One thing that is still true is that if you sleep, you close your eyes. Edit: I just wanna say that, for anyone who argued with what I said, I didn't mean it seriously. I made it only as a joke. I could've made it clear, but no one's the same, and I don't wanna be the kind of person who ruins anyone's day.
Gotta love how the wikipedia article for blood vessel has already been edited with the more correct estimates. They even linked this video in the view history
Wikipedia is a great source, as long as its own articles are linked to primary sources. Less so when they aren't, or when the topic is mainly opinion driven. Still probably one of the most useful sites on the entire web, and one of the very few to live up to the original promises of the internet as it was being constructed, alongside perhaps GitHub and a few others.
Actually, u use every bit of your brain with any and all little tasks, even breathing. You can't even define what 10% of the brain means because of how complicated it is. @@cra1zer
@@cra1zer Ever seen an MRI scan of someone who is doing absolutely nothing, or just sleeping. We actually use 100% of out brain all the time, we just don't know it.
Good to see nothing's changed. When I was at University (35 years ago) I heard a great quote... "It takes 3 years to introduce a new "fact" in to a textbook... and 3 decades to remove it once it's been disproved"
the hell refuses to give up what it ate ... textbook, you mean vomited foreign waste? who tf could eat it?! someone who has more faith (greed) than brain?
i still really dont like kurzgesagt for their climate change video that was funded by bill gates owned companies and ive never been able to watch their vids the same when that whole vid was drawing the focus away from the real problem big corporations and their policy and instead told u how u can do a million effectively useless things
Applying the animations to real life is actually really cool-it feels even more fitting since you guys also put in direct sources instead of illustrating it alone
@@mastah39 I believe CGP Grey's Who Owns Ellis Island video also revolves around a quest down a rabbit hole to find the original source for a historical claim.
@@mastah39 There is this guy doing videos on Whales who dives into a mention of a Welsh king. The king turns out to be an invention of a guy notorious for making up stuff.
I’m a long-time fan of Kurzgesagt, usually just watching quietly. But today, I had to speak up, this video was absolutely incredible! The style felt so fresh and engaging. Loved every second of it!
I kind of lost interest In their videos due to the topics and the same format they kept but this video topic is really interesting and fresh. It also shows that they can even debunk themselves as they should to stay true to the scientific method.
An incredibly amazing video. I can't count the number of times I've read a news article that cites other news articles. It's a huge problem that's even bigger than you think. There needs to be some kind of stigma against citing secondary sources
Linking clicks to ad revenue seems to be a contributing factor. If the majority of the money comes from getting people to click while the content is irrelevant, I doubt stigma matters.
Now, THIS is scientifically beautiful! It really leaves one wondering how much else we repeat in academia that is incorrect or inaccurate, and how better knowledge and data could change things.
Better knowledge and data should eventually change things. But "eventually" could be on the scale of decades or centuries, and who knows how many small bits of accepted wisdom need to be investigated some day.
I’m sure I heard somewhere that this is basically the premise that revived the flat earth theory: that broad scientific assumptions should be better evidenced if they are to be believed. That escalated out of control, but the principal stands.
Writing my dissertation was a painful lesson in this, i stg how frustrating it was seeing these numbers pop up over and over and its like 'ok but who said that?'. In my case, turns out the very commonly repeated fact, accepted as truism etc... for C.Difficile is that it is sterilised at x degrees for x hours. EVERYONE says this exact number and fact, some not even citing it. Turns out, literally all stem back to this one paper from like, the 30's, which just says 'yeah we assume this probably works. We didn't test it' and its not completely accepted fact for the correct sterilisation procedure. WTF. SO so much must be wrong its scary.
@@interiot2 and it slows down research too because things accepted as 'it just is, everyone knows it!' mean noone feels a need to retest and get more accurate data!
@@AAAAAA-qs1bv Oh wow speaking for All of authors... are you psychic? We SHOULD have internet archives. and if the original author don't like it, take accountability and removes it. simple. why are ya rejecting the WHOLE THING JUST BECAUSE OF ONE THING. accountability and responsibility. the most basic thing to do.
@@AAAAAA-qs1bv How does it hurt authors? If someone spent a lot of effort writing a book and it would naturally get lost to time, I'd think they'd _want_ it to be able to live longer through the internet, surely? Especially if it's one containing primary sources and work they've done through experiments?
this is the whole reason why I love this channel and the videos produced, they are willing to go above and beyond to find as much information as possible before trying to claim it as true. Beautifully done team, keep up the amazing work!
MASSIVE kudos to the team for undergoing this research process for that long. Been there, done that (not so well) and I know it's an ungrateful, tiresome job. You guys deserve much praise for this kind of research AND educational work.
I think it's probably more about fast being relevant and actionable. Accurate is slow. Lies are fast. Some people lie a lot. Some people lie a little. Some people believe just about anything. A lot of people hear the lies. I think a useful heuristic is to think, 1) how likely would this be found out to be a lie if it were, 2) how costly would it be for the person saying it to get wrong, 3) how gainful is it for the person saying it for others to believe him. You want 1 and 2 to be high, and 3 to be low to put confidence in the source.
The paper re-estimating the more accurate number is important and good, but debunking the original number is equally important. Thank you for your work!
As a scientist, I can tell you that it's really not important at all. It's just a number for imagination and to be impressed by. Nothing depends on it. Also, the original estimate is not that far-fetched. My reaction was: Oh, it wasn't even that far off. The original number has the same exponent and is in a reasonable range for that kind of estimate. So, no it's not a "debunk" at all. On the other hand, there are a lot of other “well-known” facts and historical imponderables that are more important to be reassessed.
OK, but from the point of view of data ecology and etymology (of a person who hates the idea of being confidently wrong), each time the original source of a piece of nebulous conventional wisdom or turn of phrase gets conclusively determined and reevaluated, our collective body of knowledge becomes more complete and reliable, for which I am personally very grateful. And each time, it reminds us that Snapple Cap facts are NOT reliable sources, and more importantly, of the value of ALWAYS LISTING YOUR SOURCES, confirming rather than relying solely on memory, and raising a very skeptical eyebrow at dramatic claims without attribution. In essence, the war for the future of information; will the power of the internet and the ability to, on a grand scale, globally distribute the task of documenting, sourcing, and cross-checking all information lead us to a future of more reliable sources of knowledge, or will the growing speed and complexity with which misinformation can be disseminated to willing believers and rebroadcasted endlessly lead us to a future of paranoia, irrationality, and mistrust, in which an objective review of facts becomes impossible or least inaccessible to the minds of most. Will we be feeding the AI that we will come to rely on more false data than truth, and will it ever be able to tell the difference?
@@cypog8479 the original estimate says 100,000km while the corrected one says 19,000km. It actually is far off from being correct , and to be exact it is about 80,000km less than the actual. So yes it is far off , it is not near at all
@@cypog8479The original estimate isn’t even close to accurate. Especially for a fact which is published by reputable sources, it literally contains a four hundred percent error. As a “scientist” you should be able to acknowledge that
@@copilopi3104It always depends on what you‘re doing in science. The old number was a very rough estimate and everyone reading the original source knew that. It was expected to be off by a factor of easily 5 (or even more) since many assumptions went into it. He had at least 2 assumptions going in to his estimate that were rounded to be nice numbers and thus off by a factor of 2-3 each. It was meant as a simple fun back of the envelope calculation, and as such it is remarkably near the new estimate. It‘s not about „oh he was off by 80 thousand km, that‘s a lot“. Think about it! In 1929 he did this! What would you have guessed as length? Certainly not thousands of kilometers… Some calculations are simply made to ESTIMATE the ROUGH size of something in order to get a mental picture. And halfway around Earth or twice around Earth is the same picture to me. Way smaller than to the Moon and way larger than around the city
It's neat. It's more worldly to look at, and takes much less animating resources than drawing everything. I do hope this doesn't mean the end to the fully animated videos though
Same. For me, it was Suzuki and Richard Zuawski (Halifax meteorologist) and he had a show waaaaaaay back in the day called Wonder Why? It was fantastic.
not really. Knowlege is actually more easily accessable then ever before to more people then ever before. Its just that the truth is always a little harder to find then one would think, and facts are easily mistaken, or misjudged, Of course bias and interpetation is also a key element of human nature that won't ever go away
@@sarahlachman1349 yeah thats misinformation someone sees information and interprets it incorrectly (either due to bias or lack of understanding), fails to include necessary context, fails to properly cite the source, and/or just rewords it horribly. Suddenly a new source is created when they "publish" it online. Except the information here can be proven to be wrong/misleading. The matter is you have to prove it wrong not just to yourself but to others who will see this fact and trust that nobody has a reason to lie about blood vessel length (and nobody did lie, they just repeated a rough estimate made without full data). misinformation is everywhere, finding whats been proven to be true seems to be getting harder and easier. there is misinfomation than ever but also some paper written in austria in 1910 would not be avalaible to fact check (without a flight and the ability to read german) by an american in 1970 but in the 2020s it might just be digitized (and still in german)
@@sarahlachman1349 10,000 lies for every 1 truth makes the truth inaccessible. I recommend reading Goebbels "Big Lie", who formalized this tactic, among many others. We live in a post truth society. Primary sources will soon be completely inaccessible-it'll just be AI, owned and run by capital owners, telling people what is and isn't true. 1984
@@sarahlachman1349 10,000 lies for every 1 truth makes the truth inaccessible. I recommend reading Goebbels "Big Lie", who formalized this practice, among many others. We live in a post truth society. Primary sources will soon be completely inaccessible-it'll just be AI, owned and run by capital owners, telling people what is and isn't true. 1984
@@sarahlachman1349 10,000 lies for every 1 truth makes the truth inaccessible. Primary sources will soon be completely inaccessible, and or paywalled-it'll just be AI, owned and run by capital owners, telling people what is and isn't true. 1984
It's a shame that facts are so hard to actually verify. All that work just for a tidbit of trivia. Excellent work though, and a lovely video sharing it, as always
Ultimately most knowledge that is spread is spread as a "trust me bro" even when it is coming from people who are experts in their field. Usually the "trust me bro" sources tend to be easier to read and digest than the ones with the actual references.
@@evancombs5159 I've made that observation a long time ago. Funny how over thousands of years we still haven't developed a better way of learning and teaching than simply passing knowledge from person to person. Books seem to have more credibility but it's still just words written by someone else. And one mistake in the long chain of communication can go a long way.
Loved this one. On a personal and very insignificant note regarding fact checking and peer reviewing - I published a small research paper on waste management, referenced a parameter for fuel use in composting. Got published (after a long time, as everyone knows!) and one of the readers thought the number was too small - we both wrote to the author in the original reference who caught an error in the report - so it all got corrected and fixed. So yay to finding old errors and fixing them, even if it causes some consternation. It did renew my confidence on the general scientific community and the system in general - as maligned and conflicted as it can get.
When I was young, I tried and gave up to find the original source. Finally, after all the years, I found it thanks to yoy. Thank you. You guys are heroes!
"the right number" He got a (purportedly) better ESTIMATE -- there is no objective 'right number' for something like 'length of blood vessels in the body'.
This. Exactly this. This is what scientific research is all about. The journey of forging new knowledge and disseminating it to the public is not, and has never been, about being perfectly correct, but about continually probing at the edges of our knowledge and triple-checking what we think we already know, discarding the old in the wake of new, more accurate information. In short, it isn't about being right, but becoming less wrong.
I have so much respect for channels that acknowledge and correct their mistakes. Doing that in such a way that i both learn things and have fun is next level!
I checked your sources to see if that new research specifically quotes the specific original source and it does. Even if you just managed to complete your research in the same time as that other paper, you're still gave a valuable example to what to avoid during research. I'm currently in university and shared it with my classmates to give them a heads up on when we get to writing our thesis paper in medicine.
To be fair, usually you dont have a year time to check a single fact, when writing a degree thesis. If you have a credible source, most of the time, you wouldnt dig deeper because at that point, you might as well question every source you use and you wouldnt get anywhere.
@@Daniel-rd6st I think AI could be a great tool for this, specifically tracking down and logging “lost” or semi-forgotten scientific literature in a database
@@Vox_Popul1 True, though AI could only find stuff, that has been publicly available uploaded. Once you actually have to read though physical books or papers, it would struggle.
@@Vox_Popul1 AI is a like an automated misinformation machine... if you google this question, what do you see first? AI repeating the incorrect original 100,000km claim. It has no way to filter credible-sounding human input from actually credible human input. This video is making the exact opposite point; the value & necessity of careful manual research over just repeating the most popular claim.
@@Daniel-rd6st you are typically so busy at that point that you don’t have time to eat or sleep, much less go down some meticulous path for each point in your thesis. People are misunderstanding a thesis in its also political in nature in that you are trying to convince a panel of people and that’s what most people wind up focusing on and it’s not always meticulous.
I love this because it reflects on so many things I was taught in school and by my family but without any reliable sources. Then I go to university and finish my degree in public health education and learn half the stuff I was taught by random people in school, who were supposedly “authority figures“ Actually was entirely incorrect. It’s wonderful how the pursuit of knowledge guides so much but then that knowledge changes… what we supposedly believe is fact is actually changed and that’s the beauty of science… A collection of hypotheses that we may believe is fact incorrectly, and then years down the line sometimes even centuries, we discover that what we knew as fact was actually entirely wrong and a misguided hypothesis that had no basis in reality.
one thing hard to absorb and deal with is that education is basically what the video said, most of sources are just a copy-paste copy-paste copy-paste copy-paste copy-paste copy-paste i mean, 'education institutions' by themselves are a failure, they sought to have ~quick~ answers or solutions but by doing that, most of phd, doctors end-up doing the extreme opposite for society. I don't see beauty even if i wanted to. Unfortunately, that is the 'dark side' of scientific/ academic/ institution. But I cant blame them, they are controlled by money not the other way round
As a school employee, one of the things that bothers me the most is seeing classroom teachers (I'm not one so I don't have "authority") teach blatantly wrong things to students. Terrible math explanations, and guesses spoken as facts. Elementary kids will have no idea that they can question teachers, and would have no idea how to look for answers. The internet is full of absolute baloney, usually in the first search result. And they don't want to hear it of you tell them what they read is wrong. I saw a kid with a presentation board for his report on Afghanistan. The beautifully printed image was the Taj Mahal.
This is why I love this channel. Between the great animations to support it and the fun presentation of science, you guys put in the work to make sure you're really representing up-to-date info.
As a Canadian living in Vancouver, I'm super happy that you tried to get in touch with him. You should have just asked one of us to pop by and ask him! :)
@@eugenetswong He was also a professor at our main research university here, the University of British Columbia, for a while. Even taught some people I know too!
This video really reminded me of CGP Grey's "Someone Dead Ruined My Life… Again." about the tiffanys I really love this kind of video showing how hard it can be to search for sources, and the number of things you can find along the way
@@istolethepfpfromapulexarts1052 That was my thought exactly when reading his comment! Glad someone said it, if it wasn't you , it was for sure about to be me! 😂
@@istolethepfpfromapulexarts1052 Yes, they've done a video about how they create their videos and it's remarkable how much time it takes to produce each one.
The Scientific Method is 500 years old which teaches us how to fact check. The Catholic Church is 2000 years old which teaches us the moral weight of not doing so. Between the two of them put together, anything we say that's false is a lie because we know better so we're culpable to do better.
@@ninjalectualxI think they’re joking on the importance of fact-checking things you hear on the internet. Their comment can’t be wrong since they’re not claiming anything, they’re just quoting a funny common phrase on the internet
Why? Are propagating lies often inherently crafted to be more memorable than the truth (ie '100k' in this video) or are they more fully explained than the truth since they have the heavy lifting of debunking the truth or is it some larger principle of the universe at play, a la thermodynamics' entropy, as in "...everything slowly tends towards stupid unless/until acted upon by smart?" Or something else entirely? I'm truly curious, and I might not be alone.
@@p18yurd The task of spreading a lie is only to open your mouth and say it. Truth takes research and verification. The practice of seeking knowledge *is* the pruning of falsehoods from truths.
Depends on the type of Engineer. A large number don't want their estimates off by more than 20% or so. But it's definitely good enough for an astrophysicist!
I had never heard of this channel before, but this came up in my recommendations, and your high level of commitment to research, facts, and academic integrity immediately won me over! Subscribed and looking forward to more well-researched science facts! Hope this gets you lots more subscribers, you earned it putting in all that legwork!
That's so amazing!! You were so resilient throughout it all! Please also make a video on the fact 'we only use 10% of our brain' and 'what if we used 100% of our brain?' I've never really believed how true it is
I believe that factoid is based on how much of your brain is lit up as "active" on a scan at once during testing. But just because only 10% of your brain is active at once doesn't mean only 10% is active ever. All the bits are working some of the time. As for "using 100% of your brain", remember that it's different *patterns* of neurons firing that make your brain work right. If all your neurons were firing 100% of the time, that'd be exactly as useless for creating human thought as all your neurons firing 0% of the time. Except you'd probably have seizures first, THEN die, rather than just being dead.
It's weird how often two unrelated people/groups try to find the answer to the same obscure question at basically the same time. It gets even weirder the longer the question has gone unanswered.
Heart wrenching? Perhaps for Kurzgesagt. Wasted? Certainly not. For me, as a reader, this is fantastic! It really reiterates my trust in science that an even great estimate (from almost a century ago), is questioned, and is now an even better estimate. On top of that, it is a great story that we can all relate to. If not for this effort by Kurzgesagt, I would never have seen new estimate, and Wikipedia would still be wrong. Science -like a lot of things- is 99% perspiration, and 1% inspiration. Hmmm, didn't Edison say that? Could someone please check the source of that quote? ;)
I wouldn't call it wasted. I think the new number is much more impactful when you know how the old number came to be. Without knowing that the old number was a guestimate from 1922 based on wrong numbers it would me much harder to contest "known wisdom". Otherwise it would be harder to convince people because "look it says so on website XY and they are professionals".
Storytelling was so intriguing that i got glued to the screen as if I'm hearing a gossip from a friend and CRAVING to know EVERY detail! The best part of it -- it's no gossip but real facts
I love the story telling in this video. It reminds me of the one that CGPgrey made when he was researching for the name Tiffany. I know that their sanity is tested when the rabbit gets way too deep, but I love every minute of it.
@gustavo9758 even science isn't immune. They need funding and those funders often have their own agendas. Don't even get started on Academia politics.
Another point of “settled science” that can’t be blindly trusted. Remember this the new time someone says, “the science is settled.” This has been going on since science was invented.
if it's a fact just listed as filler in a scientific paper it's not that bad, if you need to do actual research with the fact you first need to check the sources properly. My guess is nobody really needs this fact for their research.
Imagine growing up as a flat-earth creationist and deconstructing to atheistic naturalism. Most people never have to confront the knowledge they take for granted like that
lol you have no idea It’s basically the human condition. People say shit, other people repeat it and it becomes fact in the minds of the masses. Society is pretty stupid.
I know another one: the human body fully matures at 26. The original source for this was basically completely made up and didn't have any real evidence, but pretty much everyone just accepts it as a fact.
I always find it so interesting when creators upload videos like this, where they somewhat go through the process of what it truly takes to fact check a source, instead of just surface level looking, and presenting information they found and fact checked behind the scenes
@@celveeThis may not be as incorrect as you might think. I don't know the source off hand, which is why I say "may," but it is technically incorrect to say that about the body, because the research in question specifically refers to the brain. The brain tends to reach full maturity from the rear, near the brain stem, first. Then the mid-brain, and on to the final steps in the prefrontal cortex. That is where the approximation of maturity around 25 comes from. The rest of the body finishes maturing a few years earlier, depending on when puberty kicks in and how long it lasts for any given person. And of course, even in brain maturity this is an inexact number when speaking about a specific person.
This channel continues to impress me with thorough research, integrity, deep thinking, and the bravery to ask scary questions not intended to rhetorical. Optimistic Nihilism continues to be a sort of balm I occasionally apply to a couple of psychic wounds that may never heal, but can at least feel better. Thank you for all the hard work you do to earn and keep our trust 💚🐺
The beauty about all of this isn't even the fact itself, but that you were willing to go to such great lengths to rectify something without needing to. Someday it may come in handy for something that actually DOES need this attention. Thank you for putting in the work.
We will need to create a new internet for that, I'm afraid. And "truthnet" won't cover it; it needs to be "LessWrongNet" or "AsCloseToTheTruthAsWeCanNet".... ;-)
I dont usually comment but I had to this time! I'm genuinely impressed at how u guys put all that dedication and hardwork to bring out the truth from under the dunes. These days people would go around believing what ever is written out there but has no correct source. You guys are definitely a rare gem here! All supporting this team!
We really do appreciate all your work. This is my favorite channel on the internet. Please keep up the work, you are all a beacon of truth on this crazy times.Thanks again and always.
I remember coming across this online as facts many years ago, and thought to myself this cannot be plausible. Thanks for the update because I couldn't get anywhere myself.
I deeply admire the effort you put into this work. It’s a demanding and often underappreciated task, but it is truly significant because the accuracy of data is critically important.
WoW 🤩 I’m so happy you took the time to check and share. Now days there’s so much misinformation is sad and this is a good prove of it it seems it was so hard to find the source and you have a whole team behind to support. Normal folks wouldn’t even bother go that far
Honestly an amazing video. Love the deviation from the usual style of editing and "story" telling for something that's comes across as a much more effortless blending of entertaining and informing to a degree where it'd be hard to distinguish the two. Brought together in a complete package that only works with all the different parts being handled well.
As a science teacher I've always loved you deeply guys, but this might be the coolest and more instructive video of yours (and of all I've watched). My students are definitely going to have to watch it! (Plus, I loved getting to see your offices ❤).
@@martinversnjak5503my intuition is that adding in the rest of the blood vessels doesn't add too much to the total length due to how much fewer of them there are
This is so accurate. Every time I try to write a new scientific paper or science communication video, I wonder if I am falling for these kind of traps. You guys are the bravest for going down this labyrinth. This video is a great example of how scientific knowledge should work.
To get started planning a fulfilling career that does a lot of good, go to 80000hours.org/inanutshell for your free career guide.
I LOVE YOUR VIDEOS
💰
if this video is 7 mins old how is the comment 4days old
u guys rock
How's ur comment 4 days old?? the video was uploaded 13 minutes ago
One thing that is still true is that if you take someone's blood vessels and lay them out in a straight line, they'll die
One thing that is still true is that if you sleep, you close your eyes.
Edit: I just wanna say that, for anyone who argued with what I said, I didn't mean it seriously. I made it only as a joke. I could've made it clear, but no one's the same, and I don't wanna be the kind of person who ruins anyone's day.
New tiktok challenge unlocked
Not me I'm different
fun fact: even if you lay them out in a curved line, they will still die
How are you one day ago the video being 6 minutes ago?
Gotta love how the wikipedia article for blood vessel has already been edited with the more correct estimates.
They even linked this video in the view history
Wikipedia editors when their child is about to be born:
Kurzegzast has a big influence
Wikipedia is a great source, as long as its own articles are linked to primary sources. Less so when they aren't, or when the topic is mainly opinion driven. Still probably one of the most useful sites on the entire web, and one of the very few to live up to the original promises of the internet as it was being constructed, alongside perhaps GitHub and a few others.
That is actually crazy
I saw your icon and was _really_ freaked out by the fact that I commented on a video I've never seen before.
And then I looked at the username.
Next up: debunking how many spiders you eat in your sleep.
at least 16
the call me spiders goerge
I wish they'd wait for me to wake up so I could enjoy it. 🕷️
already debunked. That stat doesn't even make sense because the population of spiders varies massively depending on where u live
None. It's just that spider George keeps eating like 40 thousand spiders a day and throws off the whole statistic
"We only use 10% of out mind" is one of my favorite false facts.
Thats true, but just due to stress and monotony of socialist goverments
That's body not brain. Brain is a part of body not the body itself@@cra1zer
Actually, u use every bit of your brain with any and all little tasks, even breathing. You can't even define what 10% of the brain means because of how complicated it is. @@cra1zer
Lol
@@cra1zer Ever seen an MRI scan of someone who is doing absolutely nothing, or just sleeping. We actually use 100% of out brain all the time, we just don't know it.
Good to see nothing's changed. When I was at University (35 years ago) I heard a great quote... "It takes 3 years to introduce a new "fact" in to a textbook... and 3 decades to remove it once it's been disproved"
How does that saying go? "A lie will travel around the earth 3 times before the truth even puts on their shoes"?
Terry Pratchett? @@Mrjoecreeper
@personisme3556 That's the guy! I misquoted it a little bit, but the sentiment still remains
@@Mrjoecreeper That was your chance to say 2 and 1/2 to stick with the video
the hell refuses to give up what it ate ... textbook, you mean vomited foreign waste? who tf could eat it?! someone who has more faith (greed) than brain?
In a nutshell, this is a video about accountability and commitment to truth.
I love it.
Yes, this is what I took from it…
OKO
Raging against fake news
i still really dont like kurzgesagt for their climate change video that was funded by bill gates owned companies and ive never been able to watch their vids the same when that whole vid was drawing the focus away from the real problem big corporations and their policy and instead told u how u can do a million effectively useless things
Sadly becoming rarer and less valued these days… Shock factor is all many people care about apparently
Applying the animations to real life is actually really cool-it feels even more fitting since you guys also put in direct sources instead of illustrating it alone
0:04
They used the old animator's blood vessels to test the myth ☠️
nope it feels ucnanny and lazy
Reminds me of TAWOG
It would need more than one guy to comprove it scientifically
One thing that’s true is that if you take out all of your veins and lay them on a basketball court, the game would be canceled.
Or a blue whale.
Ughh, well, time to test this I guess...
Source?
"it couldn't be that hard to find the source, right?"
CGPGrey sends his regards
RUclips fact checkers going schizo over made up stories whose original source is lost to history is my new favourite genre
@@CiuccioeCorraz Do you know any great ones abside from Lemino's Spider in your sleep and CGPGray Tiffany one?
@@mastah39the gold fish attention span is another made up "fact" lacking primary sources and is wrong
@@mastah39 I believe CGP Grey's Who Owns Ellis Island video also revolves around a quest down a rabbit hole to find the original source for a historical claim.
@@mastah39 There is this guy doing videos on Whales who dives into a mention of a Welsh king. The king turns out to be an invention of a guy notorious for making up stuff.
Last night I told my mother that our blood vessels could wrap around the earth 3 times. Guess what pops up on my feed right now. Wonderful
Dang, son, wrong both times that's got to hurt.
Hehehe it be like that 😂
had something similar, was talking about traveling back in time and possibilities and boom video popped up the next day answering my questions
where's your sourc-
I literally did the same thing one or two days ago!
I’m a long-time fan of Kurzgesagt, usually just watching quietly. But today, I had to speak up, this video was absolutely incredible! The style felt so fresh and engaging. Loved every second of it!
I absolutely agree I like this new art style
Yes
Same!!
After this video I feel RUclips should introduce a special double like or something.
This whole video felt like adult version of blues clues
I kind of lost interest In their videos due to the topics and the same format they kept but this video topic is really interesting and fresh. It also shows that they can even debunk themselves as they should to stay true to the scientific method.
An incredibly amazing video. I can't count the number of times I've read a news article that cites other news articles. It's a huge problem that's even bigger than you think.
There needs to be some kind of stigma against citing secondary sources
Linking clicks to ad revenue seems to be a contributing factor. If the majority of the money comes from getting people to click while the content is irrelevant, I doubt stigma matters.
And also writing articles about papers where the author obviously only read the title of the study 😅
Now, THIS is scientifically beautiful! It really leaves one wondering how much else we repeat in academia that is incorrect or inaccurate, and how better knowledge and data could change things.
Better knowledge and data should eventually change things. But "eventually" could be on the scale of decades or centuries, and who knows how many small bits of accepted wisdom need to be investigated some day.
I’m sure I heard somewhere that this is basically the premise that revived the flat earth theory: that broad scientific assumptions should be better evidenced if they are to be believed. That escalated out of control, but the principal stands.
Writing my dissertation was a painful lesson in this, i stg how frustrating it was seeing these numbers pop up over and over and its like 'ok but who said that?'. In my case, turns out the very commonly repeated fact, accepted as truism etc... for C.Difficile is that it is sterilised at x degrees for x hours. EVERYONE says this exact number and fact, some not even citing it. Turns out, literally all stem back to this one paper from like, the 30's, which just says 'yeah we assume this probably works. We didn't test it' and its not completely accepted fact for the correct sterilisation procedure. WTF. SO so much must be wrong its scary.
@@interiot2 and it slows down research too because things accepted as 'it just is, everyone knows it!' mean noone feels a need to retest and get more accurate data!
Ai
This is why we need the Internet Archive. Please support it!
and piracy like thats enly site i trust
While that is true, sometimes what they are doing can also really hurt authors of some books.
@@AAAAAA-qs1bv imaginary supposition
@@AAAAAA-qs1bv Oh wow speaking for All of authors... are you psychic?
We SHOULD have internet archives. and if the original author don't like it, take accountability and removes it. simple.
why are ya rejecting the WHOLE THING JUST BECAUSE OF ONE THING.
accountability and responsibility. the most basic thing to do.
@@AAAAAA-qs1bv How does it hurt authors? If someone spent a lot of effort writing a book and it would naturally get lost to time, I'd think they'd _want_ it to be able to live longer through the internet, surely? Especially if it's one containing primary sources and work they've done through experiments?
This reminds me of CGPgrey going down weird historical rabbit holes only to discover a complete lack of primary sources
TIFFANY
TIFFANY😂
I think they specifically referenced him when they mentioned getting "lost in the forest of knowledge"
@@iphone777 GOD DAMN YOU HEARNE
Whatever happened to that guy
this is the whole reason why I love this channel and the videos produced, they are willing to go above and beyond to find as much information as possible before trying to claim it as true.
Beautifully done team, keep up the amazing work!
MASSIVE kudos to the team for undergoing this research process for that long. Been there, done that (not so well) and I know it's an ungrateful, tiresome job. You guys deserve much praise for this kind of research AND educational work.
Agree.
For sure! It also gives viewers more trust that the team is always trying to learn and assure their reporting is accurate.
I recall recently hearing someone saying “The faster information is shared the more accurate it is” and this video is a perfect rebuttal to that.
I think it's probably more about fast being relevant and actionable. Accurate is slow. Lies are fast.
Some people lie a lot. Some people lie a little. Some people believe just about anything. A lot of people hear the lies. I think a useful heuristic is to think, 1) how likely would this be found out to be a lie if it were, 2) how costly would it be for the person saying it to get wrong, 3) how gainful is it for the person saying it for others to believe him. You want 1 and 2 to be high, and 3 to be low to put confidence in the source.
I think in an age of information overload, people are finding truth by consensus.
@@acctsysAs my grandpa used to say, "believe none of what you hear and half of what you see."
I've always heard the one "a lie spreads half way around the world before the truth has time to put on its shoes."
Yeah, I'm pretty sure that it actually works the opposite of that.
The paper re-estimating the more accurate number is important and good, but debunking the original number is equally important.
Thank you for your work!
As a scientist, I can tell you that it's really not important at all. It's just a number for imagination and to be impressed by. Nothing depends on it. Also, the original estimate is not that far-fetched. My reaction was: Oh, it wasn't even that far off. The original number has the same exponent and is in a reasonable range for that kind of estimate. So, no it's not a "debunk" at all. On the other hand, there are a lot of other “well-known” facts and historical imponderables that are more important to be reassessed.
OK, but from the point of view of data ecology and etymology (of a person who hates the idea of being confidently wrong), each time the original source of a piece of nebulous conventional wisdom or turn of phrase gets conclusively determined and reevaluated, our collective body of knowledge becomes more complete and reliable, for which I am personally very grateful. And each time, it reminds us that Snapple Cap facts are NOT reliable sources, and more importantly, of the value of ALWAYS LISTING YOUR SOURCES, confirming rather than relying solely on memory, and raising a very skeptical eyebrow at dramatic claims without attribution. In essence, the war for the future of information; will the power of the internet and the ability to, on a grand scale, globally distribute the task of documenting, sourcing, and cross-checking all information lead us to a future of more reliable sources of knowledge, or will the growing speed and complexity with which misinformation can be disseminated to willing believers and rebroadcasted endlessly lead us to a future of paranoia, irrationality, and mistrust, in which an objective review of facts becomes impossible or least inaccessible to the minds of most. Will we be feeding the AI that we will come to rely on more false data than truth, and will it ever be able to tell the difference?
@@cypog8479 the original estimate says 100,000km while the corrected one says 19,000km. It actually is far off from being correct , and to be exact it is about 80,000km less than the actual. So yes it is far off , it is not near at all
@@cypog8479The original estimate isn’t even close to accurate. Especially for a fact which is published by reputable sources, it literally contains a four hundred percent error. As a “scientist” you should be able to acknowledge that
@@copilopi3104It always depends on what you‘re doing in science. The old number was a very rough estimate and everyone reading the original source knew that. It was expected to be off by a factor of easily 5 (or even more) since many assumptions went into it. He had at least 2 assumptions going in to his estimate that were rounded to be nice numbers and thus off by a factor of 2-3 each. It was meant as a simple fun back of the envelope calculation, and as such it is remarkably near the new estimate. It‘s not about „oh he was off by 80 thousand km, that‘s a lot“.
Think about it! In 1929 he did this! What would you have guessed as length? Certainly not thousands of kilometers… Some calculations are simply made to ESTIMATE the ROUGH size of something in order to get a mental picture. And halfway around Earth or twice around Earth is the same picture to me. Way smaller than to the Moon and way larger than around the city
My respect to you 📈
💖🙏🦆
Epic
Okay but when did this new mix of real life and animated come from, it looks so cool.
Google gumball
@@Batcave765lol i think they meant when kurzgesagt started doing it too
I like this too!!
@@Batcave765I hear his world is amazing
It's neat. It's more worldly to look at, and takes much less animating resources than drawing everything. I do hope this doesn't mean the end to the fully animated videos though
The David Suzuki shoutout made my Canadian heart swell. He was my first real exposure to scientific concepts when I was a kid.
I grew up reading his books in Australia. 😊
@@Kurt_Philandererwassup Aussie, I’m a Scot myself
Same. For me, it was Suzuki and Richard Zuawski (Halifax meteorologist) and he had a show waaaaaaay back in the day called Wonder Why? It was fantastic.
Me too! I grew up in Vancouver and saw a few of his speeches as a kid. 😊
It felt so weird to hear them introduce David Suzuki as if the viewer hadn't already heard of him! XD
exciting how you integrated real life footage in this one
yeah, it looks so cool imo
Very cool
Same.
Loved it personally.
I agree
I'm here to confirm that , google has changed it and now as we search , we get the correct number
They showed the terrible face of access to information:
-knowledge is disappearing,
-it is overwhelmed by disinformation.
not really. Knowlege is actually more easily accessable then ever before to more people then ever before. Its just that the truth is always a little harder to find then one would think, and facts are easily mistaken, or misjudged, Of course bias and interpetation is also a key element of human nature that won't ever go away
@@sarahlachman1349 yeah thats misinformation
someone sees information and interprets it incorrectly (either due to bias or lack of understanding), fails to include necessary context, fails to properly cite the source, and/or just rewords it horribly. Suddenly a new source is created when they "publish" it online. Except the information here can be proven to be wrong/misleading. The matter is you have to prove it wrong not just to yourself but to others who will see this fact and trust that nobody has a reason to lie about blood vessel length (and nobody did lie, they just repeated a rough estimate made without full data).
misinformation is everywhere, finding whats been proven to be true seems to be getting harder and easier. there is misinfomation than ever but also some paper written in austria in 1910 would not be avalaible to fact check (without a flight and the ability to read german) by an american in 1970 but in the 2020s it might just be digitized (and still in german)
@@sarahlachman1349 10,000 lies for every 1 truth makes the truth inaccessible. I recommend reading Goebbels "Big Lie", who formalized this tactic, among many others. We live in a post truth society. Primary sources will soon be completely inaccessible-it'll just be AI, owned and run by capital owners, telling people what is and isn't true. 1984
@@sarahlachman1349 10,000 lies for every 1 truth makes the truth inaccessible. I recommend reading Goebbels "Big Lie", who formalized this practice, among many others. We live in a post truth society. Primary sources will soon be completely inaccessible-it'll just be AI, owned and run by capital owners, telling people what is and isn't true. 1984
@@sarahlachman1349 10,000 lies for every 1 truth makes the truth inaccessible. Primary sources will soon be completely inaccessible, and or paywalled-it'll just be AI, owned and run by capital owners, telling people what is and isn't true. 1984
It's a shame that facts are so hard to actually verify. All that work just for a tidbit of trivia. Excellent work though, and a lovely video sharing it, as always
Cool
Ultimately most knowledge that is spread is spread as a "trust me bro" even when it is coming from people who are experts in their field. Usually the "trust me bro" sources tend to be easier to read and digest than the ones with the actual references.
@@evancombs5159 I've made that observation a long time ago. Funny how over thousands of years we still haven't developed a better way of learning and teaching than simply passing knowledge from person to person. Books seem to have more credibility but it's still just words written by someone else. And one mistake in the long chain of communication can go a long way.
There should be some law that you have to always provide to REAL ORIGINAL source, if they dont just mark it that it could be bs
@faustinpippin9208 It should be clear from this video that such a thing would be pretty much unfeasible from a research perspective
Loved this one. On a personal and very insignificant note regarding fact checking and peer reviewing - I published a small research paper on waste management, referenced a parameter for fuel use in composting.
Got published (after a long time, as everyone knows!) and one of the readers thought the number was too small - we both wrote to the author in the original reference who caught an error in the report - so it all got corrected and fixed. So yay to finding old errors and fixing them, even if it causes some consternation. It did renew my confidence on the general scientific community and the system in general - as maligned and conflicted as it can get.
+1 point for eloquent word choice
Kudos to our little fact checker here. Your efforts are well valued my friend. Peer review is such a great system tbh. 👍👍
Woah, that's awesome! I would love to read this composting paper, I love compost 🌱
1:59
Number: **acting all suspicious**
Kurzgesagt: "And I took that personally"
When I was young, I tried and gave up to find the original source. Finally, after all the years, I found it thanks to yoy. Thank you. You guys are heroes!
Yoy is a well-known source for such things!
I always go to yoy for all my information. So reliable.
summon the bfdi fans
Yoyle cake
Yoyle cake
Thank you for getting the right number and not giving up along the way.
Much appreciate all your work, far.
"the right number" He got a (purportedly) better ESTIMATE -- there is no objective 'right number' for something like 'length of blood vessels in the body'.
This. Exactly this. This is what scientific research is all about. The journey of forging new knowledge and disseminating it to the public is not, and has never been, about being perfectly correct, but about continually probing at the edges of our knowledge and triple-checking what we think we already know, discarding the old in the wake of new, more accurate information. In short, it isn't about being right, but becoming less wrong.
This comment needs to be pinned.
Lovey way of framing that perspective. Should be put in science class rooms all over.
Absoposifuckativelutely!
Edit: typo
the last sentence
You are completly right. This video is spectacular 🎉
Love this video. Any teacher trying to teach their students about the types of sources (primary, secondary, etc.) should use this video!
The question: “How do you know that?” is absolutely essential.
Source: “Trust me, bro.”
how do u know that it's essential
@@ahmedkhedr2631 i just know
I have so much respect for channels that acknowledge and correct their mistakes. Doing that in such a way that i both learn things and have fun is next level!
I checked your sources to see if that new research specifically quotes the specific original source and it does. Even if you just managed to complete your research in the same time as that other paper, you're still gave a valuable example to what to avoid during research. I'm currently in university and shared it with my classmates to give them a heads up on when we get to writing our thesis paper in medicine.
To be fair, usually you dont have a year time to check a single fact, when writing a degree thesis. If you have a credible source, most of the time, you wouldnt dig deeper because at that point, you might as well question every source you use and you wouldnt get anywhere.
@@Daniel-rd6st I think AI could be a great tool for this, specifically tracking down and logging “lost” or semi-forgotten scientific literature in a database
@@Vox_Popul1 True, though AI could only find stuff, that has been publicly available uploaded. Once you actually have to read though physical books or papers, it would struggle.
@@Vox_Popul1 AI is a like an automated misinformation machine... if you google this question, what do you see first? AI repeating the incorrect original 100,000km claim. It has no way to filter credible-sounding human input from actually credible human input. This video is making the exact opposite point; the value & necessity of careful manual research over just repeating the most popular claim.
@@Daniel-rd6st you are typically so busy at that point that you don’t have time to eat or sleep, much less go down some meticulous path for each point in your thesis. People are misunderstanding a thesis in its also political in nature in that you are trying to convince a panel of people and that’s what most people wind up focusing on and it’s not always meticulous.
This is exactly what mainstream media does every day…. Make up something, then cite one another as references.
9000 to 19,000 KM is still an absolutely insane distance though.
That's what I thought when I saw the number. Still pretty insane.
It is insane but no where near the original (100000 km) number.
@@justno984 eh, within one magnitude. Close enough
Yes but it isn't nearly as appealing as a nice round 100k and being able to wrap around the planet twice.
@@taliesine.8343 and that's how misinformation spreads..
I love this because it reflects on so many things I was taught in school and by my family but without any reliable sources. Then I go to university and finish my degree in public health education and learn half the stuff I was taught by random people in school, who were supposedly “authority figures“ Actually was entirely incorrect. It’s wonderful how the pursuit of knowledge guides so much but then that knowledge changes… what we supposedly believe is fact is actually changed and that’s the beauty of science… A collection of hypotheses that we may believe is fact incorrectly, and then years down the line sometimes even centuries, we discover that what we knew as fact was actually entirely wrong and a misguided hypothesis that had no basis in reality.
one thing hard to absorb and deal with is that education is basically what the video said, most of sources are just a copy-paste copy-paste copy-paste copy-paste copy-paste copy-paste
i mean, 'education institutions' by themselves are a failure, they sought to have ~quick~ answers or solutions but by doing that, most of phd, doctors end-up doing the extreme opposite for society. I don't see beauty even if i wanted to. Unfortunately, that is the 'dark side' of scientific/ academic/ institution. But I cant blame them, they are controlled by money not the other way round
Phd Student: i'm gonna quickly erase that one overused and false quote in my paper
As a school employee, one of the things that bothers me the most is seeing classroom teachers (I'm not one so I don't have "authority") teach blatantly wrong things to students. Terrible math explanations, and guesses spoken as facts. Elementary kids will have no idea that they can question teachers, and would have no idea how to look for answers. The internet is full of absolute baloney, usually in the first search result. And they don't want to hear it of you tell them what they read is wrong. I saw a kid with a presentation board for his report on Afghanistan. The beautifully printed image was the Taj Mahal.
10:33 OMG "hand" of the bird on the left casts a shadow! idk why but it's so wholesome, like, someone bothered to put effort into it
The attention to detail is all that matters
Have you seen the moment when he turns the pages of the book? The animation is beautiful!
The shadow's also part of the bird sprite, I guess
in 1:54 there are shadows too, like the bird on the left has its full shadow on the table
The Kurzgesagt Channel is the definition of "someone bothered to put effort in it"
This is why I love this channel. Between the great animations to support it and the fun presentation of science, you guys put in the work to make sure you're really representing up-to-date info.
I am surprised you researched this for over a year that is true commitment. I admire you guys Thanks
It's amazing.
This was AWESOME!! Thank you for taking the effort. Hope you prove to be example to others.
As a Canadian living in Vancouver, I'm super happy that you tried to get in touch with him. You should have just asked one of us to pop by and ask him! :)
Does he allow strangers to approach him like that?
Hey! Another vancouverite! Helloo
@@tobyatlas6480as a person living in Vancouver, I did not know we were called vancouverites
@@The-next-person As a former Vancouverite I've heard you guys called that alot.
@@eugenetswong He was also a professor at our main research university here, the University of British Columbia, for a while. Even taught some people I know too!
Just a symbolic thanks
This video really reminded me of CGP Grey's "Someone Dead Ruined My Life… Again." about the tiffanys
I really love this kind of video showing how hard it can be to search for sources, and the number of things you can find along the way
Yeah, I got real Trouble With Tiffanys vibes.
God damn you Hearne!
My mind went there as soon as they started bringing up the hunt for citations.
then i suggest you watch Lemmino's "The Eight Spiders" and "The Universal S"
And he posted just today! I assume they found him in the forest and helped him back to daylight!
Now, this is what I call investigative journalism! This is awesome. Well done to the team!
They should make more of these common misinformation videos. Maybe a mini series
My bro/sis in christ, they said it took em a year to research this one, if it is a mini series it'd get an instalment like once every 3 years
Adam connover from college humor had a whole mini series
@@istolethepfpfromapulexarts1052 That was my thought exactly when reading his comment! Glad someone said it, if it wasn't you , it was for sure about to be me! 😂
@@istolethepfpfromapulexarts1052 Yes, they've done a video about how they create their videos and it's remarkable how much time it takes to produce each one.
@@istolethepfpfromapulexarts1052I think this is happening all the time for them. They just decided to make a video for this case specifically.
I didn't expect to see David Suzuki! One of the highlights of my schooling was getting to see his presentations! He's def a Canadian OG!
“You really think someone would do that? Just go on the internet and tell lies?”
Yes
a lie means intentionally false
this was just a miscalculation with a ton of false assumptions
What internet do you think existed in the 1920s? Literally every part of your comment is wrong
The Scientific Method is 500 years old which teaches us how to fact check.
The Catholic Church is 2000 years old which teaches us the moral weight of not doing so.
Between the two of them put together, anything we say that's false is a lie because we know better so we're culpable to do better.
@@ninjalectualxI think they’re joking on the importance of fact-checking things you hear on the internet. Their comment can’t be wrong since they’re not claiming anything, they’re just quoting a funny common phrase on the internet
I've met Dr David Suzuki! He came to my city to give a conference on sustainability in about 2002.
Probably doesn't remember that either
@@prifax1995 Let's face it, as people age, their memory can get a bit....erm.............what was I saying again?
@@Itachi_9_uchiha old people watch Kurzgesagt?
@@Itachi_9_uchiha Huh.....? Uh........ Dang I forgot too......... What was I saying?
@@thomasthetankengine1945Define old
A lie can run around the world before the truth can pull its trousers on. Apparently the velocity of poorly sourced fun facts is similarly impressive.
Why? Are propagating lies often inherently crafted to be more memorable than the truth (ie '100k' in this video) or are they more fully explained than the truth since they have the heavy lifting of debunking the truth or is it some larger principle of the universe at play, a la thermodynamics' entropy, as in "...everything slowly tends towards stupid unless/until acted upon by smart?" Or something else entirely? I'm truly curious, and I might not be alone.
HOW IS THIS COMMENT 1 DAY AGO THE VID IS 37 MINS AGO
@@PhoenixWrong0 Stop yelling. They are probably a supporter and got access a day early.
@@p18yurd The task of spreading a lie is only to open your mouth and say it.
Truth takes research and verification.
The practice of seeking knowledge *is* the pruning of falsehoods from truths.
That's because the goal of sharing fun facts is to look intelligent, not be intelligent.
This video is one of the best examples of why I love this channel!
@CGPGrey levels of going down a rabbit hole to find the source. Respect
Poor Grey's Tiffany was also the first thing to pop into my mind 😂
How did you comment on a video before it came out
I think Grey is lost in a rabbit hole somewhere. It’s been nearly a year since his last video
@@BeanMan-The-bean Thats what I was saying
@@vandos1He also said about being lost in the forest of all knowlegde
Still within an order of magnitude. Close enough for an engineer.
yeah just put a log() on it and it'll straight tself out
"Eh it's close enough"
-an engineer
Spoken like a true engineer and physicist
Depends on the type of Engineer. A large number don't want their estimates off by more than 20% or so. But it's definitely good enough for an astrophysicist!
Let's say pi is 4
I love you for making and posting this video. Thank you Birbs.
I’m sure Dr Suzuki would appreciate an update. 🥰
Don't look at my nickname😇
He can watch it by asking for a copy of the video in the mail.
@@Colorcrayons on VHS, or LaserDisc? Or perhaps reel to reel footage?
@@FiXatoU probably have to write all the 0s and 1s on papyrus scroll and send it to him with a pigeon
I had never heard of this channel before, but this came up in my recommendations, and your high level of commitment to research, facts, and academic integrity immediately won me over! Subscribed and looking forward to more well-researched science facts! Hope this gets you lots more subscribers, you earned it putting in all that legwork!
This is another reason why LLMs are inaccurate. Dirty information in, dirty info out.
Consider yourself lucky when a LLM gives you an answer that is not contradiced by Wikipedia or basic logic.
yep, ironically they suffer from the same problems we do 😂 they’ll even pretend they know what they’re talking about
This is another reason why humans are inaccurate. Dirty information in, dirty info out.
I had Chatgpt cite my own question asked on another website as proof
Thats why i only use LLMs that provide sources for checking, and you kinda need to cite the actual source for research studies anyways
This, dear birbs, is one of the most important videos you ever made. Thank you!
Agreed.
I completely agree. This video adds value and credibility to all the others on the channel.
just a wonderful job. Please keep it up. the phrase "persistence of misinformation" is timely, to say the least.
That's so amazing!! You were so resilient throughout it all!
Please also make a video on the fact 'we only use 10% of our brain' and 'what if we used 100% of our brain?'
I've never really believed how true it is
I believe that factoid is based on how much of your brain is lit up as "active" on a scan at once during testing. But just because only 10% of your brain is active at once doesn't mean only 10% is active ever. All the bits are working some of the time. As for "using 100% of your brain", remember that it's different *patterns* of neurons firing that make your brain work right. If all your neurons were firing 100% of the time, that'd be exactly as useless for creating human thought as all your neurons firing 0% of the time. Except you'd probably have seizures first, THEN die, rather than just being dead.
@@awaredeshmukh3202 I guess the scientists at least learned what part of your brain is active when you're getting your brain scanned 😅
That's pretty impressive that you did all this work. It's good to know the right answer.
Omg.. a year wasted researching, then some bloke just writes a paper out of the blue with the exact answer 🤣 heart wrenching
It's weird how often two unrelated people/groups try to find the answer to the same obscure question at basically the same time. It gets even weirder the longer the question has gone unanswered.
Still, we might not have gotten both otherwise..
They say a year to make it sound more spectacular, it was probably a week maybe a month
Heart wrenching? Perhaps for Kurzgesagt. Wasted? Certainly not. For me, as a reader, this is fantastic! It really reiterates my trust in science that an even great estimate (from almost a century ago), is questioned, and is now an even better estimate. On top of that, it is a great story that we can all relate to. If not for this effort by Kurzgesagt, I would never have seen new estimate, and Wikipedia would still be wrong. Science -like a lot of things- is 99% perspiration, and 1% inspiration. Hmmm, didn't Edison say that? Could someone please check the source of that quote? ;)
I wouldn't call it wasted. I think the new number is much more impactful when you know how the old number came to be. Without knowing that the old number was a guestimate from 1922 based on wrong numbers it would me much harder to contest "known wisdom". Otherwise it would be harder to convince people because "look it says so on website XY and they are professionals".
10:15 I love how blue bird mashing on the keyboard. Got a geniune laugh out of me.
I love the bottle of Spezi in the background xD
twitter bird
The animation quality!! The blend between real life 3d and 2d is so good. Thanks a lot for working on this
Storytelling was so intriguing that i got glued to the screen as if I'm hearing a gossip from a friend and CRAVING to know EVERY detail! The best part of it -- it's no gossip but real facts
4:09 this is so adorable I can't take it
Me neither
I came looking for this comment. I said the same thing lol
huge props to your animators on this one. the characters are all so cute and expressive! and the live action/animation blending is really well done
I love the story telling in this video. It reminds me of the one that CGPgrey made when he was researching for the name Tiffany.
I know that their sanity is tested when the rabbit gets way too deep, but I love every minute of it.
It would be awesome to have a playlist of these fact deep investigations. This is an awesome subgenre of information communication.
I knew someone would bring that up :)
And he just uploaded a video lmaoo
I don't quite remember,
Is that the one when he went to someone grave in middle of rain?
The research for why there are 7 days in the week by Be Smart has a similar result.
10:28 solid coffee machine there
A man of culture
I wanted to know whether a human being really consists of 60/70% water. If not what % does a human body consist of?
It’s actually liquid
Fr, love the rocket apartamento
@@tobiasdieringer9150that is factual, assuming you're a male weighing 70 kg
This is scary... the amount of incorrect information that's out there that people point to as facts.
And this is in the realm of science. Now consider the quality of information that surrounds politics.
Yup. The difference with Science vs all other groups is: we learn from and accept our mistakes. Can't say the same about politics or religion.
@@Dremth At least in politics everyone knows that almost everything is a lie
@gustavo9758 even science isn't immune. They need funding and those funders often have their own agendas.
Don't even get started on Academia politics.
@@Dremthimagine applying that to Islam 😂
Another point of “settled science” that can’t be blindly trusted. Remember this the new time someone says, “the science is settled.” This has been going on since science was invented.
This is impressive and terrifying. Thinking that, some of the facts we are used to, maybe are just sentences we accept for true but they are not
if it's a fact just listed as filler in a scientific paper it's not that bad, if you need to do actual research with the fact you first need to check the sources properly.
My guess is nobody really needs this fact for their research.
Imagine growing up as a flat-earth creationist and deconstructing to atheistic naturalism. Most people never have to confront the knowledge they take for granted like that
lol you have no idea It’s basically the human condition. People say shit, other people repeat it and it becomes fact in the minds of the masses. Society is pretty stupid.
When it comes to important things? No
If it's some (probably) useless fact? YES
@ not when it comes to important things? I bet you have no idea what a human being’s natural diet it.
Nice job! And you got a letter from David Suzuki! He's a national hero here in Canada!
Just retired this year and I grew up watching _The Nature of Things._
For what? spreading misinformation?
@Ushio01 did you even watch the video? It was a simple mistake
@@guromenst4416 they may be reffering to Suzuki's hypocritcal high carbon lifestyle and habit of declaring climate emergencies with no evidence.
@@ManBearPigCreative Yeah, but there is evidence for it. So maybe _you_ stop spreading misinformation.
This was a serious rabbit hole, who knows how many like it are around and we don't even question it!
what's funny is how many people get viscerally angry at having these dogmas destroyed loooll
I know another one: the human body fully matures at 26. The original source for this was basically completely made up and didn't have any real evidence, but pretty much everyone just accepts it as a fact.
I always find it so interesting when creators upload videos like this, where they somewhat go through the process of what it truly takes to fact check a source, instead of just surface level looking, and presenting information they found and fact checked behind the scenes
@@celvee So what's the real answer?
@@celveeThis may not be as incorrect as you might think. I don't know the source off hand, which is why I say "may," but it is technically incorrect to say that about the body, because the research in question specifically refers to the brain. The brain tends to reach full maturity from the rear, near the brain stem, first. Then the mid-brain, and on to the final steps in the prefrontal cortex. That is where the approximation of maturity around 25 comes from. The rest of the body finishes maturing a few years earlier, depending on when puberty kicks in and how long it lasts for any given person. And of course, even in brain maturity this is an inexact number when speaking about a specific person.
This channel continues to impress me with thorough research, integrity, deep thinking, and the bravery to ask scary questions not intended to rhetorical. Optimistic Nihilism continues to be a sort of balm I occasionally apply to a couple of psychic wounds that may never heal, but can at least feel better. Thank you for all the hard work you do to earn and keep our trust 💚🐺
The beauty about all of this isn't even the fact itself, but that you were willing to go to such great lengths to rectify something without needing to. Someday it may come in handy for something that actually DOES need this attention. Thank you for putting in the work.
Yup. Not thinking of anything in particular. Not at all. ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)
We will need to create a new internet for that, I'm afraid. And "truthnet" won't cover it; it needs to be "LessWrongNet" or "AsCloseToTheTruthAsWeCanNet".... ;-)
I like the new editing/visualizing style with the real pictures and birbs drawn on top
1:55 i love this mixture of birds with irl backrounds
Edit:my best performing comment was one with 119 likes and yall shattered that record
Reminds me of Chirp Mail (Garrett Animates) here on RUclips!
same
How exciting to get digital likes, that's great
You're hitting 4 digits with this comment in no time... It's your time to shine, baby!🥳
Youve been here fro 4 years and this is you're highest?
awesome video documenting holding yourselves accountable for us, thank you
I dont usually comment but I had to this time! I'm genuinely impressed at how u guys put all that dedication and hardwork to bring out the truth from under the dunes. These days people would go around believing what ever is written out there but has no correct source. You guys are definitely a rare gem here! All supporting this team!
I hope David Suzuki gets to watch this!!!!💚
If he doesn't even have an email address, I somehow doubt he will.
@@Tjalve70no public email*
@@Tjalve70 Still pretty possible someone that knows him watches this video and shows him.
We really do appreciate all your work. This is my favorite channel on the internet. Please keep up the work, you are all a beacon of truth on this crazy times.Thanks again and always.
Man the editing is just so satisfying. Thank you for only going for the facts
Wow, I cannot understate how amazing this video is. I would love to see more videos like this.
I remember coming across this online as facts many years ago, and thought to myself this cannot be plausible. Thanks for the update because I couldn't get anywhere myself.
(6:05) The narration says Krogh's book is from 1922. But, the scan of the _Scientific American_ article shows 1929.
I deeply admire the effort you put into this work. It’s a demanding and often underappreciated task, but it is truly significant because the accuracy of data is critically important.
WoW 🤩 I’m so happy you took the time to check and share. Now days there’s so much misinformation is sad and this is a good prove of it it seems it was so hard to find the source and you have a whole team behind to support. Normal folks wouldn’t even bother go that far
Honestly an amazing video. Love the deviation from the usual style of editing and "story" telling for something that's comes across as a much more effortless blending of entertaining and informing to a degree where it'd be hard to distinguish the two. Brought together in a complete package that only works with all the different parts being handled well.
This is why I love kurzgesagt, they put so much genuine effort to their videos, I can always count on them
Thanks Kurzgesagt!
Misinformation is a big problem in the internet. As a content creator who corrects misinformation, you should be proud of it!
As a science teacher I've always loved you deeply guys, but this might be the coolest and more instructive video of yours (and of all I've watched). My students are definitely going to have to watch it! (Plus, I loved getting to see your offices ❤).
comitment with accuracy in a world full of lies is gold!! thaks😌
Imagine if this was posted on April Fool’s and the true length was actually 100,000 kilometers
Imagine if this was posted by the Galactic Empire and it was just propaganda to show the efficiency of the human body
@@shaansingh6048just to show whos superior to the xeno scum
@@shaansingh6048 Or the Combine.
(Now that I think about it. The combine would use a lower than IRL number and claim the upper lie for their units.)
Kudos to you for not giving up on finding out the original source and wether the number was true! That's truly incredible work!
8:52 Wait.. so are all the blood vessels 9000-1900km or just the capillaries?
Capillaries make up the majority of blood vessel length due to their vast quantity.
@@martinversnjak5503my intuition is that adding in the rest of the blood vessels doesn't add too much to the total length due to how much fewer of them there are
0:40 ducks learned how to escape animation software into the real world
We are in danger🗣️🔥
This is so accurate. Every time I try to write a new scientific paper or science communication video, I wonder if I am falling for these kind of traps.
You guys are the bravest for going down this labyrinth. This video is a great example of how scientific knowledge should work.
This is the first video I'm watching of this channel, and 😱😱 the animation is soooooo cuuuuuuute ❤❤🐧