Did They Debunk Me?
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 1 ต.ค. 2024
- If you like my content, please consider supporting me and my work on Patreon page! Thanks!
/ themetatron
Link to the institute in Edinburgh
www.rcpe.ac.uk...
The link I'm responding to
www.tastesofhi...
Especial care should be taken, in locating the steading, to place it at the foot of a wooded hill, where there are broad pastures, and so as to be exposed to the most healthful winds that blow in the region. A steading facing the east has the best situation, as it has the shade in summer and the sun in winter. If you are forced to build on the bank of a river, be careful not to let the steading face the river, as it will be extremely cold in winter, and unwholesome in summer. 2 Precautions must also be taken in the neighbourhood of swamps, both for the reasons given, and because there are bred certain minute creatures which cannot be seen by the eyes, which float in the air and enter the body through the mouth and nose and there cause serious diseases." "What can I do," asked Fundanius, "to prevent disease if I should inherit a farm of that kind?" "Even I can answer that question," replied Agrius; "sell it for the highest cash price; or if you can't sell it, abandon it." 3 Scrofa, however, replied: p211 "See that the steading does not face in the direction from which the infected wind usually comes, and do not build in a hollow, but rather on elevated ground, as a well-ventilated place is more easily cleared if anything obnoxious is brought in. Furthermore, being exposed to the sun during the whole day, it is more wholesome, as any animalculae which are bred near by and brought in are either blown away or quickly die from the lack of humidity. 4 Sudden rains and swollen streams are dangerous to those who have their buildings in low-lying depressions, as are also the sudden raids of robber bands, who can more easily take advantage of those who are off their guard. Against both these dangers the more elevated situations are safer.
#debunking #metatron #ancientrome
![[Live] ศึกมหึมันส์มวยไทยสังเวียนเดือด เวทีมวยชั่วคราวสวนสยาม | จันทร์ 30 กันยายน 2567](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/pM1k6f7JXUc/mqdefault.jpg)
If you like my content, please consider supporting me and my work on Patreon page! Thanks!
www.patreon.com/themetatron
Hello! I personaly believe that this is more of a lucky guess than something that romans discovered, but I respect your opinion
Got the same birthday as me, pre-emptive Happy Birthday sir.
Do you read Greek? I heard that if you read the Greek the Bible was translated from it talks about Jesus being a pedophile and sex trafficker do you know if this is true?
Moi dimanche je suis libre, ça me ferai plaisir de faire une sortie ensemble !
Merci pour ton travail et porte toi bien !
How could he guess that the pathogens are in fact "creatures/animals" and not just "objects". Where does the idea come from that another lifeform can cause a disease? Wouldn't toxic chemicals make a lot more sense? Are we sure he meant creatures/ animals as in lifeforms/organisms?
Romans wouldn't call a poisonous mushroom a animal would they? Or rotten food. But maybe this is how they got to their conclusion? Food rots and the rot is caused invisible animals eating the food. I could imagine people observe meat getting digested by microbes (the meat rotting and vanishing) and the observation that eating is involved "proves" life. Also eating this lifeform will make you sick. It kinda makes sense if you ignore the leap in logic: "something dissapears or changes ergo this means it gets eaten by an animal"
I think its super curious that he confidently wrote "animalia". But on the other hand people bs alot.
Can we please agree that the “Editing Metatron” be henceforth know as the “Editron”.
You have _my_ vote for it.
Oh this absolutely needs to be a thing. 😂
Come on folks, get this comment seen and upvoted. For the republic!
Yes!
And my vote as well.
Hear hear
"Metatron watching the Metatron".... now THAT is Meta
lol
It had to be said.
tron....
Metametatron
...tron
An ancient Roman deducing the existence of bacteria and germ theory reminds me of how Greek philosophers deduced the existence of atoms and atomic theory
And calculated the circumference of the earth! That always blows my mind to imagine how much work and intelligence that took
@sjm9876it's not that surprising the average IQ at that time was probably 120 it then got worse and in our timeline era peaked at 1600s we are currently on a decline and Europe will reach about 90 average IQ in 70 80 years
@@sjm9876, well that one isn’t as crazy to me. They already knew the trigonometry. All they had to do is find 2 sensible measuring points and plug in the numbers. Of course they had to travel to said measuring point at a certain time of the year to get that information. That’s probably the most impressive part.
A lot of scientists, particularly in the domain outside of the core 3 hard sciences and hybrid disciplines such as psychology and archaeology fear reasoned speculation as if it's dangerous. Reason + evidence = very strong yeah.... But very solid reason alone isn't necessarily weak either as it gives you a direction to look in. Fields are full of speculation where there's an inferred merit in exploring a direction and then subsequently finding evidence for it after the figurative 'stab in the dark'. People can get very very pedantically semantic that speculation and hypothesis are different things but pragmatically they're often the same.
They could observer the scent and appearance of various things as they spoil or get filthy with time. A sweaty toga gets worse smelling over time
Uhm metrologist here. Usually bacteria are between 1 µm and 10 µm in size some are significantly bigger and some are a little bit smaller. While you can’t see stuff the size of a micrometer, you can see it if there’s a large amount of objects of this size. So if Varro somehow found a large culture of bacteria, he could have deducted that one single bacteria wasn’t visible by the naked eye.
Same with microsieves or microscopic sand particles which you can perceive with the naked eye as long there’s enough of them on one place. Depending on the circumstances the human eye can spot burrs or fibres the size of 1-2 hundredths of a millimetre.
So given that, it’s not unreasonable, that Varro actually was quite sure that something like bacteria exists.
He just couldn't prove it, because, you know, no microscopes.
@@oz_jones yeah exactly.
They were less deducing, and more speculating on the cause of things they observed. Just like Greek atom theorists.
Some of those speculations turned out to be about right - but that doesn't mean they KNEW. The Greeks also speculated about the four elements (air, water, fire, esrth) and that was pretty much as wrong as it gets.
If some Star Trek technobabble about a faster-than-light travel method eventually will proven to be close to the truth? Yeah, that doesn't mean that Gene Roddenberry or his writers KNEW anything about warp physics.
Please will someone educate me on what the unusual p/u combination and abbreviation that was used in the op? Like I'm reading it as "... between 1 Poom and 10 Poom" 😂 sorry for being so simple minded
@@trubblegum5787the Greek symbol "mu" represent the prefix "micro"
Oh, the casual multilingual flex into a self burn, beautiful.
This was so random to be in a Metatron video🤣
love it when people who only speak one language try to nitpick pronunciation
He says breath-ed later too. 😅
As simply a bilingual, that was awesome. I completely understand a mispronounced word or two. I still dothat in my native language influenced by my second language.
fyi, his french spelling is quite pristine
Raffaello is honestly an awesome name
A lot of back-up consonants. Redundancy is a sign of reliability 😤
He's like a ninja turtle.
Metatron is turtle ninja.
my favourite ninja turtle though he is more like Donatello
@@damienasmodeus928tortoise shinobi
Has the debunking debunker become the debunked??
PLEASE....say that 10 times fast
His debunking has been debunked, but what has been bunked has been rebunked.
What the hell did you just say!?
Not really, the debunking is valid
The debunking debunker debunks his own debunk.
"How can you know that something exist, when you cannot see it ? "
The same way people knew that gravity, electrons, atoms, at some point black holes and a million other things existed.
Also the foundation of science is based on pure reason. To deny that is literally do deny math and logic.
its like saying... "i can see the blood and the knife, but i don't see a body therefore the person must be alive."
You can tell someone's been in your room without seeing the person who was in your room by just observing the effects of what has been done.
I can't see air but I'm still breathing.
Science is not founded on "pure reason". It is reason applied to observation/experience.
Only maths is "pure reason" and its relevance for reality would have had to be established first.
You are possibly still misunderstanding something about science.
Those Romans had, at best, a plausible hypothesis which nobody could prove until the 17th century. Other ancient theories (like the four elements) were eventually proven wrong just as spectacularly.
So, the Romans knew people got ill in certain conditions, and worked to prevent those conditions, without _knowing_ how the conditions caused illness. That is impressive enough.
If some Star Trek technobabble eventually will proven to be close to the truth? Yeah, that doesn't mean that Gene Roddenberry or his writers KNEW anything about warp physics or xenobiology.
Through logic and reason Greeks thought up atomic theory, is it that hard to think a similar thing could have happened with microorganisms?
omg they did not thought up atomic theory. You people really do a disservice to science and to those ancient philosophers. Either that or you don't know what the atomic theory is. Ok, sure, which ancient Greek though up about electrons, protons and neutrons? That electrons orbit the nucleus? And that an atom is actually not indivisible? The Greeks though that matter is made up of smaller indivisible parts aka atoms. That's it. And it's wrong. The Greeks did *zero* experiments to prove or disprove that theory, it wasn't science, it was philosophy. Ancient Greeks were philosophers or naturalists. They were thinking stuff up (most of it is so wrong) by rational though alone and they observed the nature. They didn't do science.
We were and are taught these things by aliens, intent on destroying earth. Demokritos was supposed to invent the nuke, but he was too lazy to write down the blueprints in time.
Greek atomic theory has nothing to do with what we call atoms today (apart from the fact that the name was borrowed from the original theory)
@@methatis3013 you are twisting my words. I never said it’s the same exact theory, I only mentioned how through reason alone they came up with their own primitive version of the theory. Also it doesn’t have nothing to do with the modern theory since it was the Greek atomists who inspired scientists in the later modern period to explore these ideas and find proofs for them leading to the modern version we have now.
@@methatis3013 should actually be quantum theory, you are right
I can't speak for their knowledge of bacteria for health, but I can say there are some Roman agricultural (in particular viticulture) sources that indicate they understood there was something going on with the soil and the effects on their vines. The Romans had an advanced soil knowledge. One of their testing methods was to bury different foods in the soil and observe how it decomposed. They understood there was something in the soil, which they also called 'animalia' that broke down the matter; and the speed and manner it happened indicated the health of the soil and how the soil would affect their grapes and wine making.
Awesome comment. Thanks for the knowledge!
That's incredible! Thanks!
"Canada Time" debunked Canada has 6 time zones 😂 great content as always
Canada shares us time zones right?
yes but the center of the universe Toronto claims the only time zone that matters its its own
@@rhetorical1488 isnt it for every country tho?
Russia has 12 time zones. And the only one that matters - is Moscow one.
Every other time zone counts from Moscow +whatever hours needed to add.
Canada also has a special half time zone.
We count Moscow as +3 in the first place, and every local timeline matters more than Moscow one for everything that isn't long distance meetings, guild wars in video games and New Year speach of the president.
Bacteria are a specific kind of microorganism; it would make more sense to say that the Romans (or at least one Roman) knew about microorganisms, rather than that they knew about bacteria. (Malaria, in particular, is not caused by a bacterium.)
Or to be more specific than ‘microorganisms’ (but in another way than ‘bacteria’), say that Varro knew of the existence of _germs_ (in the colloquial sense of ‹disease-causing microorganisms›).
no they didn't. Varro is just wrong here. Bacteria do not float in air
Obviously they knew about bacteria. Why else would they share sponges on sticks to wipe their asses? lmao
@@tobybartels8426 I just commented almost exactly the same thing!
@@genepozniak : If Varro was the only one who knew, did he say ‘No thanks, I brought my own sponge’, or did he succumb to conformity? Then again, If he only knew that they could float through the air into the mouth and nose, did it even occur to him that butt sponges could spread disease too?
It's not that hard to imagine there are creatures so minuscule to be invisible to the eyes.
There are creatures so minuscule that they are barely visible.
There are creatures so minuscule to be visible only to people that have a particularly good sight.
There can very well be creatures so minuscule to not be visible even to them.
Pretty much. Democritus hypothesised the existence of atoms 2500 years ago . Seeing is not believing necessarily.
Which creature is barely visible? I have also never heard of other people being able to see more "creatures" due to their good eye sight.
There are tons and tons of the tiniest critters all over the ground. They are so small that you have to hold them really close up just to be able to see them.
Or just to good old example of dust mites.
@@nostalji93 Mites? Fairyflies?
The ability of focusing close objects is not evenly distributed, nor is visual acuity.
I think thats right. I think he might have thought of really small pests not bacteria.
Another deduction I can do about Varro: in water we can see minuscule creatures floating (larvae, worms), even with our bare eyes if we pay enough attention. Then, it only requires a little more abstraction to think there could exist even smaller creatures.
And amoeba and friends
Well that, and the fact it's possible to see bacteria if they form a big enough clump.
It is telling that Varra does NOT talk about vapours or fumes, of which the effects on people were known, but clearly something else.
Exactly. Varro could tell the difference between toxins and diseases.
It seems self-evident that he came up with a theory to explain why people developed diseases literally out of "thin air".
Who's Varra?
@@str.77 Ever heard of the concept of "typo"?
Though, Varro had, at best, a plausible hypothesis which nobody could prove until the 17th century. Other ancient theories (like the four elements) were eventually proven wrong just as spectacularly.
So, the Romans knew people got ill in certain conditions, and worked to prevent those conditions, without _knowing_ how the conditions caused illness. That is impressive enough.
If some Star Trek technobabble eventually will proven to be close to the truth? Yeah, that doesn't mean that Gene Roddenberry or his writers KNEW anything about warp physics or xenobiology.
@@Enyavar1 Ever heard of the concept: correct your mistakes?
@@str.77 on tablets and phones, youtube makes editing rather hard (imo), so I feel with the OP here. 😛
This "debunking" is like saying "Ancient Greeks could not have circumnavigated the Earth, therefore they believed it was flat". Complete misunderstanding of how human knowledge expands.
Anyone who’s ever looked up at the moon or sun in the sky should be able to deduce that the earth is also a round spheroid.
Bare minimum assume it's a plate, then assume its a ball and finally reason that everything must also be a ball. The part that the ancient thought was different from what we know is the position of Earth in the solar system and the nature and composition of stars and the cosmic backgrounds.
@@SalivatingSteveNow that's just not true. Making wild assumptions isn't science.
@@bigguy7353 it seems more like a hypothesis than a wild assumption.
I see scientists TODAY that say science is purely publishing papers, not the actual method by which truth is discovered. A lot of VERY intelligent people think like this.
Two points: one for and one a against.
1. You have to figure into your assumptions that this is a man writing about agriculture who is very familiar with how animals live. Just like other animals, bacteria aren't as active during the winter and "hybernate" just like other animals. So it isn't that unreasonable for a man to make the connection that whatever was in the swamp had an animal connection.
2. I grew up on a farm surrounded by farmers and I can 100% attest that farmers will refer to everything as a "critter" regardless of context.
Why would the director of a library in Rome know so much about animals and think like a farmer? Maybe there is a minor bias, but I doubt his education was really this one sided. I'd assume education generally was less specific than it is today.
@@nostalji93 I ignorantly assumed it was a well to do farmer writing the book. I guess that's what I get for assuming.
@@jaytucker7873 well I mean your not wrong. (I might be wrong about this so someone please correct me) but most roman nobles were land owners who actually did agriculture on their land so they might not have been in the fields as much as a full time farmer they did alot of work with agriculture.
@@LGreen332 wtf are you talking about?
@@LGreen332 I think your positronic matrix is glitching lore this video is about romans and bacteria nothing to do with Hadrians wall.
I saw the title and yelled to the wife , "Metatron has been debunked ." She yelled back , "He has never been to Japan and he isnt Italian ?" So we HAD to watch the video to find out . :)
And the world crumbles 😂! made me laugh.
Same train of thought here, only without the wife -I'm single.😉
Imagining big reveal: He is a Sicilian who has been to Nippon.
World view shattered.
A woman full of lies.
... Ooops, the rabbit hole goes deep.
Thank you sir for a good laugh.
Nah we'd never get the Metatron mixed up with Steven Seagal
If they did, you're open to it, which is why I always respect you and your opinion.
It's possible that you could make the inference to bacteria, to small to see, when you get accumulation of them or even molds that can be seen. You start with nothing on a piece of meat or bread, then over time you see growth on it. You make the theory it starts with afew to small to see, till there are so many you can see the colonies of them.
Rome truly lost one of its greatest minds when Varro died. I bet the mad Caligula cursed the gods because they didn't allow Varro to briefly come back from the afterlife to help him cure his agonizing sister Drusilla of brain fever
It's ok Caligula gave her his own medicine. The sausage treatment.
@@GothPaoki
It had a good effect…for five seconds…
@@GothPaoki Too soon, buddy! ;)
@@DerrillGuilbertIt's been half a millennia
@@lorddreagus7253 ??
Wow, I have never heard of Varro before; how did I learn about Galen, Euclid and Archimedes in school, but not the guy who predicted microscopic organisms 1500+ years before the microscope?!
Wait to hear about Democritus. What he predicted was even more batshit crazy.
He didn't.
@@tamelo Did you watch Metatron's video? He (Varro) clearly *predicted* the existence of microbes; he describes them with eerie accuracy. He obviously couldn't PROVE IT OR DISCOVER THEM, no microscopes in ancient Rome, which was Metaron's whole point. So (educated) Romans clearly understood the concept of microbes, which was the subject of the original video: 10 "Modern" Things The Romans Had. When last I checked, a concept counts as a thing.
@@GothPaoki Democritus didn't "predict" anything.
You are possibly still misunderstanding something about science.
Romans like Varro had, at best, a _plausible hypothesis_ which nobody could prove until the 17th century. Other ancient theories (like the four elements) were eventually proven wrong just as spectacularly. I am not denying that Varro was a bright mind, of course. But Archimedes had a proof (!) that he could calculate, just like Euclid. School is right to tell us about the geometrists first.
So, the Romans knew people got ill in certain conditions, and worked to prevent those conditions, without _knowing_ how the conditions caused illness. That is impressive enough.
If some Star Trek technobabble eventually will proven to be close to the truth? Yeah, that doesn't mean that Gene Roddenberry or his writers KNEW anything about warp physics or xenobiology.
One could be pedantic that the Romans didn't necessarily knew about bacteria (like we know now for sure), but they theorized their existence.
this....if varro had a microscope he would be considered the father of germ theory today.
It's not as if people never looked at water before they drank it. With all the little bugs in swamp water of varying size, a person just might wonder if there is something so small they can't see it.
The ancient world lacked knowledge but that doesn't mean they were stupid.
I haven't watched yet. I've only read the title. I'm going to guess the answer is "No."
Science doesn't claim to know the truth, but it does strive to learn it.
Certain scienTISTS, however..
In a perfect world. In this world, scientists DO claim a monopoly on truth, even though truth is a philosophical concept. Science has become another religion.
@@jasonshults368I cannot disagree, unfortunately. Science came to such a state where people will blindly listen to everything a scientist says despite there being no research put into it. Take Simulation theory for example. There are NO scientific basis for it, only scientists interpreting findings as "proof" and many still believe them because they are scientists and apparently their claims should never be put into question. Any attempt against a religion will inevitably turn into a religion.
Science™ does to know the Truth™.
Science makes a bunch of presuppositions that are just assumed like the existence of universal laws, existence of linear time, conformity of nature over time, ect.
9/10 someone says something was "debunked", what they really mean is "I found this one cherry picked tidbit that loosely supports my narrative, so I'm going to ignore everything else and act like my thing is all that matters."
yeah and the word 'debunked' is not equal to 'disproved.' I see people use this soft language all the time to try and discredit people sharing important information that is absolutely true and cannot be disproven.
What is worse, is that they used malaria as a red herring when the text itself makes no mention of the word not the concept of malaria.
I would like to recognise the subtle nod to Monty Python reference your 'debunker' slipped at the end. 'What did the Romans ever do for us' is Life of Brian.
Bravo debunker, bravo.
Or brava. The supposed debunker might be a woman. 😁
It’s pretty much what happened with viruses not long ago: people were getting sick, the microscope wouldn’t show anything, the most advanced sieves would not filter anything, so the conclusion was: there must be some agent which is invisible yet present.
The logic of "if he couldn't see bacteria, how did he know it existed?" is baffling. How do we know if black holes exist if we can't see them? Nobody has seen a black hole. It's almost as if there is evidence of a "things" existence without direct observation.
People actually recently did image a black hole, at least everything around it. The black hole itself obviously doesn't let light escape. But agreed, we were able to deduct that they existed because of their effects on gravity.
@@TheRockhound119 That's basically what I was getting at :P
Hmmm, I don't know....I can't see you. I can only go by these words you've typed... I can't see, therefore you aren't?
@@TheRockhound119"recently images a black hole"
So nobody has yet to see one, thank you for being clear on that!
It's like someone would image a bacterium 700 years ago using inferred observations and would say "aha! A bacterium!"
Thank you so much for making this point and stopping people that don't understand science from spreading misinf- oh, wait... you.. you actually think that counts? Welp, at least I know you're probably smarter than the average Nepalese person so eh
Nobody knows what Varro meant. How do you know Varro didn't just mean evil spirits? But Varro is just wrong here, bacteria do not float around in air and cause diseases. A swamp have perfectly fine bacteria free air like anywhere else. But swamps usually have malaria or ticks or other blood sucking insects that are full of bacteria.
Raffaello, the idea of an extremely knowledgeable and intelligent Roman correctly hypothesising "invisible creatures" is not surprising to me. Michael Faraday from his basic/primitive experiments with simple galvanic cells, wires and magnets was able to hypothesise that light was composed of waves of electric and magnetic fields! He was able to make such a bold leap of the imagination because he was a genius!
It really delights me when it is pointed out how much a refined intellect can compensate for lack of technological 'crutches'. There is an important spiritual lesson contained.
Metatron watching Metatron. Meta-metatron?
Although we can't say that the article debunked metatron's claim, it is still valid criticism. The key difference is the use of the word "knew", which is not accurate, as it implies the Romans had proven the existence of bacteria, when based on the passage, we can only say that they "speculated" about their existence. It's still impressive that they were able to deduce something like that, but we also can't claim that they "knew" about them.
That is a fair point.
Knowledge by reasoning doesn't preclude having no express proof. I disagree respectfully. I think "knew about" is suitably accurate and precise for a statement outside an academic paper.
We "know" many things that are "unproven." For example, the theory of gravity. I believe that fixating on the word "knew" is being overly pedantic and is not a great criticism.
The Ancient Greeks knew about the atom. "Knew" as in "were certain of it, only they lacked the technology to prove it". I think the point is that Metatron did not say the Romans knew the word "bacteria"; but Varro knew about bacteria, just like the Greeks knew about the atom.
"as it implies the Romans had proven the existence of bacteria"
Not really. You can have a decently solid understanding of how things behave without being able to proof the exact cause. That is how most technology had worked in recent history. Rewriteable CDs? Yeah - the KNEW it worked, they sold products that worked reliably, they just didn't know how it worked.
in 1546 we got some good hypothesis about diseases being caused by bacteria, it still took over a century for anybody to see the first bacteria, and then another 100 years before any real investigations and progress happened.
I often think about when the Bible was written in Genesis it says a few times "not to mess with blood", I doubt they knew exactly why but a lot of bad stuff can be found in blood. It says that blood doesn't belong to you it belongs to the God of the Bible but might be more than a happy coincidence
Wasn't a happy coincidence. It was God's revelation
Oh and by the way. Penicilin might be a rather new invention, but I once watched a documentary where they translated an old book of a "healer" (Idk the correct term just atm) who had found a recipe that worked as an antibiotic back in middle age times! So they did find cures for illnesses they had not yet "discovered" or known about in detail.
Willow bark was used by ancient Greeks for inflammation. It was later discovered that it contains the same compound that is the main ingredient of asperin.
Could the term you're looking for be something along the lines of "herbalist"?
@@DelinquentChibi It was a German documentary and they called it Wundheiler. Which is a term we don't use anymore. 1:1 it's translated to wound healer. I didnt't find a translation by googling for 3 seconds.
Democritus hypothesised the existence of atoms and that they're the basis of everything almost 2500 years ago . He couldn't see them but still a brilliant deduction.
The things we call "atoms" we've long known aren't actually "atomic" though.
His "atoms" were different and we haven't found that fundamental particle, the one you call atoms can be divided into subatomic particles and the Greek word means that they are indivisible.
Big things being made out of small parts is not a brilliant deduction at all. And his metaphysical conclusions then - and now - are quite blockheaded.
Wow. I thought you knew your languages, Metatron. English is a germanic language with romance words, not a romance language. smh
This reminds me of a book someone sent me a while ago which had a passage where ancient rabbis were complaining that logarithm tables hadn't been invented yet. They knew the tables theortically existed, but nobody had the ability to make them so they had to try and do a calculation which ended up being pretty significantly off because of how many computations were needed and they only took a few decimal places.
I think invented might be the wrong word there. Perhaps "Produced" would be better. However, word usage changes with time, and I could see how someone would say "Invented" even today.
@@arthurmoore9488Bootstrapping might be a more accurate comparison. Or someone writing a compiler for a new programming language. The first iteration has to be attempted, then is further refined and improved upon over time.
I think your biggest error here is claiming that they knew about "bacteria", which is way too specific for them.
It would be better to just broadly say "germs" or "microorganisms", because the ancient romans 100% did NOT know about bacteria, on account of them not even knowing the differences between bacteria and viruses, for example.
They COULD have known about "invisible things that make you sick", as that quote says, but that includes microorganisms from almost every category, not just bacteria.
Either way it’s a little bit disingenuous to say “the Romans knew about bacteria”. When in actuality it was one Roman, who may have suspected something akin to bacteria in one instance. I think it’s a fair critique.
metatron isnt good with critique lol
Holy crap. When he started speaking Japanese and French and I understood it... I'm making progress in relearning it! For clarity- I suffered some serious injuries a while back that left me a drug induced coma for almost 2 years. I lost my leg, half my stomach, some intestines, spleen, a few teeth, and a whole lot of information on my hard drive. I used to speak Russian, Japanese, French, Thai, and really bad Arabic. Most of that is gone now, but I'm trying to relearn it.
Yay me!
Hello Metatron, juli from 🇬🇧 xx❤
I love your videos . They are amazing.
I've noticed some people take more explaining to than others. Personally, I totally agree with you. Common sense & logic is a super power now adays xx😂❤ I suppose its a ytube nitpic x😂😂😂
Ironic
Not everyone in America can explain how the Atomic Bomb works but we all know we have one...
funfact: humans didnt need to see things to prove they exist
some things just make logical sense to some smart people, like how einstein figured out alot about the universe by just making thought experiments in his head, humans in the future a few thousand years from now will be wowed by how many things we figured out without seeing happen that they might prove and see happen
"That dude may have inferred the existence of bacteria like creatures" "So you're saying the romans had microscopes"
you should have pointed out that the atom was theorized by the Greeks 2000 years before it was proven
To me it's more a question of "semantics". Did the Romans, or Varro specifically, KNOW that bacteria/germs existed? Of course they didn't, but they/he INFERRED their existence. So, in a sense, you are both right.
the thing is, science works like this, exoplanets were "discovered" in 1995, but any person with a working brain could see their existance was the logical conclussion of the knowledge we had about stars and planets since the times of galileo. to me a good hypothesis is more valuable than any argument saying "you dont have proof of this".
@@nicolasinvernizzi6140 Sure. But working brains may still be wrong.
Romans like Varro had, at best, a _plausible hypothesis_ which nobody could prove until the 17th century. Other ancient theories (like the four elements) were eventually proven wrong just as spectacularly.
So, the Romans knew people got ill in certain conditions, and worked to prevent those conditions, without _knowing_ how the conditions caused illness. That is impressive enough.
If some Star Trek technobabble eventually will proven to be close to the truth? Yeah, that doesn't mean that Gene Roddenberry or his writers KNEW anything about warp physics or xenobiology.
I would say it's more nitpicking about diction. Metatron was not trying to speak in science language. He was just talking the way you or I or anyone we know would speak. The article writer was being pedantic beyond reason.
You're right, Metatron! This is theoretical science. How many things about the universe were thought out before they were proven, so many. To this day, we use theories on many topics to justify our lack of knowledge. So I think the person who first understands how things work has more credit for figuring it out than the person who proves their theory!
I agree. The Greeks knew about the atom. "What? How could they?". Well, they just used their brains. Unlike that debunked debunker.
@@bassaniobrokenhart5045the Greek atom has nothing to do with today's atom. You could make a case the Greek atom would be more akin to the modern string theory, but at that point, it's so different, it's not worth comparing.
@@methatis3013 Ok, well, you said your part. Not a big contribution to the debate, but you are happy, nevertheless.
@@bassaniobrokenhart5045 better than spreading misinformation. People will read your comment and think "oh that's cool, Greeks knew about atoms", which is just false
Greeks claimed there existed some fundamental particles which couldn't be divided further. This is definitely not the modern atom (since it can be divided into nucleons, which can further be divided into quarks) and even when talking about the standard model, a lot of modern theories suggest that all particles are fluctuations in certain fields. So the fabric of our universe is made up of fields, not particles, which is pretty much the opposite what atomists claimed
Edit: they also never said about atoms bonding and forming molecules. By the Greek model, all atoms would have similar properties to noble gases
@@methatis3013 Geez... You guys are all missing the point here. Which is: just by reasoning, by observation of nature, one can "get to know" about something far before technology allows us to actually see it.
I stand for what I said: the Ancient Greeks not only "knew" that matter was composed of these invisible "bricks", but they gave it a name: atomos (which means "unbreakable". Of course we know now that it actually "is" breakable. But, again, that is not the point here)
That is that. Now, of course they weren't able to reach further, but only the fact that they reached that far is mind blowing to me. Guys with a lot of free time, I suppose.
I think it's fair to say that it's an overstatement that Romans knew about bacteria specifically, but it is interesting they hypothesized about some diseases being caused by invisibly small creatures. It's the first step in an important idea, but not a comprehensive theory about what bacteria are, how they grow and react. It would be like saying Galileo understood gravity because he knew objects of different mass fell at the same rate. It was an important step in understanding gravity, but we wouldn't say he had the same level of understanding as Newton. A hypothesis needs some level of comprehensive theory and proof before it can be truly called an understanding.
On the other hand, it was a good working assumption about how at least some disease was caused, and the conclusions made from this assumption (not living near a swamp) was perfectly valid, and in fact good advice.
Varro was more right about the causes of disease than the inventors of phlogiston theory were about the nature of fire, or Schiaparelli was about canals on Mars.
I think (My Opinion) another clear indication that the Romans knew there is "something" that caused infections in wounds was the fact that the army used huge amounts of vinegar and not only for drinking but It is easily conceivable that the vinegar was also used to disinfect work areas and also wounds. They knew there was something there and by using cleaning methods means there was a higher chance that the wounded soldier would survive. After all, wounded Roman soldiers had a significantly higher chance of survival than the later Christian soldiers/generations. I also think that this idea that something is there comes more from the Greek area and was simply adopted by the Romans. After all, Greek doctors were considered particularly capable.
Haha you speak french so great actually, I wasn't prepared for that 😆
The Greek postulated atoms, just saying...
It's interesting that Varro figured this out, but I doubt his ideas were very widespread given later theories of disease tended to focus on humors; even after bacteria were discovered and even after germ theory was proposed, it was still heavily resisted, so this seems a good idea that didn't take off.
Ah yes, because a single person speculated that unseen organisms cause disease, this means Romans in general "knew about bacteria."
Lets be real, this was merely a hypothesis, and you really dont do much to support the idea that it was a widely held belief. So saying romans in general knew of bacteria, is hyberbolic at best.
Love your content, but a potentially bad take.
By that measure scientists may as well pack-up their gear and get a job at McDonalds, I mean, they'll be some of the few to understand certain aspects of the natural world that the large majority of ordinary people don't understand, therefore their special understanding is discredited because everyone knows that if everybody doesn't share in this knowledge...nobody should.
@@waynemyers2469 how do quantum mechanics work?
@@gabrielsenator6347 Good question and another example of something that is not generally known by the man-on-,the-street but is known by a few scholars who, apparently, will never be recognized because EVERYBODY doesn't know about Quantum Mechanics...I'm not making much sense, am I?
I DEBUNK YOU MI NEGRITO ROMANO LATINO , YOU WIFE SHE IS NOT AN AMERICAN. SALUDOS AMERICUS VESPUCCI, FELIZ CUMPLE AÑOS VISIGODOITALIANO
Really interesting.
But I think that everybody is missing something important here.
Varro claims that "invisible" creatures cause "serious disease" (SD).
What were the SDs that he believed were caused by "VISIBLE" creatures?
More important,
What mechanism(s) did he posit to explain how "creatures" of any size cause SDs?
Varro is making two essentially different claims:
"invisible" creatures exist.
"invisible" creatures cause SD.
The 2nd claim is way more interesting than the 1st.
By the way, IMHO an appeal to authority is kinda lame.
Meta Metatron watching Metatron from an article about Metatron doing Metatron things while being Metatron . Very meta.
I'll see myself out.
That said, the article seems to be from a pedantic perspective of a cut down clip of the video.
As for the Foul Air aspect, there is a source correlation to unpleasant smells and harmful substances. While not causative, the human body has the function of smell designed it evolved to recognize potential harm. I don't remember the details or where, but there is thought to be a similar relationship with some allergies some people have (such as some shellfish and legume allergies).
People in the past were pretty smart, or we wouldn't have been able to stand on their shoulders to get where we are today.
I always hated and hate swamps. Even in ganes.
In Plutarch’s discussion “On The Face that appears on the Orb of the Moon” it is theorized in the dialog whether or not life can exist on other planets.. One point is brought up that one may not likely believe there are large creatures swimming in murky salt water even though it’s brimming with life.
Another point brought up was that it was considered a kind of blasphemy to think there was a part of the earth that is not inhabited because they are ancient texts saying the gods planted life on ever portion of the earth.
The more I study ancient writing the more I’m blown away by how far they thought and and reminded these people were “just people” same as us.
The human Mind (not brain) is incredible. The are more ways to skin a ca, they say. Same goes with understanding. Varro might have understood things, without the need of a microscope. He would have failed to proved his understanding though, to OTHERS. (that lacked his ability to understand). Nothing debunked here. Metatron did nothing wrong
Finally, you have been shut down for good!
The Romans were kind of and forgive the word locusts. They grabbed knowledge and philosophy and books from all over the ancient world often destroying the original sources. It's not really surprising that you find the odd passage about a scientific discovery the Romans can't explain where they have the source. I'm not pretending to be a scholar like metatron But the Romans were famous for this behavior. Lute the city burn it to the ground bring back the books beautiful women maps. The Romans treasured knowledge. So you have like a Frankenstein understanding of many subjects. Lycurgus Cup is perhaps the weirdest example of this.
Reminds me of when a historian tried to debunk TIKhistory when TIKhistory argued the German Army wasn't outnumbered 5-10 to 1 as some historians have tried to portray. TIK argued those historians will often look at the number of Army Divisions involved, but not the strength of those divisions.
Often a Russian Rifle Division was 1/3rd the size of a German Infantry Division even latein the war, so a Russian Rifle Division was more like a Battalion. In turn say a single German Infantry division of 4-12 thousand men were facing off against 5-6 Russian Rifle Divisions of 900-2000 men each.. the German Division wasn't outnumbered 6 to 1. Yet many German generals post war wrote their memoirs that way, counting division numbers not actual numbers of soldiers involved. The German Generals assumed they were badly outnumbered because they often accurately guessed the number of Russian divisions but then used how they structured a division as an estimate on numbers. So the Germans were grossly overestimating the forces they often faced, and stuck with that belief well after the war when writing books on the subject.
Of course the historian tried to use "Math" saying the Germans couldn't be defeated unless they were heavily outnumbered at least 3 to 1 or MORE, ignoring all the human elements, supply elements, confusion, moral, among many other things. Rather than addressing TIKhistory's actual arguments. You'd think Wehraboos who argue the Germans were so great and could fight and win battles offensively against larger forces, wouldn't stoop to the level of you have to outnumber the enemy to win that is basic logic! When that isn't the case at all. Army with the most men isn't always the army that wins.
Well, Martin van Crefeld wrote about these 1:3, 1:5 etc too and is one of the greatest and best Militaryhistorians of the last century. There were these situations. Look after his book: Fightingpower
Tik unironically believes that NSDAP was socialist in a Marxist sense
It's almost like the whole narrative contains more fiction than fact. Hmmm. That seems to be a pattern.
This statement is accurate . By the time of the Late War ALL german troops were AT LEAST 50% under strength while most Allied troops were posting almost a 200% tally in men AND equipment . So that 100 man battalion in Germany was around 50-75 men and next to no gear while the same allied unit was at 150-200 men and between 100 and 200% of assigned gear ..... bur both were shown on paper as the same unit .
@@I_am_Diogenes it always seems to come down to, amateurs study tactics, proffesionals study logistics.
Reminds me of Ignaz Semmelweis. Guy couldn't explain why but he knew from observation that when healthcare workers disinfected their hands the patients had a much higher chance of survival.
You going off in multiple languages after mispronouncing "tastes" cracked me up 😂
Perhaps it would've been more clarifying if you'd said the Romans knew about "germs" instead of "bacteria," which is a term that's more specific in the context of modern biology.
Ok but why does it matter that some author about agriculture mentionned this hypothesis? It would've mattered if the source was a roman medical book, not an agriculture book. It would've mattered if Romans acted differently knowing about bacteria, for example if they pasteurised foods in an attempt to kill/weaken the "small creatures".
To conclude that Romans as a whole "knew" about bacteria because one of them had good intuition seems pretty far fetched to me.
Tbh i agree with the "debunking" article.
Especially from the epistemological point of view. I would not say Romans (or one Roman) "knew" about bacteria (or rather small organisms, that we are not able to see by eye). He said there are such beeings without that much evidence to say that, he just happened to be right. How could he habe known that the small things causing sickness are alive?
Imo we can not say he knew that, it is kore like a lucky shot in the tark to me.
Still, I really enjoy this video, i like the civil manner of taking on civil criticism.
Sounds like Metatron doesn’t know just how big Canada is.
Canada doesn’t exist
You mean Snow Mexico?
@@metatronyt🔥🔥🔥🔥
Canada is an old name. The land formerly known as Canada is now more widely known as Cuckistan.
@@metatronytDon't confuse us with Australia, Florida or...the Roman Empire 😂
per another of y our recent videos, we must be careful about generalizations such as "The Romans knew..." or "The Greeks thought...". Here we have _one_ Roman who had somehow _reasoned_ or _speculated_ microscopic creatures that could be responsible for disease. It is probably an error to suppose who knew or speculated on anything quite like bacteria. Certainly Romans were familiar with tiny parasites, including some varieties _almost_ too small to be seen. And they knew these tiny parasites could cause illness. It thus would not be a great leap to suppose yet smaller parasites, but in a similar vein. And this seems likely what he had in mind: very tiny bugs or worms. Perhaps something more akin to a tardigrade or other microfauna--far larger than their own cells, of course, let alone bacteria. It is even possible the magnification by means, say, of a water droplet, had revealed some such barely microscopic creatures to inquisitive ancients.
I'd say in these kind of situations we should differentiate between "knowing" and "guessing right". If I ask you "What's in my pocket?" and you guess rightly that it's "Ring", would it make sense saying you "knew" what was in my pocket? I'd say no. Some ancient Romans might have guessed correctly that there might be microscopic living beings causing diseases, it doesn't mean they "knew" it. Same way i don't consider that Democritus knew about our modern model of atoms just because he thought everything was made of things he called "atoms".
My only criticism is that he has proven that ONE important Roman official & scholar knew about bacteria. Not that “the Romans” knew about germs. He may have been dismissed by his contemporaries as some sort of kook or heretic. Or his idea might have been almost entirely unknown to the vast majority of Romans, including the aristocrat class.
What other sources indicate that Varro’s theory was well known? Or, even it was, that it was accepted? Are there any writings by other key Romans? Or perhaps a law against building near swamps because of the “invisible animals”? Were Roman legions directed to avoid encampments in such areas for fear of these tiny creatures?
Are there other writings that say things like “as everyone knows, disease is caused by being cursed by the gods”? Or “before marching through swampy terrain, an offering to Vejovis is the only known way to avoid disease”?
Right now I’m only sure that at least one Roman was able to use logic and observation to come up with a theory that was proven correct many centuries later.
Googledebunkers? This is Googledebonkers!
Ancient authors made up too many explainations for anything and you picked the one who happened to be right. Sorry, but Romans didn't know abou bacteria. They "knew" about bad smells
Almost exact same case could be made about Democritus and the atom.
that Democritus was wrong about the atom? That the literally meaning indivisible can be in fact broken apart?
@@holz_namewell what we call an atom today, Democritus definitely wouldn't consider an atom
Nope.
@@holz_name No he was not. We were wrong by calling the atom the atom because it was definitely not unsplittable.
@@str.77 why not ?
At 12:40 how can Varro be the director of the "imperial" library at Rome, if he lived from 116 to 27 BC? Please debunk this.
As a writer, when I'm feeling too lazy to do my own research, I watch Metatron's videos
exactly. Getting your info from a YTber who claims the Romans knew about bacteria while at the same time didn't wash their hands, used mouse brains as toothpaste, shared stones in the communal toilet to clean their asses.
i think he is right, you said "roman knew about bacteria" but the evidence you quote show some of roman had intuition of something resembling what we now call bacteria. Saying they (as a whole) "know" is indeed an hyperbolic dramatisation. That sort of exaggeration is fine on youtube entertainment, but scientifically speaking it's indeed a false statement.
"I like what I like and others can shuddup."
Like this video.
That was a command. Do it. XD
🫡 sir! Yes sir 🫡
Individual bacteria are invisible. But bacterial film is definitely visible, and you can watch it grow from something invisible to very visible. It's not *that* difficult to make the conclusion that this is something living which is growing and multiplying.
The aliens that built the pyramids and told Columbus the world was round probably told the Romans about bacteria.
History Channel?
Did these aliens tell the Greeks about gay sex?
Everybody knew the world was round at the time of Columbus
Are the aliens in the room with us right now?
@@rogeriopenna9014 Your reading comprehension could use some work if you didn't see the word "aliens" and deduce this was an obvious joke
Rafaelos are the DELICIOUS white equivalent( white chocolate, coconut/hazelnut cream, crispy biscuit) of Ferrero Rochers.
Hearing this appetizing name gave me an intense craving for Rafaelos.
Subliminal advertising is powerful.
Varro had a wild af lifetime. He was born when the dictator Sulla was at the beginning of his military career and died when Rome was already an Empire under Augustus. I cannot even imagine the amount of amazing things he saw through his entire life
I mean the fact that he survived the Post-Caesar Civil Wars is insane in itself
It’s the same thing with the existence of gravitons today. The theoretic framework exists for us to guess with a certain level of certainty that Gravitons exist. But we have NEVER observed them because we lack the technology to observe them.
Considering how much so many "modern" people seem to lack in logic and reason, I can understand how someone looking into the past, credits whoever they look into, with even less logic and reason, understanding of things or otherwise deductive abilities.
Is it completely out of the question that one person invented a very simple microscope and then he wrote about it and he died without explaining it to anyone? The Romans had solid, bead-like glass magnifiers, so who knows!
Also, remember Giordano Bruno who had a dream, or rather, perhaps he astral projected into space and discovered the earth revolved around the sun and the sun was just one of many stars. Maybe this guy had a dream about germs. A lot of scientists reported that they had a dream about something and they tried it and it lead to a great breakthrough. Maybe our subconscious is capable of much more complicated thought and it understands things that we do not.
Semantically, there is a vast difference between "one Roman wrote about invisible creatures at least once", and "The Romans" (as in all or most of them) " *knew* about bacteria" .
By that reasoning, the Ancient Greeks *knew* about Atlantis. (And Atoms).
Agree, I was a little disappointed in Metatron being a linguist and missing this point.
I'm going to have to say I agree with you on this one completely he was right.
That you are correct
just like kingdom, phylum, class, order, family,genus, species.
He used Is terminology, would tell me that he knew exactly what he was talking about, minus any Visual Evidence other then human sickness as his evidence of thr creatures, so proof,
So he had physical evidence and results. That's what a theory is, an educated guess, based off of genaral principles to explain unknown thing, that's how he justified his ideas and can prove it without seeing said creature.
Being "debunked" these days should be worn as a badge of honour, as we all know what it means in their newspeak.
It's not really one of those
@@doommaker4000 You are correct. But I've seen it be "one of those" so many times, I might as well it up there.
Ceaslessly impressed by the depth and breadth of your research. Keep up the great work, always educational. Thank you.
Imagine if Varro lived during the infamous era of the Antonine Plague. His investigations on the disease would hsve been AMAZING
Isn't it funny how 4,6% of your viewers are from Germany 😂
Including me let's go💪
0:40 metatrons praetorian guards: oh come on we have to stab someone today.
Much of what the Greek philosphers discovered was by reason alone. Including things that were too small to be seen by the naked eye. They did little actual experimentation.
Regarding microscope, it can be said safely that optical lenses were known in the antique. There are also references to what seemed to have been optical apparatuses used for astronomy/astrology. Thus it may well have been that someone had devised a microscope back then.
I think we need to be exceedingly carefull with such claims.
It's very easy to project modern knowledge into history.
Religious people do this all the time, similarly people trying to claim their culture was historically more advanced that otherwise thought.
That being said it's not unreasonable to think that these ancient people would have some idea's about what causes the things they observe. But we have to recognise that while some of these idea's turned out to be at least close to reality, they often earlier or later also had wrong idea's about these things. Which makes the achievement somewhat less impressive.
debunker just got debunked. metatron never disapoints.
I dont see why they have such an issue with romans knowing about microbes. It's essentially like how we knew black holes must exist for many decades before we could ever directly observe one. Knowing something exists and actually being able to observe it are two different things.
"Life changing announcement, Metatron has been debunked!" with that title as soon as I heard life changing announcement I started laughing xd