How to tell science from pseudoscience
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 30 มิ.ย. 2024
- Each time I say "G5" I mean "5G". Sorry about that!
Is the earth flat? Is 5G is a mind-control experiment by the Russian government? What about the idea that COVID was engineered by the vaccine industry? In this video I explain how you can tell apart science from pseudoscience. Instead of giving you a long and mostly useless philosophical lecture, I will tell you a simple criterion that you can apply for most cases, which is that scientific models are the ones that explain lots of observations with few assumptions.
Support me on Patreon: / sabine - วิทยาศาสตร์และเทคโนโลยี
The Flat Earth Society is reporting that social distancing is pushing some of its members over the edge.
The Flat Earth Society has gone global.
Good one. 🤣
Fascinating! If they fall off the edge, will they fall forever, or will they eventually hit something?
Sorry but that's nonsense. The edge is guarded by the UN and anyone approaching it is automatically transported back to the center.
Omfg lmao that's a awesome one
I think pseudoscience has an advantage over actual science because it makes you feel like a genius without you having to do actual work. It's like McDonalds for the mind.
Astrology doesn't do the work of collecting data. And when data is found that conflicts with it, the data is ignored. This is another advantage.
@What See what economist Michael Hudson says about "junk economics", which in his opinion is most of economics.
So what pseudoscientific theory would be the equivalent of a happy meal....XD
@@Cyberplayer5 I think classical economics has about the same predictive value in the real world as a happy meal.
@@jeffreyquinn3820 You don't believe in the Big Mac-Index? How dare you!
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Mac_Index
"It is possible to control other people minds, and yet somehow that has not prevented you from figuring out that minds are being controlled". That statement is pure gold Sabine!! Love your work. :)
not quite, but I am happy you are enjoying it
Have you noticed how Sabine has conveniently skipped debunking of the third case?
@@zdenekpavlas3566 The ad-hoc explanation for that would be that she's part of a global conspiracy to create and distribute a deadly pathogen. The simple explanation is that it was just an example she mentioned in passing, not the main point of the video.
@@zdenekpavlas3566 Indeed. And now we are being told it "may" have come from a lab, which many of us held from the beginning.
Isn't that what tin-foil hats are for? Giving you an edge over the mind-controlled masses?
"...have written a lot of intelligent things about. But this is TH-cam."
Cracked me up 🤣
"Arguments that explain everything... explain nothing" - Christopher Hitchens
@mail order tell us about it
You can take that as very clever or very pompous and wrong. I believe you can explain hoe every thing exists in the material universe - but you have to explain what 'no thing' is. In my world The Lattice is all matter-energy, but only perfectly regular, stationary, frozen lattice is truly 'empty'. It kinda sorta explains everything, as well as no thing at all, riddly writing... except The (supposed...) Beginning of The Everything Lattice.
@@PrivateSi In the beginning there was "no thing" and PrivateSi moved apron the void and said let there be light and the hoe universe came into being. XD
Does that very argument itself explain everything following from it. Science stops at what’s experienceable! I give you the aporia of the Kantian Antinomies!
@Eitan Tal I grew up with the "God did it." and "It's that way because God made it that way" type of explanations. The anti-science of fundamentalist religions is what I had in mind in quoting Hitchens. In my mind it doesn't rule out an actual testable "theory of everything" hypothesis. Thank you for prompting me to make that clear.
Once again, this scientist is outstanding. She presents complex ideas in a concise and elegant fashion, with subtle humor and good visuals.
Bar.
None.
Agree that the visuals are exquisite.
DrSabine ,
Thank you for your excellence in physics!
I find your videos most insightful.
Shes not spouting SCIENCE, she is spouting opinion and belief, much of it based in actual pseudoscience. This is the problem with people today - they dont understand real science. Useless paper Models are a favorite trick of pretender clowns and crayon munchers.
@@angleofelevation8759 Paper is a hoax!
"The scientific explanations are the simple ones, the ones that explain lots of observations with few assumptions." Good video!
Might as well throw evolution out the window then.
@@Max-kn9yi I draw the 'God of the Gaps' card.
Hypothesise the Anunaki impregnating any 'missing links' with reptilian alien DNA.
+5 Absurdist -3 XP +10 Badass
The only thing that flat earthers fear
...is sphere it self.
You forgot to say "global flat earthers". 😊
**Spherophobia intensifies**
@P. Spit Spheres doesn't exist? And you say that while I eat my spagetti with m e a t b a l l s ?! 😂🤣😜
Your meatballs are flat. You're just looking at them wrong.
@@simongross3122 But I shaped them globally! 😂🤣😜🙋♂️
"... but this is TH-cam." 🙃
Ha Ha good one
@@glz1 but not the seedy underbelly of youtube... you know, flat earth, mOoN lAnDiNg HoAx, LiZaRd PeOpLe, and Conspiracehhhhhhhhhh!!!
Yeah I laughed at that one!
Yeah. Sigh.
Yes i feel cringed to people who accused it with "pSeUdOsCiEnCe" term, why you only rely on the science that's in the mainstream side which is not 100% revealed, why don't you be CREATIVE, because creativity brings the idea, just like lightbulb by thomas a. edison, its all hypothesis until they can proof it, just like UFO or alien, after that you can just win the nobel prize. Dig down the ancient technology that has been existed for over 1 million years, time doesn't exist because all event happened in the same time. "Time is but stubborn illusion." - Albert Einstein. "The day science begins to study non-physical phenomena, it will make more progress in one decade than in all the previous centuries of its existence." - Nikola Tesla The Greatest Ascended Master of All Time.
"literally connects the dots" 🤣 My god Sabine, hats off to your sense of humor!
Heh, after reading the title I was counting the minutes until string theory appeared. Sabine, you never let us down!
I was desperately looking for someone to talk about this.I just getting harder and harder.Than you professor!
Love the hat !!
@@dregeye Maybe you don't know, but paranoid schizophrenics have been wearing tin foil hats for DECADES. Long before 5G, 4G, 3G, Wifi, Bluetooth, The Internet, cellphones. The common belief is that the FBI, CIA, NSA, NASA, and the KGB are reading/controlling their thoughts. Yes, maybe 5G is bad, and should be studied further, but your rant isn't a call for research into the "possible" dangers of 5G. It sounds delusional. Try making rational arguments, you might convince someone rational if you do. As it is, only paranoid schizophrenics will listen to you.
@@dregeye She wasn't mocking Faraday Cages. She was mocking whackos who wear them to keep the FBI from reading your thoughts. Sad that you take that so personally.
@@dregeye Go back on your meds.
@@dregeye Change the subject?? You are the one ranting about her very mild mocking of the tin foil hat. Go back on your meds.
Thank you for all the hard work preparing these videos. I learned a lot.
Very well done! I hope many folks see this and follow your methodology in deciding pseudo vs actual science.
Stay safe and be well!
Impressive. The presentation of the topic was great! The background was awesome. Totally loved the Tin hat! I am a fan.
I did computer science in college, which I thought was fairly scientific, but one of my professors was a chemist by training and he used to crack a joke in lectures. "How do you know if an academic discipline is a real science? Because it doesn't have the word 'science' in the name." Ba-dum tiss.
(Political scientists, social scientists, domestic scientists. etc.: he was talking about you...)
As you know, Computer Science is a branch of mathematics.
@@johnmccormick8159 Hmm, but is mathematics science, or rather something else?
@@c.augustin , it's not social science, that's for sure, and a full discussion of mathematics as science or not is well outside my expertise. But, I rely on my homespun definitions: Mathematics is the human intellectual activity distinguished by its concern for order. Science is the human intellectual activity distinguished by its concern for order in the observable and computable universe. A scientist is constrained to explain the physical Universe, but a mathemation is not unless mathematics is nothing more than a description of the order encountered in the logical connections of the human brain, itself a creation of the Universe.
@@johnmccormick8159 I really like your 'homespun definitions' ... but then, my mathematical brain produces this question: Why Maths must be constrained to only exists as Human Intellectual Activities determined by the architecture and biochemistry of their brains?
Do you believe that humans are the first and unique beings in all the existence that can perform Mathematics?
Then, I told to My Mathematical Brain: Ok, dude ... Based on McCormick 'homespun definitions', We can expand his definition of math as any sort of phenomenology that generates a sense of order in a quasi-integrated system ... this definition includes human's maths but at the same time includes non-human's maths, inclusive, maths that are not expressed by symbols, sequential languages or logical connections ...
Maybe, that quality in maths to deploy abstraction layers up to identify its activity with the thing-in-itself is what provides what that guy called Eugene Wigner wrote about 'The Unreasonable Effectiveness of Mathematics in the Natural Sciences' ...
Is Mathematics invented or discovered?
Essentially, Discovered but felt as 'invented' by those who don't discover that ...
Eloquent talk, well considered and descriptive.
"That does not mean that it is wrong, but that it is not scientific."
This one statement - the fact that you accept that there may be things that are not scientific, but still true, propels you past so many other populist scientists (I mean that in very much a positive sense - a scientist who strives to communicate with the public like Carl Sagan, for example).
Brilliant, as always.
It's one of the reasons I adore her. I have a few other physicists that I like. But they can get a sneer in their voices when they get into philosophical/religious beliefs. As one likes to say, "It's all physics!". Apparently any other belief indicates the person is mentally ill.
@@johnmckown1267 I am sure she doesn't believe in anything religious. But if you really understand science you see that it has limitations and cannot necessarily capture all of reality and some truths are out of reach with this method.
@@cherubin7th Well said! It's frustrating how many people can't grasp this simple fact.
Sabine you are amazing. You are the first person in years to change my ideas on what constitutes science.
Hello there Sabine. Excellent presentation. Enjoy your antics. Thank u for the simple explanation for simple minds.
Thank you, this is an outstanding explanation of Occam's razor, which is usually stated without giving good rationals.
rationales
You actually correct your mistakes in the description of the video. I wish more YT-ers would that. Thank you for making this vid.
I like your straightforward style, Sabine - have a sub :)
Wenn die Erde eine Scheibe wäre, würden alle Katzen am Rand sitzen und Dinge über die Kante schubbsen. Das ist nicht der Fall - also ist die Erde keine Scheibe. q. e.d.
This is really scientific proof. Observable and repeatable.
Warum finde ich meine abgerissenen Hemdknöpfe nicht, und wo sind all meine linken Socken hin? Wo die Batterieabdeckungen der Fernbedienungen?
Also ich glaube an Katzen!
@@HerbertHeyduck Ok, man kan das sehen und nochmal machen. Genau wie Sabine das sagt. Die Erde soll darum flach sein. Sehr wissenschaftlich.
@@vger5857 Meine linken Socken verschwinden für immer. Wo sollten sie den sonst hin, als von Katzen vom Rand geworfen zu werden?
Immer und immer wieder. Wissenschaftlich überprüfbar!
Ha Ha Ha Ha !! :
This channel is a haven for clear thinking.
"As long as the foundations remain strong..."
@@davidschneide5422 Nah, those foundations are gone. Sorry.
Hauptsache du hast Dir alle Booster gegen die Fledermäuse geholt 🤣🤣🤣
Being under Covid19 self isolation I am becoming an immensely intelligent person watching Sabine’s videos.
You are so good at this. Very clearly stated, easily understood and yet quite profound. I will come back to this to remind myself of these points. Thank you. Except that when I hit “save” TH-cam saved it to my playlist named “Recipes”. Actually that’s probably correct…😊
6:03
LMAO.
This should replace the "Roll Safe" meme.
Brilliantly, simply and scientifically explained. Thank you!
Excellent lucid explanation I have ever heard! You have a brilliant mind. Thank you
That headgear really accentuates the beauty in your eyes! Thanks for sharing.
6:03 So here we learn the difference between predictions and projections. Good to know. But I can't predict whether I'll still remember it next year.
That hat Sabine 🤣. Oh man I knew I subscribed for a reason. Intelligence and a sense of humor.
Omg. That was the best explanation so far. The model is simpler that just all of the collected measurements. That was awesome 😎!
You are amazing. Thank you for the wonderful content in all of your videos.
"... but this is TH-cam."
HAHA! 😄
Yea but this is not some anonymous armchair conspiracy crackpot and flat earth nutjob youtube video made by another anonymous armchair conspiracy crackpot and flat earth nutjob from the seedy underbelly of youtube.
String Theory is proof positive that scientist aren't immune from emotional arguments/rational nor are they immune from personal belief clouding their judgment.
String Theory is a terrible example & does NOTHING to demonstrate scientists' personal human biases.
A FAR BETTER example would be Bigfoot & ufology. Far too many academics NEVER INVESTIGATE the evidence & reports about sightings but instead only do ARMCHAIR pontifications.
Yeah I'm with the other commenter here the father of String Theory Leonard Susskind I think he would agree that there is no proof positive of string theory.
@@theultimatereductionist7592 It's the same reason scientists don't spend their time debunking the bible. There's no need to investigate fairy tales.
Science is never wrong.
That's like saying that mathematics is wrong.
Scientists can be wrong, and often are. Science helps us identify and correct those errors.
Not so. Scientists are always coming up with far-out ideas. Most are found to be untenable. A few find a place in science.
Consider how utterly ridiculous Wegener's idea that parts of the Earth's surface moved, when he first put it forward. And yet, plate tectonics is now a generally accepted theory.
As JBS Haldane said, "The Universe is not only queerer than we suppose. It's queerer than we can suppose."
Wild ideas are a part of science. Experiment and observation weed out the ones that don't work.
Concise and exhaustive. Very well put together.
That was a great episode! Thank you
So much burn for string theory. But it's a healthy burn: because string theory has already become metaphysics, it's time to do some physics instead.
I think metaphysics is where we need to go if we want to make progress in physics. It sounds bad for something to be unscientific but at the foundations of physics that prerequisite is so overrated
String Theory is a very promising theory and has been for decades. Promising … not delivering.
I can't believe scientists are still perusing string theory. How many assumptions have they made to prop up their theory?
@@DavidJohnson-tv2nn Tons so far. They keep adding dimensions, interactions, geometries and phenomena...Pure mathematical fiction. BUT, ihmo, it must be done, if anything, to disprove it as thoroughly as possible.
@@kashu7691 Absolutely not. Almost all metaphsyics is incompatible with the scientific method.
I'm so glad we worked out the world wasn't flat before we walked off the end..
Just look at a ship closing in on the horizont. You know the earth can't be flat. On the other hand earth is not a perfect sphere, but that's for another video.
@@EK-gr9gd "Just look at a ship closing in on the horizont"...i wouldnt go there if i were you,
Flatters will run rings around you till you dont know anymore what is up and down...
As a thought experiment, if you are not really good at science, it is interesting because they have answers for everything. Then one becomes aware of how much one simply believes because one was told so.
Which in itself, is very healthy. I know of highly MIT educated AI inventors who took it on board as thought experiment.
.
Even Sabine doesnt go into the details, because it would take her hours and i think she is not out to get cheap clicks just making fun of folk, apart from the occasional tin foil hat.
Besides, it has been done, but it took a long time to shut them up.
.
And, some still believe, simply like some believe jesus was born from a virgin, or te world was created in 6 days, 6000 years ago. They dont care about science. And that is their right.
.
The fact that an incredible amount of people would have to be in on the conspiracy, (and no one revealing the secret), is usually what gets the less educated "round".
It is just a tad bit tooo paranoid crazy.
The Earth is not flat. Because if it was, cats would have knocked everything off the edge. Fact.
@@hammerstrumm The "immaculate conception" is possible, purely biological.
But its just an translation error, someone translated a word or in expression, that meant "young woman" with "virgo".
@@EK-gr9gd Thanks for the translation explanation.
While i was typing, i felt doubt creep in, which i gnored.
a quick google search gave me this: yes, possible, unless you are a mammal.www.sciencealert.com/turns-out-virgin-birth-is-possible
And, i did not realise the church meant that Maria was absolved from (the original) sin and her soul remained pure. Hmmm...All because of a translation error.
And thus we plough on, trying to make sense of it all. :)
intriguing topics, well explained... and even funny due to your deadpan humour ^^ thanks a lot! :)
The most important point was last: "The [research] decision[s] fall to those who fund the research."
So whether it's "climate change" or "COVID-[n]" follow the money.
I'm glad you discussed this topic. Thank you Sabine...stay well.
Great presentation👍🏻thank you!
Thank you. The first part of the video succinctly explains why Occam's Razor works.
One reason why some people tend to believe some pseudoscience is that the true science is kind of boring whereas the pseudoscience is more interesting.
be careful Scientist lady! you're about to be a meme.
Why is she about to be a meme
@@miguelpereira9859 because I screenshot her and I'm working on several ideas for memes, i'll post them at r/physicsmemes
@@hmdshokri Seems reasonable enough an explanation
@TurboCMinusMinus and her "lie by omission" by NOT mentioning the proven legitimate PROTECTION against electromagnetic radiation. It's called a FARADAY CAGE, and they work, SCIENTIFICALLY!
Haha yep
Do we still think covid came from bats? Lol
Many scientists do, yes.
@@sharkrancher282 lol
@@sandramae1772; It sounds like you see your position as obvious. Which is a pretty big clue that you are NOT using critical thinking. Why not?
That was a very clearly and logical explanation, thank you very much!
I read somewhere that one can roughly measure the value of a model by comparing the information content in the observations that are explained with the information content required to specify the model. This corresponds to some of what Sabine is saying here. So a model that explains random observations would have to basically have as much information in it as the data, but a set of observations that can be explained by a simple set of equations or pattern generators has a high value. Makes sense.
This video is a nice example of cognitive dissonance. First she defines "scientific" as observation-based and making as few assumptions as possible. Later she defends some COVID-19 computer model that has been disproved by actual empirical data and had entirely been based on non-empirical mathematical calculations with lots of arbitrary assumptions and no observational data at all.
The scientific value of a model lies in its ability to make true predictions. A model that makes no verifiable predictions is by definition (Popper) not scientific, but nothing more than philosophical speculation.
Have you revised your positions regarding the origin of SARSCoV2 and the associated pandemic models?
Which climate models do you refer to, what were the results of their predictions, and how did they do when back-tested against data sets not used to create them?
Sie will ihren Job behalten. Sie weiss dass sie Sklavin im System ist. Einen Scheiss wird sie
Ah yes, Gifth Feneration Telefone Knetwork.
P.S.: I like the way you pronounce "pseudoscience".
You make these topics very accessible! I'm barely coherent today yet I still came away with an even better understanding of scientific models than I already had!
P.P.S.: That is a very cool coat
I heard of your TH-cam channel through a podcast. Great channel and keep it up please. I’m in pilot school haha so there’s a demographic you hit! So sick of the politics in today’s world and your channel is a breath of fresh air!
Hey Sabine, just wanted your thoughts on what Bret Weinstein said recently on JRE regarding the possibility of SARS-CoV2 having signs of being manufactured. Originally he thought it was simply a matter of zoonotic transmission (as you've stated here), but looking more closely at the actual genome, he suggests there's a specific sequence that is unlikely (although not impossible) to have been attained naturally. The virus' ability to bypass certain evolutionary steps that are required for it to spread efficiently as it has has him leaning more toward the "conspiracy" theories, although not necessarily for financial benefits, but simply that it was an experiment gone wrong. Considering he's a famous evolutionary biologist, I thought that was an interesting take.
Might want a biologist, Sabine's a physicist. A bio engineering friend of mine with a startup in this field thought bad lab practices are likely. At the outside propagating it could have been part of the process that led here. But that is not high probability. He was just curiosity snooping so it's really just an opinion.
Are we really afraid of flat earthers? Do they present that much of a problem? Are they corrupting the youth of the world? If you’re having trouble determining if something is pseudoscience, just see if it’s a big issue in the political realm. That will tell you. Politics is never about science.
To be fair, she didn't argued that Covid wasn't engineered. Actually she didn't took any position in this specific question.
She only stated the (conspiracy) theory that it was engineered by the Pharma industry. A small but important difference!
I would disregard Bret Weinstein analysis. My read is he is leveraging a his bad experience at Evergreen College to become an independent provocateur and has parlayed his scientific credentials for pseudoscience and the chance to be the next J. Peterson. Also the consensus in intelligence and scientific community is that virus was natural occuring mutation.
@@Astuga She seemed to put the idea of viral engineering into a "pseudoscience" category. I don't agree with that.
Maybe I don't quite understand what she's trying to say since she's not talking in her native language.
6:03 I just burst out laughing.
Yeah but there's NO SUCH THING as COINCIDENCE! 😳🤦♂️
3 weeks later I just clicked it knowing exactly what I'd see, and laughed again.
@Drew Binz A coincidence is predictable, it just means two things happen at about the same time.
My reading of your reply will coincide with your posting it.
I will not read it because you post it but because I have already chosen to read it IF you post it.
How many tees are there in Buuuut?
My reply shows that your reply made no sense.
You are absolutely incredible. Thank you for this video!
I suspect “the office at the end of the hall” would not live up to your talent. You are inspirational.
Love your content! You mentioned a few philosophers of science, but my favorite theory is Thagard's. He wrote that "a theory or discipline which purports to be scientific is pseudoscientific if and only if: 1) it has been less progressive than alternative theories over a long period of time and faces many unsolved problems; but 2) the community of practitioners makes little attempt to develop the theory towards solutions of the problems, shows no concern for attempts to evaluate the theory in relation to others, and is selective in considering confirmations and disconfirmations."
Unlike Popper's unfalsifiability( which caused him to take issue with the entire scientific community for his impractical standards), or Lakatos's purely progressive standard, Thagard's definition protects real science and excludes examples of pseudoscience such as astrology quite well.
This also supports your implied stance that string theory is pseudoscientific
@@takatotakasui8307 I'd say that string theory violates the second condition. String theorists to my knowledge are trying quite hard to resolve the unsolved problems and compare their results with observations and currently accepted theories whenever feasible/possible. The problem is that currently string theory predicts a _lot_ of different possible universes, which makes coming up with testable predictions very hard. However, there are some, most famous being existence of supersymmetric particles, and many lesser known predictions which unfortunately are in energy scales not accessible by current technology. And of course, in "low" energies string theory reduces to QFT and GR, both of which have been tested extensively, so in a sense all predictions of current theories are also predictions of string theory. But people are still trying to come up with new feasible experiments which would differentiate string theory from others.
String theory thus isn't pseudoscience according to Thagard's definition, and it's status is currently a bit questionable according to Popper's definition. Here I thus agree with Sabine: string theory has potential to become scientific theory at some point, but it would require tons of recources at least some of which would probably be better spent to study other promising thories of fundamental physics.
I like this definition a lot, even though its terms are not all well-defined.
@@david203 There is some practical vagueness in there but I don't mind. In practice, when it comes to identifying pseudoscience you know it when you see it
@@takatotakasui8307 I suspect that, in general, that is not true. In order to identify pseudoscience, it is necessary to have an education in science, or at least in critical thinking. Many people do not have this education. That is why there is so much pseudoscience in the comments in the first place.
The Professor Doctor is concise and authoritative. And she rocks that red velvet jacket!
She captains the vessel of reason through the rocky straits of quackery in style. I want the jacket.
Thank you for this. I will use the criteria you described to determine if Walter Russell's concept of the universe is scientific or pseudoscience.
Great video explaining core scientific principles in a very accessible manner.
I rely on sources that I've grown to trust - like this one!
My god, you provide some of the best scientific content on the web and the comments are some of the dumbest on the web. Is there a law for this interaction?
It's Hawking's Third Law: "Reading TH-cam comments equals the square of the velocity of brain cell loss times the Goulash constant by two Pi.
When you point a finger at someone else... three point back at you.
Perhaps there is?! Here we are with a research topic for a social scientist.
Everybody's a comedian.
I am going to credit Sabine with her usual well presented discussion, but... I must quibble about her use of the pejorative term ‘conspiracy theorist’. Those of us old enough to remember the day were introduced to the term as a synonym for ‘nut case’ with reference to those who questioned the government line on the JFK assassination. There is ample evidence (and especially the 1970 House Assassination Committee conclusion) that there was indeed a conspiracy to kill JFK. But the original connotation stuck, and there is more than a little irony in its continued use as such.
I would love to hear your thoughts on some of the other proposed grand unification theories like supersymmetry, or even just quantum gravity like loop quantum gravity, or something you've thought about.
As always, the best dressed physicist on TH-cam.
@Chuck Wettish - that’s why I subscribed, I have no interest in physics!
@Chuck Wettish - yeah, come to think of it you’re right! Quantum entanglement, super symmetry, M-theory. Hmm, maybe I’ll do a degree in it.
@Chuck Wettish - nice talking to you Chuck, makes a change from all the toxicity here on TH-cam.
And the best singer.
So simple yet so brilliant. Most significant advances in science, including economics (the dismal science), have come about because someone had the persistence and courage to challenge someone else’s reasoning. All models and theories contain assumptions. Figuring out what is being assumed is often the starting point on the path of critical thinking. Danke Professor H.
Going with Popper on this one. Theories that are not scientifically testable are not scientific theories. They may be technical and they may even be true. But the scientific method is about testing to see if its true.
Sabine thank you! I have absolutely loved finding a physicist who blows away all the bull crap and explains current science from an intelligent standpoint in clear analytical thinking. So much of the internet has been devoted to what I call Disneyland style science.
Science is the application of the scientific method.
Wrong
Which is based on OBSERVATION. It sometime can't be observed, then it is not subject to scientific analysis. Such as the actual Big Bang. At least from what I have read, the CMB is as far back as we can observe. What happened before is speculation based on running the model farther back, but without the assurance that the model is correct enough in whatever the situation was before the CMB came to be.
No, this is the definition of Applied Science.
From wikipedia, but an extremely concise explanation of the definition of science.
"Science (from the Latin word scientia, meaning "knowledge")[1] is a systematic enterprise that builds and organizes knowledge in the form of testable explanations and predictions about the universe."
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science
Better yet, ask about the validity of the data (in the first place).
We do seem to get burned a lot by not asking this basic question for sure.
@@patrickfitzgerald2861 that's the place where "the rubber meets the road."
@@patrickfitzgerald2861 It's really the proper first question that SHOULD be asked of any study. Most reviewers are bamboozled by the statistical techniques of the moment, which are really the slight of hand used to distract the reader to the conclusions. The data descriptors seem so simple and innocent so they are ignored. Pity.
@@danieljackson654 Agreed, and something that the pseudoscience of economics gets away with all the time.
Thank you so much, this equal reading a lot about scientific method and philosophy of science
Very timely, simply stated and easily understood. You have a talent for cutting through the chaff and getting quickly to the point. I really enjoy your videos and will be sharing this one with several people. Well done and please keep up the good work. Oh, love the hat to! A sense of humor goes a long way to making what could seem complex less challenging to people
What if a climate model fails to replicate time frames with known data but succeeds to simulate other time frames.
For instance, periods in time with high CO2 but low temperatures and vice versa.
If they only point at the time frame the model works for but leave out where it doesn't work it can still be misrepresented as being an accurate model.
shhh. don't talk about that, people will think you are a Denier
Excellent video Sabine! Thank you. Minor correction: the wireless network is called 5G. Not G5. Good point on prediction vs projection on COVID19 models.
The Panasonic G5 is a great camera. The Power Mac G5 was also a terrific computer. 😋
Very well done. Thank you!
This is perhaps the best of Sabine.
Thanks Sabine for steering us away from the cosmic bullshit thinking thats out there. Keep making these awesome vids. [GxQ=Universe]
I am a graduate from an engineering school, and have given up doing deep science, I only do basic science for daily work life.
And I'm really glad your videos allows someone like me to keep updating my knowledge and not become lobotomized. Thanks !
"have given up doing deep science, I only do basic science for daily work life." What the fuck does this even mean?
@@TheUndulyNoted Is he maybe a cleaning clerk at CERN now?
Hi Sabine, nice video! I just wanted to point out that I'm not sure what you exactly mean, in your example about darwinian evolution, with that "arguably no one has done it ["quantifying the fit to the data"] before". There's tons of research on inferring phylogenetic trees from data over the state of either genetic or phenotypic traits (assuming different kinds of evolutionary models, i. e. rates and mode of change) and then calculating the probabilities of each tree given the data. Maybe you meant to fit the whole "darwinian evolution" (assuming that means some current version of the modern synthesis) theory to data, and not certain model from within the whole theory (i. e. models that already assume a shared ancestry, as the ones I mentioned, although it should be remarked that they are not necessarily "fully darwinian" in their explicit assumptions, meaning that they do not necessarily include assumptions about selection)? Because that was precisely one of the main ideas within the foundations of the modern synthesis: to describe natural selection and evolution processes quantitatively with mathematical models. However, if you're thinking about "fully quantitatively" comparing contemporary neodarwinism "fit to data" with other models like, let's say, lamarckism or creationism, there I don't know about someone who may have done it explicitely. Probably because nowadays few (in academia...) would take these alternative models seriously enough to take time to develop quantitative versions of them to be compared...
Technically, the flat Earth model works as an accurate approximation when talking about events occurring on small portions of the Earth’s surface.
String theory as an example of pseudoscience - low blow, haha
If psuedo science can be sold to the investor, the scientist can remain perpetually busy looking for answers that can't be found. This is how scientists job security can be at odds with scientific progress.
Knowledgeable explanations are beautiful science. Thanking you.
Many assumptions to a few observations,period.U just cleared the clutter of my whole life.
Daria!!
THIS woman is totally brilliant, an outstanding educator, physically beautiful, creative singer!
Sounds like you are redefining "Science" to make Occam’s Razor a requirement. Although a good philosophical principle, Occam’s Razor is not part of the official definition of Science.
When you think about it, all words became meaningless past 200 years, since industrial revolution started and changed humanity forever. What do we mean by color, sound, charge, distance, volume, time, elasticity,... those are all terms ancient philosophers, alchemists and mystics used to describe natural happenings and are nearly useless for modern scientific interpretations, based on mathematical and physical symbolism.
Yeah, I just commented on that; glad I'm not the only educated person espousing that view...
You are spot on, her definition is far too reductionist.
By her definition, she should accept sun activity as the simplest explanation for climate change.
There's got to be a simplicity bias in science, otherwise science would resemble bookeeping more than an explanation tool. Of course the world doesn't have to be the simplest possible, but reductionism has worked wonderfully so far, and you'd better constraint the space of plausible hypothesis somehow.
I believe her point was that if you had two models with the same predictive power, the model with the least in built assumptions should be the model that's used to best explain a given phenomenon. This makes sense to me as a good rule to have for evaluating between models.
So one extreme example, in theory you could generate a mathematical model of orbits in our solar system which presumes the earth as the center of our solar system. That model could be made to be so complex that it could be predictive of the orbits of all objects with that assumption in mind. However such a model would be completely impractical and would contain unneeded assumptions that completely defy our understanding of gravity.
You've said it perfectly, very awesome
Thank you fir your videos you are so talented and very good at understanding science thank you!!
"It's not a prediction because we cannot predict whether large events will be canceled".
Hmm, I don't think I agree with the statement that scientific models don't need to be predictive. You could argue that the pandemic model is making predictions _conditional on events_ hence the if-then statements. It estimates that (a specified thing) will happen in the future or will be a consequence of something, pretty much what a prediction is.
I would also argue, with less conviction, that given prior data on what governments have done before with respect to pandemics, policy decisions can to some degree still be predicted. If you were more ambitious, you could even try to quantify the frequency of governments of certain ideologies and/or nations listening to healthcare experts and try to incorporate that data as well.
Lastly, there is a whole domain of literature on empirically examining the theory of evolution, so not sure what you mean by no one attempting to quantify the fit to data.
I agree that she is describing _conditional_ predictions. Those are still predictions. They are still falsifiable (-ish).
Absolutely love the hat, Sabine.
@walt7500 Falsifiable is relevant when deciding what is and what isn't pseudoscience.
I have explained in more detail why predictions are unnecessary here:
backreaction.blogspot.com/2020/05/predictions-are-overrated.html
And here:
www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-truth-about-scientific-models/
@@SabineHossenfelder I thought Popper took into account most of the objections you raise with parsimony and what he called "bravery" of predictions. I remember Poppers conclusion to be pretty much the same as the conclusion of your Sci Am article... Predictions/models should explain the data with the fewest assumptions, but they're no good if they are so vague that they also predict tons of observations that we _don't_ see.
@@SabineHossenfelder I'm also confused about excluding _conditional_ predictions from the category "predictions". Aren't _all_ predictions subject to "conditions"?
A model for the spreading of contagions that had no predictive value (conditions included), would have no value at all, in containing the contagion.
Bravo! Oh by the way String theory should have never been called "theory" ,until it was proven to be one.
It is String Hypothesis. At best.
Great point..
While we're at it, where is that dark matter we've spent billions of dollars ASSUMING was real?
All because an equation needed another variable.. Why not just invent one, then spend decades looking for that?
@Vinny Holiday
Exactly, and no more valid than the crackpot flat Earthers theories..
Also, where's all that dark matter we've spent billions looking for because an equation needed another variable.. lmao
For dark matter there is at least some real world evidence for its possible existence. Whereas string theory began with a big fat assumption (that everything is made of strings) for which there is no physical evidence whatsoever.
@@Shifter-1040ST Indeed, that is a real difference. Scientists, like everyone else, leap to conclusions too quickly. Dark matter? Dark energy? We just don't know as yet.
This reminds me of all the beautiful String Theories out there.... adapt parameters and explain everything (or nothing at all)
This is good stuff. Thanks for posting.
Oh no, You've invited the Wrath of the flat earthers. Careful you're about to be hit with a wave of living examples of The Dunning-Kruger effect.
I doubt that flat earthers are subbed to Sabine's channel.
I don't see this as a problem, because all flattards are so consistently hilarious! Flattardia does boast members from all around the globe, after all! I always enjoy almost endless laughter from every element of their 'offerings'! Just light the fuse and...
Can you post the timestamp where the flat earth was debunked or the oblate-spheroidal shape was proven? What is the radius of your globe earth? The Black Swan image (see bmlsb69's channel) that cannot be refuted by anyone puts the 3959 mile radius (you buy into) to upwards of 200,000 miles. You ball believers love your math so much but never question where you live. Why? Because someone told you early on it was a ball and even had pictures/videos to show you. Hopefully, Sabine can debunk the Black Swan without squawking "Refraction!" because that's been squashed already.
"NASA has been covering up the flat Earth since the days of Ptolemy, at least". Well it's 6:54 in the morning and I'm already 'laughing my self silly', as my dear old mom would say. Thank you for the comedic relief in these troubled times.
Amazingly good and simple, thanks.
*As always, excellent explanation*