What COVID Revealed About Science
Vložit
- čas přidán 19. 05. 2024
- Go to 80000hours.org/upandatom to find out how you can make the world a better place while enjoying a fulfilling career.
The video about the experiment that proved the existence of atoms • Brownian Motion - The ...
Hi! I'm Jade. If you'd like to consider supporting Up and Atom, head over to my Patreon page :)
/ upandatom
Visit the Up and Atom store
store.nebula.app/collections/...
Subscribe to Up and Atom for physics, math and computer science videos
/ upandatom
SOURCES
docs.google.com/document/d/18...
Follow me @upndatom
Up and Atom on Twitter: upndatom?lang=en
Up and Atom on Instagram: / upndatom
For a one time donation, head over to my PayPal :) www.paypal.me/upandatomshows
A big thank you to my AMAZING PATRONS!
Jonathan Koppelman, Michael Seydel, Cy 'kkm' K'Nelson
, Rick DeWitt, Thorsten Auth
, Purple Penguin
, AndrewA, Izzy Ca, bpatb
, Richard O McEwen Jr, Michael Martin, Scott Ready,
John H. Austin, Jr.
, Brian Wilkins, Thomas V Lohmeier, David Johnston
,
Thomas Krause
, Yana Chernobilsky,
Lynn Shackelford, Ave Eva Thornton,
Andrew Pann,
Anne Tan
, Michael Geer, Daniel Quinn, James Mahoney, Jim Felich, Fabio Manzini, Jeremy, Sam Richardson, Robin High, KiYun Roe, Christopher Rhoades, DONALD McLeod, Ron Hochsprung, OnlineBookClub.org, Aria Bend, James Matheson, Robert A Sandberg, Kevin Anderson, Tim Ludwig, Alexander Del Toro Barba, Corey Girard, Justin Smith, Emily, A. Duncan, Mark Littlehale, Lucas Alexander, Jan Gallo, Tony T Flores,
Jeffrey Smith
, Alex Hackman
, Joel Becane,
Michael Hunter
, Paul Barclay, 12tone,
Zhong Cheng Wang,
Sergey Ten, Damien Holloway,
Mikely Whiplash
, John Lakeman
, Jana Christine Saout
, Jeff Schwarz
,
Louis Mashado,
Michael Dean
, Chris Amaris,
Matt G
, Dag-Erling Smørgrav
, John Shioli
, Todd Loreman
, Susan Jones, whatguts, René Pasold, Simon J. Dodd, Tang Chun, Michelle, Richard Vallender, jake h, William Toffey, Michel Speiser, Rigid Designator, James Horsley, Bryan Williams, Craig Tumblison, Rickey Estes, Cameron Tacklind, 之元 丁, Kevin Chi, Paul Blanchard, Lance Ahmu, Tim Cheseborough, Nico Papanicolaou, keine, Markus Lindström, Steve Watson, Midnight Skeptic, Kyle Higgins, aeidolos, Mike Jepson, Dexter Scott, Potch, Indrajeet Sagar, Markus Herrmann (trekkie22), Gil Chesterton, Alipasha Sadri, Pablo de Caffe, Taylor Hornby, Eric Van Oeveren, Mark Fisher, Phizz, Colin Byrne, Nick H, Jesper de Jong, Loren Hart, Ari Prasetyo, Sofia Fredriksson, Phat Hoang, Spuddy, Sascha Bohemia, tesseract, Stephen Britt, KG, Dagmawi Elehu, Hansjuerg Widmer, John Sigwald, O C, Carlos Gonzalez, Jonathan Ansell, Thomas Kägi, James Palermo, Gary Leo Welz, Chris Teubert, Fran, Robert J Frey, Wolfgang Ripken, Jeremy Bowkett, Vincent Karpinski, Nicolas Frias, Louis M, kadhonn, Moose Thompson, Andrew, Sam Ross, Garrett Chomka, Bobby Butler, Rebecca Lashua, Pat Gunn, George Fletcher, Elze Kool, RobF, Vincent Seguin, Shawn, Israel Shirk, Jesse Clark, Steven Wheeler, Philip Freeman, KhAnubis, Jareth Arnold, Simon Barker, Dennis Haupt, Lou, amcnea, Simon Dargaville, and Magesh.
Creator - Jade Tan-Holmes
Script - Zoe Cocchiaro
Animations - Daniel Kouts
Music - epidemic sound - Věda a technologie
🌏Go to 80000hours.org/upandatom to find out how you can make the world a better place while enjoying a fulfilling career. 🌱
Make a video on science and God.
Science is suppose to be a 'Search for the Truth'. Unfortunately, in today’s society, as with virtually all other fields of human endeavor (including Religion), the field of 'Science' has been corrupted by profit, politics, and ideological / worldview agenda where misinformation and disinformation proliferate to propagandize the world. It seems like many of the world's top scientists have reached the level of stardom once reserved for celebrities, rock stars, and Heads of State. Some of these scientists have made millions through book sales, movies, lectures, etc. by sharing their beliefs and interpretations of the world, which may not be based on science. These scientists have a direct financial and ideological conflict of interest in sharing supposed "scientific truths" as advisors to governments in shaping policy or to the public for indoctrination.
@@mohdhasanraza2133 Why?
@@davidmorris1473 Do you believe in God?
@@mohdhasanraza2133 Nope, there is no EVIDENSE.
It's worth noting that in the specific case of recommending a strategy to deal with a new disease, 2 scientists could completely agree on all of the models and still reasonably come to a different recommendation, because the recommendation is inherently a value judgement. Every reasonable course of action that was considered mitigated some potential negative outcomes more than other potential negative outcomes (for example, total deaths from the disease vs economic damage due to suppression measures), and which of the potential negative outcomes is better to mitigate is purely a value judgement.
yep the two strategies basically come down to the prioritization of saving lives versus making money, ultimately suppression focuses on short term suppression with acute social and economic impacts versus long term mitigation where harm to the economy is minimized.
Personally we need to make our biases far more explicit as they reveal a lot of hidden truths (especially in politics) that we as individuals tend to be blind to including logical fallacies. This will not solve moral judgments but it can expose what interests are guiding everything from policies, to scientific theories and opinions, but it will require Media to be held much more accountable and people to be far more aware which is admittedly hard to get people to follow through on, but it seems to be one of the better ways of stopping communication derived problems before they spiral out of control.
This is true, science does not elevate any preferences for deciding public policy. They are political decisions, and (should) reflect the values of the society from which they are made. As Sabine Hossenfelder points out, "Science can tell you what will happen if you pee on an electric fence, it doesn't tell you whether you should or not".
@@Dragrath1 "the prioritization of saving lives versus making money" -> No. It's about saving lives from the disease vs saving lives from poverty, crime, depression, and suicide.
@@deleted01 Exactly. I am absolutely convinced that the lockdowns have done more damage to humanity. In fact, we are yet to see the full effects of what the lockdowns have done to us.
We balance lives vs economics, subjective happiness, and other factors every day. For example, if all we cared about were lives, we could reduce the speed limit to 40 mph, or ban cars entirely.
If all we cared about were economics, we could reinstitute slavery and ban all leisure (or allow only what is needed to get maximum productivity out of people).
If all we cared about was social order, we could ban protesting, and otherwise restrict freedom of speech.
We have to balance all sorts of considerations, and there is and can be no "scientifically" correct way to do so.
Great video! The concept of underdetermination is why extrapolating from data is so difficult. Just as a simple example, the points (1,1), (2,2), (3,3) can follow the pattern y = x, or they can follow the pattern y = 0.5x^3 - 3x^2 + 6.5x - 3, and these two equations will predict wildly different y values for x = 4 and higher.
And if you the sample size is that small, it's not very useful to extrapolate, otherwise you end up with the fact that Vatican City has two popes per square kilometer.
'course we don't usually overfit, because of bias/variance trade-offs and all that, but there are some interesting results from ML research like Grokking, which overfit the data - actually, the no. parameters exceeds the data by quite a bit - but if it's run long enough, it ends up generalising just fine, almost as though the MLAs themselves are weirdly solving the problem of underdetermination on their own.
@@Eta_Carinae__ Isn't that more about learning algorithms which internally "weed out" theoretically free parameters which are apparently uninformative so they are effectively simpler? Models/algorithms can incorporate avoiding overfitting as part of their process.
@@travcollier I don't think we know exactly, but that's probably _close._ The no. params. in the network is still in excess of the data, so it's not exactly simpler. It looks like the network actually learns the underlying pattern itself. It's likely to do with how the network is regularised, which is often the incentive for the net to not _increase_ complexity.
@@Eta_Carinae__ For systems which learn the parameters, ideas like "Minimum Description Length" are often used to measure 'simple'
Cool stuff. I'm actually a biologist, and got into this topic by looking at evolution as a machine learning algorithm (which it just is)
I think one interesting thing that happens is when a non-scientific question creeps into a scientific discussion. For example what is the best response to Covid is not a scientific question. You might ask what response will save the most lives or what response will have the lowest economic impact. But what is the best response is a choice for people to make.
Well yeah because the idea of "best" is subjective. You have to use qualifiers like by best I mean x.
And, ultimately, if everyone doesn't make the *same* choice, most of the strategies would [and did] fail. In the US, there were so many "carve outs" that a "lockdown" was anything but.
Sometimes, not only do non-scientific questions creep into a scientific discussion, people also abuse scientific findings to bolster their credibility in a policy discussion that does not depend on science to begin with.
@@deleted01 yep. And then anyone who disagrees is called "anti-science". I'd guess that most people claiming that a viewpoint is pro or anti science have no clue what science.
Which is why every time some media person said follow the science or listen to The Experts I wanted to strangle them where they stood
Great point about science being fairly objective, but people (which obviously includes all scientists!) having values, biases etc. I think the COVID example is a little unfair though as predictive epidemiology is by its very nature, guesswork. The Imperial model was always intended to be a worst case scenario (and actually wasn’t as wrong as most critics suggest). Modelling is far from an exact science and always based on massive assumptions, especially with a new pandemic. I might suggest some of the mask studies, where it was entertaining (and frustrating) to see different camps of scientists and doctors take utterly different conclusions from the same data (ie how effective masks are).
What wasn't entertaining to see was all the grifters taking advantage of the situation by telling people that science shouldn't be trusted, and then selling some snake-oil or propaganda to push their agenda.
Dr., I hope you're not wasting time here in the wild when you have videos to make. ;)
you're right my mon, this video is a bit undercooked. how about you do it justice, i'll gulp up 100% of that sweet sweet watch time of urs mmmmm
A model is not the same evidence it is closer to conjecture. Would any scientific body release a drug if there was no trial data but there was model data? Lockdown was not just released, it was a mandatory prescription. To claim it was "the science" was a joke and that has bought science into disrepute as did the flip flopping over masks. They didn't even attempt to "model" the wider impacts of lockdown which we are now paying for. Opinion and wishful thinking is not "science", no matter what qualifications the people have.
Lol @ science communicators disputing how to communicate science on a video about how science communication naturally leads to disputes. How deliciously recursive.
Lol @ science communicators disputing how to communicate science on a video about how science communication naturally leads to disputes. How deliciously recursive.
The problem with judgements on Covid are that they were by necessity ethical and political judgements and not scientific judgements (even if we had complete knowledge available to us).
The problem is that what was not being openly discussed was the trade-off between short term deaths and long term deaths. If 200 people die within an hour and nobody else dies within the rest of the year then it is a big tragedy, but if 1,000 people die over the course of the year it has far fewer political consequences even though then overall number of deaths may be greater, but the rate of death is lower.
The long term effects of the lockdown are still being felt, and it is unlikely we will ever be able to exactly calculate how many people died from the longer term consequences of decisions taken to save lives in the short term.
Then there is also the question of whether all deaths are of equal value. Do we care more about the number of people who prematurely died (even if they only died one day before they might anyway have died of old age), or whether we care more about the number of man-years of life lost (i.e. the death of a child has a higher value than the death of an 80-year old - and Covid had minimum impact on young children, but the consequences of lock-down had a significant impact on school aged children).
And it gets even more complicated because when you want to stratify your strategy along age groups you also need to take into account that in a single household there are several age groups present. So how do you lock down older people while children from the same household can go on about?
That's why hard lockdowns were chosen for the most part
@mikosoft Is a lockdown of all, fragile or not, the only way to effectively protect all those who are fragile? In Sweden, it was the places where elderly were concentrated that had the highest death rates. People living in typical family groups had lower death rates. This was true in New York state as well.
The information we needed to decide was already beginning to take shape by the fall of 2020. In the US, many expensive private schools went back to in-person instruction in September 2020, combined with a long holiday break and some remote learning during that time. Those kids didn't lose out. That might be a good plan generally. It appears the measures worked better on preventing flu from spreading than preventing COVID, and flu is usually riskier for the young than COVID is.
I remember that we had two teacher in my Modern Physics course in University. One explained a certain theory one way and then the other refuted the previous teacher's answer by explaining it another way. Both theories seemed fine to me (but what do I know). When he asked the class what we thought of it I said as much but the bottom line was, to me, which one should we use if it was asked on the test.
A well-written test * will allow for different interpretations.
* But there's the problem.
The most important thing to consider is who is funding the research !
This will tell you what the results will show. This is how science is done in the 21 century. Disturbing but true :-(
99.9% of scientist who get paid to study the problem agree that it needs more study!
Amazing example with Chemistry. I hadn’t realised how for centuries they assumed it was the underlying approach until it was finally proven. I wonder what topics are like this for us today.
Anything too big or too small to explain with classical physics falls in this category. Thus the competing theories of quantum mechanics and the different values for the age of the universe.
Virtual particles and the quantum wavefunction are good examples of objects that are fruitful, yet not known to actually exist (or, at least, in what sense they actually exist).
You can also add BLACK HOLE.Where so many theories surfacing but still no concrete evidence to prove it.
@@ryantwombly720 the only thing remotely close to a theory of quantum mechanics is the uncertainty principle.
More like a fundamental theory of information, knowledge, the philosophy of physics, "metaphilosophy", and classical philosophy itself.
Interpretations of quantum models are not scientific theories at all, but ways of imagining something we fundamentally can't know(also known as speculations) (I'll only cite Penrose's conjecture on quantum information being fundamentally impossible to be perfectly duplicated, you can figure out how we can't have all information from reality itself.
Physics isn't about reality (not since it stopped being natural philosophy) it's about models.)
There'll always be more data that we can't reach, so what science must do, is recognize that and be aware of our axioms and biases so that we don't say we *KNOW* what's the true deal, because the truth is, what we have are extremely good models that _probably_ are intrinsically related to true information from reality itself; but, fundamentally, it's only partially correlated, never perfectly.
Physical reality itself has to exist(we assume/define axiomatically as truthful) and because of that we can't extract it from itself, or it'll cease to be, in other, less confusing words, absolute certainty completely destroys the very thing you're trying to figure out.
Some information has to be there in the physical entity itself so that it can itself emerge into something we measure in a way that we define as being physical(that's only my speculation tho).
If you're interested as to why I defend that the uncertainty principle is absolute, I recommend learning about what inspired Heisenberg, which was George Pierce's work on semiotics.
I honestly also think that the best speculation about "quantum gravity" which tries to explain spacetime itself, information, entanglement, and a bunch of other stuff like Einstein-Rosen bridges, black holes n such fundamental questions about a possible model for the very nature of reality; is the ER=EPR hypothesis of Leonard Susskind and Juan Maldacena(with the help of Gerard t'hooft and others too.) Which is basically a generalization/expansion upon the AdS/CFT correspondence.
@@TheCynicalPhilosopher Imaginary numbers don't exist either, but we use them in our mathematical model for alternating current.
I really like your videos about the philosophy of science, they really stand out from most of the science channels on youtube!
You are not afraid of the difficult subjects. Keep it up!
I couldnt agree more! Its what most science divulgation lacks!
To be frank I almost didn't watch this video. I just found your channel, watched your other videos. Although from watching the other videos I can see you put quite a bit of time and effort into them. I feel like you make the material clear, and understandable. I clicked this video and was shockingly surprised how well it was and how unbias and non political it was. You have surely earned my subscription. I can't wait to see your future uploads!!
Looooove this one. Simple, but important. And so relevant to the public's understanding of science. Especially over the last two years. Also, love that the drawings are back now too!!!! So good!!! : )
Glad you enjoyed it!
@@upandatom I request you to make video or documentary on this topic
What makes Great scientist or Mathematician
Is it their high iq or hard work
What is their thought process of solving problem
Like carl gauss , Einstein, Newton , paul dirac , feynman
You must have read biographies of all these great scientist
What I find really cool is, when science makes a mistake it is science that finds it and/or corrects it.
Not anymore. It's fascist idealogy that corrects it now. 📺🚀💰🐑
When something that cannot be proven right or wrong, it is not science.
@@tsingtak642 Are you talking about Falsifiability?
Human scientific consciousness is like autocomplete. It starts with one letter and doesn't know what it means, but once there are enough letters it's enough to fill in the rest.
" Science advances one funeral at a time."
Great explanation for a concept that should be taught to everyone, to better understand how science happens. Understanding how we, often incorrectly, assess risks in life is another big one.
An excellent video, Jade! Forgetting that science is a human enterprise and can be subject to several contextual factors is quite often an easy thing.
I truly love that you cover many topics relating to science, not just physics. Please keep exploring!!! YOU ROCK, JADE!!!
More to come!
I love the increased upload schedule, it's much appreciated! :)
A huge reason why scientists disagree on many things has to do with the reliability of "data points". For example, If you look at studies for a "Virus". For one thing, if a test cannot reliably determine the presence of a virus, then the data will be skewed. If the data is based on "reported" presence or absence of a "virus" without actually "testing" for the virus but simply based on "symptoms", then that introduces even more error. Beyond that, the presence of a virus has to also be causally linked to a specific disease state: Koch's postulates. The lack of this level of integrity astounds me. After all of that, the conclusions of the paper may or may not even be logically usable. Other people have also commented that ultimately, science doesn't dictate how people will feel or respond to the data or the conclusions. We have to recognize that science has been manipulated in the past, and will be in the future. There's certainly countless cases of data being manipulated to support conclusions or just to make "claims" when such claims were completely false. Additionally we also know that hundreds if not thousands of scientific papers had "poor" or worse data to begin with. So, we can't simply "accept" science as valid until there's many studies repeatedly confirming the results.
spinach iron content. even Popeye was kinda based on it 🤣
Finally, a meaningful comment.
Yeah, the data when it comes to epidemiology is generally tough to analyze, especially with regards to testing. Thing is that you can't really get easy random samples. The people that show up to even get a test are in themselves a subset of your population. Not everyone is going to be virus conscious, and some people may just be sick, but never get tested. This gets even trickier with asymptomatic people who would have no reason to get tested in the first place. You never get the controlled lab tests you'd get in something like physics or chemistry, you're always working with potentially flawed data sets. And that makes things extremely tricky, because what assumptions you make to try to fill in the holes in the data could totally change your conclusions.
Another really excellent video, Jade!
What you describe is how science *should* work, but what COVID has unfortunately shown is just how broken science is currently, at least in the short term. I’d have liked this video even more if you’d made the point that suppressing contrary ideas, making ad hominem attacks and calling one of the safest and most broadly used medicines “horse dewormer” is the exact opposite of science.
Absolutely! I have lost a lot of faith, (respect), for the "medical establishment" because of this nonsense.
To say that those who have recovered from covid don't have as good immunity as those vaccinated was known to be false and proved several times and yet the US health agencies didn't accept this. This points to money & politics more than science directing policies. This was a very sad thing to see.
Tragic, actually. How are we supposed to trust our health agencies now?
We also learned that if you're not in lockstep with the prevailing government view/theory; you will pay a heavy price.
Not that our leaders followed their prescribed mandates anyways.
That's why trust is at an all-time low, both in science, and government.
Your channel makes the world a better place! 💐Keep up the excellent work! ❤️
Thanks for this amazing video! Loved the quote by Arthur Eddington at the start :)
Excellently covered! Love the topic and perspective here
Just to add: The points raised also show why Bayesian statistics was controversial (and still is?) - it explicitly accepts the fact that your results need to begin with your opinion (the “prior”). It’s interesting that statistics has highlighted that subjectivity, even in the pursuit of objectivity, is unavoidable.
And it’s due to the multi hypothesis issue from this video - your data never identifies the truth. So you need extra information to constrain what you allow the truth to be. This is the job of assumptions!
Yep exactly for this reason I have always been bothered by the association of truth and science as a process for finding truth.
In reality science is an iterative process because we are observers within the Universe meaning we are a self reverential system and thus any knowledge we can glean through the study of the universe is dependent on Gödel's incompleteness theorems meaning that there will always be another observation which can't be proved or uniquely explained(i.e. without the proof to answer the question explicitly there will always be multiple explanations to explain any given observations)
The best we can do then is to be careful with our current theoretical models remembering to try and keep our models as theoretically simple as we can while maximizing the explanatory power.
Science thus under ideal conditions converges towards the best possible answer by solving a conceptual optimization problem of matching the simplest theory to the most comprehensive data we can.
It can never get you all the way to truth that would take infinite iterations. Truth is thus an unreachable limit much like infinity and needs to be thought of as such because truth is a belief not a scientific concept. Sadly there are still many scientists who are scared by this unavoidable conclusion and thus will do their best to avoid the scary concept that undermines their world view.
The "prior" in Bayesian statistics isn't an opinion, it is starting data. Two people can have different prior assumptions but those assumptions are not statistical, they are either true, false, or undetermined.
It is extrapolating from the known to the unknown, which is just information but that is very different from perspective or opinion.
Technically speaking everything is subjective, reality as we percieved might be a very long dream, or a recent one that gives the illusion of a lot of memories, you can't really be sure.
Subjectivity vs objectivity is not white and black, it is a gradient of different levels of subjectivity. Some stuff is more subjective than other stuff.
@@diablo.the.cheater wow
If someone says "I follow the science," they usually mean, "I follow some scientists that my political party endorses." Really following the science means staying skeptical and having humility. There is no settled science.
Exactly.
Sorry, but this is just muddying the waters. There are plenty of things the scientific community really does _know._ Being skeptical means suspending judgement until there is suitable evidence, not suspending judgement forever. Eventually, the weight of the evidence moves all but the most fringe loonies onto one side or another.
@@APaleDot Name a scientific truth that hasn't been overturned with time. Skepticism doesn't mean we don't act on the theories of our time, but that we remain skeptical of them and test them. Read Kuhn.
@@Singulitarian
The Earth orbits around the sun.
Any more extremely trivial challenges for me?
Come on, scientific knowledge accumulates. Even when a theory is disproven, if it was well established it is still "true" in a very meaningful way. Newton's laws are still "true" because scientists and engineers use them every day to do useful things, even if Einstein superceded them.
@@APaleDot We don't even understand mass fully. Higgs Boson? Other missing particles? We don't even know what dark matter is and you're saying orbital mechanics is solved? Sure, we can get some approximations that are useful in everyday life, but the science is far from settled.
Always excited and immediately click when I see you've put out a new video! They are so well done from the explanations to the graphics! And I always walk away not just learning something new, but retaining that knowledge!
Yay, thank you!
One of the best videos I'v seen in a while. Great contents and great storytelling!
@UpandAtom This was your best video so far I believe. Insightful, yet easy to follow. Keep up the good work!
Regarding COVID response, the question is, "What are you trying to achieve?" Country A might use science to try to minimize deaths. Country B might use science to try to maximize the wellbeing of its people. Country A might implement measures that eliminate COVID deaths entirely, but make the population so miserable that they wish they were dead. Country B might have 1% of its population die of COVID, but otherwise maintain its standard of living. Whether to be like country A or B or somewhere in between is not a scientific question, so science can't be used to answer it.
Country C : lets make life miserable even after COVID is defeated ( Canada and China )
Sabine Hossenfelder put it best. In her paraphrased words, science doesn't tell you that you shouldn't pee on an electric fence, it says that urine is electrically conductive and you will receive a painful shock if you do. What you think is the best course of action, given that knowledge you now have, is a matter of opinion.
@@nocapoca5313 Australia...
@Buck Rothschild Yeah that is exactly my point. People will pretend it is about the science, but you are right it isn't.
@Pierre In Strange. This mitigation was the only right thing that they did in the last 20 years.
TYSM Jade! I learn many new things with every single video you publish. You're the best!
You're amazing. You can explain the most complicated things in a way that anyone can understand.
Scientifically predicting the course of something like a pandemic can be like scientifically predicting the weather: Slight differences in parameters like transmissibility and mutation rate can dramatically impact the outcome. So scientists and pundits choose a prediction and hope that the future doesn't discredit them.
In the US they chose the "close eyes, throw dart" method of prediction.
@@nmarbletoe8210 Xi Jinping told Trump about the infectious and deadly nature of the virus then in circulation yet Trump said on record that he chose to play it down, or in other words, not tell the American public the truth. He only began to come out publicly when Red states began to see high infection and death rates.
@@nmarbletoe8210Which just happened to accelerate the concentration of wealth at the top.
@@l.w.paradis2108 Yes but that's been happening since ~1972.
It is quite possible the uber wealthy had much better pandemic information than the public. But most of us got a lot of fairly useless or wrong information.
You are all in for an amazing video. Just watched this on Nebula. Watching it again here. It’s so well presented; makes me want to cry with tears of joy at its elegance and cognitive aesthetic. 😭🥰
Wow, thank you!
Awesome vid, thanks. Now the question is will this vid be demonitized. I would think that it wouldn't be but I think a lot of us are very curious about CZcams's monetization process as of late.
Great video Jade! Your videos are always so well thought out and you make the most mundane topic interesting to watch! And the little details you put in ... the laughing philosopher actually laughing hysterically, the scale squeaking as it tilts from side to side ... heck even the whooshing sound your head made in the intro when you turn! And probably so many more that I might have only noticed subconsciously that make the video so much fun to watch. Well done as always!
I think it's a matter of ontology (what 'is') vs. epistemology (what we know). Science assumes there *is* an objective truth (atoms either exist or do not), but disagreements arise when there are gaps in what we *know* about that truth. But ignorance about certain matters does not make them subjective.
I would disagree that Science assumes an objective truth. Science is a process, a way of thinking about the physical universe. It doesn't seek philosophical truth. It seeks understanding. Our understanding of atoms is a model that is explanatory and useful. That understanding is conditional not true.
Ignorance does not alter objectivity, but inserting subjective beliefs and biases does. The problem is, prior to an objective measure being devised for a given problem, it can be impossible to differentiate and separate the two, especially because of ignorance.
I get the sense I didn't explain that well...
@@martypoll What does science seek 'understanding' of, if not some objective truth? If it doesn't seek philosophical truth, how come science used to be known as 'natural philosophy'? What would it even mean to 'explain' or 'understand' something, if not knowing how one truth (e.g. an observation) follows from more fundamental truths? If science truly is nothing more than an elaborate curve-fitting of all observed data, then I think it's not justified to say it seeks to 'understand' or 'explain' anything. It merely seeks to predict; to extrapolate the curve that we fit. And in that case, what *would* we call the study that seeks objective truths about the physical universe through observation and hypothesis-testing?
@@SanderKonijnenberg Modern science diverged from natural philosophy long ago. We create models with data. If you want to call it curve fitting merely to predict so be it. Accurate prediction and synthesis of observations is pretty useful and satisfying. If we thought we knew the truth then we would stop right there and how would you know the truth when you got there anyway? If you think we are we are doing this for some unattainable truth well . . . that seems kind of empty.
@@martypoll I'm only stating that science assumes an objective truth, and it seeks to find it. I'm not making any claims on whether this should be humanity's or anyone's life's purpose. So concerns about this goal being unattainable, or about becoming nihilistic if we do attain it, are (though not necessarily invalid) besides the point. If you wish to only utilize the predictive power of scientific models, but care little about the philosophical underpinnings of science, that's your choice, but it doesn't change the essence of science.
When I use a computer to type a document, I may only care about how to create the document, and not about how the electronics of the computer work. Perhaps the document I'm typing is a masterpiece that is indeed many times more interesting than the workings of the computer. But that doesn't change the essence of the computer, nor does it negate the importance of its electronics. So even if to you (and perhaps many others) the utilitarian value of science is much more interesting than its philosophical underpinnings, it doesn't change the fact that at the core of science lies the assumption of an objective truth that it seeks to uncover.
Unfortunately many branches of science today have completely abandoned this concept. There are entire areas of study for which certain things are entirely off limits. You can't even pretend to examine certain questions or else your career will be over. The entire concept of settled science is anti-scientific and yet we have thousands if not millions of scientists routinely uttering this phrase or something similar. As a person who absolutely loves what science should be which is why I subscribe to channels such as this one I find what has happened to science to be extremely frustrating
Scientist don't believe in settled science. Otherwise no one would practice science. But there is limited time and resources and somethings are worthy of discussion and support and some things are not worth the time and effort. Sometimes, rarely, persistence of a individual can move the needle though.
I agree in a basic sense, there areas of study that are essentially off-limits that shouldn't be according to the basic scientific principles.... however, we must acknowledge that a study proposing to attempt various methods to hunt unicorns is technically scientifically valid as you can't prove a negative and unicorns could exist.
I"m not completely sure where we should place that line to decide when it is a useful study with unlikely results.
Love Democritus at 10:52 it put a smile on my face. Well done as always. Thanks Jade 😊
Thing is, politics is mixed up with science a lot. Even though it shouldn't be. I worked in science for years and loved the pure science I did, but our department was under constant pressure to be less "theoretical" and should become more "applied". One can't exist without the other, so that rubbed quite a lot in a wrong way. Then there's the competition to be published in paywalled papers, which also goes against the scientific process. People who are higher up with more publications (good or bad), get money faster. Which makes a push towards publishing something vital. Working in science is used to boost careers elsewhere a lot as well (especially for doctors who just need a PhD no matter what to get an application), many of that research is pretty bad. I started to get annoyed by the entire process more and more and ended up leaving, I think we need to restructure science to get back to the basics of what science is actually about.
The real lesson from covid is that money can corrupt science.
I didn't even know that science is objective.. I need to rethink my life 🙂
This video does a good job illustrating the term "settled science" is often over used. As new data is discovered, new conclusions can be drawn. This video came close but wisely avoids the darker fact that the source of funding often plays too large a role in the findings of the researchers. People are motivated by self interest, even scientists.
Love this channel. It provides enough data and information for people to understand the topic. More information is needed to make an educated opinion on the matter, but the more people interested the better!
When one mixes politics with science, one gets politics.
This topic was really interesting and my perspective is from Melbourne, Australia. These last two years have somewhat radicalised me when it comes to my relationship with the government, health authorities and science. I'm 26 and was comfortable that the government was just to the side of my life, providing good services, investing in good things etc. But as Australia turned to an elimination strategy and tried to maintain it until Omicron came around, I now only have apathy for government and anything it does ("Nice a new infrastructure project, but goddamn you Mr Andrews!!" is the general feeling). We all believe we live in a free society but by the stroke of a pen it became illegal to be more than 5km from your home, not to wear a mask outside, or sit down in a park. Rarely were we provided the scientific basis behind many of these decisions, nor allow public discussion on what we the people wanted to do. If you deviated even slightly, you were an anti-vaxxer and a conspiracy theorist. Kids got scalded publicly by our Premier for watching the sunset when they "should have been at home". I'm angry that people had to decide between their jobs and getting a vaccine that you weren't allowed to critique or raise legitimate concerns over. This was a bit of a rant but I'm glad in a sense that I was forced to wake up over the last two years and to be critical of government as the rule, not the exception
that is messed up. i lived through it in New Mexico which was as good as I could hope, since we have lots of space and there were no restrictions on travel ...
On the other hand you are alive and I assume so are the people closest to you. Thats not the case for many in other places, I personally know several people who died from COVID.
@@scottabc72 really
Not the only one mate. The Vic govt and their cronies really showed their true colours here and what was worse were the common people defending acts such as the abuse and firing of "low lethality" ammunition at unarmed protesters.
I'm still not talking to most of my family in Victoria after they informed me I was no longer welcome to participate in society if I refused to wear a mask at woolies. I have no interest in participating in the society that they are trying to enforce in this state. We aren't alone, some people aren't so confused that they can't see the harm that was perpetrated in the name of "The Science".
so you are an antivaxxer, got it.
It's hard to find a more unbiased video on this topic, and that shows a strong scientific mindset. Kudos!
People who falsify data are not scientists, and avoiding calling them out is not unbiased.
Nice explanation of both what makes science special for our society and what leads scientists quite reasonably to bring other factors into a discussion that don't rely directly upon measured data.
IMO there is a fundamental semantic problem. There is "objective science" the idea that there is only one 'Objective Reality' from which each of us has a different subjective point of view and a subjective explanation to make sense of his/her subjective observation. Ideally, with the scientific process, we should be able to make theories that will be less and less subjective until we have a truly objective theory of everything. And there is Technology when we apply scientific knowledge to make useful things. Most of the time we use the word scientists to talk about technologists. The debates on the pandemic were not about the scientific data which we had not enough time to collect to establish any consensus. But about which healthcare technologies would be the most useful. And that kind of debate can never be objective. It will always be about the price we can afford for the value we put on someone's life. Ideal science is for the benefit of mankind. Realistic technology is for the benefit of the stakeholders. Our common sense told us that the poorest countries would be the hardest hit by the pandemic but the data shows now that it was the richest countries that have been hit the hardest (see data below). That shows that the richest healthcare systems are organized to push up the value of the costliest technologies by all the subjective means at their disposal and will fail when faced with a new disease on which we don't have enough objective scientific data.
ourworldindata.org/explorers/coronavirus-data-explorer?zoomToSelection=true&facet=none&hideControls=true&Metric=Confirmed+cases&Interval=Cumulative&Relative+to+Population=true&Color+by+test+positivity=false&country=Low+income~OWID_WRL~High+income~Lower+middle+income~Upper+middle+income
Interesting point. However, don’t forget the “richest countries” also spent a great deal more on testing for Covid. Look at excess deaths, not just deaths attributed to Covid.
@@av_oid My guess the UN High Commissioner for Refugees was not interested in spending on testing because their stats were consistent with the regions they were in.
Higher income individuals have access to better medical facilities. So the statistic you quote is actually what we'd expect. It's not showing that "it was the richest countries that have been hit the hardest." It's showing that they have a greater capacity to test for and 'confirm' COVID cases.
The problem is when people are not allowed to disagree. We have much of that going on.
@curtishorn1267 Even worse: if you disagree by exposing scientific or political fraud that is based on unproven claims, then your career and your life are in direct danger. In a movie, a group of mafia guys killed several people and then they claimed it was the Martians who did this. Soon many tourists visited this area to see the Martians and the money started flowing to the locals. Until someone questioned this theory and, guess what: soon he was found dead. The official explanation was: He didn't believe in Martians, but unfortunately he was killed by a Martian.
Yes, like how it says that there is one reply to your comment, but when I click it there is no reply visible. Because like half of CZcams is shadow banned for disagreeing with the Google narrative. At least in the past it was half way hidden, now it's the norm.
Not even the slightest bit true. Every fucking crazy idea is an the internet. Infact more disagreements is popular
Enforcement of practices based on scientific (or whatever) models is the problem.
Youre very much allowed to disagree. It's just usually when people disagree with science nowadays it's bc they've got snakeoil to sell.
Thank you! It is nice to hear a reminder of our own biases changing the way we navigate the world.
i really enjoy your "series" on contradictions, paradoxes, and somehow arguments in science these days
keep going!
and thanks for introducing 80,000 hours which might be the 1st advert i was hooked to visit the website
it worked!
What is the Covid-related mortality for non-elderly persons with no comorbidities??
Loved the video! Great illustrations and examples! Like button smashed. 🙌
But I think it's worth pointing out that science was never supposed to be a problem solving process, nor a decision making framework, and definitely not a strategy creation tool.
Science is a method to generate knowledge.
That's very distinct from the other 3 disciplines.
Some things are an art, rather than a science.
One of your best videos. It helped to understand how science works .
Glad you liked it :)
Adam Savage used to say all the time on Mythbusters that there’s no such things as a failed experiment. Even if an experiment doesn’t produce the results you were expecting or hoping for, it still gives you information you can learn from and incorporate into your next experiment.
Except when it actually fails, like testing which duck runs faster but they all flew away.
@N Marbletoe Then you learn that ducks would rather fly than run.
"Science vs Science"!! I feel somewhat glad for my humble contribution being considered!! Thanks!! I'm a big fan of yours!!
Great - and very idealistic - presentation.
However, to make it more realistic, we need to introduce explicit political and ecconomical agendas to the story, as well as the fact that today's science is usually not self- or crowd-financed but relies on budgets granted by governments and/or organisations founded by oligarchs which one or the other way mainly foster the designs of the money-providers. Then add the media, which are in a similar way financially beholden to their owners and/or paddle political agendas and you get into a real-world situation in which real science, its media-reported findings and the "scientific advice" given to decision makers are vastly out of sync.
If those aspects would not wield any influence, why did it take decades to popularize the scientific findings about the risk of smoking? Why did it take so long to phase out the production of ozon-layer destroying mollecules? Why are we surrounded by resource-wracking designed obsolescence? (to just name a few of the better known industry plots). Once someone has figured out a well-working business scheme, he's hell-bent to perpetuate it along or against scientific insights.
Most of us know most of science only as a narrative promoted by some form of medium - a book, a youtube video, an article, whatever -, not by our own, genuine insight. That is true for scientists as well: leave the field with which you have intimate own (experi)mental contact and you rely on tales other people tell you. Can we ascertain their competence and trustworthiness in each individual case? I wouldn't know how.
Our thinking and understanding today is embedded in a "scientifically informed" narrative, in a similar way as 300 years ago the thinking and understanding of society was embedded in a "biblically informed" or any other "Holy Book informed" narrative. Just as then the narrative did not really have to conform with the "spirit and intention" of the respective Holy Book, today it does not necessarily conform with the "spirit and intention" of science. - And we do not realize the deviation easily. We orient ourselves along something as vague as the perception of "public opinion" (whereby this can be the specific "public" of our immediat work-environment / family & friends / world-region, etc.). This is all very understandable, but it is not science and it is not a diverse interpretation or weighing of valid scientific data. It is more like sticking to the lore of our chosen "tribe".
Coming back to Corona: The question here is not so much "what does science say", but the question is "who controls the narrative"? No matter whether or not science has already anything to say on a specific matter, a narrative today will be clothed in a "scientific garb", it will sound scientific, because this is how today's narratives are being legitimized. In my view the response to Corona has been and still is - in large parts - one of the most unscientific and partisan endeavours of the 21st Century.
In subjects like medicine and nutrition it is also difficult to get reliable data fast. We can't keep people in labs in controlled environment and study how changing one thing effects them. Therefore finding the required data takes time and statistics. With Covid we didn't have time. We just had to decide fast and accept uncertainty.
It’s not only the interpretation of data that is subject to subjectivities. If getting data from people, the way that questions are asked affects the answers given (e.g. positive framing), or people’s motives can affect their answers (e.g. embarrassment). However, even measuring abstract things is affected by the concepts about what is being measured, how best to measure it, where to start measuring (baselined), the point-of-view (frame reference) of the measurer, the units of measurement, etc.
Nicely explained and narrated. This SHOULD be shown to every up and coming scientist.
By the way. The Imperial College model was just embarrassing and that it got accepted so quickly is 100% Rock Solid proof that science has ceased to be science in many ways
COVID was three years ago, but we can be together now, Jade.
Good video. I think this is an important topic, and you addressed it will. Your conclusion left me thinking, which is excellent. But I feel like Wolpert's "No Free Lunch Theorem" should have been acknowledged in this video. Also, it bothered me that several of the curves you drew to connect those dots were not even functions. I think that rather confuses the matter of what is trying to be accomplished.
This topic is SO important for people to understand and you did a great job taking a relevant example to explain it.
And I'm happy to hear you promoting 80000hours! I've recently began diving into Effective Altruism myself.
Jade, another great video!
I think you hit the nail on the head with the differing responses to COVID: Mitigation vs. suppression (or "protect the vulnerable" vs. "protect everyone") was not a question that science alone could answer - it's a policy question that requires the combination of science and values.
Optimally, the scientists would be objective, and policy-makers would take the scientists' observations and predictions, and merge it with the values of the society as a whole when making policy decisions. So scientists in 2 different countries could still agree on the data, despite those countries ultimately taking different approaches to the pandemic. But what happened with COVID instead is that either the scientists allowed their personal values to impact their statements to the public regarding the science itself - or people's perception was that this happened. Either way, there was a lot of trust lost in our scientists and scientific institutions that's going to take a long time to rebuild.
You can also integrate and optimise many models, suppress into mitigate, as each will have different cost benefit over differing periods of time, such as until vaccines are fully distributed, in different settings, pop densities, hubs etc.
How many times did Jade blink in the video?:D Objective answers please! :) #By the way, great video as always! #I subscribed
Beautiful case study, as always🔥
I haven't seen a case study here. It's a theoretical lecture about the scientific method. Nothing of it applies to what happened during these 3 years under the flag of "science".
Hmm ... I think good scientists DO bring bias to their experiments and we've seen that many times; they're still human after all.
That being said, they strive to remain aware of that possibility and thus design their approach to minimize, mitigate and/or eliminate the effects these biases may bring. Furthermore, this is part of the purpose and importance of peer review, which actively tests the ideas, methods, results, conclusions, etc... since every person will have at least slightly different biases the sum total of a community conducting such reviews further tests for and eliminates biases and their impact.
@DaBlondDude - Where you write that peer review “eliminates” unexamined assumptions, it might be better to write that it _minimizes_ them; there can be instances in which specialty-wide errors persist-although in modern times and given our advancements those errors are being weeded out systematically and grow increasingly rare … but we shouldn’t become overconfident that we’re catching them all.
As a historic example of a profession-wide blind spot: after Darwin made his splash and the scientific community at large had grokked natural selection, but before Watson and Crick became household names, in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries the scientific community as a whole _way_ overestimated the power of heredity, ascribing to it all sorts of human traits we now know both to be learned and to be prompted by society-wide injustices.
But a biological-determinist bias existed profession-wide for a lo-o-o-o-ong time-in all honesty, we’re still wringing out its final nasty dribble-y bits-and it took some plucky vanguard researchers and their well-constructed double-blind experiments to, for instance, convince (most) everyone that yes, most significant human development occurs _outside_ the uterus, and is shaped by one’s environment, and continues all the way through one’s late twenties … and no, the conditions which lead to poverty aren’t buried in anyone’s genes.
Alas, for decades the sciences held the myth of near-absolute biological determinism to be baseline reality, and proceeded as if all that remained was to work out the details. And pathetically, there remain holdouts clinging to those disproven 19th century views today: I’m looking at you, whoever keeps financing Charles Murray’s racist speaking tours!
Re-contextualized today, a lot of that era’s raw data is super-useful for working out what systemic issues in society are counterproductive to every individual’s full self-actualization, because data is data. But initially, those statistics were gathered with an eye to determining who was passing on “bad traits,” and the bad profession-wide assumptions of that era led down some really ugly paths.
So, hopefully, we’re not still committing such grotesque injustices today … but to err on the side of caution, it’s better to assume peer review _minimizes_ the number of unexamined assumptions we proceed from, and not that it eliminates them entirely.
@@danopticon a better choice of words for sur though your heredity question also comes back to Jade's lack of of data -especially that far back. Currently, there's plenty of bias in both directions (environment or heredity) and the tug of war ensues (once again, in my opinion, lack of coherent data; it's tricky to run more elaborate tests on people for ethical reasons ... the recent genetic manipulation scandal of twins in China is a great example)
@@danopticon Yep exactly. Sadly these biases can become so deeply entrenched that peer review becomes a mechanism by which a bias filters out competing ideas that challenge it.
One way this seems to occur is in data limited disciplines where a lack of statistically robust data makes strong assumptions unavoidable to do any kind of data analysis often implicitly from the beginning. Psychology, Medical research and Cosmology(due to the extremely large sample size n>> 10^6 statistically independent cosmological sources needed for 5 sigma significance) appear to be the most prominent examples of this bias that I'm aware of and in the case of cosmology this still persists without much action.
Another bias is one related to oversized influence of certain model founders or pioneers on research which can stifle the development of new alternative models which in the case of cosmology compounds on the high cost barrier of entry and the tendency for publicly available data to already have been "corrected" based off of the project leaders assumptions.
Take the so called cosmological principal which can be shown to be logically invalid for any system which information is conserved as for it to be valid information on the initial conditions must be deleted from the metric tensor in the Einstein field equations else nonlinear effects will always grow to dominate. Without this assumption you can't "average over the sky" because you can't rule out directional dependence on observations. And Nathan Secrest et al 2021 just last year finally performed a falsification test proposed in the 1980's with a sufficiently large sample size of more than a million cosmologically distant objects at redshifts close to 1 or more(In this case 1.36 million quasars measured by WISE over its initial and extended mission phases). Then by constructing a dipole from these quasars they can test one of the underlying assumptions for the cosmological principal namely the assumption that the CMB dipole must be purely kinematic in origin, i.e. no measurable contribution from the large scale structure of the universe. Comparing the two dipoles reveals a 4.9 sigma discrepancy in both magnitude and direction effectively falsifying the assumption of the cosmological principal being valid at any scale within the observable universe. (i.e. there is no observed limit to structure formation in the universe with most of the measured CMB dipole originating from large scale asymmetries in the universe at large redshifts.
And yet where we are over a year later and everyone is still fully on board lambda CDM as any criticism for the model over the last 25 years has gotten "discredited" by Dr. Adam Riess in what amounts to appeals to authority arguments. >_>
@@DaBlondDude - No … to be 100% clear, I promise you: between 1900 and today we’ve reached our “finding the atom” point when it comes to heredity, relative to then. That ”tug of war” is long over. Some particulars are still being nailed down, but in fact one of our species’ very few advantages over others is the adaptability conferred from being born largely a blank slate with an incredibly plastic brain-and it’s turned out to be a major advantage!
Today we mostly investigate discrete propensities for illness/pathology when it comes to heredity-what gene sequence in which environment triggers what-because in terms of the broad scope of human behaviors, I assure you we’ve figured out most of it is either partly or wholly acquired developmentally; even the epigenetic stuff requires the right (or the wrong, if you will) external conditions to manifest. Even with a subtle disease like depression, for which in many cases (though not all) several genetic propensities definitely exist, environmental components are nearly always also required to trigger its onset. And in terms of societal outcomes, we’ve also learned it makes more sense to study the society as a whole than to examine the individual in isolation.
Looking at today’s model, we know most of what 19th century and early 20th century investigators tried reflexively tacking onto heredity turned out to have little-to-zero biological basis whatsoever. So, rather than claim people born into poverty are hereditarily incapable of learning-as scientists once claimed-instead we removed lead from the paint in densely-zoned multi-family dwellings, hurrah! And we focused on early childhood nutrition, we focused on air and water quality. And finally, eventually, we focused on the systemic societal inequalities which created endemic poverty, and we began developing interventions to break those cycles. We even learned there was a subjective angle to what‘s regarded as a positive outcome. We learned a lot by discarding the old biological-determinist model.
So yes, of course we do inherit some traits besides eye and hair color, and some propensities-be it towards weight gain or heart disease, things to guard against: we don’t hold an absolutist view of nurture-over-nature. But, relative to the model of 120 years ago, we now know human social outcomes are directly impacted only slightly by DNA, relative to the enormous amount of shaping and molding that occurs outside the womb.
Exceptions in which heredity is determinative to outcome are so few and far between, they mostly serve to illustrate the rule: Homo sapiens is an absurdly malleable species!
@@Dragrath1 - Sorry, can’t agree with you. I’m talking about underdetermination-same as Jade-and about how peer review can fail to filter out some mistaken unexamined assumptions, at least until better data comes along.
You seem to be using that valid subject only obliquely, as a starting point … from which to then veer off, ultimately weaving a rather familiar, tired narrative: “It’s all a big club, if only the powers-that-be were OPEN-MINDED enough to see [insert hobby horse here] but no, they all laughed and called me CRAZY, I’ll show them who’s crazy…” [CUT TO: lightning bolts against stormclouds, superimposed whirly hypno-eyes; SOUND FX: breaking test-tubes, cackling laughter, followed by ominous gasps, then growls]
I mean, you do you, man. But don’t drag me into it.
Thank you! This is the best video I’ve ever seen on “trust the science.”
The closing about perspective & bias was good.
Yay, more Scientific Method videos like these please. :)
Does anyone else rly like the graphics? They really elevate the video and add variety to the scenes
You have the award for most pleasant person to listen to on CZcams! Thanks!
It's a toss up between Jade and Tibees.
Timeframe success is measured over, and what success is measured in matter to. The best model to achieve goal x1 isn't the best to achieve goal y or goal x2.
As does the time you make your decision, ie where in the curve you are when you make your choice.
8:00
Democritus, having the "privilege" of being an European, gets mentioned. On the other hand, Kaṇāda, an ancient Indian philosopher who came up with the idea of an atom in 600 BC, centuries before Democritus, gets ignored for being a non-European.
Science isn't racist, but the western narrative of the history of science is definitely so.
cool! i see he also had some of Newton's ideas about motion. Thanks for the heads up!!
@@nmarbletoe8210 Btw, an ancient Indian mathematician named Brahmagupta discovered gravity 1,000 years before Newton.
@@nmarbletoe8210 I bet you haven't ever heard any of these names - Bhāskarāchārya, Mahāvīra, Baudhāyana, Aryabhata, Shridhara, Varāhamihira, Śrīpati.
@@surya_11 I think Aryabhata plays for the Cincinnati Reds?
just kidding I will def look up some of those!
A constructive disagreement is a healthy thing in any organization and prevent groupthink which is detrimental in detecting procedural flaws 😉
You are brilliant Jade! Thanks for the great videos!
Love your channel. Great information for sure (specifically on this video).
Reality is ... if you (generic, not you specifically) don't know ... don't tell me you (generic, not you specifically) know.
I guess a common saying would be "don't piss down my back and tell me it's raining!"
The worst thing that was happening during the pandemic was the suppression of divergent opinions as if science was delivered by divine transfer to certain persons. When there is uncertainty, the right policy is to communicate that uncertainty and allow the public to make informed decisions.
The decisions then open to people may depend on how rich they are.
@@joebloggs396 Of course it will depend on the resources at your disposal. It's never been otherwise.
*Jade, remember "Those who are convienced against their own will, is of the same option still...." In the case of C19, people are polarlized and individual options appear correct, depending on what one believes. Now, facts are coming out that shows that our enthusiasms may have been misplaced; and, many now to live with damage to their bodies for the rest of their lives. Surpression or Mitigation? Otherwise known as control or support philosophies, the answer is now evident. Howver, now changing belief of programmed people, and not necessaryily those in science, will forever result in global polarization of us all that may result in further polarizations, including wars.*
If there are two conflicting hypotheses, sometimes, I'd take superposition of each hypothesis build a logical action plan around that.
yes! this is a good way to go, and the probabilities can be adjusted on the fly as new evidence comes in
love your presentation of information :)
Anything what is undebatable is not science
You are doing soo well !! Keep it up :))
Thank you so much!!
I wish I could like and share this video with more people. I think the world would be a better place if everyone shared this knowledge.
all of the conspiracy theories continue to be proven true.
My fear regarding this video’s title is that habitual knee-jerk Internet contrarians will pounce on it and proclaim “See!?? I _told_ you nobody knows nuthin’! Establishment science is a *big conspiracy!!* Earth _is_ flat, luminiferous æther _is_ real … and PHLOGISTON FOR LIFE, YO!!” without bothering to understand any aspect of this video. 🤭
I like the flat earth debate because you can collect data yourself.
HKJC aren't a useful group to exercise any concern about.
I think that the biggest problem here is that you left out the ending - who was correct?
Sweden's approach was only widely publicized *after* they caught their first big outbreak with significant deaths.
However, the statistics were wildly skewed because the country as a whole didn't really have much infrastructure for testing, so confirmed cases were very low in comparison with actual cases. This in turn skewed the ratio of deaths to confirmed cases, with confirmed cases being presented inaccurately as actual cases and then the assumption that the country as a whole had a wildly high mortality rate... When in reality, it had the same mortality rate as everyone else with that variant, but the number of low and no symotomacity cases that were never recorded was much higher.
Similarly, many countries skewed their numbers with Omicron, Canada being foremost among them.
They said that the mortality rate was around 1%, when in reality, it's well below that. The way they were able to get around that was by decreasing testing overall and at the same time, drastically scaling back their genomic testing, blurring the line between the previous Delta wave and the subsequent Omicron wave. The media was reporting all of these conflate into one group of "covid", when almost every other country in the world was keeping their stats separate for delta and Omicron.
This kept the level of fear very high for the general population, well after most other countries had already declared an end to their covid prevention measures.
Deceptive practices by the media were at the root of most of it.
One would expect that a science oriented media would have up to date information and use accurate nomenclature to keep data as clear as possible.
In Canada, it wouldn't be conflation of Omicron and delta, it would be Omicron Ba1 vs ba2 vs ba2.12.2. In Asia, it would be Omicron ba2.3.7 and ba 5.3.1 etc....
Willful deceptive practices by the media has eroded public trust in both the media and the institutions of science.
I was in deep thinking from the day you posted Physics is a model video, now I got answer 😅
8:54 The atmosphere is certainly not composed of dinitrogen monoxide. So what's the real reason the two gases don't separate?
heat
The gases completely and uniformly mix, thus reaching equilibrium as one mixed gas (equilibrium meaning the pressure gradient is such that it cancels the gravitational force on a parcel of air, such that it stays at rest).
Jade, this video is science communication at its best. You absolutely nailed it👌 The perfect mix of question, facts and guidance. Please keep this talking head and animation format. It really works well for you and your charming personality. p.s. My daughter stole my Up and Atom T-shirt😁 She looooves it!❤️
I guess you meant propaganda at its best.
Such a good presentation of different approaches to the validity of so-called science. I knew before that social sciences are not sciences, but disciplines, mostly affected by political ideology that is prevalent in society. COVID times showed that many so-called hard sciences are prone to the same fallacy of being politically and ideologically motivated as social disciplines.
great channel and I would have done so much better at the sciences in school if you were the teacher. thanks for becoming a teacher now...
I'm really not a fan of occams razor. best case you tilts you in a more likely right direction, worst case it tilts you in a completely wrong direction.
if there is no more data to gather and you are at the end of any possible investigation of a problem and still have 2 or more candidate hypothesis sure use it. But too often I see it used as the "and that's that" finishing argument on things that are still pretty open questions.
This is the proper view, which is why social media shutting down all dissent that wasn't "following the science" was political and not scientific.
Science vs Science is useful because allows science to grow and adapt and diversified
As always say awesome channel with awesome content and great quality 💖🌍
So happy you resumed publishing more often! No pressure I know you probably have stuff to do too. But yours is one of my favourite channels so thanks, really!
12:44 According to Jules Verne's quote, we cannot truly trust science because we never know whether the information we hold is good enough for what we need to achieve
Of course. And the scientific method openly admits that. Science never proves theories, it only disproves hypothesises. But the point is that as times goes on, the longer a hypothesis survives attempts to disprove it we can be more and more confident that it’s correct.
We also cannot trust science because we don't know that the laws of physics won't change tomorrow. Just because the sun rose in the east every day doesn't mean it will do tomorrow.
An excellent lesson Jade!! Excellent.
Great video Jade😁
Thank you
Interesting video.
What do Neil Ferguson and Johan Giesecke have to say now?
Was Suppression or Mitigation better than the other, or did things change two fast for any of the models to work. ( new variants each month, hard to include in a model :-) )
Sweden suffered much higher Covid death rates than other Nordic countries, and the biggest hit to GDP. Comparisons with the UK would be unhelpful, Johnson's breathtaking inadequacy being just one of a number of significant differences.
@@marksnow7569 According to statista Sweden has 1850 death per million and Denmark have about 1150 death per million. And there could be many other reasons way Sweden have 60% more death. I do not even know if they count the deaths the same way. The US have 3250 death/mil thus it does not look that bad compared to the US.
But I must say it looks like Sweden did relatively bad. But there could be many reasons for that.