What I have observed is that many people use their own experiences, beliefs and biases as “proof” of a given position despite mountains of scientific evidence to the contrary. Also people who distrust science, medicine, etc. will mistake this mistrust for “critical thinking”, when in fact it is mostly an emotional gut reaction.
Yep, they'll think, or at least like to say that they're simply questioning, or scrutinizing, when in reality, they are merely being antagonistic , & thinking that they know better than literal experts.
@@Darius-kl3jkconsidering that literal experts have been literally wrong and killing people for literally ever I think I have a good reason to think actual observation trumps armchair expertise bro
@@luisfilipe2023 there is a fine line between critical thinking, which allows us to admit when we are wrong or allows us to admit our knowledge is incomplete, and mistrust which ends up at times not respecting others’ findings and knowledge. (Provided that that knowledge is gained through genuine scientific inquiry)
To me as a scientist it is batshit crazy that it is barely taught in school how science works. This should be the most obvious item on the curriculum right next to teaching how to read.
@@robertozaffari9587 I also did experiments in physics class and such. But the very idea behind it was never discussed. Neither did we ever learn how social sciences work or what "empirical" means. And I was on a high profile German private school with extra courses for gifted children. I finished school in 2011. First few methods lectures at University with a professor who was very into philosophy of science and my mind was blown.
It is *unbelievably* sad that young students aren't taught to embrace using empirical data and legitimate analysis methods in order to make educated assessments about the world around them. Unfortunately, those children grow older and become far more set in their opinions, beliefs, and random conjectures about "how they feel". This is what leads to flat Earthers. 🙄 And, of course, they'd ignore one Eratosthenes, two obelisks, and three simple measurements. Easy as one, two, three, but hey... nope... the planet is flat because "I just know it's true". 🤮
@@nilsp9426 I agree. I have also have a problems where a student is told that X is correct, but not why that X statement IS correct. I, myself, am currently studying for a biochemistry degree, as I already been fascinate by both Biology and Chemistry. There is this video called "DNA Evidence That Humans & Chimps Share A Common Ancestor: Endogenous Retroviruses". This Ted-ED video make a claim that biology disprove creationism (that is not exactly what is said, but still), but never really explain how biology disproved. This video I mention earlier, to me, completely blew my mind away. To me, it is one of the best proof of evolution.
@@nilsp9426 exactly this. In my country the scientific method is an obligatory high school topic, but we were just taught the steps. I had to take an extra course in University to be taught _why_ we do it this way and how to differentiate bad research from good
1. Falsifiable 2. Ready to reject old theories in face of new evidences, not just explain inconsistencies away by opaque methods. 3. Verifiable across various disciplines.
I'm glad astrology was mentioned. I'm pretty tired of people thinking they know anything about me simply by asking what day I was born. My experiences in life made me who I am, not the position of the stars and planets. Astral signs are 100% meaningless and that's why nobody has been able to guess mine without me telling them.
@@emmakielty5552 I love giving them the wrong date, just to see how many things they will get right about me anyways - and after agreeing with them, I suddenly remember that I accidentally gave them the wrong date - silly old easily befuddled me…
I've seen an uptake online, but I've never seen anyone take it seriously. I thought it was usually ironic for the novelty. But, I am a cancer with serious ADHD...(literally born with big feelings) so I can't argue when I'm a walking example. 😂 still it's anecdotal & at best, due to patterns in development not the stars.
glad homeopathy was mentioned!! i had a homeopathic doctor when i was a teenager. went to them for four years because of stomache pain and every time i would just get some homeopathic pills (we did do a allergy test though at my first appointment). in the end i figured it out myself that i had lactose intolerance and that my issue was easily fixable. glad it was nothing worse but i feel that a different doctor could have figured that out quicker. i also convinced my parents to not go to the homeopathic doctor anymore because it made me really worried that if they had something serious it would get unchecked for too long.
That makes me angry just thinking about "doctors" basically lying to you about their credentials and medications. I guess when I think about Drs like that I think of chiropractors
One challenge is when people think they are being scientific by “just asking questions”, and resent when others refute their claims out of hand with large bodies of evidence that have already been done. They then think that science is it’s own religion because from their perspective they’re not being taken seriously in an environment where challenging existing ideas is supposed to be applauded. But what they don’t realize is that “challenging existing ideas” is not supposed to apply to an entire field or principle or scientific theory all at once, and instead should be done one step at a time. For example, you don’t prove or disprove flat Earth with a single experiment. You do lots of separate, independent experiments and look at the body of evidence as a whole. Additionally, people don’t realize that “theory” in a science context does not mean the same as “theory” in a conspiracy context. In science it refers to an extremely established, proven idea that is already mostly correct, with the minute details needing to be fleshed out. On one hand you want to help people learn what science literacy means, but on the other hand you can’t afford to waste your time with every last troll who is disingenuous and then feigns being offended, promoting their staged experience as evidence that science is the same as religion in terms of determining what is true and what is false. Especially on the internet you literally could just be talking to a bot or AI nowadays, which makes everything even worse.
Great points!! I've been thinking about the confusion around the word theory, maybe we should adopt a new word for the scientific meaning, so people don't think "oh, evolution is just a theory, it's not true!" Also, great distinction around the difference between being skeptical and questioning, and just ignoring the evidence.
@@mysterxyz I totally agree!! It's just when someone continues to deny a claim after being presented with plentiful evidence that is the problem. Questioning is always good, but ignoring large bodies of supporting evidence for a claim while holding on tightly to a contradictory claim with hardly any evidence isn't. I think this is the distinction @AppleJackSix is trying to make, and that I agree with.
@@mysterxyz there are people who ask questions simply for the intention of sowing doubts. especially when it comes to safety, e.g. drugs, regulatory bodies are ALWAYS asking questions, is it effective, is it safe, what are the side effects, etc. But when shown strong evidence, they eventually accept it. in contrast, people who just want to sow doubt doesn't care whether or not their question is already answered. they just want to make it look as if the science isn't settled, even though it is.
It's challenging especially when it comes to psychology too as people also have misunderstood pseudoscience for psychology. Pseudoscience has really tainted psychology's name a lot and it's saddening when people started to have a misconception that people who study psychology can read minds, auras and et cetera. Even worse is that people were lured to sign up for metaphysics course and often we heard it's because they thought these were psychological science
To make things worse, there's a huge trend for Psychologists to pick up New Age trends/beliefs and incorporate them into their professional practice: family constellations, past lives, astral travel, angeology, spiritism, etc. I've stopped going to therapy precisely because of this, because I've changed therapists several times (5, at least) after they start introducing New Age practices into their sessions.
Psychology is a pseudoscience. Find a single double blind with cross study and I will change my mind. Psychology is unfalsifiable and all cases are cherry picked by the therapist. Raoult shows us well how that kind of extremely bad methodology will always prove what the author wish to prove.
@@paulthomas963 What do you mean by "the scientific establishment"? You mean studies that have been peer reviewed and recognized by highly regarded universities? And what lies have "the scientific stabilshment" told during the last 3 years?... I mean, of course any study can be wrong. As this video stated, accepting the possibility of error and updating your theories as new information is learned is part of the very basis of science. But if you are going to disregard "the government" and "the scientific estabilishment"... Where are you going to look for more reliable information?
@@paulthomas963 "Of course if it's from the government or the scientific establishment it's the gospel truth because they would never lie to you or be wrong." And they use peer-reviewed science. "As the last 3 years have shown us." I take it you're an anti-vaxxer who's annoyed that the evidence shows the vaccine is safe.
Boils down to any modle, reproduce enough times with clarity. That's might come helpful with ambiguous n mountains of papers, as in medical sciences, which surprisingly have quite a share of "bs" conclusion from weak studies.
I wonder if the demon of reason would tackle the "moving the goal post" fallacy I have seen some pseudoscience trying to justify itself with that "the product work, they just applied wrong"
beautifully delivered as always. it is sad how prevalent misinformation and pseudoscience is in modern society. i hope that this video reaches a wide audience..
Pseudoscience are processes, knowledge and people that are promoted to be scientific but actually aren’t. Unfortunately, many people don’t understand how science works, leaving them vulnerable to pseudoscientific ideas. Sometimes the conclusions of science don’t satisfy our fundamental needs, so we tend to rather prefer the interesting stories of pseudoscience. Pseudoscience makes us fall victim to a confirmation bias and wishful thinking by confirming our beliefs, expectations and hopes. People tend to find pseudoscience more emotionally satisfying than actual science. The fundamental difference between science and pseudoscience is that scientists are motivated to understand reality as it actually is, and pseudoscientists are motivated to protect their emotional attachment to their beliefs, expectations and hopes. Pseudoscience avoids many of the steps that makes the scientific process reliable. Pseudoscience tends to be done unsystematically in an unplanned, uncontrolled, disorganized, and unrepeatable way. It tends to appeal to singular studies as sufficient evidence to establish a high degree of confidence in a conclusion (avoids research syntheses and summaries). It tends to be based on untestable ideas that can’t be disproven (unfalsifiable). It tends to assume that correlation implies causation. It tends to rely heavily on anecdotes, hearsay, intuition, authority, popularity, or tradition. It tends to be based on small sample sizes. It tends to have a conflict of interest between the funding source for the research and the results of the research. It tends to be compared to a few lines of evidence (gathered from one type of test and one field of study) by a few people and often these people are unqualified as well. It tends to contain little predictive, descriptive, or explanatory power. It tends to be based on many assumptions and go beyond what the evidence suggests. It tends to be inconsistent with laws and theories in other fields of study. It tends to appeal to supernatural causes to explain natural occurrences. It tends to claim that their ideas can be proved with complete certainty. It tends to try to prove ideas by specifically selecting evidence to justify a desired conclusion that is assumed in advance. It tends to manipulate the analysis of data to allow for a desired result to appear statistically significant (p-value hacking). Pseudoscience tends to not rely on a system of checks and balances. It tends to be based on the effort of a few people and often these people are unqualified as well. It tends to avoid intellectual diversity. It tends to avoid rigorous testing and scrutiny. It tends to be unchanging and not self-corrective. It tends to go beyond the limitations of science. It tends to commit logical fallacies in its arguments. It tends to avoid discussions, feedback, and peer review. It tends to not be published in any credible scientific journals. It tends to avoid the scientific community but rather share the results directly with the general public. It tends to oppose the scientific consensus, focus on minor uncertainties and claim that there is a conspiracy to suppress their ideas.
Good video! Nice to see some philosophy of science content in the mainstream. Quick tidbits of philosophy provide, inherently, an incredibly difficult challenge because there's always so much complexity underlying every topic. Nevertheless, Dr. De Baerdemaeker did a good job including the most important stuff here.
When reading literature or media about a scientific claim, watch out for absolute terms like "prove/disprove", "always/never", "world's foremost authority on vs expert in". You'd be amazed how many articles you can just skim over and determine that they are not giving an objective view on something.
I remember getting homeopathic medicine long ago for some skin problems. Yeah, didn't work. So gave up on that one. But i heard one aunt of mine uses homeopathy. Homeopathy still hasn't disappeared. But i think it's become less practiced now with the increase of educated people.
It probably has. The problem is that there’s still a huge amount of people that just won’t give up, and pseudoscience has become some sort of religion.
Being well-informed on the specific issue is much more effective than being "educated." Lots of people with a bachelor's degree have fallen for pseudoscience like homeopathy because they're not well-informed about homeopathy or about science and medicine in general. It's difficult because there is so much misinformation being spread, people have limited time to research, and almost all people have very limited relevant knowledge and training.
@@loki2240 Being fully informed of the fact homeopathy isn't more effective than placebo, I still use it because placebo is better than no treatment at all. Of course I only use it for smaller things and quickly transition to actual medication against headaches or allergies, because of what harm it could do else.
Sometimes I wonder if social sciences are really science, when I think of science I always think of natural sciences. I am glad in today's world we have access to so much information so we can contrast data better.
It's not as easily disproven as natural sciences because it relies a lot on interpretation and biases and preconceived notions can get in the way of gleaning the truth. That's why people call such sciences soft science.
The problem is that "being scientific" is not the opposite of "being human". There are still things we do not unedrstand about us, like the observable correlation between low-quality life and messurable symptoms and illnesses. Hardcore science-rooted doctors would treat the symptoms and dismiss patients with "it's all in your head" or "You are just being paranoid!". Then these people go to the pseudo sciences and they are heard, treated fairly and emotionally contained. This is where homeopathy shines. Dr Mike says it very elonquently "The reason why modern medicine is failing? It is our fault".
Hard core science doctors often miss things as well. Assuming things are in people's heads is often not scientific. I know many people who were told that something was in their head and later they found a physical problem.
Unfortunately, scientists are still human, and they are often resistant to ideas that challenge their long-held theories, which they may interpret as personal challenges against their reputations. A classic example is the case of Galileo, whose theory of heliocentrism defied long-held Aristotelilian ideas as well as the theories of another astronomer, Tycho Brahe (who had reasonable criticisms of Galileo's theory given the limits of contemporary telescopes). We tend to remember the Galileo affair as a conflict of religion vs. science, but that's a massive oversimplification that ignores social tensions, scientific rivalries, and Galileo's own lack of tact. It's also worth remembering that real scientific theories adapt to new information all the time, even if the core tenants remain the same. The Theory of Evolution is an excellent example: The core tenant (the development of different species diverging from a common ancestry) may remain the same, but the mechanics and details have changed considerably since Darwin first formulated his theory.
Labeling something pseudo-science gets instant resistace from enthusiasts and many people who consider themselves open minded. I have been calling it "scientism" which I define as believing in something because it sounds scientific. Practitioners can be scientismists. It seems to go down easier and get the thinking engaged before the emotions.
The problem with people who are prone to believing in pseudoscience is that they are often paranoid. Criticising their belief system reinforces their belief that the government, elites, etc. are suppressing the truth. On the other hand others might just be impressionable or simply unaware of the lack of scientific validity and they're the ones we can educate.
@@thenightwatchman1598 I understand we need to critically evaluate whether somebody citing pseudoscience is actually citing sources that are unreliable. One approach could be asking whether the author they are citing is somebody with credentials in the field and if not, the source can be dismissed (eg. Lord Monckton has not published any peer reviewed research in the field of climatology). If they have or did have credentials in their field, then we can ask how was their work received by authorities in the given field. For example, Andrew Wakefield's work claiming there is a link between autism and vaccines was promptly dismissed by the medical community for its methodological errors and he was subsequently deregistered as a medical practitioner. For the uneducated, you can explain the above two points and they might listen. Regrettably for the paranoid, trying to explain this reinforces their view that there is a conspiracy to silence and persecute people such as climate change deniers or antivaxxers.
you'd be surprised, or not, to see how many people would understand this advice as "don't trust things that comes from research leaders and/or 'the elite' "
When my college biology teacher started our unit on evolution he made an important distinction between science and religion. He said that science asks question of how where religion asks the question of why, and when the two ask the other's question problems start to emerge.
Amazing information as always! Just when I think that I've seen all animation styles, animators at Ted-Ed surprise me with yet another beautiful animation. Hats off to the whole team!
Love this so much 😍 If only everyone in the world reasoned in this way. There'd still be multiculturalism, differences, variety etc, but the world would be so much better too. Spread the word, people!
“Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.” Just asking questions here. 1) falsifiable- where is the proof that all biological life, animals / humans in particular, share one or any common ancestor? 2)How do the claims of macro-evolution respond to criticism? 3) Consistency - Has anyone observed animals or humans become a different species?
Prefacing with not a scientist, just a person on youtube with way too much time 1. Probably the fossil record showing how creatures have changed over time, as well as genetics. Also traits in different animals (whale fins have a similar bone structure to human arms, suggesting that they are related), mitochondrial dna changes slower than normal dna so that can be used to prove the relationships between organisms, how organism fetuses develop similarly 2. Well what is the criticism? 3. Actually, dogs were first breed from wolves (although dogs and wolves are considered the same species, I think this is important to note). You can see how a wolf is different from a pit bull or a golden retriever or a poodle. All of these are different because humans picked out traits and selectively bred them. Now, if humans can pick out traits that they find useful and breed creatures with those traits more and more until only that trait is left, then theoretically naturally processes such as predation and competition can pick out traits that are best for survival and over thousands of years make species with entirely new traits. Also the fossil record shows tons of organisms evolving and the fact that you said "humans become a different species" shows you have no clue how evolution works. But if you care, Ted Ed does have a video about where humans are going in evolution that goes over cases of humans having traits that help them with survival, such as people who live in mountains having adaptations for the thinner air, if you care I can give a link.
The problem here is that you’re assuming that people *want* robust science and are misled by bad science. But speaking from personal experience with family members who are susceptible to alternative medicine pseudoscience, that’s often not true. Sometimes they reject information simply *because* it comes from medical professionals who they no longer trust. And pointing out to them that the scientific method doesn’t require trust, and that it’s good for them to ask questions like “how do we know this to be true?” makes it sound like too much hard work. They’d rather avoid that mental labour and trust their gut instincts, which are often very mistaken.
As an Orthodox Christian I believe that religion and science are two completely separate elements from each other and should not be mixed with each other. Religion is the philosophical approach to life and science is the rational approach to life.
I like your approach and point of view. I don't believe science should be trying to disprove religion- Let the people believe whatever- Science is made for innovation, and the betterment of humanity.
Thanks for sharing! I do believe that science has a philosophical aspect to it and religion has rationalist ideas too. But I totally get that your statement was to simplify your thought/beliefs, not necessarily to explain nuances :)
@@iridium8341 Lets not dive too deep into that but I don't believe religion is a hindrance to science, just as the wind isn't a hindrance to clouds. People can be religious and also scientists, religion doesn't have to try to attack science, and science reciprocates!
Science and pseudoscience can be quite tough to differentiate. Science leans more on scientific facts and discoveries. Pseudoscience relies more on beliefs that may not have any substantial evidences to back up.
@@Dimitris_Halfyou’re forgetting one thing science = has been proven correct/data consistent, pseudoscience = theoretical/data not consistent/not applicable/complete BS (such as taking horse meds for covid).
In real science, supporting evidence mathematically increases the probability of a hypothesis being correct, while in pseudoscience, the “evidence” does not increase that likelihood (and the math can be counterintuitive, so you can’t trust your feelings on what “feels” correct). This makes Bayes’ Theorem a powerful tool for telling the difference between science and pseudoscience, because it can directly calculate the change in probability after collecting a new piece of evidence, and can qualitatively inform whether or not a claim is likely when that probability can’t be quantified directly. The three “tells” I like to ask people to look for that give away pseudoscience are: 1. Non-falsifiable claims. 2. Cherry-picking evidence 3. Pointing at the low initial probability of scientific claims as some kind of disproof, while ignoring the high probability of those claims after the evidence is considered. An understanding of Bayes’ Theorem can inform why all three of the above items are properties of pseudoscience. Schools should really put more of an emphasis on teaching the difference between science and pseudoscience.
Thank you for being this direct and blunt about it. I’m sure creationist, homeopaths etc will be furious and potentially unfollow you. So this is commendable.
Honestly, its just more on what inhibits the comfortability of their understanding. This is the reason why you always see them look for doubt, in which they use as supposed loop hole and insert their agenda.
The best metaphor i have heard for homeopathy goes something like: You have a headache. Dissolve an aspirin into the Pacific Ocean. Drink a glass of the ocean to gain the benefits of the aspirin.
Why do so many practitioners and institutions still support this practice? Money.. It's because of money. There are people that pay good money to seek out these useless "alternative" treatments..
I think an important thing to mention is that gaps in understanding aren't the same as contradictory results. For instance young earth creationists like to bring up the way that there are gaps in the fossil record thinking that it contradicts evolution. I think in that case they don't realize the conditions needed to form a fossil or how rare they are. With the highly specific conditions needed to form a fossil gaps in the fossil record are to be expected and evolution doesn't require that every individual species be uncovered.
Critical thinking?? We might be in trouble, there isn’t a whole lot of that going spare these days 😂 Jokes aside, brilliant video as always, hopefully it will inspire open and sincere conversation!
Really? Rfk took the covid vaccines and so did his 7 kids. They are called anti vaxxers as a slurbecause they ask critical questions...like Dr John Campbell.
I can't speak much for the Big Five personality model but I can tell you that the MBTI personality model is definitely pseudoscience. It relies on the same "tricks" as horoscopes do: the Barnum effect. To put it simply, this is where a description of someone's personality which is presented as specific to them but is in fact designed to fit a wide range of people is judged as accurate by the person it is presented to. As an example, a horoscope may say something like "you have a tendency to be self-critical". It is presented as being specific to the recipient but nearly everyone would say it is true if they were the one receiving it. The MBTI personality test operates on a similar principle. Depending on who/what does the test for you, it may also rely on flattery. For example, my personality type is described by 16personalities as being "[not] afraid to stand out from the crowd". To be honest, I'm surprised this personality test is used in things such as job applications.
Note that I’m not in any way a scientist when I say this. I think MBTI has some merit to it, but it’s not something incredibly serious. I think it can give you a decent baseline for someone’s personality but it’s not infalible. I think The Big Five is slightly better because it’s less susceptible to the Barnum Effect than MBTI or Enneagram are, but I don’t think you should take it as gospel either. Personality tests are prone to changing results because of the complexity of personality and the simplicity of the questions. Granted, that’s just my (unscientific) opinion.
The issue with Popper's demarcation principles is that they are epistemologically thin. Some reasoning behind my affirmation (from different perspectives): 1) He mixed two ontologies that are not possibly mixable, as they derive from opposing assumptions: empiricism and rationalism. 2) He may have helped natural scientific advancement, but his demarcation scheme is useless to the so-called "soft sciences" or "the arts" (and here, I am not even arguing that all science is 'soft' because it uses language as a mediator...). 3) His ideals come from a highly individualistic background, which can be quickly seen if we consider his liberal political tendencies (and which causes no shock if we consider majoritarian power tends to neoliberal conglomerates in our time). 4) It diverts the focus away from systematic knowledge, which is a broader concept and encompasses many different traditions in (good) knowledge production. As a side note, the example of homoeopathy is correct but insufficient (and I am aware it was taken from his very examples of what pseudoscience is... and it is quite shocking to see it in a list with astrology). There are many reasons why it was followed at first and why it looked like a possible avenue of scientific investigation. For instance, the idea of treating illnesses with their own diluted causing agent derives from very old ideals of mithridatism and is until today followed by mainstream treatment and preventive preparations like vaccines or desensitization to allergens (despite the clear difference with homoeopathy, as these two strategies have good empirical support... historically, empirical support generally followed practice, not vice-versa). Anyway, simplifying this discussion is not helping anyone. And it is indeed a difficult topic that was not well covered in this presentation (which is rather rare, as TEDEd content tends to have quite strong videos...).
Step one: Buy 1 (one) pill of homeopathic anti-depressants Step two: Toss it in your city's reservoir Step three: Watch as depression and hopelessness leave your community I'm so smort, they should give me the noble prize for medsin.
Pseudoscience often revises its theories to describe conflicting perspectives and even introduces nonexistent new theories. I have witnessed some theists employing quantum mechanics to explain the existence of God, which is truly preposterous, and the most alarming part is that many people actually believe it
I hated how science was taught when I was in school. It is a process, not a set of facts and assumptions. Also, anyone who tells me a theory turns into a law, I swear to god I’ll….!
I just thought about my distant family which "cures" cancer with vitamin C drips... sitting at a table, gulping beer and smoking an appalling number of cigarettes. Yep. On another note, this animation aesthetic is quite... cute? I don't know, I like it nevertheless.
As someone who works with western astrology it is legitimately more faith based then scientific. It's also a historical thing. It's good for personal/spiritual development but it is not a means of diagnosing and/or treating medical issues. It's also not to be used as a social science, conclusively. however, it can be a way of self-understanding. Apply it to yourself, not to the world (and only if it resonates with you 😉). To many people see it as a cult or just ridiculous when I ca be beneficial. Just don't make any important d visions based on it. Astrology can help you understand yours, but you are more than your astral sign.
"In a world where it's increasingly difficult to tell fact from fiction, it's essential to keep your critical thinking skills sharp, which is why we recommend this video's sponsor, Brilliant."
Hello! I'm looking for advice on how to explain that a belief system simply can't be proven. My classmates keep bringing up beliefs in academic classroom discussions and my teacher won't simply ban the topic because it's important to discuss. The problem is, the argument simply leads back to the bible said so and I'm finding it hard to explain that the bible has no references and therefore cannot be proven. I am honestly all open to any suggestions :*(
You can try with fallacies: arguments that at first glance can seem true, but with a closer look they are false. One of the most used to prove the Bible is the circular fallacy: the bible is true because the bible says it's true.
A concept related to what you're talking about is replication. An important aspect of scientific experiments not mentioned in the video is that they can be replicated. The more reliably they can be replicated, the more trustworthy the conclusion - compare how chemistry experiments can be done in a high school lab, while psychology has to deal with a very complex topic that can't be so easily isolated from confounding variables. You can't reliably replicate divine intervention, so you can't rely on it the way you can on science. Hope this helps!
There are some things in the Bibles that can be proved or disproved. And some of those things have already been proved or disproved. For example, there are some references to places that really do or did exist. And livestock mating near a fence does not produce offspring with stripes. I don't understand your point that the Bible can't be proven because it doesn't contain references. Is that in relation to a particular point? In general, that wouldn't be the basis of whether something can be proven. But of course, one can cite peer-reviewed scientific research that supports one's claim.
Well, a belief system can be proven in some cases (not the whole thing but parts of it, because (generally) belief systems have sayings that aren't explicitly based on falseness. Eg, if a belief says that plants aren't real (very disproven) but also that water is good (proven), then only certain parts are correct. In the larger whole however, are you trying to explain the beliefs themselves or their popularity? The popularity of belief systems are very explainable by human behavior. Spread around a believable enough rumor and it sticks. Religion is basically that, but on a much bigger scale. (It was also much easier to spread a religion hundreds of years ago due to people not knowing as much as today, so most people if not all would see it as acceptable.) If you're trying to explain the beliefs... Well, goodluck to you, I'm not sure I can be of much help there. Those stem entirely from people and not observed phenomena, if they aren't explainable. On a whole, a belief system simply cannot be proven due to their roots. Unless you count things like science belief system, though I don't think you do
Why do you feel like you need to find a perfect argument that will change what other people believe? How would you feel if someone tried to convert you to their way to thinking or religion? We cannot control other people. We can only improve ourselves. Start with yourself and then lead by example.
It wouldn't help by looking at one paper. There is legit science funded by company who got money by from the products in the paper (aka. pharmaceutical company). It's suspicious when almost every paper published come from company that made them profit are positive to the product.
@@punki2291 Suspicious? yes, and we should scritinize it more, but it would be folly to just base the credibity of a research paper just by its funding source, no?
@@cassiusdalcazarosta8010 “It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it.” ― Upton Sinclair
@@cassiusdalcazarosta8010 We just know when it's our speciality in our field. It's not something that everybody should worry about. It's simple to understand and to do (for most scientists) when we've searched a lot to publish your own article repeatedly.
[바람 / 나동수] 촌철 : 뜨거운 열망으로 기압 차가 생겨야 바람이 분다. 활인 : 바람은 기압 차이로 인하여 기압이 높은 곳에서 낮은 곳으로 붑니다. 따라서 기압이나 기온 차가 없다면 바람이 불지 않습니다. 여러분들이 만약 변화를 원한다면 가슴을 뜨거운 열망으로 가득 채우세요. 그러면 기압 차에 의해 변화의 바람이 불 것입니다.
The worst saying I hear in the past 4 years is "I believe in science" or "I don't believe in science". Science isn't something you believe in, just as you don't believe in phones or Tuesdays.
the question should be why the pharmaceutical industry exerts so many influence on modern science. People are not skeptic for nothing. Its by experience. A global scientific fund could help with this problem.
Yet science resisted all the influence eventually. We have peer review, disclaimer on possible conflict of interest, even new statistical methods to detect fraud, and finally simple criticism. (Pretty much) all the "skeptic" aren't thinking critically, outright denies science while peddling their own hypothesis as fact.
Actually, it’s surprisingly the opposite. In fact, no Pharma company has enough money to try to buy off a fake scientific consensus. Worse, bigger grants don’t mean shills, as grant money not only can’t be kept by law but also is given before the study. Whistleblowers would still use the grant money to conduct an honest study.
Capitalism incentivises putting a price on everything in order to male profits, even life savings cure. Get rid of capitalism and the profit motive, and you'll see most of the world's problems go away.
The reference to creationism is misleading and ironic. For one, creationists don't ignore that evidence. They just interpret it differently. Evolution, on the other hand, is the prime example of a theory that's constantly modified to fit new conflicting evidence and of refusing to check internal biases and assumptions, of which it has many. I'm not arguing for the validity of creationism, I'm just saying the only thing Evolution has going for it over creationism is consensus, which in real science means absolutely nothing. In fact, I take it as a red flag. The majority tend to get comfortable in their power as the majority, which leads to lazy science that doesn't care much about is own biases and dismisses alternative theories out of hand. Minority views have to be that much more careful, rigorous, and thorough to be taken seriously and make any headway in the scientific community. And getting funding to do that is very difficult. This all contributes to bad science staying in the majority.
The most unlikely answer of all is one whose central concept ("god/gods") has never had any understood or agreed meaning, for which there has never been any credible evidence, and that offers no consistency or predictability whatsoever in answer to anything. The ONLY consistent thing about creationists is that humans have believed untold thousands of contradictory creation myths throughout time, just as they've believed in contradictory gods that we all know full well never existed, creating internal biases and assumptions that are never checked or corrected. It is perhaps the oldest human conceit that one's invisible gods and mythology are any more real than the thousands of other invisible gods left on the scrap heap of history. It's a simple objective fact that nearly anything you hear from modern creationists is a deliberate distortion of the facts, is said in total ignorance of the facts, and/or is said without ever having done any legitimate study of the field of evolution. It is dishonest on the face of it, whether that involves knowing full well they are lying, as many do, or being so dishonest as to parrot lies without ever confirming the truth of any of it, as the average believer does.
The "only" thing evolution has over creationism is that it provides predictions, and has observations that match those predictions. Evolution predicts that we should observe populations change over time. In the lab, we observe this in bacterial colonies with effects like antibiotic resistance. In the field, we observe that all mammals have a fundamentally similar anatomical structure, with the various limbs repurposed. Cetacians still have arms and legs, and have the same fundamental bone structure as land mammals. We also observe that animals with a similar anatomical structure tend have similar genetic code. We observe a fossil record that corroborates this. We observe bands of animal populations that can reproduce with one-another when they are at close geographic proximity, and individuals on the extrema of this geographic range cannot reproduce with one another. Evolution both predicts and provides an explanation for this. Primates are all anatomically very similar, and we all have very similar genetic patterns. Our embryos develop similarly. The primates that we are closest to have a more similar genetic structure, we can even place a rough timeline of when and how the various hominids diverged, because, for example, humans and bonobos share specific genetic sequences that (humans and bonobos) and gorillas do not. Furthermore, we have a fossil record of hominids that suggest specialisation of bipedalism over time. Going back to the fossil record, we observe numerous species not alive today in the various strata. We observe dinosaurs begin to appear 250 million years ago, and disappear 65 million years ago. Did your god decide to spontaneously create these creatures out of nowhere and then make them disappear out of nowhere?
@xero2715 First off, I never said I was a creationist or even a theist. Whether I am or not has no bearing on the point. Your confusing micro-evolution (which is accepted by creationists) with the evolution theory which extrapolates micro-evolution to macro-evolution. The evidence you listed mostly is mixed, but some of it is interpreted by evolutionists as evidence for macro-evolution. The point made in the video was that creationists ignore evidence. My point is that they just interpret it differently, and that's true for all the evidence for macro-evolution that you listed. You haven't listed anything that creationism can't account for. Creationists haven't produced a whole lot of testable predictions (though there are some) because they spend most of their efforts poking holes in the evolution theory. Holes which evolutionists seem to be experts at ignoring. Hence my comment about the problems that arise from such a large consensus.
@ObservantHistorian Did I somehow suggest it would? Incidentally, that's kinda my point, though. Most people that believe in evolution don't have the time, energy, resources, or interest to question it, examine the assumptions it makes and the challenges raised against it, etc. They only believe it because it's so often repeated that it must be true. A true scientific humility forces a person to consider themself agnostic and never mock a person for having the good sense to open their mind to other possibilities.
5:07 I think it's probably not the best idea for laypeople to be trying to decide this for themselves; someone who doesn't have the first clue avout a subject probably won't know how to test an idea at the forefront of research and couldn't read the literature or go to conferences to understand how new ideas are treated. Laypeople thinking they have the tools and understanding to judge the scientific consensus for themselves is how you get flat-earthers and climate change deniers and anti-vaxxers. And that's not to say that a layperson can't become an expert, the process is just slow and expensive and so for most people, it's not worth it.
TL;DR: I've yet to see a good algorithm to spot pseudo-science. This list of factors may as well enforce your bias instead of spotting bad science. Regarding response to criticisim: Which field responds well? Leaders of their field are the best at what they do, so they usually stick to what they think is right (and justly). Besides, the often harsh tone and in scientific debates and the need to produce publishable results doesn't favor humble minds. Regarding continually modification: Not just do I think, it is VERY common in real science (historical sciences!) to improve theories instead of discarding them, it also creates an easy universal argument. Together with the first factor, you can easily dismiss something you don't like as either not humble or too weak. Regarding ignored biases: again, if you or your field seems good at what they are doing, you naturally are biased towards your own choice of methodology. Regarding transparent peer reviews: I think homeopathic and astrology have a lot of approving peer reviews. It's just that they choose their peers very differently. Just as no real scientist will let an homeopath or astrologist review their work. In addition, if a scientific work not consistent enough with mainstream ideas, it may just not find someone who wants to risk of peer reviewing and publishing it. Regarding the common network of information: as before, pseudo-science have their pseudo-networks, often trying to crosslink to science-science (of course, the other way around doesn't happen). Not to mention, this citiation-counting as proof quality has led to some problems in publication practice. For example, it discourages criticism and contradicting evidence.
The covid vaccines are based off of clinical testing and trials, which are known to be extremely rigorous. Put simply, They used method A to treat illness A Method A was given to 50% of people, and the rest were given simple water, but thought they were given Method A. Method A is proven wrong, and they move on to method B, rinse and repeat, until you get something that always (or almost always) works to cure Illness A. Since vaccines do this, they are science!
The same science as other vaccines. As a reminder, vaccines are not magic shields that prevent infection. They simply teach your immune system how to fight the virus better.
Kinda, but not really. Religion is based on beliefs, and pseudoscience is also based on beliefs. But just because they are both based on beliefs doesn't mean they are related. Also, a religion is based (I'm pretty sure) not on disproven things, but unproven or non unprovable things. ('God is real' for example. It cannot be proven, so a religion can be found around it.) Also, religions are (mostly) not harmful, while pseudoscience is. They can stop you from getting actual treatment or in some cases cause active harm. They do stand on belief however, so small things do work with pseudoscience due to placebo effect!
What I have observed is that many people use their own experiences, beliefs and biases as “proof” of a given position despite mountains of scientific evidence to the contrary. Also people who distrust science, medicine, etc. will mistake this mistrust for “critical thinking”, when in fact it is mostly an emotional gut reaction.
Yep, they'll think, or at least like to say that they're simply questioning, or scrutinizing, when in reality, they are merely being antagonistic , & thinking that they know better than literal experts.
We should mistrust things. Mistrust is the cornerstone of skepticism which itself is the cornerstone of science
@@Darius-kl3jkconsidering that literal experts have been literally wrong and killing people for literally ever I think I have a good reason to think actual observation trumps armchair expertise bro
@@luisfilipe2023 sure, but I think u missed the "spirit" of what he was saying
@@luisfilipe2023 there is a fine line between critical thinking, which allows us to admit when we are wrong or allows us to admit our knowledge is incomplete, and mistrust which ends up at times not respecting others’ findings and knowledge. (Provided that that knowledge is gained through genuine scientific inquiry)
To me as a scientist it is batshit crazy that it is barely taught in school how science works. This should be the most obvious item on the curriculum right next to teaching how to read.
In brasil and other countries the kids study by doing projects with scientific methods, great way there
@@robertozaffari9587 I also did experiments in physics class and such. But the very idea behind it was never discussed. Neither did we ever learn how social sciences work or what "empirical" means. And I was on a high profile German private school with extra courses for gifted children. I finished school in 2011. First few methods lectures at University with a professor who was very into philosophy of science and my mind was blown.
It is *unbelievably* sad that young students aren't taught to embrace using empirical data and legitimate analysis methods in order to make educated assessments about the world around them. Unfortunately, those children grow older and become far more set in their opinions, beliefs, and random conjectures about "how they feel". This is what leads to flat Earthers. 🙄 And, of course, they'd ignore one Eratosthenes, two obelisks, and three simple measurements. Easy as one, two, three, but hey... nope... the planet is flat because "I just know it's true". 🤮
@@nilsp9426 I agree. I have also have a problems where a student is told that X is correct, but not why that X statement IS correct. I, myself, am currently studying for a biochemistry degree, as I already been fascinate by both Biology and Chemistry.
There is this video called "DNA Evidence That Humans & Chimps Share A Common Ancestor: Endogenous Retroviruses". This Ted-ED video make a claim that biology disprove creationism (that is not exactly what is said, but still), but never really explain how biology disproved. This video I mention earlier, to me, completely blew my mind away. To me, it is one of the best proof of evolution.
@@nilsp9426 exactly this. In my country the scientific method is an obligatory high school topic, but we were just taught the steps. I had to take an extra course in University to be taught _why_ we do it this way and how to differentiate bad research from good
1. Falsifiable
2. Ready to reject old theories in face of new evidences, not just explain inconsistencies away by opaque methods.
3. Verifiable across various disciplines.
I'm glad astrology was mentioned. I'm pretty tired of people thinking they know anything about me simply by asking what day I was born. My experiences in life made me who I am, not the position of the stars and planets. Astral signs are 100% meaningless and that's why nobody has been able to guess mine without me telling them.
@@emmakielty5552
I love giving them the wrong date, just to see how many things they will get right about me anyways - and after agreeing with them, I suddenly remember that I accidentally gave them the wrong date - silly old easily befuddled me…
Oh, you're Aries ... it's so clear!
j/k m8, I'd have no idea.
I've seen an uptake online, but I've never seen anyone take it seriously. I thought it was usually ironic for the novelty. But, I am a cancer with serious ADHD...(literally born with big feelings) so I can't argue when I'm a walking example. 😂 still it's anecdotal & at best, due to patterns in development not the stars.
I’m apparently a cancer but I got low empathy and don’t care much about others so I don’t match the stereotype at all
I knew it. You are an asparagus. That was such an asparagus thing to say.
glad homeopathy was mentioned!! i had a homeopathic doctor when i was a teenager. went to them for four years because of stomache pain and every time i would just get some homeopathic pills (we did do a allergy test though at my first appointment). in the end i figured it out myself that i had lactose intolerance and that my issue was easily fixable. glad it was nothing worse but i feel that a different doctor could have figured that out quicker. i also convinced my parents to not go to the homeopathic doctor anymore because it made me really worried that if they had something serious it would get unchecked for too long.
That makes me angry just thinking about "doctors" basically lying to you about their credentials and medications. I guess when I think about Drs like that I think of chiropractors
@@undrwatropium3724chiropractors, homeopaths, naturopaths, integrative and functional practitioners. All red flags you should watch out for.
Homeopathic doctor is an oxymoron.
0:52 You must have thought that the animation with the bull releasing the pill was spot on, right?
Or your "doctor" knew you had lactose intolerance and just wanted to get more money out of your parents
One challenge is when people think they are being scientific by “just asking questions”, and resent when others refute their claims out of hand with large bodies of evidence that have already been done. They then think that science is it’s own religion because from their perspective they’re not being taken seriously in an environment where challenging existing ideas is supposed to be applauded.
But what they don’t realize is that “challenging existing ideas” is not supposed to apply to an entire field or principle or scientific theory all at once, and instead should be done one step at a time. For example, you don’t prove or disprove flat Earth with a single experiment. You do lots of separate, independent experiments and look at the body of evidence as a whole.
Additionally, people don’t realize that “theory” in a science context does not mean the same as “theory” in a conspiracy context. In science it refers to an extremely established, proven idea that is already mostly correct, with the minute details needing to be fleshed out.
On one hand you want to help people learn what science literacy means, but on the other hand you can’t afford to waste your time with every last troll who is disingenuous and then feigns being offended, promoting their staged experience as evidence that science is the same as religion in terms of determining what is true and what is false. Especially on the internet you literally could just be talking to a bot or AI nowadays, which makes everything even worse.
Brilliantly worded, totally agree!
Great points!! I've been thinking about the confusion around the word theory, maybe we should adopt a new word for the scientific meaning, so people don't think "oh, evolution is just a theory, it's not true!" Also, great distinction around the difference between being skeptical and questioning, and just ignoring the evidence.
@@mysterxyz I totally agree!! It's just when someone continues to deny a claim after being presented with plentiful evidence that is the problem. Questioning is always good, but ignoring large bodies of supporting evidence for a claim while holding on tightly to a contradictory claim with hardly any evidence isn't. I think this is the distinction @AppleJackSix is trying to make, and that I agree with.
@@mysterxyz there are people who ask questions simply for the intention of sowing doubts. especially when it comes to safety, e.g. drugs, regulatory bodies are ALWAYS asking questions, is it effective, is it safe, what are the side effects, etc. But when shown strong evidence, they eventually accept it. in contrast, people who just want to sow doubt doesn't care whether or not their question is already answered. they just want to make it look as if the science isn't settled, even though it is.
Yes, much like when many Flat Earth believers cite the Bible as evidence
It's challenging especially when it comes to psychology too as people also have misunderstood pseudoscience for psychology. Pseudoscience has really tainted psychology's name a lot and it's saddening when people started to have a misconception that people who study psychology can read minds, auras and et cetera. Even worse is that people were lured to sign up for metaphysics course and often we heard it's because they thought these were psychological science
To make things worse, there's a huge trend for Psychologists to pick up New Age trends/beliefs and incorporate them into their professional practice: family constellations, past lives, astral travel, angeology, spiritism, etc. I've stopped going to therapy precisely because of this, because I've changed therapists several times (5, at least) after they start introducing New Age practices into their sessions.
I hate New Age or other religions being included in therapy.
I think we need publicly funded advertisements to advertise ideas that are dead and ones that have replaced it
Psychology is a pseudoscience. Find a single double blind with cross study and I will change my mind. Psychology is unfalsifiable and all cases are cherry picked by the therapist. Raoult shows us well how that kind of extremely bad methodology will always prove what the author wish to prove.
Psychology isn’t a science. It just isn’t. It’s just people being emotional.
Now they just need a video explaining how to tell the difference between something that's well researched and propaganda.
I'd love to see that too
Look at Ryan Macbeth for some of the assessment.
@@paulthomas963 What do you mean by "the scientific establishment"? You mean studies that have been peer reviewed and recognized by highly regarded universities? And what lies have "the scientific stabilshment" told during the last 3 years?...
I mean, of course any study can be wrong. As this video stated, accepting the possibility of error and updating your theories as new information is learned is part of the very basis of science.
But if you are going to disregard "the government" and "the scientific estabilishment"... Where are you going to look for more reliable information?
@@paulthomas963
"Of course if it's from the government or the scientific establishment it's the gospel truth because they would never lie to you or be wrong."
And they use peer-reviewed science.
"As the last 3 years have shown us."
I take it you're an anti-vaxxer who's annoyed that the evidence shows the vaccine is safe.
Boils down to any modle, reproduce enough times with clarity.
That's might come helpful with ambiguous n mountains of papers, as in medical sciences, which surprisingly have quite a share of "bs" conclusion from weak studies.
I wonder if the demon of reason would tackle the "moving the goal post" fallacy
I have seen some pseudoscience trying to justify itself with that
"the product work, they just applied wrong"
I second this, this is something I'd love to see
Agree
Yes!!
This needs to be a thing! I love the Demon of Reason!
beautifully delivered as always. it is sad how prevalent misinformation and pseudoscience is in modern society. i hope that this video reaches a wide audience..
SCIENCE IS THE BEST
There is no unified science.
Yes
But not always
GERMAN SCIENCE IS THE BEST IN THE WORLD.
True
Science is Real
the animation is superb
Pseudoscience are processes, knowledge and people that are promoted to be scientific but actually aren’t. Unfortunately, many people don’t understand how science works, leaving them vulnerable to pseudoscientific ideas. Sometimes the conclusions of science don’t satisfy our fundamental needs, so we tend to rather prefer the interesting stories of pseudoscience. Pseudoscience makes us fall victim to a confirmation bias and wishful thinking by confirming our beliefs, expectations and hopes. People tend to find pseudoscience more emotionally satisfying than actual science. The fundamental difference between science and pseudoscience is that scientists are motivated to understand reality as it actually is, and pseudoscientists are motivated to protect their emotional attachment to their beliefs, expectations and hopes. Pseudoscience avoids many of the steps that makes the scientific process reliable.
Pseudoscience tends to be done unsystematically in an unplanned, uncontrolled, disorganized, and unrepeatable way. It tends to appeal to singular studies as sufficient evidence to establish a high degree of confidence in a conclusion (avoids research syntheses and summaries). It tends to be based on untestable ideas that can’t be disproven (unfalsifiable). It tends to assume that correlation implies causation. It tends to rely heavily on anecdotes, hearsay, intuition, authority, popularity, or tradition. It tends to be based on small sample sizes. It tends to have a conflict of interest between the funding source for the research and the results of the research. It tends to be compared to a few lines of evidence (gathered from one type of test and one field of study) by a few people and often these people are unqualified as well. It tends to contain little predictive, descriptive, or explanatory power. It tends to be based on many assumptions and go beyond what the evidence suggests. It tends to be inconsistent with laws and theories in other fields of study. It tends to appeal to supernatural causes to explain natural occurrences. It tends to claim that their ideas can be proved with complete certainty. It tends to try to prove ideas by specifically selecting evidence to justify a desired conclusion that is assumed in advance. It tends to manipulate the analysis of data to allow for a desired result to appear statistically significant (p-value hacking).
Pseudoscience tends to not rely on a system of checks and balances. It tends to be based on the effort of a few people and often these people are unqualified as well. It tends to avoid intellectual diversity. It tends to avoid rigorous testing and scrutiny. It tends to be unchanging and not self-corrective. It tends to go beyond the limitations of science. It tends to commit logical fallacies in its arguments. It tends to avoid discussions, feedback, and peer review. It tends to not be published in any credible scientific journals. It tends to avoid the scientific community but rather share the results directly with the general public. It tends to oppose the scientific consensus, focus on minor uncertainties and claim that there is a conspiracy to suppress their ideas.
I appreciate that you took the time an effort to write this, and fully agree
@@cact0s_ulion405 i didn't read
You have summarised climate change denial in a nutshell.
Though there IS a conspiracy attempting to discredit some ideas.
@@coopers8591 it is not time to deny or give up climate change, we still have the chance to save climate change
I love both religion and science. I'm grateful for both.
Good video! Nice to see some philosophy of science content in the mainstream. Quick tidbits of philosophy provide, inherently, an incredibly difficult challenge because there's always so much complexity underlying every topic. Nevertheless, Dr. De Baerdemaeker did a good job including the most important stuff here.
Clean animations, I liked the satisfying ones the most! I think you guys should use them more
You are exactly the types that homeopathy is targeted at.
@@bigbulk688beY h😊 BBô
D be b.lpq I'm😊
Hi
..3
@@bigbulk688 What do you mean?
@@bigbulk688 ??
Indeed
When reading literature or media about a scientific claim, watch out for absolute terms like "prove/disprove", "always/never", "world's foremost authority on vs expert in". You'd be amazed how many articles you can just skim over and determine that they are not giving an objective view on something.
I remember getting homeopathic medicine long ago for some skin problems. Yeah, didn't work. So gave up on that one.
But i heard one aunt of mine uses homeopathy.
Homeopathy still hasn't disappeared. But i think it's become less practiced now with the increase of educated people.
It probably has. The problem is that there’s still a huge amount of people that just won’t give up, and pseudoscience has become some sort of religion.
Being well-informed on the specific issue is much more effective than being "educated." Lots of people with a bachelor's degree have fallen for pseudoscience like homeopathy because they're not well-informed about homeopathy or about science and medicine in general. It's difficult because there is so much misinformation being spread, people have limited time to research, and almost all people have very limited relevant knowledge and training.
oh you sweet summer child....
@@loki2240 Being fully informed of the fact homeopathy isn't more effective than placebo, I still use it because placebo is better than no treatment at all. Of course I only use it for smaller things and quickly transition to actual medication against headaches or allergies, because of what harm it could do else.
In India, there is an entire Ministry to support and promote pseudoscience like Homeopathy!
Sometimes I wonder if social sciences are really science, when I think of science I always think of natural sciences. I am glad in today's world we have access to so much information so we can contrast data better.
It's not as easily disproven as natural sciences because it relies a lot on interpretation and biases and preconceived notions can get in the way of gleaning the truth. That's why people call such sciences soft science.
Love this video. This content is getting to the nature of "truth". The world needs information just like this.
ironically, i would never trust a person who puts truth in quotations.
The problem is that "being scientific" is not the opposite of "being human". There are still things we do not unedrstand about us, like the observable correlation between low-quality life and messurable symptoms and illnesses. Hardcore science-rooted doctors would treat the symptoms and dismiss patients with "it's all in your head" or "You are just being paranoid!". Then these people go to the pseudo sciences and they are heard, treated fairly and emotionally contained. This is where homeopathy shines.
Dr Mike says it very elonquently "The reason why modern medicine is failing? It is our fault".
Hard core science doctors often miss things as well.
Assuming things are in people's heads is often not scientific.
I know many people who were told that something was in their head and later they found a physical problem.
the lack of empathy and good intentions is a blight on modern science.
1-falisifiable
2-response to criticism
3-overall consistency
Science is simply an edgy Socrates.
@@mingthan7028Socrates was an edgy scientist
Unfortunately, scientists are still human, and they are often resistant to ideas that challenge their long-held theories, which they may interpret as personal challenges against their reputations. A classic example is the case of Galileo, whose theory of heliocentrism defied long-held Aristotelilian ideas as well as the theories of another astronomer, Tycho Brahe (who had reasonable criticisms of Galileo's theory given the limits of contemporary telescopes). We tend to remember the Galileo affair as a conflict of religion vs. science, but that's a massive oversimplification that ignores social tensions, scientific rivalries, and Galileo's own lack of tact.
It's also worth remembering that real scientific theories adapt to new information all the time, even if the core tenants remain the same. The Theory of Evolution is an excellent example: The core tenant (the development of different species diverging from a common ancestry) may remain the same, but the mechanics and details have changed considerably since Darwin first formulated his theory.
@5:22 "looking scientific and actually being scientific are two very different things"
I can't say any better.
Labeling something pseudo-science gets instant resistace from enthusiasts and many people who consider themselves open minded. I have been calling it "scientism" which I define as believing in something because it sounds scientific. Practitioners can be scientismists. It seems to go down easier and get the thinking engaged before the emotions.
The problem with people who are prone to believing in pseudoscience is that they are often paranoid. Criticising their belief system reinforces their belief that the government, elites, etc. are suppressing the truth. On the other hand others might just be impressionable or simply unaware of the lack of scientific validity and they're the ones we can educate.
@@coopers8591 well. do you ever test their claims or do you just assume? you arent as rational as you think you are.
@@thenightwatchman1598 I understand we need to critically evaluate whether somebody citing pseudoscience is actually citing sources that are unreliable. One approach could be asking whether the author they are citing is somebody with credentials in the field and if not, the source can be dismissed (eg. Lord Monckton has not published any peer reviewed research in the field of climatology).
If they have or did have credentials in their field, then we can ask how was their work received by authorities in the given field. For example, Andrew Wakefield's work claiming there is a link between autism and vaccines was promptly dismissed by the medical community for its methodological errors and he was subsequently deregistered as a medical practitioner.
For the uneducated, you can explain the above two points and they might listen. Regrettably for the paranoid, trying to explain this reinforces their view that there is a conspiracy to silence and persecute people such as climate change deniers or antivaxxers.
“One of the great commandments of science is, "Mistrust arguments from authority."” - Carl Sagan
you'd be surprised, or not, to see how many people would understand this advice as "don't trust things that comes from research leaders and/or 'the elite' "
@@wontcreep well unless you can prove they were well intentioned with their shoddy vaccines. then you are just bullshitting.
When my college biology teacher started our unit on evolution he made an important distinction between science and religion. He said that science asks question of how where religion asks the question of why, and when the two ask the other's question problems start to emerge.
Amazing information as always! Just when I think that I've seen all animation styles, animators at Ted-Ed surprise me with yet another beautiful animation. Hats off to the whole team!
Probably your most important video to date!
"Looking scientific and actually BEING scientific are two very different things" if I had a dollar for every RUclips channel this could apply to
Love this so much 😍
If only everyone in the world reasoned in this way. There'd still be multiculturalism, differences, variety etc, but the world would be so much better too. Spread the word, people!
the animation is so beautiful, applause to the animators
“Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.”
Just asking questions here.
1) falsifiable- where is the proof that all biological life, animals / humans in particular, share one or any common ancestor?
2)How do the claims of macro-evolution respond to criticism?
3) Consistency - Has anyone observed animals or humans become a different species?
Prefacing with not a scientist, just a person on youtube with way too much time
1. Probably the fossil record showing how creatures have changed over time, as well as genetics. Also traits in different animals (whale fins have a similar bone structure to human arms, suggesting that they are related), mitochondrial dna changes slower than normal dna so that can be used to prove the relationships between organisms, how organism fetuses develop similarly
2. Well what is the criticism?
3. Actually, dogs were first breed from wolves (although dogs and wolves are considered the same species, I think this is important to note). You can see how a wolf is different from a pit bull or a golden retriever or a poodle. All of these are different because humans picked out traits and selectively bred them. Now, if humans can pick out traits that they find useful and breed creatures with those traits more and more until only that trait is left, then theoretically naturally processes such as predation and competition can pick out traits that are best for survival and over thousands of years make species with entirely new traits.
Also the fossil record shows tons of organisms evolving and the fact that you said "humans become a different species" shows you have no clue how evolution works. But if you care, Ted Ed does have a video about where humans are going in evolution that goes over cases of humans having traits that help them with survival, such as people who live in mountains having adaptations for the thinner air, if you care I can give a link.
Number 2 is a big one. Criticism is almost never taken well with macro-evolution. Refer to 3:06 in the video.
I’d wager about 50% of the country sorely needs to see this.
The problem here is that you’re assuming that people *want* robust science and are misled by bad science. But speaking from personal experience with family members who are susceptible to alternative medicine pseudoscience, that’s often not true. Sometimes they reject information simply *because* it comes from medical professionals who they no longer trust. And pointing out to them that the scientific method doesn’t require trust, and that it’s good for them to ask questions like “how do we know this to be true?” makes it sound like too much hard work. They’d rather avoid that mental labour and trust their gut instincts, which are often very mistaken.
"how to spot pseudoscience, from the platform that gives pseudoscience its loudest voice"
The animation is so good!
For those that are interested, there's a brilliant book called 'Bad Science' by Ben Goldacre that expands on this idea.
Thanks for the suggestion, I'll check it out!
wow nice! 😮
Occam’s razor is probably the best way to determine if something is science or pseudoscience
Hi Andyyy!!!, good to hear you again.......
As an Orthodox Christian I believe that religion and science are two completely separate elements from each other and should not be mixed with each other. Religion is the philosophical approach to life and science is the rational approach to life.
I like your approach and point of view. I don't believe science should be trying to disprove religion- Let the people believe whatever- Science is made for innovation, and the betterment of humanity.
Thanks for sharing! I do believe that science has a philosophical aspect to it and religion has rationalist ideas too.
But I totally get that your statement was to simplify your thought/beliefs, not necessarily to explain nuances :)
is that the greece flag?
@@iridium8341 Lets not dive too deep into that but I don't believe religion is a hindrance to science, just as the wind isn't a hindrance to clouds. People can be religious and also scientists, religion doesn't have to try to attack science, and science reciprocates!
@@cact0s_ulion405 but religion does attack science tho. just look at creationism
The toming before the UAP hearing *chef kiss*
The problem today is that people see science as badge to be worn rather then a methodology
Thanks for the great explanatory videos. It’s calming!
If i would've came across this video when i was busy reading graham hancock's books, it would've saved me a lot of time and energy 😂😂😂
props to the animator, this looks so good
Science and pseudoscience can be quite tough to differentiate. Science leans more on scientific facts and discoveries. Pseudoscience relies more on beliefs that may not have any substantial evidences to back up.
@@Dimitris_Halfyou’re forgetting one thing science = has been proven correct/data consistent, pseudoscience = theoretical/data not consistent/not applicable/complete BS (such as taking horse meds for covid).
@@Dimitris_HalfThe terminal prescriptions most researchers make are wishfull thinking.
@@LNVACVAC You do realize that what researchers prescribe are backed by accurate research though?
@@mizuhime6221 You are confounding/conflating instrumental prescriptions with terminal prescriptions.
@@LNVACVAC Then define terminal prescriptions.
I thought the animation and style looked familiar. Eoin Duffy is great. Really nice.
If they try to shame you for not believing in it, it's not science it's religion.
a dangerous line to walk, but yeah it isn't science. Not necessarily religion however.
"Pray to Fauci and get that ouchie"
Jokes aside yeah true
There's not just pseodoscience but pseudohistory to contend with, as well!
Average science fan: 🤓
Average pseudoscience enjoyer: 💀 dies*
If that were true there would be no need to create this video.
@@perceivedvelocity9914Do you value investing
In real science, supporting evidence mathematically increases the probability of a hypothesis being correct, while in pseudoscience, the “evidence” does not increase that likelihood (and the math can be counterintuitive, so you can’t trust your feelings on what “feels” correct). This makes Bayes’ Theorem a powerful tool for telling the difference between science and pseudoscience, because it can directly calculate the change in probability after collecting a new piece of evidence, and can qualitatively inform whether or not a claim is likely when that probability can’t be quantified directly.
The three “tells” I like to ask people to look for that give away pseudoscience are:
1. Non-falsifiable claims.
2. Cherry-picking evidence
3. Pointing at the low initial probability of scientific claims as some kind of disproof, while ignoring the high probability of those claims after the evidence is considered.
An understanding of Bayes’ Theorem can inform why all three of the above items are properties of pseudoscience. Schools should really put more of an emphasis on teaching the difference between science and pseudoscience.
Thank you for being this direct and blunt about it. I’m sure creationist, homeopaths etc will be furious and potentially unfollow you. So this is commendable.
Yes, never thought Ted could be this bold! I will have revise my expectations
Honestly, its just more on what inhibits the comfortability of their understanding. This is the reason why you always see them look for doubt, in which they use as supposed loop hole and insert their agenda.
Water is king
God is science too.
The best metaphor i have heard for homeopathy goes something like:
You have a headache. Dissolve an aspirin into the Pacific Ocean.
Drink a glass of the ocean to gain the benefits of the aspirin.
That’s way too diluted! You’ll get an overdose!
Underrated channel😅
True
I don't see how they're underrated when they have 18.8 million subscribers.
I don't think so! Ted ed is very good I agree but I wouldn't exactly say it's 'underrated'.
Intellect content get less views than some cringe videos
@@divyasharma946 Underrated types of topics then, not ted ed specifically
Apart from the knowledge, the animation was wonderful as well
Why do so many practitioners and institutions still support this practice? Money.. It's because of money. There are people that pay good money to seek out these useless "alternative" treatments..
Keep following the money. Not all pseduoscience is alternative, some is mainstream.
I think an important thing to mention is that gaps in understanding aren't the same as contradictory results. For instance young earth creationists like to bring up the way that there are gaps in the fossil record thinking that it contradicts evolution. I think in that case they don't realize the conditions needed to form a fossil or how rare they are. With the highly specific conditions needed to form a fossil gaps in the fossil record are to be expected and evolution doesn't require that every individual species be uncovered.
Critical thinking?? We might be in trouble, there isn’t a whole lot of that going spare these days 😂 Jokes aside, brilliant video as always, hopefully it will inspire open and sincere conversation!
good thing we have public schools that teach no critical thinking what so ever.
Love love love the new animation styles!! Kudos to team TED ED :)))
Send this video to all the anti-vaxxers you know
why?
@@huckhat7559Because those people believe in pseudoscience
Really? Rfk took the covid vaccines and so did his 7 kids.
They are called anti vaxxers as a slurbecause they ask critical questions...like Dr John Campbell.
I love this graphic and the narrator!!!
Thanks for the video...didnt know there existed a" false "science
Well, false science includes saying trans people aren't Born that way, the same goes for homosexuals, so yeah, the false science exists
Fantastic video. It's an interesting and necessary topic to be explained and discussed. Thank you, TED-Ed.
Great video! I was wondering if the personality tests that were popular a while ago (like mbti, the big five) were pseudoscience.
I can't speak much for the Big Five personality model but I can tell you that the MBTI personality model is definitely pseudoscience. It relies on the same "tricks" as horoscopes do: the Barnum effect. To put it simply, this is where a description of someone's personality which is presented as specific to them but is in fact designed to fit a wide range of people is judged as accurate by the person it is presented to. As an example, a horoscope may say something like "you have a tendency to be self-critical". It is presented as being specific to the recipient but nearly everyone would say it is true if they were the one receiving it. The MBTI personality test operates on a similar principle. Depending on who/what does the test for you, it may also rely on flattery. For example, my personality type is described by 16personalities as being "[not] afraid to stand out from the crowd". To be honest, I'm surprised this personality test is used in things such as job applications.
Note that I’m not in any way a scientist when I say this.
I think MBTI has some merit to it, but it’s not something incredibly serious. I think it can give you a decent baseline for someone’s personality but it’s not infalible.
I think The Big Five is slightly better because it’s less susceptible to the Barnum Effect than MBTI or Enneagram are, but I don’t think you should take it as gospel either. Personality tests are prone to changing results because of the complexity of personality and the simplicity of the questions.
Granted, that’s just my (unscientific) opinion.
The issue with Popper's demarcation principles is that they are epistemologically thin. Some reasoning behind my affirmation (from different perspectives): 1) He mixed two ontologies that are not possibly mixable, as they derive from opposing assumptions: empiricism and rationalism. 2) He may have helped natural scientific advancement, but his demarcation scheme is useless to the so-called "soft sciences" or "the arts" (and here, I am not even arguing that all science is 'soft' because it uses language as a mediator...). 3) His ideals come from a highly individualistic background, which can be quickly seen if we consider his liberal political tendencies (and which causes no shock if we consider majoritarian power tends to neoliberal conglomerates in our time). 4) It diverts the focus away from systematic knowledge, which is a broader concept and encompasses many different traditions in (good) knowledge production.
As a side note, the example of homoeopathy is correct but insufficient (and I am aware it was taken from his very examples of what pseudoscience is... and it is quite shocking to see it in a list with astrology). There are many reasons why it was followed at first and why it looked like a possible avenue of scientific investigation. For instance, the idea of treating illnesses with their own diluted causing agent derives from very old ideals of mithridatism and is until today followed by mainstream treatment and preventive preparations like vaccines or desensitization to allergens (despite the clear difference with homoeopathy, as these two strategies have good empirical support... historically, empirical support generally followed practice, not vice-versa).
Anyway, simplifying this discussion is not helping anyone. And it is indeed a difficult topic that was not well covered in this presentation (which is rather rare, as TEDEd content tends to have quite strong videos...).
Step one: Buy 1 (one) pill of homeopathic anti-depressants
Step two: Toss it in your city's reservoir
Step three: Watch as depression and hopelessness leave your community
I'm so smort, they should give me the noble prize for medsin.
that is so smart
Truly great video
Pseudoscience often revises its theories to describe conflicting perspectives and even introduces nonexistent new theories.
I have witnessed some theists employing quantum mechanics to explain the existence of God, which is truly preposterous, and the most alarming part is that many people actually believe it
Why does your comment end with a '..."'? Does it continue and my youtube glitched out?
@@cact0s_ulion405 Sorry, it’s a typo🤣
@@Ken-fl9yl Ah makes sense lol. Sometimes youtube does do that and jsut doesn't show me the whole comment so I had to clarify tho
I hated how science was taught when I was in school. It is a process, not a set of facts and assumptions. Also, anyone who tells me a theory turns into a law, I swear to god I’ll….!
classic animations, fantastic communication!
MUCH NEEDED VIDEO❤
I just thought about my distant family which "cures" cancer with vitamin C drips... sitting at a table, gulping beer and smoking an appalling number of cigarettes. Yep.
On another note, this animation aesthetic is quite... cute? I don't know, I like it nevertheless.
To summarize this video: “If you cannot measure it, it does not exist.”
Quantum physics: 🙈
As someone who works with western astrology it is legitimately more faith based then scientific. It's also a historical thing. It's good for personal/spiritual development but it is not a means of diagnosing and/or treating medical issues. It's also not to be used as a social science, conclusively. however, it can be a way of self-understanding. Apply it to yourself, not to the world (and only if it resonates with you 😉). To many people see it as a cult or just ridiculous when I ca be beneficial. Just don't make any important d visions based on it. Astrology can help you understand yours, but you are more than your astral sign.
The animation is amazing
1:00 i see what you did there
"In a world where it's increasingly difficult to tell fact from fiction, it's essential to keep your critical thinking skills sharp, which is why we recommend this video's sponsor, Brilliant."
In India, there is an entire Ministry to support and promote pseudoscience like Homeopathy!
It is not pseudoscience the motivation to drink water
Remember- Correlation does not imply causation.
The placebo effect is real and I suspect homeopathy plays into that.
Trust the science....
Hello! I'm looking for advice on how to explain that a belief system simply can't be proven. My classmates keep bringing up beliefs in academic classroom discussions and my teacher won't simply ban the topic because it's important to discuss. The problem is, the argument simply leads back to the bible said so and I'm finding it hard to explain that the bible has no references and therefore cannot be proven. I am honestly all open to any suggestions :*(
You can try with fallacies: arguments that at first glance can seem true, but with a closer look they are false. One of the most used to prove the Bible is the circular fallacy: the bible is true because the bible says it's true.
A concept related to what you're talking about is replication. An important aspect of scientific experiments not mentioned in the video is that they can be replicated. The more reliably they can be replicated, the more trustworthy the conclusion - compare how chemistry experiments can be done in a high school lab, while psychology has to deal with a very complex topic that can't be so easily isolated from confounding variables. You can't reliably replicate divine intervention, so you can't rely on it the way you can on science. Hope this helps!
There are some things in the Bibles that can be proved or disproved. And some of those things have already been proved or disproved. For example, there are some references to places that really do or did exist. And livestock mating near a fence does not produce offspring with stripes.
I don't understand your point that the Bible can't be proven because it doesn't contain references. Is that in relation to a particular point? In general, that wouldn't be the basis of whether something can be proven. But of course, one can cite peer-reviewed scientific research that supports one's claim.
Well, a belief system can be proven in some cases (not the whole thing but parts of it, because (generally) belief systems have sayings that aren't explicitly based on falseness. Eg, if a belief says that plants aren't real (very disproven) but also that water is good (proven), then only certain parts are correct.
In the larger whole however, are you trying to explain the beliefs themselves or their popularity? The popularity of belief systems are very explainable by human behavior. Spread around a believable enough rumor and it sticks. Religion is basically that, but on a much bigger scale. (It was also much easier to spread a religion hundreds of years ago due to people not knowing as much as today, so most people if not all would see it as acceptable.)
If you're trying to explain the beliefs... Well, goodluck to you, I'm not sure I can be of much help there. Those stem entirely from people and not observed phenomena, if they aren't explainable. On a whole, a belief system simply cannot be proven due to their roots. Unless you count things like science belief system, though I don't think you do
Why do you feel like you need to find a perfect argument that will change what other people believe? How would you feel if someone tried to convert you to their way to thinking or religion? We cannot control other people. We can only improve ourselves. Start with yourself and then lead by example.
Thank you so much for making this video on such an important topic ❤
4. Who paid the science?
It wouldn't help by looking at one paper. There is legit science funded by company who got money by from the products in the paper (aka. pharmaceutical company). It's suspicious when almost every paper published come from company that made them profit are positive to the product.
@@punki2291 Suspicious? yes, and we should scritinize it more, but it would be folly to just base the credibity of a research paper just by its funding source, no?
@@cassiusdalcazarosta8010 “It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it.”
― Upton Sinclair
@@cassiusdalcazarosta8010 We just know when it's our speciality in our field. It's not something that everybody should worry about. It's simple to understand and to do (for most scientists) when we've searched a lot to publish your own article repeatedly.
@@huckhat7559 It is difficult to get a scientist to not understand something, when his salary depends on his understanding of it.
[바람 / 나동수]
촌철 : 뜨거운 열망으로 기압 차가 생겨야 바람이 분다.
활인 : 바람은 기압 차이로 인하여 기압이 높은 곳에서 낮은 곳으로 붑니다. 따라서 기압이나 기온 차가 없다면 바람이 불지 않습니다. 여러분들이 만약 변화를 원한다면 가슴을 뜨거운 열망으로 가득 채우세요. 그러면 기압 차에 의해 변화의 바람이 불 것입니다.
Ted ed is not letting any doubt about any topic to exist on this planet earth😅
Imagine not fully explaining the Demarcation Problem
Most people don't even realise Philosophy hasn't a stable or defined practice either.
Religion = Friction? Well said.
0:58 I see what you did there…
The worst saying I hear in the past 4 years is "I believe in science" or "I don't believe in science". Science isn't something you believe in, just as you don't believe in phones or Tuesdays.
the question should be why the pharmaceutical industry exerts so many influence on modern science. People are not skeptic for nothing. Its by experience. A global scientific fund could help with this problem.
Yet science resisted all the influence eventually. We have peer review, disclaimer on possible conflict of interest, even new statistical methods to detect fraud, and finally simple criticism. (Pretty much) all the "skeptic" aren't thinking critically, outright denies science while peddling their own hypothesis as fact.
Actually, it’s surprisingly the opposite. In fact, no Pharma company has enough money to try to buy off a fake scientific consensus. Worse, bigger grants don’t mean shills, as grant money not only can’t be kept by law but also is given before the study. Whistleblowers would still use the grant money to conduct an honest study.
Capitalism incentivises putting a price on everything in order to male profits, even life savings cure. Get rid of capitalism and the profit motive, and you'll see most of the world's problems go away.
What a great video, genius analysis Ted- Ed team ❤👍
The reference to creationism is misleading and ironic. For one, creationists don't ignore that evidence. They just interpret it differently. Evolution, on the other hand, is the prime example of a theory that's constantly modified to fit new conflicting evidence and of refusing to check internal biases and assumptions, of which it has many.
I'm not arguing for the validity of creationism, I'm just saying the only thing Evolution has going for it over creationism is consensus, which in real science means absolutely nothing. In fact, I take it as a red flag. The majority tend to get comfortable in their power as the majority, which leads to lazy science that doesn't care much about is own biases and dismisses alternative theories out of hand. Minority views have to be that much more careful, rigorous, and thorough to be taken seriously and make any headway in the scientific community. And getting funding to do that is very difficult. This all contributes to bad science staying in the majority.
The most unlikely answer of all is one whose central concept ("god/gods") has never had any understood or agreed meaning, for which there has never been any credible evidence, and that offers no consistency or predictability whatsoever in answer to anything. The ONLY consistent thing about creationists is that humans have believed untold thousands of contradictory creation myths throughout time, just as they've believed in contradictory gods that we all know full well never existed, creating internal biases and assumptions that are never checked or corrected. It is perhaps the oldest human conceit that one's invisible gods and mythology are any more real than the thousands of other invisible gods left on the scrap heap of history.
It's a simple objective fact that nearly anything you hear from modern creationists is a deliberate distortion of the facts, is said in total ignorance of the facts, and/or is said without ever having done any legitimate study of the field of evolution. It is dishonest on the face of it, whether that involves knowing full well they are lying, as many do, or being so dishonest as to parrot lies without ever confirming the truth of any of it, as the average believer does.
The "only" thing evolution has over creationism is that it provides predictions, and has observations that match those predictions. Evolution predicts that we should observe populations change over time. In the lab, we observe this in bacterial colonies with effects like antibiotic resistance. In the field, we observe that all mammals have a fundamentally similar anatomical structure, with the various limbs repurposed. Cetacians still have arms and legs, and have the same fundamental bone structure as land mammals. We also observe that animals with a similar anatomical structure tend have similar genetic code. We observe a fossil record that corroborates this. We observe bands of animal populations that can reproduce with one-another when they are at close geographic proximity, and individuals on the extrema of this geographic range cannot reproduce with one another. Evolution both predicts and provides an explanation for this.
Primates are all anatomically very similar, and we all have very similar genetic patterns. Our embryos develop similarly. The primates that we are closest to have a more similar genetic structure, we can even place a rough timeline of when and how the various hominids diverged, because, for example, humans and bonobos share specific genetic sequences that (humans and bonobos) and gorillas do not. Furthermore, we have a fossil record of hominids that suggest specialisation of bipedalism over time.
Going back to the fossil record, we observe numerous species not alive today in the various strata. We observe dinosaurs begin to appear 250 million years ago, and disappear 65 million years ago. Did your god decide to spontaneously create these creatures out of nowhere and then make them disappear out of nowhere?
@xero2715 First off, I never said I was a creationist or even a theist. Whether I am or not has no bearing on the point.
Your confusing micro-evolution (which is accepted by creationists) with the evolution theory which extrapolates micro-evolution to macro-evolution. The evidence you listed mostly is mixed, but some of it is interpreted by evolutionists as evidence for macro-evolution.
The point made in the video was that creationists ignore evidence. My point is that they just interpret it differently, and that's true for all the evidence for macro-evolution that you listed. You haven't listed anything that creationism can't account for.
Creationists haven't produced a whole lot of testable predictions (though there are some) because they spend most of their efforts poking holes in the evolution theory. Holes which evolutionists seem to be experts at ignoring. Hence my comment about the problems that arise from such a large consensus.
@@rwbaira Repeating the same things doesn't make them true. You don't know what you're talking about, any more than creationists do.
@ObservantHistorian Did I somehow suggest it would? Incidentally, that's kinda my point, though. Most people that believe in evolution don't have the time, energy, resources, or interest to question it, examine the assumptions it makes and the challenges raised against it, etc. They only believe it because it's so often repeated that it must be true. A true scientific humility forces a person to consider themself agnostic and never mock a person for having the good sense to open their mind to other possibilities.
Yorokobe Shonen , Ted Ed has uploaded a new video
5:07 I think it's probably not the best idea for laypeople to be trying to decide this for themselves; someone who doesn't have the first clue avout a subject probably won't know how to test an idea at the forefront of research and couldn't read the literature or go to conferences to understand how new ideas are treated. Laypeople thinking they have the tools and understanding to judge the scientific consensus for themselves is how you get flat-earthers and climate change deniers and anti-vaxxers.
And that's not to say that a layperson can't become an expert, the process is just slow and expensive and so for most people, it's not worth it.
TL;DR: I've yet to see a good algorithm to spot pseudo-science. This list of factors may as well enforce your bias instead of spotting bad science.
Regarding response to criticisim: Which field responds well? Leaders of their field are the best at what they do, so they usually stick to what they think is right (and justly). Besides, the often harsh tone and in scientific debates and the need to produce publishable results doesn't favor humble minds.
Regarding continually modification: Not just do I think, it is VERY common in real science (historical sciences!) to improve theories instead of discarding them, it also creates an easy universal argument. Together with the first factor, you can easily dismiss something you don't like as either not humble or too weak.
Regarding ignored biases: again, if you or your field seems good at what they are doing, you naturally are biased towards your own choice of methodology.
Regarding transparent peer reviews: I think homeopathic and astrology have a lot of approving peer reviews. It's just that they choose their peers very differently. Just as no real scientist will let an homeopath or astrologist review their work. In addition, if a scientific work not consistent enough with mainstream ideas, it may just not find someone who wants to risk of peer reviewing and publishing it.
Regarding the common network of information: as before, pseudo-science have their pseudo-networks, often trying to crosslink to science-science (of course, the other way around doesn't happen). Not to mention, this citiation-counting as proof quality has led to some problems in publication practice. For example, it discourages criticism and contradicting evidence.
So is covid vaccination based on pseudo-science or science
?
The covid vaccines are based off of clinical testing and trials, which are known to be extremely rigorous. Put simply,
They used method A to treat illness A
Method A was given to 50% of people, and the rest were given simple water, but thought they were given Method A.
Method A is proven wrong, and they move on to method B, rinse and repeat, until you get something that always (or almost always) works to cure Illness A. Since vaccines do this, they are science!
The same science as other vaccines. As a reminder, vaccines are not magic shields that prevent infection. They simply teach your immune system how to fight the virus better.
Science
From a masters student in Organic Chemistry
@speederzzz700 I got master degree in bio chemical engineering. Show me the data proving higher benefit over risk for people under 60s.
@@yjg201100 I really really doubt you have a degree in anything bio related
Very useful video! I just found the mention of astrology weird though, as it's more of a spiritual thing than pseudoscience.
Exactly. Spiritual = Pseudoscience
Funny, 'pseudoscience' kinda corresponds to religion.
As Scientism does.
Religion Is opinion and opinion isn't knowledge, or science from greek if i Remember correctly, or maybe It was latin?
@@Bottleofwater-n5y You are just regressing into Theory of Knowledge.
Kinda, but not really. Religion is based on beliefs, and pseudoscience is also based on beliefs. But just because they are both based on beliefs doesn't mean they are related. Also, a religion is based (I'm pretty sure) not on disproven things, but unproven or non unprovable things. ('God is real' for example. It cannot be proven, so a religion can be found around it.)
Also, religions are (mostly) not harmful, while pseudoscience is. They can stop you from getting actual treatment or in some cases cause active harm. They do stand on belief however, so small things do work with pseudoscience due to placebo effect!
@@LNVACVACScientism relies on science which actually works, religion relies on beliefs which don't.