Science Isn't Dogma, You're Just Stupid (Response to Formscapes)
Vložit
- čas přidán 25. 01. 2024
- Last month a channel named "Formscapes" released a profoundly idiotic video about how all of science is "dogma" from an "elite priesthood", and we should instead listen to frauds who push demonstrably false pseudoscience because it makes him feel smart and special. He also tried to mock my debunk of Electric Universe for being similarly "dogmatic", though he was totally incapable of explaining how, as he could not engage with a single scientific point I had made in the entire video. Since this anti-science mentality, which regards the entire body of scientific knowledge as corrupt and dogmatic, is so shockingly prevalent, let's take Formscapes to school and explain to him how science actually works, shall we?
My original Electric Universe debunk: • Debunking the Electric...
Watch my other debunks: bit.ly/ProfDaveDebunk
EMAIL► ProfessorDaveExplains@gmail.com
PATREON► / professordaveexplains
Check out "Is This Wi-Fi Organic?", my book on disarming pseudoscience!
Amazon: amzn.to/2HtNpVH
Bookshop: bit.ly/39cKADM
Barnes and Noble: bit.ly/3pUjmrn
Book Depository: bit.ly/3aOVDlT
It's funny how here in the real world, instead of being silenced for proving science wrong, you get a nobel prize.
Only if you can actually substantiate your claim.
@@dpt4458 Yes, the one that actually proves science wrong.
what?
@@hannahp1527 correct
@dpt4458 Um, no.. it doesn’t matter how you say it. What matters is if you can actually demonstrate that it’s wrong, why it’s wrong, and explain it better. That’s it. No one has to like it or like the way you said it
"Science makes mistakes, so we can't follow it. Believe the bogus that comes out of my mouth instead."
It does boggle the mind how he could misunderstand science that monumentally. Mistakes are good in science, getting things wrong is good, proving our longstanding theories wrong is even better. Science loves to be wrong because there's something to be learnt in things going wrong.
Science is not dogma, but that person wants to hand down “science is a dogma” as a dogma and his “science” also as a dogma.
Even if what came out of his mouth was 100% true all the time, we would still have to verify it. Because science is not a dogma that takes anyone’s word for it.
@@advorak8529he doesn’t, he actually has a lot of respect for science. I think a lot of people are unaware of how science, popular opinion, ego, and money have become tragically entwined in a big mess and are causing terrible harm to a beautiful activity. I don’t know why professor Dave picked on form scape because form scape is presented by someone who understands science quite deeply. Best to go to the source itself instead.
@@jamesskinnercouk _he actually has a lot of respect for science._
And an abusive partner keeps beating up the victim and make them feel worthless because they love the victim so much.
Pull the other one!
_I think a lot of people are unaware of how science, popular opinion, ego, and money have become tragically entwined in a big mess_
Not a lot of people know the lore of your alternate universe, I agree, but they do not live in it. To them there is little reason to learn the imagined twists and turns of how THEY took over the brains of people …
_and are causing terrible harm to a beautiful activity._
Formscapes actually does cause terrible harm, we can agree on that.
_I don't know why professor Dave picked on form scape_
Because Formscapes said incredible stupid and wrong (and dangerous!) stuff - and attacked Professor Dave’s debunk of the “electric universe”, without actually engaging with the facts.
_because form scape is presented by someone who understands science quite deeply._
If that is true, money and ego and possibly what counts as public opinion in the channel’s audience certainly won over any kind of science understanding.
If he does not understand science, then at least he’s got the excuse of not knowing any better.
_Best to go to the source itself instead._
You mean, ask a scientist? Good idea.
Or did you mean go to the woo peddler for unmitigated fresh woo in absolutely neurotoxic amounts? No, Thank You Very Much!
The prevalent arrogance, which you are demonstrating here, is that we should make our decisions based *solely* on science despite the fact that you _know_ it is incomplete, inaccurate, and occasionally dead wrong.
Since we *know* we have partial and imperfect knowledge (partial and imperfect observations) that means we *know* we need something more to aid decisions making since every decisions you will ever make was, is, and will-be made with information deficiency.
This is why >>> *EVERYTHING*
"Why would you trust science, which can sometimes be slightly wrong and then fixes itself, when you could instead be abjectly wrong all the time on purpose about everything?"
"Why would we belive you if the world was always changing, and your script would have to be updated just as often?"
Yeah... You should look at all the pseudoscientists that are abjectly wrong because the results they put forward are designed to continue providing them funding as opposed to being objective and rational and providing the real results which would likely see a cut to their funding.
He criticizes scientists, claiming that their findings are published without proper scrutiny. Then, he criticizes scientists for applying proper scrutiny to outrageous claims.
Yes. Fuck's on Marijuana, Shroom, Cocaine, Heroin, etc. Hope he shuts up
It's easy to debunk things that are very wrong. It is a lot of work to review something well done.
e.g. In the case of EU, that's exactly what "we" thought circa 1880 but data was piling up showing something was missing because the orbit of Mercury was off and then we discovered beta-decay (alluded to the weak and strong forces). It's not that "EU is wrong!!!!" but that it's old-news.
"scientists never point out problems with general relativity"
Physicists everywhere: *talking about all the clashes between general relativity and quantum mechanics and trying to come up with a demonstrable theory for everything *
Yeah that's one of the stupidest things I've ever heard.
You're talking about quantum mechanics in relation to general relativity .. umm, you got done reading to do.
@@MrDmadness yes that's the point they're incompatible and we have loads of physicists actively working on merging these theories together, that's what string theory and quantum loop gravity is. So the video in question saying people don't dare question general relativity is stupid when this contradiction with quantum mechanics is arguably the biggest problem in modern physics
@@GuoJing2017 ahh I mistook your response, that is in fact a very valid point, my bad
Yeah! Fuck, man, just recently one of the biggest black hole pioneers disproved the idea that all black holes have singularities. New shit's coming out all the time.
"the victim was shot by a gun, how did a tiger do that?" is probably the best analogy for pseudoscience i've head
that whole tiger bit had me rolling
So: is tiger disarmed due to having paws, or is it armed due to having a gun?
@@EdibleREALconstantly disarmed, they've only got legs
Hey, we all saw Tiger King.
wow you're obviously a tiger denier. in fact the tiger holds the gun with its mouth and uses its tongue to pull the trigger. the fingerprints and other evidence was put there in order to test our faith, obviously. can't believe you guys are such sheep
Is there dogma in science? of course. Science is done by people, and people can become dogmatic. To quote: "I represent science"
Is science dogma? No, by definition. Dogmatic scientists are doing it wrong and I'd argue they shouldn't be called scientists anymore.
Or to put it another way, the cure for flawed science is always more science
Eh, that's a bit pedantic. If you interpret "science" as a stand-in for "the mainstream body of scientific work" then the criticism holds up and there are famous examples. Probably the biggest one is continental drift.
I think ignoring that "science" can actually become dogmatic or dancing around that issue just plays into the hands of charlatans who want to overstate its severity.
@@louisvaught2495 People were talking about continental drift since the 1850's. It's just that there wasn't real hard evidence for it until until we sonar-mapped the ocean floor and found ridges and trenches and stuff.
@@LimeyLassen That's hardcore historical revisionism, continental drift was a deeply unpopular theory when my parents were in college.
Yes people were technically talking about it, but it was widely rejected until much more recently than it was proposed.
@@louisvaught2495 The issue is that this is what we're using the word "science" to describe "dogma endorsed by trusted institutions". I blame generations of school science classrooms that have, instead of focusing on the actual process of scientific inquiry and the history of or understanding of the universe (complete with pitfalls) have instead treated science as effectively natural history trivia time. The result is people don't know how to judge the significance of a paper, but all know what a mitochondria is.
I grew up liking “hard” science and thought that things like psychology and sociology were sketchy.
While in college in 1980, I was aiming for a certificate in Russian Studies and took a “Sociology of the Soviet Union” course.
The professor stated that according to research, the USSR was teetering on the verge of collapse. It took less than a decade. I now have a healthy respect for the people doing such research.
@@MyName-tb9oz I haven’t kept up with that field of study, so I honestly do not know what trends they are seeing now or how they anticipate future events.
If they could predict the fall of the USSR with the science of the 1980s, I suspect that they have further improved their tools in the intervening decades. Perhaps you should sign up for either a current sociology course or start following one of their professional journals…?
I am NOT talking about political pundits, btw. They make all kinds of unfounded predictions. They make money off of the current shiny object which people get all excited about.
@@MyName-tb9oz if you're talking about clickbait videos that say X country is collapsing, those can be promtly ignored.
so you base your entire opinion on a massive field of study on a sample size of N=1 ? thats rather unscientific of you...
how many other predictions did said professor make in that timeframe that weren't correct?
@@KT-pv3kl I had many statistics and statistical analysis courses when I was in college. I do understand that correlation is not causation, and all that stuff.
What I was trying to convey is that it may look iffy to outsiders, but when you drill down to their methodology and analysis, fields like sociology are far better and more predictive than most laypeople realize.
I didn’t take the course because I liked sociology, but it definitely caused me to change my mind about the “soft” sciences. I was an engineering major, so we had a certain amount of snobbishness towards the “sissies” in fields like psychology and sociology.
That course taught me to never make those kinds of assumptions. Every field of study is important and just as difficult as rocket science.
THAT is my message. If sociology says that the world is falling apart, only then will I stock up on survival gear.
@@ninalehman9054 the opposite is the fact. Most laypeople have no clue about the difference between hard and soft science and for them everything that "the science" tells them is dogma wether it is particle physics or feminist glaciology (yes that's not a joke there are papers written about this and they are peer reviewed and published)
In the field of psychology alone we have a replication crisis where more than 30% of findings couldn't be replicated in repeat experiments in specific areas the failure was greater than 60%. That is absolutely abysmal and not only offsets any predictive prowess of the soft sciences it outright calls into question the scientific rigor that the entire field uses in their research.
I don't doubt that traditional Chinese medicine can work but I wouldn't call it scientific if 60% of its explanations are probably false. The same goes for the soft sciences
Also no again, not every field of science is equally important or equally hard.
The mating behaviour of shallow sea bristle worms is neither as important nor as hard to study as astrophysics or the theory of gravity.
Prof Dave clearly has never read Calvin & Hobbes. Tigers are more than capable of firing guns (using water) at unsuspecting humans. Much more plausible than it seems.
Best comic ever
Calvin also made a Transmogrifier out of a cardboard box, quite the scientist.
@@davestier6247That's where I learned the word "transmogrify". As a great philosopher and teacher once said, best comic ever!
@@ProfessorDaveExplains -
"Thou dost wrong me! Faith, I know not where I wander. Methinks the most capricious zephyr hath more design than I ... But lo: Do not detain me, for I am resolv'd to quit this place forthwith ... "
C&H was an everf%@king scream!
Love this and Calvin and Hobbes! My heater is not working so I just put on layers to "build character". Fortunately, I live in South Texas, so it really doesn't get cold down here.
"Scientists are meanies because they don't think my unsupported, patently absurd ideas are as cool as i do". That's pretty much what I get from most of these "science is dogma" people.
@@Consciousness_of_Reality
Or, you know, basic proof. Which you literally cannot produce for crackpot claims like electric universe.
@@Consciousness_of_Reality someone is a fan of Ken Wheeler. Your ability to string together big words you don't know the meaning of is almost as impressive as his.
@@Consciousness_of_Reality Materialism _works._ When methodological naturalism was widely deployed as a tool of inquiry, our ability to understand the world exploded to degrees unlike anything in human history. You could argue about the degree to which this knowledge has been used constructively, but it remains that using methodological naturalism to understand phenomena and make predictions about outcomes based upon understanding of those phenomena allows you to produce results that were impossible before engaging with the _material world_ on a _material basis._ I seriously hope that you're not actually arguing that _evidence itself_ is a dogma.
@@Consciousness_of_Reality
Let me guess: you’re a Foucaultian who thinks all knowledge is “constructed”; and is therefore not completely valid. Such views miss the probabilistic reality in which we exist.
@@Consciousness_of_Reality good god you're insufferably annoying.
As a PhD from the third world, I don't think it is a stretch, at all, to call the academic publishing industry a racket. Never knew a scientist who saw a dime for their published article or reviewing work. Publishers leech on this "free" work, which is paid for by universities, grant agencies and often by the public. Proof of that is the widespread acceptance and acclaim for sci-hub among scientists.
I swear every ten years or so there is a blow up in the scientific community about the fact that a lot of peer review for journals is done for free. But it seems to be that invariably it is remembered how important that is for the integrity of science, and hey, you get access to cutting edge research.
Of course, I think his argument was that it was not a racket in the sentiment expressed in the referred video. I don't know anyone who operates in research who is thrilled over having to pay to see their own work and worries of self plagiarism amidst many other concerns, but the unhappy state of publishing companies does not invalidate the research being presented in their journals.
@@IronAsclepius Unfortunately, greedy business practices always foster public distrust towards an entire field. Every whackjob theory attempts to validate itself by referring to the profit motive of the "establishment". It is understandable why disillusionment with medical industry, or scientific publishing for that matter, provides fertile ground for harmful fundamentalist narratives. And I can see why issues like the exorbitant APCs or publicly funded research being hidden behind paywall, raise their fair share of eyebrows. Fortunately, this is being addressed to an extent by more and more funders demanding open access and data sharing, more public repositories being established, preprints being more often uploaded to arxiv, and so forth.
I see scientists get money from their work all the time... It's called a paycheck and grants. Most universities own all the intellectual property their researchers put out related to their area of study. It would be more concerning if they were profiting off of it.
@@Pleasekillmysonsdad the publishing companies owns the copyright of the paper itself. And I said reviews are not paid because the video said that reviewing is one thing publishers need to pay for. No, they don't even have that cost. And how the university/grant agency/public/etc is donating the work they paid for for the profit of the publishers is an okay thing?
To be fair, scienfitic publishing really does need to change. It is unfair that the general public does not have access to many new sceintific papers, it is an affront to progress that researchers (and their university/company) feel the need to 'publish or perish' (and the fact that to many, a negative result is about as good as no result at all - despite negative results being extremely important in science), and it is simply a waste of money in the end - for everyone involved.
A simple way to prove this is the case is to simply ask any scientist who has published an article for it directly. Almost always, with no questions asked, they will give it to you. Why? Because publishers don't propagate knowledge and they don't funnel money to the people making new knowledge. There is absolutely zero benefit for any scientist to have their papers published, other than the fact our culture built on publishing will simply ignore their paper otherwise, because we've convinced ourselves (with the publishers help, of course) that a paper that isn't published is as good as a crackpot's proof of the Reimann hypothesis.
There is something to be said for moderation (in the 'online forum moderator' sense, not the 'not too much not to little' sense), but I don't think such a thing would cost anything close to what publishers make. If anything it should be a government run thing, or a community run thing (I mean, that's what publishers do anyway, they don't pay the people doing peer review - why don't we just cut out the middleman?)
That is absolutely correct, but speaking strictly socially very little would change. Most people don't understand modern aspects of chemistry, physics, or biology, so the current solution is likely somewhere in the middle, like making more free-access journals and decreasing the costs of popular papers. That said, you're certainly right about college students needing the aid, and I totally support your idea, I just think it could be more reasonable.
I agree with the video's contention that open-access science gets unnecessarily deified.
Scientific publications aren't approachable and people usually misinterpret them without training.
In the fields that I work, I've found that there's enough open-access literature out there for people to do adequate research on a lot of different topics, and they just don't or they fail at interpreting it.
@@PersonalUseOfUrMum your statement is a classic chicken or egg problem. People don't understand science, but science also doesn't try to explain things to most people.
The amount of unnecessary jargon in papers is silly. Nothing is as sophisticated as it's presented. The main obstacle to me learning quantum mechanics was everyone saying it can't be understood. Anybody is capable of applying critical thinking and learning new things. This shouldn't be a reason to cloister information.
General public should not have access to new scientific papers. Not because some secret. OMG we finally found the cure for cancer.... That is why....
Students are overwhelmed with lectures. Until the reach of university level education the "critical thinking" has not enough room.
It is a nice thing if they learn about the false things with some explanation about why and how we found out to be wrong but as a side quest only.
a flawed system doesn't equal a completely malicious and all encompassing conspiracy to mind control everyone into believing that its okay to let minorities live or something.
I think most scientists are happy to send you a paper they wrote for free if you reach out to them asking directly, as well. They want people to read them!
It depends. Because giving it away for free can also violate publishing contracts.
This is usually true and I hear it everywhere. Journals charge, but scientists often just want the spread of knowledge.
Indeed, that is probably their most desired outcome from all their work. Amazing how concepts can be the most logical and common sense answers ever and yet so easily ignored in favor of some ludicrous ideas from crackpots.
Yes! I did this last year while researching my options for a health challenge and reached out to a handful of authors directly to ask if it was possible to have a copy of the paper that was stuck behind a paywall. My success rate was better than 50% and most of those indicated that they were pleased someone was taking an interest. The rest either didn't reply or in one case someone else from the team responded and said that they were sorry they didn't have access to it either.
@@gaiaakatheearth5604While that's true, I've never actually been turned down. I assume there's some carve-out in place that allows scientists to give away the paper in some limited circumstances.
I have no idea if this is how the contracts are structured, but scientists might, for instance, be allowed to give it away to colleagues but not be allowed to publish it broadly themselves, or some similar arrangement.
"Science doesn't offer anyone delusions of being special." Freaking love this line.
That line stood out to me as well. Especially the "delusions" part.
@@Boardwoards "it's not like science has always been done for royals and now elites"
Indeed, it's not like that. Nowadays, science benefits _everyone_, not just the elites.
"it's not like an emperor made fourier prefect holding fasces over a city"
Oh, yes, let's take the rather few scientists who also had political power and just pretend that this is true for _most_ (or even all) scientists. :D :D :D
"but who cares when you make money from being a bully"
Yes, like lots of pseudoscientists on CZcams.
It does if you manipulate the data.
its always priceless when the guys declaring they are the most favorite pets in the whole cosmos and the reason it exists projects that on others , that humbly admits that as far reality is showing it appears their species , civilization even solar system is but a happenstance ...brief.. configuration of variables for a existence so vast nothing they do can affect it..
only for the ''me the most special thing in reality!'' to jump on that and claim they are at the same time the most humble ones to ...its seriously like watching spoiled brats try claim things to wield the social status it bring as a sledge on those living in reality XD
@@spracketskooch :/ keeping mentioning ? as in ..word used once in the whole post ? XD
but if you not could compute that specific sentence
...me used with '' '' to represent a opinion expressed by a person and how it sounds from an outsider view
in order to compare it with something
..such as a religious self contradicting statement in this case the classic '' me so humble'' yet at the same time also declaring the entire cosmos was farted into existence as a over sized fish bowl for a god to house them in ..mutually contradicting logical positions wich to me is a display of how religion damages basic logic/critical thinking capability
as for how you can be conscious about yourself sorry how do that relate to anything in my post ? XD but sure you can get my five cents on that
although , yes it also strikes me as a bit silly question my own first thought on it is that its something that someone with a bit of tunnel vision about words might ask , after all
..do the cat need you to stare at it for said cat to be conscious of itself and decide it wants to find a better sunray to lounge in ?
of course not , no more then it needs to stare at you for you to be conscious of yourself and decide that hey , you 'need' a cup of tea
I feel like this guy took a look at Warhammer 40 Mechanicus and decided that's how real scientists act.
'Not available to the general public" isn't true. I can wander into my local university library and read a hard copy of any journal I want. With a little effort, I can access a computer and read any of the important journals.
I agree. It may require more effort than if I were a student at that university, but any time I have sought out materials at a university library, I was able to access them at no charge. The only exception to this was information hidden behind the paywall of a society of medical professionals.
The main difficulty for me as a layperson is my ability to interpret a particular academic journal article when I do not have the breadth of knowledge of someone trained in that field. However, I much rather come to my own conclusion than trust a journalist's interpretation. I do have training in statistics, which is often very helpful.
>"For good reasons"
>Gives no reasons at all
How do people fall for this
>says 'for good reasons'
>gives no evidence or proof
>profits massively
I remember there’s a quote that describes this. Think it goes something like this.
“If you say something confidently enough, people will believe you, even if you’re wrong.”
Social engineering.
EXACTLY! I watched that whole video and came away with a sense of deep confusion. The entire time, not one bit of *real* evidence is presented. He talks about anecdotal bullshit like heart transplant recipients but there's not one real study backing any of this up. It's just a tower of nonsense.
They come in wanting to fall for this
Also what these people fail to understand is that science is SUPPOSED to discredit new papers, that’s the idea. Thesis defense much?
They think science books are an atheist's version of the bible. Set in stone, unable or unwilling to change and religiously followed with "faith". It's projection from ignorance.
And then, once attempts have failed to falsify it in its current state, it can become accepted science!
@@DanielMWJ scientific consensus is more accurate. It can still be disputed, disproven or supplemented at a later point when more factors, previously overlooked or unknown, are added. After an unknown amount of time and after something has been used often enough with results that are expected based on the conclusions of the original research, you could call it accepted science.
Scientism aka Yay Science Crowd, it's dogma, not the Science itself. Maybe people called it Science dogma when they're against both Scientism + dogma.
And they're the ones to complain about blind faith. And it's not like the new papers are like "that old thing was bs and stupid and bad" it's "we now have a better understanding of that old thing"
6:17 While I disagree with literally everything that guy says, I at least admit there're legitmate reasons to feel that academic papers are a racket. While not inherently a racket, they are almost certainly used as one in the college world. Scientific papers and textbooks are unreasonably expensive, and their costs are typically pushed onto students who are already swamped for cash as it is. Colleges have the power to simply subscribe to a journal and give their students access to the papers they need to do their work (and some certainly do) but many instead push the costs onto the students. It almost feels like some journals will legitimately pay colleges to *not* subscribe, so that they can get students to pay for individual papers and make more money.
It's certainly not out of the question for colleges to do stupid shit like that to make money. I once had a professor require that you buy the specific most recent (and most expensive) version of *HIS* textbook that he makes a new more expensive version of every semester. I specifically asked if an older version would work and he specifically said "No, it HAS to be this years." I grabbed a cheap second hand one like 12 versions back anyway (cause I couldn't afford the most recent one) and, after comparing to another students most recent copy, discovered that the one 12 versions back and the most recent one (that was nearly a hundred dollars and supposedly required) only differed by a couple paragraphs of flavor text! No info changed at all! But yet there he was, demanding his students pay HIM triple digits for his own book despite the exact same info being available at 5% the price!
Step 1: Government(taxpayers) pays for researchers to run studies. They use part of this funding to pay to be published in a journal.
Step 2: Journal asks researchers to quality check studies for free. Because researchers are paid via government grants, this is effectively charging the taxpayers again.
Step 3: Journals charge readers for access to the journals. Who are the readers? Taxpayers of course.
TLDR - journals get paid by the taxpayers 3x despite actually providing nothing of value. Remember, the quality check, which is what a normal publication would be expected to provide, isn't done by the journal.
People have been fired for smaller reasons. Are you sure nothing can be done about him? Like saying his name and where he works?
That is true. Paying for articles out-of-pocket can easily set you back hundreds of dollars.
Sci-hub and Mutual aid scientific community help a lot with this.
That is a fault of capitalism, not of science. The education system can be corrupt even while the education method is perfectly valid. Parsing out where to lay blame for grievances is an important part of accurately fixing systems, even though the natural response to acute pain is to blame the most proximal link in the chain. That professor's behavior is disgusting... but then, is probably also a consequence of his trying to supplement his poor pay due to the college distributing profits to administration and shareholders and not to educators.
@@QuesoCookies While journals abusing their power isn't inherent to the scientific method, it *is* built into the foundations of modern science. Claiming otherwise is like claiming that "real" communism has never been tried.
The scientific method is a pure system for understanding the universe. Implementation is always the tough part. Because of this, there are valid aspects to claims that the scientific method has be co-opted by groups and entities with goals other than discovery and knowledge.
We must notice and accept all flaws in our modern scientific system in order to address and improve them. Saying "Oh that's not science, that is capitalism" doesn't change the fact that the scientific method has been corrupted in its implementation.
the way he says the "The science" ticks me off
"Your inability to grasp science, is not a valid argument against it."
Yet almost every time someone makes some wild claim that is contrary to scientific findings it’s because they’ve failed (or refused) to grasp the science..
@@bewing77 They're just stupid.
@@erisdiscordia5429 Funny how most people who argue against and try to disprove religion are more educated and well-informed about the topic at hand (aka religion) than the religious themselves
@@erisdiscordia5429 Religion might be a whole lot easier to grasp if you could show us even the teeniest bit of evidence for the magic bloke.
Without faith, there is nothing, funny how that works.
@@erisdiscordia5429 You haven't asked me for any evidence of anything.
What you have done, is avoided even attempting to provide any for the magic man.
Oh! I remember that video! The comment section was full of comments like "when I was doing research for my post-doctorate degree, I was surrounded by people who would believe all kinds of disproven science. I was the only free thinkiner in a sea of sheeple and I just couldn't accept it"
What did they research? No one could say. Where did they research? Not a peep. But they definitely did, they promise.
Did anyone mention what the 'post doctorate degree' was called?
@@TimoRutanen as someone who has a Ph. D. I have serious doubts about the validity of their claims that they engaged in years of graduate research at any accredited university and have presented at academic conferences and have published papers in peer-reviewed journals etc.
@@AleisterCrowleyMagus Oh certainly, I was just curious what title they'd invented.
There are certain fields I could see this being the case. When it comes to the cognitive sciences and questions about the nature of mind or consciousness it really does test our theoretical limits and often veers into partisan philosophy. There’s tons of passionate debate among neuroscientists, theoretical physicists, philosophers of mind, etc about how to properly frame and interpret the data. You can radically different theories (eg eliminative materialism vs analytic idealism) among researchers with multiple phds in relevant fields and both consider the other group to be completely delusional and disproven. It’s actually quite funny listening to these debates. They are limited to fields where the nature of research is at such a foundational, theoretical level that the lines between science and philosophy are inevitably blurred.
@@Sampsonoff that's a 'slightly' harder field to measure in the first place, so that's to be expected as the only unified and ""dogmatic"" answer that can be measured is "there's definitively something, as we can observe the variety of effects". but then you have "the repel/attraction to the taste of eggplant" "the consistent searching for pattern even if unprompted" "the capacity for the body for feeling physically hill in recalling a memory that was never experienced" and all those other wonderful approaches that fall under the umbrella of "chemically, that''s what happens, but we still have not found why it happens, and why sometimes it doesn't"
My hypothesis is that these people go "I don't have time to figure out all the science behind everything, therefore nobody does, therefore everything is false". I really doubt any of them know what a scientist even does at work, they must think that science is a hobby or something.
Thanks for using "hypothesis" instead of "theory." I hate it when people confuse the two...
As much as I typically am very supportive of your videos, Prof. Dave, I feel you’re glossing over some of the truly significant problems in research in the understandable desire to defend the scientific effort in general. The Replication Crisis in psychology, for example, is serious enough that Kahneman himself has written on its implications. And the findings of large-scale fraud, duplicated images, etc in highly cited papers by esteemed institutions & researchers, can not be understated.
Is the scientific method still the best we have? Absolutely, 100% YES.
Does it need to be much more stringently regulated? Also YES.
Does more work need to be done to replicate existing work? YES.
Do we need to keep pushing to pre-register all research projects and there goals and require publication of negative results, such that bad results aren’t covered up or ignored? Damn straight, Gorski’s project in that direction needs support from around the world.
Does the scientific publishing industry, such as Elsevier, charge sickeningly exorbitant fees of universities, colleges, and other institutions that goes far beyond “just making a living” while severely restricting the availability of knowledge to the public? Hell yes, that’s why some countries and universities are fighting back to stop the insanity.
Is Formscape wrong about almost everything? Of course they are. But don’t gloss over legitimate, large scale problems within research either.
Edited to add: you did indeed pick a video that illustrates almost every anti-science talking point perfectly. And your rebuttal/takedown also covers all the answers THOROUGHLY.
I think the main issue is the video would probably be like 4 hours long at that point, but I do agree that the best defense against psuedoscientific quacks using the issues with science against it is to address the issues ourselves so they have no ammunition.
I have broken my back over trying to figure out how much money Elsevier must make and what tiny percentage of that goes to their costs.
The only thing I agree with formscapes on is that textbooks, scientific papers are fucking expensive. I can't find the damn paper 9 out of 10 times
@@Eclyptical I don’t know about you but I would gladly watch a four hour Dave video
I had to write a 50 page research paper in college, to graduate with honors. I don't think me researching virtual machines and virtual private networks was very religious lol.
That couldn't have been hard, just repeat the incantations the priests like to hear and you're in. What's that? You actually had to put your OWN ideas in the paper and they'd fail you if you didn't? How weirdly undogmatic.
@@muskyoxes But after you're done writing a paragraph, the idea will dawn on you.. You are actually now able to WRITE some new dogma, what a revelation! And if you're lucky, you'll get an invitation to the super-secret cabal after graduation.
Yes, this is pure sarcasm and a joke. Just in case someone didn't understand.
@@muskyoxes Yeah, follow what data shows. If I didn't have data to support my claims, then it is coming from a place of bs. Following data is not dogma.
Exactly lol. I wrote a 350 page dissertation and published stuff but I’m not making crazy claims that I have “discovered” some new world order esque “secret” about academic publishing
a matter of wording really
31:41 It was Tony the Tiger.
Evidence:
1. Tony technically doesn't have hair.
2. He can wear shoes leaving *seemingly* human footprints.
3. Being a huge cereal mascot, Tony makes lots of money and owns a house. He doesn't need to live in a zoo.
4. He has Human-like hands easily capable of holding and firing a gun.
5. Being an intelligent being, he can easily plant fingerprints and blood.
Checkmate science.
I reckon Phoenix Wright would propose this explanation and somehow prove it to be true.
I was thinking Joe Exotic......but he is in jail...
According to the Phoenix Wright universe, the likely suspect is Maya Fey.
"But she's not a tiger--"
Yeah, doesn't matter. Maya is the killer.
and obviously Tony knows a tiger would not be the prime suspect, so he feels he could easily get away with it.
The dude made a 2 hour video to say what is essentially Mac's "Science is a Liar, Sometimes" presentation in It's Always Sunny in Philadelphia, with none of the humor or self-awareness.
Dave made him look like a bitch.
Average iq in this comment section
As an undergrad medical biologist who does research on molecular biology studying antibiotic resistance (NIH) I’m more then grateful for this video and the rest that you post. We need you in this fight against morons.
Did you read the genome papers on SARS-2 back in March 2020?
He would be straight down to the doctors if he became ill for medicine.
The irony of using a cellphone or computer to propagate science denial is appaling
Its an oxymoron at this.
Losing my sanity and my faith on humanity piece by piece.
they have no idea how they work tho. except for the malicious people that know how things work but still push garbage
They should lose access to technology, since they think its a hoax
@dpt4458 give an example of what you are talking about, and explain why this example invalidates the scientific method
Generally my first response.
They don't understand that science is part of the reason we're on CZcams
“Science is bad because it doesn’t accept my unscientific ideas!”.
Show me that quote?
@@Laeternitas in a nutshell, that's exaxcly it. The rest is the dress those who think like that, use to hide/embelish this feeling.
"no, I don't hate science" - but you hate that it objectively contradicts your belief
"science is an approach to reality, just as valid as other philosophical views such as...." - no, you don't understand what science is, or don't care.
Dave's quote is harsh, but true...😮💨
@@veero25 i disagree thats not what he said.
Straight bs but yea
@@dpt4458 Religious people are not the place I'd start to understand science. That would be scientists. I would go to the religious people if I wanted religious information.
@@dpt4458 So you mean the scientists were the ones that did science, got it.
Could science denial be a universal problem that ends technological societies and prevents them from advancing enough to colonize the universe?
indeed it could
More than science denial being the main cause, I think is more akin to a consequential phenomenon brought by the decay technological societies produce.
Wake up babe. New solution to the Fermi Paradox just dropped.
"Its not mainstream, so it must be true!"
A very dangerous line of thinking that can lead you down some dark paths, and Im not just talking scientifically
formscapes sounds like the title of a really bad mobile game
I'd say it's more a name for a *developer* of shovelware games, the kind I enjoy seeing played by GrayStillPlays or DangerouslyFunny whenever they're not doing GTA5 boards
Maybe he is keen on a sponsorship from Manscape. :p
@@cbhlde cue the George Takei "Oh my!"
Or a really bad movie!
IMHO it sounds like a bad 80s sci-fi movie 😊
"Tyger! Tyger! burning bright
In the forests of the night,
What immortal hand or eye
Could frame thy- oh shit, he's got a Glock!"
"Hmm, I love what you've got so far, Mr. Blake, but for this one line. What if instead of 'oh shit, he's got a Glock!' you said something like, 'Could frame thy fearful symmetry' ?"
"My God, man, that's perfect!"
_Guy Montague sweating in the corner_
@@ullrich "Good idea, the poem would work better if the Tyger was actually framed for the murder."
There is just one point you made which I am compelled to dispute: "People don't waste billions of dollars for pride."
Bruh have you checked the climate lately? The fossil fuel industry literally sold out the future of the entire human species to make a quantified abstraction of their personal "value" even more obscenely inflated than it already was. There are absolutely people looking to fund bogus 'studies' in order to manufacture 'facts' for their agenda, and threatening to pull funding for studies that don't fulfill it, or that can't be editorialized to fit it -- just look at the history of food industry lobbying and its effects on dietary guidelines.
Of course, the solution to this problem is... everything else discussed in this video. Contrary to what 'community' might imply, the entire point of the scientific community is to facilitate scrutiny, discussion, and rebuttal from numerous unaffiliated research initiatives.
Elon musk also pays for pride..
It must be so exhausting to believe so hard that reality is just a conspiracy.
Dave:"People don't waste billions of dollars for pride"
Elon Musk: "Hold my beer"
Maybe Musk isn't a person...
Musk would spend trillion in it if he had that much money.
Reasonable people, like scientists
Not wasting but I get it
@@johns1625I'd say his purchase of Twitter was an absolute waste by any metric but.. Eh
The thing is, even in an absurd hypothetical world where a radical new theory that upends most of known science is validated, we would then study and expand on that new theory the same way we do science now.
If you understand Kuhn’s basic hypothesis, that’s not how it works. Science is institutional and ALL institutional logic has some level of dogma built into it. It usually ends in phases over generations.
And then in about a decade, these guys are gonna say that new theory they previously supported is just "dogma" recited by scientists like a doctrine.
yeah like with quantum theory. if it helps explain certain thinks, but contradicts others, it just shows that we have two models that are still in development and need completion
@@baconbob3752or a window into a third yet to be understood
@@baconbob3752or Cosmic Expansion which lead to inferring the Big Bang. It looks like it was just assumed that the universe was static before Hubble, Einstein even fiddled some of his equations that implied an expanding universe to make it stable.
Or Natural Selection, which provides the mechanism to evolution. Somehow Darwin came up with it with zero knowledge of genetics.
I'm in the social science field, and we talk about variables that can affect studies all the time. It's so aggravating that people believe that we do our job without any thoughts of our own. There are many different opinions in sociology and anthropology where people in the same fields disagree with each other. It would be very boring to work with science if everyone had the same opinions on everything. 😅
Science deniers should be banned from using technology. You shouldn't get to insult the people who invent things, and then enjoy the use of those things.
“I distrust science!” Said the people who live in dwellings with heating systems, then drive cars or otherwise ride vehicles over bridges, use the internet, watch TV and use cell phones.
The problem is that these people have a really shallow understanding of what science is. If you tell them history is a human science they get a stroke
I don't distrust science I distrust people
@aidenmacneill8397 ...which are written by people 😑
@@aidenmacneill8397Guess who does the Science genius?
@@evanmarshall3487 It's a social science, dipshit, not the same as physics or chemistry, but still a type of science
"Science isn't dogma. You're just stupid." Simple and direct. I love it!
Yeah. Very non-dogmatic.
Same
@@I_dreamed_my_name_was_Brandonhysterical coming from a flat earther
@@I_dreamed_my_name_was_Brandon "science isn't dogma. you're just trying to discredit it because it makes you feel uncomfortable about your pseudoscientific belief."
not as catchy
Agreed
“Look! Look! I saw a unicorn! … Prove it? Oh you’re one of those science dogmatists. It’s people like you who kill unicorns with your doubt.”
I recommend using a frequency table, try Filling out frequency table for independent events | Probability and Statistics | Khan Academy
I do not know if you'll see this Mr Dave but just for the record: Formscapes also has a website. There he sells "seminars" for "better human understanding". This guy is literally a grifter.
love how his main argument against science is "correlation doesn't equal causation" like bro how do u think we figured that out LOL
"Correlation does not imply causation" is simple logic; it does not require observation or experiment. The logically-derived truth of the statement is why scientific experiments are done.
The problem is that major "scientific" institutions are exploiting general ignorance to pass correlation as causation. The process of real science is how we came to the conclusion that correlation does not equal causation, but the institutions people depend on to learn and understand science for themselves are not bound to these rules.
Science is not a person, it's not an organization, it's a process. Unfortunately, people and organizations are trying to pass themselves as the authoritative arbiters of this process, while labeling critics as "unscientific" by virtue of their attempt to criticize at all rather than with a comprehensive scientific rebuttal, which is unscientific and dangerous.
@@hagoryopi2101 I just don't know what you're talking about. Where do you see these people?
@@dindindundun8211in his mind
@@CliffSedge-nu5fvYou don't know what those word mean
As a representative of the schizophrenic wizard community, we in no way claim formscapes
As another member of said community, I second this.
this is genius out of context
as a schizophrenic learning magic tricks, same.
Formscapes is just another one of those weirdo occultists who just go so off the rails they start denying basic logic and math. LOL
@@hurricanetortilla2477 This is genius IN context too
I cannot shake the feeling of how much "Formscapes" sounds like Eric Dubay.
Flerfdom is dead, so I wouldn't be surprised if Dubay has moved onto other psuedoscience nonsense.
I was thinking the same thing, I just couldn't bring his name to mind. Now I wish I hadn't remembered 😢.
I thought it sounded like Ben Shapiro with a voice filter
I disagree about scientific journals not being available to the general public. I have visited both public and private university libraries in the USA. As a member of the general public, I have obtained limited access to the their collections, including journals at no cost. Usually this required providing some proof of identity and the access is limited to in person ( as opposed to remote) use. I cannot say that this is generally true, but I have never been refused admittance to a university library.
I do agree that finding the pertinent material and reading the materials does require skill, but librarians exist to assist with this.
There are abuses in academic publishing, but access to materials is not impossible.
"People don't waste billions on pride" Elon Musk has entered the chat.
Elon is actually an artificial intelligence in the body of an android, so not really applicable. It must be true, considering the fact that someone said it on the internet.
Donald Trump has entered chat.
Did they kiss next?
@@dmonee6196gross. But also...hot? I'm not sure how to feel about this mental picture.
yeah, science works, but billionaires love to waste money, they're evil, these fuckers destroy the planet for profit despite knowing they live on this planet.
The difference between science and dogma is pretty clear.
Dogma - we believe x y and z because we're told to
Science - we believe x y and z because of *insert supporting empirical data*
and still most people act according to the first
The problem is most people fall into a middle group - we believe x, y, & z because we're told about *insert empirical data,*
and the quality of those beliefs depends on the people doing the telling.
Pseudoscientists lie to undermine trust in people telling real science, and bolster trust in themselves.
we don't necesarily "believe" that's the point we can refute and update our knoledge when we have an incomplete theory in a field or found new information about a process with have no mechanism before or we were not able to reach that level of precision with previous technology, but actual science does not "believe"
Because science is not beliefs but actual facts, it's different from religion where everyone can have their different beliefs but this doesn't work with science because science is based off facts.
@@darthmaul7434explain how to arrive at truth from induction
There was a time when I thought Electric Universe was legit science, but that was when all I knew about it was its name. When they started trying to describe what it was is when I stopped thinking it was legit.
It is legit science; it's just 140 years out of date.
Conspiracy bro doesn't know you can very often just email the writers of a paper you are interested in if you would like to read it without subscribing to anything
What these people doesn’t understand is that if they were right, they wouldn’t destroy science, they would be science. Ironically, the only thing that could prove science wrong is science. Scientific theories has proven other scientific theories is wrong several times. In short “Ideas that can’t prove a theory wrong, won’t prove it wrong” it is that simple.
It’s true that the only thing that can show scientific results, such as a theory wrong is science, I’d argue however that it would, in theory be possible to show that science, as in the scientific method is ”wrong” or at least flawed and that doing so would be done in the field of philosophy. And the thing is, this is happening continuously, which is lost on the science skeptic crowd. Methodology improves all the time and the very reason the scientific method now works so well for acquiring knowledge of reality is that it have been improved continuously for centuries.
Lol but don't you see the issue? "Listen to science" while scientists constantly try to prove each other wrong.. so who's correct? Who knows because scientist can't even decide.. like what is the hubble constant? Depends on who you ask lol
@@davidpayton-pb8totheres no constant and there doesn't need to be one, science never put itself as having all the answers. Howewer, you should believe the scientist who did his research using science, evidence and is backed up cause even a Nobel winner, famous and aclaimed scientist if his research isnt backed up by proof it has no scientific value.
@@davidpayton-pb8toThe scientific consensus is always the best explanation we have at the moment. There are more specific things that are still argued about, but most things are not questioned anymore by serious scientists, like the Earth not being flat
"'Listen to science' while scientists constantly try to prove each other wrong.. so who's correct?"
The one that most have failed to prove wrong is more reliable than those who have been proven wrong or not yet tested by others. I don't see how that's a problem. The answer shouldn't depend on who you ask if you simply ask what the scientific community mostly agree upon and/or has been tested most rigorously without being proven false. If scientists have yet to come to a strong consensus, then they clearly haven't figured it out yet. And that's okay! There's no shame in admitting we haven't figured things out yet.
"Science isn't Dogma, you're just stupid!" needs to be on a t-shirt.
I'd buy one for sure
@@MrDmadness ditto
I'd buy and I just commented this too before I saw this GGs
Haha, I’d put it right next to my “I fucking love science” t shirt, fellow intellectuals!
Low key abuse is stupid.
Might make you feel smug but doesn't help anything.
The way he says "the science" like it's a slur.
I just noticed in the list of video suggestions that there is a video from Formscapes named "Dear Mr. Professor Dave; Science and Scientism" dated 2 months ago. Probably (well, most likely) a desperate attempt at damage control, but could be worth watching for some laughs...
It’s even more pathetic than you imagine
@@ProfessorDaveExplains Indeed. I tried watching it but even at double speed (at normal speed it was just FAR too painful to watch) couldn't get far as I felt like my brains were leaking out of my ears from the sheer idiocy in the video.
@@juhanipolvi4729 and the comment section on Formscapes doesn't help with the argument to show how science is dogma and their favorite word of "scientism". I also wonder if some of my comments were hidden, because none of the responses there were able to answer a simple question about how science is performed globally: How would science become dogma if every country in the world has different laws, and education systems are very different?
There wasn't a "bible" or "secret document" that I had to read in secondary school and university just because I chose a computer science degree to study instead of biology, physics or chemistry. Also the scientific process can be applied to several fields, so it's not only limited to the ones that I've listed.
The idea that you can 'debunk' the natural sciences by pointing to the problem of 'value judgement' in 'social science' is beyond ridiculous and just demonstrates either ignorance, malice or both.
both, he want audience and money from them
i think thats not his point tho, he really is just trying to point out the problem of value judgement and other such problems, not debunk the whole of science
The process of debunking science is better science. It's a virtuous cycle.
@@aguspuig6615So why did he make the video about the whole of science? He very bluntly accused scientists themselves.
@@aguspuig6615 But if that was the argument, why apply it to scientific research as a general body? If it wasn't aimed at the whole of science, don't describe the whole of science as a fuckin' priesthood.
I am a researcher in MINT. Just 3min into the video, but the paywall-access to scientific research is much debated and challenged in the science community as well, up to the point that a lot of open-access initiatives have started in recent years.
And the replication crisis, faulty science and problems related to publication incentives and the like are also well known and discussed. It just happens whenever people are involved
@@loopingdope it's more that it happens when money is involved. Everyone wants their cut off the pie, and that includes whoever may have funded the research and sometimes even the journal that published it. For better or worse, money runs the world. Without that money, some or even most of the science wouldn't get done, but it does suck for the people trying to learn about it. The paper partial is the worst offender, and that at least should be removed somehow, since it really only damages the reputation of science and disillusions some people of it for what is probably a very small portion of money.
@@jameshall1300 somehow i relate all of this money-related problems to humas, as money, money-related incentive problems, institutions and whatnot are human inventions. But I understand what you mean
@@loopingdope Yeah. 50 years ago a friend of mine, doing his PhD in physics at MIT, discovered that a "fact" known in his field wasn't true. Unfortunately it wasn't an important enough fact to do a dissertation on, so he got delayed a year to work around the problem.
Before this no one tried to replicate it. There are some journals considered write only. Np one but a few people in that field read them. They tend to be the most prestigious ones.
@@jameshall1300 just my personal take, I am not in science because of money, in fact, in industry I would make a lot more money (and would have a lot more free time as well), most people would consider me quite odd for that tbh.
The "trust the science" narrative comes from the denier tendency to demand complete explanations from science supporters during argument. The denier makes a claim, when someone disputes they flip to demand them to make a counter claim, then further demands constant new clarification on the science claim. People don't have an infinite well to pull explanations out from, they eventually hit the limit of their knowledge/understanding. The Denier then uses this limit as an example of the supporter "blindly trusting the science". They additionally use the simplicity of their claim as a reason for it's correctness, "I actually know the whole answer, you only know a partial answer".
Then complete explanations aren't required? Cause that's what the whole thing is about, not who's better.
Damn, this remind me like 99.99% of my debate with theist!
They always ask 10 questions at once that require a really good understanding in biology, astronomy, geology and quantum physics to answer. And then when you decide it's finally your trun to ask them a question they don't answer, they just ask a philosophical questions instead! then ask 10 questions once more. Happen everytime!
It's really good for your personnal knowledge if you have the patience to spend a few hours of research per debate but other than that it's a waste of time, they won't listen anyway.
"People don't waste billions of dollars on pride"
well...
To be fair, people (especially the Media) tend to phrase the word *Science* completely incorrectly, as if Science is a physical material or something.
No idea whatever the guy was talking about btw.
you show your lack of understanding on everything there, it shows why you are in this comment section and probably consume most of his videos with no skepticism
That is what the guy (Formscapes) was talking about
I hate it when I'm walking around the lab, and I trip and spill my Science everywhere.
"Sciece says"
@@NeroDefogger Damn, that's a crazy assumtion to make off of a guy literally just saying "sometimes media minturprets science". If theres one thing commenters love it's getting angry at the least controversial statement possible and pretending like they know they're whole ass backstory.
“This notion that science education = indoctrination, is the most transparently idiotic narrative imaginable, exclusively peddled and believed by people who have never taken a single science course in their entire lives”
That is the most succinct way I’ve ever heard that put.
Tell me you’ve never taken biochem without telling me you’ve never taken biochem
@@levprotter1231idk about the OP, or Dave, but I agree with them and you’re right, I’ve never taken biochem.
And? What are you trying to say here? Are all biochem classes indoctrination? If this is your claim, could you elaborate on it? What are you even arguing for?
ALL education = indoctrination. The Jesuits quoted Aristotle “Give me a child until he is 7 and I will show you the man.”
Bravo!!!!😅
@@memeswithcringe1624I thinks he’s referring to the kind of viewer formscapes attracts.
sounds like a bunch of sour grapes by someone who attempted to get a BS paper published and was laughed out of every office he took it to.
That reminds me so starkly how I speak to my elementary school child, how I can’t play with them instead of working, so we have something to eat and somewhere to live.
I know you really enjoy making educational content and I love to see it but the little goblin inside my brain loves your debunk/dunking content
So, would you say you have a mind goblin?
@@simone6090 Ahem, hgghmmm -cough -cough ... What's mind goblin?
@@miroslavzderic3192 MIND GOBLIN DEEZ NUTS! _spontaneously combusts_
@@clem-lv2rw 🗿
@@clem-lv2rwgot him
I find it interesting how so many of these characters try to classify science as "religious dogma", or an "elite priesthood", or "beliefs", or any number of other terms and phrases with religious roots, insinuating it's BAD. Yet when it really comes down to it many of them are doing this to support their position on "creation" or another belief (although many avoid saying it now). It's interesting how much they try to suggest that science is like a religion in order to discredit science. If they were successful, wouldn't that be undermining their own position too? (they won't be successful, but it's a funny position to take). (insert photo of a guy on a ladder cutting off the tree branch which is holding up his ladder.)
Yup. Don’t believe science because it’s too much like this non-objective, baseless belief system we have, so you should believe in that non-objective, baseless belief system instead. Great logic! Cognitive Dissonance? What’s that?
He's right. It's a modern day religion
They only understand religion thats why they think everyone else thinks like that.
@@billballinger5622 Are you by any chance on the same page as us? What we can define as "religion" is precisely a socio-cultural system based on supernatural, transcendental, and spiritual phenomena.
You are free to point out that science is creating a socio-cultural system robust enough to dictate the ethics and morals of humanity and make it clear that you don't like it. But claiming that science is equivalent to religion simply doesn't hold water, because unlike the latter, science has evidence and can be measured.
@@mayconlcruzI think that is the idea that the video; and most of that crowd, was trying to get across. I don't think they're saying that science is a mythology that requires faith, it's metaphor. I think their point is more about not blindly trusting the officials, bureaucrats, and media who tell us what the data says as opposed to not trusting the process and practice of science. Chemists have no reason to lie to you about the possible side effects of a new drug and will tell you everything about it. The board of faceless and unaccountable corpos who just want to sell as much as possible have every incentive to say it's safe and whisper the part about the risks if they can't just bury it. And the marketing and media department will push it happily.
A lot are peddling spiritual garbage (like this guy), but the big problem is the kernel of truth they build their lies on and the fact that most people just will not take the time to look at academic literature and delve into the studies themselves. Scientific literacy is worse than literacy literacy, and that's saying something.
This guy definitely subscribes to the Ben Shapiro school of discussion, talk fast and use as many big words as you can squeeze in to make it sound like you know what you're are talking about without giving ample time for people to think too deeply about what he is saying. I'm sure there's a lot of crossover in their audiences.
"Science isn't dogma, you're just stupid."
There's a bumper sticker for ya.
23:21 "Those who are well-informed and well-educated believe certain things. I do not believe such things, because I am neither well-informed nor well-educated."
glad you got here before me, LOL. yes, being "well-informed and well-educated" ARE signifiers which can contribute to "social respectability". Perhaps he'd prefer to surround himself with "poorly informed" and "poorly educated"? What I found ironic is that in describing them he effectively concedes the "well"... "well-informed" and "well-educated". No rebuttal required, thanks!
This exact video showed up in my feed recently and angered me beyond comprehension. I am so glad to see you responding to it now. Thank you, Dave.
Well, I suppose it's comforting at least that a few of the tens of thousands of people who watched it aren't morons and just watching out of curiosity!
I think the worst part of the video is the very beginning, because it tells a VERY different argument as to what the entirety of the video was about. I thought it was going to be a good video about how scientific research is biased towards the wealthy and how fame/money drives people into making false claims (although this is technically how science has been since the beginning with few exceptions making the title misleading), when in the end it was some made up BS about how supposedly pro establishment modern day science is and how its against anything new that goes against pre established theories in such a layered and lengthened rhetoric it's confusing to logically pick up on the flaws in his arguments, or to even understand them which is intended because his argument is terrible. Was an enormous waste of time watching half of that video, so glad to see Dave debunk it.
@cosmidia8396 I may have to go over to the video just to peruse the comments. If for nothing else, a sick addiction to seeing others ignorance and how they justify it.
@@tortoisewarrior4855how do new theories go against pre-established theories? How could someone acknowledge the possibility of unknowns if you fail to adequately explore the implications of other theories. Any testing that is done, especially on ESP can’t start with the assumption that it is repeatable by anyone or that every tester will genuinely explore the possibilities or even not intentionally fudge their results to ruin the reputation of anyone who took it seriously. What is an adequate control for something like this, someone who has no place in their beliefs for something like this will never admit that there was no trick involved no matter how secure they make their experiment.
Formscapes is technically correct in saying "there will always be false positives", but that is why STATISTICAL ANALYSIS EXISTS. Oh and scientists do their best to isolate variables and combine that with statistics and hypothesis testing, confidence intervals, and data regression to form a probable conclusion. A common practice is p < 0.05, although you can do p < 0.01 or even p
I saw that formscape video in my recommendation and easily ignored it thinking the title was stupid already. Glad to see I didn't have to waste my time.
Holy shit it's Bocchi the Box.
“Glad to see someone I consider smart agrees with the preconceived notion I had from the thumbnail of the video I didn’t even watch”
The jokes write themselves with you epic heckin science Redditors lol
@@hi-zg8zc I consider smart.... you are making the assumption I even knew who Professor Dave even was. Which I didn't.
Also what matters if I didn't watch the original video? The dude literally shows it here anyway. You watch this video you get both anyway. Who doesn't like to save time?
As for preconceived notions... Science even when proven wrong isn't an opinion. As it will always be updated to be as correct as possible. That's just a fact.
@@BocchiTheBox it kind of is in a lot of scenarios. during Covid, doctors who were seeing evidence of things contrary to “the science” (i.e. Fauci, by his own admission, said the 6 ft rule came out of nowhere) were silenced, and still are. my personal friend was forced by his job to take the vaccine, and now has inflammatory arthritis because of it.
not to mention the fact that scientists are only judged on how many citations they have, so they stick their names on everything they can get their hands on. not to also mention the many studies/papers from notable “scientists,” which were so fake that it is laughable, that we are seeing slowly be exposed. see: Francesca Gino, Claudine Gay, Marc Tessier-Lavigne, and the many more that are just waiting for their turn.
@@BocchiTheBox the truth is that “science” has become a religion to a lot of people, whether you want to believe it or not.
8:17 man, I didn't believe him at first, but now that he put a meme on screen, I do think he has a point.
yes, memes are always convlusive 🤣
that's how you know he's COOL and HIP and WINNING THE ARGUMENT
"While your science is sound Mr. Bond, it's too late. I've already drawn you as the wojak and me as the chad."
@@michaelvelez902 just as long as it isn't centrifugal force
“heres some stuff we did, toss it on the pile of human knowledge” sounds so cool
It’s so accurate, too! That’s genuinely how I feel whenever I finish a report. 😂
That’s my life goal tbh
That's how we came this far. Someone just found some knowledge and they toss it to our evergrowing pile of knowledge
Next step is someone looking through the pile ...oooh this looks interesting and in combination with this folder we can do something completely amazing... or so mundane that we start asking ourselves why nobody thought of this sooner.
Formscapes suffers from the all-too common delusion, "if I don't have a satisfying explanation for this, then a satisfying explanation must not exist."
Tigers learning to use firearms would be a very serious development...
Indeed.
Sri Lanka had Tamil Tigers and allegedly gorilla fighters. Remember the famous golfer Leopard Woods.
I could see elephants doing it
I keep seeing that "How Science became unscientific " video come up on my feed. I kept assuming it was going to be about how charlatans kept coopting science by putting feelings before facts... I didn't expect it to BE a charlatan putting feelings before facts.
Just out of curiosity, did you conclude that from this reaction to the video or the actual video by formscapes?
@CeruleanMuun that's the best you can do lol
but yeah it's pretty clear who's actually the one w/ an agenda and manipulation tactics here
@@flynnferal5878 What do you mean "best you could do"? I was asking a genuine question.
@@CeruleanMuun ah, I'd assumed it was some attempt at a defense for the original. jumped the gun, I'm sorry
What saddens me about people like this is their relative eloquence, and overall understanding of "conveying the impression of being educated and wise". They've clearly put a LOT of energy into this. They're being methodical. But so insanely wrong. It must be such hard work being so energetically ignorant all the time...
He seemed eloquent but annoying for the first few minutes I had watched… I failed to recognize that Formscapes was trying to discredit science just because it’s revised. I constantly have to explain that it is impossible to study things in any meaningful sense without revising your ideas as new evidence is found.
@@darkstarr984 There is a significant portion of people who pine for an unchanging, simple world they can thoroughly understand and predict.
Well, tough: the world isn't that way and we all have to deal with it.
Heck, even religious doctrine is full of contradictions, dubious translations. redacted and lost texts, forgotten contexts, and so on - not to mention competing religions.
this guy reminds me of ben shapiro. he just uses big words hoping that his audience won’t understand half of what he says and just accept the other half as fact because they think he’s smart
one thing about science deniers, I think, a lot of them were homeschool kids who were told they're special and their world view is unique and is the Main Quest of the entire universe. When a science denier is legit and not just a conman, they tend to be people implicitly complaining that they were denied the basic privileges that most other people got in highschool... and have rolled that up into a self-serving conspiracy theory to justify that "I am special, but I am actually held back by the system"
and to some extent that feeling would be partially right, because they were held back by the system's lack of control in some aspects of society... and the system yields little to no accountability for loosing people in the cracks and its allowance for fringe beliefs targeted at parents and children. and that person is 'special' in the sense that they probably have the ability to learn science, but had no access to it, and thus to alleviate the feeling of underprivilege they now lean on antisocial ideas which they have easy access to, which are much easier to learn and 'own'.
“People don't waste billions of dollars for pride. Period.”
Yes. Yes they do.
I think you are missing the point.
people don't waste billions on experiments they know are bunk for pride. stop misquoting him. the actual quote would be:
"People don't waste billions of dollars [in science] for pride. Period." those [square brackets] are used for context.
If their next paycheck depends on their work, no, they never do
Elon musk?
@@Mrfunny663vnb83 Feel free to give an example where he has wasted billions in science for pride.
I know it's nothing new but this whole, "Scientists are dogmatic because they don't believe I can communicate telepathically with my cat," routine is so exhausting.
scientists are dogmatic because they don't believe that my cat is conspiring to kill me and everyone else in england
Of course it's dogmatic.. you have to telepathically communicate with your DOG, not your cat. That's a silly mistake.
@@Consciousness_of_Reality what is it we are talking about?
moreover what are you talking about, clearly a very different thing
@@TimoRutanen ayy lmao
@@Consciousness_of_Reality >"Do science actually understands consciousness"
No, science do not. That said, there's very good reason to conclude that human cognition requires a physical substrate and is electrochemical in nature.
>"How can you dismiss something which you know nothing about?"
Because my priors indicate that nobody has ever made a credible claim regarding telepathy and so, I will dismiss such claims until someone gives me reason to update my perspective in terms of compelling evidence for telepathy. I'm confused by why this perspective confuses anyone.
The Ben-Shapiro-style delivery just makes it worse.
I'm glad there are people like you, who can express so clearly, what most scientific people (at least me) can only think but not phrase in a way that makes it clear, that those people have no idea about how the universe works, whatsoever. And also no idea how to evolve theories correctly.
The assertion that science is dogmatic is pure projection. Such people -- and I've run into a few -- witness the passion, vehemence, and (sometimes) arrogance of scientists, and subconsciously graft their own dogmatism and authoritarianism onto them.
No, what you are describing there is religion. Science is what happens when you do your best to overturn what we already know. In the course of that, we have found some answers which are closer to correct than a lot of "Ancient Wisdom", and that upsets some people.
I don't understand how anyone can take the position you have after we have seen so many things like the plate-tectonics debacle throughout the 20th century.
In contemporary times its the witch-hunt level of drivel coming out of climate science.
I love how he complains about a Replication Problem within science, but every single "experiment" done outside of mainstream science can never be repeated ever; the steps are never even given on how to do it in a coherent way.
Most science is done with very expensive and very specialized equipment more often than not.
Anything not is usually something you'd just do in high-school
Some nutters do have experiments that you can replicate. The ones I've seen are, however, either flawed or require a misunderstanding to draw the conclusion they do.
My favorite is the one where they test whether moonlight has a cooling effect.
By placing an object in the open during the night and placing the same object beneath some form of cover.
Then they measure the temperature, see that the one in the open is cooler and declare they are right. While not even trying to consider other factors, possible sources of error or ways to improve the experiment.
That's not even getting into how their hypothesis is so vague it wouldn't be acceptable for a high school science project.
In fact they are ALWAYS given.
@@ZealotOfStealmoonlight does not have a cooling effect, a lack of cloud cover does due to latent heat.
@@DaysofKnight This isn't quite correct. it has to read "most NEW science is done...". The stuff you do in Highschool or at home with relatively cheap equipment is still science, if you do it right. it's just that you won't be the first to do it, cause all the low fruit have been picked by now. And since there's probably more amateurs doing science at home and in school, as a percentage most of all science is probably done by relative laymen. The vast majority of actual NEW discoveries however come indeed out of Labs.
"People don't waste billions of dollars for pride. Period"
*glances at Twitter*
Weeeell....
Basically, Science became "unscientific" when it doesn't conform to religious, political, or idealistic preferences.
And yet, it became "political" to folks when it verified things that exist outside of their... political dogma. Which is ironic and dumb.
"If I redefine what science is to fit my beliefs about science, my beliefs make much more sense"
This comment is amazing
I can still hear my Jesuit math/biology teacher Father F yelling, 'SHOW YOUR WORK!' Some prople are just so far down the rabbit hole that there is no more light.
unironically, cool story Bro.
i mean damn
what is jesuit?? if it's a spelling error, i aint mocking (just curious, never heard of it!)
@@cewla3348 It's one of the many flavors of Catholicism
@@cewla3348 A Jesuit is a member of the Society of Jesus, which is a Catholic religious order that while also engaging in evangelizing specializes in education.
@@poweroftheztars or mis-education if we’re being honest
"Science isn't Dogma"
Until it is treated as such by those who simply repeat what they are told without exercising due diligence and research into what the science actually says. Yes, "science" in the sense of the way the culture and politicians can weaponize it, can be Dogmatic. Science, the tool and base of knowledge that tool helps us to generate, when used properly, isn't Dogma.
Take a shot every time he says "The science" you'll be dead before the first 30 minutes
is your username comics lab or comic slab
"Unobservable entities like black holes"
Um... we observed one just a few years back. Was global news.
@@spracketskooch yeah that's what I'm eluding to. Obviously you can't exactly observe one directly, currently, but you can indeed observe it indirectly, which for most generic purposes is the same thing.
It may actually be possible to observe one since it was discovered that they do actually release hawking radiation (rip) so potentially we may be able to observe one directly, just lack the technology to do so as far as I'm aware.
It was previously thought that nothing escaped a black hole, so as you said, it was previously thought true that you could never see one directly. However, since said discovery, things have changed somewhat.
Yeah that part left me cracking up 😂 Genuinely shocked anyone can say that with a straight face
No we didn't. Pretty stellar example of all of this. That was a huge PC shitshow as well.
@@shannonbarber6161 If what you're saying is that we didn't observe one, you're wrong, just in a way. While we didn't actually get a photo of the black hole itself (that's literally impossible), we got a picture of the accretion disk iirc around one. We've observed the phenomenon.
@@shannonbarber6161 yes we did, that’s a blatant lie
Literally the entire point of the scientific pursuit is an endless cycle of fact-checking each other to the cutting edge of knowledge.
The entire point of pseudoscience, in contrast, is to "Yes, and-" each other into dizzying new levels of fractal madness.
Exactly! This is why there was so much push back on the C-vaccy - We skipped that "endless cycle of fact-checking" (or at least about 3-5 years of human trials normally required for new medication) to promote a dogmatic belief that it is safe, effective, and necessary for everyone to take regardless of other immunity status.
Information is now coming to light that it might have harmed more than it helped, and excess deaths are still way above normal.
Bring back real science! Fact-checking is required!
Soooo, string theory? lol
And the biggest problem is also to actually be scientific and actually check the facts.
Do you know that plagiarism isn't a crime? In the US it isn't a crime, but a moral issue. A lot of researchers plagiarize others and their own work all the time. They fabricate data and just make stuff up. They can even try to force the result they want by using stuff like P-hacking. There is a massive incentive for researchers to fake their data because they use a publish or perish model. You must write papers to advance in your career, and you do not want to have spent the past 6 months to 2 years to find out that you achieved nothing as nothing match your hypothesis. And no on cares about a paper that prove the null hypothesis. If you want a tenure position, and therefore job security, you have to publish papers often.
The reason we do not hear about this is because Universities choose to handle issues such as fraud and plagiarism behind closed doors. It was intended to be a way for Science to police itself, but in practice it is just a way for a University to sweep things under the rug until people have stopped caring about it.
If you think that Science is self-correcting and built on always finding the truth, you are naive. It might be that in theory, but in practice it isn't. If you actually understand what science is you understand this.
Communism is in theory supposed to produce a equal and efficient society. In practice however it always become a inefficient, dictatorial society that constantly tramples on human rights.
There is a good reason why trust in Science has fallen as of late. It isn't because we are stupid. We have literally been fed lies for 3 years that has been proven false when science said it was proven fact.
@@BionicBurke Not really, no.
Yeah no. I love to explain exactly how naive that perspective is, but CZcams have already censored me once on this very comment. Fact is, that what you said isn't true. That is how it works in theory, but not in practice.
Comparing academic journal publication to Netflix is disingenuous, since they are entirely different business models. You bringing it up as a quick "gotcha" moment is doing the exact same sort of bad-faith argument that you're trying to combat.
Netflix either A) pays for the production of its own shows or B) pays the creators of the shows for the permission to watch them, as well as C) has insane distribution costs due to the high bandwidth requirements of video.
An academic journal A) does not pay for production of science (contrary to your implication at 6:22), B) does not pay the creators of the paper for the distribution rights (and ABSOLUTELY requires payment from the author), and C) has negligible distribution costs due to the low file-sizes of text and low demand for downloads. Ever since journals stopped being in print, the costs and risks assumed by the publishers is essentially zero.
End-stage PhD student here: You're bang on the money. I never got paid for peer-reviewing a paper, I had to pay to publish my own research, and so I am left wondering what peer reviewed journals actually do other than hosting a couple web servers and hunting down people to do peer review for free. It's a racket!
@@krazoe6258but the science guy mocking the other anti science guy says that doesn't happen.
@@krazoe6258 The fees are irrelevant pocket change. The time taken to perform a study, to quality check it internally and to have it finally written up costs 100x times as much as those trivial pocket change fees. Being a former scientist with a PhD, i vehemently disaggree with your position. Publishing is easy and it is essentially cost free. It is easy, because when you do your work properly and cleanly, you have something substantial to write about and it will get accepted. And it is cost free, because the nominal admission fee is like 0,01% of the total expenditure that it took to generate the results. And for a tiny amount of money more, I can make access to my paper free. Something that I always paid extra for. Seriously, of you can`t aford that, just flip burgers at McDonalds for a week or two...
No, the real problem to science is the paywall behind getting access to scientific papers. When doing my work properly, I need to read up on past and current work, totaling hundreds of papers. That`s many, many thousands of dollars per publication. We are talking about the equivalent of several months of lab funding getting wasted here. When working at a university, these costs get abstracted away into overhead, but working from anywhere else, this is a significant barrier to entry. I usually solve this by teaming up with a professor at a university. This has benefits, but also draw-backs...
@@thegrimharvest it absolutely does. Journals and the peer review process are sometimes very flawed and often monolithic blocks in the current scientific community that often act contrary to the ideal of the scientific method. Especially in the soft sciences, there are many peer reviewers and journals that will publish virtually anything that agrees with their personal opinion.
if i remember right somebody published multiple papers on feminism where he quoted entire passages of "mein kampf" where he replaced jews with men and aryans with women and it not only got peer-reviewed but also published without issue.
Except they are paying someones bills no different tyan netflix. And thats the point of companies within a capitalist market. Working as designed.
As a grad student in theoretical physics and currently in a GR lab, you have no IDEA just how much beef there is between general relativity researchers. “No skepticism allowed” buddy even the experts are skeptical of each other. And that’s great! It’s encouraged so long as you can back yourself up! Sometimes that’s what conferences are for!
Also lol’ing at this guy whining about dark matter. Get him in a MOND lab immediately
I love that everything they say is kinda accurate, but blown way out of proportion. Scientists are humans and have all the fallibilities of humans? Yes. Which is why we try to disprove our own ideas, subject them to prepublication peer review, subject them to post publication peer review, etc.
Sure, sometimes the blindspots have blindspots, but every step of the process is designed to sus out those issues. Whatever your friend publishes is not dogma you must follow.
What's even more ironic, is that it's actually the propagation of pseudoscience that is politically motivated, since an uneducated and unthinking populace makes for more reliable voters to some politicians.
*all politicians
Which exposes a huge flaw in such democracies. Voting rights need to be contingent on a reasonable threshold of intelligence and knowledge, and a very low susceptibility to suggestion and delusion. When vast groups consistently vote against their own interests, something fundamental clearly needs to change.
@@anhedonianepiphany5588
"Democracy is for the people.. by the people.. But.. the people are retarded."
@@anhedonianepiphany5588I can see your idea both going in a great direction and a terrible direction. It's a good idea to try and make a reasonable criteria that people need to reach to show, for example, that they aren't susceptible to propaganda to be able to vote, but a test that determines intellect through IQ, for example, to be able to vote could be really bad. Poorer neighbourhoods which are heavily underfunded don't receive good education, so it might end up excluding a huge portion of poorer people from voting. Considering the past effects of red-lining taking away funding from racial minorities, this would also hurt some black neighbourhoods that don't have good access to education as well. Potential tests for the eligibility of voting would need to be determined very carefully, as it could easily go in a concerning direction and exclude the wrong people.
@@shadow14805 You’re absolutely right. Determining the appropriate criteria and methods of assessment would be terribly problematic, for the reasons you’ve stated and many more, unfortunately.
I absolutely need a T-shirt with "Science isn't dogma, you're just stupid."
Lots of services that will print a custom T-shirt for you. Go for it!
Prof Dave, the phrase "trust the science" is also a favourite mantra of politicians as well as deniers. There's undoubtedly a correlation between the two, I just haven't done any research on it.
I get disgusted when I see our politicians talk about trusting the science while simultaneously ignoring and misrepresenting the science to seem like their agenda is justified by “evidence”.
Science is dogma...
Dogma nuts