Brian Cox: How Can We Trust the Objectiveness of Science?
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 6 май 2022
- This week I spoke to Prof. Brian Cox, live from his hotel room in Toronto where he’s on tour. We talked about the importance of understanding the cosmos, how science plays out in politics. #BrianCox #Pandemic #Covid
Go See Brian Live: briancoxlive.co.uk/
Get tickets for my 2022 tour here: bit.ly/33_2022
Join Our Community HERE: www.russellbrand.com/join
To listen, subscribe to the Luminary Channel on Apple Podcasts at apple.co/russell or on the Luminary app luminary.link/russell
For meditation and breath work, subscribe to my side-channel:
/ awakeningwithrussell
My Weekly meditation podcast, Above the Noise, is available now on Apple & Luminary
apple.co/meditate
luminary.link/meditate
FOOTBALL IS NICE is my free, weekly, full-length podcast - subscribe here: / footballisnicerussellb...
Rumble:
rumble.com/c/russellbrand
Locals:
russellbrand.locals.com/
The problem with the last three years with “science” is that we weren’t allowed to question or critique what the “science” was dictating. As he stated, “its constantly evolving” yet people were ridiculed and canceled for actually using reasoning and questioning what didn’t make sense.
This has been going on for centuries. It’s so scary because what they’re lying about is so important. They’re hiding what matters because they hate what matters, they love transgressing so the idea of God is completely offensive to them.
Yes!
They did not go through proper scientific procedure to come up with a solution.
The real problem was the internet and the people that are allowed to go on there. It's generally accepted that 80% of the Western World has the intelligence and critical aptitude of a 14 year old b grade student. And some people are reasonably charismatic and con others (R Brand). This is the problem. I mean, whenever Brand goes on and on about believing in God, he automatically gets a shrug from the unbelievers, and a BIG WHOPPING WELCOME from the religious fanatics out there from all walks of life, ESPECIALLY THE USA...Pathertic if you ask me...
I don't remember Brian Cox querying anything during lockdowns. It's fairly self-evident that science is never settled except when it's Climate Change and then it is as far as Brian Cox is conscerned.I don't rate him at all.I think to believe scientist are some sort of separate breed of 'honest brokers' is crazy..
1. The scientific method, I trust.
2. Independent scientists, I usually trust.
3. Scientists with an ideology or financial dependency, I do not trust.
Most scientists we hear from come from this last group, and they have done science a great disservice.
That's why the genuine ones have had to move 'underground'..
Dr. Milo Wolff has found the structure of the electron consisting of two spherical quantum waves, one moving radially outward and another moving radially inward. The center of the waves is the nominal location of the electron 'particle'. These waves extend infinitely, like charge force. All 'particle' waves mix and contribute to each other, thus all matter of the universe is interrelated by this intimate connection between the fundamental 'particles' and the universe. The natural laws are a direct consequence of this Wave Structure of Matter (WSM), thus WSM underlies all of science.
spaceandmotion
I can assure you, cigarettes do not cause cancer. in fact, they're actually good for you. - Scientists at Phillip Morris
Why trust any of them? Use a free logical critical discerning thought path and you will never have to believe again? It is the route to freedom. Best wishes.
@@jimmycorkhill1390 Without indepth knowledge of the subject at hand, your own critical, discerning thought path is pointless bar from protecting your own ego.
@@jimmycorkhill1390 It is not a question of trusting 'them', but of trusting that there is such a thing as 'truth', because without it Humanity is finished..
Love Brian Cox!
Thank you for demonstrating "intellectual hospitality". I also don't agree with you on everything, but am so very grateful that you and others are trying to showcase respectful conversations with people of differing views. Please stay safe and keep up the pursuit of the Truth
The saddest thing about the last couple of years is , everyone who wanted to talk about the science and how it related to keeping people safe didn’t have a chance to discuss anything unless you first agreed with the governments plan . Even the professional people that said “I don’t know if the governments plan is the only way to go , We need to look at all the information and discuss what’s best for everyone, not only the vulnerable but for everyone “ they were called anti government and if you disagreed your a conspiracy theorist . It’s like the government stopped even pretending to do the right thing . Now it’s just shut up and do what we tell you . So sad
Thanks for watching send a direct*
message right away I will love to hear your*
thoughts on it and for more enlightenment👆❤️**
Absolutely! Especially when Dr Death states categorically "I am Science". That statement alone proves he either knows nothing about science.... Or he doesn't even care!?
You can't trust Brian cox
@@user-wr1sz6se3q
WARNING! This is a fake, phishing message, posing as Russell Brand, or his team.
Beware, it is a hoax.
@@keithdon3313 i like the way you think. Neither can you trust the pilgrim/traveler Russel Brand.
Having spent more than a decade studying scientifically, I can say with some certainty that where money is involved it isnt scientific. Same applies when a government is involved. Science is about understanding the facts, whether you like them or not. Science, research, statistical analysis, and politics, are all different things not to be confused with each other or trusted blindly. Science is a discipline, a methodology that leads to the truth whatever that may be, and contains the risk of being proved wrong as much as proved right.
The problem is that people harp too much these days on "facts". The truth is that the vast majority of the "facts" of today will be nothing more than the errors of the past in a few generations, maybe a paragraph or footnote in some high schooler's textbook. This has always been the case, we didn't even know of the existence of DNA until the 1950's. Think about that for a moment. Almost the entirety of biology has been rewritten since then, and the previous theories turned out to be so wrong they might as well have been written in crayon. This will continue to happen as our capabilities and understanding broaden, and we will make discoveries that render our past understanding obsolete. THAT is science. A true scientist realizes that they are making new discoveries, and progressing our understanding of the world, but knows that they are only inching towards the truth, but that they will never be able to truly reach it. When we harp too much on "facts" we end up with things like the Ministry of Truth, or the Disinformation Agency.
Money is ALWAYS involved. Scientist here.
The Jocks are still stealing the Nerds lunch money and still stuffing them in their High School lockers. Some things never change. The Nerds aren't the Alpha males in our Big Tech World.
Anything you trust, can and will be used against you in order to control you. Power has used Authoritarianism, and occasionally bribes (CERN large Hadron Collider anyone) to keep the Scientists in line, and to not publicly counter any narrative when "Power" tells the people that they must "Trust the Science".
I don't agree. I'm sorry your experiences proved different than mine. I too worked in a major university's lab and both PhD researchers running experiments were every bit as anti gov as anyone else. When we start reading in the texts of appeals for funds that we all swear fealty to this party or that then I would agree. As a seasoned researcher and scientist it is certainly clear that researchers themselves are in control of what grant (s) they pursue. There are more than a few different types of grants that provide some flexibility and may be more compatible with the discipline and specific investigation proposed in the request. Not denying that government funds are currently in crisis, thanks to hillbillies like Trump, as are repeatability of results when looking at certain types of "research". Unfortunately the outstanding values and morals of the most successful ( read influential) corporations are gradually positioning themselves to owe every citizen of this country a year's living wage due to class action lawsuits lol. Can't wait actually.
@@mhite3582 Yeah No.
You are dealing with Wise and Wicked people. None of them are so dumb as to demand your absolute loyalty in return for funding.
They use your sense of honour and pride to keep you in line. They whisper sweet nothings in your ear, but if you don't give them the result they want they will simply ignore you and fund someone who will give them the desired results.
You know the drill but what else can you do but deliver for the money?
You couldn't get more mainstream than Cox. Two people you absolutely shouldn't trust having a conversation about trust.
That doesn't seem very objective? You're automatically dismissing because they're "mainstream"
@@LukeDurrant
Very observant of you.
Spot on mate, thank you
@@Martin-oz6lr Isn't it obvious? If it's a guy in a lab, whose work is well regarded by his peers...he can be disregarded. On the other hand, if it's a jebrony talking into a webcam on Facebook....clearly this is the cold hard truth. I don't know why Luke doesn't understand this.
@@HolyCanoley
Well regarded by a bunch of hand picked yes men. The guy's a parrot 🦜
Russ , I need you to show more positive stories about succesful alternatives. I think you do a great job of showing the problems we face. There is so much being done in terms of alternatives and spaces of more fair and equal communities and initiatives. Show it to us so we can know what to do with the power and choice we have.
"if you go back 3 years we had no knowledge of this virus" 🤔
"The best thing about science is we never admit we are right" 🤔
"Science is not going to tell you what to do" 🤔
I think Brian has had his head planted firmly in the sand regarding the pandemic.
Science is an act of investigation and observation. There is no "right" in science, only best guesses. Of course the rule-makers in government will act on those best guesses (as they should), but that doesn't mean they will act appropriately, logically, or not look stupid when the next best guess changes the picture entirely.
We are in agreement, though where the pharmaceutical industry is concerned, it's not clear to me where science ends and politics/profit begins. You only have to look at how much the pharma companies have paid out in settlements to see that. The idea that the scientific method can't be corrupted is naive at best. It's far easier for a physicist to see the scientific method in such a binary way
Dr Anthony fauci himself said that "an attack on me is an attack on the science" I'd very much like to hear what Brian has to say about that but I'd hazard a guess that he wouldn't go there
From Tony Blair to the BBC, from Switzerland to the Royal Society, he even has a obe or cbe or something... he is an establishment mouthpiece through and through.
100%. "Science" DID tell people what to do..."Take the jab or lose your job", "Close down your restaurant or get fined", etc. If those dictates aren't "stone tablets" I don't know what would be.
Did he live through the same pandemic that I did? I heard the opposite of what he just said.
As someone with a Science background, the last two and a half years have made me despondent. Not only the teaching of scientific information has been vastly undertaught to society (The Scientific Enlightenment should be seen as part of our shared cultural heritage) but even practitioners of Science and those baring its name, could not either understand, deploy or convey the principles of skeptical enquiry. How are we going to respond to the even greater threats that we'll face this century?
But it was about money, nothing to
do with science. We’re having the wrong debate.
We will respond reflexivly to the modernisation of society through risk. See Beck and Giddens for further details.
Truthruclips.net/video/7CVX3veExNo/видео.html
Science my legssss
Truthruclips.net/video/7CVX3veExNo/видео.html 🤣
Really important people understand the scientific process as it gives us the best understanding of the world that we have. Thanks for sharing
Exactly. Questioning science is important, but how its questioned is even more important.
Science is a process of repeatedly observing and testing falsifiable theories to find the best answer we can possibly come up with at the time.
If youre not questioning science with more science then you might as well not question it at all. Because otherwise youre just cherry picking anecdotal evidence to support your ideas.
Brian is the BBC’s science poster boy. Even the scientists weren’t allowed to question “the science”
At the government level, it is more about money and power. Dr. Fauci is a perfect example of this exact scenario. As many have observed, in order to even contact him you have to go through his publicist. Until we get big money out of politics, there will be no way to absolutely trust what anyone is government says.
I make short funny news edits mocking the pandemic and pointing out the lies and hypocrisy from mainstream media, ever since I lost my job because of the mandate, so have a look if you want
TRUTHruclips.net/video/wh9Aa6_8LJ0/видео.html 🤣.
TRUTHruclips.net/video/wh9Aa6_8LJ0/видео.html 🤣
Well stated FACTS
Can you imagine what would happen if you didn't have to go through his publicist? The guy's not just going to hand out his phone number, is he.
When even Brian Cox is incapable of discussing this topic sufficiently, you know everyone's screwed. This is what made Sagan better at this than anyone else. He was not just a scientist, and he was not just a great communicator. He was also an expert-level political philosopher with policy experience. He knew history as well as any historian, and he understood political science and bureaucratic processes very deeply. None of the modern day science communicators have these necessary skills to nearly the same extent.
@David Williamson I guess you didn't understand me. I didn't say I couldn't understand him, I said he didn't discuss the topic in sufficient detail. He oversimplified, omitted, and obfuscated multiple times either intentionally or from ignorance.
@David Williamson He’s full of Sh#te.
@David Williamson The last thing I would construe is that Chris couldn't understand Brian Cox.
I'm not sure what you're thinking. This is certainly the last channel where people should be randomly bashing others.
Seti was amazing......CS huge list of what needed for life to exist on other planets has reduced and reduced ans reduced ......to nothing. Our planet is a miracle.
Rubbish! Check out Dr Andrew Kaufman, Dr Tom Cowan, Dr Amandha Vollmer, they will express it very clearly in simple easy to understand terms. Best wishes.
I think Brian was living on a different planet the last 2 years
A great deal of scientists performing “science,” were giving opinions on research that never happened, and evidence that didn’t exist. We learned a very hard lesson these last few years. Scientists are easily bought.
The pandemic was a good example where science and politics did NOT meet??? Come on Brian! I mean holy hell!
The guy is a liar.
@@armchairquarterback2672 maybe he is just naive:)
Right, maybe the next Fauci-in-waiting
this guy is a goddamned clown.
@@armchairquarterback2672 he is owned and blinkered
Brian Cox is one of them, he's always talked down to anyone who believes anything that goes against the mainstream narrative.
No he doesn't. You just choose to be offended.
Absolutely right he's no more than a shill for the establishment
@@tommykempo8962 How is he a shill? Did you not listen to what he said? He said that scientists do the research and politicians and people of power use the information given by scientists to mislead or control the public when the scientists haven't even finished doing their studies? Where was he acting like a shill?
@@norbitcleaverhook5040 Get woke somewhere else candy brain.
@@norbitcleaverhook5040 I've listened to that fool plenty of times he's an establishment shill total grifter don't be sucked in
With all due respect, Brian: Scientists always claim they're right. And, many, mock anyone who disagrees because they question the amount of data or the veracity of the data. Especially when the source is suspect.
I'm not saying you're wrong, but it certainly shouldn't be that way.
A scientist will always say they want to be proven wrong because it will make the solution closer. So this comment is wrong. If you’ve heard someone say this who claims to be a scientist .. then you were not listening to a scientist, you were listening to someone itching for an ego boost
@@MagnerCarter Exactly. Which can't be said about religious nutjobs.
Hey Russ, I know this isn't relevant to this video, but I loved your show in Glasgow on the 9th (May), and as ever I continue to appreciate your efforts to waken as many people as you can.
People like yourself make this one-time misanthrope proud to be a member of the human race.
Namaste, brother.
It's a safe position to have when one is essentially blaming tyranny on confusion. Many of those who had power abused it. Many took advantage of our situation rather than improve it. We don't just require hard data we require logic and rational. None of that had center stage during the pandemic and it has only gotten worse since.
I so agree with you. Common sense went out the door. At the beginning of the pandemic new one knew anything and was still learning. After the first few months, you knew you couldn't trust WHO and later the CDC. Then It came about control.
They did present the data at the time, they told you what they were doing, they also told lies too to confuse.....but they will be able to replay the bits when they told you the truth. Best wishes.
#TåxBøycött.... stop funding the fascist gøvernmènts......
Føöls just gonna keep trusting the gôvęrnment until their prønoūns are was/wėre....... 🤪 .🤒. 😵. ☠
Peace, power and freedom to all.....
They presented their chosen data at the time, it was specifically selected to align with their wishes and they denounced any conflicting data even if the conflicting data had far better efficacy. Clearly that was an abuse of power with the deliberate aim of subjugating the people and withholding relevant information.
@@Jake12220 We see the world differently. The system is set up to control the herd, they make the rules and so cannot be in abuse of power. No amount of complaining will set you free. Best wishes.
This is insane, we didn’t see science in action, we saw science TM being miss appropriated by politics and he was absolutely part of this.
Absolutely. Poor old Russell. Russell. Read our comments. More Truth here than in B. Cox.!
Two comments that prick-up my curiously interested ears: Cox:: 1. “...we start to do science.” and 2. “The best way to see science is that we never claim we’re right.”
The first statement sounds like some APP one may use to get “facts” - We all wish we knew what that really “means” in the details, over the past century at least;
The second statement may be a genuine, and generous, opinion of Cox, yet does not represent the hubris and arrogance of most of the observable “experts” and approved “lab coats”. And we all know this more than some wish to embrace. Imagine Gates and Fauci ever representing that opinion - quite the (mandated) opposite. Yes?
Well said.
Now do you see that they are both playing you? Scientism is the order of the day! Best wishes.
@@josephfreetimer1736 Bill Gates is exactly taking the same position as prof Brian Cox, that's why Gates says we need to prepare for the next medical global situation. As well as tackle current ones.
Ask the old people about tuberculosis, the people and animals dying from it. It's still a big killer, but not in developed countries. What about the discoveries of hygiene, diseases, vaccines, biology etc? You can learn about these things, there are great videos and texts on your device, if you wish to learn.
What I like about you, is not that you may have really long lead ups to your questions, and often tbh I get a bit lost, but you sit back and listen to the answer and let the guest finish and we all learn a bit more about stuff and that’s what an interview is all about, asking questions, listening and learning. Great stuff, keep it up.
I'd like to have heard a longer, more in depth, conversation regarding Cox's opinions around the pandemic & how it has been handled. And what he thinks about the fact that 90% of scientific specialists in the field were ignored 🙁
He wouldn't. He's an establishment stooge. Always has been. We are being groomed into cults-of-personality for people like him, and we need to break out of that spell. Similar to Neil deGrasse Tyson. He's just a 'progressive' 'politician' who does nothing but speak in that creepy cultish politically-correct manner yet never says anything of substance if it's not 100% safe and establishment-approved. We need Carl Sagans, but we don't have any.
Subscribe to Russell's Luminary to hear the entire convo. Tis was just the teaser
Exactly...he is soooo oblivious ( better to say disingenuous ) to the reality
Same here
What Cox was describing we did not get. We got certainty bullying and even gaslighting from scientists and the politicians during the pandemic.And we still do regarding climate change. When the models are wrong they look at us and say " nope we never said that"..
I am science!!!
Exactly,cox was a mouthpiece for the so called science is in for everything,and he was so wrong about climate change bullshit,co2 has nothing to do with the climate alarmism,h2o and clouds and the sun have the most effect on the climate,and the computer modelling projections are a joke,and a carbon tax and poverty are certainly not going to change conditions,it just makes the rich more powerful and the rest of us become serfs,just saying!
Glad to see you mention the "climate change" b.s. 👍🙏
Heretic! He’s a witch!!! Let’s get him!
@@jessejones6409 he turned me into a newt!
There was just such a huge manipulation of facts politically and religiously. It was very difficult to get an honest unbiased opinion about what was actually going on and who to trust. Russell is as good as it could get for information honesty. I get a strong sense that you actually care about people. I Wish our leaders shared that same quality.
But this particular guest seems to be missing something
Brian Cox is a puppet for the elite. He is a criminal.
I disagree. There was plenty of good info around. People on the right like the anti-vaxxer movement are still pretending covid is fake, and doesnt really exist, People are still dying right now from covid, and around 15 millions have already died. It would have been much worse if everyone caught covid at the same time, and hospitals could not cope. I dont have any problem with the way western governments handled the situation and what they said is true. Covid will spread out of China and infect the world killing millions. Its still killing people. The scientists dont tell government what to do. They give them options and scenarios. Political leaders weigh that up and make decisions. The biggest thing the governments did wrong is under-estimating the disinformation and organizing ability of anti-vaxxers.
They are both assets of the controllers and they will help keep you from passing through the gate to reality. Best wishes.
@justme 👽 Are you mixing science up with belief? Best wishes.
Government and the large companies may selectively choose findings and results that best suit them but science is pure and the truth will always come out eventually.
Just seen his show last night in Indianapolis. Fascinating stuff. My girls 13, 15 really enjoyed it.
The fact Cox suggests Covid may have come from animals but seemingly CANNOT bring himself to suggest it may have come from a lab to me just underlines the entire issue we've faced recently.
Ie: Consider how that suggestion was censored, possibly career ending and almost sold as anti-science. And I'd suggest this is why Cox didn't 'dare' say this.
Spot on.
Exactly.
'If' it came from a lab, it came from a lab researching viruses from animals. Namely bats..... Out of interest how do you know with such certainty it came from a lab?
Or this is just a thought… he’s an astrophysicist and not a cellular biologist. Like a soccer coach talking about American football game. Both sports I.e both science but both very different.
exactly. I'm surprised Russell let that pass without questioning it.
If science is an ever evolving process, then how can we properly evaluate a covid vaccine without long term trials?
What’s your alternative ? Wait for millions to die while you wait for a 40 year trial ?
@@yussepig6629 99% survivability. Stay healthy as much as you can and daily promote your natural immunity. Plenty of established treatments and medicine were and are available.
Can't. But we'll have the results in 75 years.
@ AJS: so you’d sacrifice millions for your personal ‘immunity tips’? You have issues
@@yussepig6629 I asked a simple question that you still have not addressed.
You asked for an alternative, I responded with what has worked well for many.
Exercise less fear and hysteria and more faith in the awesome creation that we are. Give thanks to our creator and be at peace with the fact that we are not given any guarantees in this short life. ~God Bless
Once again absolutely beautiful.
So.... we had this absolutely amazing way of sharing what works and what doesn't work and have open discussion between clinicians around the world, but what did we do? Shut down the discussion.
People were not allowed to question 'the science' and this continues to be the case. Our governments, media, corporations and cancel culture literally silenced and pillorized anyone who did ask questions!
They cling to the friend-enemy-scheme-thinking and pretend moral supremacy, like every other robot could do. No heart, no brains, no conscience. Artificial intelligent. 🍷🥸
That is definitely not scientific in its approach, so we know they lied, as people that want power over others are apt to do!
The truth doesn't need protecting but lies do!
On the subject of cancel culture.... your comment currently says 3 replies but shows only 1....
... thst would be the science that says that the unvaxxed are a threat to the vaxxed. I'm still not clear how that works.....
They gave us advice during the pandemic with absolute certainty.
That’s because the liberal elite were certain they could profit from the effects of the advice given.
I love this type of sarcasm. Must be British.
I make short funny news edits mocking the pandemic and pointing out the lies and hypocrisy from mainstream media, ever since I lost my job because of the mandate, so have a look if you want
And told us to “trust them”.
People shouldn't have needed advice. The pandemic would've been a lot less bad if people had held their breath and/or turned their heads when they were walking past someone on the street or around most people. Instead of breathing their sh1t all over everyone for years too stupid to realise that just because their precious government didn't or couldn't tell everyone to do that doesn't mean they f**king shouldn't.
Well done Russell, for tolerating that individual.
What a truly beautiful and wonderful man.
Funnily enough, Brian Cox is one of the very people I think of when I question the objectivity of science...
The best thing that I can think of to say about him is that he isn’t Bill Nye.
@@rustybarrel516 He's not Bill Nye, but he would enjoy having lunch with him. Cox is just another establishment mouthpiece.
Yep, for better or worse science is one of the most influential talking points in political discourse and the last couple years have made it clear that it's anything but objective, especially when there is billions of dollars on the line.
I’ve met Bill Nye in person and he’s a creep. Since, I’ve come to think of the likes of Brian Cox, NDT and all the other science personalities as being corporate shills indoctrinated in the cult of false scientism
Yes. I’m sure the man is brilliant but will throw a tantrum if you don’t believe the sun monster will kill us all.
Immediately, Brian’s first answer proves the difficulty of objectivity we all face. He answers by using the pandemic as an example. He starts with an unknown virus that may have come from a bat reservoir or, elsewhere, and then explains the wonders. benefits, and limits of science. He skips the possibility of a lab leak and the fact that there’s an ethical component to modifying a virus and working on gain of function. I think most of us would agree there is an ethical component to introducing risk to the entire human race. Adding the latter would have been a more objective view of how science is conducted.
I like what Brian has to say about science as a dynamic tool for understanding nature and the limits to scientific advice. I also like his belief that science should be approached, or conducted with humility. I wish he he would have added that science should also be approached and conducted within some framework of ethics.
I saw the same thing
Tara p
1 second ago
In his first sentence, he states the virus may have been living in an animal.....really? Like the fully scoured and tested wet market? How about more likely a petri dish in a Chinese lab? Wow. Disingenuous. He obviously bought the pushed narrative. He is not espousing objective science.
Well, he said when the virus Appeared it seemed like it was coming from animals which was the widely supported explanation at the time. The fact that new evidence appeared later to support the theory that the virus was modified for gain of function research is irrelevant to the point he's making.
I’m sure Brian is well aware of the lab leak theory. But per Russell‘s disclaimer at the start they have to be very careful about what they speak about on this platform. Free-speech is under attack.
Yes - a lot of terms weren't defined and his starting point was the agreed upon official narrative. I myself have evidence that SOMEONE knew a lot about the virus 3 years ago and longer. But my ability to publish is restricted, which effectively restricts my speech, and my right to free association is highly restricted. So I can present all kinds of evidence that doesn't support official narratives and it's completely ignored. You can't effectively do science without free speech.
This was GREAT! Thanks! Also I'm glad you are brave and willing to say you have faith in God.
I’ll take in Brian in large doses❤🦋
Tobacco, sugar, asbestos, some scientists told us they were safe and fought against safety measures. Depending on where you are in the word the drug war is still being fought and the science is whatever the politics needs to see. If the advice changes then the science WAS WRONG. It is often wrong. That is why some of the mandates were so fiercely resisted
#TåxBøycött.... stop funding the fascist gøvernmènts......
Føöls just gonna keep trusting the gôvęrnment until their prønoūns are was/wėre....... 🤪 .🤒. 😵. ☠
Peace, power and freedom to all.....
Science can be made to lie or it can be updated with better evidence that disproved the previous findings, but in many cases the biggest issue is that it comes to complex conclusions that cant easily be put in ways politicians or health advice can communicate.
Like tobacco is known to dramatically increase the risk of various forms of cancer, but the fine detail also tells you that you could smoke all your life with little risk. Sugar is one of the biggest killers on a population level, yet is not dangerous if used appropriately, but also the type of sugar has a big impact on health outcome(high fructose corn syrup being one of the main reasons are so overweight, cane sugar is far healthier). Asbestos can lead to the death of a person that breaths in a single fibre yet there were kids that literally chewed on the stuff and countless workers with heavy exposure who never had any issues. No doubt there were multiple risk factors, but also that asbestos is an extremely safe, completely natural and amazingly effective material if used correctly, it only becomes dangerous when it becomes airborne, yet it was banned completely in many countries even though we know how it can be used safely.
The issue is that answers are rarely this good or this bad, its all too often highly subjective, but politicians and health boards don't work well with subjective conclusions, they want to come up with clear concise answers, even if they aren't entirely true.
Well that's all fine... I appreciate Brian Cox and he is a great scientist and all. The problem is that science, politicians, big pharma/tech all got married, had a baby and we weren't allowed in any way to question its shape or form even when it changed into its teens. If we questioned anything, we were bullied, ridiculed, ostracized, fired from our jobs, being kept apart from our loved ones, taken to camps... While the people in power all benefited from the situation in one way or another. This pandemic has shown us how disconnected the people "in power" are with the people on the ground and even with their own hearts. If they don't understand the uproar this has caused everywhere, then they need to wake up and just watch what is unfolding.
In my opinion, science exists beyond any institution. If "science" is used to justify profits or power in the extreme, then more than likely it is not science that is being practiced
Brilliant words! ❤️👍
The thing to remember is the difference between the politicians, pharma and the scientists.
There is so much media hate toward scientists and distrust of science which is completely unjustified or just flat out propaganda motivated by the greed of the other two.
Scientists are your neighbors. They are low to middle income people who do not really have any big money motivation for any particular finding. No bigger than the motivation you have to do your job the best you can do it.
Science has built in self criticism, for every published finding there are thousands of other scientists who try to prove them wrong. If they cannot be proven wrong then the community says this is likely true but keeps testing it over and over again to try and prove it false. And they are not ultra wealthy for this, they just kinda struggle to be middle income like the rest of us. Their motivation to do their job particularly in times of crisis is just trying to do a good job for the citizens of the world.
The other two groups are politicians and business investors (Pharma in this case). Politicians and business investors have million/billion dollar motivations to have you believe a certain thing.
Scientist have dedicated their careers to finding out how things worth and finding truths, and then testing those findings forever to find even deeper truths. Most of them make middle class incomes and live average lives. When they are proven wrong they change their minds, and follow the new direction. They rarely get any media attention and their findings rarely become known to the public for years after the discover when often someone else claims the public credit for their work.
Politicians have dedicated their careers to achieve power and keep it. Most of them live opulent lives and aquire huge wealth. When they are proven wrong they do not change their minds because they need to be oppositional to the other side no matter what the truth is. They spend most of their careers on front of microphones with constant media attention, and lots of funding to buy messages to the citizens.
Business investors have dedicated their careers to making and retaining money. Most live opulent lives and the ultra wealthy are just plain out of touch with the reality of society. When they are proven wrong they often just power through it with lies and deception to maintain the value of their investments, at least long enough that they can sell those investments to some citizen suckers and run with the bullions of profit. They often own the big media literally or buy advertising holding the media accountable to messaging fitting their business plans.
Of these three groups which ones are more likely to lie and cheat and steer the narrative of media for their own personal gains?
Trust the scientists, they may on occasion be wrong but they are people trying their best to get it right and improve the world for all citizens.
Do not trust politicians or business investors. Particularly those that have been pushing propaganda that we cannot trust science.
Scientists are your neighbors, and are the victims of corrupt politics and manipulative greed just like we are. We should listen to them when they have warnings, and support them speaking to power.
Being an atheist is not exactly the epitome of humility, is it?, 'cause one has to have limitless knowledge to "justify" being an atheist, but then again, you have to be God to have limitless knowledge. A paradox for those arrogant atheist lunatics like this hypocrit one, sorry, i dont buy his "humility" ...
You gotta be almost certain there is no God to be an atheist, & is that possible then? The reverse is quite easy to achieve though....
Agreed. However, Brian Cox is not a great scientist.
Advice can never be right or wrong in the first place.
I love Brian Cox, what a fantastic educator and a bright spirit
If Brian is agreeing with the fact that the so-called "mainstream" scientists are not always right, then there should be enough tolerance to let other people also present their ideas regarding masks, vaccines, etc. However, unfortunately, the mainstream guys have quashed alternate ideas and labeled them as "misinformation".
Good point. I agree
You can’t listen to other voices because they aren’t scientists so have no credibility...
I'm all for a free and constructive exchange of ideas and perspectives, but like most important things, the devil is in the details. By virtue of their formal studies, peer-reviewed research and hard-earned qualifications, real scientists' "ideas" have a credibility that outweighs a lot of "alternate ideas". As much as I like to take other viewpoints into consideration, you've got to admit that not all of them are created equal.
Which is precisely why there is mistrust now. Well said. Brian may be right that on the ground floor of the science it's good work, but then those results make their way *up through channels and then are passed back down into the public. And just like the scriptures of old, they are interpreted and enacted based upon those who stand behind the pulpit and thump their dossiers.
Then look for information outside of the mainstream. Don't just sit there glued to mainstream media waiting for it to tell you the truth, that is madness.
What the recent events have taught us is that science can often be bought. Where it can't it can be silenced.
Clair Patterson is a great example of what can happen he showed the damaging effects of lead in the air had on the brain, and what he was up against, bribes and people thicker than pig shit
or confused with spin....
The lack of transparency was the issue. We weren't told what he's saying "this is the best advice we have based on what we know". It was "This is the law, stay in your home's, don't question it, we're the government and we know what's best for you"
It's good to hear people seeing things differently because then you fall over your own feet.
Brian Cox "in science we never claim we're right, this is the best snapshot...."
Government's response: "take these jabs, they are proven safe and effective, if you don't you lose your job, will be ostracised from society and any questions you may have will prove you to be an anti vaxer"
Hence the fundamental medical ethos of informed consent that a lot of people seem to forgotten is so important.
So true, that's what I'll never understand why so many didn't question a rushed out new vaccine!..it was unbelievable really. But I think more people are questioning it now I hope anyway.
Your right scientist always say that. “We are not always right” and “ we are always willing to change” main stream scientist never change their mind. They lead the evidence where ever they want it to go🤔🤔🤔
I think that the ostracism that was attempted worked to a point, but in the end people chose not to accept it. I know there are a lot of twats on the planet, but common sense still prevailed on this occasion. Well done the human race for not accepting the Orwellian nightmare that was proposed.
I think you missed out those who refuse the vaccine are domestic terorists and far right extremists.
We've been betrayed on all levels, so what are we going to do about it?
Traitors all from top to bottom.
Simple solution in less than 4 minuets ruclips.net/video/MOTWkQZKELU/видео.html all it needs is for enough to take responsibility by showing their support and things are put right. Plain and simple.
Evidence: FCO 30 1048.
Article 61 (Lawful Rebellion) invoked in 2001, and ignored.
"The advice changes?"
Literally every bit of "advice" was in favor of tyrannical government. Do as we dictate or else. Obey the government. Because science.
Even if what you say is true (that all the science was in favour of tyrannical government), that doesn't make the science invalid. Reality is reality, and science is our best attempt to understand that reality. How people deal with the findings is a separate matter.
@@dan_ Could you offer examples of "science" not favoring government control? I don't mean people getting pissed off followed by easing of tyranny. I mean a new study comes out and because of the new study the government relents immediately.
Every person that introduced new findings or questioned "science" was censored. And one political party cheered and went all- in on the authoritarianism.
@@that1guy487 I'm not sure if I understand the question. Science covers the study of pretty much every topic imaginable, ideally without any intended bearing on government policy. The whole branch of geology for example, it's (basically) just people looking at rocks and trying to see what we can learn from that. Their studies later down the line might be used to back up some observation related to climate change, say, but it would be jumping to some incredible conclusions to say they originally studied those rocks with any ill intent to control the masses via an authoritarian government. As I was saying, reality is reality. All we can do is try to do better science to prove previous science wrong, and whatever the current science tells us is what we should take notice of to protect ourselves - whether that's from a deadly virus or long-term climate change. How we enact "protecting ourselves" isn't a scientific matter however, and unfortunately also isn't a question with an objectively correct answer that satisfies everyone.
Mate. We have a virus. Science (generally) tells us how it transmits. Government (generally) is meant to protect its citizens. Those are different jobs. Scientists advise, government decides. Part of that decision is choosing where to get the advice from. Blaming scientists for how a virus works or how governments react seems odd to me.
@@backfromcuba It's not as simple as that. Scientists can be biased because the institutions they work for are entangled with governments or are funded by corporations with vested interests. So scientists in key positions drone on the "narrative" otherwise they lose funding or their position, or they are discredited.
I had a fair amount of respect for Prof. Cox, until now. He seemed to be criticizing "just people" who were struggling to understand what was going on around them. Almost every government around the world, at every level, was telling us the same thing, regardless of age, lifestyle, co-morbidities, or the presence of community spread in our localities. The one-size-fits-all solution was clearly wrong for some people. Prof. Cox praised the scientists who had to communicate with the public. Yet, where were the majority of these scientists when it came time to talk about solutions other than the one single proposed by governments around the globe? Where were the scientists condemning other scientists being silenced when they did speak out? Sorry, Professor, science failed in a major way over the past three years and blaming "just people" isn't going to cut it.
Scientists were licking the boots of big pharma and government, that’s where they were.
Spot on. Someone mentioned earlier about ‘informed consent’ but the fact is, particularly regarding PfizerBioNTech/Moderna they actually did/didn’t know (or release) sufficient information for people to make an ‘informed consent’, yet our govt were telling folks they must have it or possibly lose their jobs. I had AZ x 2 then stopped. I would have considered AZ booster, but our govt sidelined it, maybe because AZ said too soon to have a booster after 3months since last vax. It felt to me that Pfizer et al were considered a US ‘good for trade’ boost with US. Just my take.
Yes. He is in the club "just people" are not in.
I respect your viewpoint, but, I think you misinterpreted what he was saying. I don't think he was criticizing "just people" I think he meant it in a way that outlines that the science is really difficult with a lot of complexity. Just people refers to the everyday person that cant be expected to understand the science in detail, and his statement wasn't intended to be patronising in any way either. In a way we have to understand that a lot of our understanding is dependent on experts, in a technocratic way that is - rightly or wrongly - necessary, especially with science and its evolving nature.
I agree with you on the "one size fits all" argument though. I think scientists needed to do better, especially with welcoming alternative ways of thinking. I also think, though, that at the end of the day scientists were also struggling to make sense of everything during this crisis. They are also fallible and struggled to make sense of all the data that was present, or not present.
I think if science was better funded, and not biased by the funding, the pandemic would have been handled far better.
He's a lib. That much is obvious.
I can give many examples from my own field of study where people were ridiculed, ostracized, lost positions, funding and yet were proven right many years later. Many will claim this demonstrates the beauty of the scientific method as truth will always out, but this ignores the corruption which slowed scientific progress. In a truly ideal version of the scientific method we would not see people having funding removed or their position threatened just because they disagree with the prevailing view. The entire point of science is to challenge the current knowledge and to feel safe enough to do it. Right now there are many fields which are approaching religious like thinking where anyone who dares to counter the accepted knowledge base will be treated like a heretic.
A hundred years ago one could conduct research on their own with minimal funding in order to prove a hypothesis. Today the resources required for most cutting edge research projects is huge and so anyone rocking the boat is unlikely to see funding for their proposals.
Brian Cox is well spoken. The only issue I take with his perspective is that he seems to trust that the scientific community that was doing all this research on COVID during the early time of the crisis was a separate entity from the political power. That they were these pure scientific minds putting forth ever-evolving unbiased scientific advice, unaffected by politics on any way.
However, it seemed to many in the public that government power had a huge influence on what advice was actually disseminated to the populace. It's this government information bridge that people distrust the most. Scientists have become kind of puppet Priests of Science, propped up by politicians.
Ironically, the squashing of dissenting opinion in order to preserve the public trust in our institutions has done more to foment that very same distrust than simply allowing it...
Obviously just my little old opinion here.
Brian Cox is a criminal funded by the elites. No mention of gain of function and lab leaks. I've seen him peddling all sorts of lies during lockdown.
People like him all believe in mass human population.
I mean, there WERE previous pandemics that we were warned would happen again, so why WOULDNT research have been happening?
This exactly. Medical professionals reccommend against giving the vaccine to children, suddenly following the science doesn't matter and two weeks later the government push through experimental jabs for kids anyway
Couldn't have put it better myself 👍🏾😳👏🏾
"Don't question the science" is a sentiment that is so oxymoronic it hurts me to hear it.
Sounds like the church
Yet Cox has said the same thing about 'climate science'.
Truthruclips.net/video/7CVX3veExNo/видео.html .
Truthruclips.net/video/7CVX3veExNo/видео.html ,
What we saw during the scam was pseudoscience. A belief has absolutely no credence in scientific method, maybe even contrary. A hypothesis is a justified belief having at least an observation. A theory is a substantiated explanation for an occurrence that has come to a conclusion; a judgment or decision reached by scientific method with consistent repeatable observations and experiments; which still may not be empirically correct. A fact is empirically correct. A pseudoscience is a collection of beliefs or practices mistakenly regarded as being based on scientific method. The largest barrier to truth is believing you already have it, or that truth is unobtainable. There is no reason to believe, and no reason in believing. We can choose to be reasonable people, or unreasonable people.
Brian: “we never say we’re right… we’re just saying this is the best snapshot of our opinion”
Also Brian: “science is not a belief system”
I reject the idea that ones opinion, no matter how informed, is anything shy of a belief. The mere fact that one researchers opinion may be overridden by another is proof that it is belief which is the underlying force which drives the sciences.
It takes a lot of mental gymnastics to claim that the process of proclaiming belief, applying it, then subsequently revising it based on new observation is anything different then that of a religious order. And just like those orders, those outside of the system have a tendency toward dogmatism that undermines the research. And those inside, tend to harken themselves as enlightened above all.
I appreciate Brian’s stance, he seems well reasoned enough, And I don’t think that he himself is to blame for the problems of science. But he must admit that it’s no different then any other belief system. It operates on assumptions, which are backed up by experiences, which evolve a model.
Literally the same as prophets who assume an ideal, experience god, and evolve their ideals based on what they’ve heard. Science only admittedly abstracts away god, and instead replaces it with “chaos” and “singularity”.
I also would like to add, I have no issue with this either. I only wish there wasn’t this disingenuous claim that it’s not a belief system.
I honestly got goosebumps from reading your comment, you are so right it’s scary. Belief is powerful. If two men both had a Rolex watch and one man is rich and the other poor. We would definitely believe the poor guy had a fake watch…
@@raymondhendrikse6571 thanks 😅 I actually thought it would be an unpopular opinion. But you hit the nail on the head with your comment also. Ppl are simply guided by their beliefs. It’s fine, until it starts leading them astray and closing their minds to broader perspectives.
I think science today is just a bit too dogmatic to consider themselves anything less then yet another religious order.
mate... your epistemology is all over the place
@@brigwood7658 🤷🏽♂️ your opinion. Not all. Your welcome to believe it
@@AQUTENOLEJ I said your epistemology is all over the place, nothing to do with opinion i.e. 'it's a fact'. knowledge is not 'mere belief', it is 'justified (or warranted) true belief', and what counts as 'justification' requires strict criteria ... 'that do exist'. You just have to learn about it is all.
Two incredibly talented people!!!
"Science is not a belief system." Well boy, let me tell you, in the States especially they are doing their best to make it one.
Yes. Science-the-method or even profession itself is great. The problem over the past 2 1/3 years is that politics (and big tech!) got involved and turned it into a weapon. We were told to listen only to their experts, and if you don't *obey* they silence you online, fire you from your job or even throw you in camps (that last one not in the US, yet).
We went from "there's no stupid questions" to "if you question us, you're stupid"!
Wow. Russell Brand can say a lot of words.
He's one of the few that can take 10 minutes to ask a 10 second question.
Russell, I ❤ how straight to the point u r. So funny too
Everything can be misused when one believes they can leverage it for their personal gain or to advance an agenda.
No one ever believes we can enter a dark age in a time of modern science but that belief is precisely why we will.
We already did enter it my man. Pseudoscience is being pushed as science.
Also, here is one for ya; einsteins theory of relativity has 0 science in it. Cheers!
To the questions at the end: yes.
A scientist once spent 12 years studying space ,and his conclusion was that space was 6 times bigger than first thought ,not 5 not 7 but 6 ,I am so glad it wasn't wasted 😳 remember the earth sits on the back of a giant 🐢,
Spot on! It highlights the problem with Education writ large: “Do the things we told you were good.” Teaching people to think is hard. Learning to think is harder. Especially when “Education” is designed to churn out people who all think alike. And when you actually do think un-pre-programmed thoughts, you get punished for it.
Cox is the poster boy for the scientific ‘establishment’
A mouthpiece
A television presenter and ‘personality’
Yes he's more likable and sociable than most scientists
A British Bill The science guy
@@pmacamfg7655 Bill's no scientist.
@@AlfDagg none of them are.
That’s probably the worst thing you could do to Brian Cox is give him a shallow purpose like being a poster boy or a mouthpiece. I think Brian Cox should be free .
Great guest. Would like to see more guests on your show
Professor Cox works for the BBC and his band was deployed by Tony Blair to provide the anthem for New Labour, who brought in social reforms to crucify the Disabled in the Welfare system. Did I miss Proff Cox’s explanation for his part in the eugenics movement?
"We never claim that we're right"
Well that's inaccurate
You mean he is lying? Like with "climate change", one of his main grifts?
The words "never" and "always" are *usually* incorrect.
Brilliant chat! Thank you Russell & Brian. So if we know that science is an evolving process, we have to ask why it would be presented to us in such a manipulative way that undermines free will & right thinking?
Isnt the answer obvious? Best wishes.
Science is just science. But greedy corrupt people will try any con going, so probably the problem is rotten people, rotten politicians etc.
What is the Scientific Method?
If you don't know the answer to this question, yet you have "Faith" in what you are told, then you have Faith.
The COVID-19 response is totally about Faith. Science and Constitutional Rights be damned.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
For the record. The Scientific Method is,
1 Observe
2 Based on your observation, ask a question
3 Formulate a Hypothesis that answers the question you asked
4 Test, to see if your hypothesis answers the question.
5 Form a conclusion.
6 Publish your work, so that it is available for free and fearless critical review by ALL your peers.
You may run through numerous cycles of the Scientific Method before coming to a conclusion and publishing.
Science represents your RIGHT and duty, to ask hard questions, and expect an honest answer.
Science rejects faith in the pronouncements of the Dear Leader out of hand.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
So, If some nice person on the TV tells you that something/some directive is supported by Science, the first question to ask is, What is the Official Scientific Hypothesis behind your claim?
No Official Scientific Hypothesis, NO Science.
Rhetorical questions are the best thank you. Oh and money is part of the answer , power is the remainder - or to put it mathematically - trust / ignorance x money/power = sanity/ blind faith x propaganda/ vilification - prior knowledge / historical recorded outcomes = continual lies and a distrust of all information and those that disseminate it . Oh and the remainder inherit the earth , amen
you do have to ask but you'll never get an honest answer.
My other half is a molecular microbiologist and has always told me that science is never settled. It's the best we know at that time until new evidence comes along to disprove it, and new theories develop. A good scientist never believes they have the definitive answer.
When you hear “the science is settled”, then you can’t trust them.
The proposition put forward by Brian Cox that science can be an evolving process is understandable. You just need to check history to see the hypotheses that were rejected by further research. However, the "science" presented by Dr Fauci et al was not open to debate/criticism but rejected as conspiracy etc. My question for Brian Cox is - why is dogma presented as science?
Ask a politician. Dr Fauci is a Politician.
This is such a dumb, repugnant lie. Of course the science was open to criticism, it's just that the criticism leveled at the mainstream view was ineffective because it was based on poor evidence (Ivermectin) or on pure lies ("vaccines are ineffective!").
This is such a dumb, repugnant lie. Of course the science was open to criticism, it's just that the criticism leveled at the mainstream view was ineffective because it was based on poor evidence (IVM) or on pure lies ("vaccines are ineffective!").
Lets go Tony
Never forget Ignaz Semmelweis
“We never claim that we are right”
I’m not sure that is how I heard it for 2 years.
Science became a religion to many people, I have had to say to smarter people than me that science is revisionary. Don’t just take the word of 2 blokes cos they are stood next to Boris. Come back to me in 10 years. Time is the only true judge of science.
Science became a religion ... I was gonna say that!
Science might not be a belief system, but this guy relates to it with one.
Great question
The problem is that the 'advice' DIDN'T change as the science did. It only changed because the 'great and the good' were caught ignoring their own 'advice', which they presumably felt comfortable doing because... the science had changed (but only for THEM, apparently).
"Well, our science guys talked to the chinese science guys and they said they didn't do it. So we won't be pursuing this line of evidence anymore; Yet continue making emergency protocols." There was great research going on at the time, eh?
Extremely diplomatic answer from Brian, and I would add that the naivete of scientists with regard to 'public communication' is not as concerning as the naivete of scientists regarding 'political fuckery'.
He has a TV career to protect.
This calls to mind my favourite Robert Heinlein quote "Man is not a rational animal but a rationalizing animal" - that is we don't really weigh up all factors involved (find a ratio between them, ratio > rational). Rather we come to a conclusion, trawl through the data and make a case. It's conclusion > narrative > data but it should be data > conclusion and avoid narratives.
I think many would agree that over the last couple of years "the science" couldn't be questioned even when it didn't make sense to people and some individuals claiming to be the authority of science were all but demanding everyone do what they "recommend"
The scientists weren't. The people of power were? That's what he said?
@SOUL SEEKER Thats not true at all. A scientist telling their opinion does not make laws or regulations.
@SOUL SEEKER Did you hear when Brian said that the Science quite often changes as the understanding is made and that the people in power still use the information to push their agenda?
It would be great if the scientist partaking in the study didn't have a stake in the outcome. Then maybe the findings would be a bit more believable.
…as well as a stake in the pharma companies
Absolutely! You have to ask how is one going to get a research grant if they're not being paid to give a favourable result?
This is why outcomes are peer reviewed. Then experiments are repeated by other scientists to see if they can replicate the results. There are scientists who would really benefit from disproving you so they get credit, so it's not a case of one scientist for Corporation A does an experiment and we're all expected to believe them. Unfortunately the press does an awful job of reporting science so it often appears that way.
@@bluegaz1979 misinformation.
Truthruclips.net/video/dgGOwAwtfU8/видео.html 🤪
Fantastic..........
Brian Cox, so eloquent in his words about science and how science works. Shame to see so many people being so wilfully ignorant of something so simple, and being ‘anti science’ because they have conflated science with ‘government’ or ‘control’. *sigh*
At least in this clip, Doc Cox is underestimating the possibility that there are those in the scientific community that are NOT practicing the objectivity and epistemic humility that good science demands. Perhaps they've been lured away from these principles by power, money and public respect. Scientists are, after all, human too. If that's so the entire scientific enterprise will suffer in reputation as a result. Good scientists have a professional obligation to call out those that have taken this path (rather than hand waving it away as poor communication skills.)
Never has my confidence in science been lower than it is now, at least for medical sciences.
I make short funny news edits mocking the pandemic and pointing out the lies and hypocrisy from mainstream media, ever since I lost my job because of the mandate, have a look if you want
Oh please most of these so called scientists are paid by the dark agenda pushers its that simple. There is a reason only certain things are accepted in ms science and do not get funded and atracked.
@@duncangale945 BBC has become as corrupted as all mainstream media. Headlines that contradict or twist the facts even included in the story, biased information to start with. Even Reuters is now failing. The world is falling so quickly, with ethics and integrity becoming so difficult to find.
What we saw during the scam was pseudoscience. A belief has absolutely no credence in scientific method, maybe even contrary. A hypothesis is a justified belief having at least an observation. A theory is a substantiated explanation for an occurrence that has come to a conclusion; a judgment or decision reached by scientific method with consistent repeatable observations and experiments; which still may not be empirically correct. A fact is empirically correct. A pseudoscience is a collection of beliefs or practices mistakenly regarded as being based on scientific method. The largest barrier to truth is believing you already have it, or that truth is unobtainable. There is no reason to believe, and no reason in believing. We can choose to be reasonable people, or unreasonable people.
Wouldn't the good scientists then be villified by those being corrupted?
When you're not allowed to question science, what is it then?
Climate change. 🙄
Communism
Dogma
Lies?
What we saw during the scam was pseudoscience. A belief has absolutely no credence in scientific method, maybe even contrary. A hypothesis is a justified belief having at least an observation. A theory is a substantiated explanation for an occurrence that has come to a conclusion; a judgment or decision reached by scientific method with consistent repeatable observations and experiments; which still may not be empirically correct. A fact is empirically correct. A pseudoscience is a collection of beliefs or practices mistakenly regarded as being based on scientific method. The largest barrier to truth is believing you already have it, or that truth is unobtainable. There is no reason to believe, and no reason in believing. We can choose to be reasonable people, or unreasonable people.
Russels brain is on fire he goes so quick, feel like brian cox is one of the rare few who can keep up... I would be like, ok russel, umm repeat that lol
Brian was my lecturer at university. Good lad.
Lol
Russell is the pinnacle of current objective journalism in the United States. He's not in the US and he's not a journalist.
What about his argument? Not his persona.
Truthruclips.net/video/7CVX3veExNo/видео.html 🤣
Oh and also....not everything is about the US
@@cicolas_nage
Which is exactly what journalism is about.
Fo Sho
“We were wrong, but we weren’t wrong” backpedaling like the funding seeker he has always been…
I make short funny news edits mocking the pandemic and pointing out the lies and hypocrisy from mainstream media, ever since I lost my job because of the mandate, have a look if you want👍🙏😇
Yupp, he is a shill, a grifter and a fake. Another Zelensky in other words.
Spot on
I’m sharing this. People actually believe that science is a fixed concept.
That microphone made some very solid points.
Just because the science has changed, doesn’t mean it was wrong before.
Well… yeah, it does.
You mean, before Copernicus, the Sun really did move around the Earth?
I think he means science is the process of constantly testing your own hypothesis to defeat ignorance, which means the “science” is constantly changing as we analyse data in real time.
The problem came from the idiots who run our governments and major health organisations. The theory of science is sound, the implementation of it by humans is where the problem is.
The key point is at the end - "it's the METHOD we have of acquiring knowledge" - that method is basically hypothesis, testing the hypothesis, evaluating results, refining hypothesis based on results and repeating/refining based on what you learn. It's how you move knowledge forward, rather than swirling around in endless debate. It also includes other things like research, peer review/discussion, etc. Based on my experiences a the daughter of a scientist who grew up around other scientists, I'd say that dialectic and debate is very important to science and that you cannot do reliable science without rigorously protected freedoms as enumerated in the 1st amendment. In order to effectively pursue any line of inquiry and distinguish what is true from what is false we all need to be able to speak freely, publish freely, associate and communicate freely with others, and be free from any kind of religious dogma.
The truth has no need for censorship.
Great job bro.
'We never claim that we're right?' This guy may be an expert in a narrow field of science, but he just revealed that he knows absolutely nothing about scientists.
Ask that grifter about "climate change" lol.
At least he has effectively undermined any "trust the science" argument. Oh no, wait, he also said to trust the science of the time. What a trustworthy guy.
I don’t think he knows what even happened the past few years. Was he just defending mr. I Am Science? The same guy who had a literal conspiracy to pretend natural immunity didn’t exist after a secret vote between him, Michelle Wolensky, Francis Colin’s, Paul Offit and some other guy…
The problem with his explanation is that as new data was made available, the policies rarely changed. So, from a purely "science" perspective, he is correct. We literally watched "science" in action. And from a "political" perspective, we also literally watched power in action. And it appears the power was not altered in any way by the evolving science until, perhaps, the very end when they realized they couldn't maintain it much longer
you mean $cience haha
Don't try to whitewash what Brian Cox said. He either is oblivious to the facts on the ground or a propagandist. By his trying to applaud public health officials, including Britain which was dictatorial, or Fauci, you see clearly what Brian Cox said did not match reality. I think that is due to just trusting unquestioningly those whose specialty is in another field instead of critically analyzing what science came out and what the actions of those health officials were. That speaks ill of Brian Cox and his critical analysis of what has been going on. Then again, he won grants and made his money through the current corrupt system, so he likely thinks things work fine so long as you trust the experts. Which therein-lies the problem of not following actual science.
@@ajc-th5ei The cost of fame and a tv face is the sale of ones soul...his job is to hell purchase ours. Best wishes.
@@ajc-th5ei please be specific in your critique, what examples are you disagreeing with and why? I thought professor Brian Cox was open and accurate and covered science, the scientific method, that knowledge increases and so positions change and he also mentioned people who are disingenuous. That seems correct about science.
Any public science figure is 100% in the societies pushing scientism to the world, doing their best to lie by using science. They might actually believe that they are doing good, but the more I meet people who actually can flush down the toilet the public science, I just cannot believe there are these Cox, Tyson etc. types of guys who wouldn't see the nonsense they are believing. They at least have to know the added firewalls in public science, those that hide certain things that "humanity isn't ready to know" based on the phuckers who are dominating the world.
Pullled off the road just to comment ( even before I hear the interview) that mr cox IS the quality of mind that can keep up with your ( high quality) careful and passionate sense of wonder, I’m so looking forward …would love to hear you talk to Richard Dolan , another good thinker
another great vid as usual