Shes not spouting SCIENCE, she is spouting opinion and belief, much of it based in actual pseudoscience. This is the problem with people today - they dont understand real science. Useless paper Models are a favorite trick of pretender clowns and crayon munchers.
"It is possible to control other people minds, and yet somehow that has not prevented you from figuring out that minds are being controlled". That statement is pure gold Sabine!! Love your work. :)
@@zdenekpavlas3566 The ad-hoc explanation for that would be that she's part of a global conspiracy to create and distribute a deadly pathogen. The simple explanation is that it was just an example she mentioned in passing, not the main point of the video.
@@Max-kn9yi I draw the 'God of the Gaps' card. Hypothesise the Anunaki impregnating any 'missing links' with reptilian alien DNA. +5 Absurdist -3 XP +10 Badass
I think pseudoscience has an advantage over actual science because it makes you feel like a genius without you having to do actual work. It's like McDonalds for the mind.
You can take that as very clever or very pompous and wrong. I believe you can explain hoe every thing exists in the material universe - but you have to explain what 'no thing' is. In my world The Lattice is all matter-energy, but only perfectly regular, stationary, frozen lattice is truly 'empty'. It kinda sorta explains everything, as well as no thing at all, riddly writing... except The (supposed...) Beginning of The Everything Lattice.
@@PrivateSi In the beginning there was "no thing" and PrivateSi moved apron the void and said let there be light and the hoe universe came into being. XD
Does that very argument itself explain everything following from it. Science stops at what’s experienceable! I give you the aporia of the Kantian Antinomies!
@Eitan Tal I grew up with the "God did it." and "It's that way because God made it that way" type of explanations. The anti-science of fundamentalist religions is what I had in mind in quoting Hitchens. In my mind it doesn't rule out an actual testable "theory of everything" hypothesis. Thank you for prompting me to make that clear.
Yes i feel cringed to people who accused it with "pSeUdOsCiEnCe" term, why you only rely on the science that's in the mainstream side which is not 100% revealed, why don't you be CREATIVE, because creativity brings the idea, just like lightbulb by thomas a. edison, its all hypothesis until they can proof it, just like UFO or alien, after that you can just win the nobel prize. Dig down the ancient technology that has been existed for over 1 million years, time doesn't exist because all event happened in the same time. "Time is but stubborn illusion." - Albert Einstein. "The day science begins to study non-physical phenomena, it will make more progress in one decade than in all the previous centuries of its existence." - Nikola Tesla The Greatest Ascended Master of All Time.
The simplest explanation for COVID is that the Biolab in the same city as the epicenter of the virus, that was studying bat coronaviruses, and had a record of poor safety protocols, accidentally released the virus. The bat that carried this coronavirus is only found 400 miles from the epicenter. You tell me which is more likely.
@@cat-le1hf You should care, considering that our taxes funded the research. First of all, no one spread the virus on purpose, except maybe Nancy Pelosi, after she told everyone to go visit Chinatown at the beginning of the outbreak, and Cuomo, after he forced nursing homes to take covid patients. Secondly, the only reason to slow the spread, was to keep the hospitals from being overwhelmed. The virus was never going to be stopped. All of China's draconian measures didn't stop the spread, and they were welding people into their homes. And no, the "vaccines" wouldn't stop the spread, because they are only symptom mitigators. You can still get and spread covid if you are "vaccinated".
@@dregeye Maybe you don't know, but paranoid schizophrenics have been wearing tin foil hats for DECADES. Long before 5G, 4G, 3G, Wifi, Bluetooth, The Internet, cellphones. The common belief is that the FBI, CIA, NSA, NASA, and the KGB are reading/controlling their thoughts. Yes, maybe 5G is bad, and should be studied further, but your rant isn't a call for research into the "possible" dangers of 5G. It sounds delusional. Try making rational arguments, you might convince someone rational if you do. As it is, only paranoid schizophrenics will listen to you.
@@dregeye She wasn't mocking Faraday Cages. She was mocking whackos who wear them to keep the FBI from reading your thoughts. Sad that you take that so personally.
This video is a nice example of cognitive dissonance. First she defines "scientific" as observation-based and making as few assumptions as possible. Later she defends some COVID-19 computer model that has been disproved by actual empirical data and had entirely been based on non-empirical mathematical calculations with lots of arbitrary assumptions and no observational data at all. The scientific value of a model lies in its ability to make true predictions. A model that makes no verifiable predictions is by definition (Popper) not scientific, but nothing more than philosophical speculation.
Wenn die Erde eine Scheibe wäre, würden alle Katzen am Rand sitzen und Dinge über die Kante schubbsen. Das ist nicht der Fall - also ist die Erde keine Scheibe. q. e.d.
Warum finde ich meine abgerissenen Hemdknöpfe nicht, und wo sind all meine linken Socken hin? Wo die Batterieabdeckungen der Fernbedienungen? Also ich glaube an Katzen!
@@vger5857 Meine linken Socken verschwinden für immer. Wo sollten sie den sonst hin, als von Katzen vom Rand geworfen zu werden? Immer und immer wieder. Wissenschaftlich überprüfbar!
I am going to credit Sabine with her usual well presented discussion, but... I must quibble about her use of the pejorative term ‘conspiracy theorist’. Those of us old enough to remember the day were introduced to the term as a synonym for ‘nut case’ with reference to those who questioned the government line on the JFK assassination. There is ample evidence (and especially the 1970 House Assassination Committee conclusion) that there was indeed a conspiracy to kill JFK. But the original connotation stuck, and there is more than a little irony in its continued use as such.
Love your content! You mentioned a few philosophers of science, but my favorite theory is Thagard's. He wrote that "a theory or discipline which purports to be scientific is pseudoscientific if and only if: 1) it has been less progressive than alternative theories over a long period of time and faces many unsolved problems; but 2) the community of practitioners makes little attempt to develop the theory towards solutions of the problems, shows no concern for attempts to evaluate the theory in relation to others, and is selective in considering confirmations and disconfirmations." Unlike Popper's unfalsifiability( which caused him to take issue with the entire scientific community for his impractical standards), or Lakatos's purely progressive standard, Thagard's definition protects real science and excludes examples of pseudoscience such as astrology quite well.
@@takatotakasui8307 I'd say that string theory violates the second condition. String theorists to my knowledge are trying quite hard to resolve the unsolved problems and compare their results with observations and currently accepted theories whenever feasible/possible. The problem is that currently string theory predicts a _lot_ of different possible universes, which makes coming up with testable predictions very hard. However, there are some, most famous being existence of supersymmetric particles, and many lesser known predictions which unfortunately are in energy scales not accessible by current technology. And of course, in "low" energies string theory reduces to QFT and GR, both of which have been tested extensively, so in a sense all predictions of current theories are also predictions of string theory. But people are still trying to come up with new feasible experiments which would differentiate string theory from others. String theory thus isn't pseudoscience according to Thagard's definition, and it's status is currently a bit questionable according to Popper's definition. Here I thus agree with Sabine: string theory has potential to become scientific theory at some point, but it would require tons of recources at least some of which would probably be better spent to study other promising thories of fundamental physics.
@@david203 There is some practical vagueness in there but I don't mind. In practice, when it comes to identifying pseudoscience you know it when you see it
@@takatotakasui8307 I suspect that, in general, that is not true. In order to identify pseudoscience, it is necessary to have an education in science, or at least in critical thinking. Many people do not have this education. That is why there is so much pseudoscience in the comments in the first place.
"That does not mean that it is wrong, but that it is not scientific." This one statement - the fact that you accept that there may be things that are not scientific, but still true, propels you past so many other populist scientists (I mean that in very much a positive sense - a scientist who strives to communicate with the public like Carl Sagan, for example). Brilliant, as always.
It's one of the reasons I adore her. I have a few other physicists that I like. But they can get a sneer in their voices when they get into philosophical/religious beliefs. As one likes to say, "It's all physics!". Apparently any other belief indicates the person is mentally ill.
@@johnmckown1267 I am sure she doesn't believe in anything religious. But if you really understand science you see that it has limitations and cannot necessarily capture all of reality and some truths are out of reach with this method.
My god, you provide some of the best scientific content on the web and the comments are some of the dumbest on the web. Is there a law for this interaction?
I read somewhere that one can roughly measure the value of a model by comparing the information content in the observations that are explained with the information content required to specify the model. This corresponds to some of what Sabine is saying here. So a model that explains random observations would have to basically have as much information in it as the data, but a set of observations that can be explained by a simple set of equations or pattern generators has a high value. Makes sense.
so now in retrospect, with so many microbiologists saying that the virus is engineered, and noting that people are attacked for asking questions (which is religious behaviour), I expect you changed the definition of the covid being a conspiracy theory.
@TurboCMinusMinus and her "lie by omission" by NOT mentioning the proven legitimate PROTECTION against electromagnetic radiation. It's called a FARADAY CAGE, and they work, SCIENTIFICALLY!
I think metaphysics is where we need to go if we want to make progress in physics. It sounds bad for something to be unscientific but at the foundations of physics that prerequisite is so overrated
@@DavidJohnson-tv2nn Tons so far. They keep adding dimensions, interactions, geometries and phenomena...Pure mathematical fiction. BUT, ihmo, it must be done, if anything, to disprove it as thoroughly as possible.
Many science content makers are entertaining, but there's always rambling and waste of time. Same as for energy, your videos are very much "intelly-dense" let's say. All the bits of your videos are packed with useful concepts. Needless to say you've become one my most admired few science spreaders! One of my concerns is the financing aspect or funding te "wrong" experiments, and you didn't leave it out. Congratulations
Just look at a ship closing in on the horizont. You know the earth can't be flat. On the other hand earth is not a perfect sphere, but that's for another video.
@@EK-gr9gd "Just look at a ship closing in on the horizont"...i wouldnt go there if i were you, Flatters will run rings around you till you dont know anymore what is up and down... As a thought experiment, if you are not really good at science, it is interesting because they have answers for everything. Then one becomes aware of how much one simply believes because one was told so. Which in itself, is very healthy. I know of highly MIT educated AI inventors who took it on board as thought experiment. . Even Sabine doesnt go into the details, because it would take her hours and i think she is not out to get cheap clicks just making fun of folk, apart from the occasional tin foil hat. Besides, it has been done, but it took a long time to shut them up. . And, some still believe, simply like some believe jesus was born from a virgin, or te world was created in 6 days, 6000 years ago. They dont care about science. And that is their right. . The fact that an incredible amount of people would have to be in on the conspiracy, (and no one revealing the secret), is usually what gets the less educated "round". It is just a tad bit tooo paranoid crazy.
@@hammerstrumm The "immaculate conception" is possible, purely biological. But its just an translation error, someone translated a word or in expression, that meant "young woman" with "virgo".
@@EK-gr9gd Thanks for the translation explanation. While i was typing, i felt doubt creep in, which i gnored. a quick google search gave me this: yes, possible, unless you are a mammal.www.sciencealert.com/turns-out-virgin-birth-is-possible And, i did not realise the church meant that Maria was absolved from (the original) sin and her soul remained pure. Hmmm...All because of a translation error. And thus we plough on, trying to make sense of it all. :)
I am a graduate from an engineering school, and have given up doing deep science, I only do basic science for daily work life. And I'm really glad your videos allows someone like me to keep updating my knowledge and not become lobotomized. Thanks !
@Drew Binz A coincidence is predictable, it just means two things happen at about the same time. My reading of your reply will coincide with your posting it. I will not read it because you post it but because I have already chosen to read it IF you post it. How many tees are there in Buuuut? My reply shows that your reply made no sense.
String Theory is proof positive that scientist aren't immune from emotional arguments/rational nor are they immune from personal belief clouding their judgment.
String Theory is a terrible example & does NOTHING to demonstrate scientists' personal human biases. A FAR BETTER example would be Bigfoot & ufology. Far too many academics NEVER INVESTIGATE the evidence & reports about sightings but instead only do ARMCHAIR pontifications.
Yeah I'm with the other commenter here the father of String Theory Leonard Susskind I think he would agree that there is no proof positive of string theory.
Science is never wrong. That's like saying that mathematics is wrong. Scientists can be wrong, and often are. Science helps us identify and correct those errors.
Not so. Scientists are always coming up with far-out ideas. Most are found to be untenable. A few find a place in science. Consider how utterly ridiculous Wegener's idea that parts of the Earth's surface moved, when he first put it forward. And yet, plate tectonics is now a generally accepted theory. As JBS Haldane said, "The Universe is not only queerer than we suppose. It's queerer than we can suppose." Wild ideas are a part of science. Experiment and observation weed out the ones that don't work.
I heard of your RUclips channel through a podcast. Great channel and keep it up please. I’m in pilot school haha so there’s a demographic you hit! So sick of the politics in today’s world and your channel is a breath of fresh air!
No, variations in organisms which by chance are better fitted to their environment are statistically more likely to survive, which is testable and has been tested.
Hey Sabine, just wanted your thoughts on what Bret Weinstein said recently on JRE regarding the possibility of SARS-CoV2 having signs of being manufactured. Originally he thought it was simply a matter of zoonotic transmission (as you've stated here), but looking more closely at the actual genome, he suggests there's a specific sequence that is unlikely (although not impossible) to have been attained naturally. The virus' ability to bypass certain evolutionary steps that are required for it to spread efficiently as it has has him leaning more toward the "conspiracy" theories, although not necessarily for financial benefits, but simply that it was an experiment gone wrong. Considering he's a famous evolutionary biologist, I thought that was an interesting take.
Might want a biologist, Sabine's a physicist. A bio engineering friend of mine with a startup in this field thought bad lab practices are likely. At the outside propagating it could have been part of the process that led here. But that is not high probability. He was just curiosity snooping so it's really just an opinion.
Are we really afraid of flat earthers? Do they present that much of a problem? Are they corrupting the youth of the world? If you’re having trouble determining if something is pseudoscience, just see if it’s a big issue in the political realm. That will tell you. Politics is never about science.
To be fair, she didn't argued that Covid wasn't engineered. Actually she didn't took any position in this specific question. She only stated the (conspiracy) theory that it was engineered by the Pharma industry. A small but important difference!
I would disregard Bret Weinstein analysis. My read is he is leveraging a his bad experience at Evergreen College to become an independent provocateur and has parlayed his scientific credentials for pseudoscience and the chance to be the next J. Peterson. Also the consensus in intelligence and scientific community is that virus was natural occuring mutation.
@@Astuga She seemed to put the idea of viral engineering into a "pseudoscience" category. I don't agree with that. Maybe I don't quite understand what she's trying to say since she's not talking in her native language.
Ah yes, Gifth Feneration Telefone Knetwork. P.S.: I like the way you pronounce "pseudoscience". You make these topics very accessible! I'm barely coherent today yet I still came away with an even better understanding of scientific models than I already had! P.P.S.: That is a very cool coat
Hi Sabine, nice video! I just wanted to point out that I'm not sure what you exactly mean, in your example about darwinian evolution, with that "arguably no one has done it ["quantifying the fit to the data"] before". There's tons of research on inferring phylogenetic trees from data over the state of either genetic or phenotypic traits (assuming different kinds of evolutionary models, i. e. rates and mode of change) and then calculating the probabilities of each tree given the data. Maybe you meant to fit the whole "darwinian evolution" (assuming that means some current version of the modern synthesis) theory to data, and not certain model from within the whole theory (i. e. models that already assume a shared ancestry, as the ones I mentioned, although it should be remarked that they are not necessarily "fully darwinian" in their explicit assumptions, meaning that they do not necessarily include assumptions about selection)? Because that was precisely one of the main ideas within the foundations of the modern synthesis: to describe natural selection and evolution processes quantitatively with mathematical models. However, if you're thinking about "fully quantitatively" comparing contemporary neodarwinism "fit to data" with other models like, let's say, lamarckism or creationism, there I don't know about someone who may have done it explicitely. Probably because nowadays few (in academia...) would take these alternative models seriously enough to take time to develop quantitative versions of them to be compared...
Excellent video Sabine! Thank you. Minor correction: the wireless network is called 5G. Not G5. Good point on prediction vs projection on COVID19 models.
Yea but this is not some anonymous armchair conspiracy crackpot and flat earth nutjob youtube video made by another anonymous armchair conspiracy crackpot and flat earth nutjob from the seedy underbelly of youtube.
Which is based on OBSERVATION. It sometime can't be observed, then it is not subject to scientific analysis. Such as the actual Big Bang. At least from what I have read, the CMB is as far back as we can observe. What happened before is speculation based on running the model farther back, but without the assurance that the model is correct enough in whatever the situation was before the CMB came to be.
From wikipedia, but an extremely concise explanation of the definition of science. "Science (from the Latin word scientia, meaning "knowledge")[1] is a systematic enterprise that builds and organizes knowledge in the form of testable explanations and predictions about the universe." en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science
The most important point was last: "The [research] decision[s] fall to those who fund the research." So whether it's "climate change" or "COVID-[n]" follow the money.
"It's not a prediction because we cannot predict whether large events will be canceled". Hmm, I don't think I agree with the statement that scientific models don't need to be predictive. You could argue that the pandemic model is making predictions _conditional on events_ hence the if-then statements. It estimates that (a specified thing) will happen in the future or will be a consequence of something, pretty much what a prediction is. I would also argue, with less conviction, that given prior data on what governments have done before with respect to pandemics, policy decisions can to some degree still be predicted. If you were more ambitious, you could even try to quantify the frequency of governments of certain ideologies and/or nations listening to healthcare experts and try to incorporate that data as well. Lastly, there is a whole domain of literature on empirically examining the theory of evolution, so not sure what you mean by no one attempting to quantify the fit to data.
I agree that she is describing _conditional_ predictions. Those are still predictions. They are still falsifiable (-ish). Absolutely love the hat, Sabine.
I have explained in more detail why predictions are unnecessary here: backreaction.blogspot.com/2020/05/predictions-are-overrated.html And here: www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-truth-about-scientific-models/
@@SabineHossenfelder I thought Popper took into account most of the objections you raise with parsimony and what he called "bravery" of predictions. I remember Poppers conclusion to be pretty much the same as the conclusion of your Sci Am article... Predictions/models should explain the data with the fewest assumptions, but they're no good if they are so vague that they also predict tons of observations that we _don't_ see.
@@SabineHossenfelder I'm also confused about excluding _conditional_ predictions from the category "predictions". Aren't _all_ predictions subject to "conditions"? A model for the spreading of contagions that had no predictive value (conditions included), would have no value at all, in containing the contagion.
@@patrickfitzgerald2861 It's really the proper first question that SHOULD be asked of any study. Most reviewers are bamboozled by the statistical techniques of the moment, which are really the slight of hand used to distract the reader to the conclusions. The data descriptors seem so simple and innocent so they are ignored. Pity.
If psuedo science can be sold to the investor, the scientist can remain perpetually busy looking for answers that can't be found. This is how scientists job security can be at odds with scientific progress.
I'm getting too into you. You have the vibe of a dream. Your line of thinking and your physique...you're "interesting." I can listen to you for quite a while. The correlation between your phenotype and and behavior. You're...interesting.
Great point.. While we're at it, where is that dark matter we've spent billions of dollars ASSUMING was real? All because an equation needed another variable.. Why not just invent one, then spend decades looking for that?
@Vinny Holiday Exactly, and no more valid than the crackpot flat Earthers theories.. Also, where's all that dark matter we've spent billions looking for because an equation needed another variable.. lmao
For dark matter there is at least some real world evidence for its possible existence. Whereas string theory began with a big fat assumption (that everything is made of strings) for which there is no physical evidence whatsoever.
@@Shifter-1040ST Indeed, that is a real difference. Scientists, like everyone else, leap to conclusions too quickly. Dark matter? Dark energy? We just don't know as yet.
What if a climate model fails to replicate time frames with known data but succeeds to simulate other time frames. For instance, periods in time with high CO2 but low temperatures and vice versa. If they only point at the time frame the model works for but leave out where it doesn't work it can still be misrepresented as being an accurate model.
I don't see this as a problem, because all flattards are so consistently hilarious! Flattardia does boast members from all around the globe, after all! I always enjoy almost endless laughter from every element of their 'offerings'! Just light the fuse and...
Can you post the timestamp where the flat earth was debunked or the oblate-spheroidal shape was proven? What is the radius of your globe earth? The Black Swan image (see bmlsb69's channel) that cannot be refuted by anyone puts the 3959 mile radius (you buy into) to upwards of 200,000 miles. You ball believers love your math so much but never question where you live. Why? Because someone told you early on it was a ball and even had pictures/videos to show you. Hopefully, Sabine can debunk the Black Swan without squawking "Refraction!" because that's been squashed already.
"NASA has been covering up the flat Earth since the days of Ptolemy, at least". Well it's 6:54 in the morning and I'm already 'laughing my self silly', as my dear old mom would say. Thank you for the comedic relief in these troubled times.
Don't have to be a flat-earth beliver to do harassment. To some extent, i think flat-earthers just take the wisdom of "question everything" a bit too far. I don't mind them at all, as long as they are decent people to be around. Still haven't met any though.
@Nicholas Mills If you're so confident about your spinning space ball, please join the flat earth debate (Nathan Oakley's channel). You better bring your best arguments for the ball. I'd hate for you to be out-scienced by a bunch of flat earthers.
Have you revised your positions regarding the origin of SARSCoV2 and the associated pandemic models? Which climate models do you refer to, what were the results of their predictions, and how did they do when back-tested against data sets not used to create them?
Going with Popper on this one. Theories that are not scientifically testable are not scientific theories. They may be technical and they may even be true. But the scientific method is about testing to see if its true.
"The function of science is to explain observations." - no Sabine Hossenfelder. The function of science is to make observations, perhaps as Popper suggested, in order to solve a problem. Explanation, requires more than physics, explanation requires metaphysics, and physicists are not well-trained in metaphysics or its associated entanglements of epistemology or ontology. Thus, your models have so many hidden assumptions - likely other unproven theories or suspect "laws" - that explanation is akin to palmistry or numerology, and not the rigorous disciplined science of Francis Bacon. That models are simpler is a desire for Occam's Razor, but philosophers know that his proscription neither holds fully nor is supposed hold, it is merely a benchmark, an analytic Devil's Advocate if you will. You should debunk pseudoscience not with scientism - I am a scientist and thus anything I say is science and if I say it is debunked it is - but rather with an experiment: a repeatable, verifiable, measurable and falsifiable experiment. For example, can human create viral-chimera's in a laboratory. Answer: yes, there are many created each year with published papers. Is it thus possible that SARS2 was engineered? This is not a question for scientists. That is a question for lawyers. Stay inside your purview, please.
Signal 6EQUJ5 My point should of been more clear, I was meaning when saying my point I get called a conspiracy theorist, and get compared to crazy people saying it’s bill gates or 5 g or biologically engineered. Even if I try to be measured.
Tbh don't blame yourself, there's a lot of people in America trying to lie about it to blame Chinese citizens. Whenever someone is near a diseased animal there is a very very tiny chance that the disease could randomly mutate and be infectious to humans too. But all it needs is a tiny chance and eventually it will happen somewhere in the world. Humans are not naturally immune to SARS-CoV-2, so it spread very quickly and had a high death rate.
There is much circumstantial evidence that virus came from lab and has undergone genetic manipulation. See peak prosperity Chanel. The truth may never be known.
You know there's a curious thing about science and pseudoscience. Both are often wrong and honestly sometimes I'm not sure which is wrong more often. I suppose science when wrong is mostly honestly wrong and pseudoscience when right is mostly accidentally right. Though that there is a seeming overlap I find kinda disturbing.
"Now, how to tell science from pseudo-science is a topic with a long history that lots of intelligent people have written lots of intelligent things about... but this is youtube." Sick burn, Sabine. Also this was a great video describing the purpose of science and hypothesis: to describe things simply "with the least amount of assumptions." Very good, I never thought of that before.
Thank you! The last 2 minutes will certainly anger many of your colleagues but so true. It does seem that many, many, so called 'physics' videos on you tube are little more than pseudo science.
@@haroldkahl4610; Well, experts are saying that; and I am perfectly okay with deferring to them. It would be pretty arrogant to suggest I know more about viruses than the people who study viruses for a living. Do you study viruses for a living? If so, I would very much like to hear your thoughts on the matter. Otherwise, you're just some guy with an opinion.
You hit on all the important parts, but left the skeptical light off the scientist or reasearcher. It is also not scientific if you cherry pick the data to support your conclusion. Oh, and gets you a ton of research dollars. And before anyone claps back. Im not talking about a flat earth lol. That baby is round.
Yep, because scientists let each other slide for cherry picking all day long. You should start being a reviewer. Here is a good place to start on Open Review. openreview.net/
@@nias2631 We all have our blind spots and I do believe that academia does have it's blind spot. I appreciate the idea, but no one wants to hear what I have to say. I just put it out there for my own sanity.
@@tomusmc1993 Well, I actually agree with your point. I apologize that I may have taken it too strongly. I am becoming more involved in reviewing machine learning and AI type research to try and eliminate the cherry picking and research that chases funding. It matters so much because credibility in general seems to be becoming more important than ever. Misuse or bad science with ML and Al has huge negative impacts for the nation and the world going forward. Other fields included. Your opinion matters to me because I respect your service to the nation as do many others. I am not sure where it all leads but I will do my part to the best of my ability.
Your view of the climate issue is inconsistent with your opinion on the origin of covid-19. The earth has warmed many times in history. Did industrial emissions cause the Minoan Warm Period, the Roman Warm Period, or the Medieval Warm Period?
Choosing the simplest model (anthropogenic climate change deniers) on a very restrictive selected data basis (vs. basic laws of physics for example) and therefore being likely inconsistent is as bad as choosing a overcomplicated model (origin of SARS-CoV-2). Both mistakes imply that the models generalise/predict very unlikely.
The conspiracy theories show the level of the public’s distrust in the scientific industrial complex. I’m glad Sabine is concerned and is totally not dismissive. Oh. She totally is.
Damit disqualifiziert sie sich komplett … Wer schlau sein will, sollte auch schlau sein. Schauspieler gibt es genug Schade Für die dumme Masse reicht es aber Einen höheren Anspruch hat sie nicht
i agree with everything you said in this video other then using the term "conspiracy theory" Criminal conspiracy is a common criminal action that people are prosecuted everyday. Police detectives FIRST action against the conspiracy is the theory. Then they have to prove it. This would imply police detectives are "conspiracy theorist" Using this term plays into the hands of both those that use unsubstantiated theories and those that make fun of them. You will not change any minds by using this the term "conspiracy theorist"
@@dannygjk True conspiracy can have other meanings. in this case this is criminal conspiracy. Where they believe business and politicians are in on the take with regard to the moon landing and flat earth. My objective is to help them through their errors. Making fun of them ALWAYS solidify their convictions. In the past few month I seen a major swing in those that believe in these unsubstantiated theories. It's rather creepy. People I never would've expected lost their minds.
You are so good at this. Very clearly stated, easily understood and yet quite profound. I will come back to this to remind myself of these points. Thank you. Except that when I hit “save” RUclips saved it to my playlist named “Recipes”. Actually that’s probably correct…😊
The Flat Earth Society is reporting that social distancing is pushing some of its members over the edge.
The Flat Earth Society has gone global.
Good one. 🤣
Fascinating! If they fall off the edge, will they fall forever, or will they eventually hit something?
Sorry but that's nonsense. The edge is guarded by the UN and anyone approaching it is automatically transported back to the center.
Omfg lmao that's a awesome one
Once again, this scientist is outstanding. She presents complex ideas in a concise and elegant fashion, with subtle humor and good visuals.
Bar.
None.
Agree that the visuals are exquisite.
DrSabine ,
Thank you for your excellence in physics!
I find your videos most insightful.
Shes not spouting SCIENCE, she is spouting opinion and belief, much of it based in actual pseudoscience. This is the problem with people today - they dont understand real science. Useless paper Models are a favorite trick of pretender clowns and crayon munchers.
@@angleofelevation8759 Paper is a hoax!
"It is possible to control other people minds, and yet somehow that has not prevented you from figuring out that minds are being controlled". That statement is pure gold Sabine!! Love your work. :)
not quite, but I am happy you are enjoying it
Have you noticed how Sabine has conveniently skipped debunking of the third case?
@@zdenekpavlas3566 The ad-hoc explanation for that would be that she's part of a global conspiracy to create and distribute a deadly pathogen. The simple explanation is that it was just an example she mentioned in passing, not the main point of the video.
@@zdenekpavlas3566 Indeed. And now we are being told it "may" have come from a lab, which many of us held from the beginning.
Isn't that what tin-foil hats are for? Giving you an edge over the mind-controlled masses?
"The scientific explanations are the simple ones, the ones that explain lots of observations with few assumptions." Good video!
Might as well throw evolution out the window then.
@@Max-kn9yi I draw the 'God of the Gaps' card.
Hypothesise the Anunaki impregnating any 'missing links' with reptilian alien DNA.
+5 Absurdist -3 XP +10 Badass
"...have written a lot of intelligent things about. But this is RUclips."
Cracked me up 🤣
I think pseudoscience has an advantage over actual science because it makes you feel like a genius without you having to do actual work. It's like McDonalds for the mind.
Astrology doesn't do the work of collecting data. And when data is found that conflicts with it, the data is ignored. This is another advantage.
@What See what economist Michael Hudson says about "junk economics", which in his opinion is most of economics.
So what pseudoscientific theory would be the equivalent of a happy meal....XD
@@Cyberplayer5 I think classical economics has about the same predictive value in the real world as a happy meal.
@@jeffreyquinn3820 You don't believe in the Big Mac-Index? How dare you!
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Mac_Index
"Arguments that explain everything... explain nothing" - Christopher Hitchens
@mail order tell us about it
You can take that as very clever or very pompous and wrong. I believe you can explain hoe every thing exists in the material universe - but you have to explain what 'no thing' is. In my world The Lattice is all matter-energy, but only perfectly regular, stationary, frozen lattice is truly 'empty'. It kinda sorta explains everything, as well as no thing at all, riddly writing... except The (supposed...) Beginning of The Everything Lattice.
@@PrivateSi In the beginning there was "no thing" and PrivateSi moved apron the void and said let there be light and the hoe universe came into being. XD
Does that very argument itself explain everything following from it. Science stops at what’s experienceable! I give you the aporia of the Kantian Antinomies!
@Eitan Tal I grew up with the "God did it." and "It's that way because God made it that way" type of explanations. The anti-science of fundamentalist religions is what I had in mind in quoting Hitchens. In my mind it doesn't rule out an actual testable "theory of everything" hypothesis. Thank you for prompting me to make that clear.
"... but this is RUclips." 🙃
Ha Ha good one
@@glz1 but not the seedy underbelly of youtube... you know, flat earth, mOoN lAnDiNg HoAx, LiZaRd PeOpLe, and Conspiracehhhhhhhhhh!!!
Yeah I laughed at that one!
Yeah. Sigh.
Yes i feel cringed to people who accused it with "pSeUdOsCiEnCe" term, why you only rely on the science that's in the mainstream side which is not 100% revealed, why don't you be CREATIVE, because creativity brings the idea, just like lightbulb by thomas a. edison, its all hypothesis until they can proof it, just like UFO or alien, after that you can just win the nobel prize. Dig down the ancient technology that has been existed for over 1 million years, time doesn't exist because all event happened in the same time. "Time is but stubborn illusion." - Albert Einstein. "The day science begins to study non-physical phenomena, it will make more progress in one decade than in all the previous centuries of its existence." - Nikola Tesla The Greatest Ascended Master of All Time.
Heh, after reading the title I was counting the minutes until string theory appeared. Sabine, you never let us down!
"literally connects the dots" 🤣 My god Sabine, hats off to your sense of humor!
The simplest explanation for COVID is that the Biolab in the same city as the epicenter of the virus, that was studying bat coronaviruses, and had a record of poor safety protocols, accidentally released the virus. The bat that carried this coronavirus is only found 400 miles from the epicenter. You tell me which is more likely.
@@cat-le1hf You should care, considering that our taxes funded the research. First of all, no one spread the virus on purpose, except maybe Nancy Pelosi, after she told everyone to go visit Chinatown at the beginning of the outbreak, and Cuomo, after he forced nursing homes to take covid patients. Secondly, the only reason to slow the spread, was to keep the hospitals from being overwhelmed. The virus was never going to be stopped. All of China's draconian measures didn't stop the spread, and they were welding people into their homes. And no, the "vaccines" wouldn't stop the spread, because they are only symptom mitigators. You can still get and spread covid if you are "vaccinated".
The only thing that flat earthers fear
...is sphere it self.
You forgot to say "global flat earthers". 😊
**Spherophobia intensifies**
@P. Spit Spheres doesn't exist? And you say that while I eat my spagetti with m e a t b a l l s ?! 😂🤣😜
Your meatballs are flat. You're just looking at them wrong.
@@simongross3122 But I shaped them globally! 😂🤣😜🙋♂️
Love the hat !!
@@dregeye Maybe you don't know, but paranoid schizophrenics have been wearing tin foil hats for DECADES. Long before 5G, 4G, 3G, Wifi, Bluetooth, The Internet, cellphones. The common belief is that the FBI, CIA, NSA, NASA, and the KGB are reading/controlling their thoughts. Yes, maybe 5G is bad, and should be studied further, but your rant isn't a call for research into the "possible" dangers of 5G. It sounds delusional. Try making rational arguments, you might convince someone rational if you do. As it is, only paranoid schizophrenics will listen to you.
@@dregeye She wasn't mocking Faraday Cages. She was mocking whackos who wear them to keep the FBI from reading your thoughts. Sad that you take that so personally.
@@dregeye Go back on your meds.
@@dregeye Change the subject?? You are the one ranting about her very mild mocking of the tin foil hat. Go back on your meds.
This video is a nice example of cognitive dissonance. First she defines "scientific" as observation-based and making as few assumptions as possible. Later she defends some COVID-19 computer model that has been disproved by actual empirical data and had entirely been based on non-empirical mathematical calculations with lots of arbitrary assumptions and no observational data at all.
The scientific value of a model lies in its ability to make true predictions. A model that makes no verifiable predictions is by definition (Popper) not scientific, but nothing more than philosophical speculation.
I was desperately looking for someone to talk about this.I just getting harder and harder.Than you professor!
That hat Sabine 🤣. Oh man I knew I subscribed for a reason. Intelligence and a sense of humor.
This channel is a haven for clear thinking.
"As long as the foundations remain strong..."
@@davidschneide5422 Nah, those foundations are gone. Sorry.
Hauptsache du hast Dir alle Booster gegen die Fledermäuse geholt 🤣🤣🤣
Wenn die Erde eine Scheibe wäre, würden alle Katzen am Rand sitzen und Dinge über die Kante schubbsen. Das ist nicht der Fall - also ist die Erde keine Scheibe. q. e.d.
This is really scientific proof. Observable and repeatable.
Warum finde ich meine abgerissenen Hemdknöpfe nicht, und wo sind all meine linken Socken hin? Wo die Batterieabdeckungen der Fernbedienungen?
Also ich glaube an Katzen!
@@HerbertHeyduck Ok, man kan das sehen und nochmal machen. Genau wie Sabine das sagt. Die Erde soll darum flach sein. Sehr wissenschaftlich.
@@vger5857 Meine linken Socken verschwinden für immer. Wo sollten sie den sonst hin, als von Katzen vom Rand geworfen zu werden?
Immer und immer wieder. Wissenschaftlich überprüfbar!
Ha Ha Ha Ha !! :
Thank you, this is an outstanding explanation of Occam's razor, which is usually stated without giving good rationals.
rationales
Being under Covid19 self isolation I am becoming an immensely intelligent person watching Sabine’s videos.
Thank you for all the hard work preparing these videos. I learned a lot.
Eloquent talk, well considered and descriptive.
Very well done! I hope many folks see this and follow your methodology in deciding pseudo vs actual science.
Stay safe and be well!
I am going to credit Sabine with her usual well presented discussion, but... I must quibble about her use of the pejorative term ‘conspiracy theorist’. Those of us old enough to remember the day were introduced to the term as a synonym for ‘nut case’ with reference to those who questioned the government line on the JFK assassination. There is ample evidence (and especially the 1970 House Assassination Committee conclusion) that there was indeed a conspiracy to kill JFK. But the original connotation stuck, and there is more than a little irony in its continued use as such.
over 20,000 wet markets in china and yet covid "broke out" in the one wetmarket located only a few miles away from the only BSL-4 lab in china
I'm glad you discussed this topic. Thank you Sabine...stay well.
Love your content! You mentioned a few philosophers of science, but my favorite theory is Thagard's. He wrote that "a theory or discipline which purports to be scientific is pseudoscientific if and only if: 1) it has been less progressive than alternative theories over a long period of time and faces many unsolved problems; but 2) the community of practitioners makes little attempt to develop the theory towards solutions of the problems, shows no concern for attempts to evaluate the theory in relation to others, and is selective in considering confirmations and disconfirmations."
Unlike Popper's unfalsifiability( which caused him to take issue with the entire scientific community for his impractical standards), or Lakatos's purely progressive standard, Thagard's definition protects real science and excludes examples of pseudoscience such as astrology quite well.
This also supports your implied stance that string theory is pseudoscientific
@@takatotakasui8307 I'd say that string theory violates the second condition. String theorists to my knowledge are trying quite hard to resolve the unsolved problems and compare their results with observations and currently accepted theories whenever feasible/possible. The problem is that currently string theory predicts a _lot_ of different possible universes, which makes coming up with testable predictions very hard. However, there are some, most famous being existence of supersymmetric particles, and many lesser known predictions which unfortunately are in energy scales not accessible by current technology. And of course, in "low" energies string theory reduces to QFT and GR, both of which have been tested extensively, so in a sense all predictions of current theories are also predictions of string theory. But people are still trying to come up with new feasible experiments which would differentiate string theory from others.
String theory thus isn't pseudoscience according to Thagard's definition, and it's status is currently a bit questionable according to Popper's definition. Here I thus agree with Sabine: string theory has potential to become scientific theory at some point, but it would require tons of recources at least some of which would probably be better spent to study other promising thories of fundamental physics.
I like this definition a lot, even though its terms are not all well-defined.
@@david203 There is some practical vagueness in there but I don't mind. In practice, when it comes to identifying pseudoscience you know it when you see it
@@takatotakasui8307 I suspect that, in general, that is not true. In order to identify pseudoscience, it is necessary to have an education in science, or at least in critical thinking. Many people do not have this education. That is why there is so much pseudoscience in the comments in the first place.
6:03
LMAO.
This should replace the "Roll Safe" meme.
Sabine you are amazing. You are the first person in years to change my ideas on what constitutes science.
"That does not mean that it is wrong, but that it is not scientific."
This one statement - the fact that you accept that there may be things that are not scientific, but still true, propels you past so many other populist scientists (I mean that in very much a positive sense - a scientist who strives to communicate with the public like Carl Sagan, for example).
Brilliant, as always.
It's one of the reasons I adore her. I have a few other physicists that I like. But they can get a sneer in their voices when they get into philosophical/religious beliefs. As one likes to say, "It's all physics!". Apparently any other belief indicates the person is mentally ill.
@@johnmckown1267 I am sure she doesn't believe in anything religious. But if you really understand science you see that it has limitations and cannot necessarily capture all of reality and some truths are out of reach with this method.
@@cherubin7th Well said! It's frustrating how many people can't grasp this simple fact.
My god, you provide some of the best scientific content on the web and the comments are some of the dumbest on the web. Is there a law for this interaction?
It's Hawking's Third Law: "Reading RUclips comments equals the square of the velocity of brain cell loss times the Goulash constant by two Pi.
When you point a finger at someone else... three point back at you.
Perhaps there is?! Here we are with a research topic for a social scientist.
Everybody's a comedian.
6:03 So here we learn the difference between predictions and projections. Good to know. But I can't predict whether I'll still remember it next year.
THIS woman is totally brilliant, an outstanding educator, physically beautiful, creative singer!
I read somewhere that one can roughly measure the value of a model by comparing the information content in the observations that are explained with the information content required to specify the model. This corresponds to some of what Sabine is saying here. So a model that explains random observations would have to basically have as much information in it as the data, but a set of observations that can be explained by a simple set of equations or pattern generators has a high value. Makes sense.
so now in retrospect, with so many microbiologists saying that the virus is engineered, and noting that people are attacked for asking questions (which is religious behaviour),
I expect you changed the definition of the covid being a conspiracy theory.
The Professor Doctor is concise and authoritative. And she rocks that red velvet jacket!
She captains the vessel of reason through the rocky straits of quackery in style. I want the jacket.
be careful Scientist lady! you're about to be a meme.
Why is she about to be a meme
@@miguelpereira9859 because I screenshot her and I'm working on several ideas for memes, i'll post them at r/physicsmemes
@@hmdshokri Seems reasonable enough an explanation
@TurboCMinusMinus and her "lie by omission" by NOT mentioning the proven legitimate PROTECTION against electromagnetic radiation. It's called a FARADAY CAGE, and they work, SCIENTIFICALLY!
Haha yep
So much burn for string theory. But it's a healthy burn: because string theory has already become metaphysics, it's time to do some physics instead.
I think metaphysics is where we need to go if we want to make progress in physics. It sounds bad for something to be unscientific but at the foundations of physics that prerequisite is so overrated
String Theory is a very promising theory and has been for decades. Promising … not delivering.
I can't believe scientists are still perusing string theory. How many assumptions have they made to prop up their theory?
@@DavidJohnson-tv2nn Tons so far. They keep adding dimensions, interactions, geometries and phenomena...Pure mathematical fiction. BUT, ihmo, it must be done, if anything, to disprove it as thoroughly as possible.
@@kashu7691 Absolutely not. Almost all metaphsyics is incompatible with the scientific method.
I like your straightforward style, Sabine - have a sub :)
Many science content makers are entertaining, but there's always rambling and waste of time.
Same as for energy, your videos are very much "intelly-dense" let's say. All the bits of your videos are packed with useful concepts. Needless to say you've become one my most admired few science spreaders! One of my concerns is the financing aspect or funding te "wrong" experiments, and you didn't leave it out. Congratulations
I'm so glad we worked out the world wasn't flat before we walked off the end..
Just look at a ship closing in on the horizont. You know the earth can't be flat. On the other hand earth is not a perfect sphere, but that's for another video.
@@EK-gr9gd "Just look at a ship closing in on the horizont"...i wouldnt go there if i were you,
Flatters will run rings around you till you dont know anymore what is up and down...
As a thought experiment, if you are not really good at science, it is interesting because they have answers for everything. Then one becomes aware of how much one simply believes because one was told so.
Which in itself, is very healthy. I know of highly MIT educated AI inventors who took it on board as thought experiment.
.
Even Sabine doesnt go into the details, because it would take her hours and i think she is not out to get cheap clicks just making fun of folk, apart from the occasional tin foil hat.
Besides, it has been done, but it took a long time to shut them up.
.
And, some still believe, simply like some believe jesus was born from a virgin, or te world was created in 6 days, 6000 years ago. They dont care about science. And that is their right.
.
The fact that an incredible amount of people would have to be in on the conspiracy, (and no one revealing the secret), is usually what gets the less educated "round".
It is just a tad bit tooo paranoid crazy.
The Earth is not flat. Because if it was, cats would have knocked everything off the edge. Fact.
@@hammerstrumm The "immaculate conception" is possible, purely biological.
But its just an translation error, someone translated a word or in expression, that meant "young woman" with "virgo".
@@EK-gr9gd Thanks for the translation explanation.
While i was typing, i felt doubt creep in, which i gnored.
a quick google search gave me this: yes, possible, unless you are a mammal.www.sciencealert.com/turns-out-virgin-birth-is-possible
And, i did not realise the church meant that Maria was absolved from (the original) sin and her soul remained pure. Hmmm...All because of a translation error.
And thus we plough on, trying to make sense of it all. :)
String theory as an example of pseudoscience - low blow, haha
As always, the best dressed physicist on RUclips.
@Chuck Wettish - that’s why I subscribed, I have no interest in physics!
@Chuck Wettish - yeah, come to think of it you’re right! Quantum entanglement, super symmetry, M-theory. Hmm, maybe I’ll do a degree in it.
@Chuck Wettish - nice talking to you Chuck, makes a change from all the toxicity here on RUclips.
And the best singer.
Thank you. The first part of the video succinctly explains why Occam's Razor works.
You actually correct your mistakes in the description of the video. I wish more YT-ers would that. Thank you for making this vid.
I am a graduate from an engineering school, and have given up doing deep science, I only do basic science for daily work life.
And I'm really glad your videos allows someone like me to keep updating my knowledge and not become lobotomized. Thanks !
"have given up doing deep science, I only do basic science for daily work life." What the fuck does this even mean?
@@TheUndulyNoted Is he maybe a cleaning clerk at CERN now?
6:03 I just burst out laughing.
Yeah but there's NO SUCH THING as COINCIDENCE! 😳🤦♂️
3 weeks later I just clicked it knowing exactly what I'd see, and laughed again.
@Drew Binz A coincidence is predictable, it just means two things happen at about the same time.
My reading of your reply will coincide with your posting it.
I will not read it because you post it but because I have already chosen to read it IF you post it.
How many tees are there in Buuuut?
My reply shows that your reply made no sense.
String Theory is proof positive that scientist aren't immune from emotional arguments/rational nor are they immune from personal belief clouding their judgment.
String Theory is a terrible example & does NOTHING to demonstrate scientists' personal human biases.
A FAR BETTER example would be Bigfoot & ufology. Far too many academics NEVER INVESTIGATE the evidence & reports about sightings but instead only do ARMCHAIR pontifications.
Yeah I'm with the other commenter here the father of String Theory Leonard Susskind I think he would agree that there is no proof positive of string theory.
@@theultimatereductionist7592 It's the same reason scientists don't spend their time debunking the bible. There's no need to investigate fairy tales.
Science is never wrong.
That's like saying that mathematics is wrong.
Scientists can be wrong, and often are. Science helps us identify and correct those errors.
Not so. Scientists are always coming up with far-out ideas. Most are found to be untenable. A few find a place in science.
Consider how utterly ridiculous Wegener's idea that parts of the Earth's surface moved, when he first put it forward. And yet, plate tectonics is now a generally accepted theory.
As JBS Haldane said, "The Universe is not only queerer than we suppose. It's queerer than we can suppose."
Wild ideas are a part of science. Experiment and observation weed out the ones that don't work.
I heard of your RUclips channel through a podcast. Great channel and keep it up please. I’m in pilot school haha so there’s a demographic you hit! So sick of the politics in today’s world and your channel is a breath of fresh air!
I don’t see how evolution is any more than an observation- what survives survives. Wow. Big paradigm shift there.
No, variations in organisms which by chance are better fitted to their environment are statistically more likely to survive, which is testable and has been tested.
Do we still think covid came from bats? Lol
Many scientists do, yes.
@@sharkrancher282 lol
@@sandramae1772; It sounds like you see your position as obvious. Which is a pretty big clue that you are NOT using critical thinking. Why not?
I rely on sources that I've grown to trust - like this one!
Hey Sabine, just wanted your thoughts on what Bret Weinstein said recently on JRE regarding the possibility of SARS-CoV2 having signs of being manufactured. Originally he thought it was simply a matter of zoonotic transmission (as you've stated here), but looking more closely at the actual genome, he suggests there's a specific sequence that is unlikely (although not impossible) to have been attained naturally. The virus' ability to bypass certain evolutionary steps that are required for it to spread efficiently as it has has him leaning more toward the "conspiracy" theories, although not necessarily for financial benefits, but simply that it was an experiment gone wrong. Considering he's a famous evolutionary biologist, I thought that was an interesting take.
Might want a biologist, Sabine's a physicist. A bio engineering friend of mine with a startup in this field thought bad lab practices are likely. At the outside propagating it could have been part of the process that led here. But that is not high probability. He was just curiosity snooping so it's really just an opinion.
Are we really afraid of flat earthers? Do they present that much of a problem? Are they corrupting the youth of the world? If you’re having trouble determining if something is pseudoscience, just see if it’s a big issue in the political realm. That will tell you. Politics is never about science.
To be fair, she didn't argued that Covid wasn't engineered. Actually she didn't took any position in this specific question.
She only stated the (conspiracy) theory that it was engineered by the Pharma industry. A small but important difference!
I would disregard Bret Weinstein analysis. My read is he is leveraging a his bad experience at Evergreen College to become an independent provocateur and has parlayed his scientific credentials for pseudoscience and the chance to be the next J. Peterson. Also the consensus in intelligence and scientific community is that virus was natural occuring mutation.
@@Astuga She seemed to put the idea of viral engineering into a "pseudoscience" category. I don't agree with that.
Maybe I don't quite understand what she's trying to say since she's not talking in her native language.
Ah yes, Gifth Feneration Telefone Knetwork.
P.S.: I like the way you pronounce "pseudoscience".
You make these topics very accessible! I'm barely coherent today yet I still came away with an even better understanding of scientific models than I already had!
P.P.S.: That is a very cool coat
Hi Sabine, nice video! I just wanted to point out that I'm not sure what you exactly mean, in your example about darwinian evolution, with that "arguably no one has done it ["quantifying the fit to the data"] before". There's tons of research on inferring phylogenetic trees from data over the state of either genetic or phenotypic traits (assuming different kinds of evolutionary models, i. e. rates and mode of change) and then calculating the probabilities of each tree given the data. Maybe you meant to fit the whole "darwinian evolution" (assuming that means some current version of the modern synthesis) theory to data, and not certain model from within the whole theory (i. e. models that already assume a shared ancestry, as the ones I mentioned, although it should be remarked that they are not necessarily "fully darwinian" in their explicit assumptions, meaning that they do not necessarily include assumptions about selection)? Because that was precisely one of the main ideas within the foundations of the modern synthesis: to describe natural selection and evolution processes quantitatively with mathematical models. However, if you're thinking about "fully quantitatively" comparing contemporary neodarwinism "fit to data" with other models like, let's say, lamarckism or creationism, there I don't know about someone who may have done it explicitely. Probably because nowadays few (in academia...) would take these alternative models seriously enough to take time to develop quantitative versions of them to be compared...
Excellent video Sabine! Thank you. Minor correction: the wireless network is called 5G. Not G5. Good point on prediction vs projection on COVID19 models.
The Panasonic G5 is a great camera. The Power Mac G5 was also a terrific computer. 😋
"... but this is RUclips."
HAHA! 😄
Yea but this is not some anonymous armchair conspiracy crackpot and flat earth nutjob youtube video made by another anonymous armchair conspiracy crackpot and flat earth nutjob from the seedy underbelly of youtube.
Science is the application of the scientific method.
Wrong
Which is based on OBSERVATION. It sometime can't be observed, then it is not subject to scientific analysis. Such as the actual Big Bang. At least from what I have read, the CMB is as far back as we can observe. What happened before is speculation based on running the model farther back, but without the assurance that the model is correct enough in whatever the situation was before the CMB came to be.
No, this is the definition of Applied Science.
From wikipedia, but an extremely concise explanation of the definition of science.
"Science (from the Latin word scientia, meaning "knowledge")[1] is a systematic enterprise that builds and organizes knowledge in the form of testable explanations and predictions about the universe."
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science
The most important point was last: "The [research] decision[s] fall to those who fund the research."
So whether it's "climate change" or "COVID-[n]" follow the money.
"It's not a prediction because we cannot predict whether large events will be canceled".
Hmm, I don't think I agree with the statement that scientific models don't need to be predictive. You could argue that the pandemic model is making predictions _conditional on events_ hence the if-then statements. It estimates that (a specified thing) will happen in the future or will be a consequence of something, pretty much what a prediction is.
I would also argue, with less conviction, that given prior data on what governments have done before with respect to pandemics, policy decisions can to some degree still be predicted. If you were more ambitious, you could even try to quantify the frequency of governments of certain ideologies and/or nations listening to healthcare experts and try to incorporate that data as well.
Lastly, there is a whole domain of literature on empirically examining the theory of evolution, so not sure what you mean by no one attempting to quantify the fit to data.
I agree that she is describing _conditional_ predictions. Those are still predictions. They are still falsifiable (-ish).
Absolutely love the hat, Sabine.
@walt7500 Falsifiable is relevant when deciding what is and what isn't pseudoscience.
I have explained in more detail why predictions are unnecessary here:
backreaction.blogspot.com/2020/05/predictions-are-overrated.html
And here:
www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-truth-about-scientific-models/
@@SabineHossenfelder I thought Popper took into account most of the objections you raise with parsimony and what he called "bravery" of predictions. I remember Poppers conclusion to be pretty much the same as the conclusion of your Sci Am article... Predictions/models should explain the data with the fewest assumptions, but they're no good if they are so vague that they also predict tons of observations that we _don't_ see.
@@SabineHossenfelder I'm also confused about excluding _conditional_ predictions from the category "predictions". Aren't _all_ predictions subject to "conditions"?
A model for the spreading of contagions that had no predictive value (conditions included), would have no value at all, in containing the contagion.
Better yet, ask about the validity of the data (in the first place).
We do seem to get burned a lot by not asking this basic question for sure.
@@patrickfitzgerald2861 that's the place where "the rubber meets the road."
@@patrickfitzgerald2861 It's really the proper first question that SHOULD be asked of any study. Most reviewers are bamboozled by the statistical techniques of the moment, which are really the slight of hand used to distract the reader to the conclusions. The data descriptors seem so simple and innocent so they are ignored. Pity.
@@danieljackson654 Agreed, and something that the pseudoscience of economics gets away with all the time.
If psuedo science can be sold to the investor, the scientist can remain perpetually busy looking for answers that can't be found. This is how scientists job security can be at odds with scientific progress.
I'm getting too into you. You have the vibe of a dream. Your line of thinking and your physique...you're "interesting." I can listen to you for quite a while. The correlation between your phenotype and and behavior. You're...interesting.
This my friends is the HONEY BADGER of physics!
"Doesn't give a shit"
My new favorite science educator.
💘!!!
Bravo! Oh by the way String theory should have never been called "theory" ,until it was proven to be one.
It is String Hypothesis. At best.
Great point..
While we're at it, where is that dark matter we've spent billions of dollars ASSUMING was real?
All because an equation needed another variable.. Why not just invent one, then spend decades looking for that?
@Vinny Holiday
Exactly, and no more valid than the crackpot flat Earthers theories..
Also, where's all that dark matter we've spent billions looking for because an equation needed another variable.. lmao
For dark matter there is at least some real world evidence for its possible existence. Whereas string theory began with a big fat assumption (that everything is made of strings) for which there is no physical evidence whatsoever.
@@Shifter-1040ST Indeed, that is a real difference. Scientists, like everyone else, leap to conclusions too quickly. Dark matter? Dark energy? We just don't know as yet.
Like the hat.
Ha! I was thinking the same thing...
She put a lot of work into that hat!
What if a climate model fails to replicate time frames with known data but succeeds to simulate other time frames.
For instance, periods in time with high CO2 but low temperatures and vice versa.
If they only point at the time frame the model works for but leave out where it doesn't work it can still be misrepresented as being an accurate model.
shhh. don't talk about that, people will think you are a Denier
Impressive. The presentation of the topic was great! The background was awesome. Totally loved the Tin hat! I am a fan.
Lol@that hat! A brilliant woman having a little fun, while discussing important topic. Time well spent!
Great presentation👍🏻thank you!
String Theory BURN! 🎤💧
Oh no, You've invited the Wrath of the flat earthers. Careful you're about to be hit with a wave of living examples of The Dunning-Kruger effect.
I don't see this as a problem, because all flattards are so consistently hilarious! Flattardia does boast members from all around the globe, after all! I always enjoy almost endless laughter from every element of their 'offerings'! Just light the fuse and...
Can you post the timestamp where the flat earth was debunked or the oblate-spheroidal shape was proven? What is the radius of your globe earth? The Black Swan image (see bmlsb69's channel) that cannot be refuted by anyone puts the 3959 mile radius (you buy into) to upwards of 200,000 miles. You ball believers love your math so much but never question where you live. Why? Because someone told you early on it was a ball and even had pictures/videos to show you. Hopefully, Sabine can debunk the Black Swan without squawking "Refraction!" because that's been squashed already.
This video didn't age well with the Lab Theory being the true and temperature Bat theory being propaganda.
I like this (experimental?) physicist's approach to pseudoscience. Don't tell them "you are wrong", say "your model is overfitting the data" :)
"NASA has been covering up the flat Earth since the days of Ptolemy, at least". Well it's 6:54 in the morning and I'm already 'laughing my self silly', as my dear old mom would say. Thank you for the comedic relief in these troubled times.
Flat earthers will strike Sabine. They don’t do science but they do harassment.
Don't have to be a flat-earth beliver to do harassment. To some extent, i think flat-earthers just take the wisdom of "question everything" a bit too far. I don't mind them at all, as long as they are decent people to be around. Still haven't met any though.
@Nicholas Mills If you're so confident about your spinning space ball, please join the flat earth debate (Nathan Oakley's channel). You better bring your best arguments for the ball. I'd hate for you to be out-scienced by a bunch of flat earthers.
Have you revised your positions regarding the origin of SARSCoV2 and the associated pandemic models?
Which climate models do you refer to, what were the results of their predictions, and how did they do when back-tested against data sets not used to create them?
Sie will ihren Job behalten. Sie weiss dass sie Sklavin im System ist. Einen Scheiss wird sie
This reminds me of all the beautiful String Theories out there.... adapt parameters and explain everything (or nothing at all)
Going with Popper on this one. Theories that are not scientifically testable are not scientific theories. They may be technical and they may even be true. But the scientific method is about testing to see if its true.
"The function of science is to explain observations." - no Sabine Hossenfelder. The function of science is to make observations, perhaps as Popper suggested, in order to solve a problem. Explanation, requires more than physics, explanation requires metaphysics, and physicists are not well-trained in metaphysics or its associated entanglements of epistemology or ontology.
Thus, your models have so many hidden assumptions - likely other unproven theories or suspect "laws" - that explanation is akin to palmistry or
numerology, and not the rigorous disciplined science of Francis Bacon. That models are simpler is a desire for Occam's Razor, but philosophers know that his proscription neither holds fully nor is supposed hold, it is merely a benchmark, an analytic Devil's Advocate if you will.
You should debunk pseudoscience not with scientism - I am a scientist and thus anything I say is science and if I say it is debunked it is - but rather with an experiment: a repeatable, verifiable, measurable and falsifiable experiment. For example, can human create viral-chimera's in a laboratory. Answer: yes, there are many created each year with published papers. Is it thus possible that SARS2 was engineered? This is not a question for scientists. That is a question for lawyers. Stay inside your purview, please.
What about covid leaking from a lab unintentionally is that a invalid hypothesis. Am I a conspiracy theorist oh no
Why would you think so tho, when all the evidence says thats not the case
Signal 6EQUJ5 My point should of been more clear, I was meaning when saying my point I get called a conspiracy theorist, and get compared to crazy people saying it’s bill gates or 5 g or biologically engineered. Even if I try to be measured.
Tbh don't blame yourself, there's a lot of people in America trying to lie about it to blame Chinese citizens. Whenever someone is near a diseased animal there is a very very tiny chance that the disease could randomly mutate and be infectious to humans too. But all it needs is a tiny chance and eventually it will happen somewhere in the world. Humans are not naturally immune to SARS-CoV-2, so it spread very quickly and had a high death rate.
Fin you mean how China admits it didn’t come from the wet food market.
There is much circumstantial evidence that virus came from lab and has undergone genetic manipulation. See peak prosperity Chanel. The truth may never be known.
You know there's a curious thing about science and pseudoscience. Both are often wrong and honestly sometimes I'm not sure which is wrong more often. I suppose science when wrong is mostly honestly wrong and pseudoscience when right is mostly accidentally right. Though that there is a seeming overlap I find kinda disturbing.
"Now, how to tell science from pseudo-science is a topic with a long history that lots of intelligent people have written lots of intelligent things about... but this is youtube." Sick burn, Sabine. Also this was a great video describing the purpose of science and hypothesis: to describe things simply "with the least amount of assumptions." Very good, I never thought of that before.
That's missing an essential part though. It is to describe things *accurately, not just simply.
Thank you! The last 2 minutes will certainly anger many of your colleagues but so true. It does seem that many, many, so called 'physics' videos on you tube are little more than pseudo science.
What? String theory is not science???
@Signal 6EQUJ5 : )
Yes, she even wrote a book about it.
@@a.randomjack6661 : )
This did not age well regarding the coronavirus.
Oh?
I'm writing from the future (not the one with jetpacks), and her projections turned out to be pretty spot-on.
@@sharkrancher282 Are you saying you think the virus jumped over from another species rather than coming from the Chinese lab?
@@haroldkahl4610; Well, experts are saying that; and I am perfectly okay with deferring to them. It would be pretty arrogant to suggest I know more about viruses than the people who study viruses for a living.
Do you study viruses for a living? If so, I would very much like to hear your thoughts on the matter. Otherwise, you're just some guy with an opinion.
You hit on all the important parts, but left the skeptical light off the scientist or reasearcher.
It is also not scientific if you cherry pick the data to support your conclusion. Oh, and gets you a ton of research dollars.
And before anyone claps back. Im not talking about a flat earth lol. That baby is round.
I liked Marines. Best wishes from a former squid.
@@toms.e9365 Thank you Sir. If anyone spends anytime on a ship they intuitively know anyone in the Navy works their butt off. Thanks for your service
Yep, because scientists let each other slide for cherry picking all day long. You should start being a reviewer. Here is a good place to start on Open Review. openreview.net/
@@nias2631 We all have our blind spots and I do believe that academia does have it's blind spot.
I appreciate the idea, but no one wants to hear what I have to say. I just put it out there for my own sanity.
@@tomusmc1993 Well, I actually agree with your point. I apologize that I may have taken it too strongly. I am becoming more involved in reviewing machine learning and AI type research to try and eliminate the cherry picking and research that chases funding. It matters so much because credibility in general seems to be becoming more important than ever. Misuse or bad science with ML and Al has huge negative impacts for the nation and the world going forward. Other fields included. Your opinion matters to me because I respect your service to the nation as do many others. I am not sure where it all leads but I will do my part to the best of my ability.
Sabine in Dante from Devil May Cry costume.
Y E S
You forgot Rule 1#
Run your experiment twice
Hahaha good show she's the only one,I can talk to.Understand !
Merch the hat.
I liked the video except for you buying into the AGWer's data tampering.
Your view of the climate issue is inconsistent with your opinion on the origin of covid-19. The earth has warmed many times in history. Did industrial emissions cause the Minoan Warm Period, the Roman Warm Period, or the Medieval Warm Period?
Choosing the simplest model (anthropogenic climate change deniers) on a very restrictive selected data basis (vs. basic laws of physics for example) and therefore being likely inconsistent is as bad as choosing a overcomplicated model (origin of SARS-CoV-2).
Both mistakes imply that the models generalise/predict very unlikely.
The conspiracy theories show the level of the public’s distrust in the scientific industrial complex. I’m glad Sabine is concerned and is totally not dismissive. Oh. She totally is.
Excellent lucid explanation I have ever heard! You have a brilliant mind. Thank you
Covid part didn’t age well :D
Damit disqualifiziert sie sich komplett …
Wer schlau sein will, sollte auch schlau sein.
Schauspieler gibt es genug
Schade
Für die dumme Masse reicht es aber
Einen höheren Anspruch hat sie nicht
i agree with everything you said in this video other then using the term "conspiracy theory"
Criminal conspiracy is a common criminal action that people are prosecuted everyday.
Police detectives FIRST action against the conspiracy is the theory. Then they have to prove it.
This would imply police detectives are "conspiracy theorist"
Using this term plays into the hands of both those that use unsubstantiated theories and those that make fun of them. You will not change any minds by using this the term "conspiracy theorist"
The word, 'conspiracy', has more than one usage.
@@dannygjk True conspiracy can have other meanings. in this case this is criminal conspiracy. Where they believe business and politicians are in on the take with regard to the moon landing and flat earth. My objective is to help them through their errors. Making fun of them ALWAYS solidify their convictions. In the past few month I seen a major swing in those that believe in these unsubstantiated theories. It's rather creepy. People I never would've expected lost their minds.
That headgear really accentuates the beauty in your eyes! Thanks for sharing.
You are so good at this. Very clearly stated, easily understood and yet quite profound. I will come back to this to remind myself of these points. Thank you. Except that when I hit “save” RUclips saved it to my playlist named “Recipes”. Actually that’s probably correct…😊
That was a very clearly and logical explanation, thank you very much!
There is no authority who decides what is a good idea.
Richard Feynman
Yes, there is: Time!