Science Isn't Dogma, You're Just Stupid (Response to Formscapes)
Last month a channel named "Formscapes" released a profoundly idiotic video about how all of science is "dogma" from an "elite priesthood", and we should instead listen to frauds who push demonstrably false pseudoscience because it makes him feel smart and special. He also tried to mock my debunk of Electric Universe for being similarly "dogmatic", though he was totally incapable of explaining how, as he could not engage with a single scientific point I had made in the entire video. Since this anti-science mentality, which regards the entire body of scientific knowledge as corrupt and dogmatic, is so shockingly prevalent, let's take Formscapes to school and explain to him how science actually works, shall we?
My original Electric Universe debunk: • Debunking the Electric...
Watch my other debunks: bit.ly/ProfDaveDebunk
EMAIL► ProfessorDaveExplains@gmail.com
PATREON► / professordaveexplains
Check out "Is This Wi-Fi Organic?", my book on disarming pseudoscience!
Amazon: amzn.to/2HtNpVH
Bookshop: bit.ly/39cKADM
Barnes and Noble: bit.ly/3pUjmrn
Book Depository: bit.ly/3aOVDlT
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
"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 *
Yeah that's one of the stupidest things I've ever heard.
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.
"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?"
Yeah... You should look at all the pseudoscientists that are abjectly wrong because the results they put forward are designed to continue providing them funding as opposed to being objective and rational and providing the real results which would likely see a cut to their funding.
*objectively
@@matturner6890 That word also works.
@@SantuaryTakkeI mean uniformitarianism is a thing. The world doesn’t really change much, just our understanding of it
"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
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.
He criticizes scientists, claiming that their findings are published without proper scrutiny. Then, he criticizes scientists for applying proper scrutiny to outrageous claims.
Yes. Fuck's on Marijuana, Shroom, Cocaine, Heroin, etc. Hope he shuts up
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!
I feel like this guy took a look at Warhammer 40 Mechanicus and decided that's how real scientists act.
>"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
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.
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?)
That is absolutely correct, but speaking strictly socially very little would change. Most people don't understand modern aspects of chemistry, physics, or biology, so the current solution is likely somewhere in the middle, like making more free-access journals and decreasing the costs of popular papers. That said, you're certainly right about college students needing the aid, and I totally support your idea, I just think it could be more reasonable.
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.
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.
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"
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
"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.
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"
"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.
@@Consciousness_of_Reality Or, you know, basic proof. Which you literally cannot produce for crackpot claims like electric universe.
@@Consciousness_of_Reality 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.
@@Consciousness_of_Reality 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.
@@Consciousness_of_Reality 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.
@@Consciousness_of_Reality good god you're insufferably annoying.
"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 KZhead.
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
Publishing houses are a scam, period. It does not cost thousands of dollars to select and forward a paper to someone who then reviews it FOR FREE (you think those reviewers are paid? think again!). However that does not mean the process is a scam. So really the whole "booo publishers" is a complete misdirection.
Bzzt. wrong. We have a publishing medium that is uncurated and without editors ... a virtual volcano of intellectual integrity and validated truth ... it's called "the internet". Of course the proportion of intellectual integrity and validated truth therein is roughly about the same as that of high quality platinum you'll find in any random volcanic eruption. It does take people time and effort to choose papers to publish in a journal. It takes time and effort to guide the author through acceptable standards for that publication. It takes time and know how to select the reviewers for a paper and coordinate their responses and (anonymously) forward their critiques back to the author(s) to have them address or rewrite the paper to meet the critiques of the reviewers that the editors consider of merit. Then it takes time and effort to make sure the appropriate recipients are going to know what is going to be distributed in said journal on what schedule. For each and every paper it takes a very skilled editor with some level of understanding in a (possibly very deep) science specialty to edit each paper clause for clause and to make sure no major potentially embarrassing ambiguities or simple writing brain-gas mistakes slip through. And finally it takes a great deal of time and effort to pull together, structure and composite an edition of a journal and actually get it distributed. Do you know ANYTHING about the process of producing a publication? It doesn't sound like it.
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.
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 KZhead
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.
It must be so exhausting to believe so hard that reality is just a conspiracy.
"People don't waste billions of dollars for pride. Period" *glances at Twitter* Weeeell....
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
"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."
I'm in the social science field, and we talk about variables that can affect studies all the time. It's so aggravating that people believe that we do our job without any thoughts of our own. There are many different opinions in sociology and anthropology where people in the same fields disagree with each other. It would be very boring to work with science if everyone had the same opinions on everything. 😅
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.
"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.
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 😊
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.
“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
"Science isn't dogma. You're just stupid." Simple and direct. I love it!
Yeah. Very non-dogmatic.
Same
@@I_dreamed_my_name_was_Brandonhysterical coming from a flat earther
@@I_dreamed_my_name_was_Brandon "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
"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.
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.
The only thing I agree with formscapes on is that textbooks, scientific papers are fucking expensive. I can't find the damn paper 9 out of 10 times
@@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
Take a shot every time he says "The science" you'll be dead before the first 30 minutes
is your username comics lab or comic slab
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
“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 😑
@@aidenmacneill8397Guess 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
Tigers learning to use firearms would be a very serious development...
Indeed.
Sri Lanka had Tamil Tigers and allegedly gorilla fighters. Remember the famous golfer Leopard Woods.
I could see elephants doing it
I just noticed in the list of video suggestions that there is a video from Formscapes named "Dear Mr. Professor Dave; Science and Scientism" dated 2 months ago. Probably (well, most likely) a desperate attempt at damage control, but could be worth watching for some laughs...
It’s even more pathetic than you imagine
@@ProfessorDaveExplains Indeed. I tried watching it but even at double speed (at normal speed it was just FAR too painful to watch) couldn't get far as I felt like my brains were leaking out of my ears from the sheer idiocy in the video.
@@juhanipolvi4729 and the comment section on Formscapes doesn't help with the argument to show how science is dogma and their favorite word of "scientism". I also wonder if some of my comments were hidden, because none of the responses there were able to answer a simple question about how science is performed globally: How would science become dogma if every country in the world has different laws, and education systems are very different? There wasn't a "bible" or "secret document" that I had to read in secondary school and university just because I chose a computer science degree to study instead of biology, physics or chemistry. Also the scientific process can be applied to several fields, so it's not only limited to the ones that I've listed.
“Science is bad because it doesn’t accept my unscientific ideas!”.
Show me that quote?
@@Laeternitas 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.
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.
"Science isn't Dogma" Until it is treated as such by those who simply repeat what they are told without exercising due diligence and research into what the science actually says. Yes, "science" in the sense of the way the culture and politicians can weaponize it, can be Dogmatic. Science, the tool and base of knowledge that tool helps us to generate, when used properly, isn't Dogma.
20 million sperm, and he was the fastest?
Big oof. But true.
local champion fails at national stage
Dayum..roasted
Formscapes beat an astronaut, the man who cured cancer and a war hero to become this
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.
"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.
"Its not mainstream, so it must be true!" A very dangerous line of thinking that can lead you down some dark paths, and Im not just talking scientifically
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.
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.
@@AleisterCrowleyMagus 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"
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.
'Not available to the general public" isn't true. I can wander into my local university library and read a hard copy of any journal I want. With a little effort, I can access a computer and read any of the important journals.
I agree. It may require more effort than if I were a student at that university, but any time I have sought out materials at a university library, I was able to access them at no charge. The only exception to this was information hidden behind the paywall of a society of medical professionals. The main difficulty for me as a layperson is my ability to interpret a particular academic journal article when I do not have the breadth of knowledge of someone trained in that field. However, I much rather come to my own conclusion than trust a journalist's interpretation. I do have training in statistics, which is often very helpful.
In a few cases some papers sadly have been paywalled by services
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 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.
There was a time when I thought Electric Universe was legit science, but that was when all I knew about it was its name. When they started trying to describe what it was is when I stopped thinking it was legit.
It is legit science; it's just 140 years out of date.
56:51 Bringing out the kids toy as an analogy is absolutely diabolical and amazing 😂
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."
@@michaelvelez902 just as long as it isn't centrifugal force
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.
In some ways, there was at one time a dogmatic science. It was the teaching of Aristotle's works on Nature (Physics) in universities at the time of Galileo. Students learned and regurgitated what Aristotle wrote and did not test anything. Galileo questioned and tested some of Aristotle's assertions about motion and the heavens. The results showed Aristotle to be wrong on some things. That, to me, is why Galileo was one of the first true scientists using the experimental method and publishing his results for others to study and try to replicate. It is alleged that once Galileo set up his telescope and directed it to show skeptical Aristotelians things like the phases of Venus of irregular edges of the moon or Jupiter's moons, all of which contradicted Aristotelian ideas. One Aristotelian is described as refusing to look, justifying this by saying, "If it shows me what I know it must, then it has shown me nothing I did not already know. If it contradicts what I know then it must be an illusion." I think Galileo was persecuted more because he upset the Aristotelians rather than the church. I suspect they used their influence to convince the church to attack Galileo. But since then, science has generally rid itself of doctrine and dogma in place of the current best evidence and confirmed hypotheses.
You are right.
The way he says "the science" like it's a slur.
“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!!!!😅
@@memeswithcringe1624I thinks he’s referring to the kind of viewer formscapes attracts.
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
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.
The Ben-Shapiro-style delivery just makes it worse.
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.
you show your lack of understanding on everything there, it shows why you are in this comment section and probably consume most of his videos with no skepticism
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.
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 way he says the "The science" ticks me off
"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
“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.
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?
I just about blasted milk and cake out my mouth when I heard the phrase philosophical mental masterbation 😂
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 :)
"If I redefine what science is to fit my beliefs about science, my beliefs make much more sense"
This comment is amazing
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.
That is some very interesting pronunciation of Ghislaine, right there
Science is dogma... Dogma nuts
“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?
@@Mrfunny663vnb83 Feel free to give an example where he has wasted billions in science for pride.
_we should not confuse (...) confidence with correctness_ - golden words
dumb video guy: says its easy to produce false studies and publish them also dumb video guy: proceeds to show a study where somebody got backlash from the science community for publishing a false study; in that process proving that the scientific method works perfectly fine genius
"people don't waste billions of dollars for pride, period" .... Have you heard of Elon Musk? Otherwise in 100% agreement with this awesome video.
They still don't, elon is a capitalist, MF surely has people smarter tham him all around him
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.
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
The scientific method is wrong because something something priesthood something something.
Equating science itself to a dogma is evidence that folks don't understand science.
You are a very religious high new ager. Fuck Formscapes@@BedelendeCentenbak
Science is not dogma. Exactly
@@BedelendeCentenbak Na Fam. Your ranting is a textbook example of a false dichotomy. Religion demands complete conviction, but science advises against that. It demands understanding instead of belief, so it must be based on verifiable and testable evidence via the Scientific method. It’s also got to explain related observations with a measurable degree of accuracy; it must withstand continuous critical analysis in peer review; and it must be falsifiable too. Try again.
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 KZhead 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.
"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
this guy reminds me of ben shapiro. he just uses big words hoping that his audience won’t understand half of what he says and just accept the other half as fact because they think he’s smart
I love videos! I was wondering if you could create a video about debunking the energy/vibration/match you frequency with the universe's pseudoscience nonsence.
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.
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
Ironically, the thing most hampering modern science are capitalists. Oh wait, that's not irony - that's just life.
Prof Dave, the phrase "trust the science" is also a favourite mantra of politicians as well as deniers. There's undoubtedly a correlation between the two, I just haven't done any research on it.
I get disgusted when I see our politicians talk about trusting the science while simultaneously ignoring and misrepresenting the science to seem like their agenda is justified by “evidence”.
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
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.
If science had a mantra, it would be something along these lines: Question every answer, test every question, verify every conclusion. Repeat. Oh, wait! That's the scientific process! Silly me. 😊
Ok by the time you turned the "science isn't dogma" line into a song, I lost it. Fuck this was so good
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.
@@Consciousness_of_Reality what is it we are talking about? moreover what are you talking about, clearly a very different thing
@@TimoRutanen ayy lmao
@@Consciousness_of_Reality >"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.
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
Is that Ben Shapiro narrating? As a soverign citizen I will no longer obey the laws of gravity, leverage or motion. I will toss the shackles that bond me to the earth
The scientific method is so easy, and yet so many people doubt it. It's literally what you do all the time. Person A: "Yo look at this cool new trick I found!" Person B: "That's cap, let me try" Then, either Person A or Person B is found right or wrong, or perhaps both are right or both are wrong depending on the scenario. You've done this before, I'm sure you have. Someone else tells you there's some trick in a game you both are playing, you try it, and it either works or doesn't. Isn't it so simple and obvious that this method of "alright, let me try" is valid? Now imagine this, but about serious topics, and it's not just two people. Does it become invalid? Of course not! It only become stronger because more people try and say yay or nay. Scientific illiteracy is going to murder our species.
He talks about science like he just read a 40k lore book and found about Mechanicus
I would love to see a discussion between a creationist and a Magos from the Mechanicus.
I think you hit the nail on the head.
@@achimdemus-holzhaeuser1233 Don't you mean the discussion between a Magos and a new, barely used servitor ?
When you can use 40K as analogies to answer a pseudoscience...ah ah ah!!!
@@JeRefuseDeBienPrononcerBaleine don't spoil the Ending :)