Which is more important, to know a handful of important scientific facts or to think scientifically? For example, someone who has never heard of the theory of evolution but knows how to question everything and think skeptically and critically?
tobo86 i think both go hand to hand, a sceptical person initiates the questioning, but without ant science knowledge their questions won't get too far, if that same sceptical person start to grow in scientific knowledge, their quedtiining would be more and more sharp
It will only lead to more and more questions, and it only gets more difficult the more you know. Chasing rabbits can take a really long time, trust me I know from experience I just caught a cute little fuzzy guy yesterday on my worksite lol now I have a little friend
It's more important to think scientifically, in the same way it's better to 'teach someone how to fish' instead of just giving them a fish. In just the past few decades how many 'scientific facts' have been disproved or modified? For example, when I was in elementary school I learned all I could about dinosaurs, but by the time my kids were the same age many 'facts' were different. NOTE I'm not talking about the chemical weight of something, or a formula, or a math concept that is nailed down. I'm talking about the ability to think, evaluate arguments, and analyze information. I taught my kids how to think and it has given them the ability to grow.
Both are important, but I'd say the ability to think scientifically is more so. Having a good ability to question, be skeptical, and think critically would lead you to acquire an increased body of knowledge. By the way, regarding the theory of evolution, I actually have a good example of this. Like most people, I went to public schools all my childhood and was taught the theory of evolution, among many other things. Yet, in high school, my skepticism led me to question that theory and I eventually decided that the evidence simply didn't support it. Now, I wasn't raised in a religious home or anything. But, I knew enough to know there was the theory of creation, steaming from the Bible and Christianity. I was curious and decided to do my own research and engage in debates with all sides to see what was true and what was false. I came to the conclusion that the theory of evolution was false and creation was true.
I think this speaker should make a distinction between different kinds of science. For instance, the science that leads to technological innovations is not the same type/quality of science that leads someone to believe humans and dinosaurs didn't live together. The first is testable, the second is inferred based on a whole truckload of assumptions. Someone can love the scientific method, be on the forefront of technological research, and still disagree with the idea that humans and dinosaurs didn't live in the same timeframe. It doesn't mean they are scientifically illiterate, it means they question the assumptions used to draw that conclusion. They might be exercising a greater degree of scientific literacy by questioning those assumptions.
I'd like to add that the average person may assume, based on their contemporary experiences that something does not exist, without even looking at the scientific explanation. From stating this I presume science isn't the first basis for scepticism and I bet that if you asked "Will dinosaurs exist again in the future?" you will get some pretty scarily unintelligent responses, because of life experience, not knowledge of science or faith in belief.
The idea that dinosaurs and humans didn't coexist is easily falsifiable (and therefore testable): simply find dinosaur and human fossils of the same age, or in the same strata, or find human tools (spear points, arrow heads, etc.) interred with dinosaur fossils. Or dinosaur bones that show evidence of butchering or cooking. Or human bones with evidence of the kinds of physical damage inflicted by, for example, a tyrannosaur. Or human tools/weapons/clothing made with dinosaur parts: a tomahawk made with dinosaur teeth would be a formidable weapon, or a headpiece adorned with a velociraptor skull an intimidating decoration. You should take a few classes in, say, chemistry, geology and paleontology before you make the assumption that the vast difference in time between the Cretaceous and the Quaternary is simply based on untestable conjecture. Also, note that by your definition we should reject all forms of religion, as they are all "inferred based on a whole truckload of assumptions." As are spiritualism, mysticism, philosophy, etc.
This is hard for me because I don't care about the world. Everything and anything considered normal and non-fiction disgusts me. So I don't care about understanding most of this because I'm so cynical and I really just don't care. It doesn't motivate me. So I'm glad my current class is over because it was so taxing to "learn" about all this when I really don't care at all. You don't interest me because I'm disgusted by this world and it's boring, useless, worthless, redundant existence. I was born into the wrong world and unless you can find a way for me to leave and go somewhere actually interesting, I don't really care much about anything. Fantasy is literally all that matters and I can only get that through media. Do better, world, if you want me to care.
Sorry but isn't it relative, the physical relationship between the earth and the sun? Or are you saying our sun is fixed in its position in the milky way? Let's raise the level of science talk to the level you are lamenting does not exist.
It isn’t relative. The movement of earth as itself is relative to the object of comparison. But when you compares with the sun, you can’t say that the sun orbits the earth.
who else is here for school -
I ammmmm
hi
BrandøNatic hi
🤣
Me
loved this talk
Which is more important, to know a handful of important scientific facts or to think scientifically? For example, someone who has never heard of the theory of evolution but knows how to question everything and think skeptically and critically?
tobo86 i think both go hand to hand, a sceptical person initiates the questioning, but without ant science knowledge their questions won't get too far, if that same sceptical person start to grow in scientific knowledge, their quedtiining would be more and more sharp
It will only lead to more and more questions, and it only gets more difficult the more you know. Chasing rabbits can take a really long time, trust me I know from experience I just caught a cute little fuzzy guy yesterday on my worksite lol now I have a little friend
It's more important to think scientifically, in the same way it's better to 'teach someone how to fish' instead of just giving them a fish. In just the past few decades how many 'scientific facts' have been disproved or modified? For example, when I was in elementary school I learned all I could about dinosaurs, but by the time my kids were the same age many 'facts' were different. NOTE I'm not talking about the chemical weight of something, or a formula, or a math concept that is nailed down. I'm talking about the ability to think, evaluate arguments, and analyze information. I taught my kids how to think and it has given them the ability to grow.
Both are important, but I'd say the ability to think scientifically is more so. Having a good ability to question, be skeptical, and think critically would lead you to acquire an increased body of knowledge. By the way, regarding the theory of evolution, I actually have a good example of this. Like most people, I went to public schools all my childhood and was taught the theory of evolution, among many other things. Yet, in high school, my skepticism led me to question that theory and I eventually decided that the evidence simply didn't support it. Now, I wasn't raised in a religious home or anything. But, I knew enough to know there was the theory of creation, steaming from the Bible and Christianity. I was curious and decided to do my own research and engage in debates with all sides to see what was true and what was false. I came to the conclusion that the theory of evolution was false and creation was true.
@@johnc1014 Then you didn't think scientifically^^
I'm here cause I'm studying unfortunately I'm bored
Questioning everything leads to believing the world is flat
Believing the world is flat is caused by bad logic and cognitive biases. Not the same thing.
no, being a dum dum does that hehe
Yeah Science
haru best girl
👍
I think this speaker should make a distinction between different kinds of science. For instance, the science that leads to technological innovations is not the same type/quality of science that leads someone to believe humans and dinosaurs didn't live together. The first is testable, the second is inferred based on a whole truckload of assumptions. Someone can love the scientific method, be on the forefront of technological research, and still disagree with the idea that humans and dinosaurs didn't live in the same timeframe. It doesn't mean they are scientifically illiterate, it means they question the assumptions used to draw that conclusion. They might be exercising a greater degree of scientific literacy by questioning those assumptions.
I'd like to add that the average person may assume, based on their contemporary experiences that something does not exist, without even looking at the scientific explanation. From stating this I presume science isn't the first basis for scepticism and I bet that if you asked "Will dinosaurs exist again in the future?" you will get some pretty scarily unintelligent responses, because of life experience, not knowledge of science or faith in belief.
The idea that dinosaurs and humans didn't coexist is easily falsifiable (and therefore testable): simply find dinosaur and human fossils of the same age, or in the same strata, or find human tools (spear points, arrow heads, etc.) interred with dinosaur fossils. Or dinosaur bones that show evidence of butchering or cooking. Or human bones with evidence of the kinds of physical damage inflicted by, for example, a tyrannosaur. Or human tools/weapons/clothing made with dinosaur parts: a tomahawk made with dinosaur teeth would be a formidable weapon, or a headpiece adorned with a velociraptor skull an intimidating decoration. You should take a few classes in, say, chemistry, geology and paleontology before you make the assumption that the vast difference in time between the Cretaceous and the Quaternary is simply based on untestable conjecture.
Also, note that by your definition we should reject all forms of religion, as they are all "inferred based on a whole truckload of assumptions." As are spiritualism, mysticism, philosophy, etc.
school give me the die
me
Am I the only one here for fun 👁👄👁
I think so 💀
No I need to come here for coping, because of the stupidity of current society amidst the pandemic
This is hard for me because I don't care about the world. Everything and anything considered normal and non-fiction disgusts me. So I don't care about understanding most of this because I'm so cynical and I really just don't care. It doesn't motivate me. So I'm glad my current class is over because it was so taxing to "learn" about all this when I really don't care at all. You don't interest me because I'm disgusted by this world and it's boring, useless, worthless, redundant existence. I was born into the wrong world and unless you can find a way for me to leave and go somewhere actually interesting, I don't really care much about anything. Fantasy is literally all that matters and I can only get that through media. Do better, world, if you want me to care.
Sorry but isn't it relative, the physical relationship between the earth and the sun? Or are you saying our sun is fixed in its position in the milky way? Let's raise the level of science talk to the level you are lamenting does not exist.
It isn’t relative. The movement of earth as itself is relative to the object of comparison. But when you compares with the sun, you can’t say that the sun orbits the earth.
Bruh
If you have viral tonsillitis you can treat it with antibiotics, just saying.
Antiobiotics are for bacterial infections, viral tonsillitis is caused by a virus so it wouldn't be effective
that guy has a big nose