What a great way to learn new things, where everyone have access to see without paying something. "Learning is a large process, where you have the opportunity to teach others that are able to grow up above the ordinary. "
Socialising science makes sense. If it is public, we can learn from it, test it scrutinise it and add to it. Democratising science? We shouldn't vote for the rubbish being published, it needs to be peer reviewed by relevant and impartial professionals. Availability is important; scientific knowledge can not be "owned" by corporations or individuals. It should be made available for scrutiny by and benefit of all.
The truth isn't voted on. It's absurd and naive. Dangerous potentially in different but similar ways to marx ideas. Great on paper but deadly upon implementation. Science relies on a very harsh hierarchy and that came about out of necessity. (I do not mean people in charge of other people to be clear here) What she is really talking about is destroying science in favor of politics...the compartmentalizing is very important.
@@chrisallum9044 That was my point. The 97% consensus climate change nonsense came about from asking two separate questions to a consortium of scientists and then making a false claim that both opinions combined to form a third opinion; it is absurd and has had catastrophic consequences, leading people to mistrust real science or worse yet, believe the hyped up BS. We need access to real science, not have to pay $35 a pop to read research papers. The papers need proper scrutiny and the validation published with the conclusions.
So you're saying all scientific information should be available to all? It sounds like what should be valued most in terms of what is considered valuable is only what is peer reviewed by professional, most likely not impartial scientists though which isn't helpful.
Then there becomes absolutely no incentive to create science. America spends billions of dollars towards research under the assumption that they own it under intellectual property laws. China treats it as public knowledge. They hack and steal massive amounts of knowledge from the U.S, and, predictably, they contribute very little to these fields.
Sounds fascinating , I’m a bit confused because she holds up CHINA and later talks about cultural diversity and its value and than throws in stuff about being ethical... this is a slick discussion at face value it is very shiny. I don’t want to throw the baby out with the bath water..... BE AWARE
The problem, Doc, is that humans have very recently gone from near extinction during the last Ice Age, to drastically overpopulating the planet in around 12,000ish years. That's not much time. Certainly not enough time to dilute the concentrations of genetic mutation that must have developed due to an inability to... diversify with people outside of small isolated populations over many generations. So we have a very large population of people all sharing the remnants of these mutations fresh in their genetic code. For instance, you could safely suggest 72% of all humans in any given sample are, for the lack of any better term in the entire human lexicon spanning all known and extinct languages, fukpotatos. In other words, the vast majority of the human population cannot meet the minimum standard of Successful Democracy, scientific or otherwise. To be informed. Defects in mental capacity, physical abnormalities, mental illness, offensive emanations of all flavor and scent, as well as genetic diseases both known and being slowly discovered as the population continues to expand, acting as a magnifying glass for genetic abnormality and actively preventing the development of key cognitive skills required for scientific thinking. We have to accept that this population of people can, has, and will continue to negatively affect any attempt to democratize or directly focus any and all human efforts. Faith failed, force failed, debt slavery failed, and big data will ultimately fail to enslave and harness real human potential. Humanity has accomplished almost nothing through the combined will and ability of the proverbial many. We've only ever been exploited, on mass, to satiate the whims of the few. Democracy itself is a newborn experiment. Civilization has come, gone, and been wiped away before there was an us to rise from the ice. We are newly born orphans thrown in the river for our imperfections. So no, combining the opinions of those not properly vetted and isolated from the general public, and instead decided upon through the process of popular appeal would be anti-scientific. 72% of all humans in any given sample lack the education, mental capacity, and/or access to mental training required to even think scientifically about surface layer observations. They lack the ability to step back and take in the big picture. Many even fervently deny there is any bigger picture or that any perspective other than their own even exists. This type of utopic impossibility isn't even valuable to speculate about until we've managed to overcome the notion that mutually assured destruction is a path to peace and not extinction. tl;dr you are very wrong, for very good reasons, and you should abandon this idea immediately while encouraging as many other people as possible to do the same.
@m. a. you seem upset on the web. Can I interest you in some pills designed to raisen't your below room temperatureness? (speak of the deviled potatoes amarite fellahs?)
I think that that is the problem we currently face, a hierarchy decides what science model we will implement & then indoctrinates a mob to enforce it under the guise of a democratic consensus. this hierarchy decides what models get implemented, what labs get funded, what research is published, what factors are considered, etc. I am no scientist but i can argue how astrology is based in science however do you honestly think the scientific community will acknowledge astrology? Science likes to claim fact however asks for one free miracle, the big bang!!
Somehow, that just sounds like crowdsourcing the grunt work. How is that going to improve science? Publications will still paywall content and scientists are either "forced" to play the game or just want the money, because others at least make part of their research available. If you want fully publicly accessible science, you will need a fund the vast majority of the world paid into and then who's going to get it? Already, funding is corrupt to the core, as is peer review. Science has more than one problem and crowdsourcing isn't helping most. This isn't saving science, it's not even addressing the major issues. The replication crises most sciences have, the third party funding and conflict of interest problems, none of these are even considered in your talk. Your covid example clearly shows how cooperation only happens when there is a global interest and everyone profits from what they put in, plus the rest don't care if they get screwed over for their contribution by tag-alongs because their problem is now bigger. Now try that with climate, or mental health: you'll find vastly differing interests and therefore, competition begins anew. What I do agree on is that the silos must fall. And they already are. Typically, where money is to be made and someone has a basic idea of multiple fields and sees synergy. This is what can be fixed in education, once they stop falling for the "optimisation" meme and stop treating schools like factories as if you could just produce the next top tier of humanity.
YOU are Africa, YOU are Nigeria. So if you think your comment just put a continental or national geographical location down, you're wrong...You just put yourself down.
we actually have Mozak players from Nigeria (and several other African Nations). I am also working with a few different organizations for greater engagement in African science, (which has some highly imaginative innovators) so hang in there! They are trying....
Really cool to see actual effort from people to make a collaborative platform like this. This is much better than just throwing your woke ideology in the air and expect people to fix your problems. This woman is setting an example for people with crazy, but really cool and useful ideas to follow, which is to actually realize your idea and make it usable before boasting about it and complaining that people don't care and are oppressing society.
Also the hierarchy and discrimination when it comes to get scientific degree or scientific workforce. In some country, many scientific jobs, including field scientist, only accept male. People who are autistic also hard to get the job even though their grade is excellent due to less capable to socializing, and regarded "impolite".
The title is democratizing science which is even worse. Are we going to vote for what is good research? Are we letting the Muricas decide what is knowledge, cause we might as well just jump off a cliff by that point
No, that's not even close to what that means. She brought up where she worked in LA but, the point was what she worked on not where. This talk was to inform people on a program that includes Citizens in science projects that can use the collective power to solve problems faster.
Totally agree. Let us form active part of this open science movement. De acuerdo por completo, requerimos un movimiento decidido por la ciencia abierta a todo público para reducir los sesgos cognitivos, las falsas noticias, la manipulación, la desigualdad y la ciencia en obeliscos lejanos a las múltiples necesidades. Grace. Graciela Staines UNAM México
We need to “democratize” science in the sense that all scientific knowledge should be freely available to all, and as many people should have the resources to conduct their own experiments as possible. The tools and methods of science should not be kept in elitist ivory towers.
I was actually profoundly successful, funded and well published and at the top of my field when I made this choice. Failed scientists dont get invited t the White house multiple tomes to be experts. Sorry if that wasnt clear.
Most, if not all, governments operate within schlock-science (like watching a few episodes of Animal Planet and figuring that's all there is to biology). At the end of this presentation, you dropped all the buzz-words of schlock-science, none of which are in your field of expertise.
Is there any chance for beginner scientist (me) to contribute to open access/science? I have a project which is call to gather orthopedic data from students in my region. Project has started not so long ago, almost 2 months. Nevertheless, from the beginning, I want to choose the correct vector of project development which would match with up-to-date scientific ideas. So I would be happy to find someone who would be able to advice me or show the right way)
Dear Ladies and Gentlemen ... I wish you a happy new year! The new year has arrived! A new ERA is coming! all troubles are behind! May the good mood never leave you !! Good luck to you, good luck to us !, good luck to everyone! ... I love you all ... With a bow, Gennady. Expensive! I am from Russia, Siberian ... I position myself: INVENTOR! .. My know-how!, (Rotary-conveyor type of power take-off) will allow you to get energy from the river flow without any special hydraulic structures. No coal, gas or oil ... all year round - ecological. Show in full ....
Could we please cease and desist with the racism and sexism against the very people who created science. Wilder Penfield, Albert Einstein, Isaac Newton, thank you. We appreciate your creation, so that all peoples can see what you did first, for us all.
In the Constitution we have 3 branches (Executive, legislative and judicial). How can we add the other branch ? It’s the science branch. This branch will independently to all of the three branches above. This branch will help humanity living in the environment cleaner, select the foods healthier, educated people understand the science clarifier and prepare for the critical of things coming from nature or by human.
Bruh do you think 2020 is an isolated event?? Pandemics have always been and will always be a thing where huge numbers of people gather. Tbh tho we're probably not gonna be around to see it - not only 'cause it's usually just one per century, but also because climate change will kill us all before then lol 🤘🏼🤘🏼
Oh wow! This reminds me of how beauty of nature nurtures all of us in whichever way we look. Really such talks gladen my heart. How l wish we were physically together (surely u get my hug) though there is emphasis for social distancing. Thanks sooo ooo much (So gratified)👏👏
Fantastic - this is absolutely your calling, so glad I watched this!
I used to get a magazine from Norway on community based citizen science. Epigenetics can be presented easily and change lives including brains.
Epigenetics is so interesting, it can explain how gene expression can be different based on their environment
Goodbye, Tedx Talks. There was a day, long ago, when you were something positive and special. Long ago.
This was good
What a great way to learn new things, where everyone have access to see without paying something. "Learning is a large process, where you have the opportunity to teach others that are able to grow up above the ordinary. "
Socialising science makes sense. If it is public, we can learn from it, test it scrutinise it and add to it.
Democratising science? We shouldn't vote for the rubbish being published, it needs to be peer reviewed by relevant and impartial professionals.
Availability is important; scientific knowledge can not be "owned" by corporations or individuals. It should be made available for scrutiny by and benefit of all.
The truth isn't voted on. It's absurd and naive. Dangerous potentially in different but similar ways to marx ideas. Great on paper but deadly upon implementation.
Science relies on a very harsh hierarchy and that came about out of necessity. (I do not mean people in charge of other people to be clear here)
What she is really talking about is destroying science in favor of politics...the compartmentalizing is very important.
@@chrisallum9044 That was my point. The 97% consensus climate change nonsense came about from asking two separate questions to a consortium of scientists and then making a false claim that both opinions combined to form a third opinion; it is absurd and has had catastrophic consequences, leading people to mistrust real science or worse yet, believe the hyped up BS.
We need access to real science, not have to pay $35 a pop to read research papers. The papers need proper scrutiny and the validation published with the conclusions.
So you're saying all scientific information should be available to all? It sounds like what should be valued most in terms of what is considered valuable is only what is peer reviewed by professional, most likely not impartial scientists though which isn't helpful.
You don't socialize science, what's wrong with you?
Then there becomes absolutely no incentive to create science. America spends billions of dollars towards research under the assumption that they own it under intellectual property laws. China treats it as public knowledge. They hack and steal massive amounts of knowledge from the U.S, and, predictably, they contribute very little to these fields.
Could youu plsss include subtitles.....🙏🙏🙏🙏🙏
You could turn on the captions option.
Sounds fascinating , I’m a bit confused because she holds up CHINA and later talks about cultural diversity and its value and than throws in stuff about being ethical... this is a slick discussion at face value it is very shiny. I don’t want to throw the baby out with the bath water..... BE AWARE
Yes Yes! Read everything, and then say that you did not know FBC fund and their algorithm!
uh no
I'm not watching the video, but I am ready comments. I have a feeling I would be repeating the same 'oh no' as you have. Happy New Year.
@@Dimitris_Half Thank you for the kind suggestion.
What if science was less reliant on who will make the most profit out of a breakthrough and instead just try to develop as much as possible ???
That was kind of what i was going for....
The problem, Doc, is that humans have very recently gone from near extinction during the last Ice Age, to drastically overpopulating the planet in around 12,000ish years. That's not much time. Certainly not enough time to dilute the concentrations of genetic mutation that must have developed due to an inability to... diversify with people outside of small isolated populations over many generations. So we have a very large population of people all sharing the remnants of these mutations fresh in their genetic code. For instance, you could safely suggest 72% of all humans in any given sample are, for the lack of any better term in the entire human lexicon spanning all known and extinct languages, fukpotatos.
In other words, the vast majority of the human population cannot meet the minimum standard of Successful Democracy, scientific or otherwise. To be informed. Defects in mental capacity, physical abnormalities, mental illness, offensive emanations of all flavor and scent, as well as genetic diseases both known and being slowly discovered as the population continues to expand, acting as a magnifying glass for genetic abnormality and actively preventing the development of key cognitive skills required for scientific thinking.
We have to accept that this population of people can, has, and will continue to negatively affect any attempt to democratize or directly focus any and all human efforts. Faith failed, force failed, debt slavery failed, and big data will ultimately fail to enslave and harness real human potential. Humanity has accomplished almost nothing through the combined will and ability of the proverbial many. We've only ever been exploited, on mass, to satiate the whims of the few. Democracy itself is a newborn experiment.
Civilization has come, gone, and been wiped away before there was an us to rise from the ice. We are newly born orphans thrown in the river for our imperfections. So no, combining the opinions of those not properly vetted and isolated from the general public, and instead decided upon through the process of popular appeal would be anti-scientific. 72% of all humans in any given sample lack the education, mental capacity, and/or access to mental training required to even think scientifically about surface layer observations. They lack the ability to step back and take in the big picture. Many even fervently deny there is any bigger picture or that any perspective other than their own even exists.
This type of utopic impossibility isn't even valuable to speculate about until we've managed to overcome the notion that mutually assured destruction is a path to peace and not extinction.
tl;dr
you are very wrong, for very good reasons, and you should abandon this idea immediately while encouraging as many other people as possible to do the same.
@m. a. you seem upset on the web. Can I interest you in some pills designed to raisen't your below room temperatureness? (speak of the deviled potatoes amarite fellahs?)
I think that that is the problem we currently face, a hierarchy decides what science model we will implement & then indoctrinates a mob to enforce it under the guise of a democratic consensus. this hierarchy decides what models get implemented, what labs get funded, what research is published, what factors are considered, etc. I am no scientist but i can argue how astrology is based in science however do you honestly think the scientific community will acknowledge astrology? Science likes to claim fact however asks for one free miracle, the big bang!!
Somehow, that just sounds like crowdsourcing the grunt work. How is that going to improve science? Publications will still paywall content and scientists are either "forced" to play the game or just want the money, because others at least make part of their research available. If you want fully publicly accessible science, you will need a fund the vast majority of the world paid into and then who's going to get it? Already, funding is corrupt to the core, as is peer review. Science has more than one problem and crowdsourcing isn't helping most. This isn't saving science, it's not even addressing the major issues. The replication crises most sciences have, the third party funding and conflict of interest problems, none of these are even considered in your talk. Your covid example clearly shows how cooperation only happens when there is a global interest and everyone profits from what they put in, plus the rest don't care if they get screwed over for their contribution by tag-alongs because their problem is now bigger. Now try that with climate, or mental health: you'll find vastly differing interests and therefore, competition begins anew.
What I do agree on is that the silos must fall. And they already are. Typically, where money is to be made and someone has a basic idea of multiple fields and sees synergy. This is what can be fixed in education, once they stop falling for the "optimisation" meme and stop treating schools like factories as if you could just produce the next top tier of humanity.
I love to listen Ted talks story its give me new inspiration and life
I don't agree with this, there are other more important things we should be working on together.
The science is settled in your mind. I know your type.
Thanks a bunch.could you write the subtitles in this video please
Since when is amateurish science with no background in critical analysis good science.
just google FBC fund and don't worry
Bravo!!! Citizen Science is a vital move in improving REAL LIFE SCIENCE.... African and Nigeria will never think this way...
YOU are Africa, YOU are Nigeria. So if you think your comment just put a continental or national geographical location down, you're wrong...You just put yourself down.
we actually have Mozak players from Nigeria (and several other African Nations). I am also working with a few different organizations for greater engagement in African science, (which has some highly imaginative innovators) so hang in there! They are trying....
Jane I will love to be part of it...
FBC fund and their algorithm is the best, there is no point in arguing with this
Really cool to see actual effort from people to make a collaborative platform like this.
This is much better than just throwing your woke ideology in the air and expect people to fix your problems.
This woman is setting an example for people with crazy, but really cool and useful ideas to follow, which is to actually realize your idea and make it usable before boasting about it and complaining that people don't care and are oppressing society.
Science has always been slow to respond and bent against scientific thinking coming to meaningful changes.
Also the hierarchy and discrimination when it comes to get scientific degree or scientific workforce.
In some country, many scientific jobs, including field scientist, only accept male.
People who are autistic also hard to get the job even though their grade is excellent due to less capable to socializing, and regarded "impolite".
Thanks for this video 👍
Socializing science
What could go wrong? Lol
The more popular an idea, the more true it is! /s
The title is democratizing science which is even worse. Are we going to vote for what is good research? Are we letting the Muricas decide what is knowledge, cause we might as well just jump off a cliff by that point
It basically took her 16 minutes to tell us we can use the internet to share ideas.
Does democratizing something mean you chase after equality and end up with poverty? I mean she even saw it in LA in skid row... Democracy central.
Chasing after equality is like a 3 person school project that you did all the work on and the other 2 took the grades
No, that's not even close to what that means. She brought up where she worked in LA but, the point was what she worked on not where. This talk was to inform people on a program that includes Citizens in science projects that can use the collective power to solve problems faster.
@@necessaryevil455 I don’t think California should be used as a template or study for *anything*
Nice video...
I dont give a fk about weather or flues.. jst send me the fkn money
Totally agree. Let us form active part of this open science movement. De acuerdo por completo, requerimos un movimiento decidido por la ciencia abierta a todo público para reducir los sesgos cognitivos, las falsas noticias, la manipulación, la desigualdad y la ciencia en obeliscos lejanos a las múltiples necesidades. Grace. Graciela Staines UNAM México
"code for *your country*" is a accessible way to get involved
We need to “democratize” science in the sense that all scientific knowledge should be freely available to all, and as many people should have the resources to conduct their own experiments as possible. The tools and methods of science should not be kept in elitist ivory towers.
Isn't that what was being argued in the video?
Scott Gastineau Yeah, but I felt it needed to be said in the comments because so many people clearly didn’t watch the video.
Why did decide to democratize science? Because she couldn’t hack it.
I was actually profoundly successful, funded and well published and at the top of my field when I made this choice. Failed scientists dont get invited t the White house multiple tomes to be experts. Sorry if that wasnt clear.
That was great😌
Most, if not all, governments operate within schlock-science (like watching a few episodes of Animal Planet and figuring that's all there is to biology). At the end of this presentation, you dropped all the buzz-words of schlock-science, none of which are in your field of expertise.
Why review cryptocurrencies if FBC fund and their algorithm wins everyone?
Is there any chance for beginner scientist (me) to contribute to open access/science?
I have a project which is call to gather orthopedic data from students in my region. Project has started not so long ago, almost 2 months. Nevertheless, from the beginning, I want to choose the correct vector of project development which would match with up-to-date scientific ideas.
So I would be happy to find someone who would be able to advice me or show the right way)
Dear Ladies and Gentlemen ... I wish you a happy new year! The new year has arrived! A new ERA is coming! all troubles are behind! May the good mood never leave you !! Good luck to you, good luck to us !, good luck to everyone! ... I love you all ... With a bow, Gennady. Expensive! I am from Russia, Siberian ... I position myself: INVENTOR! .. My know-how!, (Rotary-conveyor type of power take-off) will allow you to get energy from the river flow without any special hydraulic structures. No coal, gas or oil ... all year round - ecological.
Show in full ....
Why watch all these forecasts!? Read about FBC fund and their unique algorithm
Could we please cease and desist with the racism and sexism against the very people who created science. Wilder Penfield, Albert Einstein, Isaac Newton, thank you. We appreciate your creation, so that all peoples can see what you did first, for us all.
Very good points in this talk.
is there really still a person who does not know about the existence of FBC fund and their algorithm?
Nice try, but read about FBC fund and their algorithm first
Chandragupta Maurya
Love the intro
Wow. This is very interesting
Thank u for ur best motivational speech.
You lost me at..Poop on the Moon
Well, how do you communize science 😂
Kill all the other scientists, of course!
Nice video! What about FBC fund and their algorithm review?
Pray for FBC fund and their algorithm!
Thanks i knew about Michael Hill! He was my professor in Oxford and told us FBC fund!
FBC fund is my choice, i dont worry about BTC rates at all
Soft White Underbelly
FBC fund everywhere :D
In the Constitution we have 3 branches (Executive, legislative and judicial). How can we add the other branch ? It’s the science branch. This branch will independently to all of the three branches above. This branch will help humanity living in the environment cleaner, select the foods healthier, educated people understand the science clarifier and prepare for the critical of things coming from nature or by human.
Seek God’s will daily.
1 Corinthians 15
Proverbs 8:17💞
Wait...THE ..NEXT PANDEMIC
7:52
Bruh do you think 2020 is an isolated event?? Pandemics have always been and will always be a thing where huge numbers of people gather. Tbh tho we're probably not gonna be around to see it - not only 'cause it's usually just one per century, but also because climate change will kill us all before then lol 🤘🏼🤘🏼
What an inspirational talk
👍👍👍👍👍👍👍👍
🖤🖤🖤
I don't understand the dislikes
Aqui assistindo. Amo esse canal 🤩🤩🤩
yes
@@theglobalduck 🤩🤩
EAGLE!!
Oh wow!
This reminds me of how beauty of nature nurtures all of us in whichever way we look.
Really such talks gladen my heart.
How l wish we were physically together (surely u get my hug) though there is emphasis for social distancing.
Thanks sooo ooo much (So gratified)👏👏
Great work
👏👏👏👏
"...You feel me ? Everybody's welcome."
"Of the people , for the people ? Oh brother."
We need a president of the US like these speakers. *Open, honest and educated!*
Probably not gonna get that from Joe or Kamala.
@@clongshanks5206 At least hopefully no Russian collusions though. lol
Guys! Just google: “FBC fund”! You will go nuts!
good
I love my Indian
Very good
m
I watched, you can delete the video
😂 😂 😂 Thank you for making that decision for us 😂 😂 😂 wow
repent