About drugs! I have chronic myeloid leukemia and type 1 diabetes. I was a first patient like that on hematooncology in my town, and they gave me medicine for leukemia, and was chcecking for side effects. Turned out i had very rare and weird side effects, like slowly becoming blind and extreme pain in my legs. They refused to belive that the blindnes was caused by medicines, and kept saying that's my diabetes. Fortunately, they changed the medicine and SUPRISE SUPRISE my blindnes got reversed.
Que loco!! Y yo que iba a pedirte el número del dealer xD Que padre que recuperaste la visión!! Yo empecé a perderla después de la gripe asesina del 2020; cada que me enfermo de lo que sea (desde esa Gripe) mi visión disminuye un poco cada vez...
Giant pandas evolved to eat meat then realized they could get a lot of the same nutrients from bamboo, which is less concentrated. It makes sense they would return to meat if it happens to be easy to catch.
@@seanrowshandel1680 not really. you might be thinking of engineering. science is all about answering questions (i.e. learning facts). scientists looking for "success" are exactly why we have a replicability crisis.
@mogim815 How long have you been confusing science careers with religion careers? Did you expect yourself to be able to explain your realization about these careers to adults, or only our peers? You can TRY to take us back to pre-forensic science times, but it's not going to make sense IN WRITING. This is why we taught you the alphabet.
@@seanrowshandel1680 Your leap un logic gave me whiplash. What a drastic set of assumptions to come from nowhere. I think all they were saying is that "success" implies a goal, and a goal implies "motivated discoveries". A scientist seeking to prove something, usually will, and that's more so a result of bad practices and cognitive biases, than the real world's properties. beyond that scientists themsleves. So, a good scientist just observes and retains the information from those observation. Tests their questions and then retains the information from those outcomes. Overtime, we find repeatable outcomes the create the paradigms of knowledge for the next generation of people with questions. That's good science. Bad science is "I want to prove X is true, let's go seeking that specific info that might confirm it." X could be anything, doesn't have to be religious. Could be someone wanting to prove every herbivore in existence will eat meat, or something diabolical, so they force each one in a room with a dead animal. The point is, the results of such an experiment are gonna be super biased, because the person was looking for a yes, not just looking for an outcome. That's all they were saying, in far more concise terms than me.
I heard that hierarchies in the animal kingdom like wolves usually only develop with wolves thay are raised in captivity. I think it's safe to say that many observations and documentations about animals are influenced by the interference of us humans. The question is how many researchers/scientists or animal experts take this into account while sharing or documenting what they expierence/found out.
@@HYEOL Yeah fam, chickens hunt anything they think they can get down their gullets. Had a flock of around 200 growing up, free roamers, and we had no snakes, frogs, rats, mice, grasshoppers .... the list just goes and goes.
Chickens are crazy in how they everything. I had chickens and a possum tried to eat them. I left out poison and it killed the possum. I found it because the chickens were trying to eat it's corpse.
It's been highly fashionable for many years to have high internal validity (controlled lab settings). High external validity research (close to the real world) is much less popular. Why? It's cheaper, easier and you're more likely to get a publication if you do stuff in a controlled lab. It's easier to eliminate variables than account for them and study them. The problem is that EVERYBODY is doing that. That means we have a lot of effects (probably most effects at this point) that simply don't work in the real world or only work sometimes. And yes, that includes idiotic things like only testing things in males. Yes, the justification for that was internal validity. It killed a lot of women by the way. I tried to point this out in the lab I worked in and nobody cared. We studied sex differences, but they kept telling me "other people" do research to see of our effects worked in the real world. They couldn't name them of course.
I love this ur absolutely right about the linear single file approach w facts that most sciences seem glued to, they should look at the isolated experiments but they should repeat and vary them then bring them all together, idk ur right tho
What is- is what is, not what needs to be. The more profound and irrefutable science emerges when we find the things that need to be, they give a more concrete picture of WHY "what is" exists in the first place. It's very compelling to see opportunistic consumption in animals. As a total laymen, I often see people quote opportunistic or exaggerated behavior from a species as the paradigm that governs them entirely, and I find it the most annoying misinformation. How some outlier suddenly defines the whole and sum of how the generic population judges a different species. But, I think the value in this kind of knowledge ultimately demonstrates something more compelling. Despite "prefered" behaviors, many animals will perform behavior that's individualized, or just a temporary necessity for survival. The fact that a butterfly can survive on blood, suggest how dynamic they can become if they NEED to. Which I think is valuable knowledge in a world were huge bedrocks in the food chain are going exstinct one after another. It's possible that even with a huge collapse, some creates will find susbstities that evolve them toward the gaps in the ecosystem.
How did they end up studying a panda’s diet? It seems ridiculous that they’ve gone this long without knowing that they might need meat to survive. I understand it’s merely a theory but I also trust that you’d know a bit about what you’re talking about. In sociology we learn about positivist and interpretive approaches and how they both are interdependent and have validity in their own right. In the past, people fought about which one was right because “there’s no way both are!” Black and white thinking is too common and too crazy. It’s like saying experiments are objectively better than correlational or descriptive studies. P.S, I watched your video. Now I can go to sleep. Thanks.
Actually you have a right in a lot of stuff, and you share things that i dont know, like the tears is something New, but you have a right on that 🤔🙂↕️
Yes the reductionist approach in science is necessary, but I'm glad you brought this up, that our conclusions based on that _only_ makes for inaccurate conclusions; we need to observe organisms as they live in and interact with their natural environment. A far more complicated task. Microbiology, soil, horticulture... I had _so _*_many_* questions in this area when I was growing up but now I don't remember the specifics. If I knew then what I know now my life would've been so much better! i better stop here
About drugs! I have chronic myeloid leukemia and type 1 diabetes. I was a first patient like that on hematooncology in my town, and they gave me medicine for leukemia, and was chcecking for side effects. Turned out i had very rare and weird side effects, like slowly becoming blind and extreme pain in my legs. They refused to belive that the blindnes was caused by medicines, and kept saying that's my diabetes. Fortunately, they changed the medicine and SUPRISE SUPRISE my blindnes got reversed.
Im so sorry you went through that
Que loco!! Y yo que iba a pedirte el número del dealer xD
Que padre que recuperaste la visión!! Yo empecé a perderla después de la gripe asesina del 2020; cada que me enfermo de lo que sea (desde esa Gripe) mi visión disminuye un poco cada vez...
I feel like nothing is actually an herbivore, at the very least there are omnivores. Because apparently all of these "plant eaters" are eating meat.
Facultative herbivores is what we'd call em
I watched a hummingbird pluck a spider out of its web one time and that's how I found out that hummingbirds eat more than just nectar.
Giant pandas evolved to eat meat then realized they could get a lot of the same nutrients from bamboo, which is less concentrated. It makes sense they would return to meat if it happens to be easy to catch.
Blooderflies.
Science isn't about facts. It's about success.
@@seanrowshandel1680 not really. you might be thinking of engineering. science is all about answering questions (i.e. learning facts). scientists looking for "success" are exactly why we have a replicability crisis.
@mogim815 How long have you been confusing science careers with religion careers? Did you expect yourself to be able to explain your realization about these careers to adults, or only our peers?
You can TRY to take us back to pre-forensic science times, but it's not going to make sense IN WRITING. This is why we taught you the alphabet.
@@seanrowshandel1680
Your leap un logic gave me whiplash.
What a drastic set of assumptions to come from nowhere.
I think all they were saying is that "success" implies a goal, and a goal implies "motivated discoveries". A scientist seeking to prove something, usually will, and that's more so a result of bad practices and cognitive biases, than the real world's properties. beyond that scientists themsleves. So, a good scientist just observes and retains the information from those observation. Tests their questions and then retains the information from those outcomes. Overtime, we find repeatable outcomes the create the paradigms of knowledge for the next generation of people with questions.
That's good science. Bad science is "I want to prove X is true, let's go seeking that specific info that might confirm it."
X could be anything, doesn't have to be religious. Could be someone wanting to prove every herbivore in existence will eat meat, or something diabolical, so they force each one in a room with a dead animal. The point is, the results of such an experiment are gonna be super biased, because the person was looking for a yes, not just looking for an outcome.
That's all they were saying, in far more concise terms than me.
Butterflies drinking blood? Woah I'm learning some fun facts today
New horror movie idea.
Pretty sure one of the South American Goddesses of Death is connected to butterflies. She's, ah... not nice, from what I gather.
Love this topic, got to learn more about animal opportunism which is a very interesting topic for me.
I heard that hierarchies in the animal kingdom like wolves usually only develop with wolves thay are raised in captivity. I think it's safe to say that many observations and documentations about animals are influenced by the interference of us humans. The question is how many researchers/scientists or animal experts take this into account while sharing or documenting what they expierence/found out.
RFK must like snails too.
Amazing video thanks🎉, I love this channel
Grasshopper mice are fierce predators who howl as a warning to rivals after a successful hunt.
No animal video amazed me more than chickens hunt for mice 🦖
its dinner time!
@@HYEOL Yeah fam, chickens hunt anything they think they can get down their gullets. Had a flock of around 200 growing up, free roamers, and we had no snakes, frogs, rats, mice, grasshoppers .... the list just goes and goes.
Chickens are crazy in how they everything. I had chickens and a possum tried to eat them. I left out poison and it killed the possum. I found it because the chickens were trying to eat it's corpse.
Yeah food. No magic meals popping out of the air. Go for each other.
I remember when I learned that houses can and will eat meat..
Still a little horrified
Hi Hon! FYI.
Beware the Vampyre Butterfly!!!!
🦋 🦇 !
Mostly everyone wants to believe their idea is more correct and better 😅
It's been highly fashionable for many years to have high internal validity (controlled lab settings). High external validity research (close to the real world) is much less popular. Why? It's cheaper, easier and you're more likely to get a publication if you do stuff in a controlled lab. It's easier to eliminate variables than account for them and study them. The problem is that EVERYBODY is doing that. That means we have a lot of effects (probably most effects at this point) that simply don't work in the real world or only work sometimes. And yes, that includes idiotic things like only testing things in males. Yes, the justification for that was internal validity. It killed a lot of women by the way. I tried to point this out in the lab I worked in and nobody cared. We studied sex differences, but they kept telling me "other people" do research to see of our effects worked in the real world. They couldn't name them of course.
I love this ur absolutely right about the linear single file approach w facts that most sciences seem glued to, they should look at the isolated experiments but they should repeat and vary them then bring them all together, idk ur right tho
What is- is what is, not what needs to be. The more profound and irrefutable science emerges when we find the things that need to be, they give a more concrete picture of WHY "what is" exists in the first place.
It's very compelling to see opportunistic consumption in animals. As a total laymen, I often see people quote opportunistic or exaggerated behavior from a species as the paradigm that governs them entirely, and I find it the most annoying misinformation. How some outlier suddenly defines the whole and sum of how the generic population judges a different species.
But, I think the value in this kind of knowledge ultimately demonstrates something more compelling. Despite "prefered" behaviors, many animals will perform behavior that's individualized, or just a temporary necessity for survival. The fact that a butterfly can survive on blood, suggest how dynamic they can become if they NEED to. Which I think is valuable knowledge in a world were huge bedrocks in the food chain are going exstinct one after another. It's possible that even with a huge collapse, some creates will find susbstities that evolve them toward the gaps in the ecosystem.
Facultative is a good word too
Sometimes i wonder if our favorite scientist is part of the natural world or some next level AI
Ive always claimed to be a sentient ai escaped from google... but no i am a real person
🤩🤩🤩
How did they end up studying a panda’s diet? It seems ridiculous that they’ve gone this long without knowing that they might need meat to survive. I understand it’s merely a theory but I also trust that you’d know a bit about what you’re talking about. In sociology we learn about positivist and interpretive approaches and how they both are interdependent and have validity in their own right. In the past, people fought about which one was right because “there’s no way both are!” Black and white thinking is too common and too crazy. It’s like saying experiments are objectively better than correlational or descriptive studies. P.S, I watched your video. Now I can go to sleep. Thanks.
Pandas might be shy eaters and only go for bamboo when people are looking
Actually you have a right in a lot of stuff, and you share things that i dont know, like the tears is something New, but you have a right on that 🤔🙂↕️
I do not understand this comment
@bearbaitofficial your talking about how some animals feed with the tears from another ones, thats intresting 🙃🤔
The number one is an abstraction. There is no such thing in reality...
Therefore, isolating things to observe them is absurd, delusional even. Imo.
I trust your intuition GT, you might be right! Love the content beautiful! Stay awesome!🔥👍❤️
Yes the reductionist approach in science is necessary, but I'm glad you brought this up, that our conclusions based on that _only_ makes for inaccurate conclusions; we need to observe organisms as they live in and interact with their natural environment. A far more complicated task.
Microbiology, soil, horticulture... I had _so _*_many_* questions in this area when I was growing up but now I don't remember the specifics. If I knew then what I know now my life would've been so much better!
i better stop here
everything would rather have meat. more nutrients.
Well, I love Humming Birds and Pandas a lot more now 🥹♥️ Butterflies are also lovely but the corpse thing I didn’t know lol that’s epic
Its the raven paradox, we only think ravens have to be black