10 Ways To Spot Pseudoscience
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 4 июл 2024
- Spotting pseudoscience is not so hard once you understand that the purpose of science is to create useful working models of nature. The purpose of pseudoscience is to be swallowed by gullible morons.
My Patreon: / martymer81
If you don't like Patreon, you can also make donations to martymer81(at)gmail.com via Paypal!
My Twitter: @MartymerM81
It is always funny how the pseudo-scientists do two thing that contradict each other:
- they claim all science is a lie,
- they pretend to be scientists.
The claim isn't that all science is a lie, it's that there's a conspiracy in mainstream science to promote a specific narrative. They claim to be unbiased scientists who aren't part of this conspiracy
Absolutely! They use science to give credibility to their claims and mock science when they pretend to have gone beyond it.
Well, consistency is never their strongpoint.
And cherry-pick words, terms and processes from the very science they call "fake", without understanding a bit of it.
"This is an Egg" creepy Worrier, "This is an Orange" Failzoid.
Stargate SG-1 had an episode where by opening the stargate to a certain world, SG-1 accidentally proved their entire theory about the origin of their species wrong. Daniel befriended one of the scientists and said "weren't you upset that all your theories were wrong?" He said "No, I'm a scientist. Being proved wrong is just as exciting as being proved right."
That led to a nuclear war and attempted genocide if I recall the episode correctly.
@@generaljackripper666 Nah you're thinking of a different planet. This particular planet was never seen again in the show. I'm thinking of the one from New Ground (never named in the show). Pretty sure you're thinking of Tegalus (from Icon and Ethon).
@@StormsparkPegasus It was actually Teal'c who befriended the archaeologist, called Nyan. He was blinded by a shot of an enemy soldier, from the human race of the Bedrosians. Nyan helped him to regain his sight, and aswell later to free the other SG1 members, that were hold prisoner, by the bedrosian commander Rigar, fleeing with them to earth. Nyan was granted refuge on earth, becoming Daniels assistant.
Nyan was the one finding the gate, making the planet accessible for the Stargate Network. But unlike his colleague Mallin, he didn't want to contact the millitary. And you are right, that there was a conflict on this world, between the Bedrosians, and Optricans. The war was going on, because the Bedrosians believed that their god Nefertum (a Goa'uld and underlord to Ra) created the planet, continents, people etc. The Optricans however stopped that worshipping, believing that their ancestors came through a _mystical portal_ called the gateway.
Sorry, I am just a geek when it comes to Stargate, hooe you didn't mind.😅
Over the last decade i have noticed a disturbing trend, that science reporting, and even some scientists themselves also prefer to communicate in the manner of pseudoscience. Its easier and obviously more eyecatching, but it also makes it downright impossible for normal readers, and difficult even for experts, to distinguish them.
The number of "Ground-breaking, world changing discoveries" that are just hot air or nothing special at all is astonishing.
Indeed. They don't need to report anything that actually works. They need clicks.
Mostly it's the media hyping up the discoveries or studies, not the scientists themselves, but there's always going to be good scientists and bad scientists.
The good ones don't make shit up for clicks.
This is why the actions of Andrew Wakefield were so nefarious. As soon as he knew that his paper was published about a potential, he hadn't verified anything, link between MMR and Autism the first thing he did was hold a press conference promoting the 'results' of his study and advocating for new separate vaccines that he hinted will be safe. While not telling anyone those products were being proposed to be produced by himself.
Then when he was caught red handed falsifying his data he screamed conspiracy and witch hunt trying everything to shut down Brian Deer who was starting to uncover his duplicity. He sued Deer to shut him up and stop him from ruining his proposed gravy train and suddenly found out that action meant the court and Deer's defense got to see everything to do with his study so he panicked and tried to cancel the lawsuit before Deer and the court could look over the records too carefully. Too bad for him those things were now in the open and now his secret was out. Then when his actions were reviewed for a investigation into his actions he cried conspiracy again. All to fill his and a lawyer's pockets so they had proof to use in a lawsuit.
The man has blood on his hands.
@@Martymer81it almost like they compete in the same race as pseudoscience. (something about stupid races stupid prizes..)
There are different quality grades of pseudoscience, unfortunately it is up to consumer due diligence on where to get their layman's science news.
There is a big difference between Neil deGrasse Tyson's media, or Bill Nei, or old Carl Sagan interviews, or the presentations at any of our urban Science Centers type of pseudoscience vs some AI RUclips "New Breakthrough" video sponsored by some mystery fund.
A scientist is the ONLY person that will be excited when he learns they were WRONG. It means we discovered something new!
I bet you would be excited to find you were wrong about missing the time for your job interview (etc., etc...)
Huh, personal growth goes along the same way
Fun to think about, very much so, funny odd thing
I get the spirit of what you're trying to say, but in literal practice, it's a pretty funny concept. Imagine being disappointed that the growth you thought was cancerous turned out to be benign.
that is false, scientists are human, snd therefore just as or close to as corrupt, lying, and people pleasing as the average, and i know very well the average.
Hay ,this is interesting , I wonder ????
All I look for is the term "wake up". Then I know stupidity is to follow.
Don't forget 'sheep'
@@davidcarney1533 and "they don't want you to know this...!!!!!!"
"Do the research."
"Buy my supplements"
Usually it's the term truth in the title that wakes me up. :D
When somebody appeals to a conspiracy theory in order to overcome the burden of proof it is almost always a fallacy. particularly in the context of science or medicine.
To expand on this: An actual conspiracy either leaves a lot of evidence (which is how you find out about it) or only involves a small number of people. (The vast majority of climate scientists involved in a conspiracy? Far too large to be able to hide. Fake moon landing, where the USSR had to help cover it up? Are you joking? Why would they do that?) Look at all the historical conspiracies we have documentation for. Yes, there are some big ones - but they didn't stay secret for long. The ones who stayed secret for long were small and didn't leave mountains of evidence lying around - which means that while they lasted, *people didn't know about them.* If you think you know what the rest of the world doesn't, yet it took no particular work to become convinced - well, that alone should be a very strong hint that you're wrong.
thats what THEY want you to think ;)
Now that's some privilege preserving epistemic pushback if I ever heard some!
How dare you imply the capitalist cis-hetero-patriarchy hasn't made up "science" for THEIR benefit.
And it is contra-productive.
Because now they do not just have the original burden of proof but now they also have the burden of proof to show that there is a conspiracy. It is just a new claim stacked ontop.
This is also a way of life for MAGA vermin
Happy new year, Marty.
I would also add: science tries to modify its models so they fit with the observable reality. Pseudo science tries to modify reality so it would fit into their model.
Kind of but it's more like science continously adopts new models that explain the data better. A model needing lots of modification to fit the data while not direct evidence that it is wrong does make the model a lot less useful. Like you can construct a working geocentric model by just adding infinitely many epicycles, but said model is obviously not useful for literally anything other that like star gazing, and we can produce an equally accurate star chart by just using actual astronomy.
@soriac2357 I think that is a brilliant statement. Any differences between science and pseudoscience that I can think of depends on your statement foundationally.
Reminds me of a quote from Doctor Who: "The very powerful and the very stupid have one thing in common: they don't alter their views to fit the facts. Instead, they attempt to alter the facts to fit the views, which can be rather inconvenient if you happen to be one of the facts that needs altering." -4th Doctor (I forget which story)
Computer coders, and sometimes engineers, modify reality to fit their mental model of what the code/object should be doing.
Soldering a loose wire to make reality match your mental model of a functioning radio.
@@donaldhobson8873You are thinking of a deferent type of model from the one in the statement. Besides, there is nothing scarier to see then a software developer carrying a soldering iron. LOL
I'm editing this to elaborate what I mean. The models that he is talking about in the video are models that are intended to be a analog to reality that can be used to make true statements about that reality. If the model is not an accurate representation of reality, you must change that model. Pseudoscientists insist the reality must change to match there model.
Them: "My daddy wasnt no monkey!"
Me: "Actually, he was. And so are you. Humans are tailless monkeys, we share every single diagnostic trait and are in the same clade as old world monkeys. Deal with it,"
No. 11 it blames all the ills in a certain area to a specific cause and prescribes a particular cure. E.g. every illlness has to do with the spine, just adjust the spine and you'll be fine. Or everything can be cured by something that causes the same symptoms.
no 12 a govrement agency supressed the truth. even before the agency existed.
When the proposed "cure" supposedly cures anything and everything, including vastly unrelated conditions, and claims to do so with no side effects and no risks. Bonus points if it claims to cure cancer, aids, chronic pain, autism or all of the above.
Chiropractic never claimed you can cure all illnesses by adjusting the spine...
I remember reading about a science award being presented to a pair of scientists who showed flaws in a previous theory. The person who developed the initial theory was in the audience and congratulated the pair as he was having doubts about his own theory.
With Darwin, not only did he write a whole chapter dealing with potential criticisms, he also said that scientific discoveries would fill in some of the gaps and explain things better. He basically admitted that his book would go out of date because that’s how science works.
Then there is the new, acceptable scientific answer, “I don’t know!” This can be followed with “but I know someone who can point us in the right direction.” or “that has still to be determined by science, but there are people who specialise in that field working on it!”
One interesting thing I've found from reading old books is that, in the Victorian era, 'electric' and 'magnetic' were misused in much the same way that 'quantum' and 'energy' are misused today. I have a memory of seeing a book with a title something like 'The Electrical Gospel of Jesus the Christ', but I can't find it now.
On the appeal to logic portion, I have seen a lot of pseudoscience individual appeal to "common sense" as if common sense is applicable in the case or an arbiter of truth. Anytime someone tells me "common sense" in their argument, the vast majority of the time what follows is neither sensical nor common. This also gets into the conspiracy aspect of it because they will go "They want you to ignore what your common sense tells you is true."
Weirdly enough my common sense tells me there's no supernatural. I can't prove it, that's just my intuition.
"Thinking is critical, because sense isn't common."
- Greater Sapien (et. al?)
“Even a child understands “ is my favorite version of this.
Well, in absolute fairness in psychology, it has been demonstrated that average people's guesses are pretty good at seeing what studies will replicate. Our brain didn't evolve to understand math or physics, but it did evolve to understand other brains. But that's one field of science, and there are plenty of things that aren't intuitive in it.
no such thing as common sense - its just an incoherent meme statement people use to say "you should know this!"
The greatest driver of pseudoscience is the ability to reach lots of people through the internet and monetise their gullibility.
Looking at you, Graham Hancock.
Personally, I would put "falsifiability" front and center as the number 1 indicator of pseudo-science. I think this is the most profoundly misunderstood aspect of the scientific method, opening the door for the rest of the obfuscatory bullshit.
Spacetime continues out past the part of the universe we can observe.
Your socks don't magically change colour when no one (including no camera) is looking at them.
When you shine a torch into deep space, the photons don't magically disappear.
A chocolate teapot won't spontaneously appear out of nothing in a billion years time.
None of these are falsifiable. All are true. All are specific cases of general principles. Ie conservation of energy / mass implies the last two.
If only the snake oil had no side effect. In the case of woo science like orgonite accumulators, that is the case since it literally doesn't do anything. But people who either refuse medicine or switch to chlorine or terpentine enemas or similar absolutely dangerous nonsense do more harm with the pseudoscience than the side effects of any appropriate medicine.
Isn't it "odd" how pseudoscience almost always costs you money to learn? You get the basics for free but to "really understand" you suddenly need to fork up a month`s salary. Peculiar how actual science never works like that.
Elsevier has entered the chat. (Scientific paper publishing company)
Unfortunately real science sometimes does work like that.
@@donaldhobson8873I still 100% believe that if the research is funded by the government, the results should be free for anyone to access.
"It's [Science is] not about making good arguments, it's about making claims that actually work." - Very well put! Same with engineering. I can't think of a more succinct way to describe science. Maybe a "repeatedly" or "reliably" at the end would be a good qualifier.
Engineering is just science where the empericism makes it very clear that you are wrong by breaking.
@@hedgehog3180 There's a bit more to engineering than that, the overlap with science is rather large. But in principle I would agree.
Engineering is practical applied science.
One point worth addressing here is how to deal with actual conspiracies against the truth--for example, biology under Lysenko in the Soviet Union. In such cases, pseudoscience has the force of arms supporting it.
Honest findings can be reproduced.
Honest scientists present sufficient evidence to permit that reproduction.
@@steveholmes11The problem is that the "honest findings" would be covered up and the scientists silenced, assuming there was an actual conspiracy ofc
I feel like you're talking about climate change, or specifically Covid vax science. Don't know why we had to go back Soviets. New science in the west is hiding the data... because it reveals the scam.
Philosophy of Pseudoscience: Reconsidering the Demarcation Problem by Massimo Pigliucci and Maarten Boudry is a scholarly peer review book that deals how to deal the difference between Science, Pseudoscience and Protoscience
“One of the saddest lessons of history is this: If we’ve been bamboozled long enough, we tend to reject any evidence of the bamboozle. We’re no longer interested in finding out the truth. The bamboozle has captured us. It’s simply too painful to acknowledge, even to ourselves, that we’ve been taken. Once you give a charlatan power over you, you almost never get it back.”― Carl Sagan
I am a survivor of childhood abuse. My abuse came as a result of believing in pseudoscience and sadly, some of my family (one immediate) was also a believer in some of these things which sadly indirectly led to my abuse.
The reality is, regardless of one’s reasoning for believing in thing outside of what is, such outcomes ultimately result in you getting scammed and being worse off.
Please take this from a person that is actively still getting therapy for believing in delusions for a long time to cope with trauma and mental illness.
"Therapy" is abusive. Unscientific
Geno$idal, in fact .
Where k live the four humors theory and aversion to healthcare and medical testing/treatment is rampant, i almost died of silly appendicitis, and seen friends and family get sick really bad for replacing antibiotics with magic herbs or _cool foods_, looking into how and why it came to be this way is quite the rabbit hole
Having spent most of early career in medical science one of my biggest annoyance is the endless social media gurus out there providing advice on subjects such as nutrition, weight loss, muscle gain, immunology, disease prevention etc not only is it misleading it can be outright dangerous.
A good one to be on the lookout for is false premises. Especially in FE circles you often see people making arguments that would be true if their premise was correct, using a false premise is a very effective way of lying to someone who isn't necessarily paying full attention to the argument.
E.g. "The globe doesn't work because the north star never moves. "
TBF that's not a valid argument even if the premise was true... How would a star being smack dab on the axis of rotation disprove the globe? o.O
Yes and when they try to point out that the north star moves, ask them if they've ever seen it move.
If they cite scientific data, refer back to NASA's conspiracy
If they accuse you of shifting the burden of proof, say that it's what everyone sees.
Works every time (not really)
This is quite apt, as I'm in the middle of trying to get some Sungenis fan to verify for himself that he was lied to. Watching 1 short video by Based Theory would be enough, but instead he just keeps parroting Sungenis to insist I answer questions to which he has repeatedly ignored my answer...
Something about this video really vibes with me. I been skeptic for so I knew most of these but I still few point still insight like “no math”.
I hope this gets to a few people on the edge of pseudo science view points and find this the push they need. I honestly believe a skeptical view (not pessimistic) is one that helps the person hold the view point and those around them.
The content of this video should be taught in elementary school.
Too many snake oil merchants, too little critical thinking.
Critical thinking in general should be taught. Unfortunately, in those areas where it is most urgent, the local powers have noticed this and are often actively trying top prevent that from happening. _Knowledge-Based Education - We oppose the teaching of Higher Order Thinking Skills (HOTS) (values clarification), critical thinking skills and similar programs that are simply a relabeling of Outcome-Based Education (OBE) (mastery learning) which focus on behavior modification and have the purpose of challenging the student’s fixed beliefs and undermining parental authority._ - GOP Texas, 2012 platform.
Funfact: Snake Oil originally worked but other People saw how popular it is and made and sold their own, but used the wrong Species🤓
Logic meaning intuition in certain settings is a very interesting observation.
The term is claim, not observation. No one ever observed anything like that.
My favourite with science and health, 'wellness' is '"They' dont want you to know this."
A new one esp with astronomy since hubble and now James Webb, "scientists are schocked/ stumped (add your own synonym) by latest news"
Or "Science is broken!" Etc.
Here's a fun one that I use to divide people into warring tribes at social events: Not only does nothing "supernatural" exist, but nothing "supernatural" CAN exist. If a thing exists, it's NATURAL.
I mean, it's just a statement of your fundamental assumptions about reality. In that sense no wise person would debate it because we can't ever know who's right, nor can we really cogently argue for or against since it's one of the _axioms_ our worldviews are built on (and arguments are worldview dependent).
(I happen to agree but I also accept my _assumption_ of physical naturalism for what it is)
That is, unfortunately, an argument from definition. I sympathize: my definition of "supernatural" is "that which can never be understood by science", and since it's impossible to ever know that, "supernatural" becomes meaningless. But it's an argument from definition too. Anybody can reject your definition, or mine.¯\_(ツ)_/¯
@@robertmiller9735 Why "unfortunately?" An argument from (or of) definition is NOT considered an argumentative fallacy. I should know because I looked up the definition of "argument from/of definition." 😁My definition of the term "supernatural" is not "mine" -- it's the same one that most dictionaries use: "Supernatural: ADJECTIVE
(of a manifestation or event) attributed to some force beyond scientific understanding or the laws of nature" and, therefore, my point stands. If something exists, it does so within the boundaries of the laws of nature, therefore, nothing "supernatural" can exist.
@@colormedubious4747 My point is, you can't use it to prove anything, to a person who doesn't subscribe to the same definition.
@@robertmiller9735 People who reject commonly accepted definitions and attempt to unilaterally change the meaning of long-established terms? I believe you mean "Leftist." 🤣🤣🤣
Jordan has somehow managed to go even further off the rails at Spirit Science. It's hilarious some of the stuff he's saying.
How do you make up something stupider than space jews?
@@Overwriter It sounds like something out of an awful Sci-fi spoof.
@@MisterN1 Link?
Who the fuck is Jordan?
@@hans-joachimbierwirth4727 He is someone who claims that the pyramids were built from the top down, infiltrates hospitals, illegally films surgery without consent, believes that Jews are aliens from the future who fought martians on atlantis, r@ped someone, thinks Emma Watson is Jesus and runs his own online cult now to scam vulnerable people out of their money.
Ah yes, the typical reversal of the burden of proof, that's always a safe bet your opponent is full of something.
'Quantum', 'energy', and 'vibrations' are all terms from physics. And yet when I hear them, I always think of the New Age, not physics, because they're so frequently misused by the former.
The first criteria for checking the proffered "science" reminded me to how just because something is very complex does not necessarily mean it is complicated.
Marty speaks the truth. Many of us have been saying this for decades, but it always needs to be reiterated because there will always be people in scientific fields that want notoriety, recognition, status, money etc at any cost.
I use to read magazine research articles about some sort of health aid and half way through I realize it's a 3 page advertisement.
I know!!! Don't you hate that😂😂😂
Excellent! Thank you for making this and all your other videos. Have a Satisfactory New Year!
Liking and commenting purely to get this just a bit further into the algorithm. I do love your content and I look forward to more in the future. I'm very fond of your dry humor and the basis of facts from which you start. Keep up the great work as you do. 😊
Happy new year, Marty and fellow subscribers!
James Randi would be proud!
Gott nytt år!🥂🍾 Happy new year!🎆🎇 It's always a treat to see your videos pop up.😊
We need more of this. Bravo! 👏
Honestly had a flat earther once tell me that trigonometry was invented to “prove” the earth is round 🤦♂️
It does create a problem for them since it blows their perspective claims out of the water.
@@grahvis but the flerfspective doesn't work with trigonometry or simple geometry, it works by "bending the light as I make it up on the fly"
@@soriac2357 .
I have seen claims that a non-physical line of sight can be bent.
YAY! another Martymer video!!
Chopra is one of the most skilled and damaging purveyors of pseudoscience. Thank you for making this well done comprehensive video.
"Quantum positivity expresses the formlessness of self-knowledge."
c.o. Random Chopra Generator (wisdomofchopra)
happy new year martymer, keep it up 👍👍
There is actually *one* philosophical argument that gets used in actual science: Occam's razor (named after William of Ockham - and yes, the spelling has changed). If you have two explanations that both work equally well, use the simpler one.
Well it's rather use the one with the least unfounded assumptions. Though it also isn't like a law and more a tool meant to help your thinking and more quickly guide you towards the truth.
"Occam" is just a Latinised "Ockham", either is fine to use (personally I prefer "Ockham", partly because I like the idea of a sleepy southern English village being world famous :).
And yes, valid point. Even educated pro-science people will sometimes quote "Occam's Razor" as if it ends all debate but the truth is, it's just a reasoning heuristic _not_ a law of nature. Simplicity says nothing about correctness (but it _does_ speak to _usability_ and that's highly relevant to the _enterprise_ of science - the best "model" of a star will _always_ be a star but stars are fairly difficult to fit in textbooks :).
"Do not multiply entities", although it works out to roughly what you said.
Sometimes we can't directly see something, whether because it's in the future, inside a black hole or whatever.
People try to find the simplest generalization of known laws.
That's kind of what the debate about quantum many worlds is about. Some people think the simplest generalization of quantum physics experiments implies the existence of a quantum multiverse. Other people think we haven't directly observed it, so it's pseudoscience.
You're basically constructing a pseudoscientific version of Occam's razor aka BULLSHIT!
Excellent video! I truly enjoyed it!
🎉Happy New Year Marty
Another one too, they sometimes think their ideas become proven if only they can disprove contradicting ideas. Eg: creationism is verified by dismantling evolution, (as if it somehow wins by default), and would never have to put anything of its own to the test.
Hey, long time no see! I am thankful for your content!
Martymer, I will always think of you when I say "Of course!" sarcastically
Thank you. Haven't watched much from you lately.
Good summary of points.
There is another brand of pseudoscience I think isn't often addressed: deliberately opaque pseudoscience. It tries to shroud itself in so much jargon and inherent complexity that it is *extremely* difficult to debunk, despite their theories allegedly being formulated precisely. They often present their findings to the public in a jargon-laden way interspersed with reasoning by analogy as a "clarification" or "illustration", despite some clear indications that they are not actually making a valid analogy and/or don't even understand the things they're making analogies with. Of course this is often accompanied by appeals to "simplicity", but simplicity of a different kind, analogous to unifications in physics, which may use increasingly complex math but actually give us a clearer picture of the universe. However, there is no actual evidence so far that their theories are valid, no concrete justification for positing it besides philosophical curiosity, and they often make untestable claims anyway. This sort of "opaque pseudoscience" is highly prevalent at the edge of our scientific knowledge, such as in "theory of mind" circles. Theories abound for descriptions of consciousness and qualia, but it is usually unclear what they are even trying to *do*, and it is obvious to me that most "theorists" in this domain are simply practicing pseudoscience. Perhaps they have even fooled themselves into believing they are doing something worthwhile, I don't know. It seems a poor grift to me, given that they are not very popular and have a short reach.
I think to be fair, the motivations for promoting some pseudo science, can at least have the potential to be more nuanced.
As evidenced by this video, there are distressing numbers of people unaware that they are even engaging in pseudo science.
The person that comes up with it likely knows better. The people they are possibly convincing, probably don't.
He didn't take it well even though he ASKED you to prove him wrong? Or, well, not to prove him wrong as such, but more to "proofread his work", shall we say. Dude, don't ask for honest criticism and then complain when your tutor tells you the word is "thought", not "thinked". That's not a real example from my job (I'm a writing tutor), but it IS a potential example of a grammar no-no in English, because "thinked" would be past-perfect, but it's not a word. It makes SENSE, but it's not a word.
Well.. who would have thunk it...
@@SGresponse thank it*
A lot of pseudoscientists love to do this as some sort of challenge because they are personally so convinced that they know everything and then they predictably take offense when someone offers honest criticism because it is a direct challenge to their self esteem. Of course most people do feel slightly hurt when they're told that they're wrong but the feeling doesn't necessitate that you get defensive about it.
'Prove me wrong' should always be a red flag, as it shifts the burden of proof onto the person who doesn't accept the claim.
@@ianchisholm5756 "Prove me wrong" it's a good way to see if my ideas hold any merit and/or other people know more and can educate me (or at least put me in a right direction).
Excellent video!
Thanks Martymer, for another much needed civics lesson!
Pseudoscience is commonly observed in religion, and, somewhat bizarrely, it is used to support ‘god did magic’ assertions.
I think it'd be fair to say that religion is pseudoscience because it was kind of a _proto-science_ early on. People naturally try to understand how things work, because that's a *useful* way of doing things that increases the odds of survival, but just like a real scientific model, a bad model that still works a bit is still useful.
For example, pork is harder to cook than beef. The "model" of "a magic food ghost said bacon is a no-no" still saves lives, even if it's for bad reasons that become irrelevant once you have access to refrigerators and decent stoves. I hate to say _anything_ complimentary about religion, because it's hot garbage, but there you are.
Hell, _all_ superstitions are like that, really. A mistaken association between silly nonsense and an accidental coincidental usefulness. Just wish it wasn't so damn difficult to pry that tick off humanity's proverbial ass...
Empiricism is a religion as well, making the baseless claim that everything in the entire universe can eventually be learned through observation.
@@generaljackripper666that wouldn’t make it a religion, in the first place. Also don’t think it claims that everything can be learned by observation. Of course could be wrong. Anyway, can u give an example of something in nature not learned thru observation? Other things probably lie outside the scope of science. Then I guess the question becomes “ why should we believe if we can’t test it?”
I disagree, I only think it are used by creationists and scientlogists.
@@duskonanyavarld1786 It applies to anyone who claims that their religious beliefs are based upon scientific evidence.
Consider the source. Consider the source. Consider the source.
If in doubt: repeat the above.
James tour pseudoscientist extraordinaire!! Hit all 10 point in this video!
Love your channel.hilarious.have you heard of suspicious observers?lot of material there!
This is very useful. Thank you.
One of the tactics that they use that boils my blood is they'll have a clip of a real scientist in the field say something general like "the pyramids are truely unbelievable. then they'll have one their guy say "even this well known scientist agrees that man couldn't have built
the pyramids "and if you look closely their expert has a PHD in something unrelated to the subject
I think another facet of this science vs pseudoscience is emotion. Pseudoscience tends to pull at your heartstrings and/or your emotional state, while science simply doesn't care if you like the idea or not, as long as it's provable. If someone says they have a cure for cancer and you have a family member that has cancer, you are automatically going to hope for the miracle cure, no matter how unlikely this supposed cure is. Common sense tends to fly out the window in these type of situations and the truth can be hard to accept. It can be hard to accept reality when someone's life is on the line. Focusing on keeping your hope in check and your critical thinking out in front is not an easy thing to do, even when the chips are down and cards are face up on the table! Life can be a real bit*h at times!
Cheers,
jc
HAPPY NEW YEAR MARTY. Here's to more of your debunking in 2024.
He's back
What an excellent summary, I will listen to it again and take notes so I'll be better armed next time people try to sell me ridiculous ideas!
Pseudoscience does not allow you to criticize it or to question it.
That's it.
Excellent exposition and explanation! Thank you!
Great video, thanks.
It's actually surprising how much Darwin got right, considering how long ago his theory was. That said, it's easy to pick out predictions that he made that turned out to be wrong. For example, Darwin postulated that the primary cause of extinction of species was competition for resources. While competition is extremely important for individuals and plays a crucial role in how ecosystems function, paleontological evidence suggests that climate change is a larger driver of extinction than competition.
And even that is very much understandable because climate (and its changes) very much affect available resources for animals. A case of causation and correlation, I suppose.
But to be fair to Darwin, ideas like climate change, continental drift and the K-Pg extinction event were either totally unknown or in their infancy during Darwin’s time. Without understanding anything about the molecular basis of inheritance, Darwin (and Wallace) hit the nail on the head, given the state of science in the 1830’s. He, like the other giants of Science, is a product of his time.
@@crhkrebs
That's the point: science marches on. Darwin and Wallace advanced the field in an enormous leap, and we remember them for this accomplishment.
@@bristleconepine4120 no argument from me. I just thought the presenter gives Darwin short shrift. He does mention that Darwin’s work is getting close to 200 years old. For a man who didn’t know about DNA and how genes function, and how epigenetics affect gene expression, his Theory held up extraordinarily well. Maybe I’m a bit of a fanboy, but I think his scientific achievement puts him in league with such giants as Newton and Galileo. Speaking of Newton, we all know that he developed the equations that described the mechanics of universal gravititation. However, he never understood why mass attracts mass. He just understood that it did. That needed a further 200+ years before Einstein’s Special Relativity declared that mass distorts the space-time around itself. No one thinks less of Newton because Special Relativity was beyond him, in 1687. Darwin deserves the same. Anyways, thanks for your insights and comments.
@@crhkrebs I easily agree that Darwin is in the same league with Newton, Einstein, etc. He got an amazing amount right.
I swear you never age, Marty.
Yeah you have some people who want to go back to measuring skull shapes to determine intelligence🤦🏿♂️🤦🏿♂️🤦🏿♂️
Cranial capacity and brain size have a non-trivial correlation with intelligence. It is well accepted that the brain/body size ratio accurately predicts intelligence across mammals and humans are no exception. Of course, cognitive testing is the most precise way to measure it but intelligence can be predicted with astonishing accuracy from neuroimaging and genetics alone. It should not be surprising to anyone that the characteristics of a person’s brain have direct bearing on their cognitive ability, just as their heart and lungs are tied to their cardiovascular performance.
Literally no one is suggesting that skull shape be used to measure IQ. Nevertheless, real scientific inquiry on intelligence has validated it as a crude corollary. It has also established beyond any doubt that average intelligence differs across ethnic groups (hence the corollary, as skull shape/size varies across ethnic groups as well). People are so desperate to hide this information that they try to conflate all valid inquiry with “phrenology”.
The "it's all a big cover-up" argument is my favorite part of the bigfoot discussion. I can't help but watch videos where people talk about it so I can laugh at the claims about park rangers and men in suits cooking up crazy conspiracies.
On top of that I get a kick out of the stories where the writer doesn't really know the area they've set their story in or anything about guns. So much fun... but I guess I should try getting into science sometime rather than just laughing at the obviously stupid claims made by people.
Wizard's first rule:
People believe things because they want them to be true, or they are afraid that they are true...
Every single point on there is what science communicators witness daily on Twitter.
Outstanding!
pseudoscience “keywords”:
- Vibration
- Frequency
- (Quantum) indeterminacy
- Non-locality
- Information
- Consciousness
- Self
- Transcendent
- Holistic
- Coherence
- Entrainment
- Intuition
- Electromagnetic
- Energy
- Plane
I think most practitioners of pseudoscience genuinely believe what they're selling works. They're not just in it to scam people. This makes it even harder to recognize - people advocating pseudoscience are usually good people who noble intentions.
No, they don't.
Those might be the victims who bought into it, and get hired by the pseudo scientist to sell the product, but the inventor of the quackery knows that it's quackery - or else is extremely deluded.
These kind of people never take it well. As a historian, it's also easy to recognize when commenters have no clue what they're talking about and are simply repeating lies, distortions, or isolated facts entirely out of context, to push an agenda.
ANYONE who works at ANY job requiring some knowledge, skill and experience, can immediately recognize when someone off the street - ESPECIALLY if armed with just enough words to think they know something - has no idea of what they're talking about and are just shooting their mouths off. Somehow, though, when it comes to science, medicine, history, etc., many of the same people are CERTAIN they know all there is to know on ANY topic merely by watching a couple of RUclips videos.
Amazing.
Wait!!! Are you telling me the video, *"Turbo Encabulator" The Original* might not be 100% scientific? 🤔🤣🤣🤣🤣
Some other ideas:
1) Check the credentials of the person making a claim. For example, are they trained as a clinical psychologist, but trying to talk about climate change? If you are not familiar with the person talking, always check at least their Wikipedia entry.
2) Check for conflicts of interest and ulterior motives. Are they getting paid by the fossil fuel industry, or pushing a political agenda?
3) Beware of excessive dramatization and clickbait. If a claim is for example of Nobel prize worthiness, yet no Nobel prize has been awarded, and mainstream news has not mentioned the same, then you are likely looking at a "junk science" claim.
4) Beware of excessive certainty. When claims are unequivocally made as if uncontested fact, when the proposition is really contentious, that is a warning sign.
5) Watch out for "cherry-picking". If the proponent of a claim cites only studies that support his/her claim, but ignores other studies that contradict the claim, that is a sign of bias and unreliability.
6) Going too much against the grain. If a claim is against long-established conventional wisdom and current majority view of experts, then be suspicious.
4:40 I remember there is a term meaning the minimal/simplest explanation of something before it's too simplified to be true, but I forgot it, anyone knows the term?
Occam's Razor. But that pertains not to the "ease of digestion" but rather "how many moving elements / assumptions"
For example: The Copernican Model of the solar system was more useful than the Ptolemaic model, because it required half as many epicycles to work. It wasn't easier (nor harder) to understand. Then the Keplerian Model further simplified the cycles to be orbits instead, thus further removing clutter. But it was actually HARDER to understand (especially for a scientific culture that was descendant from the Greeks), as it didn't use Perfect Shapes.
All those models are decent in the sense that one could make reasonably accurate predictions based on them - accurate enough for the needs at the time. But - as it is with Newtonian vs. Einsteinian models - the more accuracy you need, the more you actually have to be close to the truth of the matter. So now with calculating satellite maneuvers, comet trajectories etc. you COULD use the Ptolemaic model, but it wouldn't be as good.
Thus Occam's Razor generalizes the principle: the more assumptions you have to make, the less useful the model is. This works twofold:
1. The model's accuracy itself: Copernican vs. Keplerian are both useful, but the "simpler" one (less moving elements in this case) is more accurate.
2. The implications of the assumptions on other models: See how Flat Earth models start getting extremely messy when it comes to questions as simple as "how long does it take to travel from Sydney to Johannesburg?" or "So... what is the Antarctic actually?" which necessitates additional assumptions.
Occam's Razor does not always lead to grand results. Specifically all attempts at a "Unified Theory" in physics stem from the need to "shave off" the bloat of having several very good models to work with. Occam's Razor in its extreme posits the need of having one root model with little-to-no assumptions and then derive other (in this case: easier to understand and process) models that arise from it.
Marty I love your debunk videos, I love your mission, keep at it my friend. I know you have suffered at the hands of Jordan and other woo peddlers, you're basically science Jesus in my eyes! 😂
Except Marty actually exists.
You miss a couple:
Watch out for "XXX was able to prove that" where XXX is someone you have never heard of. This is the "guru" thing but with a twist. It is a character brought in for an appeal to to authority without identifying why we should believe them. Someone's claim is not evidence.
Beware of the claim being snuck in, in the form of a question. "Could it be that XXX" is a classic. If the person doesn't come back and answer the question but rather assumes the answer is "yes" you need to stop an think about that point further.
Watch out for the "it nearly works" theory. Newton's gravity nearly works. The are many other things that nearly work. Electrical currents don't take the shortest or easiest path. Vapor pressure doesn't really follow a 4th power curve and etc.
Whenever the word energy is chucked around without quantification...
Your channel has trapped me and i am binging on your videos...😂
Half of youtube ads meet your criteria for pseudoscience.
I made a machine to detect pseudoscience, but ancient aliens came on tv and it blew up.
You have described Science in an ideal state. Unfortunately Scientists are just as vulnerable to chasing power and money as everyone else. Certain scientists' theories become nearly untouchable, i.e. the Leakeys in human evolution and archeology. We don't value falsification or testing other's results enough, causing the replication crises. Therefore unfortunately it is very difficult to tell pseudoscience from science.
I live on Conspiracy Lane and one of my consistent grievances is when hucksters put two words together: spiritual science...
But then there is the science site of Miles Mathis (Pi notwithstanding). If anything Miles is saying there (and he is saying a lot) is true then it’s clear that science can work and still be deceptive when it comes to metaphysics.
I’d be interested in anyone debunking his how a sail works. And I mean a serious attempt at showing where he is wrong.
3:10 one Jordan comes to mind here..
Id be interested on your opinion of eric weinstein and sabine hosenfelder. Nice video BTW!
Most scientists are foot soldiers, very little fame about their activities. I was impressed with the arguments against Semmelwis, that he had no mechanism, but he was of course actually right about handwashing. I think i go for provisional acceptance dependent on the source and the level of the claim. Excellent video.
I feel that "I'm having this exchange with..." might be you putting a good face on something. "Exchange" is two people exchanging salient points, building towards a common understanding. Engaging with most believers in pseudoscience is you refuting misrepresented ideas with credible evidence and logic, while they shout one of the same five catchphrases in response regardless of what you have presented.
this is awesome! I think they should have a block of instruction taught in schools. It is all about the math and the data/result. Thank you for this. We need to spread the word. So many YT channels that are full of pseudoscience.
Might be good to summarize that list in the description.
Of course this is all about how science works *ideally* - there are plenty of examples throughout the history of science up to and including the modern day where, for example, someone who is extremely well-established in a field can hold that field back by thoughtlessly rejecting ideas they don't understand or don't like (effectively becoming a guru), but in science those people are eventually proven wrong by the evidence (although it may only happen after the guru's death).
It's in RUclips