need an explanation why by someone competent"
That is EXACTLY the problem, you can 'debunk' anything if your audience has a confirmation bias of it being false.
@@Nukestarmaster Honestly, I think I phrased my original comment quite poorly. The part about debunks almost never changing my mind is not due to any bias or the fact that I'm dead set on believing the author. It's mostly due to 2 things - either I watch a debunk of something I researched and am pretty certain it won't work, but I'm looking for things I missed or misunderstood, or I watch a debunk of something I've never seen before and those won't change my mind since I didn't even have knowledge of its existence. They were times when something I believed in were debunked, but these were rare because I try to do my research before making my mind. Do I think I'm completely unbiased? Absolutely no, I just try to be as aware of these biases as possible.
I feel I mostly watch debunking videos for the rush of adrenaline from the anger at people who made the false claims. Quite sad really. Im like a junky?
But I will rationalize this by saying we all have our vices and coping mechanisms.
Debunking is just novlang, it means counter argument with my own bias, powered by my over inflated egos
This word must disappear asap
Debunk is a consumer product like Coca-Cola. Available in different flavors, packaging, and medium.
My overwhelming enthusiasm feels called out, haha! But I found this to be really good food for thought. It's hard: I love being an ultimate skeptic in a journal club, ripping a paper in my field apart to find the weak bits and talk about how they could do it better, even if I think the overall paper is wonderful and I am convinced by its conclusions. But it's very hard to have that kind of nuanced discussion of a paper publicly, without a crowd of people hearing only the negative bits and deciding that means the whole study or paper is "wrong." Figuring out how to balance that is so, so hard.
Hey Alex! Thanks for watching. I really hope I didn't sound like I was criticising enthusiasm; I do think I could've been a lot clearer with what I meant! I definitely don't put you in the category of scicommer in mind when I wrote this. Enthusiasm + ultimate sceptic is a dynamite combo, never change!
@@MedlifeCrisis Oh no, not at all! It's just a thing I think about a lot. How do I talk about true pitfalls in science and research without people focusing only on that and ignoring all the good parts? I'm also definitely not impartial in my communication: I love science, and it's hard to temper that sometimes! I appreciate you starting the discussion with your video!
@@AlexDainisPhD Those are some really good points. I see a lot of good research and well-made points being regurgitated and yote into the echo chamber until it's eventually simplified beyond recognition and reduced to a point much less worth reading about.
Do you ever get told by your peers that you're being rude? Is your criticism of their work ever misunderstood as criticism of their person? I'm experiencing this a lot, I often get told not to be so nitpicky when I'm actually just trying to improve our work or ask questions I'm interested in because I want to understand the topic better, not because I want to find a flaw for the sake of finding a flaw. Have you experienced this and if so, how are you dealing with it?
Too many people don't understand the concept of "devil's advocate".
I've seen a lot of "if you question this study you're a Flat Earther" this year. Science really is a religion to some people and those don't realize how much of a religious fanatic they are.
Confirmation bias is something to constantly struggle against, especially because it shows up in all aspects of our lives.
Really insightful comment.
A lot of us humans are fanatics. We get disgusted by other people’s fanaticism so we become fanatical about not being the same kind of fanatic as those fanatics, driving us into our own fanaticism.
@@scrumptious9673the fanati-ception
I see whole flat earther debunking practice, as "look we are better". Most hilarious part is when a "debunker" gets it wrong and uses fallacious arguments, yet the yes science crowd just cheers on. The real question is, how do we know the earth is round, it's a safe question, because it's not really up to debate.
As for marking anti-moask people as anti-science, the pope of medical science himself told us that it doesn't work because of practical issues. Those practical issues didn't go away after he reversed his judgement, but now yes science crowd already forgot about it.
Official explanation was that the pope of science lied on purpose to get the cloth to the professionals, OK, but why didn't you resign after that? Why would we ever trust you again? Also, debunkers, where were you on that? This was your moment to shine!
This platform is also part of it, under the video we see the banners, then we have the automatic comment "moderation", which is why I have to speak in coded language.
@@scrumptious9673 Also many people daily say they're a fanatic of something. Fan is short for fanatic and so many people day daily "Im a fan of [x]"
@@somedud1140 I think the easiest way to confirm the earth is a sphere is just by looking at the moon and you will see Earth's shadow on it.
Who do you mean by pope of science?:D Neil DeGrasse Tyson?
I experienced this "coming across an article about something in your expertise" when I was 13 in English class in a foreign country(I'm a native English speaker that was born there). The teacher had no idea what she was teaching, and I immediately doubted the entire system. I could vet what the English teacher was teaching, but I had no idea if the other stuff was accurate or not.
I graduated in physics a couple years ago, and one of my classmates graduated with a thesis on philosophy of physics. He discussed his thesis while some of the professors on the committee were facing the wall and scrolling on their phones. They ignored him so much that they asked him to repeat a couple points that he stated so clearly that even a friend of him that majored in literature was able to understand. All of the professors were thinking that both his work and the professor of philosophy of physics were utterly useless.
I did my post graduate work in history - one of my major subject areas was the history of science - the history of paradigm shifts (ie from the medieval mindset to the "scientific revolution" - there more to thos but its 4am and I need to try and get back to sleep...
If I was him I would have stopped and politely refused to carry on (and to leave the stage) until they were facing the right way and got off thier phones, some professors can be bastards and your friend deserved better!
@@kawaiilotus then you wouldn’t graduate and waste all your time till then. Academia, very unfortunately, is very hierarchical and you have to show deference to your ‘betters’ if we must describe those who held the titles.
Thesis and dissertation defense is like that. The professors will challenge the candidate on concepts already spoken about so the candidate elaborates on them. That's the defense part of defending your thesis.
@@ginnyjollykidd yes and if your professor suddenly pulls a tough question out of the woodwork at point 99 then that prof is a real asshat. like they would have read the manuscript and the speech is just a formality and they all probably want you to do as well as possible
I'm very glad that you continue to "keep things real" with this video, and your previous videos that take up the issue of "biologism" (that often goes hand in hand with a blind eye for psychological and socioeconomic determinants of health) in medicine.
"Often"? Or is it really just "very occasionally, but to loud fanfare"?
@@PinataOblongata often
So what is biologism? I must have that for the book I'm writing.
Seriously, Bro, I am.
which video was that?
@@PinataOblongata for an explanation why this is an issue look at US NIH funding of neuroscience vs clinical psychology (very biased towards neuroscience) and then try to find the treatment methods developed through all that neuroscientific research - it's just not proportional
With soooo much information online it's hard to trust 99.9% sources and even when you look up "professional" sources it's hard to know who is right and who isn't.
I guess the whole point is to keep your mind open for possibilities. Questioning everything but not making anything your belief system or your entire personality that you'll be offended to ever accept that it was wrong.
You don't trust 99.99% of sources. It's very rare you can find any one source that you trust 100% of what they say.
After taking college classes on different "science" topics i realized these "yay science" articles are very surface level.
Causing a Dunning Kruger effect, where you think you know more about a topic than you actually do. They can be fun, but i don't fool myself that I'm actually learning something.
Some "yay science" papers are deceptively professional. They use incredibly sophisticated methods to come to a conclusion that can't possibly be drawn from the available data (because one or several of the assumptions were left untested).
I believe the reason why this happens is because there's no "assumptions" section in scientific papers.
As a librarian, I recognize that the surface level articles, etc. are useful in that they create interest and help people categorize new examples. Then when folks come to me for more information we are at least talking about the same ballpark.
100% agree. It's the people running and parading their "pop science knowledge" that need to realize they have scratched the surface.
there's so much amazing stuff that comes out of "science" and worth glorification and positivity far more than fluffy religious and "new age" weirdo shit.
I had a science teacher in high school who said whenever you move on to the next stage of science education, you realise you've been fed half truths and oversimplifications on how things actually work. The yay science stuff has to be dumbed down for general audiences because the general audience hasn't got time to listen to an hour lecture on the subject.
I really appreciate the fact Rohin doesn't go for the sensationalism and keeps things in perspective. His ability to be self-critical and show himself to not be perfect is really fresh when so many communicators go to such great lengths to never be wrong. It makes it a lot easier to both trust that he has taken time to consider his opinions as well as admit when he was wrong, even if this won't appeal to the many people that enjoy the larger than life content creators that never seem to be wrong. I hope this never changes and that he keeps growing his (critical) following.
Great video. The "Yay! Science!" strike me ad the same people who just want a simple answer for everything and do not care about the details. Science is a long, ever evolving process that for me, is all about understanding the nuance and details of a given field. Not just some, it's magic and it works because Science!
Granted I only have a Bachelors in Exercise Science...
One thing that I definitely want more people in the “Ya Science!” Group to do is have skepticism on what they learn. This is something I’ve been trying to do recently.
Thats exactly how scientific minded people should think, only problem is that if you're skeptical of everything you say you can never be as confident as those screaming that the earth is flat. Science cannot win over close minded people with reason, or confidence though. The only way to do that is basically to ignore them or manipulate them.
Exactly, I'm watching this video face-palming over how much confirmation bias I've been guilty of over the last few months of discussing controversial topics with friends (not covid related) like I would find a study that "proved my point" and feel vindicated, only critically analyzing studies that disagreed with my views. Back to the drawing board for me!
The "Yeah science!" group at least have more scepticism than the flat earthers, believers in homeopathy, and god-believers though.
But then who do you trust?
@@Mike-oz4cv The evidence or those who show the evidence for such claims in science. Of course, with a healthy dose of skepticism in the mix.
I actually do love science - the method, not the results. Yes, the results have mostly been quite handy; but from a philosophical perspective, it’s really all about the method, not the results. And yes, many who claim to practice the scientific method do fall short; clinging to ideas to feed their ego (or other self-interests) even when the evidence no longer supports them.
Bit premature to discuss this, but debunking videos have helped me realize how easy it is to fall into certain logical traps, like the people who are the subject of the video. Even if I already agree with the debunker, it makes me pause and think "could I be making these same mistakes with the things I believe to be true?"
I think you are doing it wrong if that isn't always a worry, ya know? I constantly worry about it. I say anything remotely important that I'm not suuuuper sure about, with the phrase "I could be very wrong, don't take my word for it." I work in a prison and often find myself having high school like science classes with inmates, and I have to say that a LOT lol.
Could someone help with this question: How does the "beep-device" (the little thingy docotors have, it beeps, they run away) work? And how do you call it?
The device is called a pager, if that helps specifically a doctors pager
@@tempy2440 Thank you!
Nokia 3310? Dude you're aiming wayyyy too high in terms of technology here.
Just an app on their phones so they don't need to talk to ppl... :)
The technology varies (there are newer systems out there that use wifi or cellphone networks), but historically it's a pretty simple radio transmitter at the hospital and receivers built in to the pagers themselves. They aren't encrypted, so there have been lots of examples of people decoding sensitive information.
This is probably your best quality: your content is always so reasonable and earnest. You approach to science is really sober and you can tell there's always a push to be unbiased on your part.
The problem I have with debunkers are those that do not have a shred of humility. Those that are so sure of themselves that they're never wrong. Because the walk in to the same trap excuse others for falling to. You need to be able to revise, retract and reevaluate your position. You need to be able to correct errors. Everyone makes errors.
They personally helped me weed out a bunch of bs things I believed. And also kinda help me understand a subject better by means of knowing what it isnt rather than what it is. If that makes sense lol.
Plus maybe "Debunking" has become a mainstream term now but it's an apped word to use as ppl "debunk" (or counter) positions all the time. Including there own.
@@justcallmekai1554and how are you so sure that those beliefs of yours were completely wrong if you didn't listen to The counter of the counter argument.
That's what "dubunk" is
Literally just a list of counterarguments.
And counterarguments can be wrong
@@denofpigs2575There are good and bad debunk channels out there. The ones I listened to always encouraged me NOT to blindly agree with them and to look it up myself. I listened to them and it really helped me. There are unfortunately a lot of pop debunkers that only do it in the way you described. But I wouldn't judge this guy too harshly just because he said he watches debunkers.
That’s what really keeps people from changing their minds. If you act like the other side is an idiot right off the bat, why would they ever change their position? Just state your findings and don’t be a dick about it
@@denofpigs2575 There's your problem. There is usually weight of evidence and research behind a good debunk. That is what needs to be considered, as well as the fact that most good debunks provide good evidence that the contrarian is either a liar or doesn't understand the scientific literature. The James Tours and Tony Hellers of the World keep coming back with counterarguments that ignore valid objections regardless and after seeing that once or twice there is no reason to pay any attention to them, yet their contrarian fans swear by them. This is what you get when lay people who don't understand the subject think that one claim is as good as another no matter what the demonstrated level of honesty, understanding and competence of the person making it.
How is it that I can detect the Dunning-Kruger effect in people way better than the vast majority of people?
You are experiencing the Dunning-Kruger effect
We vastly overestimate the literacy of the general population.
@@Ferraday that’s the joke
@@Ferraday Jokes just aren't as funny when the punchline is explained.
Can you?
"Studying viral pandemics their whole lives --" Yeah, B.Sc playing Pandemic 2, M.Sc in Plague Inc., Ph.D from History Channel.
Ah how long did it take you to learn the lesson of restarting until fate gave you Madagascar first? That was a pretty good strategy in my experience.
@@extrastuff9463 I think I once got stranded there when they closed the port..
"The scientist who thinks their always right, is usually wrong. A scientists that believes their probably wrong, is usually right."
Having no background in science or medicine I live by that quote. Because no matter the topic even something i know I'm probably going to get something wrong.
If I was as wise as I feel I would have better grades
Well said
They're*
@Oberon4278 but if I spelled it properly you'd have nothing to say
This was good food for thought dude. I’ve been thinking a lot lately about how us science communicators listen to our audiences - are we cheerleading and shouting into the echo chamber, or are we honestly listening to our viewers? How can we communicate in a way that serves them instead of ourselves?
Sure, you can listen to constructive criticism, but you can't be all things to all people. Just be the best you can, and you might lose some viewers, but you'll get new ones too. If someone disagrees with you in the comments, you can use Socratic questions to find out why they think what they think, and maybe help them align their beliefs with reality. But never feed the trolls.
I'm pretty sure due to the way social media is designed, it's basically shouting to an echo chamber. Jaron Lanier and, recently, Tristan Harris with his documentary "Social Dilema" talk about how social media increases polarization and extreme views.
I've read somewhere about trying to attract the marginal votes - i.e. similar to what takes place in political elections, as a communicator you are not trying to reach people with opposite viewpoints to your own, but to those on the fence who have the inclination to change their viewpoints.
*we science communicators
"This is an individual".
Thanks for the reminder. For a moment, I thought you might be a newspaper.
The accent will do that to you.
I had a 9/11 denial phase in the year or so following the attacks. I was corrected specifically by debunking videos, especially those that took claims from “Loose Change” and examined them in detail to show they were wrong. So although those videos don’t help the hardened believers directly, it can prevent those in the process of being converted from going too far into the rabbit hole unchecked.
I find that most people will believe a conspiracy theory despite overwhelming evidence of the contrary.
In the case of 911 they'll say that those studies and expierments debunking them are funded and/or done by the government and cannot be taken seriously.
Fascinating. First time I've seen someone admit to doing a 180 on 9/11 being fake. In hindsight, why do you think you succumbed to it to begin with (if you don't mind my needling).
Yeah, and I think having a seed of doubt sown either by your own intrigue or someone else’s effort, then seeing a “debunking” video recommended that is relevant to that topic, is also one of the pathways to changing your mind through those videos.
How did building 7 collapse?
@@harvest44492 Fire. Just stop. This has been debunked to death, you just don't want to look at it or accept it.
I have been subscribed since the end of last year before I got into uni and I really enjoyed all the videos. However, now I find them 10 times as valuable since they are helping me better grasp the real world implications of what I am studying, as well as assume a more critical view of the material. I am mentioning this under that specific video because last month I had a module in one of my courses which was about the demarcation of science and watching this video has been super beneficial to get an idea of the practical application of the material
8:43
"My opinion is that out of all the cognitive biases that the human brain is susceptible to, confirmation bias is the most important;
And so far, all the evidence I found supports my view"
Nice.
I stopped when he said that to make sure I wasn’t alone in spotting that one. He’s very good. Guess when the robots take over he can take up a career as a comedian 🤣
Every time they say their going to “science it” in a movie, they proceed to do engineering….
which is also a science!
@@forbidden-cyrillic-handle interestingly this seems to be a cultural / language thing. in germany it is literally called engineering science and also developed, taught and thought of along the other natural sciences. from the quick lookup i did i gathered that at least in the american culture it seems to be only the application of scientific methods (which would make it to me at least an applied science). I got a bachelors of science in systems engineering which made me wonder where this discrepancy comes from.
Your integrity is the main reason I like this channel. Whenever I'm watching one of your videos I feel that I can trust the information to be accurate and any errors to be corrected in follow up content.
As a science degree, masters, and PhD-holder, I'm very pleased to hear someone else share this sentiment! And now I have a name for the 'yay science' crowd!
I just call them redditors
I love this. I think you did communicate your position well.
"Be as critical of yourself and people you agree with, as you are of people you disagree with."
I can't say enough regarding how well you've articulated my internal respect for and yet frustration about science. I've always struggled to explain the nuances of at once having the utmost respect for the tools of science, but at the same time being disgusted at the "scientific elites", if you will, who seem to look down upon all those they deem beneath them with utter disdain and who have a complete lack of perspective regarding where science fits into the broader concept of society, norms, ethics, and so forth. I could talk about the nuances around this subject for hours, but I appreciate that you summed up much of it so nicely in this video.
One thing I found especially during the pandemic is the cherry picking of one science over the other. Everyone is talking to the epidemiologists which is important, but not to the social scientists. I heard nobody talking about balancing the threat of covid with the threat that social isolation poses and the amount of deaths it will lead to in the form of suicide and drug overdose. You hear it sprinkled about in some conversations, but I not in any serious way.
Looking back from 2023, we now have had elevated excess deaths for over a year. Which appears to be due to the predictable bad effects of the social isolation policies: increased cardio-pulmonary diseases from increased substance abuse during the pandemic, less exercise, more eating, generally less healthy living (reduced socialising is intrinsically unhealthy), along with an increase in late-stage cancers due to reduced detection over the pandemic. Though, worryingly, there appears to be an increase in new cancers - which can not be explained by reduced detection.
@mipmipmipmipmip If it turns out that the seatbelt makes human feel so ill, it leads to higher numbers of suicide than the deaths which the seatbelts prevent, then yeah. We need to ask people how the seatbelt makes them feel.
@mipmipmipmipmip Turns out your 'seatbelt' was just a noose around the neck. Genius.
"...and all the evidence so far supports my view." You crack me up!
Great video. The best part of a liberal education is when you understand that the world and it's ideas were not created in your image... recognizing bias in all it's forms, questioning the reasons why you believe what you do... it's liberating and somewhat terrifying.
And that is the cool part. You know you're right but there will be this nagging sense that you're missing something. It will always seam incomplete.
@@bradleyp3655 “The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, and wiser people so full of doubts.”
― Bertrand Russell
And the Q and A remains forgotten😭
It's not forgotten. It's (mostly) in the can. But it's just such a ballbreaker to edit I just haven't had time to get round to it. I might make it a 350k Q&A upload instead. It's not that funny this time, people asked such serious questions!
@@MedlifeCrisis I guess it would seem churlish during such times to waste an opportunity to question such an esteemed personage, on frivolity. 🤷♂️
@@MedlifeCrisis on that note, do you have any good anime recommendations?
@@MedlifeCrisis I mean, your humor is honestly just a small facet of why I like your channel. You make me pay attention, get my brain going - then whomp! you throw out a dead-pan zinger.
This video exactly clarified a feeling I've been having for months but couldn't quite put to words. I definitely feel extremely uncomfortable speaking with any authority on a topic even just sorta adjacent to my field. Like most people that get a phd, I had the distinct pleasure of falling headlong off the dunning-kruger cliff. For me, that didn't just affect my view of my field, but it put into sharp relief the fact that I know basically nothing about anything. Anything I think I know in another field is probably on the wrong side of mount stupid.
I used to imagine that this Hitchhikers Guide "Total Perspective Vortex" moment was had by everyone with a terminal degree. That scientists would be inoculated against other dunning-krugers (maybe it could be dunnings-kruger?). I was wrong. I see too many ppl that should know better speak with so much authority after basically reading the top paragraph of a wikipedia article. It's really frustrating, even more so when non-scientist cheerleaders parrot these nonsense tweets/videos/tiktoks as fact and/or gospel.
You know what's funny? Dunning-Kruger was disproved.
Google _DK effect not real_ and thank me later.
It's not against the law to correct others when you have more substantial info. It's a given that nobody knows all about what they speak of. Still, it would be ridiculous if we would have to embody a perpetual state of uncertainty and insecurity as that would make any man crumble in fear and even madness
@@straightfacts5352Just read about it. So far what I understand from the skepticism around it is that you can recreate the model using random self-estimates. I don’t really get it at the moment but it’s something along those lines.
There is a way to recreate the results that Dunning and Kruger got without there being a bias in the data. The bias being the alleged tendency for less skilled people to overestimate their skill way more than the more skilled people. Since you can get the same results with unbiased data, then you cannot say that it was the bias that led to the results. That would imply that there is no tendency for less skilled people to overestimate their ability more than the more skilled people.
Appeal to authority is a fallacy after all.
You are an inspiration man. Will start my TH-cam channel one day, realizing how desis can be funny and nerdy at same time. My type of mascot for desis
th-cam.com/video/OHqeHpguVHo/w-d-xo.html
Forget scientists, you need an engineer for your lamp shade 😆
@@racitup4114 youll be surprised how many engineers I have encountered deny covid existence.
@@racitup4114 how many engineers do you think there are in an engineer companies?
Dumb question
@@racitup4114 ship construction
"Scientists know better than you, even when they're wrong" is both true and false, but it still feels useful when talking about expertise.
The thing is, when you're in field for years you develop intuition. And observatory I'm working and studying in got so many calls from people who said "they know what dark matter is"
@@realdragon I work in corporate, so my decades of web development experience is considered equally as valid as Product Owners, recent graduates and folks who were seconded into a “content producer” role from marketing… so it forces me to produce receipts for my arguments rather than lazily saying “because this is just how it’s done”.
@@GlennDavey And scientists don't say "it just works that way" at least in my field (iwth exceptoins)
Yeah that was kinda my point, experts or no, evidence always needs to be shown or else it's just an Appeal to Authority @@realdragon
@@GlennDavey But are you qualified to evaluate the evidence? Appeal to authority is perfectly reasonable in many circumstances.
Watching this because I love you dunno what yay science crowd is
Precisely
His description of soft scientism made me think of liberal people who enthusiastically read psychology today articles and believe everything said in those because "its science".
Aka people who have a positive attitude towards science but only a superficial understanding of it, and who are therefore too uncritical of content that is sold as being scientific.
My personal checklist for being reasonably skeptical of things sold as science would be:
-understanding that the distinction between science and pseudoscience is gradual
- being aware that science can not prove, but only disprove facts
- being aware that scientific findings should always be interpreted with an eye on the methods of measurement
- understanding the difference between is/ought: things science can vs cannot answer
this 😩
+
@@aliciadonadio2597 While I agree falsafiability is important in science and is one of the major criteria for something to even be worth testing... the scientific method can't truly 100% disprove anything either. In theory, we can only ever disprove but not prove something, but in practice, we can't actually do either with 100% certainty.
The hypothesis may still be correct even if the experiment said otherwise. The experiment might have been done incorrectly, which can be mitigated by multiple experiments. Or the experiment was just designed poorly from the start. Or maybe the information we used to set up said experiment was faulty. That our underlying knowledge was faulty. A perfect example of this was the solar neutrino problem where the experiment clearly "proved" the hypothesis to be false. The scientific community still believed their hypothesis to be correct despite the failed experiment. However, the scientists and astronomers went through basically every single factor that can contribute to this discrepancy and eventually proved the hypothesis to be correct. It's a interesting story to read about.
Did you know? That $12 a year is *THE* *SAME* as $1 a month?!?! *SCIENCE* *BITCH!*
curiositystream.com/medlife
What?!?
wow
Yay science🤘
Is it science though? Looks more like maths to me.
Thought you could get away with this?
the last time i tried, the only option to pay was with credit-Card. is there no other way?
One thing i remember is a quote from Neil deGrasse Tyson that went something like, "Star Trek is better than Star Wars because SW doesn't have any physics in it."
I instantly thought, "that's stupid..." on account of how... it *is* stupid. But heaven forfend you tell anyone else that NGT said something dumb.
The lightshade got DEBUNKED from the ceiling! At what an appropriate time, lol!
Rohin got debunked. By the Light itself! :)
this is a topic that is really unpopular in 2020, respect for still covering it!
It is always nice to see a medical guy who still has a sense of humour in these Covid times. Keep it up, please.
So the solution to the "Yeah, science bitch" crowd is... Science...
Specifically a proper understanding on the scientific method and how it's conducted and published.
Honestly I know we were taught about the "scientific method" in school but that shit needs to be hammered home harder.
Make a guess, challenge it in every way you can think of it, rinse repeat until you can't defeat a guess.
Explicitly teach kids that if they have a strong belief about something, they need to think of ways to test if it's true or not. From grade 4 to high school you should be asking kids to posit their own theories, and then to design tests that would see if they fail or not.
I think fundamentally part of the problem is the way that the academic world is structured - negative results rarely get published.
@@AbeYousef Bro our academic system was designed to churn out good little workers that did the bidding of the bosses. Highly regimented and obedient and hasn't fundamentally changed in most places since the industrial revolution.
No wonder it's so bad at teaching something as rigorous, creative and sceptical as the scientific method.
Most science courses just teach facts. Not how we know these facts.
Hey Rohin, can we get a video roasting Homeopathy for 10 minutes straight?
Lovingly, a med student with friends studying homeopathy
Seems like someone missed the whole point of the video?
@Wemple Roasting entails mocking, not explaining. There are no cues indicating that OP doesn't understand homeopathy and why it's nonsense.
What sort of university offers homeopathy and a legitimate field of study? It's as bad as unis offering theology!
If I were ill in 1880 I would have gone for the homeopathic hospital. Fresh air, sunlight, clean sheets, clean water as opposed to fetid crowded wards with bleeding and purging.
@@EdDueim So? None of that supports homeopathy, it supports germ theory and and disproves the efficacy of some of the techniques used at the time.
I would say one definite thing scientists could be doing to help journalists and laymen alike is to simply 1. write their complex dissertations but also make a version that uses more common terms that are a lot more understandable for the average layman. This would do a lot to ease the misinformation that occurs in the pipeline because journalism optimally is trying to translate complex stats and figures and complex concepts for commoners. But journalists also are not scientists. So I think one of the best ways would be the scientists themselves remembering that they arent just talking to other scientists and experts. They are talking to journalists and laymen too. Because science DOES matter to most people.
If you want "scientism" to lessen and "understanding of science" to increase. It has to come from the scientists themselves because they are the end all be all on where the information comes from.
Another thing scientists could do is simply explain when writing in more common terms things that their paper or study may actually mean and what it doesn't mean. That would do WODNDERS for legitiamte journalists and laymen alike to better understand the scope and limitations of what that paper or study means.
Scientism imo is not the fault of the layman. Its the fault of not having good communication from the lofty halls and academics to the common people and non STEM people.
And using more common terms that are more commonly understood doesn't mean people are stupid. It means they aren't scientists. Which is most of the world. So science ABSOLUTELY shapes the viewpoint because what they say and what they write are where it starts. 100% of the time .
I definitely agree with you. You've worded a lot of my issues with people promoting science in a really elegant way. One thing that I'd add is how science supporters (myself included) tend to present scientific conclusions as objective and irrefutable facts rather than our best, current, statistically significant, etc. explanation which might get updated or replaced once we get more, better, different, etc. data.
I think this is especially problematic during primary education as most people don't go on to do post secondary degrees in science and therefore never come to the realization that scientific conclusions always has some uncertainty in them by design and are therefore subject to change as new information is acquired.
Absolutely. And that inherent 'subject to change' caveat is often taken by lay people as evidence that all professional scientific work is overrated/overpaid/unreliable. The answer scientists are giving changes over time; therefore, throw out everything they've ever said, as it'll probably all be succeeded eventually. As encapsulated in the timeless meme, "Scientists say that alcohol makes you dumb, but scientists say a lot of things."
I recently hit upon Simon Clark's videos - I find he has a great attitude to communicating science (climate science no less), what I like to call 'defiantly optimistic'.
Simon is a good pal, he's fantastic at what he does
Most people seem to prefer to believe in, not question the world around them.
Science is nothing if not questioning.
Impressed by your ability to get a coherent message across on camera at 3 am.
I did a psychology undergrad, in a university that heavily focused on how to apply scientific principles to studying people's behaviour, most my modules focused on neuropsych, behaviourism and cognitive psych (it was a BSc so that's not surprising). It really focused on teaching how to identify good and bad scientific research, and issues within the scientific community (issues with journals, difficulties getting funding for non-medical replication studies etc.). So its odd to me that many people who study harder sciences like physics or biology, don't seem to be as aware of these issues, at least on an undergrad level.
Though maybe this was just in my uni, I don't know if it applies to all students
Thank you.
As a Bio-Psych student (albeit very early) in a uni very much like the one you describe, I can definitely agree. Being self-critical has been so important to psychological history that it's become a necessary practice. That said, psychology still has a lot of the bad old way *in* it, so our education isn't necessarily indicative of the field as a whole. It does still prepare us for being vigilant later on, which is always nice.
@@clockworkkirlia7475 100% agree psych is no way near perfect, but I think that applies to most sciences. Though it probably applies a little more to psychology as it's pretty young for a science, and all the different fields vary so much in how scientific they are and a lot of people between feilds are reluctant to work with different feilds.
Probably because the 'reproducibility crisis' is a big thing in Psychology at the moment. Psychology's survival as a science depends on the next generation of Psychologists' ability to correctly design and interpret experiments.
There’s no reproducibility crisis in the physical sciences, that is unique to the less fundamental sciences (biology, psychology, sociology, etc.). Hence why your university feels it necessary to teach you good experimental procedure, because of the dearth of those skills in a good portion of psychological research essentially rendering the information worthless.
Love that you talked about this. Science is in vogue right now. But science popularism and real science are two different things. People get excited by the fun high school physics demos on TH-cam but real science is actually quite tedious and monotonous. People like Neil degrass tyson and bill nye are important in getting people interested in science but it often doesn't go deeper than a superficial interest
As someone who is interested in science communication, I always really appreciate your thoughtful and snarky videos where I think you do a pretty good job expressing your own limits.
The improvised lampshade really stole the show! This is their moment
When people say "yay science", what they're REALLY saying for the most part is "yay "science" in pursuit of the political agenda I rabidly support"
Far too many fields of science abandoned their proper bias toward skepticism years ago.
"Science is the belief in the ignorance of experts" - Richard Feynman
Sup man 👊
@@obbavyakti5805 hail lobster science!
The idea of debunking your own opinions is so powerful and very quickly progresses your own views.
So true I'm trying to aquire a really refined niche skillset in technology but the mathematical and technological foundation you gotta lay is daunting to say the least. Fun, but not as spectacular as I thought learning it was going to play out haha
"Nullius in verba
" (on the word of no one)
~The Royal Society motto.
After becoming a medical specialist, I quickly learned that the pharmacology behind drugs might as well be magic to laypeople. Most people don't get that you can only "pull the levers" and "push the buttons" in your body that are already there, with the use of drugs.
amazing video. i hadn't heard the term scientism but it had already gotten to my nerves. great to hear a science communicator address this. as carl sagan himself said: "science is not a body of knowledge, but a way of thinking"; you shouldn't be shamed into believing (believing was never the point), nor forced to accept the way of thinking, because it should be oppened to criticism and scrutiny by all people, as well as able to teach them on why that way of thinking is chosen.
Can't wait for the "This is an individual" range of merch.
That's surrealism on a René Magritte level right there.
"How come you guys can go to the moon but can't make my shoes smell good?"
-Homer Simpson
What the history of science teaches us is that, while the scientific method is very reliable if applied thoroughly and with integrity, the scientist is only human and, as a human being, the scientist is just as vulnerable as the rest of humanity to all the things which, in excess, lead us into error; characteristically human personality traits like arrogance, envy, rage, cowardice, vanity, sloth, greed, megalomania, and, at the root of all evil, solipsism. I get very frustrated with people who constantly put scientists on pedestals because it is dehumanising and it denies the fact that scientists are not supermen. Nothing tells the story of the human reality of the scientist better then the history of science.
A big problem I perceive is that "science" seems to be referred to as if it is a body of correct answers rather than something that should proceed by falsification - in other words, we have our best nauturalistic explanation that is in principle possible to disprove by new facts and when that happens we either discard the explanation or refine it in the light of the new facts. This is problematic when we have journalists who treat every new finding as established fact. Probably the hardest aspect of what I have described is seeing the signal from the noise - the genuine true facts from the mass of findings.
Dogma never changes regardless of the evidence.
Conspiracy based beliefs simply allege that the facts are lies.
Politically based beliefs cherry pick whatever finding suits their worldview best.
Anti-science based beliefs point to the very falsification at the heart of the scientific method to claim that nothing is true because "scientists keep changing their minds"
An old quote goes: "When the facts change, I change my mind - what do you do?"
The entire idea of science being based upon falsifiability that has been endlessly regurgitated on the internet is based upon the work of Karl Popper, which has since come under a lot of philosophical scrutony. From what I understand from my philosophy of science course, the core issue is that his theory relies on "critical tests" that don't actually exist in the real world because if you look closely at any experiment, you'll see a long chain of background assumptions that are very shakily founded.
@@msmsmsms8515 I think you don't understand what falsifiability means.
Internet atheists: Fuck religion. We need to listen to science instead.
Mayan priest-astronomers: Bruh.
Two points on this:
-debunking: I find these helpful, but only if done well, otherwise its just (cheap) entertainment. Debunks can give guidelines on how and where exactly to spot and disprove quackery by showing methods.
-Unfortunately I find that the medics crowd is a lot less science-inclined than I would have hoped. Surely, there are great researchers, but many practitioners drop (literature) research once leaving uni. Then you can be happy if they read updated guidelines at all.
Feels like a specific variant of Dunning-Kruger: Not being aware that knowledge erodes away as new research is published.
Scientism for the win!
Embrace the divine broadcasts of the Machine God!
A little exercise- any time you see an article that says something to the effect of "....according to science" or "....according to experts", replace "science" and "experts" with "god" and "priests". Thats not to say its wrong, but realize the framing is an appeal to authority. Look at the sources. Look at the studies posted. See if you can see if they have had their findings reproduced. See where their funding comes from. Its worth looking at context and sources in all things.
Confirmation bias is not a wholly bad trait. You might think all bias is bad...but attention is limited. It's one resource that remains vexingly scarce as our ability to communicate improves. Were it not for our tendency to seek confirmation for what we already think is true, we'd never investigate anything deeply enough to get definitive answers. There is hysteresis in our thinking: It takes more evidence to shake us of our initial belief than would be required initially -- and that's a good thing.
"You are all individuals."
"We are all individuals!"
"I'm not."
"Shut up!"
Wow you seriously described concisely and I’n great detail why I have been feeling some deep resentment at much of the science reported in the media/online, despite my participation in it. Very strange thing
Science is a descriptive system, it is not prescriptive, the worst thing I keep hearing is "follow the science", it's like saying "follow the blue van", When people refuse to follow the blue van, they're not denying the fact that the van is blue, they're denying your prescriptive moral philosophy that thinks "blue van" is a good indicator for navigating the city around us.
So my whole career is in “science”. My degree is in molecular biology, I worked in the lab a few years and then worked in sales and business development in the life science/biotech industry most recently in automating various laboratory workflows.
Personally I love the societal interest in science. The more educated and curious we are about the natural world the better off we are. What irritates me personally though is when people misinterpret a scientific principle or cherry pick some obscure study to push a personal political agenda and try to shut down any opposition because “science” says they’re right. Well if “science” says so there’s no arguing against it right?! I think one of the most insufferable things someone can utter is “it’s science!” That is the most vague non-sensical, lazy, idiotic things you can say to try to substantiate an argument.
Ultimately science at its core essence is simply a quest for truth and understanding. If that’s what you’re genuinely after then it’s really hard to go wrong.
Going into this I was slightly worried I had been doing something wrong being excited about learning chemistry lol
Thank you for sharing your perspective on this issue
Science is a tool. I like tools. "Yay, tools!" You should get as excited about science as you would about any tool. But tools get used for bad purposes as well as for good ones.
@@teastrainer3604 Why would you respond to a two year old comment with this? You're literally repeating a worse version of what we both watched being explained for 18 minutes.
@@HomoSapien-z5q My brother is involved in the production of nuclear weapons.
It's a shame that medieval scholars and theologians (those two could not easily be separated from one another, being one usually meant being the other) have such a bad reputation contemporarily. Monks like Roger Bacon and Robert Grosseteste were fundamental to the development of modern science yet (medieval) faith is often represtented as too narrow-minded and inflexible despite the many technological advances the middle ages and early modern period opened the door for.
Scientism crowd: "Science is the only method to find truth"
"can you prove that statement with science?"
*sweats in logical positivism*
While is there one other way to find truth?
@@chadliampearcy well I have met 'yay science' people who discount other evidence such as philosophical historical and logical evidence
@@noaht8592 What were the contexts?
@@chadliampearcy Me: A Belief such as yours really just shows lack of familiarity with modern philosophy of religion
Person: It wouldn't have to "philosophy" if there was evidence. It would be "science"
Hans Rosling ❤️ Such a positive force. We really could have used a few more years of him.
I started getting suspicious about the clarity of the problems he wrote about. I think he and his co-workers are very important - but scepticism and looking up sources is in order. Close up many of the things he wrote about are a lot more complex than he described them. Just my opinion.
I hate this too. I mean, I’m by no means any scientist but I’ll often discover “facts” from those types of pages and find it interesting but when I go to look into it myself with actual scientific references, it turns out to be untrue or misleading in some way, leading me to be pissed off that I was ever tricked into believing it at all
Yay Medlife! crowd reporting :) ...
My favorite caricature is Bill Nye the Guy-N-ecologist ( who specializes in male breast cancer).
This video does not really address any problem with the yay science crowd, which it does a poor job at attempting to define; the video mostly addresses confirmation bias, which is a problem in any crowd and not inherent nor fundamental to the yay science crowd, and its exploration of confirmation bias is superficial, mostly just whining that it’s an annoying trait.
One of the positives of people already convinced of a proposition watching debunk videos is that they learn to argument their position better or find out why it's unconvincing to others. After all a lot of changing heart happens in your everyday conversations.
If debunking videos were effective there wouldn't be so many of them.