Neil deGrasse Tyson: Science journalism has a problem | Big Think
Vložit
- čas přidán 29. 01. 2020
- Science journalism has a problem
Watch the newest video from Big Think: bigth.ink/NewVideo
Join Big Think Edge for exclusive videos: bigth.ink/Edge
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Journalists writing about science have become more science fluent over the past 20 years, but the need to be first and the practice of giving equal exposure to opposing views regardless of scientific evidence (e.g. climate change) has been detrimental to the public's understanding of the facts.
Reporting on science from the "frontier" doesn't provide the full picture because it doesn't give scientists time to verify and re-verify the results of experiments.
Journalists have more power than scientists when it comes to disseminating information, so it's their inherent responsibility to get the facts right.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NEIL DEGRASSE:
Neil deGrasse Tyson was born and raised in New York City where he was educated in the public schools clear through his graduation from the Bronx High School of Science. Tyson went on to earn his BA in Physics from Harvard and his PhD in Astrophysics from Columbia. He is the first occupant of the Frederick P. Rose Directorship of the Hayden Planetarium. His professional research interests are broad, but include star formation, exploding stars, dwarf galaxies, and the structure of our Milky Way. Tyson obtains his data from the Hubble Space Telescope, as well as from telescopes in California, New Mexico, Arizona, and in the Andes Mountains of Chile.Tyson is the recipient of nine honorary doctorates and the NASA Distinguished Public Service Medal. His contributions to the public appreciation of the cosmos have been recognized by the International Astronomical Union in their official naming of asteroid "13123 Tyson".
Tyson's new book is Letters From an Astrophysicist (2019).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TRANSCRIPT:
Neil deGrasse Tyson: I remember some years ago, 20 years ago, anytime I was interviewed by a journalist, a print journalist. The print journalism is taking what I said and turning it into an article. So it has to pass through the journalist, get processed and then it becomes some written content on a page. One hundred percent of those experiences the journalist got something fundamentally wrong with the subject matter. And just an interesting point about the power of journalists. I had people read the article and say Neil, you must know better than that. That’s not how this works. They assumed the journalist was correct about reporting what I said. Not that I was correct and that the journalist was wrong. Okay, this is an interesting power that journalists have over whether you think what they’re writing is true or not. I even had a case - I have one brother and a sister. I had a case where they misreported that I had two brothers. And I had a friend of mine who had been a friend for five or ten years say Neil, I just read - I didn’t know you had two brothers. And I said I don’t. Well it says it right here. This is the power of journalism. A mistake becomes truth. That was decades ago. In recent years what I think has happened is there are more journalists who are science fluent that are writing about science than was the case 20 years ago. So now I don’t have to worry about the journalist missing something fundamental about what I’m trying to describe. And reporting has been much more accurate in recent years I’m happy to report. However, there’s something that has not been fixed in journalism yet. It’s their urge to get the story first, the science story, the breaking news about a discovery. The urge to get it first means they’re reporting on something that’s not yet verified by other scientific experiments. If it’s not yet verified it’s not there yet. And you’re more likely to write about a story that is most extraordinary. And the more extraordinary is the single scientific result, the less likely it is that it’s going to be true. So you need some restraint there or some way to buffer the account. I don’t want you to not talk about it but say this is not yet verified, it’s not yet this, it’s not yet that. And it’s been criticized by these other people anyway so be more open about how wrong the thing is you’re reporting on could be. Because other wise you’re doing a disservice to the public. And that disservice is you’ll say people out there say scientists don’t know anything. Well what gives you that idea? Well one week cholesterol is good for you and the next week it’s bad for you. They don’t know what they’re doing. That’s on the frontier. On the frontier science is flipflopping all the time. Yes, if you’re going to report from the frontier it looks like scientists are clueless about everything.
To read the full transcript, go to: bigthink.com/videos/writing-a...
Want to get Smarter, Faster?
Subscribe for DAILY videos: bigth.ink/GetSmarter
This isn't just a problem with science journalism, but with science research as well. The drive to be the first to publish has resulted in tons of unreproducible results. 'Publish or perish' is exactly the wrong motivation for pure research.
Potholer54 that's all I'm saying
@@ropro9817 You're over exaggerating the problem to justify ignoring science you don't like.
Huge props to Neil for avoiding the 'consensus of scientists' argument, no, it's the consensus of data (evidence and experiment). It's not consensus of opinion that matters, it's the data.
YES! Exactly. That's what I've had to be explaining to people.
consensus doesn't mean you can trust it. 49% "A" and 51% "B" can also be interpreted as consensus for "B", technically. What matters is trustworthiness of models that take the data and make predictions based on that
@@TheWerelf you have entirely misunderstood science and what he said. Consensus of data is the only thing you can trust. If there is a consensus of experiment and observation (data), trust is not required, it's simply fact.
@@TheWerelf In science 49% of data of something and 51% of something else would mean that both hypothesis are wrong and you would go back to the drawing board. Your example of scientific consensus is wrong.
I'm a physicist. I really want the general public to understand how we, as scientists, draw conclusions from our observations. This is usually left out of the public discussion, and it's the reason why we have problems like journalists giving equal time to a scientific result, and someone who just decides to not believe it. The path from observation -> conclusion needs to be clear.
Unfortunately, it's really hard to communicate the whole process for every given experimental result. We really need people to understand the basic tools that scientists use to draw conclusions, so they have the background information to understand new results. It's amazing how much more science one can understand with just a few concepts from probability and statistics (the basics that we use to analyze data). Just understanding what an error bar is is so important!
I'm working on this. I'm trying to take the statistical tools that we physicists use over and over and explain them to the public. I hope it'll make a dent in the problem.
2:18 "You're more likely to write about a story that is most extraordinary, and the more extraordinary is the single scientific result, the less likely it is it's going to be true. You need some restraint there, or some way to buffer the account. I don't want you to not talk about it, but say this is not yet verified." Neil DeGrasse Tyson
Science illiteracy among journalists has improved, but reporters' tendencies towards breaking news (the lack of corroborative verification before publication) and neutrality biases (treating both sides of a story equally when one side is objectively correct) have yet to be properly addressed, which leads to a large portion of the public that distrusts both journalists and scientists.
I've been saying the same thing for decades. Niel is just able to put it into words better than I ever could. Not to mention, people listen to Niel, nobody listens to me.
Well done.
Don't worry, nobody is gonna listen to him either. Nothing will change.
@@toasterbotnet sad truth
Journalists are doing such unethical things nowadays its ridiculous. They don't care about ruining people's lives, they only care about ratings and being first and pushing their political bs.
You know that Neil's also a source of misinformation, right? No, you have no clue.
Don't be worrying about the mote in your neighbor's eye.
Approaching this comment scientifically, due to the multiple replies and likes of your comment, your comment has sadly been proven to be factually incorrect. You should have listened to Neil better and left a disclaimer saying it wasn't proven yet, but just a theory. Sadly, and quite ironically yours is a case of being too quick to publish in the comments of a video about being too quick to publish. ;-)
The problem is that rather that listening, most people are just saying what they believe without even confirming the facts. It is rather a race to be first then to be right.
Fire... Ready... Aim...!
If you haven’t heard of Ben Goldacre, he makes similar points about science journalism. He’s worth checking out too.
Seeing Neil DeGrasse Tyson pissed off gave me goosebumps
Great little segment by Neil, my takeaways are
1) scientific journalism should accurately translate what the science says
2) scientific journalism wrongfully promotes coverage of novelty (novelty is not science)
3) science transpires through rigorous and longstanding investigation
4) scientific journalism should dedicate space according to the data
ex 4a covid vaccine benefits should get more coverage than its drawbacks (assuming more data on pros)
ex 4b risks of gene edited babies should get more coverage than its benefits (assuming more data on cons)
06:16 That's badass!!!
Overt and effective burn from Neil deGrasse Tyson.
We gotta Badass over here!
that's remind me of once I had an interview and the journalist completely misunderstood and misrepresented what I said. The lesson I learned: always make an audio/video recording of the conversation and warn the journalists you will sue them if they don't report faithfully what you said.
Totally agree with Nell here. If you're gonna treat statements of unequal scientific value as equivalent, go ahead, but just don't frame it as a scientific discussion. Everyone is free to disregard science (as problematic as that is), but the matter here is dishonesty.
True story from my native Sweden. When a number of years ago yet another study showed that a small amount of red wine consumed every day could prevent strokes, a tabloid newspaper went with the headline New research: alcohol can cure brain damage.
I've had the pleasure of interviewing Dr. Tyson, and remain grateful for the chance to share his insights with others. But regarding climate change, the reach of print and broadcast reports taking denial seriously has already been greatly reduced and continues to shrink rapidly. The overwhelming share of coverage now is devoted to adaptation and resilience (and businesses that might stand to profit from innovation), not basic science questions. Evolution is similarly weighted, I'm happy to say, even if notions like "intelligent design" are irritating. I think the greater problem is the demographic known in politics as "low-information voters." They're often tuned out, or tuned into only comforting commentary, not news reporting. Finally, Dr. Tyson seems to believe that reporters don't including counter-arguments in their reporting of claims of new discoveries, while they compulsively include counter-arguments against deeply verified observations. I've never had occasion to compare the prevalence of these scenarios, but if true can imagine a snarky "law" being written about it: "The certainty of a discovery is inversely proportional to reporters' compulsion to quote skeptics."
I wish I could watch the news and get accurate relevant information about the world. Imagine if you could do that
It used to be like that. Now people that run countries want their populous to be as ignorant as possible to maintain power. North Korea is a prime worst case example. Unfortunately, I have yet to find a best case scenario of a well informed populous with their government.
Don’t watch the news for science. Read it, and not the “breaking news” which hasn’t been verified yet.
@@evilsharkey8954 You're preaching to the choir mate
Do you pay for news? The only way you are going to get quality journalism is by paying for it. the end.
I concur
I feel like scientists should say what Neil has said here as a disclaimer every time they appear in the media. The number of comments I see from people claiming scientists don't know anything is staggering.
A journalist 20 years ago would have quoted Neil like: "Scientists are clueless about mostly everything"
When I made my thesis, literally every journalist who came to the Institute I worked at, especially those from TV, stated something utterly wrong, not only about sisters being brothers, but about the Work itself.
jommeissner Ha ha ha.
Excellent observations about science journalism. We laypersons (ordinary folks without expert knowledge) need to pay attention to this . . . BIG TIME. Journalism is competitive. And in their rush to be first . . . they often miss the truth.
S̶̶c̶̶i̶̶e̶̶n̶̶c̶̶e̶̶ journalism has a problem
Fixed.
Interpretation is a fact in any form of communication. Even receiving your video presentation is subject to the recipient's interretation
Alex Goslar yeah comprehension is underrated.
Never thought about it that way.. glad I do now
I kinda gave up on science journalism when I read an article about the growing popularity of Greek yogurt, and the "inevitable environmental apocalypse" from acid whey.
Science journalism focusses way too much on perceived science “rock stars”.
No. People just don't read science journals. They read their normal news cites.
"rock stars" like Neil Tyson?
Carl Sagan, NDGT, Prof Brian Cox, Jim Al Khaili made science interesting
I love his very measured but slightly sardonic delivery of "it's not your fault, it's the educational system" line near the end. It made me smile. It's no wonder he rightly gets so much screen time.
Some good points make in this video but he forgot to mention the influence of advertisers on commercial media and misinformation pumped out by commercial interests that are under threat.
extraordinary video! And, as far as my limited understanding goes, it's extraordinary but not wrong :)
This is not 100% journalism's fault, maybe it is 20 to at most 40%.
I think, it's the lacks of critical thinking in us which opened the way for reports to blow our minds. (perhaps lack of thinking it self_)
Anyway it's a human bug! :)
For most of history we had no other way to get information out. So we're conditioned to trust them. Only since the rise of the internet have we understood fake news is a thing. Ironically that's one thing Trump will be known for. Before him nobody publicly talked about how news skews information now everyone does .
I love to live in Finland 🇫🇮 I love Neil deGrasse Tyson 🇺🇸
he pinned "journalism" perfectly, mistakes (or purposely adjusted information to support an agenda) become truth
I want to say thank you for all your work. And you have taught me so much .ive made some big mistakes that i wish i could take back . But my eyes were opened thank you fot your truth
Nice to see his recent video, most of his videos are dated back...
Check out his CZcams channel, StarTalk.
So beautifully explained in such reasonable way.. I 😍 it
Could anyone suggest me a good master's program or professional program where I can train in good scientific reporting, media and writing
Thank you Doctor Tyson. , an excellent point about discernment and reasoning and its importance in the ultimate scheme of things.
If something is "patently absurd" why not let them say it then?
because people with lesser education might take that patently absurd statement and run with it as truth? Like they do with climate change.
@@Freeze014 which makes it no different than any other falsehood. I doubt you would be in favor of top down silencing of everything an educated elite happens to consider "patently absurd".
Moreover, who gets to join this enlightened elite? I mean I never went to college so I guess I'm out, but there's always someone more educated than you. How much education do you need to join the ranks of the educated that dictate what is patently absurd and what isn't? and by extension dictate what everyone gets to say.
Thank You Dr.
Much love from San Jose , CA
This is so on point. I‘m happy that someone out there is explaining these things.
Don‘t get me wrong, I admire that journalism sets it self ethical rules and I respect the time pressure which journalists constantly have. But a rule which works great for the political system (giving each opinion equal attention) can not be applied on to the scientific system. There needs to be a deeper understanding of the system you are reporting on (in science what counts is the consensus - what most scientists believe to be true is key.)
Also what I would wish journalists would understand is that in science „dispute is gold“. If scientists argue with each other it is not a sign of weakness, it is a sign that a fruitful process is going on.
This is what I subbed for
Great video! Very balanced.
When neil says HOWEVER....
shit bout to go down
🤣
As with food, the data is taken in by the journalist, digested, and comes out as .
Excellent Neil, as always!
In the information age, we have done this to ourselves. The need to have information before someone else, the need to be the first to bring up facts that others aren't privy to, the anxiety of not know everything about every subject that other's seem to know about. This continuous feedback loop, and hunger for information is putting pressure on journalist to feed the stories to us on demand. We are being undone by our insatiable need to be the smartest most informed people in our social circle.
A mistake becomes truth! What a good find
When money is on the line, it can really screw up truth.
I never regret listening to this man speak
It's educational system... Work on. 👍
Thanks Neil, you and spok are brothers from another mother. 🙏 live long and prosper.
Great topic
Thank you for sharing. =)
Coronavirus and the relentless pace of the news cycle
Mr Tyson you are so right when you are talking about reporting from the frontier of science. People see fantastic scientific theories coming and being dismissed and that brings distrust of science. At the same time, the religious superstitions seem to be growing in the US: they can "explain" everything and point out "failures" of science.
I've never seen Neil so worked up, you can tell he's had to explain this multiple times.
The case where people just assume whatever Journalist reported is the one that correct is not only science Journalism problem.
it worse on other sector
What do you say to professors at a university at the department of engineering that don't believe that humans are causing climate change? And outright deny it on the basis that thermometers weren't invented until recently?
Well I know this engineer that has a small company that installs solar panels. He didn't know that to check a battery connected in parallel with others, he needed to disconnect it first.
So, I'd have to start with having them see the Stefan-Boltzmann law on emission of radiation according to temperature, then calculate the average temperature of the Earth based on the energy we get from the Sun and the temperature needed for an equal output (so we are at equilibrium, not gaining energy and thus not getting hotter due to accumulating more of the Sun's energy). It turns out we'd be freezing or just shy of it. The difference (why we are not frozen) is mainly due to our atmosphere, and in particular our greenhouse gasses. So, even in the small percentages they are in the atmosphere, their effects are very important. They absorb a fraction of the energy the Earth's surface is emitting, but not that which the Earth is receiving from the Sun, because they are transparent to the main colors of Sunlight (visible light) but absorb in the "colors" Earth emits (infrared, or IR). They heat up and also emit IR. Part of this IR goes back to the Earth's surface, so it's like if the Sun were emitting more radiation towards us. This makes the equilibrium temperature higher, untill the Earth's overall emission into space is so large (and even a bit redder) as to overcome this additional hurdle of the greenhouse gasses' effects, and we reach a (higher) equilibrium temperature. Thus, our temperature gets higher. Water vapor is a fickle greenhouse gas because it condenses easily, so it's controlled by long-lasting CO2. The condensed water that creates clouds reflect sunlight, though, which would have a cooling effect. However, to have water vapor in the first place we first need the greenhouse gasses to take us up from the aforementioned water freezing temperatures (even winning over the initial reflectiveness we'd have of ice on the surface, thus reducing its reflective amount). So, the dominant effect is that of sufficient CO2 leading to warming. More CO2 brings higher temperatures. The extreme is the white cloud covered hellish planet Venus.
"Its not your fault; it's the education system, I'm working on it" ~NDT
Great video
And Neil deGrasse is Science journalism.
This is sad but very true. In today's world people are extremely motivated by their own personal individual agenda Vs all else.
Not ”objectivly true” but ”pragmatically true”.
So odd how we just assumed (and thereby gave) journalists so much power.
And boy did the journalists themselves believe in that shoddy power.
3:50 Imagine reporting the weather like this. "Our meteorologist says that there's a 80% chance of rain on Tuesday, but this other guy says that Tuesday is going to be the second coming where the streets will flow with blood, so it's anyone's guess who is right!"
For an introduction to science communication as a field of research and practice, see Science Communication: An Introduction (World Scientific Publishing). Further free resources about science communication can be found under 'Evidence-based Science Communication'.
Awesome! ! ! 😃
Preach.
Stars start off as black dwarfs before red dwarfs.
Many people look at journalism and think journalism is in decline. Some look at education or manufacturing specifically and beleive that THAT field is in decline. In my perspective I have seen this claim being made in multiple realms and find evidence, that while each realm has advances due to funding and/or technological advances, the overall decisions guiding those realms are very similar in how they lead to a decline in treating people as objects or numbers to be accessed for their money/clicks(ad revenue).
NDT just explained how science journalism is in a poor state. Like many other realms, it is guided by a need to be first, to be sensational, to be worthy of peoples' attention. We are living in an era of narcissism where being seen/heard is what matters most. Worthiness is dependent upon a sensational headline. Worthiniess is based upon a "face" that we can all appreciate. Facts are a distant second.
In reality, integrity has to do with a very personal decision to do something honestly. Honesty is a hard sell these days because its a slow, boring route. That means its not worthy of a quick, unsustainable dollar. Many other notable, sensational actions are worthy of the dollar, which in turn means that the person is worthy.
In developmental pyschology there is Ericcson's theory stage of Integrity versus dispair, in which a person reflects on the value of their life and what they've done with it. One route leads to a sense of satisfaction while the other leads to despondency.
As a "connected" world, are we not now in a state of despondancy?
Very important stuff
There's also a percent of journalists who look to distort context, which is very unfortunate
Dr Neil Degrasse Tyson kicks! and its a GOOOOOOOOOOOAL!
So long there's debate between scientists.. what's there for journalists
Journalism is a problem. it has many problems, not only the rush.
Journalism _is_ not a problem. Journalism _has_ problems. Journalism is a necessity to a modern democratic society because the rest of us don't have the time, resources or competence to dig up the truth in all kinds of different areas. That's why it is so _damn important_ that journalists do their job right.
@@Neumah No, it's a problem, I'm not arguing in favor of censoring, I'm saying it's pointless to try.
Journalism, like every useful thing in life, is a solution and a problem.
It has way too many inherent problmes to be said to only have problems.
It's the art of telling people what they will pay to hear or pay for someone else to hear.
@@lloydgush Do yourself a favor and read up on what journalism actually is.
@@Neumah Read up on propaganda? nah, already did and doesn't match reality.
But the ubiquitous lumping of journalism with marketing at universities is quite revealing...
It's definitively not lumped with sciences, didactics or history. ...
@@lloydgush Funny you should bring up propaganda. I have studied propaganda. And journalism. If you think they are the same you should hit the books again.
The power of journalism is people's stupidity.
35 journalists disliked the video
How about s Cosmos but for Physics ? 👍👍👍
Neil help us in these dark political times...
The analogy with the earth and sun is a really bad one. Whether the sun goes around the earth or the earth goes around the sun is a matter of reference system, not a matter of scientific consensus. The only reason to say the earth goes around the sun is because it is mathematically easier to describe the solar system as a whole, because in the heliocentric view planets travel on ellipses, which are easier to describe than the multiple epicycles in the geocentric view. But neither view is more true or wrong than the other view. What's really true is that physical laws are independent of the choice of a reference system, which is what makes physical laws (especially conservation laws) working in the first place.
This is also called: The Gell-Mann Amnesia Effect.
Your comments about science journalism match my experience exactly, both as a scientist and as a reader. But there is one aspect you didn't address: journalists are very protective of their right to control the content they publish. They would never let a subject of a political story edit that story. That usually makes sense - except when the journalist doesn't understand the content of what s/he is writing, and this is usually the case in science journalism. That's when they need the subject to read the story and correct errors. But it doesn't happen.
Yes indeed, I've banged up against that myself by asking for the right to review content once written, but before published, in order to correct any errors of perception that may have crept on. I've been summarily told to go jump in the lake.
Neil I agree the solution to pollution is done with applied Quantum mechanics using a smart phone but the news has no interest. "How Dare You" girl gets person of the year but me who points anti smog frequencies at any motor with the EPA world record gets no press.
First off, Gretta shouldn't even live in a world where saying this is needed. Older generations continued to ruin the planet with the notion of "It won't be our problem. Let the future figure it out." Now look at us. She was angry did something dramatic and got press. You should probably, try her methods instead of viewing the attention she receives is worthy, because you do not have the same kind of social presence.
Why don't you contact Infographics or kurzgesagt and see if they are willing to develop a show about your experiment.
And tell us the side effects please .
Money is not the problem
Please call out Fox in particular on this, or other outlets. I get a weekly newsletter from the NYT about climate change in my inbox. Not all news is represented equally.
Lol, yes, the whole of journalists and the media apparatus is not pandering to leftists. Fox News panders to Philo-Semitic evangelical conservatives. Who do not run the country. Obviously in your view, they represent a major threat somehow. If you were to give out a political test to every journalist in America, and compile the data, which way do you think it would swing? They’ve already done this with academia and it’s statistically impossible how left academia swings. Jonathan Heidt has some good info on this.
It's humorous as I don't seem to see any of that, as the current way the overton window has shifted over the last century...has been entirely leftwards. Do you get fired from your job for denouncing Jesus, or for homosexual marriage, is that really how you think things run? The Washington Post and the New York Times do not dox atheists for their heresy, they dox anyone with a right wing thought. If you put "Jews" in place of where you've used the term "christian," would you be comfortable making your statements? Or since it's Christians, you feel free reign to act as such? Was it Orwell or Huxley that said to look to those you can't criticize to see who has power over you. You will not get fired from your job. nor ostracized from your peer group for stating such things.
There is debate about this. Consensus does not equal Truth
@@DiamorphineDeath Fox News panders to evangelical conservatives. Trump panders to evangelical conservatives. And Trump runs the country. And it is not just about left vs right. Fox News is objectively the propaganda organ for Trump and the Republican Party. And it is not just Fox News, it is other Murdoch properties. During the BREXIT battle, I watched Corbyn speak in Parliament. The Sky News Australia video clip flat out lied about what he had said. They depend on their viewers not seeking out other news sources or paying attention to what they see with their own eyes. Also note here that I am not defending any of Corbyn's positions and understand why Labour was so soundly thrashed in the general election.
Excelente
Neil spitting the truth 👏
Never a finer word said Neil. Spot on and well done.
On Social Media, most people will post a meme and tell you it's a fact. 🥺
St=EC³
Neil my hero!
You wouldn't take one review on Yelp or Google and make it the gospel truth for rating that restaurant or service. One review alone wouldn't have enough sway, you'd have to refer to other reviews. And you know that each writer has different reasons for writing the review in the first place, and that it might not be simply to inform you with objective intent.
Yes, we must utilize belief when it comes to things that we cannot personally verify. We need facts from the experts who have invested time into research and have access to the scientific method and tools of meassurement.
Amy Martin
How old is the earth and space? Where’s the scientific method and tools of measurement?😂
@@chrisminblkdiamond Have you looked for them? The methods and tools? They exist and they are described in many places.
Have you put any effort in to finding the answers to your questions?
I have to say, the way you asked them here in a YT comment section, they appear to be more of a rhetorical response than serious questions you really want an answer for.
Meanwhile, reporting on everything else has gone down the well
Thank you so much.
This is ironic. NDT calling out problems with mainstream science in media.
What's the matter Neil? Ben Davidson must have really struck a cord.
Could we somehow make everyone in the world watch this video at least a couple of times, please?
Everybody knows that CO2 is a greenhouse gas. But in a complex system what is the degree of it's effect? Neil avoids the whole issue of climate alarmism that is being pushed now.
If you want to know the degree of its effect look at venus.
Why do electrons come in three sizes and the like button does not?
10/10
Nailed it
No - he Neiled it
@@thstroyur I can't believe I missed that opportunity. Please don't take away my Dad-joke license!
Neil give us Cosmos S2.
1) Hypothesis, theory, fact...if only everyone knew the difference.
2) The Earth is round but we must not offend anyone (lawsuits, you know), so we must give the "flat-earthers" an opportunity to spout their drivel. The same with creationists, antivaxxers, and Republicans (Humor, snowflake!).
3) Scio vs. Credo. Again, if only people understood the difference and the relevance of each. (They don't teach Latin anymore, do they?)
Neil's right and it helps explain the embarrassing statistic that one in four Americans think the Sun *_IS_* orbiting the Earth!!!