The openimg sequence of absolutely batshit theories from very smart people definitely supports my theory that no one person can figure it all out, even the smartest off us are dumb about something
Exactly. Our strength as a species is in our ability to collaborate and communicate to learn and grow as a collective. “Everyone you meet knows something you don’t” and everyone you meet can do something you can’t. Has a unique perspective to solve a problem that stumps you. And not to seem off topic, but it highlights the loss to our collective knowledge that comes from so many minds dismissed and gone to waste, because they were hidden under bows or dark skin, or the pall of poverty.
I'm listening to my autosuggested playlist, tons of SciShow, Tangents, Microcosmos, and the beginning of this sounded similar to one of the previous Halloween episodes, but then I was like... "Wait, we haven't had this guest yet", then I looked at the screen and sure enough, it's the latest patch of Hank Green!
I enjoyed the discussion on honing theories! I feel that it actually does a fantastic job of explaining science as a whole and clarifying several things that public opinion misunderstands about science! Science is a series of observations and explanations. We make a theory not to spitball an idea, but to produce an explanation for our observations. When we realize that it isn't quite right, we may or may not dismiss it, but it may be missing a piece of the puzzle!
Dan is so cool. His podcast is my go to when travelling on the car. I used to do that with sci show tangents as well until it made its appearance on TH-cam Thank you for a hilarious episode.
For those interested in learning more about Nostradamus' jam proclivities, Max Miller's video on the Tasting History channel is great! The vid is called: Cookbook of Nostradamus: Prophecies in the Kitchen.
It might just be me who thought the theory of mind explanation was a bit confusing, but just in case other people thought so too, this is the simple explanation: theory of mind is a term that means "the ability to understand what other people are thinking, knowing, or feeling, even if it's different from your own thoughts, knowledge, and feelings." Empathy, for instance, is a subset of theory of mind specifically related to understanding emotions. I suspect it's called "theory of mind" using the layman's sense of "theory = hypothesis/guess", as in it's the ability to have "a hypothesis about someone else's mind."
We need local sideshow tangent clubs where we can meet other people that appreciate all of this type of discussion and humor so that we can have our own little tangents and make friends. I don't know how to make this happen but I would really like it if this could happen. If someone finds a way to make this a thing officially with like a web page I will totally be part of it!
The gravitational constant isn't constant, everytime mass leaves the earth, the number changes, voyager leaving out solar system changed the gravitational constant, as does the fluctuations in the mass of the sun due to entropy. Tiny amounts, yes, but relevant, also yes.
Isn't the reason why your shower curtain moves towards you have to do with the temperature difference between the room and the shower itself? The temperature inside the shower tends to be warmer than the temperature outside of the shower so the higher temperature has a higher pressure pulling the curtain towards it.
My dad always referred to the hairy ball theorem as the “you can’t comb a cue ball” theorem, and he is a physicist. It can be applied to all sorts of electromagnetic and particle physics, so I kinda feel that point was stolen from our resident every-wolfman
The friendship paradox makes a lot of sense, only because we're talking about mean averages. Most of your friends probably have about the same number of friends of you, but you probably have one or two friends who have a LOT more friends, which really brings up the average. I expect this would be a lot less noticeable if you looked at median or mode averages instead. It's not dissimilar to the fact that less than 1% of the US population controls over 99% of the nation's wealth, or any other example of Zipf's law in action. A small subset of the population brings the mean average well above the vast majority of individuals within the population. If you took a random sampling of individuals and measured the number of friends they have, you may well end up with a normal distribution, but asking the average number of friends that their friends have is a very different type of question because your friends are not random. As Hank said, the people who have a lot of friends bring up the mean average for most of their many friends.
I know that Ceri and I are preaching to the choir here, but it's normal and by design that theories CAN be proven wrong (though often they're not entirely wrong and just need some tweaking). The ideal state of the scientific method is that new evidence should support your previous models/predictions and if it doesn't it's usually because either the new evidence is flawed, or the old model is wrong and requires rethinking. It's very unlikely that the Theory of Evolution will ever be proven wrong, but I think it's entirely plausible that we might find evidence which shows that there are additional mechanisms for how natural selection acts, or different genetic expression patterns that will affect how we talk about evolution in the future, for example.
I thought the hairy ball model is used in astronomy somehow? I think I heard that it has something to do with models that predict what happens to black holes. Not sure if it's related to Hawking radiation or something else, but if I remember correctly it's something about how you can't have a black hole that emits no radiation or particles because if you model it as a hairy ball, there must always be some hairs sticking out so the black hole can't be perfectly smooth.
shower curtains follow the lower pressure of the down draft of the water ppulling air down , and there fore the high pressure on the outside pushes it in
I listen to No such thing as a fish every single night while I go to sleep. I’ve listened to every single episode of the 500 episodes so far. I watched and listened to this podcast for a solid 15 minutes, constantly thinking : One; Dan Schreiber. Why is that name so familiar. Two, I know that voice so well but it’s in the wrong place, this is Sideshow Tangents. 🤦♂️🤦♂️🤦♂️
Did the authors comment on why the “S” was so commonly used when the monkeys typed? Perhaps because an “S” looks like a snake? Has anyone studied whether a keyboard with a different layout leads to similar frequency of “S”s??
i don’t know why you don’t know this, guys. i mean, jeez. if you take a string, necklace, or anything you can attach a small weight onto, you take it and hold it over the mum’s tummy. if the pendulum goes back and forth - it’s a boy. if goes around and around in a circle - it’s a girl. i mean it’s that easy. and it works maybe 50% of the time. how much more science do you need? jeesh! 🙄🙀👧🏻👦🏾👧🏻😈🤣 have a nice day! :) 🌷🌱
37:05 A few details from this Man Who Saw Tomorrow contextualizer for effects of Nostradamus’ predictions didn’t sit right with my recollection so I did some digging and will share the results. First clarifier, have zero reason to believe Dan was inflammatory in recounting the story, just think a word choice made in the moment of podcasting was misleading, and relying on a primary Biographical source being Niles Le Freak (Coming to America section beginning on the last paragraph of 252, with Murphy Nostradamus conjecture starting mid 253). While totally possible Murphy may have held that belief , and caused the distress mentioned, I have not been able to find any interviews or statements to corroborate it which I find weird cosidering Landis and Murphy very much didn’t like each other following production, and production difficulties are cheap and easy Ad Hominem for Landis to not swing at. Again totally plausible just as far as I know or could find that it’s Word v Word which in Fact Off though not the primary discussion point here falls into anecdote territory. Now the word choice quibble that started this reading project, lol. George Orwell didn’t Front The Man Who Saw Tomorrow. In film fronting a project implies you are producer on the film who’s fronting the money for production. Orwell was undoubtedly the lead or star of the production, but as far as I am aware his role was strictly as a presenter. Again I can’t know the thoughts of anyone especially a deceased writer/actor but accounts of Wells portray him as mystically skeptical. So his subject endorsement is fuzzy, but without question he clearly became discontent of being the face of something ‘…that might as well have been written with random telephone numbers’ vaguely recalled not actual quote. This has been My Ted Talk no one asked for. Great episode. Look forward to more spoopiness
Post-emptive. Script. Will be trying to get Dans book at a library vaguely near me asap to see if there is more throughout citations for anything mentioned.
Trick or treat month!? WHY ISN'T IT OKAY GO TO TRICK OR TREATING ALL MONTH LONG!? It should be. It should be a month-long thing. HELP INCREASE THE NUMBER OF DIABETUS CASES!! Normalize going out in costume all month long.
if you _truly_ don't understand why the shower curtain swings in, then I have _no_ reason whatsoever to hear anything else you say as intelligent. _PLEASE_ tell me you aren't serious on that one.
Hairy ball theorem is not a theory as the heliocentric theory is a theory. I think the meaning of theory should have distinguished between mathematical theories such as Graph Theory and scientific theories.
I am here for Hank’s anti-cladistic view. Clades are dumb. Any category that says humans and fish are the same thing is a bad category. Anytime I hear a biologist say “humans are technically fish” just makes me think “we just need better categories that actually categorize life based on evolutionary relationships but doesn’t extend these boxes to such ridiculous extremes” My personal take is that once you get to a new “category” then that is your category. We can say x is related to y, but y is not x and y at the same time. In this view, humans are not fish and birds are not dinosaurs. Humans are descendants of fish, and birds are descendants of dinosaurs (and also fish). You could call this hair splitting, but I don’t think it helps anyone but the already informed to have these kinds of definitions, especially with the smug way everyone wants to say “well birds actually _are_ dinosaurs”….when everyone in the world has a picture in their head when they hear the word dinosaur, and it isn’t a chicken. It’s a large, reptilian, possibly feathered ancient animal. It doesn’t help anyone understand birds (beyond their evolutionary origins) to call them dinosaurs, and given the span of time between now and when dinosaurs were alive, birds don’t really help us to understand dinosaurs all that much better than a lot of other animals (predatory mammals are going to be a better analogue for a predatory dinosaur than a random bird. Emus might help you understand dinosaurs that live in a similar lifestyle, but your average little flying bird is much further from any big dinosaur in lifestyle than a large predatory mammal, even if they are a lot more closely related. Sorry for the rant, but caldistics has been a bee in my bonnet for a little while. By the logic of cladistics, no clade has ever gone extinct, it simply evolved and branched from the first life forms until today….and while that is a beautiful story about the tree of life, it defeats the entire purpose of the categories in the first place. It also is terrible for categorizing the vast majority of life on earth, microorganism, where horizontal transfer of genes is pretty common….how do you draw clades for a life form that got most of its genes from other unrelated life forms?…like I’m sure we could map the genes if we wanted to…but to me this just implies this is a dead end in terms of categorizing life.
I think it is better to change the way one thinks about life than to try to go back to a box form of thinking that one was introduced to as a child. Cladistics is a different way of thinking, not simply a different way of labeling. I'd also like to point out that clades do go extinct all the time. If there are no descendants from a particular lineage then that lineage and that clade have gone extinct. I think it's perfectly fine to have additional labels that are not part of cladistics such as fish, but I do not think that it is advantageous to only have those types of labels because it limits one's ability to think in a form that better matches reality.
No way!!! My best friend’s husband nicknamed me Batshit Crazy! Usually abbreviated to Batshit. I could not figure out why he would think I’m crazy. I’m 55, white, southern, baptist, and a professional. Just a normal woman. Then I told my best friend about how the women in my family believe electronics fix themselves and that my ice maker had fixed itself that day. And my belief that if we want a certain type pet, we describe it then send it out to God and the World and that pet will come to us. It’s happened many times for us (mainly me and my daughters). THEN I realized he might be right. Maybe I am batshit crazy?!?!?😂😢
Slow down there Hank nobody said Ringo was a good drummer.. you'll notice your guest even described the style as "sloppy". Keep being nice to kids, it will not prevent good drumming. It may even stop sloppy drumming.
The openimg sequence of absolutely batshit theories from very smart people definitely supports my theory that no one person can figure it all out, even the smartest off us are dumb about something
Exactly. Our strength as a species is in our ability to collaborate and communicate to learn and grow as a collective. “Everyone you meet knows something you don’t” and everyone you meet can do something you can’t. Has a unique perspective to solve a problem that stumps you. And not to seem off topic, but it highlights the loss to our collective knowledge that comes from so many minds dismissed and gone to waste, because they were hidden under bows or dark skin, or the pall of poverty.
This is the first time I’ve noticed Ceri has pictures at eye level for her cat 🥹🥰
Dan should be a regularly recurring guest !!! YES!!!!! 💕
"those piss filled little guys" is just such an unhinged statement 😂😂😂
Dan is such a joy! Please come back, and often!
Hank is starting to look like a young Dr. House 😮
Yes! And it’s amazing.
Now that's all I can see 😂
Its the start of his new arc
I don't see it.
He looks great with a hairy face, love it!
I'm listening to my autosuggested playlist, tons of SciShow, Tangents, Microcosmos, and the beginning of this sounded similar to one of the previous Halloween episodes, but then I was like... "Wait, we haven't had this guest yet", then I looked at the screen and sure enough, it's the latest patch of Hank Green!
Spooky Tangents is my favorite time of the year! 🎃
I enjoyed the discussion on honing theories! I feel that it actually does a fantastic job of explaining science as a whole and clarifying several things that public opinion misunderstands about science!
Science is a series of observations and explanations. We make a theory not to spitball an idea, but to produce an explanation for our observations. When we realize that it isn't quite right, we may or may not dismiss it, but it may be missing a piece of the puzzle!
Second, the Hairy Ball made me think of the Three Hairs of a black hole, but nope!
(PBS Space Time has a good video about it).
This is my favorite channel, two week breaks is tough, but I appreciate the effort required.
I love the Spooky Tangents Episodes! I'm so glad that you do the extra work to make these happen. Thank you!
So you're saying that fish farts were a red herring for enemy sonar?
"Teoria e pratica" is still a very common phrase/concept in Italy all these centuries later
The friendship Paradox: I wouldn't be part of any club that would have me.
@47:25 And we love Sam for this ❤
Dan is so cool. His podcast is my go to when travelling on the car. I used to do that with sci show tangents as well until it made its appearance on TH-cam
Thank you for a hilarious episode.
Long live SciShow Tangents!!
My absolute favorite part of this episode is the Freud dunk right at the end 😂
For those interested in learning more about Nostradamus' jam proclivities, Max Miller's video on the Tasting History channel is great! The vid is called: Cookbook of Nostradamus: Prophecies in the Kitchen.
I am somehow catching all of my favorite channels uploads super early today, this should be a fun one!
It’s Dan Schreiber from my favourite podcast.
I predict you'll love this jam 😂😂😂
It might just be me who thought the theory of mind explanation was a bit confusing, but just in case other people thought so too, this is the simple explanation: theory of mind is a term that means "the ability to understand what other people are thinking, knowing, or feeling, even if it's different from your own thoughts, knowledge, and feelings." Empathy, for instance, is a subset of theory of mind specifically related to understanding emotions.
I suspect it's called "theory of mind" using the layman's sense of "theory = hypothesis/guess", as in it's the ability to have "a hypothesis about someone else's mind."
Came here for this comment! Thanks
I just need Hank to know that his voice at the beginning was like 3/4 of the way of a Dana Carvey Ronal Reagan impression.
We need local sideshow tangent clubs where we can meet other people that appreciate all of this type of discussion and humor so that we can have our own little tangents and make friends. I don't know how to make this happen but I would really like it if this could happen. If someone finds a way to make this a thing officially with like a web page I will totally be part of it!
that def sounds fun. im sure social media like discord, facebook or reddit would be great at hosting something like that
hank rockin' the facial hair, he finally is post puberty hank!
it's a good look honestly
LOL pooping on the key board ssssssstakethatbosssssssssss LOL!!!
Yo I loved the spore reference Hank
The gravitational constant isn't constant, everytime mass leaves the earth, the number changes, voyager leaving out solar system changed the gravitational constant, as does the fluctuations in the mass of the sun due to entropy. Tiny amounts, yes, but relevant, also yes.
I've got a theory ... it could be bunnies.
I looked up the quasi thin groups thing and even the wiki article is entirely impenetrable lol
“Frenology but for balls” 😂
Isn't the reason why your shower curtain moves towards you have to do with the temperature difference between the room and the shower itself? The temperature inside the shower tends to be warmer than the temperature outside of the shower so the higher temperature has a higher pressure pulling the curtain towards it.
My dad always referred to the hairy ball theorem as the “you can’t comb a cue ball” theorem, and he is a physicist. It can be applied to all sorts of electromagnetic and particle physics, so I kinda feel that point was stolen from our resident every-wolfman
I've learned so much weird stuff watching these. lol
Dan!! 😁
The friendship paradox makes a lot of sense, only because we're talking about mean averages. Most of your friends probably have about the same number of friends of you, but you probably have one or two friends who have a LOT more friends, which really brings up the average. I expect this would be a lot less noticeable if you looked at median or mode averages instead.
It's not dissimilar to the fact that less than 1% of the US population controls over 99% of the nation's wealth, or any other example of Zipf's law in action. A small subset of the population brings the mean average well above the vast majority of individuals within the population.
If you took a random sampling of individuals and measured the number of friends they have, you may well end up with a normal distribution, but asking the average number of friends that their friends have is a very different type of question because your friends are not random. As Hank said, the people who have a lot of friends bring up the mean average for most of their many friends.
Salmon with butter and lemon.
Seahorses are related to pipefish
That makes sense given how closely related horses are to pipes.
Karry Mullis got spiked with something, and never lived down that trip.
I know that Ceri and I are preaching to the choir here, but it's normal and by design that theories CAN be proven wrong (though often they're not entirely wrong and just need some tweaking). The ideal state of the scientific method is that new evidence should support your previous models/predictions and if it doesn't it's usually because either the new evidence is flawed, or the old model is wrong and requires rethinking. It's very unlikely that the Theory of Evolution will ever be proven wrong, but I think it's entirely plausible that we might find evidence which shows that there are additional mechanisms for how natural selection acts, or different genetic expression patterns that will affect how we talk about evolution in the future, for example.
Cleaning my fish tank as the fish question came up. At the moment, my kuhli loach is best fish
I agree! Love those guys ❤
Proud to announce I'm at the lowest end of the friendship paradox.
Theory of mind should be called theory of the hypothesis of the mind of others
I thought the hairy ball model is used in astronomy somehow? I think I heard that it has something to do with models that predict what happens to black holes. Not sure if it's related to Hawking radiation or something else, but if I remember correctly it's something about how you can't have a black hole that emits no radiation or particles because if you model it as a hairy ball, there must always be some hairs sticking out so the black hole can't be perfectly smooth.
shower curtains follow the lower pressure of the down draft of the water ppulling air down , and there fore the high pressure on the outside pushes it in
I listen to No such thing as a fish every single night while I go to sleep. I’ve listened to every single episode of the 500 episodes so far. I watched and listened to this podcast for a solid 15 minutes, constantly thinking : One; Dan Schreiber. Why is that name so familiar. Two, I know that voice so well but it’s in the wrong place, this is Sideshow Tangents. 🤦♂️🤦♂️🤦♂️
I have done the fall asleep to older episodes of Fish! Dan's been on the podcast circuit on BBC radio lately. Great content!
rewatching later. forgot about bearded hank. wow.
Did the authors comment on why the “S” was so commonly used when the monkeys typed? Perhaps because an “S” looks like a snake? Has anyone studied whether a keyboard with a different layout leads to similar frequency of “S”s??
I'd argue heliocentrism is more a Kuhnian paradigm that a theory as you've defined it. I mean per se it doesn't make falsifiable predictions.
Sally’s clearly metagaming
Nooo, whale sharks is a GREAT shark... Not THE great Shark, but A GREAT shark!! :D
I miss Spore so much THAT game needs a sequel
Please tell me this one gets in the poem collection too
i took personal offence to sam saying whale sharks are boring
Does the Friendship Paradox then imply that friendship is an inverse pyramid scheme?
i don’t know why you don’t know this, guys. i mean, jeez. if you take a string, necklace, or anything you can attach a small weight onto, you take it and hold it over the mum’s tummy. if the pendulum goes back and forth - it’s a boy. if goes around and around in a circle - it’s a girl. i mean it’s that easy. and it works maybe 50% of the time. how much more science do you need? jeesh! 🙄🙀👧🏻👦🏾👧🏻😈🤣 have a nice day! :) 🌷🌱
apparently cancer does a man good, Hank has never looked hotter!
I’m not sure if ghost works as a better pun for host or guest
a 'guest host' is a 'ghost ghost'
@@SciShowTangents a spookial ghost ghost
Basically we need the whole show to be completely indecipherable by the end of the month
37:05 A few details from this Man Who Saw Tomorrow contextualizer for effects of Nostradamus’ predictions didn’t sit right with my recollection so I did some digging and will share the results. First clarifier, have zero reason to believe Dan was inflammatory in recounting the story, just think a word choice made in the moment of podcasting was misleading, and relying on a primary Biographical source being Niles Le Freak (Coming to America section beginning on the last paragraph of 252, with Murphy Nostradamus conjecture starting mid 253). While totally possible Murphy may have held that belief , and caused the distress mentioned, I have not been able to find any interviews or statements to corroborate it which I find weird cosidering Landis and Murphy very much didn’t like each other following production, and production difficulties are cheap and easy Ad Hominem for Landis to not swing at. Again totally plausible just as far as I know or could find that it’s Word v Word which in Fact Off though not the primary discussion point here falls into anecdote territory.
Now the word choice quibble that started this reading project, lol. George Orwell didn’t Front The Man Who Saw Tomorrow. In film fronting a project implies you are producer on the film who’s fronting the money for production. Orwell was undoubtedly the lead or star of the production, but as far as I am aware his role was strictly as a presenter. Again I can’t know the thoughts of anyone especially a deceased writer/actor but accounts of Wells portray him as mystically skeptical. So his subject endorsement is fuzzy, but without question he clearly became discontent of being the face of something ‘…that might as well have been written with random telephone numbers’ vaguely recalled not actual quote.
This has been My Ted Talk no one asked for. Great episode. Look forward to more spoopiness
Post-emptive. Script. Will be trying to get Dans book at a library vaguely near me asap to see if there is more throughout citations for anything mentioned.
Trick or treat month!? WHY ISN'T IT OKAY GO TO TRICK OR TREATING ALL MONTH LONG!? It should be. It should be a month-long thing. HELP INCREASE THE NUMBER OF DIABETUS CASES!! Normalize going out in costume all month long.
6:50 shower curtaions... tell me you don't understand thermodynamics without saying you don't understand thermodynamics.
if you _truly_ don't understand why the shower curtain swings in, then I have _no_ reason whatsoever to hear anything else you say as intelligent. _PLEASE_ tell me you aren't serious on that one.
Hairy ball theorem is not a theory as the heliocentric theory is a theory. I think the meaning of theory should have distinguished between mathematical theories such as Graph Theory and scientific theories.
I am here for Hank’s anti-cladistic view.
Clades are dumb. Any category that says humans and fish are the same thing is a bad category. Anytime I hear a biologist say “humans are technically fish” just makes me think “we just need better categories that actually categorize life based on evolutionary relationships but doesn’t extend these boxes to such ridiculous extremes”
My personal take is that once you get to a new “category” then that is your category. We can say x is related to y, but y is not x and y at the same time.
In this view, humans are not fish and birds are not dinosaurs. Humans are descendants of fish, and birds are descendants of dinosaurs (and also fish).
You could call this hair splitting, but I don’t think it helps anyone but the already informed to have these kinds of definitions, especially with the smug way everyone wants to say “well birds actually _are_ dinosaurs”….when everyone in the world has a picture in their head when they hear the word dinosaur, and it isn’t a chicken. It’s a large, reptilian, possibly feathered ancient animal. It doesn’t help anyone understand birds (beyond their evolutionary origins) to call them dinosaurs, and given the span of time between now and when dinosaurs were alive, birds don’t really help us to understand dinosaurs all that much better than a lot of other animals (predatory mammals are going to be a better analogue for a predatory dinosaur than a random bird. Emus might help you understand dinosaurs that live in a similar lifestyle, but your average little flying bird is much further from any big dinosaur in lifestyle than a large predatory mammal, even if they are a lot more closely related.
Sorry for the rant, but caldistics has been a bee in my bonnet for a little while.
By the logic of cladistics, no clade has ever gone extinct, it simply evolved and branched from the first life forms until today….and while that is a beautiful story about the tree of life, it defeats the entire purpose of the categories in the first place.
It also is terrible for categorizing the vast majority of life on earth, microorganism, where horizontal transfer of genes is pretty common….how do you draw clades for a life form that got most of its genes from other unrelated life forms?…like I’m sure we could map the genes if we wanted to…but to me this just implies this is a dead end in terms of categorizing life.
I think it is better to change the way one thinks about life than to try to go back to a box form of thinking that one was introduced to as a child. Cladistics is a different way of thinking, not simply a different way of labeling. I'd also like to point out that clades do go extinct all the time. If there are no descendants from a particular lineage then that lineage and that clade have gone extinct. I think it's perfectly fine to have additional labels that are not part of cladistics such as fish, but I do not think that it is advantageous to only have those types of labels because it limits one's ability to think in a form that better matches reality.
No way!!! My best friend’s husband nicknamed me Batshit Crazy! Usually abbreviated to Batshit. I could not figure out why he would think I’m crazy. I’m 55, white, southern, baptist, and a professional. Just a normal woman. Then I told my best friend about how the women in my family believe electronics fix themselves and that my ice maker had fixed itself that day. And my belief that if we want a certain type pet, we describe it then send it out to God and the World and that pet will come to us. It’s happened many times for us (mainly me and my daughters). THEN I realized he might be right. Maybe I am batshit crazy?!?!?😂😢
Slow down there Hank nobody said Ringo was a good drummer.. you'll notice your guest even described the style as "sloppy". Keep being nice to kids, it will not prevent good drumming. It may even stop sloppy drumming.