The most epic fights in science
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 3 июн 2024
- 🌎 Get our exclusive NordVPN deal here ➡️ NordVPN.com/sabine It's risk-free with Nord's 30-day money-back guarantee! ☝️
Scientists are rational by profession. They objectively evaluate the evidence and carefully separate fact from opinion. Except of course they don’t, really. In this episode, we will talk about some epic fights among scientists that show very much that scientists, after all, are only human.
The video I mention around 8 minutes about the electrocuted elephant is here:
• Thomas Edison: Electro...
You can support our channel on Patreon: / sabine
Many thanks to Jordi Busqué for helping with this video jordibusque.com/
0:00 Intro
00:26 Dawkins vs Wilson
3:10 Leibniz vs Newton
6:37 Edison vs Tesla
8:38 Cope vs Marsh
11:49 Hoyle vs The World
14:30 Sponsor message 
Наука
![KFF Singapore Badminton Open 2024 | He/Ren (CHN) vs. Alfian/Ardianto (INA) [7] | F](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/an7AykjOaAA/mqdefault.jpg)
![Eminem - Houdini [Official Music Video]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/22tVWwmTie8/mqdefault.jpg)
Sorry for the repetition of the sequence at the end. Doesn't mean anything, just an editing glitch. (I have no idea what happened.)
I would also be interesting to see the resistance Einstein got from Relativity and perhaps other theories: "“Great spirits have always encountered..."
Dear savine; I am not a physicist, just an average everyday joe, who uses God given common sence.. My sence tells me about the subject of "Dark Matter!" That there is a cause and an effect to all things in the universe.. Any object in space, is in motion, witch will cause an effect by its motion to its surroundings.. Like a veheicle, will disturb the atmosphere, (the air surrounding the vehicle) here on earth.. Since space is negative, to matter (being positive) and having opposite properties such as, vaccum, cold and negative gravity as matter having heat, positive preasure, and positive gravity, there will allways be a cause and an effect on that space and on that matter witch will bring about what science calls, "Dark Matter!" You think it's there but it's invissible, because it is a cause and an effect that can not be seen and does not matter because it's not matter.. Thank you, and God speed...
Newton was actually a mad man, and his papers, when released, showed his thinking was more Madame Blavatsky Woo Woo lunatic
I have seen epic rap battles depict such scientists. It is interesting how people do science even today.
Nice video! The last guy reminds me of Lubos Motl. Insulting all colleagues and spreading nonsense; hence expelled from the community.
I once mistakenly remarked to a friend who is a scientist, that it must be nice to see a group of professionals disagree in productive and calm ways
I had to await his reply for no less than 30 seconds, as his laughter was impossible to articulate any words throughout.
He informed me that he's seen intellectual giants behave in a very childlike way, and then went on to inform me that , "we are still human. It is next to impossible to not have an emotional attachment to ideas cultivated and grown with care and diligence. These ideas are our children." then added that to have those ideas under attack, as is the way with science, hits most in a profound way, and that the reaction to that is very human.
15 years later and he tells me my naivety still amuses, as he shares the story among colleagues several times a year still.
My response to this is also very human, and I am afraid to vist the telescope/observatory at his newest university, knowing many among the staff will have been among those laughing at me 😅
Very well done video!
@Alan Mac My claim to glory is to have Sabine Hossenfelder imply that I was confused in reply to something I said on her blog. I was irritated but also, yay, she noticed me?
If you watch the latest sixty symbols video, you'll see that scientists can be very human and be completely accepting that their theory is wrong because they're scientists, and they're trained to be unbiased and change there opinion according to the evidence.
Not all scientists can be arse holes, otherwise there'd be no science done.
@@iseriver3982 If Sabine were an arsehole, I wouldn't be here. Ain't nobody got time for that!
My admiration for her grew when in the video about anti-gravity, when she told of her fruitless study of anti-gravity.
I'd add that even if there could be perfectly "rational" and emotionless scientists, they should rely on unprovable axioms at the core of their reasoning too, like every human or non-human mind or pseudo-mind must invariably do.
Neutral "rationality" cannot exist, not even in principle. We just have to always take responsibility of what we think.
@@iseriver3982 Case in point: Darwin, who lauded a critic of his book & theory, because, different from almost anybody else, that critique was fairly objective, and Darwin admitted that the points brought up were correct - he didn't have enough evidence yet. He just chose to draw different conclusions from the evidence he did have. Turned out Darwin was mostly right.
Fun fact: Fred Hoyle is also responsible for calling the beginning of the universe the "Big Bang" - although his intention was to mock the concept because he didn't support the idea. Still, the name stuck.
But Hoyle got a little win himself. Many people believe now that is was an explosion in space instead of an expansion of space.
Hoyle is also the originator of the incredibly stupid junkyard tornado argument against abiogenesis, which has later been hi-jacked by creationist as an argument against evolution.
Give him a Nobel Prize for that.
@@rogerlie4176 It's actually only an argument against abiogenesis (should clarify without viruses as some can bring back dead bacteria as if they don't care creationists exist). Even if God/whatever created bacteria, it wouldn't disprove evolution and make infinitely more sense than creating everything for no reason rather than just waiting/speeding up time.
@@rogerlie4176 Why is it stupid, many biologists do not believe in abiogenesis, but then again it isn't biology is it? It is chemistry, biology doesn't start until it is finished. Maybe I shouldn't have studied engineering before biology.
"Name one natural process that creates coded information?" was a question posed to me by a well known biologist and I couldn't answer it. She developed Endosymbiosis by the way. Lynn Margulis didn't like modern Neo-Darwinism, but she was no Creationist either.
Do you know why Dawkins didn't like E.O. Wilson's use of math in Group Selection? Look up Dawkins' and many evolutionary biologists' disdain of the use of math in biology. It goes back to the Wistar Institute in 1967 where mathematicians and biologists really got into a huge argument. Sabine should have listed that fight.
I'll give you an idea of how it started, a mathematician named D.S. Ulam pointed out the accumulations of micro-mutations needed for the evolution of the eye was improbable because there wasn't enough time for it to happen. To say the debate between the evolutionists and polymaths was acrimonious would be an understatement. The answer was anything but scientific. Sir Peter Medawar and C.H. Waddington replied with mere assertion, claiming that Ulam was doing his math backward because the eye had indeed evolved. No answer to the math at all just mere assertion.
It really heated up when French mathematician Marcel-Paul Schützenberger became one of the first distinguished scientists in the world to point out that a theory of evolution that depends on uniformly randomly occurring mutations cannot be the truth because the number of mutations needed to create the speciation that we observe, and the time that would be needed for those mutations to have happened by chance, exceed by thousands of orders of magnitude the time that has been available. Waddington said to Marcel that life then must have come about because of Special Creation and everyone being either atheists or agnostics, but good materialists all answered NO!
😅
So make no mistake Math and Evolution as understood by pop journalists like Dawkins (great put down) does not mix. I subscribe to a different view rather than claiming Natural Selection did it with no scientific explanation behind it. Just as well say God did it than chanting unproven platitudes. Whales evolved in less than ten million years and not by Neo-Darwinist processes. Think of how many small changes in just the skin from fur to waterproof hydrodynamic with blubber let alone everything else. Nor did any natural process create the DNA-RNA Interactome before there was life. Don't lump everyone together.
www.thethirdwayofevolution.com/
Wilson at the 2:40 sort of uses H.G Wells line from War of the Worlds: "It never was a war, any more than there's war between man and ants"
Wilson really went off the rails there when he called Dawkins a "reporter".
@@unfixablegop He seemed quite pleased with himself for coming up with that way to savagely dismiss Dawkins
Wilson was wrong about kin selection.. Easy to prove, just look at attacks on children, by parents versus step parents etc..
@@denisdaly1708 Anecdotal evidence can't prove anything - I could counterpoint at examples galore of people helping complete strangers, just because, without expecting monetary or sexual payment in return. You can find them really easily on the press. If you wanted to argue/counter this way, statistics would be needed - but then you'd never really know if it¿s something instinctual/inherent or societal influence...
When I was in grad school, my advisor was in a fairly bitter "scientific rivalry" with another professor at the university. It was kind of a nightmare to be stuck in the middle of, and definitely more common that most people realize. The main lesson I learned when in grad school is that many academic scientists are much more concerned with with their reputation than they are with actually doing good science. Also, most people are jerks.
I believe the 2020s have so far born out that hypothesis...😉
As someone who went to one of the very old universities, 100% this.
Most people are jerks ?
😟
I mostly see it as, you have sceptics and believers. The latter has no place in sience, but there are too many scientists who find everything they learned to be a like a religion and are not open to change or refinement of it. They call themselves sceptics but they are not, they just hate that they have to refine things they learned. You see this on all levels in humans, we all reach the limit of our understanding at some point, which is based on everything we learned before that. For some the "Dunning-Kruger effect" comes earlier than others, the thing is you have to recognize it.
What’s pretty funny from an outsider’s perspective (I started my science career in my mid forties, after a career in construction) is how seriously academics take their petty little feuds, how they enlist the aid of all their colleagues, and how outraged/flustered they get over minor issues, especially when their feelings get involved. It is similar to young men and women raised in gang cultures taking offense at things most normal adults would be completely disinterested in. Very much an “honor culture “.
They way I think about it, academic scientists are people who could have made money in much easier ways. And it's not always just a drive to do good.
You should attend faculty meetings….
@J Denmark I grew up in an academic family, but I became a construction worker (laborer) because I could not stand the BS in the academic world. I realized blueprints could not be disputed: walls are either straight... or they are not, and that appealed to me.
I have only known one person, in my whole life, who left construction for academia. May I ask you what career you are in now? An incredible and courageous feat to enter academia in ones mid-40's. I commend you.
@@Brucebod I always intended to go to medical school but put it off for years. The birth of my daughter catalyzed me to finally commit. I’m in my last year of a MPH program and have been accepted to medical school.
Because I am going through a divorce and have sole custody, I’m having to rethink my path, right now everything is an option, including restarting my building business.
Cheers
@@jdenmark1287 Oh, wow, that is a lot. I wish you all of the best!! I will say a prayer that you have the _most_ success. (If you don't mind, I mean. It's the only thing I have to offer and I like to keep an open mind.)
I was able to flip through original papers by Newton in the Royal Society of London. It was absolutely amazing and the fight with Leibniz was actually hinted to there as well. Loved it.
The way you present this history is both entertaining and informative. 2:40 made me laugh pretty hard. I love it! Thank you!
Wilson was right. In recent years there's been a confusion in the public about scientists who become science popularizers.
@@jjeherrera not that there's anything wrong with popularizing science, but yeah that's definitely true
Who knew Sabine had jokes? 5:24 had me wheezing
I know right? I didn't expect this old gem of obscure meme culture to be used by Sabine Hossenfelder of all people! And the surprise really added to the effect.
Funnily enough, it was Dawkings who invented the concept of 'meme'. Seems fitting that a meme should be used to mark dunking on him!
Sabine is right to say that scientists are only human, and err like humans.
They often stray from the rules of their own game.
Often is the wrong word. Substitute _occationally_ .
Universities produce politicians not scientists.
It's amazing how the ones who have the least to do with scientific research know exactly what's going on in it.
@@Apjooz There is some value in listening to an outsiders observations and thoughts. Some...
That's why science value evidence over opinion. You are famous? science itself doesn't care, bring proof of your statement. Nevertheless, humans (scientists) may be fooled by your fame and arguments
Some of these rivalries are absolutely legendary and it was thoroughly entertaining to hear them retold here. I'd love to hear more obscure stories of intellectual brutality in science.
The fun part is that none of they actually use bad language, they fight so politely that it doesn't really seem more than a lame child play gone wrong
The fight over continental drift; Lord Kelvin disputing with biologist due to the Sun
not to be able to sustain life long enough for evolution to happen because his only knowledge of the Sun to shine was contraction via gravity. One fight the biologists won versus the physicists.
Later fusion was discovered.
Two physics Nobel prize winners, Philipp Lenard and Johannes Stark, decided to ban Einstein's theory of relativity since it was "Jewish physics" and they wanted to have only "Aryan physics".
The ultimate EPIC science fight (because it's still going on and has relevance right now!): the Father of Global Warming and uber eugenicist (which was the inspiration for his Global Warming research), Savante Arrhenius versus the genius who proved him wrong, Knut Angstrom. How ugly did it get? When in 1900 Angstrom proved that Arrhenius was wrong, Arrhenius was so utterly humiliated that he reacted exactly the way you would expect a eugenicist to react. He used his considerable influence and power to be elected to the Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences and became a lifetime member of the Nobel Committee. He was instrumental in setting up the Nobel Prize, and immediately proceeded to give himself and his friends (and fellow eugenicists like Ostwald) the newly minted Nobel Prizes, while denying recognition to those he considered his enemies, and doing what he could to make their lives miserable: chief among them, Knut Angstrom. There are a lot of parallels in this story with that of Edison and Tesla. After many decades of Edison-worship, we now know (finally) that Tesla was the greater scientist and the better man. Some day, the general public will come to the same understanding about Knut Angstrom.
The Veritassium video on electricity, and the friendly, but stern video responses.
What drives me crazy are the number of scientists (including my late father) who minimize, trivialize, and dismiss the impact of these feuds have on scientific progress.
Didn't Carl Sagan say if it wasn't for the dark ages we might have landed on the moon around the time Columbus crossed the Atlantic, if it were not for religious prosecution and persecution of that period's luminaries, their brightest thinkers?
Yes, without theae feuds we would be nowhere. Blindly accepting what others say is true would have us still believing in a geocentric universe. Academic fights are the fuel of more rubust science.
My favourite tale of scientific rivalry is the one about LaVoisier and Lord Rumford. Rumford not only proved LaVoisier's theory wrong, he followed it up by running off with LaVoisier's wife.
That's brutal!
Lavoisier was already dead; guillotined by order of Paul Marat during the French Revolution. Rumsford was born in Massachusetts and left his wife there, after the American Revolution. Rumsford and the Widow Lavoisier did not get along and her insults usually were as to how Lavoisier had been a better man and Rumsford responding with "but not as good a scientist".
@@jmchez that is worse and more ridiculous on every level and I love it even more.
Count Rumford, not Lord. He took his name from his adopted home town, Rumford New Hampshire, later renamed Concord. And he was on the British side of the American Revolution. And I believe Rumford is the one who provided Cornwallis with an excellent plan to defeat Washington and the French at Yorktown, but Cornwallis rejected it. Introduced potatoes to Germany, built a free public park for everyone to enjoy, from beggars to High Born Ladies. Central Park is a great example of his idea.
@@Foolish188 he sounds cool. I like that he was in the British side. Shows an independent spirit.
Just recently found this channel and I'm thoroughly enjoying the subtle wit and deadpan delivery, I'm totally here for it, great job Sabine! :)
Post 131: Sabine and Sam Harris are wrong but what is "right' and why? How? How can you know?
Firstly I am presupposing quite correctly that science 🧪 can never find the truth because science 🧫 is not the ground floor of reality.
I keep saying that over and over and over again and many many responses.
On RUclips I have over 130 posts on Sabine’s page -saying this over and over and over again.
Science 🧪 is like an instrument such as a telescope or a microscope.
It is extremely helpful.
However it is the observer with a conscious mind that uses free will with the methods of reason and logic that was interpreter information and reach Valid Conclusion.
Mind you that science conclusions are always on the “probability scale” .
The core of all truth is based upon using reason and logic - in other words using word games.
Just like other games such as football they were rules of the game in this case the rules of logic.
To do any science 🧪 or math 🧮 needs you to presuppose that you are a person with the mind come up with consciousness and free well that could interpret the data.
For example you need a human mind to generate hypothesis. The computer cannot do this. You need a human mind to design control and separate that from experiment. The computer cannot do that. You need a human mind to interpret data but a computer can collect data for you. Do you need a human like to reach Conclusion and defence a Pfeizer’s using the methods of reason and logic in all things at all times. In other words there is no signs of math that is even possible without a human mind first and foremost as the ground floor.
By the way it is important to understand that the moment you have math or science without the above is the moment to enter fantasy.
For example you can write works with great grammar and consistent logic and it’s called “Harry Potter” and make billions of dollars.
But that is still fiction.
Similarly you can use numbers to create a consistent and brilliant system called string theory which says reality is multi dimensional over nine and multi-verse.
It is fantasy and you see this fantasy played out in the movies right now in Spiderman with Doctor Strange.
Or you can have physics do it on its own and one of the currency rooms is many worlds.
That means universe splitting 1,000,000 times per second with you in each of them.
Again we are back to fantasy with Doctor Strange for the rest of marvel comics with the Infinity Stone and Avengers .
---------
So what is reality and how can you know it?
Consciousness is that identification of existence.
For example pick up a pen 🖊 and ask yourself right now whether it is of existence?
If you are a rational man then you will reach the valid conclusion that the pen is of existence in other words the pen 🖊 exists.
Therefore you auto-validate consciousness because I repeat 🔂 “consciousness is that identification of existence”.
As one “identity identifies the other identity” in other words as consciousness identifies existence then it stands to reason that there is Aristotle’s law of identity caught up in other words : In the cosmos there is truth.
( Technical detail: Specifically their regular patterns man’s mind can extract from these patterns, in various patterns and call it truth.)
But wait !
How can you come to know any truth like the above which is metaphysics all the identity of anything?
The simple answer is the methods of reason and logic.
This is the only way man can reach any valid conclusion on any subject whatsoever at any time in every time.
Man has two faculties of mind ; What is called rationality which means the methods of reason and logic that must be used with great effort in the correct method andin the other faculty is emotions. Emotions are always automatic. Faith is a feeling of certainty about what something means and many human beings incorrectly use this faculty to reach conclusion such as it feels like the earth is flat or it feels like it’s an angel on your shoulder.
EMotions a very important but they’re never the way to reach Valid Conclusion.
Emotions a very helpful to act on the conclusion such as motivation and action..
For example you can use rationality to reach conclusion on which person to love and emotions to laugh with all your heart all you vigor.
Therefore to summarize and to conclude : yes man can know reality because the mind of man is potent - and you are not impotent .
I repeat : your mind , you are not impotent .
Consciousness cannot identify itself Without being a contradiction.
Therefore consciousness must be separate to existence, must be separate to the brain.
This means consciousness is potent: in other words you must exercise free will in order to make a choice between right and wrong.
And because of Aristotle’s law of identity you know if there is right. Such as earlier you identify that pen 🖊 is of existence and it’s not a floating nothing-ness.
And you know there’s a methodology you have to use, after having learned it and practiced it called : reason and logic, man’s only way to reach Valid Conclusion.
Metaphysics means what is reality? Existence, consciousness with free will, and Aristotle’s law of identity.
Epistemology means how can you know any truth like the above or any truth whatsoever? Answer is the methods of reason and logic. This takes effort and a formal system.
Just so you know the above lead to ethics. Ethics is objective and not your feelings. Mine has it in alienable rights to life liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
Why? Because an individual of a species that can think must indeed think an act on the conclusions of your thinking to sustain your life at every moment of your life.
Therefore of the universe you must de facto have a liberty to think and to act .
The above lead to politics as in what is the right political system objectively regardless of your views or your perceptions or your feelings?
The answer is democracy because you need a government to protect your rights found above in ethics.
Then what is the correct economic system regardless of your feelings or your values?
The answer is capitalism because your right the property is a corollary truth : which means a self evident truth that comes from your right to life in ethics. See ethics above.
Whereas all animals come pre-adapted to a niche environment in contrast man must re-adapt environment to your values.
Everything around you and even on you is from the environment that has been re-adapted to serve you and you’ve paid for it directly or indirectly.
From the first man that had to hunt and kill a polar bear for clothes and warmth to build shelter later discovered fire and create tools to fish and to Hunt and to protect oneself to today man with a vehicle and a house and all the modern comforts.
Man has the right to acquire, maintain, dispose or trade your services or your property like your hat, mat, cat, iPhone or your money.
A trade is a meeting of minds between two people Without force or fraud. So there is evil and evil means the use of thought of against another man except in self-defense.
Finally the fifth branch of philosophy is man needs aesthetics. Why? In Metaphysics you identified man has a REAL mind and just like man has to feed his body, man also has to feed his mind - and art magnifies man’s life.
The problem is many human beings mistake fiction for fact. You’ve also done back until now until I’ve corrected your entire life from this moment onwards .Above of gave you examples of mathematicians or even scientist turning the subjects into fiction and not being self-aware of that.
All subjects at university Are like trees in a forest but all the trees must be coherent and conform to the forest floor and that is philosophy which is the philosophy outlined above.
There is no science or math without it conforming to philosophy using the methods reason and logic to be consistent in a system.
------
The above means life is great and the above is separate to anything you’ve ever heard before in your entire life over here ever again. It is the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth about the entire cosmos throughout space-time and your life.
You are owed nothing for being a life but because you have a mind with people you have control to set goals to take massive action with great emotions, to be rational in your actions and your sub-plans to achieve the main project plan and achieve results in life with potential spouse, with wealth, with health, and with all other things that you put your mind to.
However Nothing is guaranteed because reality is not magic.
Reality is better than magic because you have control and you can take action and you could see the results and he could and improve upon the results.
Q.E.D
This is why you are one of my favorite RUclips scientists. You both know exactly what you are talking about and yet you explain it in a way that the most common person can understand without leaving something important behind. I would have loved to have had you as my teacher in school. Plus that thumbnail was just perfect 🤣
Fred Hoyle was also the author of the classic science fiction novel " the black cloud".
The main character of the novel ( who was a scientist) had a- not surprisingly- "difficult" and contrarian personality...
The fact that everyone just focuses on the beef between Newton and Leibniz makes me quite sad. Isn’t it quite incredible that after thousands of years of no calculus, two people independently discover it within 30 years of each other?
Almost makes you wonder if discovery is determined more by social context than “genius”
"Still, string theory has not been entirely useless." Epic burn by S. Hossenfelder, 2018.
My favourite Science Fighter.
I suppose I can put the youtube link to the "String Theory Pros and Cons" video ruclips.net/video/6RQ6ugMWZ0c/видео.html
Although it may not be a correct physical theory, it is a fantastic intellectual achievement.
My first sighting of Sabine, if I remember correctly, was her video decrying the state of particle physics and the proposals to build a bigger collider. I had no idea who she was when that turned up in my RUclips feed but 2 more videos later I was a convert.
If you haven't already heard it, check out this:
m.ruclips.net/video/d7TdGnmXXuk/видео.html
And also:
m.ruclips.net/video/5gmtAeqRs14/видео.html
@@kquat7899 I think you mean a "fantastic achievement in intellectual masturbation."
Came for the science, stayed for the wit. Love the presentation, and it's great learning some history. Thanks!
This has GOT to become a recurring series! 🤞
Sabine! You have a very good sense of humor and excellent comedic timing. Great video!
The history of science is full of crazy personalities and unscrupulous weirdos... That's how you can tell history is real.
That was a great episode. I briefly met two Nobel winners in physics, and they were both really nice gentlemen. One was Rudolf Mossbauer who actively sought to meet with undergrad students in the department in the staff lounge, and the other was Nicolaas Bloembergen who accepted an invite to speak at our undergraduate physics conference.
The development of electrical engines was also very important and quite decisive to choose between AC and DC, at that time.
There could be several more episodes on this topic. Just from astronomy, there was:
--Devoculours vs. Sandage on the Hubble constant
--Hawking vs. Thorne (I think) on black holes...this was a friendly rivalry
--Hubble vs. Shapley
At the lowest level of science, many years ago while a student ,
I worked part-time in a fish toxicilogy lab. My immediate supervisor, a chemist and the biologist whose water samples I was processing disagreed over wether it was most optimal for me to leave the machine turned on or turned off at night. The biologist was nice enough to tell me i could do what the chemist wanted and after I left, he would change settings on the machine to his preference so i could say I'd done as directed.
This was beautifully done,. Thank you for a thorough demythologizing of scientific competition. Your sense of humor is spot on!
at 13:04 I believe you see a great example of an ancient compression algorithm used in some printer drivers. Note that ‘o’ and ‘n’ look the same. The algorithm wasn’t based on OCR, it just did some pattern recognition to see if text was used. It would then try to group similar patterns, transfer the data once and later just the location and the number of the pattern. There are some famous examples where e.g. data in a spreadsheet was altered because 6 and 8 ended up in the same group (and all were printed e.g as 8).
Thank you for the warning about animal abuse in the chapter on AC vs DC! Appreciated very much
As usual, Sabine is very informative and entertaining. This episode adds an extra dose of humour making it even more enjoyable.
Very interesting story about these scientists behaving badly. Thanks for your wonderful videos, Sabine!
I enjoy watching Sabine vs science articles😁
Cope v. Marsh story is hilarious. "My brain is/was (we're dead) bigger than your brain." Sheesh.
What an interesting and enjoyable piece of work!. Thanks Sabine!.
"Outer space isn't that far. You could drive there in an hour. If your car could go straight up." ~ Fred Hoyle
Lol.
He is not wrong though if by outer space you mean by it the altitude space is considered to start in international space treaties as it is only an altitude of 100 kilometers. However when talking about space the context really is what determines what it refers to as otherwise there is no definite altitude where outer space "begins".
if this was a clue on Jeopardy, it would be one of the cheapest.
In the middle of the Pacific Ocean, one would be thousand of kilometres away from any place on the ground, and only four hundred kilometers from the Space Station, when it passes directly above.
yes, but how far under the water is the ground?
Gotta love it. The best head-bashing, bat-swinging, dung-throwing and fire-breathing fights of all time were between scientists. These were fabulous! Thanks Sabine!
I think you might have missed Mark Z Jacobson vs The Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences and Christopher Clack et al. in 2017. Jacobson later dropped the suit, but was ordered to pay $428,722.92
And so the greater danger of arrogance over ignorance. Thanks Sabine, your honest perspective is always so refreshing.
Interesting video Sabine! I am sure that there have been many "friendly disputes" among scientist over the ages. That's part of what has driven the many scientific advances over the past two hundred years.
Super nice list!
In computer science we had a “famous” debated between Linus Torvalds and Andrew Tanenbaum on operating systems kernel.
I don't think anyone took tanenbaum seriously.
Only Microkernels can ever be provably secure.
@@arubaga Hahaha/
Mate, Torvalds literally hates everyone lmao
Such a great job with this more popular kind of content. Your videos are a pleasure!
It's such a great relief to finally know the correct pronunciation of "Leibniz"
For part 2 try Kuiper vs. Urey, about the surface of the moon in the '60's. Was the origin hot or cold? Could we land, or would we sink? Egos and prestige aside, it was ultimately a conflict between two research traditions. Astronomers were used to work with images, the budding astro-chemists couldn't accept those as valid data yet.
I had the great fortune to hear E.O. Wilson speak at Florida State University. Amazing speaker - he is some of the best that humanity can be. He grew up in southern Alabama and regarded it and north FL's biodiversity as peerless with anywhere Earth. His work on anthills though is what I'm most grateful for. For anyone near Jacksonville Florida that hasn't seen the EO Wilson Biophilia Center - it's so worth the trip!
I’m going to be in Jacksonville in 2 weeks, so when I saw your reference to the Biophilia Center my first thought was that I should plan to visit it. Unfortunately, reading their website, it seems they are open to the public only during the summer, so I won’t be able to visit this trip. But it does sound like a neat place, and a great resource for area school children.
Well done. Many cheers for all involved! So when is Part 2 coming out?
The war between BF Skinner and Noam Chomsky in the world of psychology was very real, to me in the study of language. The bad guy won. And seeing that, I could see that no one wanted a deterministic universe if it applied to people. No matter how hard one might try.
8:32 AC won because it's easier to convert the voltage especially without semiconductors.
AC won because DC would require huge amounts more metal cables and would still waste more energy, thus making it incredibly expensive and resource hungry.
No?
@@iseriver3982 This is more likely as AC was dominant before semiconductors were even discovered.
@@iseriver3982 for those reasons and many
@@iseriver3982 Yes, and thats because DC voltage can not be easily converted, while AC can with transformers
@@iseriver3982 DC is more efficient to transmit. If power is to be sent long enough distances, it becomes worthwhile to transform it to DC and then back to AC for the local grid. An example of a long distance DC line runs from BC to LA. AC's most famous benefit...the ability to convert voltage using induction...is its weakness for long distance transmission...inductive losses to the ground. Essentially, AC transmission lines are transformers with the earth as the secondary.
always love the variety of content. and stuff like this which i can share with less science inclined people.
Love the editing! Sabine is the best purveyor of science on RUclips;
Post 131: Sabine and Sam Harris are wrong but what is "right' and why? How? How can you know?
Firstly I am presupposing quite correctly that science 🧪 can never find the truth because science 🧫 is not the ground floor of reality.
I keep saying that over and over and over again and many many responses.
On RUclips I have over 130 posts on Sabine’s page -saying this over and over and over again.
Science 🧪 is like an instrument such as a telescope or a microscope.
It is extremely helpful.
However it is the observer with a conscious mind that uses free will with the methods of reason and logic that was interpreter information and reach Valid Conclusion.
Mind you that science conclusions are always on the “probability scale” .
The core of all truth is based upon using reason and logic - in other words using word games.
Just like other games such as football they were rules of the game in this case the rules of logic.
To do any science 🧪 or math 🧮 needs you to presuppose that you are a person with the mind come up with consciousness and free well that could interpret the data.
For example you need a human mind to generate hypothesis. The computer cannot do this. You need a human mind to design control and separate that from experiment. The computer cannot do that. You need a human mind to interpret data but a computer can collect data for you. Do you need a human like to reach Conclusion and defence a Pfeizer’s using the methods of reason and logic in all things at all times. In other words there is no signs of math that is even possible without a human mind first and foremost as the ground floor.
By the way it is important to understand that the moment you have math or science without the above is the moment to enter fantasy.
For example you can write works with great grammar and consistent logic and it’s called “Harry Potter” and make billions of dollars.
But that is still fiction.
Similarly you can use numbers to create a consistent and brilliant system called string theory which says reality is multi dimensional over nine and multi-verse.
It is fantasy and you see this fantasy played out in the movies right now in Spiderman with Doctor Strange.
Or you can have physics do it on its own and one of the currency rooms is many worlds.
That means universe splitting 1,000,000 times per second with you in each of them.
Again we are back to fantasy with Doctor Strange for the rest of marvel comics with the Infinity Stone and Avengers .
---------
So what is reality and how can you know it?
Consciousness is that identification of existence.
For example pick up a pen 🖊 and ask yourself right now whether it is of existence?
If you are a rational man then you will reach the valid conclusion that the pen is of existence in other words the pen 🖊 exists.
Therefore you auto-validate consciousness because I repeat 🔂 “consciousness is that identification of existence”.
As one “identity identifies the other identity” in other words as consciousness identifies existence then it stands to reason that there is Aristotle’s law of identity caught up in other words : In the cosmos there is truth.
( Technical detail: Specifically their regular patterns man’s mind can extract from these patterns, in various patterns and call it truth.)
But wait !
How can you come to know any truth like the above which is metaphysics all the identity of anything?
The simple answer is the methods of reason and logic.
This is the only way man can reach any valid conclusion on any subject whatsoever at any time in every time.
Man has two faculties of mind ; What is called rationality which means the methods of reason and logic that must be used with great effort in the correct method andin the other faculty is emotions. Emotions are always automatic. Faith is a feeling of certainty about what something means and many human beings incorrectly use this faculty to reach conclusion such as it feels like the earth is flat or it feels like it’s an angel on your shoulder.
EMotions a very important but they’re never the way to reach Valid Conclusion.
Emotions a very helpful to act on the conclusion such as motivation and action..
For example you can use rationality to reach conclusion on which person to love and emotions to laugh with all your heart all you vigor.
Therefore to summarize and to conclude : yes man can know reality because the mind of man is potent - and you are not impotent .
I repeat : your mind , you are not impotent .
Consciousness cannot identify itself Without being a contradiction.
Therefore consciousness must be separate to existence, must be separate to the brain.
This means consciousness is potent: in other words you must exercise free will in order to make a choice between right and wrong.
And because of Aristotle’s law of identity you know if there is right. Such as earlier you identify that pen 🖊 is of existence and it’s not a floating nothing-ness.
And you know there’s a methodology you have to use, after having learned it and practiced it called : reason and logic, man’s only way to reach Valid Conclusion.
Metaphysics means what is reality? Existence, consciousness with free will, and Aristotle’s law of identity.
Epistemology means how can you know any truth like the above or any truth whatsoever? Answer is the methods of reason and logic. This takes effort and a formal system.
Just so you know the above lead to ethics. Ethics is objective and not your feelings. Mine has it in alienable rights to life liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
Why? Because an individual of a species that can think must indeed think an act on the conclusions of your thinking to sustain your life at every moment of your life.
Therefore of the universe you must de facto have a liberty to think and to act .
The above lead to politics as in what is the right political system objectively regardless of your views or your perceptions or your feelings?
The answer is democracy because you need a government to protect your rights found above in ethics.
Then what is the correct economic system regardless of your feelings or your values?
The answer is capitalism because your right the property is a corollary truth : which means a self evident truth that comes from your right to life in ethics. See ethics above.
Whereas all animals come pre-adapted to a niche environment in contrast man must re-adapt environment to your values.
Everything around you and even on you is from the environment that has been re-adapted to serve you and you’ve paid for it directly or indirectly.
From the first man that had to hunt and kill a polar bear for clothes and warmth to build shelter later discovered fire and create tools to fish and to Hunt and to protect oneself to today man with a vehicle and a house and all the modern comforts.
Man has the right to acquire, maintain, dispose or trade your services or your property like your hat, mat, cat, iPhone or your money.
A trade is a meeting of minds between two people Without force or fraud. So there is evil and evil means the use of thought of against another man except in self-defense.
Finally the fifth branch of philosophy is man needs aesthetics. Why? In Metaphysics you identified man has a REAL mind and just like man has to feed his body, man also has to feed his mind - and art magnifies man’s life.
The problem is many human beings mistake fiction for fact. You’ve also done back until now until I’ve corrected your entire life from this moment onwards .Above of gave you examples of mathematicians or even scientist turning the subjects into fiction and not being self-aware of that.
All subjects at university Are like trees in a forest but all the trees must be coherent and conform to the forest floor and that is philosophy which is the philosophy outlined above.
There is no science or math without it conforming to philosophy using the methods reason and logic to be consistent in a system.
------
The above means life is great and the above is separate to anything you’ve ever heard before in your entire life over here ever again. It is the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth about the entire cosmos throughout space-time and your life.
You are owed nothing for being a life but because you have a mind with people you have control to set goals to take massive action with great emotions, to be rational in your actions and your sub-plans to achieve the main project plan and achieve results in life with potential spouse, with wealth, with health, and with all other things that you put your mind to.
However Nothing is guaranteed because reality is not magic.
Reality is better than magic because you have control and you can take action and you could see the results and he could and improve upon the results.
Q.E.D
Cope and Marsh instantly reminded me of the movie The Prestige in the first few seconds. I knew it was going to turn into a back and forth. 😂
Yet again a really interesting video. Another battle in similar vein to Edison and Tesla was the patent battle over broad band radar. Invented to monitor the progression rate of nuclear explosions, it offered huge benefits in various fields but access was blocked by a battle of claims. It really amazes me how greedy people become over ideas.
Because it's MONEEEEYYYYY
scientists or not still mere mortals who need money
@@laosi4278 Wrong. Vast majority of scientists want to do good and don't really care about money. Invention of Insulin was worth billions, but inventor released it for free because he couldn't stand causing pain of people who needed it (of course then US parasite "medical" companies used the free patent to price gouge vulnerable patients, selling it for 10000x what production cost, look it up). If scientists wanted money, they would be slaves of big oil/coal instead of warning about climate change. Etc, etc...
@@KuK137 before reply back to someone comment, read carefully, understanding the context first, or are u a kid?
@@laosi4278 I have a number of patents to my name with the best earning one being a high temperature conductive brush for cleaning stainless steel welds. An extreme use of Carbon Fibre. In getting this to market I have had to endure two sociopathic electronic engineers and a full on psychopath. Each one wanting to steal the revenue of the business, steal the IP and kill my businesses in the process. It’s been a struggle, but we survived and made an OK living. The real cost was all of the other better products that never got under way due to the BS of these shallow egotistical zero creativity people.
Mostly it's greedy people being greedy. Edison wasn't a scientist he was businessman
"Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it is time to pause and reflect." - Mark Twain
This was great! Thanks. Where are the big fights today?
On Fred Hoyle: I attended Hoyle's lecture on Panspermia (that life came to us from space) at the Royal Greenwich Observatory (RGO). At the end of the talk, the Head of RGO enquired as to whether there might possibly be competing explanations for the origin of life of Earth. After a dismissive gruff retort, he turned to us and described Hoyle's reply as '...like offering an olive branch and having it snapped and thrown back in your face'.
Would like to hear your thoughts on the Hoyle - Gamow 'debate' sometime!
Some other great scientific debates you could include would be the debate about the age of the earth, Darwin and the debate over his theory of evolution, Alfred Wegner and continental drift, Einstein and quantum theory, the germ theory of disease, the debate about an earth centered universe, the debate about the big bang. and the debate about dark matter. Probably lots more. I’m unclear how often those debates proceeded in a well grounded scientific manner with balance, versus in a manner where belief played a big role.
Really like your channel, very interesting content Sabine!
This was a great one, Sabine!
I'm so thrilled that Sabine stays on top of these things, and doses it out so informatively to the rest of us. Nicely presented.
Leibniz and Newton had theological debate too. When Newton said that God enters his godly hands to restore order because his calculations resulted Saturn and Jupiter getting closer to each other each time they orbit around the sun. Leibniz wasn't happy and he argued that God wouldn't build a solar system that needs repair now and then. Newton's friends started writing articles defending Newton saying that his statement is actually praising God. :D
In fact, that entire story is one of leibniz's inventions to defame newton! He never claimed the solar system needed periodic rewinding, leibniz intentionally twisted newton's words to make it seem like such and the story caught on and is still spread erroneously to this day
@@ObjectsInMotion language; can't live with it and can't live without it.
@@carlosgaspar8447 Leibniz _was_ German. Suggested reading: _The Awful German Language,_ Mark Twain, 1880
Newton did have unconventional religious views for the time though. He was an antitrinitarian, believing that Jesus, God, and the Holy Ghost were not one being in 3 forms, as the Catholics claimed. During the renaissance, this and other views became more acceptable, but it was still fringe in their society.
This is a great and smart idea to present sciences and show science in your videos , a very different way but worth it.
Thanks for the perspective.
Thank you for the video.
You winnin' the thumbnail award for the day.
There is an extra bit of video at the end. I thought it was some sort of blooper, but it seems to be a bit from the middle of the video and then abruptly cuts off.
Great review! When I first saw the theme I instantly thought of Cope v. Marsh, but doubted that Sabine would cover that. I'm a Coper...Copist? But neither character emerges unbesmirched. Insightful commentary. Thanks, Sabine!
Epic stories! I want more of these
Missing my epic fight against climate deniers and alarmists over the omission of quantum based modern Raman Lidar measurements collapsing 19th century classical physics based greenhouse theory. It has been epic.
My very favorite science controversy is 1) Sabine Hossenfelder versus 2) string theorists.
Great video! Enjoyed it very much.
Informative and entertaining as always
2:55 HE DID NOT TWEET THAT,,, how could you Dawkins 😭😭
That was a scientific T bag
It was factual. And it was not disrespectful. Just because you are dead, does not make you automatically right or immune to criticism.
@@zhadoomzx it is always kind of disrespectful because someone dead can't defend themselves
Most of the tweet consisted of praise.
!!! You left out the MOST epic fight: That of Sabine Hossenfelder with particle physicists!!!
Very well done. I like science and i like art. This is a skillful combination of the two, bravo!
Though it is not technically a real Nobel prize, the Nobel prize in economics has allowed some bad ideas to be implemented and a lot of back policy from the Feds and congress, all because a Nobel Prize winner gave them cover to implement them or even the one who is making the bad decision..
I've watched many of your videos this is among my favourites. Do more. Try Boltzmann vs Mach & Ostwald. There's Galileo vs the Pope, Hobbes vs Wallis, Harrison vs British Empire, Wegener vs Geology, France vs the USA (discovery of HIV). Some good potential for a part 2 and part 3 there must be thousands of similar stories, "Communism. Great theory, wrong species" lol
A very interesting presentation Sabine.
Great history. Thanks SH.
Great post Sabine. I love this summary and your ability to tell a good story. I always enjoy your material. Stay safe, free, happy and healthy. 🥰
It seems that both Newton and Leibniz were pretty unpleasant characters, though great geniuses.
Many geniuses are very unpleasant people.
@@w3vjp568 Yes, it comes with being right so often, the brain gets used to it and craves it, basically you get addicted to the satisfaction of it... obviously also greatly feeding the ego
This is a great topic and should become a recurring segment!
Sabine has the Best lectures and presentations are priceless. Thank you. Ismar Cintora,MD.
Post 131: Sabine and Sam Harris are wrong but what is "right' and why? How? How can you know?
Firstly I am presupposing quite correctly that science 🧪 can never find the truth because science 🧫 is not the ground floor of reality.
I keep saying that over and over and over again and many many responses.
On RUclips I have over 130 posts on Sabine’s page -saying this over and over and over again.
Science 🧪 is like an instrument such as a telescope or a microscope.
It is extremely helpful.
However it is the observer with a conscious mind that uses free will with the methods of reason and logic that was interpreter information and reach Valid Conclusion.
Mind you that science conclusions are always on the “probability scale” .
The core of all truth is based upon using reason and logic - in other words using word games.
Just like other games such as football they were rules of the game in this case the rules of logic.
To do any science 🧪 or math 🧮 needs you to presuppose that you are a person with the mind come up with consciousness and free well that could interpret the data.
For example you need a human mind to generate hypothesis. The computer cannot do this. You need a human mind to design control and separate that from experiment. The computer cannot do that. You need a human mind to interpret data but a computer can collect data for you. Do you need a human like to reach Conclusion and defence a Pfeizer’s using the methods of reason and logic in all things at all times. In other words there is no signs of math that is even possible without a human mind first and foremost as the ground floor.
By the way it is important to understand that the moment you have math or science without the above is the moment to enter fantasy.
For example you can write works with great grammar and consistent logic and it’s called “Harry Potter” and make billions of dollars.
But that is still fiction.
Similarly you can use numbers to create a consistent and brilliant system called string theory which says reality is multi dimensional over nine and multi-verse.
It is fantasy and you see this fantasy played out in the movies right now in Spiderman with Doctor Strange.
Or you can have physics do it on its own and one of the currency rooms is many worlds.
That means universe splitting 1,000,000 times per second with you in each of them.
Again we are back to fantasy with Doctor Strange for the rest of marvel comics with the Infinity Stone and Avengers .
---------
So what is reality and how can you know it?
Consciousness is that identification of existence.
For example pick up a pen 🖊 and ask yourself right now whether it is of existence?
If you are a rational man then you will reach the valid conclusion that the pen is of existence in other words the pen 🖊 exists.
Therefore you auto-validate consciousness because I repeat 🔂 “consciousness is that identification of existence”.
As one “identity identifies the other identity” in other words as consciousness identifies existence then it stands to reason that there is Aristotle’s law of identity caught up in other words : In the cosmos there is truth.
( Technical detail: Specifically their regular patterns man’s mind can extract from these patterns, in various patterns and call it truth.)
But wait !
How can you come to know any truth like the above which is metaphysics all the identity of anything?
The simple answer is the methods of reason and logic.
This is the only way man can reach any valid conclusion on any subject whatsoever at any time in every time.
Man has two faculties of mind ; What is called rationality which means the methods of reason and logic that must be used with great effort in the correct method andin the other faculty is emotions. Emotions are always automatic. Faith is a feeling of certainty about what something means and many human beings incorrectly use this faculty to reach conclusion such as it feels like the earth is flat or it feels like it’s an angel on your shoulder.
EMotions a very important but they’re never the way to reach Valid Conclusion.
Emotions a very helpful to act on the conclusion such as motivation and action..
For example you can use rationality to reach conclusion on which person to love and emotions to laugh with all your heart all you vigor.
Therefore to summarize and to conclude : yes man can know reality because the mind of man is potent - and you are not impotent .
I repeat : your mind , you are not impotent .
Consciousness cannot identify itself Without being a contradiction.
Therefore consciousness must be separate to existence, must be separate to the brain.
This means consciousness is potent: in other words you must exercise free will in order to make a choice between right and wrong.
And because of Aristotle’s law of identity you know if there is right. Such as earlier you identify that pen 🖊 is of existence and it’s not a floating nothing-ness.
And you know there’s a methodology you have to use, after having learned it and practiced it called : reason and logic, man’s only way to reach Valid Conclusion.
Metaphysics means what is reality? Existence, consciousness with free will, and Aristotle’s law of identity.
Epistemology means how can you know any truth like the above or any truth whatsoever? Answer is the methods of reason and logic. This takes effort and a formal system.
Just so you know the above lead to ethics. Ethics is objective and not your feelings. Mine has it in alienable rights to life liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
Why? Because an individual of a species that can think must indeed think an act on the conclusions of your thinking to sustain your life at every moment of your life.
Therefore of the universe you must de facto have a liberty to think and to act .
The above lead to politics as in what is the right political system objectively regardless of your views or your perceptions or your feelings?
The answer is democracy because you need a government to protect your rights found above in ethics.
Then what is the correct economic system regardless of your feelings or your values?
The answer is capitalism because your right the property is a corollary truth : which means a self evident truth that comes from your right to life in ethics. See ethics above.
Whereas all animals come pre-adapted to a niche environment in contrast man must re-adapt environment to your values.
Everything around you and even on you is from the environment that has been re-adapted to serve you and you’ve paid for it directly or indirectly.
From the first man that had to hunt and kill a polar bear for clothes and warmth to build shelter later discovered fire and create tools to fish and to Hunt and to protect oneself to today man with a vehicle and a house and all the modern comforts.
Man has the right to acquire, maintain, dispose or trade your services or your property like your hat, mat, cat, iPhone or your money.
A trade is a meeting of minds between two people Without force or fraud. So there is evil and evil means the use of thought of against another man except in self-defense.
Finally the fifth branch of philosophy is man needs aesthetics. Why? In Metaphysics you identified man has a REAL mind and just like man has to feed his body, man also has to feed his mind - and art magnifies man’s life.
The problem is many human beings mistake fiction for fact. You’ve also done back until now until I’ve corrected your entire life from this moment onwards .Above of gave you examples of mathematicians or even scientist turning the subjects into fiction and not being self-aware of that.
All subjects at university Are like trees in a forest but all the trees must be coherent and conform to the forest floor and that is philosophy which is the philosophy outlined above.
There is no science or math without it conforming to philosophy using the methods reason and logic to be consistent in a system.
------
The above means life is great and the above is separate to anything you’ve ever heard before in your entire life over here ever again. It is the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth about the entire cosmos throughout space-time and your life.
You are owed nothing for being a life but because you have a mind with people you have control to set goals to take massive action with great emotions, to be rational in your actions and your sub-plans to achieve the main project plan and achieve results in life with potential spouse, with wealth, with health, and with all other things that you put your mind to.
However Nothing is guaranteed because reality is not magic.
Reality is better than magic because you have control and you can take action and you could see the results and he could and improve upon the results.
Q.E.D
You missed one of the historic fight- between Einstein and Neil bohr.
You have confused a dispute with a fight... Einstein and Neils Bohr have a respectful scientific discussion.
@@YbisZX Using present tense is incorrect, in this context; they are both dead. :)
If you like this content, I HIGHLY recommed the channel Kathy Loves Physics and History. She has a great history of Edison and Tesla. The story here is very brief and misses a lot of important caveats and details. Nothing wrong with that, it is just an artifact of the short story format.
SECONDED! She does amazingly thorough research for her vids and I always learn from them.
@@Hippiekinkster yeah but she ain’t eye candy like Sabine
Great Video Concept ¡..... Lux and Thank you
I love you videos. You are terrific. Please keep them coming.
The understanding of Mayan language also has a good rivalry history, where it becomes clear that many times scientists are less scientific than desired, causing problems for a whole field of knowledge.
Indeed…somebody had to die to move that ahead.
10:22 “fourteen thousand” should have been “fourteen hundred” or the text on screen is wrong
THANK YOU FOR MENTIONING HOYLE!!!! Fred Hoyle is my all time favorite astronomer!! He's also one of my personal heroes!
Decades ago, Scientific American ran an article about him, stating that it was a dark fear of astronomers that "Fred Hoyle might be right". It included an interview with him. He didn't care about either popularity or awards, which explains his demeanor, and at least in my view, adds a touch of nobility to his character.
As for his eccentric theories, at least some of his ideas about panspermia are accepted now, such as liquid water in objects in the outer reaches of the solar system, something that was considered completely insane at the time. "Pseudoscience" is a rather vague term, as you yourself pointed out in your excellent video about it.
But, I'm still glad you mentioned him, even if it was in a somewhat negative light.
Sabine Hossenfelder
Loving your content.......this episode was particularly enjoyable.
Perhaps some time down the line, you could do an episode where you rate and critique the physics/science of some popular movies and TV series which heavily rely on physics to sell their story. Shows / movies which immediately come to mind are *Back To The Future* and the ABC TV series *FlashForward*
Thank you for even considering this suggestion.
Sabine and her team did touch on the "Back to the Future" thing on her recent video, called "What if the effect comes before the cause?"
fyi for anybody reading and wanting this content!!
Calculus was invented by the ancient Indian mathematician Madhava in 1420s : en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Madhava_of_Sangamagrama
That wiki article says he helped lay down the foundations for calculus which others had done before him, and which was developed after him.
Seems tenuous to claim he invented calculus.
And so the argument of origin persists... :) ... cross-cultural this time!
@@gilian2587 helps show how little we have changed over time and space.
@@iseriver3982 We are silly critters. I will not argue that Madhava, Leibniz and Newton were brilliant people. Frankly, I don't care who invented it first; I'm just happy that it exists.
@@gilian2587 Newton was a genuine genius though. But he also thought numerology was real and tried to find the secret to turning lead into gold in the bible.
Thank you Dr Hossenfelder.
I love the "fight!" yell. Oh, those teen times of Street Fighter.
I was expecting the Newton-Leibnitz beef to be about light (wave/particle). Surely there will be a Part II to this video?
Thank you very much as usual.
And yes, those memes, sayings, etc, worked wonderfully. Yes, I think Newton got partially owned.
Amazing content again Sabine.
Who would've thought scientists were such divas. Scientists drama is best drama
You wanna see Divas?
Surgeons!
Anyone who has been to grad school is painfully aware of this; and many bear internal and emotional scars from the experience -- ask anyone who has been to grad school if they still have nightmares from that time in their life; most of them will probably say, 'Yes'.
Edison had Tesla digging ditches when he first hired him. Then he'd take ideas from the trusting and naïve new immigrant and patent them for himself, often not paying Tesla for work, once Tesla was allowed to work as an engineer. Edison was bitter because Tesla was a savant whereas Edison relied on his group of very talented employees to keep the patents flowing. One was a straight businessman who felt threatened. The other was a creative genius who had no sense of organized profitability of his works.
@walter - Margaret Cheney's Tesla: Man Out of Time (1981).
The fact that Edison had Tesla digging trenches is pretty common knowledge as was Edison's less that ethical practices with Tesla. Tesla just wanted to get his idea of the AC generator and other inventions out and he admired Edison... before he met him. After, he had a lifelong amenity toward Edison.
@walter - Edison was basically the Steve Jobs of his era: a huge self promoter and idea man who rode on the coattails of people he employed.
Tesla was Steve Wozniak. The brains that had little acumen for cutthroat business tactics and just wanted make stuff (and lost tons of money because of it).
@walter - There's 3 sides to every story. lol
I think Tesla spoke no-poor English when he was employed by Edison. Tesla had radical ideas that were contrary to Edison's. Tesla had a bunch of ideas, but he was an unknown and unproven immigrant. Tesla did have meetings with Edison (although brief ones). Edison was letting Menlo Park do must of the heavy lifting at that point in his career so his reaction to a wet behind the ears inventor is understandable, but his later business tactics were highly unethical and only illustrated the resentment and fear Edison had for Tesla's inventions.
@walter - Edison was fighting Tesla through proxy. Westinghouse knew Tesla was a genius, but had the business mind of an eggplant and took advantage of it by "allowing" Tesla the funds he wanted to experiment.
Granted, Tesla was probably very far on the spectrum and had Asperger's Syndrome as well as a few other things. He was a shut-in germaphobe and had no real handle on business reality and ran with the "this invention will change the world... I'll give it away for free" model until he needed money for experiments, and then complained he was being taken advantage of. Tesla needed a business manager, but he was too eccentric to trust one.
Tesla's perspective (especially later in his life) was that he was being held back and just needed the funds to complete his inventions that would change the world. Persecution Complex.
Sabine, thank you so much for not monetizing your videos, it is so rarely seen these days!
❤thanks. Such things are normal in every LABORATORY and this word suited most to the researcher and scientist putting a lot of labor that is mental level hardwork and may be getting nothing except criticism. Thanks again.
Nice meme mastery by Sabine in this one
I love how it is nearly impossible to tell when Sabine is telling a joke.
I love when people then don't take her seriously.
I am just shocked her name is pronounced Zabeena and not Sa-bean
That's because she's never told one (if by "joke" you mean a statement that is actually funny).
In German, every letter is pronounced. ACHTUNG! NOTHING IS WASTED! Also, there are different pronunciation rules for various letter and letter combinations. Generally, "s" before a vowel gets the "zzzz" sound and "s" after vowel gets the "ssss" sound. As a side note, English has way more [inconsistent] rules, not to mention many silent letters, making it much harder to learn from scratch than German.
I love hearing the backstory on this; one of my favorite texts as an undergrad (too long ago now), was "Differential Equations with Historical Notes" by Simmons. It was the historical notes that made the text fun and where I first heard about the fight between Newton and Leibnitz. Another book to read would be "Newton's Tyranny" by Clark that covers more of his life including his fight with Flamsteed who he was convinced was holding out on providing him with real data on the Moon's orbit.
Yep, if you can't do science, then you do science history. ;-)
I've always thought that Cope and Marsh would make a great movie. Their rivalry went to ridiculous extremes. Backstabbing, defamation, spies and plots. There were even a couple of pitched gun battles over fossil sites! Great stuff.
The way Dawkins writes is hilarious
Going on a tangent to find an integral is what helps me enjoy your videos Sabina. Searching the depths of the valleys and hanging on every cliff to echo a sound into the nature of the beast in hopes of a tangible filling of the void passionately drives me to ends. Turning back now has always been futile but on occasions with the right angular side, motions and motives the attempts are made with only believable success. There is really no way to paraphrase what has already begun, there’s only the reaction or the lack there of to interact with. Intentional fighting with intentional intentions to intentionally intent are intended by and only suitable for intellections. Hahahaha 11:11