Prof Dave clearly has never read Calvin & Hobbes. Tigers are more than capable of firing guns (using water) at unsuspecting humans. Much more plausible than it seems.
@@ProfessorDaveExplains - "Thou dost wrong me! Faith, I know not where I wander. Methinks the most capricious zephyr hath more design than I ... But lo: Do not detain me, for I am resolv'd to quit this place forthwith ... " C&H was an everf%@king scream!
Love this and Calvin and Hobbes! My heater is not working so I just put on layers to "build character". Fortunately, I live in South Texas, so it really doesn't get cold down here.
wow you're obviously a tiger denier. in fact the tiger holds the gun with its mouth and uses its tongue to pull the trigger. the fingerprints and other evidence was put there in order to test our faith, obviously. can't believe you guys are such sheep
@dpt4458 Um, no.. it doesn’t matter how you say it. What matters is if you can actually demonstrate that it’s wrong, why it’s wrong, and explain it better. That’s it. No one has to like it or like the way you said it
Good one bro. Just because you college kids can't perceive what formscapes speaks about doesn't make it wrong or worthy of assaulting. Professor Dave is either a shill or heavily psychologically damaged and has wrapped himself up in external projections.
Formscapes: complains about scientists being too rigid and stagnant also himself: complains when scientists consider different explanations for Rotifers relationship
formscape doesnt understand that any institution, group, philosophical body, etc needs to have boundary in which it exludes something. otherwise it'd just be literally ANYTHING and seize being itself. scientific model of methods arent even close to exclusionary. and definitely not even dogmatic compared to say religion. as someone once puts it: it's okay to be open minded but not so open minded that our brains fall out. read the paradox of tolerance to understand further. ultimately it's about drawing the line as with every classification endeavor. nothing is identical, but at the same time everything is connected. it requires wisdom to know where to delineate.
"scientists never point out problems with general relativity" Physicists everywhere: *talking about all the clashes between general relativity and quantum mechanics and trying to come up with a demonstrable theory for everything *
@@MrDmadness yes that's the point they're incompatible and we have loads of physicists actively working on merging these theories together, that's what string theory and quantum loop gravity is. So the video in question saying people don't dare question general relativity is stupid when this contradiction with quantum mechanics is arguably the biggest problem in modern physics
Yeah! Fuck, man, just recently one of the biggest black hole pioneers disproved the idea that all black holes have singularities. New shit's coming out all the time.
Yep, this kind of thinking conflates ideas driven by data with dogma. Both data-driven science and dogma push back against challenges to consensus, but for wildly different reasons, and modern approaches to General Relativity show why. In reality, challenges to General Relativity are real but conservative because the data show the theory is stupid accurate. Nobody would mind if the entire basis for General Relativity were overturned (people propose stuff like that all the time, actually), but it's really hard to fit a theory that does that into the remaining space. While dogma---well, the pushback is a lot less nuanced. That's all I'll say on the subject.
I remember there’s a quote that describes this. Think it goes something like this. “If you say something confidently enough, people will believe you, even if you’re wrong.”
EXACTLY! I watched that whole video and came away with a sense of deep confusion. The entire time, not one bit of *real* evidence is presented. He talks about anecdotal bullshit like heart transplant recipients but there's not one real study backing any of this up. It's just a tower of nonsense.
It does boggle the mind how he could misunderstand science that monumentally. Mistakes are good in science, getting things wrong is good, proving our longstanding theories wrong is even better. Science loves to be wrong because there's something to be learnt in things going wrong.
Science is not dogma, but that person wants to hand down “science is a dogma” as a dogma and his “science” also as a dogma. Even if what came out of his mouth was 100% true all the time, we would still have to verify it. Because science is not a dogma that takes anyone’s word for it.
@@advorak8529he doesn’t, he actually has a lot of respect for science. I think a lot of people are unaware of how science, popular opinion, ego, and money have become tragically entwined in a big mess and are causing terrible harm to a beautiful activity. I don’t know why professor Dave picked on form scape because form scape is presented by someone who understands science quite deeply. Best to go to the source itself instead.
@@jamesskinnercouk _he actually has a lot of respect for science._ And an abusive partner keeps beating up the victim and make them feel worthless because they love the victim so much. Pull the other one! _I think a lot of people are unaware of how science, popular opinion, ego, and money have become tragically entwined in a big mess_ Not a lot of people know the lore of your alternate universe, I agree, but they do not live in it. To them there is little reason to learn the imagined twists and turns of how THEY took over the brains of people … _and are causing terrible harm to a beautiful activity._ Formscapes actually does cause terrible harm, we can agree on that. _I don't know why professor Dave picked on form scape_ Because Formscapes said incredible stupid and wrong (and dangerous!) stuff - and attacked Professor Dave’s debunk of the “electric universe”, without actually engaging with the facts. _because form scape is presented by someone who understands science quite deeply._ If that is true, money and ego and possibly what counts as public opinion in the channel’s audience certainly won over any kind of science understanding. If he does not understand science, then at least he’s got the excuse of not knowing any better. _Best to go to the source itself instead._ You mean, ask a scientist? Good idea. Or did you mean go to the woo peddler for unmitigated fresh woo in absolutely neurotoxic amounts? No, Thank You Very Much!
The prevalent arrogance, which you are demonstrating here, is that we should make our decisions based *solely* on science despite the fact that you _know_ it is incomplete, inaccurate, and occasionally dead wrong. Since we *know* we have partial and imperfect knowledge (partial and imperfect observations) that means we *know* we need something more to aid decisions making since every decisions you will ever make was, is, and will-be made with information deficiency. This is why >>> *EVERYTHING*
"Why would you trust science, which can sometimes be slightly wrong and then fixes itself, when you could instead be abjectly wrong all the time on purpose about everything?"
@@SantuaryTakke what’s the alternative then? Knowing literally nothing? Making shit up? Take a step back and think about what you’re actually arguing and offering. Nothing. Either fake “skepticism” where you just blindly doubt everything you don’t understand, or just never knowing anything. Science is just the way you get the right answer. It’s not a script or ideology, it’s a basic process of making sure you’re right. It’s not always cut and dry immediately like lazy people prefer, but it’s literally the only way to get the right answers and real results.
I think most scientists are happy to send you a paper they wrote for free if you reach out to them asking directly, as well. They want people to read them!
Indeed, that is probably their most desired outcome from all their work. Amazing how concepts can be the most logical and common sense answers ever and yet so easily ignored in favor of some ludicrous ideas from crackpots.
Yes! I did this last year while researching my options for a health challenge and reached out to a handful of authors directly to ask if it was possible to have a copy of the paper that was stuck behind a paywall. My success rate was better than 50% and most of those indicated that they were pleased someone was taking an interest. The rest either didn't reply or in one case someone else from the team responded and said that they were sorry they didn't have access to it either.
@@gaiaakatheearth5604While that's true, I've never actually been turned down. I assume there's some carve-out in place that allows scientists to give away the paper in some limited circumstances. I have no idea if this is how the contracts are structured, but scientists might, for instance, be allowed to give it away to colleagues but not be allowed to publish it broadly themselves, or some similar arrangement.
Oh! I remember that video! The comment section was full of comments like "when I was doing research for my post-doctorate degree, I was surrounded by people who would believe all kinds of disproven science. I was the only free thinkiner in a sea of sheeple and I just couldn't accept it" What did they research? No one could say. Where did they research? Not a peep. But they definitely did, they promise.
@@TimoRutanen as someone who has a Ph. D. I have serious doubts about the validity of their claims that they engaged in years of graduate research at any accredited university and have presented at academic conferences and have published papers in peer-reviewed journals etc.
There are certain fields I could see this being the case. When it comes to the cognitive sciences and questions about the nature of mind or consciousness it really does test our theoretical limits and often veers into partisan philosophy. There’s tons of passionate debate among neuroscientists, theoretical physicists, philosophers of mind, etc about how to properly frame and interpret the data. You can radically different theories (eg eliminative materialism vs analytic idealism) among researchers with multiple phds in relevant fields and both consider the other group to be completely delusional and disproven. It’s actually quite funny listening to these debates. They are limited to fields where the nature of research is at such a foundational, theoretical level that the lines between science and philosophy are inevitably blurred.
@@Sampsonoff that's a 'slightly' harder field to measure in the first place, so that's to be expected as the only unified and ""dogmatic"" answer that can be measured is "there's definitively something, as we can observe the variety of effects". but then you have "the repel/attraction to the taste of eggplant" "the consistent searching for pattern even if unprompted" "the capacity for the body for feeling physically hill in recalling a memory that was never experienced" and all those other wonderful approaches that fall under the umbrella of "chemically, that''s what happens, but we still have not found why it happens, and why sometimes it doesn't"
They think science books are an atheist's version of the bible. Set in stone, unable or unwilling to change and religiously followed with "faith". It's projection from ignorance.
@@DanielMWJ scientific consensus is more accurate. It can still be disputed, disproven or supplemented at a later point when more factors, previously overlooked or unknown, are added. After an unknown amount of time and after something has been used often enough with results that are expected based on the conclusions of the original research, you could call it accepted science.
And they're the ones to complain about blind faith. And it's not like the new papers are like "that old thing was bs and stupid and bad" it's "we now have a better understanding of that old thing"
Hahaha. Came here to say that. Companies don’t (well, companies with shareholders, cuz shareholders are protected) and companies are ppl in the US so… technically?
I am a researcher in MINT. Just 3min into the video, but the paywall-access to scientific research is much debated and challenged in the science community as well, up to the point that a lot of open-access initiatives have started in recent years.
And the replication crisis, faulty science and problems related to publication incentives and the like are also well known and discussed. It just happens whenever people are involved
@@loopingdope it's more that it happens when money is involved. Everyone wants their cut off the pie, and that includes whoever may have funded the research and sometimes even the journal that published it. For better or worse, money runs the world. Without that money, some or even most of the science wouldn't get done, but it does suck for the people trying to learn about it. The paper partial is the worst offender, and that at least should be removed somehow, since it really only damages the reputation of science and disillusions some people of it for what is probably a very small portion of money.
@@jameshall1300 somehow i relate all of this money-related problems to humas, as money, money-related incentive problems, institutions and whatnot are human inventions. But I understand what you mean
@@loopingdope Yeah. 50 years ago a friend of mine, doing his PhD in physics at MIT, discovered that a "fact" known in his field wasn't true. Unfortunately it wasn't an important enough fact to do a dissertation on, so he got delayed a year to work around the problem. Before this no one tried to replicate it. There are some journals considered write only. Np one but a few people in that field read them. They tend to be the most prestigious ones.
@@jameshall1300 just my personal take, I am not in science because of money, in fact, in industry I would make a lot more money (and would have a lot more free time as well), most people would consider me quite odd for that tbh.
The thing is, even in an absurd hypothetical world where a radical new theory that upends most of known science is validated, we would then study and expand on that new theory the same way we do science now.
If you understand Kuhn’s basic hypothesis, that’s not how it works. Science is institutional and ALL institutional logic has some level of dogma built into it. It usually ends in phases over generations.
yeah like with quantum theory. if it helps explain certain thinks, but contradicts others, it just shows that we have two models that are still in development and need completion
@@baconbob3752or Cosmic Expansion which lead to inferring the Big Bang. It looks like it was just assumed that the universe was static before Hubble, Einstein even fiddled some of his equations that implied an expanding universe to make it stable. Or Natural Selection, which provides the mechanism to evolution. Somehow Darwin came up with it with zero knowledge of genetics.
"Hmm, I love what you've got so far, Mr. Blake, but for this one line. What if instead of 'oh shit, he's got a Glock!' you said something like, 'Could frame thy fearful symmetry' ?" "My God, man, that's perfect!"
As a grad student in theoretical physics and currently in a GR lab, you have no IDEA just how much beef there is between general relativity researchers. “No skepticism allowed” buddy even the experts are skeptical of each other. And that’s great! It’s encouraged so long as you can back yourself up! Sometimes that’s what conferences are for! Also lol’ing at this guy whining about dark matter. Get him in a MOND lab immediately
I love that everything they say is kinda accurate, but blown way out of proportion. Scientists are humans and have all the fallibilities of humans? Yes. Which is why we try to disprove our own ideas, subject them to prepublication peer review, subject them to post publication peer review, etc. Sure, sometimes the blindspots have blindspots, but every step of the process is designed to sus out those issues. Whatever your friend publishes is not dogma you must follow.
31:41 It was Tony the Tiger. Evidence: 1. Tony technically doesn't have hair. 2. He can wear shoes leaving *seemingly* human footprints. 3. Being a huge cereal mascot, Tony makes lots of money and owns a house. He doesn't need to live in a zoo. 4. He has Human-like hands easily capable of holding and firing a gun. 5. Being an intelligent being, he can easily plant fingerprints and blood. Checkmate science.
I had to write a 50 page research paper in college, to graduate with honors. I don't think me researching virtual machines and virtual private networks was very religious lol.
That couldn't have been hard, just repeat the incantations the priests like to hear and you're in. What's that? You actually had to put your OWN ideas in the paper and they'd fail you if you didn't? How weirdly undogmatic.
@@muskyoxes But after you're done writing a paragraph, the idea will dawn on you.. You are actually now able to WRITE some new dogma, what a revelation! And if you're lucky, you'll get an invitation to the super-secret cabal after graduation. Yes, this is pure sarcasm and a joke. Just in case someone didn't understand.
@@muskyoxes Yeah, follow what data shows. If I didn't have data to support my claims, then it is coming from a place of bs. Following data is not dogma.
Exactly lol. I wrote a 350 page dissertation and published stuff but I’m not making crazy claims that I have “discovered” some new world order esque “secret” about academic publishing
@@Boardwoards "it's not like science has always been done for royals and now elites" Indeed, it's not like that. Nowadays, science benefits _everyone_, not just the elites. "it's not like an emperor made fourier prefect holding fasces over a city" Oh, yes, let's take the rather few scientists who also had political power and just pretend that this is true for _most_ (or even all) scientists. :D :D :D "but who cares when you make money from being a bully" Yes, like lots of pseudoscientists on TH-cam.
its always priceless when the guys declaring they are the most favorite pets in the whole cosmos and the reason it exists projects that on others , that humbly admits that as far reality is showing it appears their species , civilization even solar system is but a happenstance ...brief.. configuration of variables for a existence so vast nothing they do can affect it.. only for the ''me the most special thing in reality!'' to jump on that and claim they are at the same time the most humble ones to ...its seriously like watching spoiled brats try claim things to wield the social status it bring as a sledge on those living in reality XD
@@spracketskooch :/ keeping mentioning ? as in ..word used once in the whole post ? XD but if you not could compute that specific sentence ...me used with '' '' to represent a opinion expressed by a person and how it sounds from an outsider view in order to compare it with something ..such as a religious self contradicting statement in this case the classic '' me so humble'' yet at the same time also declaring the entire cosmos was farted into existence as a over sized fish bowl for a god to house them in ..mutually contradicting logical positions wich to me is a display of how religion damages basic logic/critical thinking capability as for how you can be conscious about yourself sorry how do that relate to anything in my post ? XD but sure you can get my five cents on that although , yes it also strikes me as a bit silly question my own first thought on it is that its something that someone with a bit of tunnel vision about words might ask , after all ..do the cat need you to stare at it for said cat to be conscious of itself and decide it wants to find a better sunray to lounge in ? of course not , no more then it needs to stare at you for you to be conscious of yourself and decide that hey , you 'need' a cup of tea
Considering he was able to buy an entire presidency, it wasn't a waste at all. He will soon become more powerful than he ever was before, able to shape policy to his whim almost directly.
Yet almost every time someone makes some wild claim that is contrary to scientific findings it’s because they’ve failed (or refused) to grasp the science..
@@erisdiscordia5429 Funny how most people who argue against and try to disprove religion are more educated and well-informed about the topic at hand (aka religion) than the religious themselves
@@erisdiscordia5429 Religion might be a whole lot easier to grasp if you could show us even the teeniest bit of evidence for the magic bloke. Without faith, there is nothing, funny how that works.
@@erisdiscordia5429 You haven't asked me for any evidence of anything. What you have done, is avoided even attempting to provide any for the magic man.
What these people doesn’t understand is that if they were right, they wouldn’t destroy science, they would be science. Ironically, the only thing that could prove science wrong is science. Scientific theories has proven other scientific theories is wrong several times. In short “Ideas that can’t prove a theory wrong, won’t prove it wrong” it is that simple.
It’s true that the only thing that can show scientific results, such as a theory wrong is science, I’d argue however that it would, in theory be possible to show that science, as in the scientific method is ”wrong” or at least flawed and that doing so would be done in the field of philosophy. And the thing is, this is happening continuously, which is lost on the science skeptic crowd. Methodology improves all the time and the very reason the scientific method now works so well for acquiring knowledge of reality is that it have been improved continuously for centuries.
Lol but don't you see the issue? "Listen to science" while scientists constantly try to prove each other wrong.. so who's correct? Who knows because scientist can't even decide.. like what is the hubble constant? Depends on who you ask lol
@@davidpayton-pb8totheres no constant and there doesn't need to be one, science never put itself as having all the answers. Howewer, you should believe the scientist who did his research using science, evidence and is backed up cause even a Nobel winner, famous and aclaimed scientist if his research isnt backed up by proof it has no scientific value.
@@davidpayton-pb8toThe scientific consensus is always the best explanation we have at the moment. There are more specific things that are still argued about, but most things are not questioned anymore by serious scientists, like the Earth not being flat
"'Listen to science' while scientists constantly try to prove each other wrong.. so who's correct?" The one that most have failed to prove wrong is more reliable than those who have been proven wrong or not yet tested by others. I don't see how that's a problem. The answer shouldn't depend on who you ask if you simply ask what the scientific community mostly agree upon and/or has been tested most rigorously without being proven false. If scientists have yet to come to a strong consensus, then they clearly haven't figured it out yet. And that's okay! There's no shame in admitting we haven't figured things out yet.
But this isn't a problem, right? Because the scientific community is, as a whole, honest. If one person takes corporate money from Monsanto to say that oreos are good for you, the rest will not and the research will fail peer review. I feel like this "shut up, this is how it works" stuff is actually the same as what the capitalists pitch which is perfect in theory but in reality it works out differently and encourages corruption.
I think formscape might be a rationalist or Illuminatus the main idea being wanting science to be rationalist rather than empiricist it’s the people who are against Issac newton, Immanuel Kant and Hume and are instead aligned with hegel Descartes and Gottfried Leibniz. It’s basically rationalist science vs empiricist science one is irrational and dogmatic one is based on proofs not evidence.
23:21 "Those who are well-informed and well-educated believe certain things. I do not believe such things, because I am neither well-informed nor well-educated."
glad you got here before me, LOL. yes, being "well-informed and well-educated" ARE signifiers which can contribute to "social respectability". Perhaps he'd prefer to surround himself with "poorly informed" and "poorly educated"? What I found ironic is that in describing them he effectively concedes the "well"... "well-informed" and "well-educated". No rebuttal required, thanks!
The difference between science and dogma is pretty clear. Dogma - we believe x y and z because we're told to Science - we believe x y and z because of *insert supporting empirical data*
The problem is most people fall into a middle group - we believe x, y, & z because we're told about *insert empirical data,* and the quality of those beliefs depends on the people doing the telling. Pseudoscientists lie to undermine trust in people telling real science, and bolster trust in themselves.
we don't necesarily "believe" that's the point we can refute and update our knoledge when we have an incomplete theory in a field or found new information about a process with have no mechanism before or we were not able to reach that level of precision with previous technology, but actual science does not "believe"
Because science is not beliefs but actual facts, it's different from religion where everyone can have their different beliefs but this doesn't work with science because science is based off facts.
The average person will associate fast talking with intelligence. So he's talking fast in order to seem smart and the guy is actually wrong. Thank you professor Dave.
"Scientists are meanies because they don't think my unsupported, patently absurd ideas are as cool as i do". That's pretty much what I get from most of these "science is dogma" people.
@@Nature_Consciousness someone is a fan of Ken Wheeler. Your ability to string together big words you don't know the meaning of is almost as impressive as his.
@@Nature_Consciousness Materialism _works._ When methodological naturalism was widely deployed as a tool of inquiry, our ability to understand the world exploded to degrees unlike anything in human history. You could argue about the degree to which this knowledge has been used constructively, but it remains that using methodological naturalism to understand phenomena and make predictions about outcomes based upon understanding of those phenomena allows you to produce results that were impossible before engaging with the _material world_ on a _material basis._ I seriously hope that you're not actually arguing that _evidence itself_ is a dogma.
@@Nature_Consciousness Let me guess: you’re a Foucaultian who thinks all knowledge is “constructed”; and is therefore not completely valid. Such views miss the probabilistic reality in which we exist.
Is there dogma in science? of course. Science is done by people, and people can become dogmatic. To quote: "I represent science" Is science dogma? No, by definition. Dogmatic scientists are doing it wrong and I'd argue they shouldn't be called scientists anymore.
Eh, that's a bit pedantic. If you interpret "science" as a stand-in for "the mainstream body of scientific work" then the criticism holds up and there are famous examples. Probably the biggest one is continental drift. I think ignoring that "science" can actually become dogmatic or dancing around that issue just plays into the hands of charlatans who want to overstate its severity.
@@louisvaught2495 People were talking about continental drift since the 1850's. It's just that there wasn't real hard evidence for it until until we sonar-mapped the ocean floor and found ridges and trenches and stuff.
@@LimeyLassen That's hardcore historical revisionism, continental drift was a deeply unpopular theory when my parents were in college. Yes people were technically talking about it, but it was widely rejected until much more recently than it was proposed.
@@louisvaught2495 The issue is that this is what we're using the word "science" to describe "dogma endorsed by trusted institutions". I blame generations of school science classrooms that have, instead of focusing on the actual process of scientific inquiry and the history of or understanding of the universe (complete with pitfalls) have instead treated science as effectively natural history trivia time. The result is people don't know how to judge the significance of a paper, but all know what a mitochondria is.
@@Girlfrom.n0wh3r3We just have to look at nutrition science to know science changes all the time. Although it's not as volatile as news journals seem to say, we do figure more out about our bodies all the time.
I'm a trained zoologist (I'm not an active scientist, I work in a completely unrelated field, but I have published a long, long time ago). Generally I watch these videos for entertainment and to laugh at flat earthers... but this is a very good educational tool in illuminatiing flaws in the arguements of science deniers. This was a master class in deconstructing a vebose arguement. Exceptional work Dave. Also, I miss drunk debunking Dave... when do we get to see that again. 😂
I'd say it's more a name for a *developer* of shovelware games, the kind I enjoy seeing played by GrayStillPlays or DangerouslyFunny whenever they're not doing GTA5 boards
@@ZundaySwings in a nutshell, that's exaxcly it. The rest is the dress those who think like that, use to hide/embelish this feeling. "no, I don't hate science" - but you hate that it objectively contradicts your belief "science is an approach to reality, just as valid as other philosophical views such as...." - no, you don't understand what science is, or don't care. Dave's quote is harsh, but true...😮💨
@@dpt4458 Religious people are not the place I'd start to understand science. That would be scientists. I would go to the religious people if I wanted religious information.
In some ways its actually easier, because you can live in a world where you know more than everyone around you... And that you're aware that the world is actually a super cool movie and you're the main character
As a PhD from the third world, I don't think it is a stretch, at all, to call the academic publishing industry a racket. Never knew a scientist who saw a dime for their published article or reviewing work. Publishers leech on this "free" work, which is paid for by universities, grant agencies and often by the public. Proof of that is the widespread acceptance and acclaim for sci-hub among scientists.
I swear every ten years or so there is a blow up in the scientific community about the fact that a lot of peer review for journals is done for free. But it seems to be that invariably it is remembered how important that is for the integrity of science, and hey, you get access to cutting edge research.
Of course, I think his argument was that it was not a racket in the sentiment expressed in the referred video. I don't know anyone who operates in research who is thrilled over having to pay to see their own work and worries of self plagiarism amidst many other concerns, but the unhappy state of publishing companies does not invalidate the research being presented in their journals.
@@IronAsclepius Unfortunately, greedy business practices always foster public distrust towards an entire field. Every whackjob theory attempts to validate itself by referring to the profit motive of the "establishment". It is understandable why disillusionment with medical industry, or scientific publishing for that matter, provides fertile ground for harmful fundamentalist narratives. And I can see why issues like the exorbitant APCs or publicly funded research being hidden behind paywall, raise their fair share of eyebrows. Fortunately, this is being addressed to an extent by more and more funders demanding open access and data sharing, more public repositories being established, preprints being more often uploaded to arxiv, and so forth.
I see scientists get money from their work all the time... It's called a paycheck and grants. Most universities own all the intellectual property their researchers put out related to their area of study. It would be more concerning if they were profiting off of it.
@@Pleasekillmysonsdad the publishing companies owns the copyright of the paper itself. And I said reviews are not paid because the video said that reviewing is one thing publishers need to pay for. No, they don't even have that cost. And how the university/grant agency/public/etc is donating the work they paid for for the profit of the publishers is an okay thing?
Elon is actually an artificial intelligence in the body of an android, so not really applicable. It must be true, considering the fact that someone said it on the internet.
yeah, science works, but billionaires love to waste money, they're evil, these fuckers destroy the planet for profit despite knowing they live on this planet.
@Crowned_Conquering_Man-Child "science isn't dogma. you're just trying to discredit it because it makes you feel uncomfortable about your pseudoscientific belief." not as catchy
"I dont like science!!!" "Oh, you dont like cars, phones, hospitals, movies, or food and fresh water?" Friends, remind our anti-science cousins that the cell phone is the Science Bible. BAM
@@spracketskooch yeah that's what I'm eluding to. Obviously you can't exactly observe one directly, currently, but you can indeed observe it indirectly, which for most generic purposes is the same thing. It may actually be possible to observe one since it was discovered that they do actually release hawking radiation (rip) so potentially we may be able to observe one directly, just lack the technology to do so as far as I'm aware. It was previously thought that nothing escaped a black hole, so as you said, it was previously thought true that you could never see one directly. However, since said discovery, things have changed somewhat.
@@shannonbarber6161 If what you're saying is that we didn't observe one, you're wrong, just in a way. While we didn't actually get a photo of the black hole itself (that's literally impossible), we got a picture of the accretion disk iirc around one. We've observed the phenomenon.
He criticizes scientists, claiming that their findings are published without proper scrutiny. Then, he criticizes scientists for applying proper scrutiny to outrageous claims.
It's easy to debunk things that are very wrong. It is a lot of work to review something well done. e.g. In the case of EU, that's exactly what "we" thought circa 1880 but data was piling up showing something was missing because the orbit of Mercury was off and then we discovered beta-decay (alluded to the weak and strong forces). It's not that "EU is wrong!!!!" but that it's old-news.
@@Damnchaosemerald_e.e He is a walking contradiction. And what's worse, he has the fucking nerve to be smug about his ignorance. The worst kind of hubris bastard. May he fall long and hard!
As someone who recently got to do actual research in a lab for a university, can indeed confirm that most research is just, “here’s some stuff we did”, like I was just comparing 3D printer filaments
I love reading old papers, like pre 80s. The way they write them is just so... casual? (At least the fields I looked at, I'm sure medical fields and such were different) It reminds me of extractions and ire (E&F) and his love of the 60s, because of all the utterly insane explosives chemistry papers from the 60s and before lol Go back way far enough and a paper will sometimes literally just be "Yeah I took this weird smelly liquid and put it in a pot with this other thing and it exploded I almost died but this is pretty cool someone else should try it"
this applies especially to things like astronomy and cosmology. Theres a lot of scientists who just do stuff and find some interesting solar system or stellar object that has a weird property and they post their findings like, hey look at this weird thing we found here is what we did to try and figure it out. Its great because it can be a hobby and not just a job!
As an undergrad medical biologist who does research on molecular biology studying antibiotic resistance (NIH) I’m more then grateful for this video and the rest that you post. We need you in this fight against morons.
To be fair, people (especially the Media) tend to phrase the word *Science* completely incorrectly, as if Science is a physical material or something. No idea whatever the guy was talking about btw.
@@NeroDefogger Damn, that's a crazy assumtion to make off of a guy literally just saying "sometimes media minturprets science". If theres one thing commenters love it's getting angry at the least controversial statement possible and pretending like they know they're whole ass backstory.
I also blame a lot of "science media" and other media for setting people down the wrong path and allowing them to get duped by charlatans. It probably has something to do with our capitalist economy or something. As someone who grew up in the sticks and eventually got a chemistry degree and now getting a CS degree, it took me A LONG TIME to formulate and discover what science is really about and how it relates to humans. Most people are given a false dichotomy in the first place and it keeps them in the dark.
Well, I suppose it's comforting at least that a few of the tens of thousands of people who watched it aren't morons and just watching out of curiosity!
I think the worst part of the video is the very beginning, because it tells a VERY different argument as to what the entirety of the video was about. I thought it was going to be a good video about how scientific research is biased towards the wealthy and how fame/money drives people into making false claims (although this is technically how science has been since the beginning with few exceptions making the title misleading), when in the end it was some made up BS about how supposedly pro establishment modern day science is and how its against anything new that goes against pre established theories in such a layered and lengthened rhetoric it's confusing to logically pick up on the flaws in his arguments, or to even understand them which is intended because his argument is terrible. Was an enormous waste of time watching half of that video, so glad to see Dave debunk it.
@cosmidia8396 I may have to go over to the video just to peruse the comments. If for nothing else, a sick addiction to seeing others ignorance and how they justify it.
@@tortoisewarrior4855how do new theories go against pre-established theories? How could someone acknowledge the possibility of unknowns if you fail to adequately explore the implications of other theories. Any testing that is done, especially on ESP can’t start with the assumption that it is repeatable by anyone or that every tester will genuinely explore the possibilities or even not intentionally fudge their results to ruin the reputation of anyone who took it seriously. What is an adequate control for something like this, someone who has no place in their beliefs for something like this will never admit that there was no trick involved no matter how secure they make their experiment.
More than science denial being the main cause, I think is more akin to a consequential phenomenon brought by the decay technological societies produce.
The idea that you can 'debunk' the natural sciences by pointing to the problem of 'value judgement' in 'social science' is beyond ridiculous and just demonstrates either ignorance, malice or both.
i think thats not his point tho, he really is just trying to point out the problem of value judgement and other such problems, not debunk the whole of science
@@aguspuig6615 But if that was the argument, why apply it to scientific research as a general body? If it wasn't aimed at the whole of science, don't describe the whole of science as a fuckin' priesthood.
Next step is someone looking through the pile ...oooh this looks interesting and in combination with this folder we can do something completely amazing... or so mundane that we start asking ourselves why nobody thought of this sooner.
The assertion that science is dogmatic is pure projection. Such people -- and I've run into a few -- witness the passion, vehemence, and (sometimes) arrogance of scientists, and subconsciously graft their own dogmatism and authoritarianism onto them.
No, what you are describing there is religion. Science is what happens when you do your best to overturn what we already know. In the course of that, we have found some answers which are closer to correct than a lot of "Ancient Wisdom", and that upsets some people.
I don't understand how anyone can take the position you have after we have seen so many things like the plate-tectonics debacle throughout the 20th century. In contemporary times its the witch-hunt level of drivel coming out of climate science.
“I distrust science!” Said the people who live in dwellings with heating systems, then drive cars or otherwise ride vehicles over bridges, use the internet, watch TV and use cell phones.
I love how he complains about a Replication Problem within science, but every single "experiment" done outside of mainstream science can never be repeated ever; the steps are never even given on how to do it in a coherent way.
Most science is done with very expensive and very specialized equipment more often than not. Anything not is usually something you'd just do in high-school
Some nutters do have experiments that you can replicate. The ones I've seen are, however, either flawed or require a misunderstanding to draw the conclusion they do. My favorite is the one where they test whether moonlight has a cooling effect. By placing an object in the open during the night and placing the same object beneath some form of cover. Then they measure the temperature, see that the one in the open is cooler and declare they are right. While not even trying to consider other factors, possible sources of error or ways to improve the experiment. That's not even getting into how their hypothesis is so vague it wouldn't be acceptable for a high school science project.
@@DaysofKnight This isn't quite correct. it has to read "most NEW science is done...". The stuff you do in Highschool or at home with relatively cheap equipment is still science, if you do it right. it's just that you won't be the first to do it, cause all the low fruit have been picked by now. And since there's probably more amateurs doing science at home and in school, as a percentage most of all science is probably done by relative laymen. The vast majority of actual NEW discoveries however come indeed out of Labs.
people don't waste billions on experiments they know are bunk for pride. stop misquoting him. the actual quote would be: "People don't waste billions of dollars [in science] for pride. Period." those [square brackets] are used for context.
Hey as a Physics/Chemistry teacher I absolutely LOVE your channel! I guess we are both going to keep on fighting the good fight on ignorance and academic laziness.
To be fair, scienfitic publishing really does need to change. It is unfair that the general public does not have access to many new sceintific papers, it is an affront to progress that researchers (and their university/company) feel the need to 'publish or perish' (and the fact that to many, a negative result is about as good as no result at all - despite negative results being extremely important in science), and it is simply a waste of money in the end - for everyone involved. A simple way to prove this is the case is to simply ask any scientist who has published an article for it directly. Almost always, with no questions asked, they will give it to you. Why? Because publishers don't propagate knowledge and they don't funnel money to the people making new knowledge. There is absolutely zero benefit for any scientist to have their papers published, other than the fact our culture built on publishing will simply ignore their paper otherwise, because we've convinced ourselves (with the publishers help, of course) that a paper that isn't published is as good as a crackpot's proof of the Reimann hypothesis. There is something to be said for moderation (in the 'online forum moderator' sense, not the 'not too much not to little' sense), but I don't think such a thing would cost anything close to what publishers make. If anything it should be a government run thing, or a community run thing (I mean, that's what publishers do anyway, they don't pay the people doing peer review - why don't we just cut out the middleman?)
I agree with the video's contention that open-access science gets unnecessarily deified. Scientific publications aren't approachable and people usually misinterpret them without training. In the fields that I work, I've found that there's enough open-access literature out there for people to do adequate research on a lot of different topics, and they just don't or they fail at interpreting it.
@PersonalUseOfUrMum your statement is a classic chicken or egg problem. People don't understand science, but science also doesn't try to explain things to most people. The amount of unnecessary jargon in papers is silly. Nothing is as sophisticated as it's presented. The main obstacle to me learning quantum mechanics was everyone saying it can't be understood. Anybody is capable of applying critical thinking and learning new things. This shouldn't be a reason to cloister information.
General public should not have access to new scientific papers. Not because some secret. OMG we finally found the cure for cancer.... That is why.... Students are overwhelmed with lectures. Until the reach of university level education the "critical thinking" has not enough room. It is a nice thing if they learn about the false things with some explanation about why and how we found out to be wrong but as a side quest only.
a flawed system doesn't equal a completely malicious and all encompassing conspiracy to mind control everyone into believing that its okay to let minorities live or something.
why exactly is it unfair that the general public does not have access to many new scientific papers? The general public has not been trained to read these papers and chances are extremely high that they will misinterpret the papers anyway.
My hypothesis is that these people go "I don't have time to figure out all the science behind everything, therefore nobody does, therefore everything is false". I really doubt any of them know what a scientist even does at work, they must think that science is a hobby or something.
@@scienceisthewaytogo8645 Depends on the context. Theory means outside a strictly scientific context, the same thing hypothesis does within one. Theory when applied to science however, is supposed to mean an accepted and relatively reasonable explanation. It wouldn't actually be inaccurate for him to have said theory, because this isn't a proper scientific context. But his usage of it allows him to shift the message of his comment to more of a "I think I can make a judgement on why this is happening, but don't have background information." Which is in this particular instance a better message to utilize. Also you have a nice profile picture.
And you are the "I don't have time to figure out all the science behind everything, therefore nobody does, therefore everything is true" version of them. So what?
Anyone who says science is unscientific and dogmatic has never talked to real scientists before. Scientists dont all believe in the same thing and the academia is far from a unified consensus.
“This notion that science education = indoctrination, is the most transparently idiotic narrative imaginable, exclusively peddled and believed by people who have never taken a single science course in their entire lives” That is the most succinct way I’ve ever heard that put.
@@levprotter1231idk about the OP, or Dave, but I agree with them and you’re right, I’ve never taken biochem. And? What are you trying to say here? Are all biochem classes indoctrination? If this is your claim, could you elaborate on it? What are you even arguing for?
Your words clown... I've taken and passed (Seen quite a few affirmative action seat warmers on the way) more actual hard science courses than 99% plus and can tell you this.. The science text books are rewritten practically in one generation these days.. but we are handed "The scientific consensus is..." (A contradiction in terms actually) by a corrupt, far left media routinely and most are too timid or uneducated to say anything.. If I had one dollar for every "self appointed rocket scientist" when I asked them to explain this "Greenhouse Effect" caused by manmade CO2 that's roasting the planet... delivering me sophomoric slogans and 4th grade science class gibberish... I'd be rich! I've only encountered one educated college proff who properly laid out the high altitude Infared radiation theory argument... and admitted that it was very shaky at best.
I can still hear my Jesuit math/biology teacher Father F yelling, 'SHOW YOUR WORK!' Some prople are just so far down the rabbit hole that there is no more light.
@@cewla3348 A Jesuit is a member of the Society of Jesus, which is a Catholic religious order that while also engaging in evangelizing specializes in education.
@@cshaw9683 how do you even drop out of school? Like, are you so bad that they just say you cannot be taught or you just say I don't want to study anymore and stop going?
@@kolyashinkarev7366 Even today, you can leave at 16 in New Zealand. I’m guessing that if you try to drop out earlier, there is an attempt to force you back but resources are limited. It is difficult to track down all these kids and compel them to complete high school.
"Correlation does not imply causation" is simple logic; it does not require observation or experiment. The logically-derived truth of the statement is why scientific experiments are done.
The problem is that major "scientific" institutions are exploiting general ignorance to pass correlation as causation. The process of real science is how we came to the conclusion that correlation does not equal causation, but the institutions people depend on to learn and understand science for themselves are not bound to these rules. Science is not a person, it's not an organization, it's a process. Unfortunately, people and organizations are trying to pass themselves as the authoritative arbiters of this process, while labeling critics as "unscientific" by virtue of their attempt to criticize at all rather than with a comprehensive scientific rebuttal, which is unscientific and dangerous.
Thank you so much! For the past 4 months TH-cam had been recommending so much unfiltered garbage to me, from just spam to innocent home videos, to this kind of dangerous nonsense. Seems after the flat Earth disaster circa 2014 they're at it again, prioritizing engagement over quality.
@@lucaswallo8127My dad very nearly died of COVID because he refused to get the vaccine, and then refused to go to the hospital when he got sick. It took me a good 5 hours of essentially yelling at him to get him into my car to go to the hospital. If I wasn't around, he'd be dead.
@@lucaswallo8127Unfortunately there are gullible and vulnerable people out there who get hurt by these conspiracies and misinformation. And no intelligence has nothing to do with vulnerability, so don't blame it on people being dumb either. I enjoy a good laugh when watching a thorough debunking too but this is still a serious issue that needs to be addressed seriously.
Yo Dave, this was a really good idea to take on this specific video. It's almost middle of the road in the sense that he points out various real problems like issues within for profit publication and such instances of "racketeering" in academia, then takes his own bizarre turns and weird generalizations. It's really effective watching the process of following legitimate info and logic right up until things start to fall apart, since many people revert to black or white thinking and more categorical worldviews because fuck it's so tiring just staying alive under capitalism who has the energy to actually examine shit right?. Hey it's funny how that 1 thing ties in to both of those problems. I will say, "they need to earn a living" is not really a great _reason_ but it is definitely a competent explanation. There are definitely real problems with agendas and bad science that are driven by capital in research and academia, but obviously again that's an indictment of capitalism, not science itself, and like you said his extreme "most research is a lie" claims are basically just clickbait, not some nuanced examination of the finances of academia lol. Anyways thanks man. it makes sense he was just backwards logicking his way to fucking electric universe all along lmao i almost spit out my tea when he started ham fistedly segueing into cosmology???? phew
I'm not surprised at the indoctrination but that doesn't make it any less laughable. Y'all do not understand what I'm talking about, you didn't even engage with the substance of my commentary, you just ran in here to defend capitalism, the most violent and exploitative system of organization (not economic system lmao), because some people are still stuck with the red scare brain rot. Please take your finance 101 investing advice elsewhere, lmfao. Trust me, I understand how financial systems work. My entire commentary is informed by a class based analysis; the fact that you emphasize that it's about "poor" and "rich" is a testament to 2 things: you don't understand what I wrote, and you don't understand the system you're defending. You live under imperialist protection, and then you use the perks of those ill gotten gains to defend the system, I mean that's just hysterically dumb. I'm used to it though, it's very common for outspoken people on the internet to have no idea what they're talking about. Especially when it comes to capitalism. "A little gratitude"?? Yo, unironically, shut the fuck up. You don't know what I've been through or the horrors I've witnessed at the hands of capitalist imperialism.
What is it with this reply that seems to take a single keyword and go on an extremely off-topic conservative rant that doesn't have anything to do with the central argument? It comes across as the opposite of mentally healthy.
@@marzipancutter8144 Some people are so poisoned by the echoes of the red scare that whenever they see capitalism even slightly criticised, they turn into living caricatures of capitalism.
@@Przemko27Zgenuinely so frightening to see especially in this comment section where there's so much positivity and multiple good faith debates going on
@@tjhanson9142 funny all i see in the comments are just professordave fanboys, dudes a damn parrot and we got 2million subscribers? The public is gullible at best.
Isn't it ironic when religious/mystical people attempt to discredit science by equating it to a religion and using terms like "doctrine"? I do a Capt. Picard double facepalm when I hear it ...
I have recently made a video, the thumbnail of which says something like "Quantum is fake?" where I respoind to some quack who makes exremely poor arguments for quantum mechanics being fake. It is my most watched video to date beacause it attracted people who already think it is fake. Horrible, truly horrible.
I love hiw part 1 has massive amounts of views and then part 2 and 3, the deniers were like "Na i don't like this... Im not gonna watch the next parts"
Literally the entire point of the scientific pursuit is an endless cycle of fact-checking each other to the cutting edge of knowledge. The entire point of pseudoscience, in contrast, is to "Yes, and-" each other into dizzying new levels of fractal madness.
Exactly! This is why there was so much push back on the C-vaccy - We skipped that "endless cycle of fact-checking" (or at least about 3-5 years of human trials normally required for new medication) to promote a dogmatic belief that it is safe, effective, and necessary for everyone to take regardless of other immunity status. Information is now coming to light that it might have harmed more than it helped, and excess deaths are still way above normal. Bring back real science! Fact-checking is required!
And the biggest problem is also to actually be scientific and actually check the facts. Do you know that plagiarism isn't a crime? In the US it isn't a crime, but a moral issue. A lot of researchers plagiarize others and their own work all the time. They fabricate data and just make stuff up. They can even try to force the result they want by using stuff like P-hacking. There is a massive incentive for researchers to fake their data because they use a publish or perish model. You must write papers to advance in your career, and you do not want to have spent the past 6 months to 2 years to find out that you achieved nothing as nothing match your hypothesis. And no on cares about a paper that prove the null hypothesis. If you want a tenure position, and therefore job security, you have to publish papers often. The reason we do not hear about this is because Universities choose to handle issues such as fraud and plagiarism behind closed doors. It was intended to be a way for Science to police itself, but in practice it is just a way for a University to sweep things under the rug until people have stopped caring about it. If you think that Science is self-correcting and built on always finding the truth, you are naive. It might be that in theory, but in practice it isn't. If you actually understand what science is you understand this. Communism is in theory supposed to produce a equal and efficient society. In practice however it always become a inefficient, dictatorial society that constantly tramples on human rights. There is a good reason why trust in Science has fallen as of late. It isn't because we are stupid. We have literally been fed lies for 3 years that has been proven false when science said it was proven fact.
Yeah no. I love to explain exactly how naive that perspective is, but TH-cam have already censored me once on this very comment. Fact is, that what you said isn't true. That is how it works in theory, but not in practice.
6:17 While I disagree with literally everything that guy says, I at least admit there're legitmate reasons to feel that academic papers are a racket. While not inherently a racket, they are almost certainly used as one in the college world. Scientific papers and textbooks are unreasonably expensive, and their costs are typically pushed onto students who are already swamped for cash as it is. Colleges have the power to simply subscribe to a journal and give their students access to the papers they need to do their work (and some certainly do) but many instead push the costs onto the students. It almost feels like some journals will legitimately pay colleges to *not* subscribe, so that they can get students to pay for individual papers and make more money. It's certainly not out of the question for colleges to do stupid shit like that to make money. I once had a professor require that you buy the specific most recent (and most expensive) version of *HIS* textbook that he makes a new more expensive version of every semester. I specifically asked if an older version would work and he specifically said "No, it HAS to be this years." I grabbed a cheap second hand one like 12 versions back anyway (cause I couldn't afford the most recent one) and, after comparing to another students most recent copy, discovered that the one 12 versions back and the most recent one (that was nearly a hundred dollars and supposedly required) only differed by a couple paragraphs of flavor text! No info changed at all! But yet there he was, demanding his students pay HIM triple digits for his own book despite the exact same info being available at 5% the price!
Step 1: Government(taxpayers) pays for researchers to run studies. They use part of this funding to pay to be published in a journal. Step 2: Journal asks researchers to quality check studies for free. Because researchers are paid via government grants, this is effectively charging the taxpayers again. Step 3: Journals charge readers for access to the journals. Who are the readers? Taxpayers of course. TLDR - journals get paid by the taxpayers 3x despite actually providing nothing of value. Remember, the quality check, which is what a normal publication would be expected to provide, isn't done by the journal.
That is true. Paying for articles out-of-pocket can easily set you back hundreds of dollars. Sci-hub and Mutual aid scientific community help a lot with this.
That is a fault of capitalism, not of science. The education system can be corrupt even while the education method is perfectly valid. Parsing out where to lay blame for grievances is an important part of accurately fixing systems, even though the natural response to acute pain is to blame the most proximal link in the chain. That professor's behavior is disgusting... but then, is probably also a consequence of his trying to supplement his poor pay due to the college distributing profits to administration and shareholders and not to educators.
@@QuesoCookies While journals abusing their power isn't inherent to the scientific method, it *is* built into the foundations of modern science. Claiming otherwise is like claiming that "real" communism has never been tried. The scientific method is a pure system for understanding the universe. Implementation is always the tough part. Because of this, there are valid aspects to claims that the scientific method has be co-opted by groups and entities with goals other than discovery and knowledge. We must notice and accept all flaws in our modern scientific system in order to address and improve them. Saying "Oh that's not science, that is capitalism" doesn't change the fact that the scientific method has been corrupted in its implementation.
I would love to know whether Professor Dave saves that peg-and-hole toy for every lecture, or if he waited 3-5 business days for Amazon to deliver it just to do that bit of peak cinema. Either way, it's brilliant!
I grew up liking “hard” science and thought that things like psychology and sociology were sketchy. While in college in 1980, I was aiming for a certificate in Russian Studies and took a “Sociology of the Soviet Union” course. The professor stated that according to research, the USSR was teetering on the verge of collapse. It took less than a decade. I now have a healthy respect for the people doing such research.
@@MyName-tb9oz I haven’t kept up with that field of study, so I honestly do not know what trends they are seeing now or how they anticipate future events. If they could predict the fall of the USSR with the science of the 1980s, I suspect that they have further improved their tools in the intervening decades. Perhaps you should sign up for either a current sociology course or start following one of their professional journals…? I am NOT talking about political pundits, btw. They make all kinds of unfounded predictions. They make money off of the current shiny object which people get all excited about.
so you base your entire opinion on a massive field of study on a sample size of N=1 ? thats rather unscientific of you... how many other predictions did said professor make in that timeframe that weren't correct?
@@KT-pv3kl I had many statistics and statistical analysis courses when I was in college. I do understand that correlation is not causation, and all that stuff. What I was trying to convey is that it may look iffy to outsiders, but when you drill down to their methodology and analysis, fields like sociology are far better and more predictive than most laypeople realize. I didn’t take the course because I liked sociology, but it definitely caused me to change my mind about the “soft” sciences. I was an engineering major, so we had a certain amount of snobbishness towards the “sissies” in fields like psychology and sociology. That course taught me to never make those kinds of assumptions. Every field of study is important and just as difficult as rocket science. THAT is my message. If sociology says that the world is falling apart, only then will I stock up on survival gear.
@@CrochetIsLife54 the opposite is the fact. Most laypeople have no clue about the difference between hard and soft science and for them everything that "the science" tells them is dogma wether it is particle physics or feminist glaciology (yes that's not a joke there are papers written about this and they are peer reviewed and published) In the field of psychology alone we have a replication crisis where more than 30% of findings couldn't be replicated in repeat experiments in specific areas the failure was greater than 60%. That is absolutely abysmal and not only offsets any predictive prowess of the soft sciences it outright calls into question the scientific rigor that the entire field uses in their research. I don't doubt that traditional Chinese medicine can work but I wouldn't call it scientific if 60% of its explanations are probably false. The same goes for the soft sciences Also no again, not every field of science is equally important or equally hard. The mating behaviour of shallow sea bristle worms is neither as important nor as hard to study as astrophysics or the theory of gravity.
It's so easy to exploit our fears of being controlled, monitered, or replaced. As people we need to make sure we don't fall for our fears and continue thinking logically to come to our own conclusion instead of letting someone else shape them through these fears.
Rewind a couple of years and say that again. I don't think as many ppl distrust science but rather scientific intitutions, especially when boatloads of money are involved. Science is great but scientists are people. People can be rascals. Thats why the scientific method was developed.
I predict that if Formscapes responds to this he's gonna single out the "TIGER" thing as if it's some useless nonsequitur, because he would have no other way to defeat that point. 🍿
Anecdote about antivaxers: i study biotechnology (vaccines, GMO, all the cool stuff) and during Covid-19 our Uni department conducted an experiment and measured the % of people who vaccinated. I don’t remember the details but you needed to show your certificate and it was over 70% So i brought this up during a debate with my antivax uncle Me: Uncle, if vaccines are so bad, why do people developing vaccines vaccinate? U: They don’t Me: Yes they do, they did in this study U: Well, they are indoctrinated, they don’t know about the negative effects of vaccines! Me: So… *you are saying that people who reaserch and develop vaccines… don’t actually know anything about vaccines?* U: Yes. I just left that room at that point (It was christmas. I just told my family what i do at school and he started a pointless debate instead of shutting up and letting me talk about my stupid e.coli)
I don't have much else to say other than the fact that you are fantastic. I show my wife snippets of your videos whenever her anti-science friends try to feed her bad info. You're doing a major service for people who don't interact much with science and can easily fall for the bullshit. Thank you!
I'm a computer scientist. How did we learn how exactly a computer works? We designed one, down to the level of individual wires. How did we learn how machine learning works? We programmed stuff - from simple movie recomendations up to neural networks capable of finding various objects in video. How did we learn how to create videogame AI? We made bots for various games including SCBW, UT2004, SMW and other. This is how university works, you're guided but in the end pretty much all of the knowledge is proven to you or straight up use to do something. No teacher will ever tell you "my source is: trust me bro".
I know it's nothing new but this whole, "Scientists are dogmatic because they don't believe I can communicate telepathically with my cat," routine is so exhausting.
@@Nature_Consciousness >"Do science actually understands consciousness" No, science do not. That said, there's very good reason to conclude that human cognition requires a physical substrate and is electrochemical in nature. >"How can you dismiss something which you know nothing about?" Because my priors indicate that nobody has ever made a credible claim regarding telepathy and so, I will dismiss such claims until someone gives me reason to update my perspective in terms of compelling evidence for telepathy. I'm confused by why this perspective confuses anyone.
A few years ago, I came across a short snippet to do with the "Electric Universe" that wasn't detailed enough for me to be able to tell if it perhaps had some merit or if it was yet another crackpot hypothesis. I found an email address for the originator of the hypothesis, and emailed them, politely, requesting further details of the hypothesis. I never received a reply, so I drew the only sensible conclusion that I could - "Electric Universe" must be a crank thing. To this day, aside from the claim about electricity, rather than gravity, being the dominant force in the large-scale universe, and that our notions of how stars work are supposedly incorrect in some way, I have no idea whatsoever of what the core of the "Electric Universe" notion is, and why its authors think anyone should find it compelling. I'm open-minded to new ways of looking at things - heck, I've my own hypothesis regarding certain aspects of cosmology - BUT - I want solid propositions that can be tested to see how well they fit reality. Show me a line of reasoning that holds together that better explains things than the currently accepted model, and I'll give it due consideration. Show me wild claims with no explanation thereof, and I'll take it that whoever is making those claims is a crackpot. (shrugs) :-}
It's not necessarily the *idea* that is so enticing, more rather the idea that *everyone else is wrong, and you somehow know the truth* that is so much more enticing. Like it or not, but we're sorta hard coded to like being seen as great, the top; superior. It's one of the reasons why the "Electric Universes" meetings of its members end up being a large mishmash of differing ideas. They're all there because they want to believe that they know the secret. Going by trusted science, and something that is considered "mainstream" goes against this idea- and well- as such, you get people who start saying shit like the video that Formscapes guy was making. The most dangerous part of these, are really when someone influentia, and who knows enough scientific knowhow starts pushing these claims... thankfully, people like Professore Dave are definitely helping educate the people who want to see beyond just the face value faliacies.
As much as I typically am very supportive of your videos, Prof. Dave, I feel you’re glossing over some of the truly significant problems in research in the understandable desire to defend the scientific effort in general. The Replication Crisis in psychology, for example, is serious enough that Kahneman himself has written on its implications. And the findings of large-scale fraud, duplicated images, etc in highly cited papers by esteemed institutions & researchers, can not be understated. Is the scientific method still the best we have? Absolutely, 100% YES. Does it need to be much more stringently regulated? Also YES. Does more work need to be done to replicate existing work? YES. Do we need to keep pushing to pre-register all research projects and there goals and require publication of negative results, such that bad results aren’t covered up or ignored? Damn straight, Gorski’s project in that direction needs support from around the world. Does the scientific publishing industry, such as Elsevier, charge sickeningly exorbitant fees of universities, colleges, and other institutions that goes far beyond “just making a living” while severely restricting the availability of knowledge to the public? Hell yes, that’s why some countries and universities are fighting back to stop the insanity. Is Formscape wrong about almost everything? Of course they are. But don’t gloss over legitimate, large scale problems within research either. Edited to add: you did indeed pick a video that illustrates almost every anti-science talking point perfectly. And your rebuttal/takedown also covers all the answers THOROUGHLY.
I think the main issue is the video would probably be like 4 hours long at that point, but I do agree that the best defense against psuedoscientific quacks using the issues with science against it is to address the issues ourselves so they have no ammunition.
... You're literally arguing for them. They coopt issues like these because they are genuine issues. And you going "aktshually" just gives them more credence. NO. they have no credence, full stop. Replication crisis must be addressed, but it must be addressed outside of the context of magnetic universe or whatever. But, you going "hurp durp acktshually" has now given some validity to them :) I'm sure you'll disagree, but this is sadly how a lot of anti-intellectual ideas spread. From a kernel of truth about a real issue. Just look at anti-vaxxers. A single poorly researched lie has now spanned decades of regressive health and death, all in the name of "jUsT aSkInG QuEsTiOnS", we should discuss vaccine safety what if they're not safe? No science is ever 100% certain. See? Like I know you mean well, and I'm probably coming off like an ass (sorry
@@Eclyptical Honestly, just like slightly gloss over what Descartes stressed and HOPEFULLY lol people can make the connection that there is not enough stress on the whole assume you're wrong aspect while making it very easy to prove you're wrong, in the sense of "I can replicate this, no problem." That's when I realized there's issues, along with all the fake journals that are accepted everywhere but stack exchanges (even then the non listed predatory joiurnals get through). They maintain a web adress with org or edu and I think your average curious reader is taught that is more valuable than anything. Yet there's some usually chinese who claim to be canadian jouranls with fake peer review that costs 300 dollars, and I've seen articles saying you can view atoms with your phone.
What saddens me about people like this is their relative eloquence, and overall understanding of "conveying the impression of being educated and wise". They've clearly put a LOT of energy into this. They're being methodical. But so insanely wrong. It must be such hard work being so energetically ignorant all the time...
He seemed eloquent but annoying for the first few minutes I had watched… I failed to recognize that Formscapes was trying to discredit science just because it’s revised. I constantly have to explain that it is impossible to study things in any meaningful sense without revising your ideas as new evidence is found.
@@darkstarr984 There is a significant portion of people who pine for an unchanging, simple world they can thoroughly understand and predict. Well, tough: the world isn't that way and we all have to deal with it. Heck, even religious doctrine is full of contradictions, dubious translations. redacted and lost texts, forgotten contexts, and so on - not to mention competing religions.
Right?? I can't quite describe it, but people like this seem to "see" science as a religion just like they have. Like they understand the fundamental that science technically replaces religiousness; if you take the science pill (which is just a framework, really) then it purges the body of religion... I just can't quite put it into words... "the thing you believe (engaging in the science framework) will completely erase and replace my faith in religion (because religion is stuck in place of where knowledge goes once acquired from science), ergo they are the same thing, ergo my religion is a dogma so your thing must be a religion and must be a dogma too! My religion is bullshit so yours is just as much!" Does anyone get this? I'm just too dumb rn and can't word it correctly.
There is just one point you made which I am compelled to dispute: "People don't waste billions of dollars for pride." Bruh have you checked the climate lately? The fossil fuel industry literally sold out the future of the entire human species to make a quantified abstraction of their personal "value" even more obscenely inflated than it already was. There are absolutely people looking to fund bogus 'studies' in order to manufacture 'facts' for their agenda, and threatening to pull funding for studies that don't fulfill it, or that can't be editorialized to fit it -- just look at the history of food industry lobbying and its effects on dietary guidelines. Of course, the solution to this problem is... everything else discussed in this video. Contrary to what 'community' might imply, the entire point of the scientific community is to facilitate scrutiny, discussion, and rebuttal from numerous unaffiliated research initiatives.
@@notjebbutstillakerbal Was about to say this, Elon took a $22 billion (and counting) loss on buying Twitter just because he didn't like what they were doing.
@@fordid42 Explain how that was done out of pride? My understanding is it was done to make the platform a place where free speech is honored and valued, and narratives pushed by gov agencies/censoring/shadow banning anything that goes against the narrative/agendas are no longer allowed, and thus twitter stopped being a tool used by the gov and is what it was when it first begun, and should have stayed the whole time. It certainly appears to me that he followed through with his mission statement so I look forward to hearing your reasons as to why it was for pride. While you're at it, include your reasons why narratives pushed by gov agencies/censoring/shadow banning anything that goes against the narrative/agendas are a good thing and deserve to be defended. I don't use twitter/x but if every billionaire did what musk did we would be back to how the internet was 15 years ago before 'boot licking meta' group bought literally every single platform worth it's salt.
Garbage like the Formscapes video in question just pisses me off. "I can convince stupid people if i use big words - they'll just nod their heads. " - thanks as always, Dave.
That’s still the case today on most campuses. Also even when there’s a paywall if you search the paper on Google Scholar there’s usually a free version available for everyone
Pro tip: for those without institutional access use Google Scholar. For most papers there’s usually a freely accessible pdf or html version available. It’ll be a separate link to the right of the paywalled link
I lost all access to academic journals and papers when I graduated college. If I wanted access to JSTOR now I would have to pay $20 a month OR a great new deal! $200 for a year. All the research I was able to freely do, gone. If I wanted to vet most of my papers I can't anymore.
I keep seeing that "How Science became unscientific " video come up on my feed. I kept assuming it was going to be about how charlatans kept coopting science by putting feelings before facts... I didn't expect it to BE a charlatan putting feelings before facts.
in germany we say "Schuster, bleib bei deinem Leisten!" in english "Cobbler, stick to your last!" which means that one should stick to what they know best and not venture into areas outside their expertise.
I blame social media for this. It has provided a means for people who hold such beliefs to network and create an echo chamber to cocoon themselves from anything that contradicts those beliefs.
People do not trust figures of authority after being lied to for so long. The foundations of anti-science ideologies like flat earthers or anti-vax(not including the covid skepticism) are a direct result of the government and big companies paying for the kind of science that gets unproven products through the door and then people getting burned by those entities. If they hurt you, why ever trust them? Thats the foundation of the ideology.
@@Akira625I wouldn't even say they cocoon themselves. Frankly, I'd be perfectly happy if they did. If a small percentage of the population wanted to quietly sit in a corner and circlejerk about how the world is flat, that's totally fine with me. Their stupidity isn't my problem, and you don't need to understand that the world is round or how exactly gravity works in order to build a house or run a CNC or even do financial analysis on a business. Instead, they evangelize their stupidity and draw in other gullible and slightly stupid people who "see the light" and become evangelists themselves. Any Instagram or Facebook or TH-cam short with a clip of someone on the ISS will be met with an overwhelming barrage of "lmao you can see the wires" and "why did he set the microphone down if there's no gravity" because they fail to realize that the presenter actually just stuck it to the wall with Velcro so it doesn't float away from him while he demonstrates something. Science deniers cocooning themselves is my preferred outcome. As the old expression goes, "You cannot reason people out of positions they didn’t reason themselves into." There's very little hope of convincing them they're wrong, but I'd be more than content if they'd merely stop talking in the meantime.
While science is never perfect, being a human endeavor it’s subject to all the foibles and issues affecting any human endeavor, it is at least a process for understanding reality in an objective manner using observation and experimentation. Unfortunately just about anything can be viewed as a conspiracy, and that includes science. Whattya gonna do? 🤷🏻♀️
i remember the anecdote "cows moo softly" as a method to remember the scientific method: change something, measure something, keep everything else the same. i learned this in 6th grade. primary schools in Australia often don't even have labs for science classes.
@@avishalom2000lm as an Australian I think he's just pointing out how simple it is to teach the process despite having a lack of funding or dedicated facilities to teach, although having a lab and bunsen burner and other equipment etc does help as showing is always better than just telling, that said my state school had a facility but rural areas as always are usually underfunded.
People who think their degree from Google University is as good as 100 years of research and verification done by hundreds of thousands of people who have devoted their entire lives to studying these fields have honestly changed my mind about the concept of free speech.
Its funny because "google debunker" is literally a slur for some of their parts. They dont get their info from google, but from the recomended feed of other similar content creators. Its an infinite telephone game thats why its often so wrong aswell
Prof Dave clearly has never read Calvin & Hobbes. Tigers are more than capable of firing guns (using water) at unsuspecting humans. Much more plausible than it seems.
Best comic ever
Calvin also made a Transmogrifier out of a cardboard box, quite the scientist.
@@davestier6247That's where I learned the word "transmogrify". As a great philosopher and teacher once said, best comic ever!
@@ProfessorDaveExplains -
"Thou dost wrong me! Faith, I know not where I wander. Methinks the most capricious zephyr hath more design than I ... But lo: Do not detain me, for I am resolv'd to quit this place forthwith ... "
C&H was an everf%@king scream!
Love this and Calvin and Hobbes! My heater is not working so I just put on layers to "build character". Fortunately, I live in South Texas, so it really doesn't get cold down here.
"the victim was shot by a gun, how did a tiger do that?" is probably the best analogy for pseudoscience i've head
that whole tiger bit had me rolling
So: is tiger disarmed due to having paws, or is it armed due to having a gun?
@@EdibleREALconstantly disarmed, they've only got legs
Hey, we all saw Tiger King.
wow you're obviously a tiger denier. in fact the tiger holds the gun with its mouth and uses its tongue to pull the trigger. the fingerprints and other evidence was put there in order to test our faith, obviously. can't believe you guys are such sheep
It's funny how here in the real world, instead of being silenced for proving science wrong, you get a nobel prize.
Only if you can actually substantiate your claim.
@@dpt4458 Yes, the one that actually proves science wrong.
what?
@@hannahp1527 correct
@dpt4458 Um, no.. it doesn’t matter how you say it. What matters is if you can actually demonstrate that it’s wrong, why it’s wrong, and explain it better. That’s it. No one has to like it or like the way you said it
Formscape: "Science is dogma!"
"Nice argument, senator, why don't you back it up with a source?"
Formscape: "My source is that I made it the fuck up!"
They keep telling on themselves every time they try to project their way of thinking onto everyone else.
Good one bro.
Just because you college kids can't perceive what formscapes speaks about doesn't make it wrong or worthy of assaulting.
Professor Dave is either a shill or heavily psychologically damaged and has wrapped himself up in external projections.
Formscapes: complains about scientists being too rigid and stagnant
also himself: complains when scientists consider different explanations for Rotifers relationship
formscape doesnt understand that any institution, group, philosophical body, etc needs to have boundary in which it exludes something. otherwise it'd just be literally ANYTHING and seize being itself. scientific model of methods arent even close to exclusionary. and definitely not even dogmatic compared to say religion.
as someone once puts it: it's okay to be open minded but not so open minded that our brains fall out. read the paradox of tolerance to understand further.
ultimately it's about drawing the line as with every classification endeavor. nothing is identical, but at the same time everything is connected. it requires wisdom to know where to delineate.
@@888_vavformscapes is just nazi occultist
"scientists never point out problems with general relativity"
Physicists everywhere: *talking about all the clashes between general relativity and quantum mechanics and trying to come up with a demonstrable theory for everything *
You're talking about quantum mechanics in relation to general relativity .. umm, you got done reading to do.
@@MrDmadness yes that's the point they're incompatible and we have loads of physicists actively working on merging these theories together, that's what string theory and quantum loop gravity is. So the video in question saying people don't dare question general relativity is stupid when this contradiction with quantum mechanics is arguably the biggest problem in modern physics
@@GuoJing2017 ahh I mistook your response, that is in fact a very valid point, my bad
Yeah! Fuck, man, just recently one of the biggest black hole pioneers disproved the idea that all black holes have singularities. New shit's coming out all the time.
Yep, this kind of thinking conflates ideas driven by data with dogma. Both data-driven science and dogma push back against challenges to consensus, but for wildly different reasons, and modern approaches to General Relativity show why.
In reality, challenges to General Relativity are real but conservative because the data show the theory is stupid accurate. Nobody would mind if the entire basis for General Relativity were overturned (people propose stuff like that all the time, actually), but it's really hard to fit a theory that does that into the remaining space.
While dogma---well, the pushback is a lot less nuanced. That's all I'll say on the subject.
>"For good reasons"
>Gives no reasons at all
How do people fall for this
>says 'for good reasons'
>gives no evidence or proof
>profits massively
I remember there’s a quote that describes this. Think it goes something like this.
“If you say something confidently enough, people will believe you, even if you’re wrong.”
Social engineering.
EXACTLY! I watched that whole video and came away with a sense of deep confusion. The entire time, not one bit of *real* evidence is presented. He talks about anecdotal bullshit like heart transplant recipients but there's not one real study backing any of this up. It's just a tower of nonsense.
They come in wanting to fall for this
"Science makes mistakes, so we can't follow it. Believe the bogus that comes out of my mouth instead."
It does boggle the mind how he could misunderstand science that monumentally. Mistakes are good in science, getting things wrong is good, proving our longstanding theories wrong is even better. Science loves to be wrong because there's something to be learnt in things going wrong.
Science is not dogma, but that person wants to hand down “science is a dogma” as a dogma and his “science” also as a dogma.
Even if what came out of his mouth was 100% true all the time, we would still have to verify it. Because science is not a dogma that takes anyone’s word for it.
@@advorak8529he doesn’t, he actually has a lot of respect for science. I think a lot of people are unaware of how science, popular opinion, ego, and money have become tragically entwined in a big mess and are causing terrible harm to a beautiful activity. I don’t know why professor Dave picked on form scape because form scape is presented by someone who understands science quite deeply. Best to go to the source itself instead.
@@jamesskinnercouk _he actually has a lot of respect for science._
And an abusive partner keeps beating up the victim and make them feel worthless because they love the victim so much.
Pull the other one!
_I think a lot of people are unaware of how science, popular opinion, ego, and money have become tragically entwined in a big mess_
Not a lot of people know the lore of your alternate universe, I agree, but they do not live in it. To them there is little reason to learn the imagined twists and turns of how THEY took over the brains of people …
_and are causing terrible harm to a beautiful activity._
Formscapes actually does cause terrible harm, we can agree on that.
_I don't know why professor Dave picked on form scape_
Because Formscapes said incredible stupid and wrong (and dangerous!) stuff - and attacked Professor Dave’s debunk of the “electric universe”, without actually engaging with the facts.
_because form scape is presented by someone who understands science quite deeply._
If that is true, money and ego and possibly what counts as public opinion in the channel’s audience certainly won over any kind of science understanding.
If he does not understand science, then at least he’s got the excuse of not knowing any better.
_Best to go to the source itself instead._
You mean, ask a scientist? Good idea.
Or did you mean go to the woo peddler for unmitigated fresh woo in absolutely neurotoxic amounts? No, Thank You Very Much!
The prevalent arrogance, which you are demonstrating here, is that we should make our decisions based *solely* on science despite the fact that you _know_ it is incomplete, inaccurate, and occasionally dead wrong.
Since we *know* we have partial and imperfect knowledge (partial and imperfect observations) that means we *know* we need something more to aid decisions making since every decisions you will ever make was, is, and will-be made with information deficiency.
This is why >>> *EVERYTHING*
"Why would you trust science, which can sometimes be slightly wrong and then fixes itself, when you could instead be abjectly wrong all the time on purpose about everything?"
"Why would we belive you if the world was always changing, and your script would have to be updated just as often?"
*objectively
@@matturner6890 That word also works.
@@SantuaryTakkeI mean uniformitarianism is a thing. The world doesn’t really change much, just our understanding of it
@@SantuaryTakke what’s the alternative then? Knowing literally nothing? Making shit up? Take a step back and think about what you’re actually arguing and offering. Nothing. Either fake “skepticism” where you just blindly doubt everything you don’t understand, or just never knowing anything. Science is just the way you get the right answer. It’s not a script or ideology, it’s a basic process of making sure you’re right. It’s not always cut and dry immediately like lazy people prefer, but it’s literally the only way to get the right answers and real results.
I think most scientists are happy to send you a paper they wrote for free if you reach out to them asking directly, as well. They want people to read them!
It depends. Because giving it away for free can also violate publishing contracts.
This is usually true and I hear it everywhere. Journals charge, but scientists often just want the spread of knowledge.
Indeed, that is probably their most desired outcome from all their work. Amazing how concepts can be the most logical and common sense answers ever and yet so easily ignored in favor of some ludicrous ideas from crackpots.
Yes! I did this last year while researching my options for a health challenge and reached out to a handful of authors directly to ask if it was possible to have a copy of the paper that was stuck behind a paywall. My success rate was better than 50% and most of those indicated that they were pleased someone was taking an interest. The rest either didn't reply or in one case someone else from the team responded and said that they were sorry they didn't have access to it either.
@@gaiaakatheearth5604While that's true, I've never actually been turned down. I assume there's some carve-out in place that allows scientists to give away the paper in some limited circumstances.
I have no idea if this is how the contracts are structured, but scientists might, for instance, be allowed to give it away to colleagues but not be allowed to publish it broadly themselves, or some similar arrangement.
Oh! I remember that video! The comment section was full of comments like "when I was doing research for my post-doctorate degree, I was surrounded by people who would believe all kinds of disproven science. I was the only free thinkiner in a sea of sheeple and I just couldn't accept it"
What did they research? No one could say. Where did they research? Not a peep. But they definitely did, they promise.
Did anyone mention what the 'post doctorate degree' was called?
@@TimoRutanen as someone who has a Ph. D. I have serious doubts about the validity of their claims that they engaged in years of graduate research at any accredited university and have presented at academic conferences and have published papers in peer-reviewed journals etc.
@@4Mr.Crowley2 Oh certainly, I was just curious what title they'd invented.
There are certain fields I could see this being the case. When it comes to the cognitive sciences and questions about the nature of mind or consciousness it really does test our theoretical limits and often veers into partisan philosophy. There’s tons of passionate debate among neuroscientists, theoretical physicists, philosophers of mind, etc about how to properly frame and interpret the data. You can radically different theories (eg eliminative materialism vs analytic idealism) among researchers with multiple phds in relevant fields and both consider the other group to be completely delusional and disproven. It’s actually quite funny listening to these debates. They are limited to fields where the nature of research is at such a foundational, theoretical level that the lines between science and philosophy are inevitably blurred.
@@Sampsonoff that's a 'slightly' harder field to measure in the first place, so that's to be expected as the only unified and ""dogmatic"" answer that can be measured is "there's definitively something, as we can observe the variety of effects". but then you have "the repel/attraction to the taste of eggplant" "the consistent searching for pattern even if unprompted" "the capacity for the body for feeling physically hill in recalling a memory that was never experienced" and all those other wonderful approaches that fall under the umbrella of "chemically, that''s what happens, but we still have not found why it happens, and why sometimes it doesn't"
Also what these people fail to understand is that science is SUPPOSED to discredit new papers, that’s the idea. Thesis defense much?
They think science books are an atheist's version of the bible. Set in stone, unable or unwilling to change and religiously followed with "faith". It's projection from ignorance.
And then, once attempts have failed to falsify it in its current state, it can become accepted science!
@@DanielMWJ scientific consensus is more accurate. It can still be disputed, disproven or supplemented at a later point when more factors, previously overlooked or unknown, are added. After an unknown amount of time and after something has been used often enough with results that are expected based on the conclusions of the original research, you could call it accepted science.
Scientism aka Yay Science Crowd, it's dogma, not the Science itself. Maybe people called it Science dogma when they're against both Scientism + dogma.
And they're the ones to complain about blind faith. And it's not like the new papers are like "that old thing was bs and stupid and bad" it's "we now have a better understanding of that old thing"
"People don't waste billions of dollars on pride"
well...
Hahaha. Came here to say that. Companies don’t (well, companies with shareholders, cuz shareholders are protected) and companies are ppl in the US so… technically?
@@ellim1585 I was thinking of the people in charge of oil producing countries. And russia, and china.
@@egg5802 ooooh ya. Them too
Elon Musk will be showing up to debunk this claim.
Could someone tell Putin?
I am a researcher in MINT. Just 3min into the video, but the paywall-access to scientific research is much debated and challenged in the science community as well, up to the point that a lot of open-access initiatives have started in recent years.
And the replication crisis, faulty science and problems related to publication incentives and the like are also well known and discussed. It just happens whenever people are involved
@@loopingdope it's more that it happens when money is involved. Everyone wants their cut off the pie, and that includes whoever may have funded the research and sometimes even the journal that published it. For better or worse, money runs the world. Without that money, some or even most of the science wouldn't get done, but it does suck for the people trying to learn about it. The paper partial is the worst offender, and that at least should be removed somehow, since it really only damages the reputation of science and disillusions some people of it for what is probably a very small portion of money.
@@jameshall1300 somehow i relate all of this money-related problems to humas, as money, money-related incentive problems, institutions and whatnot are human inventions. But I understand what you mean
@@loopingdope Yeah. 50 years ago a friend of mine, doing his PhD in physics at MIT, discovered that a "fact" known in his field wasn't true. Unfortunately it wasn't an important enough fact to do a dissertation on, so he got delayed a year to work around the problem.
Before this no one tried to replicate it. There are some journals considered write only. Np one but a few people in that field read them. They tend to be the most prestigious ones.
@@jameshall1300 just my personal take, I am not in science because of money, in fact, in industry I would make a lot more money (and would have a lot more free time as well), most people would consider me quite odd for that tbh.
The thing is, even in an absurd hypothetical world where a radical new theory that upends most of known science is validated, we would then study and expand on that new theory the same way we do science now.
If you understand Kuhn’s basic hypothesis, that’s not how it works. Science is institutional and ALL institutional logic has some level of dogma built into it. It usually ends in phases over generations.
And then in about a decade, these guys are gonna say that new theory they previously supported is just "dogma" recited by scientists like a doctrine.
yeah like with quantum theory. if it helps explain certain thinks, but contradicts others, it just shows that we have two models that are still in development and need completion
@@baconbob3752or a window into a third yet to be understood
@@baconbob3752or Cosmic Expansion which lead to inferring the Big Bang. It looks like it was just assumed that the universe was static before Hubble, Einstein even fiddled some of his equations that implied an expanding universe to make it stable.
Or Natural Selection, which provides the mechanism to evolution. Somehow Darwin came up with it with zero knowledge of genetics.
"Tyger! Tyger! burning bright
In the forests of the night,
What immortal hand or eye
Could frame thy- oh shit, he's got a Glock!"
"Hmm, I love what you've got so far, Mr. Blake, but for this one line. What if instead of 'oh shit, he's got a Glock!' you said something like, 'Could frame thy fearful symmetry' ?"
"My God, man, that's perfect!"
_Guy Montague sweating in the corner_
@@ullrich "Good idea, the poem would work better if the Tyger was actually framed for the murder."
😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂
As a grad student in theoretical physics and currently in a GR lab, you have no IDEA just how much beef there is between general relativity researchers. “No skepticism allowed” buddy even the experts are skeptical of each other. And that’s great! It’s encouraged so long as you can back yourself up! Sometimes that’s what conferences are for!
Also lol’ing at this guy whining about dark matter. Get him in a MOND lab immediately
I love that everything they say is kinda accurate, but blown way out of proportion. Scientists are humans and have all the fallibilities of humans? Yes. Which is why we try to disprove our own ideas, subject them to prepublication peer review, subject them to post publication peer review, etc.
Sure, sometimes the blindspots have blindspots, but every step of the process is designed to sus out those issues. Whatever your friend publishes is not dogma you must follow.
31:41 It was Tony the Tiger.
Evidence:
1. Tony technically doesn't have hair.
2. He can wear shoes leaving *seemingly* human footprints.
3. Being a huge cereal mascot, Tony makes lots of money and owns a house. He doesn't need to live in a zoo.
4. He has Human-like hands easily capable of holding and firing a gun.
5. Being an intelligent being, he can easily plant fingerprints and blood.
Checkmate science.
I reckon Phoenix Wright would propose this explanation and somehow prove it to be true.
I was thinking Joe Exotic......but he is in jail...
According to the Phoenix Wright universe, the likely suspect is Maya Fey.
"But she's not a tiger--"
Yeah, doesn't matter. Maya is the killer.
and obviously Tony knows a tiger would not be the prime suspect, so he feels he could easily get away with it.
This type of argument is considered valid in FL by jurors in child-murder cases.
I had to write a 50 page research paper in college, to graduate with honors. I don't think me researching virtual machines and virtual private networks was very religious lol.
That couldn't have been hard, just repeat the incantations the priests like to hear and you're in. What's that? You actually had to put your OWN ideas in the paper and they'd fail you if you didn't? How weirdly undogmatic.
@@muskyoxes But after you're done writing a paragraph, the idea will dawn on you.. You are actually now able to WRITE some new dogma, what a revelation! And if you're lucky, you'll get an invitation to the super-secret cabal after graduation.
Yes, this is pure sarcasm and a joke. Just in case someone didn't understand.
@@muskyoxes Yeah, follow what data shows. If I didn't have data to support my claims, then it is coming from a place of bs. Following data is not dogma.
Exactly lol. I wrote a 350 page dissertation and published stuff but I’m not making crazy claims that I have “discovered” some new world order esque “secret” about academic publishing
a matter of wording really
"Science doesn't offer anyone delusions of being special." Freaking love this line.
That line stood out to me as well. Especially the "delusions" part.
@@Boardwoards "it's not like science has always been done for royals and now elites"
Indeed, it's not like that. Nowadays, science benefits _everyone_, not just the elites.
"it's not like an emperor made fourier prefect holding fasces over a city"
Oh, yes, let's take the rather few scientists who also had political power and just pretend that this is true for _most_ (or even all) scientists. :D :D :D
"but who cares when you make money from being a bully"
Yes, like lots of pseudoscientists on TH-cam.
It does if you manipulate the data.
its always priceless when the guys declaring they are the most favorite pets in the whole cosmos and the reason it exists projects that on others , that humbly admits that as far reality is showing it appears their species , civilization even solar system is but a happenstance ...brief.. configuration of variables for a existence so vast nothing they do can affect it..
only for the ''me the most special thing in reality!'' to jump on that and claim they are at the same time the most humble ones to ...its seriously like watching spoiled brats try claim things to wield the social status it bring as a sledge on those living in reality XD
@@spracketskooch :/ keeping mentioning ? as in ..word used once in the whole post ? XD
but if you not could compute that specific sentence
...me used with '' '' to represent a opinion expressed by a person and how it sounds from an outsider view
in order to compare it with something
..such as a religious self contradicting statement in this case the classic '' me so humble'' yet at the same time also declaring the entire cosmos was farted into existence as a over sized fish bowl for a god to house them in ..mutually contradicting logical positions wich to me is a display of how religion damages basic logic/critical thinking capability
as for how you can be conscious about yourself sorry how do that relate to anything in my post ? XD but sure you can get my five cents on that
although , yes it also strikes me as a bit silly question my own first thought on it is that its something that someone with a bit of tunnel vision about words might ask , after all
..do the cat need you to stare at it for said cat to be conscious of itself and decide it wants to find a better sunray to lounge in ?
of course not , no more then it needs to stare at you for you to be conscious of yourself and decide that hey , you 'need' a cup of tea
"No one wastes billions of dollars for pride"
*Looks nervously at Twitter*
Ha!
Considering he was able to buy an entire presidency, it wasn't a waste at all. He will soon become more powerful than he ever was before, able to shape policy to his whim almost directly.
The irony of using a cellphone or computer to propagate science denial is appaling
Its an oxymoron at this.
Losing my sanity and my faith on humanity piece by piece.
they have no idea how they work tho. except for the malicious people that know how things work but still push garbage
They should lose access to technology, since they think its a hoax
@dpt4458 give an example of what you are talking about, and explain why this example invalidates the scientific method
Generally my first response.
They don't understand that science is part of the reason we're on TH-cam
"Your inability to grasp science, is not a valid argument against it."
Yet almost every time someone makes some wild claim that is contrary to scientific findings it’s because they’ve failed (or refused) to grasp the science..
@@bewing77 They're just stupid.
@@erisdiscordia5429 Funny how most people who argue against and try to disprove religion are more educated and well-informed about the topic at hand (aka religion) than the religious themselves
@@erisdiscordia5429 Religion might be a whole lot easier to grasp if you could show us even the teeniest bit of evidence for the magic bloke.
Without faith, there is nothing, funny how that works.
@@erisdiscordia5429 You haven't asked me for any evidence of anything.
What you have done, is avoided even attempting to provide any for the magic man.
What these people doesn’t understand is that if they were right, they wouldn’t destroy science, they would be science. Ironically, the only thing that could prove science wrong is science. Scientific theories has proven other scientific theories is wrong several times. In short “Ideas that can’t prove a theory wrong, won’t prove it wrong” it is that simple.
It’s true that the only thing that can show scientific results, such as a theory wrong is science, I’d argue however that it would, in theory be possible to show that science, as in the scientific method is ”wrong” or at least flawed and that doing so would be done in the field of philosophy. And the thing is, this is happening continuously, which is lost on the science skeptic crowd. Methodology improves all the time and the very reason the scientific method now works so well for acquiring knowledge of reality is that it have been improved continuously for centuries.
Lol but don't you see the issue? "Listen to science" while scientists constantly try to prove each other wrong.. so who's correct? Who knows because scientist can't even decide.. like what is the hubble constant? Depends on who you ask lol
@@davidpayton-pb8totheres no constant and there doesn't need to be one, science never put itself as having all the answers. Howewer, you should believe the scientist who did his research using science, evidence and is backed up cause even a Nobel winner, famous and aclaimed scientist if his research isnt backed up by proof it has no scientific value.
@@davidpayton-pb8toThe scientific consensus is always the best explanation we have at the moment. There are more specific things that are still argued about, but most things are not questioned anymore by serious scientists, like the Earth not being flat
"'Listen to science' while scientists constantly try to prove each other wrong.. so who's correct?"
The one that most have failed to prove wrong is more reliable than those who have been proven wrong or not yet tested by others. I don't see how that's a problem. The answer shouldn't depend on who you ask if you simply ask what the scientific community mostly agree upon and/or has been tested most rigorously without being proven false. If scientists have yet to come to a strong consensus, then they clearly haven't figured it out yet. And that's okay! There's no shame in admitting we haven't figured things out yet.
Ironically, the thing most hampering modern science are capitalists. Oh wait, that's not irony - that's just life.
But this isn't a problem, right? Because the scientific community is, as a whole, honest. If one person takes corporate money from Monsanto to say that oreos are good for you, the rest will not and the research will fail peer review.
I feel like this "shut up, this is how it works" stuff is actually the same as what the capitalists pitch which is perfect in theory but in reality it works out differently and encourages corruption.
I think formscape might be a rationalist or Illuminatus the main idea being wanting science to be rationalist rather than empiricist it’s the people who are against Issac newton, Immanuel Kant and Hume and are instead aligned with hegel Descartes and Gottfried Leibniz.
It’s basically rationalist science vs empiricist science one is irrational and dogmatic one is based on proofs not evidence.
23:21 "Those who are well-informed and well-educated believe certain things. I do not believe such things, because I am neither well-informed nor well-educated."
glad you got here before me, LOL. yes, being "well-informed and well-educated" ARE signifiers which can contribute to "social respectability". Perhaps he'd prefer to surround himself with "poorly informed" and "poorly educated"? What I found ironic is that in describing them he effectively concedes the "well"... "well-informed" and "well-educated". No rebuttal required, thanks!
As a representative of the schizophrenic wizard community, we in no way claim formscapes
As another member of said community, I second this.
this is genius out of context
as a schizophrenic learning magic tricks, same.
Formscapes is just another one of those weirdo occultists who just go so off the rails they start denying basic logic and math. LOL
@@PunkRatSoda This is genius IN context too
The difference between science and dogma is pretty clear.
Dogma - we believe x y and z because we're told to
Science - we believe x y and z because of *insert supporting empirical data*
and still most people act according to the first
The problem is most people fall into a middle group - we believe x, y, & z because we're told about *insert empirical data,*
and the quality of those beliefs depends on the people doing the telling.
Pseudoscientists lie to undermine trust in people telling real science, and bolster trust in themselves.
we don't necesarily "believe" that's the point we can refute and update our knoledge when we have an incomplete theory in a field or found new information about a process with have no mechanism before or we were not able to reach that level of precision with previous technology, but actual science does not "believe"
Because science is not beliefs but actual facts, it's different from religion where everyone can have their different beliefs but this doesn't work with science because science is based off facts.
@@darthmaul7434explain how to arrive at truth from induction
The average person will associate fast talking with intelligence. So he's talking fast in order to seem smart and the guy is actually wrong. Thank you professor Dave.
"Scientists are meanies because they don't think my unsupported, patently absurd ideas are as cool as i do". That's pretty much what I get from most of these "science is dogma" people.
@@Nature_Consciousness
Or, you know, basic proof. Which you literally cannot produce for crackpot claims like electric universe.
@@Nature_Consciousness someone is a fan of Ken Wheeler. Your ability to string together big words you don't know the meaning of is almost as impressive as his.
@@Nature_Consciousness Materialism _works._ When methodological naturalism was widely deployed as a tool of inquiry, our ability to understand the world exploded to degrees unlike anything in human history. You could argue about the degree to which this knowledge has been used constructively, but it remains that using methodological naturalism to understand phenomena and make predictions about outcomes based upon understanding of those phenomena allows you to produce results that were impossible before engaging with the _material world_ on a _material basis._ I seriously hope that you're not actually arguing that _evidence itself_ is a dogma.
@@Nature_Consciousness
Let me guess: you’re a Foucaultian who thinks all knowledge is “constructed”; and is therefore not completely valid. Such views miss the probabilistic reality in which we exist.
@@Nature_Consciousness good god you're insufferably annoying.
Is there dogma in science? of course. Science is done by people, and people can become dogmatic. To quote: "I represent science"
Is science dogma? No, by definition. Dogmatic scientists are doing it wrong and I'd argue they shouldn't be called scientists anymore.
Or to put it another way, the cure for flawed science is always more science
Eh, that's a bit pedantic. If you interpret "science" as a stand-in for "the mainstream body of scientific work" then the criticism holds up and there are famous examples. Probably the biggest one is continental drift.
I think ignoring that "science" can actually become dogmatic or dancing around that issue just plays into the hands of charlatans who want to overstate its severity.
@@louisvaught2495 People were talking about continental drift since the 1850's. It's just that there wasn't real hard evidence for it until until we sonar-mapped the ocean floor and found ridges and trenches and stuff.
@@LimeyLassen That's hardcore historical revisionism, continental drift was a deeply unpopular theory when my parents were in college.
Yes people were technically talking about it, but it was widely rejected until much more recently than it was proposed.
@@louisvaught2495 The issue is that this is what we're using the word "science" to describe "dogma endorsed by trusted institutions". I blame generations of school science classrooms that have, instead of focusing on the actual process of scientific inquiry and the history of or understanding of the universe (complete with pitfalls) have instead treated science as effectively natural history trivia time. The result is people don't know how to judge the significance of a paper, but all know what a mitochondria is.
“Look! Look! I saw a unicorn! … Prove it? Oh you’re one of those science dogmatists. It’s people like you who kill unicorns with your doubt.”
I recommend using a frequency table, try Filling out frequency table for independent events | Probability and Statistics | Khan Academy
"I have the act of killing unicorns down to a science!" lol.
@@Girlfrom.n0wh3r3We just have to look at nutrition science to know science changes all the time. Although it's not as volatile as news journals seem to say, we do figure more out about our bodies all the time.
I'm a trained zoologist (I'm not an active scientist, I work in a completely unrelated field, but I have published a long, long time ago). Generally I watch these videos for entertainment and to laugh at flat earthers... but this is a very good educational tool in illuminatiing flaws in the arguements of science deniers. This was a master class in deconstructing a vebose arguement. Exceptional work Dave. Also, I miss drunk debunking Dave... when do we get to see that again. 😂
8:17 man, I didn't believe him at first, but now that he put a meme on screen, I do think he has a point.
yes, memes are always convlusive 🤣
that's how you know he's COOL and HIP and WINNING THE ARGUMENT
"While your science is sound Mr. Bond, it's too late. I've already drawn you as the wojak and me as the chad."
@@Spyduhmahn just as long as it isn't centrifugal force
formscapes sounds like the title of a really bad mobile game
I'd say it's more a name for a *developer* of shovelware games, the kind I enjoy seeing played by GrayStillPlays or DangerouslyFunny whenever they're not doing GTA5 boards
Maybe he is keen on a sponsorship from Manscape. :p
@@cbhlde cue the George Takei "Oh my!"
Or a really bad movie!
IMHO it sounds like a bad 80s sci-fi movie 😊
“Science is bad because it doesn’t accept my unscientific ideas!”.
Show me that quote?
@@ZundaySwings in a nutshell, that's exaxcly it. The rest is the dress those who think like that, use to hide/embelish this feeling.
"no, I don't hate science" - but you hate that it objectively contradicts your belief
"science is an approach to reality, just as valid as other philosophical views such as...." - no, you don't understand what science is, or don't care.
Dave's quote is harsh, but true...😮💨
@@veero25 i disagree thats not what he said.
Straight bs but yea
@@dpt4458 Religious people are not the place I'd start to understand science. That would be scientists. I would go to the religious people if I wanted religious information.
@@dpt4458 So you mean the scientists were the ones that did science, got it.
It must be so exhausting to believe so hard that reality is just a conspiracy.
He is an idealist.
@@avakinlifeuser6888 Idealism is literally the worst. I myself am a dialectical materialist.
In some ways its actually easier, because you can live in a world where you know more than everyone around you... And that you're aware that the world is actually a super cool movie and you're the main character
As a PhD from the third world, I don't think it is a stretch, at all, to call the academic publishing industry a racket. Never knew a scientist who saw a dime for their published article or reviewing work. Publishers leech on this "free" work, which is paid for by universities, grant agencies and often by the public. Proof of that is the widespread acceptance and acclaim for sci-hub among scientists.
I swear every ten years or so there is a blow up in the scientific community about the fact that a lot of peer review for journals is done for free. But it seems to be that invariably it is remembered how important that is for the integrity of science, and hey, you get access to cutting edge research.
Of course, I think his argument was that it was not a racket in the sentiment expressed in the referred video. I don't know anyone who operates in research who is thrilled over having to pay to see their own work and worries of self plagiarism amidst many other concerns, but the unhappy state of publishing companies does not invalidate the research being presented in their journals.
@@IronAsclepius Unfortunately, greedy business practices always foster public distrust towards an entire field. Every whackjob theory attempts to validate itself by referring to the profit motive of the "establishment". It is understandable why disillusionment with medical industry, or scientific publishing for that matter, provides fertile ground for harmful fundamentalist narratives. And I can see why issues like the exorbitant APCs or publicly funded research being hidden behind paywall, raise their fair share of eyebrows. Fortunately, this is being addressed to an extent by more and more funders demanding open access and data sharing, more public repositories being established, preprints being more often uploaded to arxiv, and so forth.
I see scientists get money from their work all the time... It's called a paycheck and grants. Most universities own all the intellectual property their researchers put out related to their area of study. It would be more concerning if they were profiting off of it.
@@Pleasekillmysonsdad the publishing companies owns the copyright of the paper itself. And I said reviews are not paid because the video said that reviewing is one thing publishers need to pay for. No, they don't even have that cost. And how the university/grant agency/public/etc is donating the work they paid for for the profit of the publishers is an okay thing?
"People don't waste billions on pride" Elon Musk has entered the chat.
Elon is actually an artificial intelligence in the body of an android, so not really applicable. It must be true, considering the fact that someone said it on the internet.
Donald Trump has entered chat.
Did they kiss next?
@@dmonee6196gross. But also...hot? I'm not sure how to feel about this mental picture.
yeah, science works, but billionaires love to waste money, they're evil, these fuckers destroy the planet for profit despite knowing they live on this planet.
"Science isn't dogma. You're just stupid." Simple and direct. I love it!
Same
@Crowned_Conquering_Man-Childhysterical coming from a flat earther
@Crowned_Conquering_Man-Child "science isn't dogma. you're just trying to discredit it because it makes you feel uncomfortable about your pseudoscientific belief."
not as catchy
Agreed
@Crowned_Conquering_Man-Child Yes. Correct. Exactly.
Thank you for agreeing on this fact. 🙂
"I dont like science!!!"
"Oh, you dont like cars, phones, hospitals, movies, or food and fresh water?"
Friends, remind our anti-science cousins that the cell phone is the Science Bible. BAM
They might be Amish lmao
@@k3rt244😂😂
"Unobservable entities like black holes"
Um... we observed one just a few years back. Was global news.
@@spracketskooch yeah that's what I'm eluding to. Obviously you can't exactly observe one directly, currently, but you can indeed observe it indirectly, which for most generic purposes is the same thing.
It may actually be possible to observe one since it was discovered that they do actually release hawking radiation (rip) so potentially we may be able to observe one directly, just lack the technology to do so as far as I'm aware.
It was previously thought that nothing escaped a black hole, so as you said, it was previously thought true that you could never see one directly. However, since said discovery, things have changed somewhat.
Yeah that part left me cracking up 😂 Genuinely shocked anyone can say that with a straight face
No we didn't. Pretty stellar example of all of this. That was a huge PC shitshow as well.
@@shannonbarber6161 If what you're saying is that we didn't observe one, you're wrong, just in a way. While we didn't actually get a photo of the black hole itself (that's literally impossible), we got a picture of the accretion disk iirc around one. We've observed the phenomenon.
@@shannonbarber6161 yes we did, that’s a blatant lie
He criticizes scientists, claiming that their findings are published without proper scrutiny. Then, he criticizes scientists for applying proper scrutiny to outrageous claims.
It's easy to debunk things that are very wrong. It is a lot of work to review something well done.
e.g. In the case of EU, that's exactly what "we" thought circa 1880 but data was piling up showing something was missing because the orbit of Mercury was off and then we discovered beta-decay (alluded to the weak and strong forces). It's not that "EU is wrong!!!!" but that it's old-news.
@@shannonbarber6161or _gasp_ fake news!
Right lol that gets me every time 😂
He points out their contradiction and proposes an actual problem
@@Damnchaosemerald_e.e He is a walking contradiction. And what's worse, he has the fucking nerve to be smug about his ignorance. The worst kind of hubris bastard. May he fall long and hard!
_we should not confuse (...) confidence with correctness_ - golden words
As someone who recently got to do actual research in a lab for a university, can indeed confirm that most research is just, “here’s some stuff we did”, like I was just comparing 3D printer filaments
I love reading old papers, like pre 80s. The way they write them is just so... casual? (At least the fields I looked at, I'm sure medical fields and such were different)
It reminds me of extractions and ire (E&F) and his love of the 60s, because of all the utterly insane explosives chemistry papers from the 60s and before lol
Go back way far enough and a paper will sometimes literally just be "Yeah I took this weird smelly liquid and put it in a pot with this other thing and it exploded I almost died but this is pretty cool someone else should try it"
this applies especially to things like astronomy and cosmology. Theres a lot of scientists who just do stuff and find some interesting solar system or stellar object that has a weird property and they post their findings like, hey look at this weird thing we found here is what we did to try and figure it out. Its great because it can be a hobby and not just a job!
As an undergrad medical biologist who does research on molecular biology studying antibiotic resistance (NIH) I’m more then grateful for this video and the rest that you post. We need you in this fight against morons.
Did you read the genome papers on SARS-2 back in March 2020?
He would be straight down to the doctors if he became ill for medicine.
To be fair, people (especially the Media) tend to phrase the word *Science* completely incorrectly, as if Science is a physical material or something.
No idea whatever the guy was talking about btw.
That is what the guy (Formscapes) was talking about
I hate it when I'm walking around the lab, and I trip and spill my Science everywhere.
"Sciece says"
@@NeroDefogger Damn, that's a crazy assumtion to make off of a guy literally just saying "sometimes media minturprets science". If theres one thing commenters love it's getting angry at the least controversial statement possible and pretending like they know they're whole ass backstory.
I also blame a lot of "science media" and other media for setting people down the wrong path and allowing them to get duped by charlatans. It probably has something to do with our capitalist economy or something. As someone who grew up in the sticks and eventually got a chemistry degree and now getting a CS degree, it took me A LONG TIME to formulate and discover what science is really about and how it relates to humans. Most people are given a false dichotomy in the first place and it keeps them in the dark.
This exact video showed up in my feed recently and angered me beyond comprehension. I am so glad to see you responding to it now. Thank you, Dave.
Well, I suppose it's comforting at least that a few of the tens of thousands of people who watched it aren't morons and just watching out of curiosity!
I think the worst part of the video is the very beginning, because it tells a VERY different argument as to what the entirety of the video was about. I thought it was going to be a good video about how scientific research is biased towards the wealthy and how fame/money drives people into making false claims (although this is technically how science has been since the beginning with few exceptions making the title misleading), when in the end it was some made up BS about how supposedly pro establishment modern day science is and how its against anything new that goes against pre established theories in such a layered and lengthened rhetoric it's confusing to logically pick up on the flaws in his arguments, or to even understand them which is intended because his argument is terrible. Was an enormous waste of time watching half of that video, so glad to see Dave debunk it.
@cosmidia8396 I may have to go over to the video just to peruse the comments. If for nothing else, a sick addiction to seeing others ignorance and how they justify it.
@@tortoisewarrior4855how do new theories go against pre-established theories? How could someone acknowledge the possibility of unknowns if you fail to adequately explore the implications of other theories. Any testing that is done, especially on ESP can’t start with the assumption that it is repeatable by anyone or that every tester will genuinely explore the possibilities or even not intentionally fudge their results to ruin the reputation of anyone who took it seriously. What is an adequate control for something like this, someone who has no place in their beliefs for something like this will never admit that there was no trick involved no matter how secure they make their experiment.
Could science denial be a universal problem that ends technological societies and prevents them from advancing enough to colonize the universe?
indeed it could
More than science denial being the main cause, I think is more akin to a consequential phenomenon brought by the decay technological societies produce.
Wake up babe. New solution to the Fermi Paradox just dropped.
Ladies and gentlemen we solved the Fermi paradox 😂
wtf my comment was erased
I know you really enjoy making educational content and I love to see it but the little goblin inside my brain loves your debunk/dunking content
So, would you say you have a mind goblin?
@@simone6090 Ahem, hgghmmm -cough -cough ... What's mind goblin?
@@miroslavzderic3192 MIND GOBLIN DEEZ NUTS! _spontaneously combusts_
@@clem-lv2rw 🗿
@@clem-lv2rwgot him
The idea that you can 'debunk' the natural sciences by pointing to the problem of 'value judgement' in 'social science' is beyond ridiculous and just demonstrates either ignorance, malice or both.
both, he want audience and money from them
i think thats not his point tho, he really is just trying to point out the problem of value judgement and other such problems, not debunk the whole of science
The process of debunking science is better science. It's a virtuous cycle.
@@aguspuig6615So why did he make the video about the whole of science? He very bluntly accused scientists themselves.
@@aguspuig6615 But if that was the argument, why apply it to scientific research as a general body? If it wasn't aimed at the whole of science, don't describe the whole of science as a fuckin' priesthood.
“heres some stuff we did, toss it on the pile of human knowledge” sounds so cool
It’s so accurate, too! That’s genuinely how I feel whenever I finish a report. 😂
That’s my life goal tbh
That's how we came this far. Someone just found some knowledge and they toss it to our evergrowing pile of knowledge
Next step is someone looking through the pile ...oooh this looks interesting and in combination with this folder we can do something completely amazing... or so mundane that we start asking ourselves why nobody thought of this sooner.
Mr. “Science is dogmatic” talks like someone who just learned big words and really wants to show them off
Funniest part about that is that his extended language would fall under the umbrella of Etymology😆
The assertion that science is dogmatic is pure projection. Such people -- and I've run into a few -- witness the passion, vehemence, and (sometimes) arrogance of scientists, and subconsciously graft their own dogmatism and authoritarianism onto them.
No, what you are describing there is religion. Science is what happens when you do your best to overturn what we already know. In the course of that, we have found some answers which are closer to correct than a lot of "Ancient Wisdom", and that upsets some people.
I don't understand how anyone can take the position you have after we have seen so many things like the plate-tectonics debacle throughout the 20th century.
In contemporary times its the witch-hunt level of drivel coming out of climate science.
name one
I feel like this guy took a look at Warhammer 40 Mechanicus and decided that's how real scientists act.
I do love a sneaky little warhammer reference
Even the Mechanicus are smarter than whatever craps he spoke out tbh.
Praise the Omnissiah!
“I distrust science!” Said the people who live in dwellings with heating systems, then drive cars or otherwise ride vehicles over bridges, use the internet, watch TV and use cell phones.
The problem is that these people have a really shallow understanding of what science is. If you tell them history is a human science they get a stroke
I don't distrust science I distrust people
@aidenmacneill8397 ...which are written by people 😑
@@Edenmacmillin8397Guess who does the Science genius?
@@evanmarshall3487 It's a social science, dipshit, not the same as physics or chemistry, but still a type of science
Sometimes I use big words to make myself seem more photosynthesis than I really am.
*insert spongebob reference here*
I love how he complains about a Replication Problem within science, but every single "experiment" done outside of mainstream science can never be repeated ever; the steps are never even given on how to do it in a coherent way.
Most science is done with very expensive and very specialized equipment more often than not.
Anything not is usually something you'd just do in high-school
Some nutters do have experiments that you can replicate. The ones I've seen are, however, either flawed or require a misunderstanding to draw the conclusion they do.
My favorite is the one where they test whether moonlight has a cooling effect.
By placing an object in the open during the night and placing the same object beneath some form of cover.
Then they measure the temperature, see that the one in the open is cooler and declare they are right. While not even trying to consider other factors, possible sources of error or ways to improve the experiment.
That's not even getting into how their hypothesis is so vague it wouldn't be acceptable for a high school science project.
In fact they are ALWAYS given.
@@ZealotOfStealmoonlight does not have a cooling effect, a lack of cloud cover does due to latent heat.
@@DaysofKnight This isn't quite correct. it has to read "most NEW science is done...". The stuff you do in Highschool or at home with relatively cheap equipment is still science, if you do it right. it's just that you won't be the first to do it, cause all the low fruit have been picked by now. And since there's probably more amateurs doing science at home and in school, as a percentage most of all science is probably done by relative laymen. The vast majority of actual NEW discoveries however come indeed out of Labs.
“People don't waste billions of dollars for pride. Period.”
Yes. Yes they do.
I think you are missing the point.
people don't waste billions on experiments they know are bunk for pride. stop misquoting him. the actual quote would be:
"People don't waste billions of dollars [in science] for pride. Period." those [square brackets] are used for context.
If their next paycheck depends on their work, no, they never do
Elon musk?
@@cstgruduenmse4449 Feel free to give an example where he has wasted billions in science for pride.
As someone who was a researcher before I retired, and who has not only published but edited journals, you are right on the money. Great video!
Hey as a Physics/Chemistry teacher I absolutely LOVE your channel! I guess we are both going to keep on fighting the good fight on ignorance and academic laziness.
"Science isn't Dogma, you're just stupid!" needs to be on a t-shirt.
I'd buy one for sure
@@MrDmadness ditto
I'd buy and I just commented this too before I saw this GGs
Haha, I’d put it right next to my “I fucking love science” t shirt, fellow intellectuals!
Low key abuse is stupid.
Might make you feel smug but doesn't help anything.
To be fair, scienfitic publishing really does need to change. It is unfair that the general public does not have access to many new sceintific papers, it is an affront to progress that researchers (and their university/company) feel the need to 'publish or perish' (and the fact that to many, a negative result is about as good as no result at all - despite negative results being extremely important in science), and it is simply a waste of money in the end - for everyone involved.
A simple way to prove this is the case is to simply ask any scientist who has published an article for it directly. Almost always, with no questions asked, they will give it to you. Why? Because publishers don't propagate knowledge and they don't funnel money to the people making new knowledge. There is absolutely zero benefit for any scientist to have their papers published, other than the fact our culture built on publishing will simply ignore their paper otherwise, because we've convinced ourselves (with the publishers help, of course) that a paper that isn't published is as good as a crackpot's proof of the Reimann hypothesis.
There is something to be said for moderation (in the 'online forum moderator' sense, not the 'not too much not to little' sense), but I don't think such a thing would cost anything close to what publishers make. If anything it should be a government run thing, or a community run thing (I mean, that's what publishers do anyway, they don't pay the people doing peer review - why don't we just cut out the middleman?)
I agree with the video's contention that open-access science gets unnecessarily deified.
Scientific publications aren't approachable and people usually misinterpret them without training.
In the fields that I work, I've found that there's enough open-access literature out there for people to do adequate research on a lot of different topics, and they just don't or they fail at interpreting it.
@PersonalUseOfUrMum your statement is a classic chicken or egg problem. People don't understand science, but science also doesn't try to explain things to most people.
The amount of unnecessary jargon in papers is silly. Nothing is as sophisticated as it's presented. The main obstacle to me learning quantum mechanics was everyone saying it can't be understood. Anybody is capable of applying critical thinking and learning new things. This shouldn't be a reason to cloister information.
General public should not have access to new scientific papers. Not because some secret. OMG we finally found the cure for cancer.... That is why....
Students are overwhelmed with lectures. Until the reach of university level education the "critical thinking" has not enough room.
It is a nice thing if they learn about the false things with some explanation about why and how we found out to be wrong but as a side quest only.
a flawed system doesn't equal a completely malicious and all encompassing conspiracy to mind control everyone into believing that its okay to let minorities live or something.
why exactly is it unfair that the general public does not have access to many new scientific papers? The general public has not been trained to read these papers and chances are extremely high that they will misinterpret the papers anyway.
Dave:"People don't waste billions of dollars for pride"
Elon Musk: "Hold my beer"
Maybe Musk isn't a person...
Musk would spend trillion in it if he had that much money.
Reasonable people, like scientists
Not wasting but I get it
@@johns1625I'd say his purchase of Twitter was an absolute waste by any metric but.. Eh
My hypothesis is that these people go "I don't have time to figure out all the science behind everything, therefore nobody does, therefore everything is false". I really doubt any of them know what a scientist even does at work, they must think that science is a hobby or something.
Thanks for using "hypothesis" instead of "theory." I hate it when people confuse the two...
@@scienceisthewaytogo8645 Depends on the context.
Theory means outside a strictly scientific context, the same thing hypothesis does within one.
Theory when applied to science however, is supposed to mean an accepted and relatively reasonable explanation.
It wouldn't actually be inaccurate for him to have said theory, because this isn't a proper scientific context.
But his usage of it allows him to shift the message of his comment to more of a "I think I can make a judgement on why this is happening, but don't have background information."
Which is in this particular instance a better message to utilize.
Also you have a nice profile picture.
Aren’t they the people that throw balls in the air and make up findings to convert everyone to THE Science
And you are the "I don't have time to figure out all the science behind everything, therefore nobody does, therefore everything is true" version of them. So what?
@@deltaiii3158 Well, I am not, but that's fine, think what you want.
Anyone who says science is unscientific and dogmatic has never talked to real scientists before. Scientists dont all believe in the same thing and the academia is far from a unified consensus.
@Krustycrabpizza35 you got me there buddy :(
“This notion that science education = indoctrination, is the most transparently idiotic narrative imaginable, exclusively peddled and believed by people who have never taken a single science course in their entire lives”
That is the most succinct way I’ve ever heard that put.
Tell me you’ve never taken biochem without telling me you’ve never taken biochem
@@levprotter1231idk about the OP, or Dave, but I agree with them and you’re right, I’ve never taken biochem.
And? What are you trying to say here? Are all biochem classes indoctrination? If this is your claim, could you elaborate on it? What are you even arguing for?
ALL education = indoctrination. The Jesuits quoted Aristotle “Give me a child until he is 7 and I will show you the man.”
Bravo!!!!😅
Your words clown... I've taken and passed (Seen quite a few affirmative action seat warmers on the way) more actual hard science courses than 99% plus and can tell you this.. The science text books are rewritten practically in one generation these days.. but we are handed "The scientific consensus is..." (A contradiction in terms actually) by a corrupt, far left media routinely and most are too timid or uneducated to say anything.. If I had one dollar for every "self appointed rocket scientist" when I asked them to explain this "Greenhouse Effect" caused by manmade CO2 that's roasting the planet... delivering me sophomoric slogans and 4th grade science class gibberish... I'd be rich! I've only encountered one educated college proff who properly laid out the high altitude Infared radiation theory argument... and admitted that it was very shaky at best.
I can still hear my Jesuit math/biology teacher Father F yelling, 'SHOW YOUR WORK!' Some prople are just so far down the rabbit hole that there is no more light.
unironically, cool story Bro.
i mean damn
what is jesuit?? if it's a spelling error, i aint mocking (just curious, never heard of it!)
@@cewla3348 It's one of the many flavors of Catholicism
@@cewla3348 A Jesuit is a member of the Society of Jesus, which is a Catholic religious order that while also engaging in evangelizing specializes in education.
@@poweroftheztars or mis-education if we’re being honest
Whenever I encounter climate deniers, antivaxxers, or flat-Earthers I always want to begin by asking what grades they got in high school.
Or if they went to high school. How far do you think ray comfort got?
@@cshaw9683it's kinda mandatory to go to school
@@kolyashinkarev7366 Drop out rate in NZ is very high compared to most developed countries even now and this would have been in the late 60s.
@@cshaw9683 how do you even drop out of school? Like, are you so bad that they just say you cannot be taught or you just say I don't want to study anymore and stop going?
@@kolyashinkarev7366 Even today, you can leave at 16 in New Zealand. I’m guessing that if you try to drop out earlier, there is an attempt to force you back but resources are limited. It is difficult to track down all these kids and compel them to complete high school.
love how his main argument against science is "correlation doesn't equal causation" like bro how do u think we figured that out LOL
"Correlation does not imply causation" is simple logic; it does not require observation or experiment. The logically-derived truth of the statement is why scientific experiments are done.
The problem is that major "scientific" institutions are exploiting general ignorance to pass correlation as causation. The process of real science is how we came to the conclusion that correlation does not equal causation, but the institutions people depend on to learn and understand science for themselves are not bound to these rules.
Science is not a person, it's not an organization, it's a process. Unfortunately, people and organizations are trying to pass themselves as the authoritative arbiters of this process, while labeling critics as "unscientific" by virtue of their attempt to criticize at all rather than with a comprehensive scientific rebuttal, which is unscientific and dangerous.
@@hagoryopi2101 I just don't know what you're talking about. Where do you see these people?
@@dindindundun8211in his mind
@@CliffSedge-nu5fvYou don't know what those word mean
Thank you so much! For the past 4 months TH-cam had been recommending so much unfiltered garbage to me, from just spam to innocent home videos, to this kind of dangerous nonsense. Seems after the flat Earth disaster circa 2014 they're at it again, prioritizing engagement over quality.
I've been reporting many of them, citing wikipedia and such. So far, none of them is taken down or even noted.
i don't see how blatantly incorrect conspiracy videos are dangerous, they're just funny
@@lucaswallo8127 People died because of them, millions
@@lucaswallo8127My dad very nearly died of COVID because he refused to get the vaccine, and then refused to go to the hospital when he got sick. It took me a good 5 hours of essentially yelling at him to get him into my car to go to the hospital. If I wasn't around, he'd be dead.
@@lucaswallo8127Unfortunately there are gullible and vulnerable people out there who get hurt by these conspiracies and misinformation. And no intelligence has nothing to do with vulnerability, so don't blame it on people being dumb either. I enjoy a good laugh when watching a thorough debunking too but this is still a serious issue that needs to be addressed seriously.
Yo Dave, this was a really good idea to take on this specific video. It's almost middle of the road in the sense that he points out various real problems like issues within for profit publication and such instances of "racketeering" in academia, then takes his own bizarre turns and weird generalizations. It's really effective watching the process of following legitimate info and logic right up until things start to fall apart, since many people revert to black or white thinking and more categorical worldviews because fuck it's so tiring just staying alive under capitalism who has the energy to actually examine shit right?. Hey it's funny how that 1 thing ties in to both of those problems. I will say, "they need to earn a living" is not really a great _reason_ but it is definitely a competent explanation. There are definitely real problems with agendas and bad science that are driven by capital in research and academia, but obviously again that's an indictment of capitalism, not science itself, and like you said his extreme "most research is a lie" claims are basically just clickbait, not some nuanced examination of the finances of academia lol. Anyways thanks man.
it makes sense he was just backwards logicking his way to fucking electric universe all along lmao i almost spit out my tea when he started ham fistedly segueing into cosmology???? phew
I'm not surprised at the indoctrination but that doesn't make it any less laughable. Y'all do not understand what I'm talking about, you didn't even engage with the substance of my commentary, you just ran in here to defend capitalism, the most violent and exploitative system of organization (not economic system lmao), because some people are still stuck with the red scare brain rot.
Please take your finance 101 investing advice elsewhere, lmfao. Trust me, I understand how financial systems work. My entire commentary is informed by a class based analysis; the fact that you emphasize that it's about "poor" and "rich" is a testament to 2 things: you don't understand what I wrote, and you don't understand the system you're defending.
You live under imperialist protection, and then you use the perks of those ill gotten gains to defend the system, I mean that's just hysterically dumb. I'm used to it though, it's very common for outspoken people on the internet to have no idea what they're talking about. Especially when it comes to capitalism. "A little gratitude"?? Yo, unironically, shut the fuck up. You don't know what I've been through or the horrors I've witnessed at the hands of capitalist imperialism.
What is it with this reply that seems to take a single keyword and go on an extremely off-topic conservative rant that doesn't have anything to do with the central argument? It comes across as the opposite of mentally healthy.
@@marzipancutter8144 Some people are so poisoned by the echoes of the red scare that whenever they see capitalism even slightly criticised, they turn into living caricatures of capitalism.
@@Przemko27Zgenuinely so frightening to see especially in this comment section where there's so much positivity and multiple good faith debates going on
@@tjhanson9142 funny all i see in the comments are just professordave fanboys, dudes a damn parrot and we got 2million subscribers? The public is gullible at best.
Isn't it ironic when religious/mystical people attempt to discredit science by equating it to a religion and using terms like "doctrine"? I do a Capt. Picard double facepalm when I hear it ...
I have recently made a video, the thumbnail of which says something like "Quantum is fake?" where I respoind to some quack who makes exremely poor arguments for quantum mechanics being fake. It is my most watched video to date beacause it attracted people who already think it is fake. Horrible, truly horrible.
I love hiw part 1 has massive amounts of views and then part 2 and 3, the deniers were like "Na i don't like this... Im not gonna watch the next parts"
@@woutslosse9776 As soon as they figured that out they were gone XD
Literally the entire point of the scientific pursuit is an endless cycle of fact-checking each other to the cutting edge of knowledge.
The entire point of pseudoscience, in contrast, is to "Yes, and-" each other into dizzying new levels of fractal madness.
Exactly! This is why there was so much push back on the C-vaccy - We skipped that "endless cycle of fact-checking" (or at least about 3-5 years of human trials normally required for new medication) to promote a dogmatic belief that it is safe, effective, and necessary for everyone to take regardless of other immunity status.
Information is now coming to light that it might have harmed more than it helped, and excess deaths are still way above normal.
Bring back real science! Fact-checking is required!
Soooo, string theory? lol
And the biggest problem is also to actually be scientific and actually check the facts.
Do you know that plagiarism isn't a crime? In the US it isn't a crime, but a moral issue. A lot of researchers plagiarize others and their own work all the time. They fabricate data and just make stuff up. They can even try to force the result they want by using stuff like P-hacking. There is a massive incentive for researchers to fake their data because they use a publish or perish model. You must write papers to advance in your career, and you do not want to have spent the past 6 months to 2 years to find out that you achieved nothing as nothing match your hypothesis. And no on cares about a paper that prove the null hypothesis. If you want a tenure position, and therefore job security, you have to publish papers often.
The reason we do not hear about this is because Universities choose to handle issues such as fraud and plagiarism behind closed doors. It was intended to be a way for Science to police itself, but in practice it is just a way for a University to sweep things under the rug until people have stopped caring about it.
If you think that Science is self-correcting and built on always finding the truth, you are naive. It might be that in theory, but in practice it isn't. If you actually understand what science is you understand this.
Communism is in theory supposed to produce a equal and efficient society. In practice however it always become a inefficient, dictatorial society that constantly tramples on human rights.
There is a good reason why trust in Science has fallen as of late. It isn't because we are stupid. We have literally been fed lies for 3 years that has been proven false when science said it was proven fact.
@@BionicBurke Not really, no.
Yeah no. I love to explain exactly how naive that perspective is, but TH-cam have already censored me once on this very comment. Fact is, that what you said isn't true. That is how it works in theory, but not in practice.
6:17 While I disagree with literally everything that guy says, I at least admit there're legitmate reasons to feel that academic papers are a racket. While not inherently a racket, they are almost certainly used as one in the college world. Scientific papers and textbooks are unreasonably expensive, and their costs are typically pushed onto students who are already swamped for cash as it is. Colleges have the power to simply subscribe to a journal and give their students access to the papers they need to do their work (and some certainly do) but many instead push the costs onto the students. It almost feels like some journals will legitimately pay colleges to *not* subscribe, so that they can get students to pay for individual papers and make more money.
It's certainly not out of the question for colleges to do stupid shit like that to make money. I once had a professor require that you buy the specific most recent (and most expensive) version of *HIS* textbook that he makes a new more expensive version of every semester. I specifically asked if an older version would work and he specifically said "No, it HAS to be this years." I grabbed a cheap second hand one like 12 versions back anyway (cause I couldn't afford the most recent one) and, after comparing to another students most recent copy, discovered that the one 12 versions back and the most recent one (that was nearly a hundred dollars and supposedly required) only differed by a couple paragraphs of flavor text! No info changed at all! But yet there he was, demanding his students pay HIM triple digits for his own book despite the exact same info being available at 5% the price!
Step 1: Government(taxpayers) pays for researchers to run studies. They use part of this funding to pay to be published in a journal.
Step 2: Journal asks researchers to quality check studies for free. Because researchers are paid via government grants, this is effectively charging the taxpayers again.
Step 3: Journals charge readers for access to the journals. Who are the readers? Taxpayers of course.
TLDR - journals get paid by the taxpayers 3x despite actually providing nothing of value. Remember, the quality check, which is what a normal publication would be expected to provide, isn't done by the journal.
People have been fired for smaller reasons. Are you sure nothing can be done about him? Like saying his name and where he works?
That is true. Paying for articles out-of-pocket can easily set you back hundreds of dollars.
Sci-hub and Mutual aid scientific community help a lot with this.
That is a fault of capitalism, not of science. The education system can be corrupt even while the education method is perfectly valid. Parsing out where to lay blame for grievances is an important part of accurately fixing systems, even though the natural response to acute pain is to blame the most proximal link in the chain. That professor's behavior is disgusting... but then, is probably also a consequence of his trying to supplement his poor pay due to the college distributing profits to administration and shareholders and not to educators.
@@QuesoCookies While journals abusing their power isn't inherent to the scientific method, it *is* built into the foundations of modern science. Claiming otherwise is like claiming that "real" communism has never been tried.
The scientific method is a pure system for understanding the universe. Implementation is always the tough part. Because of this, there are valid aspects to claims that the scientific method has be co-opted by groups and entities with goals other than discovery and knowledge.
We must notice and accept all flaws in our modern scientific system in order to address and improve them. Saying "Oh that's not science, that is capitalism" doesn't change the fact that the scientific method has been corrupted in its implementation.
I would love to know whether Professor Dave saves that peg-and-hole toy for every lecture, or if he waited 3-5 business days for Amazon to deliver it just to do that bit of peak cinema. Either way, it's brilliant!
just searched through the kiddo's playroom 😅
I also appreciated this greatly. First-grade stuff.
I grew up liking “hard” science and thought that things like psychology and sociology were sketchy.
While in college in 1980, I was aiming for a certificate in Russian Studies and took a “Sociology of the Soviet Union” course.
The professor stated that according to research, the USSR was teetering on the verge of collapse. It took less than a decade. I now have a healthy respect for the people doing such research.
@@MyName-tb9oz I haven’t kept up with that field of study, so I honestly do not know what trends they are seeing now or how they anticipate future events.
If they could predict the fall of the USSR with the science of the 1980s, I suspect that they have further improved their tools in the intervening decades. Perhaps you should sign up for either a current sociology course or start following one of their professional journals…?
I am NOT talking about political pundits, btw. They make all kinds of unfounded predictions. They make money off of the current shiny object which people get all excited about.
@@MyName-tb9oz if you're talking about clickbait videos that say X country is collapsing, those can be promtly ignored.
so you base your entire opinion on a massive field of study on a sample size of N=1 ? thats rather unscientific of you...
how many other predictions did said professor make in that timeframe that weren't correct?
@@KT-pv3kl I had many statistics and statistical analysis courses when I was in college. I do understand that correlation is not causation, and all that stuff.
What I was trying to convey is that it may look iffy to outsiders, but when you drill down to their methodology and analysis, fields like sociology are far better and more predictive than most laypeople realize.
I didn’t take the course because I liked sociology, but it definitely caused me to change my mind about the “soft” sciences. I was an engineering major, so we had a certain amount of snobbishness towards the “sissies” in fields like psychology and sociology.
That course taught me to never make those kinds of assumptions. Every field of study is important and just as difficult as rocket science.
THAT is my message. If sociology says that the world is falling apart, only then will I stock up on survival gear.
@@CrochetIsLife54 the opposite is the fact. Most laypeople have no clue about the difference between hard and soft science and for them everything that "the science" tells them is dogma wether it is particle physics or feminist glaciology (yes that's not a joke there are papers written about this and they are peer reviewed and published)
In the field of psychology alone we have a replication crisis where more than 30% of findings couldn't be replicated in repeat experiments in specific areas the failure was greater than 60%. That is absolutely abysmal and not only offsets any predictive prowess of the soft sciences it outright calls into question the scientific rigor that the entire field uses in their research.
I don't doubt that traditional Chinese medicine can work but I wouldn't call it scientific if 60% of its explanations are probably false. The same goes for the soft sciences
Also no again, not every field of science is equally important or equally hard.
The mating behaviour of shallow sea bristle worms is neither as important nor as hard to study as astrophysics or the theory of gravity.
It's so easy to exploit our fears of being controlled, monitered, or replaced. As people we need to make sure we don't fall for our fears and continue thinking logically to come to our own conclusion instead of letting someone else shape them through these fears.
_Fear is the mind killer._
Rewind a couple of years and say that again. I don't think as many ppl distrust science but rather scientific intitutions, especially when boatloads of money are involved. Science is great but scientists are people. People can be rascals. Thats why the scientific method was developed.
The phrase "Shouting 'TIGER' for no reason" needs to become a thing.
I predict that if Formscapes responds to this he's gonna single out the "TIGER" thing as if it's some useless nonsequitur, because he would have no other way to defeat that point. 🍿
Anecdote about antivaxers: i study biotechnology (vaccines, GMO, all the cool stuff) and during Covid-19 our Uni department conducted an experiment and measured the % of people who vaccinated. I don’t remember the details but you needed to show your certificate and it was over 70%
So i brought this up during a debate with my antivax uncle
Me: Uncle, if vaccines are so bad, why do people developing vaccines vaccinate?
U: They don’t
Me: Yes they do, they did in this study
U: Well, they are indoctrinated, they don’t know about the negative effects of vaccines!
Me: So… *you are saying that people who reaserch and develop vaccines… don’t actually know anything about vaccines?*
U: Yes.
I just left that room at that point
(It was christmas. I just told my family what i do at school and he started a pointless debate instead of shutting up and letting me talk about my stupid e.coli)
I don't have much else to say other than the fact that you are fantastic. I show my wife snippets of your videos whenever her anti-science friends try to feed her bad info. You're doing a major service for people who don't interact much with science and can easily fall for the bullshit. Thank you!
If I had a dollar for every time you said “Science isn’t dogma, you’re just stupid”, I would be out of debt in an instant.
It's something these anti-science circle jerks need reapeating to.
That's what, a coffee?
@@aralornwolf3140 Is that how many bucks I’d have, to buy a coffee?
@@TheDMan2003,
I meant your debt, lol.
You repeat it as often as is necessary.
YES! More debunking!
Absolutely love these videos
Enjoying it!
Some good old professor Dave dunking 🤣
Yes! Love his other videos, but the debunks are his best content. And SO badly needed!
I'm a computer scientist. How did we learn how exactly a computer works? We designed one, down to the level of individual wires. How did we learn how machine learning works? We programmed stuff - from simple movie recomendations up to neural networks capable of finding various objects in video. How did we learn how to create videogame AI? We made bots for various games including SCBW, UT2004, SMW and other.
This is how university works, you're guided but in the end pretty much all of the knowledge is proven to you or straight up use to do something. No teacher will ever tell you "my source is: trust me bro".
well, no *good* teacher :)
I know it's nothing new but this whole, "Scientists are dogmatic because they don't believe I can communicate telepathically with my cat," routine is so exhausting.
scientists are dogmatic because they don't believe that my cat is conspiring to kill me and everyone else in england
Of course it's dogmatic.. you have to telepathically communicate with your DOG, not your cat. That's a silly mistake.
@@Nature_Consciousness what is it we are talking about?
moreover what are you talking about, clearly a very different thing
@@TimoRutanen ayy lmao
@@Nature_Consciousness >"Do science actually understands consciousness"
No, science do not. That said, there's very good reason to conclude that human cognition requires a physical substrate and is electrochemical in nature.
>"How can you dismiss something which you know nothing about?"
Because my priors indicate that nobody has ever made a credible claim regarding telepathy and so, I will dismiss such claims until someone gives me reason to update my perspective in terms of compelling evidence for telepathy. I'm confused by why this perspective confuses anyone.
A few years ago, I came across a short snippet to do with the "Electric Universe" that wasn't detailed enough for me to be able to tell if it perhaps had some merit or if it was yet another crackpot hypothesis. I found an email address for the originator of the hypothesis, and emailed them, politely, requesting further details of the hypothesis. I never received a reply, so I drew the only sensible conclusion that I could - "Electric Universe" must be a crank thing. To this day, aside from the claim about electricity, rather than gravity, being the dominant force in the large-scale universe, and that our notions of how stars work are supposedly incorrect in some way, I have no idea whatsoever of what the core of the "Electric Universe" notion is, and why its authors think anyone should find it compelling.
I'm open-minded to new ways of looking at things - heck, I've my own hypothesis regarding certain aspects of cosmology - BUT - I want solid propositions that can be tested to see how well they fit reality. Show me a line of reasoning that holds together that better explains things than the currently accepted model, and I'll give it due consideration. Show me wild claims with no explanation thereof, and I'll take it that whoever is making those claims is a crackpot. (shrugs) :-}
It's not necessarily the *idea* that is so enticing, more rather the idea that *everyone else is wrong, and you somehow know the truth* that is so much more enticing. Like it or not, but we're sorta hard coded to like being seen as great, the top; superior. It's one of the reasons why the "Electric Universes" meetings of its members end up being a large mishmash of differing ideas. They're all there because they want to believe that they know the secret.
Going by trusted science, and something that is considered "mainstream" goes against this idea- and well- as such, you get people who start saying shit like the video that Formscapes guy was making.
The most dangerous part of these, are really when someone influentia, and who knows enough scientific knowhow starts pushing these claims... thankfully, people like Professore Dave are definitely helping educate the people who want to see beyond just the face value faliacies.
Dave has a debunk video about the electric universe on his channel. Check it out.
As much as I typically am very supportive of your videos, Prof. Dave, I feel you’re glossing over some of the truly significant problems in research in the understandable desire to defend the scientific effort in general. The Replication Crisis in psychology, for example, is serious enough that Kahneman himself has written on its implications. And the findings of large-scale fraud, duplicated images, etc in highly cited papers by esteemed institutions & researchers, can not be understated.
Is the scientific method still the best we have? Absolutely, 100% YES.
Does it need to be much more stringently regulated? Also YES.
Does more work need to be done to replicate existing work? YES.
Do we need to keep pushing to pre-register all research projects and there goals and require publication of negative results, such that bad results aren’t covered up or ignored? Damn straight, Gorski’s project in that direction needs support from around the world.
Does the scientific publishing industry, such as Elsevier, charge sickeningly exorbitant fees of universities, colleges, and other institutions that goes far beyond “just making a living” while severely restricting the availability of knowledge to the public? Hell yes, that’s why some countries and universities are fighting back to stop the insanity.
Is Formscape wrong about almost everything? Of course they are. But don’t gloss over legitimate, large scale problems within research either.
Edited to add: you did indeed pick a video that illustrates almost every anti-science talking point perfectly. And your rebuttal/takedown also covers all the answers THOROUGHLY.
I think the main issue is the video would probably be like 4 hours long at that point, but I do agree that the best defense against psuedoscientific quacks using the issues with science against it is to address the issues ourselves so they have no ammunition.
I have broken my back over trying to figure out how much money Elsevier must make and what tiny percentage of that goes to their costs.
@@Eclyptical I don’t know about you but I would gladly watch a four hour Dave video
... You're literally arguing for them. They coopt issues like these because they are genuine issues. And you going "aktshually" just gives them more credence.
NO. they have no credence, full stop. Replication crisis must be addressed, but it must be addressed outside of the context of magnetic universe or whatever.
But, you going "hurp durp acktshually" has now given some validity to them :)
I'm sure you'll disagree, but this is sadly how a lot of anti-intellectual ideas spread. From a kernel of truth about a real issue. Just look at anti-vaxxers. A single poorly researched lie has now spanned decades of regressive health and death, all in the name of "jUsT aSkInG QuEsTiOnS", we should discuss vaccine safety what if they're not safe? No science is ever 100% certain.
See?
Like I know you mean well, and I'm probably coming off like an ass (sorry
@@Eclyptical Honestly, just like slightly gloss over what Descartes stressed and HOPEFULLY lol people can make the connection that there is not enough stress on the whole assume you're wrong aspect while making it very easy to prove you're wrong, in the sense of "I can replicate this, no problem." That's when I realized there's issues, along with all the fake journals that are accepted everywhere but stack exchanges (even then the non listed predatory joiurnals get through). They maintain a web adress with org or edu and I think your average curious reader is taught that is more valuable than anything. Yet there's some usually chinese who claim to be canadian jouranls with fake peer review that costs 300 dollars, and I've seen articles saying you can view atoms with your phone.
Why does guy sound like ben shapiro through a shiddy voice filter though
My first thought.
Sped up
Adds into his personality. Edgy and dorky
What saddens me about people like this is their relative eloquence, and overall understanding of "conveying the impression of being educated and wise". They've clearly put a LOT of energy into this. They're being methodical. But so insanely wrong. It must be such hard work being so energetically ignorant all the time...
He seemed eloquent but annoying for the first few minutes I had watched… I failed to recognize that Formscapes was trying to discredit science just because it’s revised. I constantly have to explain that it is impossible to study things in any meaningful sense without revising your ideas as new evidence is found.
@@darkstarr984 There is a significant portion of people who pine for an unchanging, simple world they can thoroughly understand and predict.
Well, tough: the world isn't that way and we all have to deal with it.
Heck, even religious doctrine is full of contradictions, dubious translations. redacted and lost texts, forgotten contexts, and so on - not to mention competing religions.
Replace each time Formscapes said “Science” and replace it with “God” and it almost works.
Right?? I can't quite describe it, but people like this seem to "see" science as a religion just like they have. Like they understand the fundamental that science technically replaces religiousness; if you take the science pill (which is just a framework, really) then it purges the body of religion... I just can't quite put it into words... "the thing you believe (engaging in the science framework) will completely erase and replace my faith in religion (because religion is stuck in place of where knowledge goes once acquired from science), ergo they are the same thing, ergo my religion is a dogma so your thing must be a religion and must be a dogma too! My religion is bullshit so yours is just as much!"
Does anyone get this? I'm just too dumb rn and can't word it correctly.
@@Malumen All is one and all is source. Science and religion are of one. This is the beginning of the meld, and a lot of people do not like it.
@@Malumen The past (and present) is replete with scientists whose contributions are much greater than Dave Farina's who would completely disagree.
Formscapes: "They're keeping you from learning the truth by making you pay to read papers"
Me: _Laughs in Sci-Hub_
There is just one point you made which I am compelled to dispute: "People don't waste billions of dollars for pride."
Bruh have you checked the climate lately? The fossil fuel industry literally sold out the future of the entire human species to make a quantified abstraction of their personal "value" even more obscenely inflated than it already was. There are absolutely people looking to fund bogus 'studies' in order to manufacture 'facts' for their agenda, and threatening to pull funding for studies that don't fulfill it, or that can't be editorialized to fit it -- just look at the history of food industry lobbying and its effects on dietary guidelines.
Of course, the solution to this problem is... everything else discussed in this video. Contrary to what 'community' might imply, the entire point of the scientific community is to facilitate scrutiny, discussion, and rebuttal from numerous unaffiliated research initiatives.
Elon musk also pays for pride..
@@notjebbutstillakerbal Was about to say this, Elon took a $22 billion (and counting) loss on buying Twitter just because he didn't like what they were doing.
I am compelled to agree with you. I would even say that TRILLIONS have been wasted on pride.
Well they made billions of dollars for their pride instead of wasting it. Musk is a much better example of wasting billions on ones pride.
@@fordid42 Explain how that was done out of pride? My understanding is it was done to make the platform a place where free speech is honored and valued, and narratives pushed by gov agencies/censoring/shadow banning anything that goes against the narrative/agendas are no longer allowed, and thus twitter stopped being a tool used by the gov and is what it was when it first begun, and should have stayed the whole time. It certainly appears to me that he followed through with his mission statement so I look forward to hearing your reasons as to why it was for pride. While you're at it, include your reasons why narratives pushed by gov agencies/censoring/shadow banning anything that goes against the narrative/agendas are a good thing and deserve to be defended. I don't use twitter/x but if every billionaire did what musk did we would be back to how the internet was 15 years ago before 'boot licking meta' group bought literally every single platform worth it's salt.
Garbage like the Formscapes video in question just pisses me off. "I can convince stupid people if i use big words - they'll just nod their heads. "
- thanks as always, Dave.
As a student in the 1990s, I was able to freely access as many scientific papers as I needed.
That’s still the case today on most campuses. Also even when there’s a paywall if you search the paper on Google Scholar there’s usually a free version available for everyone
Same for me right now.
So can i today with even more ease
Pro tip: for those without institutional access use Google Scholar. For most papers there’s usually a freely accessible pdf or html version available. It’ll be a separate link to the right of the paywalled link
I lost all access to academic journals and papers when I graduated college. If I wanted access to JSTOR now I would have to pay $20 a month OR a great new deal! $200 for a year. All the research I was able to freely do, gone. If I wanted to vet most of my papers I can't anymore.
I keep seeing that "How Science became unscientific " video come up on my feed. I kept assuming it was going to be about how charlatans kept coopting science by putting feelings before facts... I didn't expect it to BE a charlatan putting feelings before facts.
Just out of curiosity, did you conclude that from this reaction to the video or the actual video by formscapes?
@CeruleanMuun that's the best you can do lol
but yeah it's pretty clear who's actually the one w/ an agenda and manipulation tactics here
@@flynnferal5878 What do you mean "best you could do"? I was asking a genuine question.
@@CeruleanMuun ah, I'd assumed it was some attempt at a defense for the original. jumped the gun, I'm sorry
in germany we say "Schuster, bleib bei deinem Leisten!" in english "Cobbler, stick to your last!" which means that one should stick to what they know best and not venture into areas outside their expertise.
It is quite terrifying how prominent anti-science and conspiratorial rhetoric have become.
Misinformation is only becoming easier to spread
I blame social media for this. It has provided a means for people who hold such beliefs to network and create an echo chamber to cocoon themselves from anything that contradicts those beliefs.
People do not trust figures of authority after being lied to for so long. The foundations of anti-science ideologies like flat earthers or anti-vax(not including the covid skepticism) are a direct result of the government and big companies paying for the kind of science that gets unproven products through the door and then people getting burned by those entities. If they hurt you, why ever trust them? Thats the foundation of the ideology.
@@Akira625I wouldn't even say they cocoon themselves. Frankly, I'd be perfectly happy if they did.
If a small percentage of the population wanted to quietly sit in a corner and circlejerk about how the world is flat, that's totally fine with me. Their stupidity isn't my problem, and you don't need to understand that the world is round or how exactly gravity works in order to build a house or run a CNC or even do financial analysis on a business.
Instead, they evangelize their stupidity and draw in other gullible and slightly stupid people who "see the light" and become evangelists themselves.
Any Instagram or Facebook or TH-cam short with a clip of someone on the ISS will be met with an overwhelming barrage of "lmao you can see the wires" and "why did he set the microphone down if there's no gravity" because they fail to realize that the presenter actually just stuck it to the wall with Velcro so it doesn't float away from him while he demonstrates something.
Science deniers cocooning themselves is my preferred outcome. As the old expression goes, "You cannot reason people out of positions they didn’t reason themselves into."
There's very little hope of convincing them they're wrong, but I'd be more than content if they'd merely stop talking in the meantime.
While science is never perfect, being a human endeavor it’s subject to all the foibles and issues affecting any human endeavor, it is at least a process for understanding reality in an objective manner using observation and experimentation. Unfortunately just about anything can be viewed as a conspiracy, and that includes science. Whattya gonna do? 🤷🏻♀️
i remember the anecdote "cows moo softly" as a method to remember the scientific method: change something, measure something, keep everything else the same.
i learned this in 6th grade. primary schools in Australia often don't even have labs for science classes.
*mnemonic
Wait, I don't see how this mnemonic fits into what you're saying.
@@avishalom2000lm as an Australian I think he's just pointing out how simple it is to teach the process despite having a lack of funding or dedicated facilities to teach, although having a lab and bunsen burner and other equipment etc does help as showing is always better than just telling, that said my state school had a facility but rural areas as always are usually underfunded.
It saddens me to know that I'll never see the death of stupidity in my lifetime.
Same. It really depresses me sometimes. I feel bad for the idiots & I feel bad for the world that has to suffer because of it.
@@goldenageofdinosaurs7192do u ever think that you do stupid things? You sound so arrogant it's insane.
Just point and laugh and ignore them. Idiots have existed since the dawn of time
People who think their degree from Google University is as good as 100 years of research and verification done by hundreds of thousands of people who have devoted their entire lives to studying these fields have honestly changed my mind about the concept of free speech.
Its funny because "google debunker" is literally a slur for some of their parts. They dont get their info from google, but from the recomended feed of other similar content creators. Its an infinite telephone game thats why its often so wrong aswell