Hearted Youtube comments on Professor Dave Explains (@ProfessorDaveExplains) channel.
-
8400
-
6900
-
4600
-
4500
-
4400
-
4400
-
4300
-
4200
-
4000
-
3700
-
3600
-
3600
-
3500
-
3300
-
3100
-
3100
-
2900
-
2700
-
2200
-
2200
-
2200
-
2200
-
2000
-
2000
-
1900
-
1900
-
1800
-
1700
-
1700
-
1700
-
1700
-
1600
-
1500
-
1500
-
1500
-
1400
-
1400
-
1400
-
1300
-
1300
-
1300
-
1300
-
1200
-
1200
-
1200
-
1200
-
1200
-
1200
-
1100
-
1100
-
1100
-
1000
-
1000
-
1000
-
975
-
971
-
924
-
916
-
908
-
905
-
902
-
901
-
897
-
890
-
858
-
855
-
845
-
845
-
837
-
831
-
825
-
812
-
807
-
804
-
791
-
780
-
779
-
765
-
760
-
757
-
733
-
If you don't have time to watch the whole video, here's the debate in a nutshell.
Dave: Evolution is consistent beyond reasonable doubt.
Kent: but muh book
Dave: Ok, since the bible is your only evidence for creationism, let's talk about the bible.
Kent: but thats not the point of the debate
Dave: Polyploidy is an example of instant speciation.
Kent: but no new information
Dave: Do you know how meiosis works?
Kent: why rabbit no have wing
Dave: Every mutation is new information.
Kent: proceeds to use bad analogy
Dave: Explain your analogy.
Kent: proceeds to not explain analogy
Kent: strawberry taste terrible
Dave: All strawberries are octoploid.
Kent: but still strawberry
Dave: You are a con man who lies to simple minded people.
Kent: dog dont produce non dog
Kent: insert bad analogy about common design
Dave: Cars are not biological organisms.
Dave: Do you know what a paternity test is?
Kent: how protist become human
Dave: No one says that.
Kent: but the chart
Dave: We're not getting anywhere with this, so let's talk about paternity tests.
Kent: but protist cant become human
Dave: Let's talk about fossils.
Kent: you cant prove fossil had children
Dave: That fossilized organism doesn't have to have reproduced.
Kent: sure but you cant prove fossil had children
Dave: Are you deaf?
Kent: protist cant become human
Kent: im trying to help you understand
Dave: No, you're lying to people to make money.
Kent: ad hominem alert
Kent: 2 + 2 = 4 therefore evolution is a religion
Dave: What? Let's just talk about fossils.
Kent: ok lets talk about how protist cant become human
Dave: Let's talk about how you keep repeating the same talking points over and over.
Kent: lets talk about your ad hominem attacks
Kent: why bacteria no have wing
Dave: Bacteria are not multicellular organisms.
Kent: hits spongebob with hammer why are you so dumb
Kent: i taught biology for 15 years
Dave: No, you lied to children in a church.
Kent: im not lying you are
Dave: Fossils are organized in a pretty particular way.
Kent: you have been brainwashed (even though clearly im the one whos lying to people to make money)
Kent: this coffee cup is designed therefore everything is designed
Dave: Can you stop saying that?
Kent: con man does what con man must to survive
Dave: The rocks got rained on which produced organic molecules which organize themselves into what we call life.
Kent: so you come from rock
Dave: Actually, you believe that you came from dust.
Kent: you dare use my own spell against me
Dave: Craig Venter made synthetic life.
Kent: haha see intelligent designer
Dave: Sorry, that doesn't disprove abiogenesis at all.
Kent: so youre saying craig is dumb
Kent: wait he copied it into another cell
Dave: Well, he made a new organism.
Kent: but he didnt create life
Dave: That's what life is, dingus.
Kent: you cant observe abiogenesis
Dave: Can you see atoms?
Kent: can you see gravity? get rekt
Dave: You just proved my point. Thanks for playing.
Kent: fuck
Kent: you want me to pay to brainwash people (even though im clearly the one brainwashing people)
Dave: You're gonna pay for that?
Kent: yes i pay every tax i owe (even though im clearly a convicted felon)
Kent: whales swim in water therefore fish
Dave: I swim in the water too, therefore I am a fish.
Kent: what
James: You guys are very good debaters, even though Kent is clearly the one dodging direct questions, but I wasn't paying attention so yeah.
Kent: here is the theory of evolution proceeds to explain the big bang, earth formation and abiogenesis
Dave: You have no idea what you're talking about.
Kent: but protist cant become human
Kent: you admit that you come from rock
Dave: No, you did.
Kent: but it rained on the rock therefore you are rock
Dave: Your mother ate pizza while she was pregnant, therefore you are a pizza.
Kent: strawman alert
Dave: Not a strawman, dingus.
Kent: i have studied science my whole life (i mean if i actually studied science i would know that evolution is true but i have to pretend i love science so gullible people fall for con men like me) and i know that dog dont produce non dog
Dave: Why do I care what you say? You're not a biologist. You haven't provided any evidence for a designer. Your only evidence is "some book says a thing", if by "some book" you mean a book that contains slavery, incest, and rape, then yes, the bible is evidence of immorality. Try again, slick.
Kent: but coffee cup
Dave: There's no hope for you.
Kent: hits spongebob with hammer stop being dumb
Kent: majority opinion is wrong
Dave: Science is not an "opinion". Try again.
Kent: but dog dont produce non dog
719
-
717
-
715
-
709
-
705
-
704
-
695
-
691
-
687
-
682
-
677
-
671
-
650
-
645
-
642
-
642
-
640
-
630
-
625
-
623
-
612
-
609
-
598
-
597
-
583
-
I know a lot of youtube creationists who have been pushing the Tour series for the past few months. It must be very embarrassing to back someone and have them so thoroughly shown to be uninformed/dishonest? Dave, my favorite part was the "Deceptive Tactics of Id proponents", because you so succinctly summarized exactly what dealing with these people is like. These guy (Tour, Jeanson, Sanford, Carter, Tomkins) have the incredible ability to do decent science when it doesn't threaten their YEC, but revert to a highschool level understanding the moment evolution or abio enters the picture. It's a powerful cognitive dissonance OR a downright chilling deception. And when they do attempt to address the gaping holes of Creationism, it becomes appearent it isn't about answers, but the illusion of answers, if only to placate the flock into believing that "everything is under control, we will be vindicated in the end". Great work!
582
-
577
-
570
-
568
-
562
-
As someone who is deeply religious - I appreciate your call out in the beginning of the video that this is not a debate on whether or not a deity exists.
Something I feel too many religious persons do is try to justify the existence of God using empirical means, when thatâs just not possible, and in my opinion, just not meant to be. Religion exists to answer fundamental questions of the soul - our purpose, our destiny, etc. Iâve always tried to keep religion out of the realm of science, as thatâs not what itâs there to explain. Conversely, the âevidenceâ of God is intended to be personal and private - something that connects with the soul. I donât believe we will ever look to the stars and see empirical evidence of a God, as itâs meant to be a personal discovery.
As always, Dave, I appreciate your thoroughness and high quality content, even if we disagree on the existence of God.
550
-
540
-
536
-
536
-
I realized, when James was showing that spectra analysis and going "If you're a synthetic chemist, you'll laugh" that... dude's desperate to be respected, huh. He's pretending that his flock are all just like him, professional scientists who think the same way he does, instead of anti-science zealots who want to strip funding from schools and universities. It's why he gets so mad when people criticize him from the angle Dave's been, attacking his competence and ability to read papers, because it hits him right in the sorest spot he's got; the fact that he's thrown away all his credibility to give talks at megachurches.
Your followers aren't your people, James. They don't know what you're saying. They're not synthetic chemists, nor are they any type of professional scientist at all. They're looking for any reason to justify their distrust of education and their desire to use political power to influence the direction research takes. You're never going to gain credibility with them, man. Stop.
531
-
526
-
525
-
520
-
516
-
512
-
500
-
497
-
496
-
495
-
I used to be on the "Ur mean! be more diplomatic!" train, but by now I've watched a large number of intellectuals and kind people patiently sharing their knowledge and life experiences, representing a more rational and compassionate worldview for years. I've watched them waste years of their lives reaching across the table, gritting their teeth and surrendering to the tone policing while everything they are and stand for is under a deliberate, dishonest, cynical and often aggressive attack from people who only care to control their audiences for wealth, power and control. Being nice clearly hasn't worked, seeing the current state of affairs. So I'm all for exposing these people and showing no mercy, whether it's science denial, bigotry or both, as they tend to go hand in hand.
487
-
482
-
482
-
475
-
466
-
466
-
464
-
462
-
451
-
450
-
450
-
446
-
445
-
442
-
441
-
439
-
439
-
438
-
434
-
430
-
428
-
428
-
426
-
421
-
417
-
417
-
414
-
413
-
412
-
407
-
405
-
403
-
402
-
395
-
391
-
391
-
390
-
389
-
387
-
386
-
381
-
380
-
380
-
379
-
379
-
378
-
377
-
373
-
369
-
368
-
366
-
364
-
362
-
360
-
360
-
358
-
357
-
357
-
356
-
355
-
351
-
350
-
350
-
349
-
348
-
344
-
342
-
339
-
Hey Dave, I have a fairly damning piece of evidence that Sabines E-Mail was likely self-written - at 9:44, where it says "I understand that all what I wrote [...]", this is just plain German poorly translated into English, and very characteristic of Sabines English. I'm working on my B.Ed. in English and History and am a native German myself, and I hear these kinds of idiomatic mistakes all the time. The dead giveaway is the "what", because it's... let's call it clumsy English, but makes perfect sense in German. According to her, the anonymous E-Mailer supposedly worked/works at a top level position in an American university, though she doesn't specify if they're American or not - so either this supposed top level researcher from a prestiguous American University is a native German with a similar level of english proficiency as Sabine, or the author of the E-Mail is Sabine herself. Makes ya wonder which it is, eh?
338
-
338
-
336
-
336
-
329
-
329
-
327
-
326
-
325
-
322
-
322
-
321
-
321
-
319
-
316
-
313
-
313
-
311
-
311
-
310
-
308
-
307
-
307
-
303
-
302
-
298
-
296
-
295
-
288
-
288
-
288
-
287
-
287
-
286
-
285
-
283
-
283
-
280
-
280
-
280
-
279
-
278
-
277
-
276
-
274
-
272
-
271
-
267
-
266
-
265
-
265
-
263
-
261
-
260
-
259
-
257
-
257
-
I wish to say, at the outset, that I am NOT a scientist (although many people in my field have been). I hold several degrees in philosophy, including a PhD from Princeton University. And yes, I subscribed years ago to SO, primarily because I liked the graphics Ben uses in his videos. Recently, since he started the "next-end-of-the-world" business, i.e., the micronova that he predicts is coming "soon", I've started looking at him, well, "suspiciously". A great deal of the people in his comment section are obviously frightened to death of that "future", and want detailed information as to when, exactly, that is going to happen. Ben never pins it down, except to say it will be somewhere in the near-future. I do not like being part of a doomsday cult. Thankfully, I've never contributed a cent to him.
Right now, he is starting what can only be described as a "compound", in the desert southwest. Of course, many people have contributed great amounts of money to this effort. Based upon what I've seen, I believe that he knew that getting a law degree was a mistake, on his part. He needs to purchase multicolored robes and build a "Church of Ben" ... using other peoples' money, of course.
Thank you for this video, Professor Dave. I have unsubscribed from his website, for when I asked him for the scientific data supporting his hypotheses, he merely suggested I watch his videos. I suspect that many of the downvotes on this video came from Observers. As an official "heretic", you can readily understand why I will continue to keep my location and true name secret.
256
-
255
-
252
-
252
-
252
-
251
-
249
-
248
-
247
-
246
-
243
-
242
-
241
-
240
-
I'm a victim of religious extremism.
My parents homeschooled me. They gave me books from Christian authors and told me mainstream science was evil.
Some lies I was told were about evolution, being fake, and an excuse to mass genocide people.
I was told this was a christian country and provided with a book called "America's providential history" which I found out isn't historically accurate.
My parents kept me in fear of vaccines, the government, and I never got a high-school diploma when I "graduated" homeschool, cuz there's no standard.
I was intentionally isolated from TV and people. My parents build a doomsday bunker in the middle of nowhere in Idaho.
All this to say, this thought process of the extremely religious, harmed me. I never got a chance to go to college, and I'm only just now learing about biology, evolution, physics, etc,. Religious abuse ruins lives.
You're doing a great thing, Dave. These people need to be called out. I wish that I'd had your videos when I was 12.
238
-
237
-
Solution to the problem:                                                                                                                                                                                       r(x) x r(y) = < -2x,-2y,1>        del x F = <x,0,-z>, (z = x^2 + y^2 --> -z = -(x^2 + y^2) = -x^2 - y^2)                                                             Integral: 0<x<2, 0<y<2    <-2x,-2y,1> (dot) <x,0,-(x^2 + y^2)> dx dy --> -2x^2 - (x^2 + y^2) dx dy = -2x^2 - x^2 - y^2 dx dy = -3x^2 - y^2 dx dy.  Would be helpful to first solve the integral in terms of dy instead of dx, this makes the solving a bit easier.hope it helps.
237
-
236
-
234
-
233
-
231
-
231
-
231
-
231
-
230
-
228
-
226
-
226
-
225
-
223
-
223
-
219
-
218
-
218
-
217
-
214
-
213
-
211
-
211
-
210
-
210
-
207
-
205
-
205
-
205
-
204
-
204
-
204
-
203
-
202
-
202
-
202
-
201
-
200
-
200
-
200
-
199
-
196
-
195
-
192
-
192
-
192
-
192
-
192
-
191
-
191
-
190
-
189
-
189
-
187
-
186
-
Hey Dave,
Iâve watched you for(I believe) around 2 1/2 years now. I discovered you in my freshman year of high school toward the end of first quarter when I was really struggling with Physics, which I eventually passed because of your videos. In fact, thats not the only class youâve helped me through; so far youâve helped me get through Physics, Biology, and now youâre helping me through Chemistry. Having ADHD, providing the information in distinct, easy-to-follow videos as opposed to a textbook was very helpful. Youâve become my go-to when it comes to learning all-things science without having to read through a high school textbook. I probably have an entire notebookâs worth of reference just from the notes that Iâve taken on your videos alone(though the notes are a bit disorganized and, quite literally, all over the place; I donât tend to keep them all in one spot). Iâve even recently started on your series on Economics in my spare time because Iâm doing well enough in my other classes to take on more.
Even if we set aside the fact that you are single-handedly leading me through high school, youâre an amazing content creator. Iâve probably watched your demolition of anti-science hacks about a million times. Iâve done my best to watch through most of your debates, though some of your opponents tended to talk over you and repeat themselves over and over to the point where I grow bored because I can refute some of their claims myself. I even have a tradition where, whenever you release a new Debunks/Debates/Discussions video, I go the stove, boil some water, and make a nice bowl of ramen noodles for myself to eat while I watch the video.
Iâve even started using your stuff in my debate club, especially against people who think like Creationists and Flerfs. Iâve seen one or two minds change after Iâve linked your content. I eventually found myself using your mannerisms and tone during debates, which is honestly great, because if Iâm wrong about something, it hits a lot harder and I actually learn from the experience. Another thing Iâve learned from you: if mistakes are made obvious for all to see, there is a greater incentive to correct them.
Thanks for making my high school so much easier, thanks for giving me something entertaining on a normal basis, and thanks for even helping me change a few minds.
Stay awesome.
185
-
184
-
183
-
181
-
181
-
180
-
I'm a hobby (astro)physicist but psychologist by trade and I thought of a psychological model to go with the flat earth society and why it is so much more prevalent in very meritocratic societies - i.e. the USA.
A large part of US culture is Calvinistic in essence saying with hard work come more blessings. This translates into the "American Dream" where anyone can become anything regardless of heritage only depending on their own talents and efforts. Unfortunately this also puts a lot of blame on those who, well, don't get very far on the social hierarchy. The mind is wonderful at compensating for negative thoughts and emotions, rationalising them away unconsciously in amazing ways.
My hypothesis is now, that most flat earth followers are a special type of narcissist personality who fail to reach a societal level they think they deserve. You can then either reevaluate your self-image (which is painful) or you re-evaluate society. By subscribing to a conspiracy theory you not only elevate yourself to an elitist, enlightened level only attained by few, you also simultaneously degrade every person that you previously had to "look up to", e.g. academics, politicians and "smarter" people. Furthermore, you find others with exactly the same mindset and company is always good.
That is also the reason why challenging any flat earth follower with rational arguments will most likely amount to nothing, because following your logic they would have to challenge their self-image and re-evaluate their social standing.
And the unscientific part of me relishes the thought of a perfect trap where you either have to get down to the bottom with your argumentation or admit you fit into the diagnosis of an anti-authoritarian narcissist... But that is really just a side note.
179
-
179
-
176
-
176
-
175
-
174
-
173
-
172
-
172
-
I know this is such an old video. I watch everything, and saw this again, and this iamLucis' s video continues to be the most INFURIATING piece of content I've seen. I keep up with Standing for Truth, Answers in Genisis, Raw Matt, Erica, and you, Dave, and it goes on. I have a 15 year old. He and his friend group are all science-minded, very intellectual, invested in knowledge, worldly, ect. I'm not trying to brag AT ALL. My point is, I know he and his peers are inundated with simple content like this and some of them don't have the background to know "this dude is bullshit." They just don't! And we live in Metropolitan DC! What is happening outside of the "intellectual elite strongholds?"
And people get plugged into channels like this, and subsequently "suggested" even MORE content like this, and it fucking terrifies me! IamLucid has this swagger that appeals to young people and fits in the platforms, The way he states things as fact - so simplified, taken out of context or just entirely misrepresented in a way that "makes sense" is terrifying. It essentially regurgitates words and concepts that many people SOMEWHAT recall, but never truly understood even during HS science. "Yup, I know those words, and the scientist, intellectual elite is using that to indoctrination me and make me think things and do things that infringe on MY rights."
And our educational system ((de-)funded by individuals that want the population to become less educated so they can have greater control) is effectively working. I am so demoralized! I appreciate that you do what you do and I love that you have developed this platform that is reaching millions of people. I still despair that we are reaching such a small percentage of the population. You are doing God's work! (OMG, don't kill me, that was the worst joke ever).
I have to believe that there is a quantity of this new generation that will overwhelm the current zeitgeist in about 20 years. My greatest fear is the possibility of the EXACT opposite. What have I brought a human being into? I feel terrified at times, and so guilty. We are in a tailspin. Not just America, honestly. We're the worst currently, but I see it everywhere now.
Thank you for your work. Not just de-bunking, but particularly your educational content. You have a beautiful talent for scientific education. You are much appreciated by many of us!
170
-
170
-
170
-
168
-
168
-
167
-
165
-
164
-
164
-
163
-
162
-
162
-
161
-
161
-
160
-
160
-
160
-
159
-
159
-
159
-
I got pretty heavy into Leo Gura when I was a bit younger, and I'll have to say some of his stuff was really good. What I liked about him was that he always stressed the importance of being truthful to yourself and others, and that he introduced me to moral relativism, what the meaning of integrity was, what healthy relationships are supposed to look like etc. He stressed the importance of doing your own spiritual work, thinking for yourself, and being kind and loving to yourself and others. But his stuff on Quantum mechanics, and his tendency to deny science and glorify death really messed me up when I was about 20-21 years of age. I did tons of psychedelics back then, and tried DMT for the first time. All while I was surrounded by people who were really not good for me. I developed Borderline Personality Disorder, tried to take my own life and still struggle with thoughts of suicide quite often. I can no longer stomach much of his newer content, though some of it was pretty interesting It's just too much to listen to him put himself on a pedastal and continually stress the importance of "going deeper". I still believe "consciousness" is a thing that can be tuned up, I still believe in a Spinoza's kind of god, but I also love science and I'm grateful for what science/scientists have done and continue to do. I don't care for magic or chakras or crystals, I never really cared for buddhism either, and I don't think life has any inherent meaning. I just think we all make our own meaning and because I don't want to drive myself bat shit insane I take what he says with a grain of salt these days. Grateful for a fresh perspective from you Professor Dave.
159
-
159
-
158
-
157
-
157
-
155
-
155
-
154
-
153
-
152
-
151
-
151
-
151
-
150
-
150
-
149
-
149
-
149
-
149
-
148
-
146
-
146
-
145
-
I'm a bit ashamed to admit I still believed some of these things.. My family was really into The Secret, crystals, auras, and I thought I had moved away from it, but turns out I accepted a lot as real science, like the double slit experiment showing everything is a construct, vibrational frequencies, sacred geometry, etc. Gosh, it's so stupid and dangerous now that you actually break it down. The way you describe it as a secular religion shook me a bit. So thanks, keep doing these videos.
145
-
144
-
144
-
144
-
142
-
142
-
142
-
141
-
140
-
138
-
138
-
137
-
137
-
137
-
136
-
136
-
135
-
134
-
134
-
134
-
133
-
133
-
132
-
131
-
131
-
131
-
130
-
130
-
130
-
128
-
128
-
127
-
126
-
126
-
125
-
125
-
125
-
124
-
123
-
123
-
122
-
122
-
122
-
121
-
121
-
119
-
119
-
119
-
118
-
118
-
118
-
118
-
117
-
117
-
116
-
116
-
It's really interesting to see how James Tour just... collapsed. I'm pretty sure Dave didn't target him because he thought he was a weak link or anything. If anything, he was the most credible and useful part of the Discovery Institute. But oh my god this guy has just fallen into a pile of rubble.
Look at him SHAKE here. He's fuming! He can't handle this sort of thing, he can't handle a challenge to his authority but doesn't actually know how to re-assert himself in an authoritative way. Instead he's reduced to red-faced, limb-shaking shouting and theatrics. Insinuating that because Dave "prepared" for a "discussion" means he's fucking cheating or something, when he's an academic, a CHEMIST, and has to know that you can't possibly expect someone to be able to write down a whole biological pathway on the board in, like, 15 seconds, or a full chemical reaction. That's the kind of cheap shit that only works on people who've never seen any actual scientific primary literature. I don't mean 'laypeople' or anything like that either, I mean that they've never looked at a paper before and went "oh, shit, this is pretty serious huh?" You know, the kind of arrogantly ignorant people that are Flat Earthers, Electric Universers, or Creationists.
Dave having the arduous task of explaining a complicated field to an audience primed to ignore him while a bad faith demagogue undermines him should have made this way rougher than it was. Instead, he made the poster boy of a multi-million dollar propaganda outlet look like a rank amateur. Tour is obviously unfit for the task, but Dave really deserves some credit for making Tour lose his cool when his entire plan was to frustrate Dave via annoying internet debate-bro tactics.
116
-
116
-
115
-
115
-
114
-
113
-
112
-
112
-
111
-
110
-
108
-
108
-
108
-
107
-
107
-
107
-
107
-
107
-
106
-
106
-
106
-
106
-
105
-
105
-
105
-
105
-
104
-
103
-
103
-
103
-
102
-
102
-
102
-
102
-
101
-
101
-
100
-
100
-
100
-
99
-
99
-
99
-
99
-
99
-
98
-
98
-
98
-
98
-
97
-
Hi Dave! I love your videos, and am excited to see every new one. I find you to be credible, honest, wildly entertaining, and just plain likeable! I'm an Anti-theist, published author in trucking information, I'm educated, and a debater in Atheist areas. I hold a Bachelor in Psychology, but mostly I'm a trucker, biker, family man, lover of truth and honesty, and have used your information to make points in debates, ROCK ON BROTHER!
97
-
97
-
97
-
96
-
95
-
95
-
95
-
95
-
94
-
94
-
94
-
94
-
94
-
93
-
93
-
93
-
92
-
92
-
92
-
92
-
91
-
91
-
Globes, globes, flat-earthersâ pain,
âDeny the curve, or go insane!â
The math is clear, the facts absolute,
Yet here you are, stuck in dispute.
Globes, globes, the shape of the wise,
But flat-earthers cling to their foolish lies.
âYouâll fall off the edge!â they dramatically shoutâ
Bro, whereâs this edge? Letâs map it out.
Globes, globes, a reality plain,
Yet you dream of horizons that never explain.
âNASAâs lying! Itâs all just a scheme!â
Chill out, my guyâitâs science, not a meme.
Globes, globes, the Earth's mighty design,
But your logicâs as flat as a soda past its prime.
Gravityâs fake? Ships donât sink from sight?
Youâve got theories that crumble faster than light.
Globes, globes, they wonât break your brain,
Youâre lost in a flat world thatâs clearly insane.
So spare us the nonsense, get back in the raceâ
The truth curves ahead, and youâre stuck in one place.
90
-
90
-
89
-
89
-
89
-
89
-
I've used your videos personally to help my family learn more, I've shown my mother, who at the time, was getting into very scary conspiratorial thinking, how 5G makes kids with autism die, diet soda puts holes in your brain, stuff like that, she's definitely improved and has questioned the stuff she sees, sometimes she asks me directly, soon I'll show my dad some of your videos, cause he seems to be going down the same path in recent times.
88
-
88
-
87
-
87
-
87
-
86
-
86
-
86
-
86
-
85
-
85
-
85
-
85
-
85
-
85
-
85
-
84
-
84
-
83
-
83
-
83
-
83
-
83
-
82
-
82
-
82
-
82
-
81
-
81
-
80
-
80
-
80
-
79
-
79
-
78
-
78
-
78
-
78
-
78
-
78
-
77
-
77
-
77
-
77
-
76
-
76
-
76
-
75
-
75
-
75
-
75
-
75
-
74
-
74
-
74
-
74
-
74
-
74
-
74
-
74
-
73
-
73
-
73
-
72
-
72
-
72
-
72
-
72
-
72
-
72
-
71
-
71
-
71
-
71
-
71
-
70
-
70
-
70
-
70
-
70
-
70
-
69
-
69
-
69
-
69
-
69
-
69
-
69
-
68
-
68
-
68
-
68
-
68
-
68
-
67
-
67
-
67
-
67
-
67
-
67
-
66
-
66
-
66
-
66
-
66
-
66
-
65
-
65
-
65
-
65
-
65
-
64
-
64
-
64
-
64
-
64
-
64
-
63
-
63
-
63
-
63
-
62
-
62
-
62
-
61
-
61
-
61
-
61
-
61
-
61
-
60
-
60
-
60
-
60
-
60
-
60
-
59
-
59
-
59
-
58
-
58
-
58
-
58
-
57
-
57
-
57
-
57
-
56
-
56
-
56
-
56
-
56
-
56
-
56
-
56
-
55
-
55
-
55
-
55
-
55
-
55
-
55
-
54
-
54
-
54
-
54
-
54
-
54
-
53
-
53
-
53
-
53
-
53
-
52
-
52
-
52
-
52
-
52
-
52
-
52
-
52
-
51
-
51
-
51
-
51
-
51
-
51
-
51
-
51
-
I spent 20 minutes scrolling through the comments on JTs channel. As you would expect, it was chock full of ignorant, credulous, moronitude. The depressing fact is that as long as we allow childhood religious indoctrination, and allow the continued destruction of the quality of education, and training in critical thinking skills, we will have people willing to support pseudo-intellectual charlatans like Tour.
Tour himself, like all apologists, has accepted that apologetics is not about truth, intellectual honesty, or empiricism, but about defending the faith NO MATTER WHAT. He knows he must lie to do that, and has accept that fact, and that he must pretend to be telling the truth. This is just part of the job for him. In his mind he is saving souls, so he can justify anything for that cause. So he will never change.
The real task here is to prevent more people from being indoctrinated and from being insufficiently educated, so they do not get suckered into apologetics bullshit like that.
It is people like Dave would are serving the greater good, who challenge these liars and provide content that exposes them.
Thanks Dave for all your work. You are a legend!
51
-
51
-
51
-
50
-
50
-
50
-
50
-
50
-
50
-
49
-
49
-
49
-
49
-
49
-
49
-
49
-
49
-
49
-
49
-
49
-
49
-
48
-
48
-
48
-
48
-
48
-
48
-
48
-
48
-
48
-
48
-
48
-
48
-
47
-
47
-
47
-
47
-
Dave, when you made the shift to include this type of content, I wasn't sold. My emotional reaction was that of course there are dumb people in the world, and I don't need to pay any attention because I'm not enough of a sucker to fall for the obvious cons like electric universe or young earth. I use the channel to assist me in seeking to further my understanding of as much as I can, as best as I can, and I didn't like that when I viewed the new stuff the shift in content made me feel like I was being both patronized a bit and also expected to join in on some good ol' public point and laugh shaming.
I was wrong. I needed to have it shoved in my face exactly just how much noise this post-truth moment in our history is producing, and just how far through humanity that the moment has penetrated. I needed to have it pointed out again and again, till the point of numbness to it, and again and again further, till that numbness transitioned to shock, then faded to incredulity. I took the time to have a few careful conversations with people in my life and discovered that even among my close family and friends there are those who have started to fall for the amplified false consensus that science is dogmatic.
These are generationally challenging times, and I'm not certain that the wanna-be aristocracy isn't winning. I now watch every single one of these videos I can, both so that I can reccommend them to the people who need to see them, but also to remind myself just how extremely far the pendulum is trying to swing.
This is a fight worth fighting. Thanks for showing me that, Dave. I'll keep fighting with you, in my tiny and mostly insignificant way. Perhaps all of our insignificant actions together can defeat the forces that wish to keep us that way.
47
-
47
-
47
-
46
-
46
-
46
-
46
-
46
-
46
-
45
-
45
-
I grew up in a fundamentalist Christian cult (Mormonism). About 25 years ago (I'm now in my 40s) I rebelled, essentially because as a teenager, I didn't want to go to church, wanted to drink beer and was interested in more than singing hymns at scripture group with the opposite sex. This was a very difficult thing to do (understatement) and caused huge friction between me and the rest of my family, and whilst I eventually realised that I never really believed in any of it, it's become more and more apparent to me over time, how the brainwashing and indoctrination (that which the religious constantly accuse the non-religious of) has affected me, and that of my siblings into later life. I have the utmost sympathy for, and understand, how those brought up within that sort of suffocating and controlling environment, find it difficult to impossible to break free from. The imprisonment of the mind that occurs during those formative years is powerful and stays with you. In challenging or leaving you risk complete isolation from your family and those you love, and your peer group, which up until that point has been made up almost exclusively of other church members. I could talk all day about this, but I'd just like to say that Dave's material has become invaluable in countering the current forceful claims of my brother that evolution is BS and abiogenesis is fairy-tales (as he ironically and mockingly likes to put it). I don't claim to fully understand all of it, but I think this is crucial in pushing back against this sort of misinformation online. Unsurprisingly I've seen multiple times past friends and peers within the church 'go astray' in their teens, as I did, only to return as committed and vociferous exponents of the church as adults, and its absurd claims, which only seems to confirm that the indoctrination is powerful and complete. To give you a flavour of what I had to go through, I was told that because I was an apostate, all of my family would go to the highest tier of heaven (they believe there's three of them), and I would be relegated to the lowest tier, and would have to spend eternity on my own, whilst they would all be having a good old time enjoying the top tier benefits, whilst being all sad because I wasn't with them. This is one of the guilt trips they teach young and impressionable kids. Keep it up, Dave.
45
-
45
-
45
-
45
-
44
-
44
-
44
-
44
-
44
-
44
-
44
-
44
-
44
-
43
-
43
-
43
-
43
-
43
-
42
-
42
-
42
-
42
-
42
-
41
-
41
-
41
-
41
-
41
-
41
-
41
-
41
-
41
-
41
-
40
-
40
-
40
-
40
-
40
-
40
-
40
-
40
-
40
-
40
-
39
-
39
-
39
-
39
-
39
-
39
-
39
-
39
-
39
-
39
-
39
-
39
-
39
-
38
-
38
-
38
-
Excellent video Professor Dave. As a mathematician / mathematical physicist, I have been angered by the misappropriation of physical concepts by the woo-peddling brigade.
There is a significant amount of misunderstanding of quantum theory, even by people who work in the field (and in particular, the limitations arising from the Copenhagen interpretation). The misunderstanding arises because the evolution of a quantum state is not unitary if we restrict attention to a subsystem which interacts with the rest of universe during a measurement. The density matrix formulation both explains how the Copenhagen interpretation arises (with the correct probabilities, and the "collapse of the wave function"), in a way that evolves continuously (implementing decoherence), while preserving unitary evolution of the quantum state of the universe as a whole. (An analogy is that a rotation in three dimensions, if restricted to a plane may look like lengths are preserved if the rotation is that plane (isolated quantum system), but a rotation out of the plane has a projection that shortens lengths (measurement operation, interaction with the rest of the niverse). Thus the restriction of the evolution to the subspace is not unitary, and information about the vector out of the plane is needed to fully describe the state. If that information is not known, we can make a probabilistic interpretation of the evolution, this is the analogy of the density matrix approach). This makes the understanding of the double slit experiment much easier (specifically when the detector is switched on).
The results of the double slit experiment are best understood using the concept of decoherence. If we examine an isolated system (no detector) the evolution of the quantum system and that the rest of universe are independent, and as such an initial pure quantum state evolves to a pure state given by applying the Schrödinger equation. The interference pattern is a result of the wavefunction being decomposed into two parts (comprising of the particle passing through each of the slits) and recombining on the far side with different phases. This is the wavelike behaviour.
In the presence of a detector, the situation changes. The system and the environment (rest of the universe) are no longer isolated from each other and information can flow between the two (indeed, a detector is not a detector unless this is so). If we try to analyse the quantum system in this context, we are restricting attention to a subsystem of the universe, the equations that govern the evolution in that case are best described by a density matrix formalism (e.g., Master equation in the Lindblad form), this allows a pure quantum state to evolve to a mixed state and for information to be passed out of the system (and its entropy to increase). This evolution is non-unitary. In the density matrix formalism the detector forces the off-diagonal terms (in a suitable basis of eigenstates of the operator associated with the detector) to tend to zero very rapidly, the resulting density matrix is interpreted as a probabilistic mixture of quantum states which are no longer capable of interfering with each other (due to the vanishing of the off-diagonal term). This gives rise to the particle-like pattern in this case.
In short, there is no mystery about the double slit experiment from a quantum mechanical viewpoint and no requirement of consciousness (human or otherwise) to be involved. The truth is that the quantum state of the universe evolves unitarily but that non-unitary evolution arises inevitably when a non-isolated subsystem is under consideration. I made a video going through the mathematics of the double slit experiment in great detail (deriving the pattern) on my channel for those interested in seeing the details.
38
-
38
-
38
-
38
-
37
-
37
-
37
-
37
-
37
-
37
-
37
-
37
-
36
-
36
-
36
-
36
-
36
-
36
-
36
-
36
-
36
-
36
-
36
-
36
-
36
-
36
-
36
-
36
-
36
-
35
-
35
-
35
-
35
-
35
-
35
-
35
-
35
-
35
-
35
-
35
-
35
-
35
-
34
-
34
-
34
-
34
-
34
-
34
-
34
-
34
-
I was subscribed to actualized.org, for about 1 year when the content was pretty normal. Here is how I view the situation. I think that the guy (Gura) started in good faith, without planning to become a cult leader. His first content was quite rational and discussed normal self-actualization topics, including meditation practice (what I was interested in). Then he had a sudden derailment as he started to trip regularly on psychedelics as a "shortcut to enlightenment", and in particular on 5-MeO-DMT, which is said by many sources to have the most intense effect on deactivating the brain circuits that generate and regulate the function of the "self". This experience of "ego death" is often described as the dissolution of any difference between anything that exists and anything that is present in the mind, so that "you are nothing and you are everything". This can happen also by meditation. Problem is that the meditation gives you a context to integrate this experience, as just an experience which gives you clarity on the actual functioning of the mind. In "healthy" tradition, it does not lead to negate any form of reality nor giving you delusional metaphysical beliefs. Insted, if/when this state is experienced from a solypsistic and self-delusional (maybe paranoid) attitude, you may conclude that there is no external reality and that the consciuous experence IS the reality (and ALL of it). Then you quite naturally go saying that you are God (and God is the universe and the universe is God) and that anything that exist is by definition existing in your consciousness, which is all there is. When you just have a LSD trip, you might believe that you are God for 8 hours, then you come back and that's it. In the case of Leo (who said he used DMT on almost daily basis for weeks and weeks to reinforce this system of beliefs) and many of his followers, the solypsistic attitude is intensified by a shallow study of non-scientific philosophy, belief systems and unsubstantiated Deepak-like "mind theories". They prevent you from inteprteting the "Enlighment-like" DMT and ego-death experience as just another biochemical phenomenon. From here, becoming a crazy cult leader is a small step which might be made even in good faith. Once you justify everything that happens in your mind as manifestation of God, any inconscious and natural attachment and desire (desire to be worshipped, gain power over people, money and sex) kicks in and goes on autopilot. It happens all the time in almost all spiritual circles. See Baghvan Osho or Joshu Sasaki Roshi or dozen of others. Sorry for the length :) Nice video, thank you!
34
-
33
-
33
-
33
-
33
-
33
-
33
-
33
-
33
-
Most of your commenters COMPLETELY miss the point of Dave's video. Dave is critiquing Sabine's method of communication to the public about academia's problems. He is NOT dismissing the fact that academia has problems, far from it, as he has stated in this and multiple other videos of his that academia has fundamental problems such as obscenely high tuition rates and false academics. The thing that Sabine is doing wrong is when she makes these videos critiquing academia, her titles and thumbnails lead suggestible people to completely distrust academia. This is NOT FOR DEBATE, this is what is happening. Sabine's method of critiquing academia is not adequate, and gives the growing anti-science rhetoric some credence which humanity simply cannot afford.
Dave is absolutely correct when he says that anti-science sentiment will be the end of humanity. We are witnessing it seep through politics right now in the way of anti-vax and climate change. There are people literally calling for violence to meteorologists for manufacturing a fucking hurricane. When Sabine said in her comment that this minority of people aren't a huge problem, she's dead wrong.
Also, don't take this video as a science communicator going after another science communicator. Take it as a peer-review of content. Sabine's content has a conflict of interest going on, and this video is addressing that problem. If Sabine is wise, she would listen and change her style to best fit what a science communicator should do. This is NOT to say that Sabine should stop critiquing academia, but she needs to change the approach she addresses such criticisms. Rant over.
33
-
33
-
33
-
32
-
32
-
32
-
32
-
32
-
32
-
32
-
32
-
32
-
31
-
31
-
31
-
31
-
31
-
31
-
31
-
31
-
31
-
31
-
Hey Dave. I have a decent amount of debates under my belt with YEC types. I've never debated Hovind, but I am pretty sure I can give you a couple of tips to help in these types of debates. Please DM me. I'll just leave a few pointers here, but if you DM I can send you a text file or power point with a lot of things to bring up. Here's just a few:
First of all realize you're talking to his audience, not him. He's a con man, you won't convince him. But, if you make you're points crystal clear, you can and will get through to some of his audience. It's of supreme importance to remain polite and civil at all times. You can be making the best points and the most logical arguments, but if his (or any other persons) audience views any type of snide or rude comment, however minor, they can very easily dismiss you're actual argumentation.
Bible Stuff:
I often use my biblical knowledge against YEC since I was raised Jewish, reading the O.T. in Hebrew and it's one of my mother tongues (Modern Hebrew is, but Biblical Hebrew is much simpler than Modern Hebrew). You're a science guy so I don't think this would appeal to you, but there are really really good reasons why Jews don't go to church; Christians fundamentally misunderstand the Jewish Scriptures. The more fundamentalist the Christian, the more they misunderstand the Old Testamant. Again, DM me and I can send you lots of info. I'm an Atheist FWIW, but understanding the religion upon which their faith is based and exploiting their misunderstandings is a powerful tool.
Science Stuff:
Ken't always, for DECADES, uses the "dogs produce dogs" line. You need to just explain a nested hierarchy in the simplest terms people can understand. I use folders on a computer as an analogy. Animals are the C:\ folder an the farther you go into vertebrates, mammals, apes, etc. the more folders you're putting inside each other. So dogs will always produce dogs, just like anything in C:\animals\vertibrates\mammals\ will always be a subset of the animals folder and C:\. This can be worded much better, but I hope the concept is clear.
History Stuff:
Make Kent go on the offense. Kent loves playing defense, he'll tell you what he doesn't believe but he rarely will tell you what he does believe aside from "dogs produce dogs" or "animals bring forth after their kind". An example would be that YEC's must believe in a hyper form of evolution because explaining fossils, not even ancient ones, just fossils from the last ice age (like ground sloths, neanderthals, denisovans or any extinct human species actually) all needs to be explained in a 6,000 year timeline. How can he account for the tremendous varieties of different types of human like creatures from Heidelbergensis to Floriensis. These would have to had existed at the same time as extant humans.
He needs to account for history, as in we have buildings and civilizations that have been in use for more than 6,000 years.
Anway this is just a sort of off the cuff rant, but I've seen you debate a few times and you said you'd like to be more of a public figure, and I think you should be - you're an extremely gifted science communicator. I've been in this space (philosophical, theological debating) for about 7 years now and I actually think I could help you quite a bit. Feel free to DM me anytime.
31
-
31
-
31
-
30
-
30
-
30
-
30
-
30
-
30
-
30
-
30
-
30
-
30
-
30
-
30
-
30
-
30
-
29
-
29
-
29
-
29
-
29
-
29
-
29
-
29
-
29
-
29
-
29
-
29
-
29
-
29
-
29
-
28
-
28
-
28
-
28
-
28
-
28
-
28
-
28
-
28
-
28
-
27
-
27
-
27
-
27
-
27
-
27
-
27
-
27
-
27
-
26
-
26
-
26
-
26
-
26
-
26
-
26
-
26
-
26
-
26
-
26
-
26
-
26
-
26
-
26
-
26
-
26
-
26
-
26
-
26
-
26
-
26
-
25
-
25
-
25
-
25
-
25
-
25
-
25
-
25
-
25
-
25
-
25
-
25
-
25
-
25
-
25
-
25
-
25
-
24
-
24
-
24
-
24
-
24
-
24
-
24
-
24
-
24
-
24
-
24
-
24
-
23
-
23
-
23
-
23
-
23
-
23
-
23
-
23
-
23
-
23
-
23
-
23
-
23
-
23
-
23
-
22
-
22
-
22
-
22
-
22
-
22
-
22
-
22
-
22
-
22
-
Hello, Dave,
This is a great debunking series. I think it is clear that what motivates James Tour and others like him is to find a way to discredit the vast amount of good science pertaining to the origin of life on Earth and life in general is to prove that the Christian Bible is inerrant, even the first words of Genesis (I'll explain the reasons below). Life is a chemical process and the chemistry behind life is very complicated, so it is easy for mountebanks and frauds to use the layperson's lack of knowledge to use references and language that seeks to confuse the person into thinking that the chemistry of life is so complicated that only a Maker is able to put it together, which is to say that the frauds engage in a question-begging fallacy.
I am a practicing Catholic and I can tell you that I believe many Catholics and many other Christians (with a few exceptions, like Behe) don't believe the Bible is a scientific book nor that it was intended to be a science book. Most of us Christians (Catholics, Orthodox, etc.) don't believe that one error in the Bible means the whole Bible is wrong; that's a fundamentalist position which most of us Christians do not take, but for historical reasons, seems prevalent among many Christians in the U.S. The reason why fundamentalist Christians believe the Bible is true in every word is because they believe God wrote the Bible himself (it is the true word of God) and that a single word deemed incorrect would mean the Salvation story could also be a lie or is incorrect or inaccurate. If there is any doubt that the Genesis story is all true, then the whole edifice crumbles in itself. This is, of course, fallacious thinking. Nevertheless, this is what shapes their worldview, including science, in that if they can point out to a single error or inaccuracy (even when an error can be the result of their own confusion which stems from their own scientific illiteracy) they think the whole edifice will also crumble into itself, as if science was this monolithic body that can be knocked down by a single well-placed hit, instead of a collection of knowledge on nature and the universe based on observation, experience, experimentation and induction.
22
-
22
-
22
-
22
-
22
-
22
-
22
-
22
-
22
-
I've been watching your videos for the past four years, along with other educational sources on YouTube, throughout my college journey. I graduated with a degree in Clinical Laboratory Science, and I want to thank you because I don't think I could have done it without your educational content.
However, I just recently discovered your debunk videos on your Debunks/Discussions/Debates playlist. I've been binge-watching them and have truly enjoyed them. They've made me rethink many beliefs I had regarding pseudoscience. I have to admit that I believed in many of the topics you debunked, like Quantum Mysticism, Billy Carson, and claims about water. Your videos have made me question those beliefs.
I believe what you're doing with these debunk videos is critical, especially in today's internet age where misinformation is spreading like never before. Many people lack basic scientific knowledge and will believe whatever is presented to them.
Keep up the great content! I'm looking forward to more of your debunk videos and especially hope you address Dr. Eric Berg and Sadhguru in the future, as you mentioned in your debunk videos about water. They have a large audience, and it now scares me how much pseudoscience they're spreading. Even I have fallen victim to their misinformation.
22
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
20
-
20
-
Sabine is the only genuine STEM channel that I had to make sure I'm no longer reccomended, I actually don't understand the point of her channel. Every vid of hers seems to be taking a new interesting study or enterprise and framing it as bad, greedy, pointless, power-hungry, ego affirming on behalf on the researchers. All with zero basis to do so beyond her own general skepticism.
It seems all she does is try to hand wave new science while saying if it's not up to her snuff new research shouldn't even be done. As if new science is a pointless endeavor and we shouldn't even bother doing it; if it's not a massive brealthrough on the scale of Einstein that can explain everything we don't know its meaningless junk. I think she can be really funny at times with her remarks but I'm not sure I ever actually learned anything from her channel, which is strange from a PhD physicist and science communicator.
Also, notice how every example of scientific failing brought up in this video is complimented by scientists and the scientific community actively reporting it and fighting against it, to the point of shutting down big papers or quitting their jobs at certain publications. That is what science is, it's a self-correcting process. This is what "repeatability" and "peer review" do. This narrative that scientists are just blind sheep congratulating each other for having brilliant minds for writing things in a paper they can't prove is just that, a narrative. You know when any field of science goes wrong or when they don't know something because they tell you in depth. In that way people are weaponizing knowledge they gained from scientists against them for supposedly being unknowledgeable. She uses the scientists are sheep narrative to push another one, that she is the lone expert reporting on these failings and therefore outside of the bad ignorant mainstream academia, basic science denialist rhetoric. "Science is bad, I know because I'm the only one scrutinizing it, forget that scrutinization is built into science because that means I'm not a special truth beacon and scientists do what I say they don't."
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
I think a lot of folks (myself included) mostly considered the religious right sidelined back in the late 2000s when their biggest political win in the US, George Bush's 2 terms in the presidency, was soundly rejected. But if the past few years have taught us anything, the religious right isn't a problem that goes away when they lose a couple of presidential elections. Their political power is strongest on the state level in fact as we've seen with the waves of right wing religious bills on abortion, trans rights, and what kind of history can be taught in schools (which is something they have more leverage on atm but should just be seen as the opening salvo in a broader assault on secular education).
My one suggestion though is when speaking to an anglophone audience, don't give them an out by only citing countries this audience tends to view as "others" as the potential bad trends we can head towards. While Iran and Afghanistan are bad theocracies, I think it's a bit easy for those in the west to go "they're underdeveloped" or "haven't gone throw an enlightenment" (the 2nd one being flat out wrong of course, but commonly believed) and therefore think the threat isn't as real in the West. Example like Poland's gay-free zones and increasing authoritarianism, the return of influence and oppression of the Russian Orthodox church in modern Russia, and vitally, the slew of state level bills in the US are hard, inescapable evidence that even developed, post-Western enlightenment faces threats of returned theocracy. I'd encourage using local examples where possible to make sure folks can't fall back on lazy tropes about other cultures to dismiss the problems of their own societies.
20
-
20
-
20
-
This was an interesting exercise in patience. The problem that I have with trying to frame the existence of a god in a rationally cloaked argument is that it all hinges on irrational, or, at best, a series of premises for which there is no evidence. If there is no evidence for something, trying to jump ahead and prove or disprove it becomes a silly game of semantic/philosophical hurdles, which may be fun only for their own sake, but not for illuminating anything meaningful or substantial to the argument. Even the introduction of "evidence" on Blake's part involved the accepting of a made up philosophical framework that uses aspects of math/probability in an irrational way. Again, I was impressed with my hero here, Dave, and his patience, but I was less impressed with my own. In a material universe, the idea of god is an exercise in faith, nothing more at this point, I'm afraid (for Blake). BY THE WAY, did y'all know Prof. Dave plays drums in a band? They're called The Lonely Wild! I'm going to check them out before school this morning. Thanks for keeping it real and helping us understand the world around us Prof. Dave.
20
-
20
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
Professor Dave, I find myself almost too embarrassed to drop a comment, but you deserve to know that the time you spent on this helps some people. My brother sent me down the rabbit hole that was S.O. a few months back. He even gave me the book lol. I was skeptical as I seem to be about most things, and looked for a good counter argument. Found this video, spent a few hours checking other opinions and sources on him. Not a lot out there and non of it was good. Then I gave some of your other debunks a view. And that's why I owe you a thanks. I can fully accept that I have become very distrusting of the federal government, and I don't see how that isn't deserved honestly, but i had not realized just how much BS I was starting to listen to. Your right, conspiracy does become addictive or reflexive at least. "I'm not mainstream" was really all any of these crackpots had to say to get me to at least hear them out. And sometimes a question or two would stick that I was smart enough to conceive of, but not to answer....or at least I wasn't going to invest the time and effort to do so. I never bought in very far, but apparently far enough to cast a shadow of suspicion on everything I had to take on faith. Looking through your debunk list I was embarrassed to see how many I had wasted consideration on. It was really the Nikola Tesla Dynamic Theory of Gravity that started my brother and I down a road of stupidity a good 10 yrs back. And today I learned my final lesson from that, being completely illiterate is safer than being slightly intelligent lol. The whole road started with "magnetic magic", "Dielectric Universe", "Plasma Universe" and somewhere along the way I was questioning if moonlight was cold. Keep up the good work sir, some students need a nudge back out of wanting to believe it is all much more simple than it really is. Thanks!
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
15
-
Well, you may have had to put up with some rude, moronic flat-earthers, but your efforts have earned you a new subscriber, for what it's worth. This is the first video of yours I've seen - in fact, I'm not even half-way into it, and I'm already subscribing. Your explanations are clear, succinct, and, most importantly RATIONAL and SCIENTIFIC. If the flat-earthers don't realise how completely and utterly you've just destroyed their arguments, there really is no hope for them...their cognitive dissonance and innate irrationality is clearly too great for them to overcome.
Thanks for taking the time to do this! I'm only sorry I didn't find your channel before now!
15
-
15
-
15
-
Watching the US sink into theocracy is so deeply saddening.
Many people who haven't been abroad probably don't even know how deep the US has sank. Among developed nations, the US is an outlier in practically every metric of societal health there is, and the gap is widening. By a vast majority, the gun nuts, the bigots, the racists, the nationalists, the conspiracy theorists, the science deniers, the homophobes and the vultures who prey on the needy and can never have enough, are, or at least claim to be, people of faith.
One may say think that I'm against religious people. I'm not. Many among my family and my friends are religious, I love them, and they are neither stupid nor bigoted. But here, in my very Christian European country, religion is personal. If a mainstream politician would attempt to publicly declare how God or Jesus guides their thinking and their policy, they would be instantly mocked and ridiculed by over 90% of my compatriots and the religious ones would join in the ridicule. Do we have theocrats? Yes, but they are in single digits and can't really influence things on such a level (although they do constantly try to). Like I said, religion is personal. As it should be.
My heart goes out to my fellow rational humans in the US who are having to fight against the theocrats for non-negotiable and self-evident rights, like the right of women to choose how many childen they'll have and when, or the right of children to be educated in actual science. I wish I could do more, but I can only urge you to never give up, and to support people like Dave who speak up for values that actually matter.
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
As someone who's met narcissists, I can definitely say that when it come to people like James and the DI, it's not about science or even religion; it's about constantly finding someone to hate and yell at. James and the DI are seemingly compulsively driven to find people to call the banes of their existences. Because without an object of hate, without someone to direct anger at, they have to look inwards (i.e., do ACTUAL psychoanalysis). And to a megalomaniac, the possibility that they might be the tiniest bit wrong is basically the equivalent of the Armageddon. That's why James' life choices are seemingly driven by a desire to create an echo chamber (e.g., his research has nothing to do with OoL, he only has DI zombies appear on his channel) while constantly talking about how OoL researchers or even people who talk about OoL are stupid, evil, etc.
Now why James directs his anger towards OoL is beyond me. Maybe he hated studying evolution in elementary or middle school and this is his way of getting revenge. Or maybe he's so arrogant, he literally thinks he's the next Aristotle, da Vinci, and Einstein combined.
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
The methods of channels like S0 are consistent with the tactics of online radicalization by terrorists, cult leaders, and sexual abusers (i.e., identify vulnerable populations, sow doubt in the âmainstreamâ views and communities, isolate them claiming only they know the truth and that the mainstream is the false narrative to be rejected out of hand, repeat false claims until viewers believe they are true, convince viewers that they should only believe them and reject other views out of hand, and finally, accelerate the timeline with urgent messages of impending crisis and urge that people must act (buy his stuff, attack his critics, listen only to him) to save themselves). It is a Doomsday Cult.
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
I remember following your tutorials for organic chemistry while preparing for JEE three years ago, and the only content of yours I had watched other than the tutorials was your first video about flat earth. It was a pleasant surprise when I rediscovered your channel and saw you had tutorials up for multivariable calculus and more advanced topics! I also binge-watched a lot of the debunks and while I can't claim to have understood the science entirely, they did provide a reason for me to study sincerely at a time when I was losing hope in myself.
Coming to the James Tour debate, I admit I couldn't understand much of the chemistry, but I knew you were on the right. Anyone with a pair of eyeballs and a working knowledge of English can see how James misrepresents papers(the tactic with Benner's paper was especially pathetic). And while I find it difficult to reconcile the "professor"(or the "chemistry Jesus", as one of my friends back then joked) image with the coarse-tongued persona, I understand it is well-deserved in most cases, if not all.Â
The debate was very uncomfortable to watch. I wish you were less meaner(though of course, James shouted like a maniac right from the beginning), but looking at the sheer amount of trolls after the debate(both here and on Twitter), I understand the tone. I skipped to the QnA section and I loved the moment when James was going "You have a job AND a family, Wow" and you quickly showed the list of ad hominems and asked him if he'd retract any of them. I would love to see the scientific community's to that entire section("I publish several papers regarding my field, but I won't for OoL, I want my 'knowledge' to reach the general public"), or for that matter, the entire debate. I hope it will be possible to get their reaction. I also hope you don't let this circus affect your mental health, and you continue to make high-quality lectures/debunks.Â
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
Professor Dave,
I have been a long-time subscriber and watched at least a hundred plus videos from you over the years. I have benefited a lot from watching your videos.
Just over 6 months ago, I became a royalty-published author at age 23, fighting against my lifelong battle of Autistic Discrimination from firsthand trials. "Juggling the Issues: Living with Asperger's Syndrome" (ISBN 9781581697117) is being sold in multiple countries worldwide.
I was diagnosed about the age of 6. I never allowed Autism/Asperger's to slow me down! I earned a degree in chemistry, juggle for elementary schools since I was in high school, & play piano for seniors on Sunday mornings. I encourage children to never give up on their passions; if I can do it, so can you! My book is even sold out at Walmart, Barnes and Noble, Waterstones, Book Depository, Indiebound and other book distributors. My book and story were on a Spanish radio program in Panama for nearly 7 minutes. Plus, the book has over 1,150 likes on my Facebook page for the book, with followers from every continent except Antarctica.
I have had teasing/discrimination, been called many names and worse , and now, I am making a difference to hundreds of children - encouraging them that THEY HAVE A PURPOSE
If I can do it, so can you! I'm not "cured" but I'm making it my life's passion to be an encouragement to everybody - especially children, teachers, and their families. And Autism isn't going to stop me!
Enjoyed the video. Thank you, Professor Dave Farina for what you do. đđ
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
Good lord Dave⊠how youâre able to make a video over an hour about 200 spoofs from Eric Dumbass is beyond međ. I mean, there really is no end to the retardation from the cult of flerfs, is there?đ€Šââïž Number 4, no đ€Ź, Sherlock! Numbers 13, 14, 67-96; heâs says we see too far, but then contradicts himself with number 142: not seeing far enough, real stupid. Number 15, even if airplanes did escape Earthâs gravity, does he expect us to breathe with the emergency air masks in space??? Numbers 32 and 33, even with a basic high school diploma/education, Iâm smarter than this excuse of a yoga teacher. Number 106, yeah, not real on his pizza land⊠Number 113 and 114, I at LEAST understand thereâs no up/down in space, and I fail to understand his definition of common sense. I could go on, but this thread might be too long. Thanks for the laughs, Professorđ«Ą
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
Notes from watching what I thought would be tedious but was instead fairly hilarious:
Tour's first words on the topic are false. I am not surprised.
100% purity of the enantiomeric molecules of life is not needed, they just need a catalyst that can accentuate any fluctuation of imbalance in the two stereo forms in order to shift far enough from equilibrium to allow life reactions to proceed. I believe we now have 4 instances of such reactions in the literature. Claiming you are giving away a point just to expedite debate when that point would be an easy win for your opponent is definitely a debate trick, from the "I have never debated" person in this debate.
--
Around 10:00 I note that his 4th slide topic involves the term "specified information" which is entirely religious in nature. More when we get there. (1:18:00)
--
Around 11:00 Tour provides a good definition for life as it exists now. But such a definition does not deal with the fuzzy parts of modern life such as viruses and prions which meet a subset of the conditions tested to proclaim some system 'alive'.
12:45- the minimal requirements for a modern cell are not those that are mandatory for an ancient one. This is setting up an additional criterion for the determination of life, a requirement that all possible living systems must function identically to the one we know. Such argumentation often results in the fallacy of ignorance, an insistence that a lack of knowledge equals a lack of existence.
14:00 is claiming that we must have valid hypotheses on all 5 of his posted items to not be clueless. But to be clueless we would need to have no valid hypotheses about any of them. Tour does not seem to honor the basics of logic and mapping common speech into logic.
18:00 Farina starts with ad hominem statements, not cool.
22:45 Dave's first valid criticism, pointing out that Tour admits to not having read 95% of the papers he said do not exist.
33:00 Tour has picked out a particular peptide pairing and insists that unless that one can happen spontaneously that we are clueless. He hasn't suggested that prebiotic molecules cannot start interacting unless all known reactions are independently possible. IE he is not acknowledging that reactions that would form a catalyst for the one he has picked gets around his objection.
34:30 moderator makes a comment that I couldn't quite make out but it sounds like Dave pointed out that it was reasonable to use borate in an NMR measurement of chemistry that takes place on borate containing minerals.
37:00 Tour is claiming that Dave did not present how to do the particular reactions despite Dave having provided papers that did so, according to their abstract. He is supposed to be answering a question about his claim that textbooks show a primordial soup model.
39:00 Tour is modifying what he said earlier, he is adding a restriction to 'only a dozen people' sized community by at this point claiming he was only talking about one splinter of that group. THIS IS STRAIGHT UP DISHONEST!
45:00 Tour is again insisting that the original chemistry have the selectivity of the present observed collections of molecules. He is arguing against a strawman of spontaneous creation of the present system rather than it having evolved from less selective, less efficient ones.
**
50:00 Moderator interjects with the same logical failure that Tour makes of insisting on one step molecules to modern life chemistry, an insistence that modern cells are the only assemblage of chemical systems which can be alive.
**
1:02:00 Tour starts yelling about enzymes being essential for a reaction. That is categorically false, enzymes affect reaction rates, not the possibility of a reaction. For a reaction to be impossible the energy barrier height must be greater than any available-to-be-borrowed energy source, else the reaction is limited by quantum tunneling potential. Tour is demonstrating the tendency for creationists to treat everything as binary-- pass/fail, either all of it works or none of it works. The need for such stark distinctions is per psychologists a feature of child thinking patterns, the inability to deal with nuance.
1:06:00 I looked up the reaction Dave is mentioning, he is right, Tour is again adding an undeclared condition for life left out of his definition, that perhaps he left out because it is important but not essential.
1:18:00 Finally on to the intelligent design crap "specified information".
1:19:15 equivocation- 'contingent information' being treated as 'specified information', they are not the same at all. 'Specified' implies a prior intention while contingent information can spontaneously form. Other examples of spontaneous information: every spectrum of a star.
1:19:59 "source of information" is begging the question, the only source needed for information is the possibility of more than one configuration of the tokens encoding the information. IE randomness is a source of information. Information has one precise definition and plenty of equivocating ones, Tour is equivocating.
1:20:45 "need specified information" is an equivocation between 'specific' and 'specified' which are not even close to being synonyms. IE he is using equivocation to hide a bald assertion that the pattern of information, properly called a message, could not spontaneously form. Chemical evolution is possible: from among the randomly occurring reactions if one has lower energy than others then physical law makes it persist. If it has any autocatalytic behavior it then becomes widespread.
1:23:00 back to "all or nothing", we can't create life de novo therefore nature cannot. Tour really does not understand basic logic, as in the math of sets. Later on in response to a question Tour does correct this, but when asked about how non-scientists understand his points denies that he has some responsibility for what they think. Tour most definitely knows what his religious audience thinks due to what he says and he knows that he is feeding their beliefs. His denying it here speaks poorly to his character.
1:38:30 audience member asks about my point that Tour is adding unnecessary requirements to his list of what is needed for life to form. :) Tour's answer includes the ID fallacy of 'prescribed information', a presumption that there can be only one system of life. :(
1:49:35 Tour agrees that there might be unknown biochemistry, but we presently do not know of any (on the particular topic) and that lack of knowledge makes us clueless. What is missing is it is the rate that is in question, not the ultimate input and output of the reaction since those reactions do occur in the present. A low probability computed as such by our limited knowledge of chemistry is not a valid argument for "can't happen".
Summary:
Prof. Dave has shown that Tour equivocates and exaggerates to make a point that will be misinterpreted by his main audience of creationists, and he knows it.
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
Dave, you continue to surprise me when it comes to your research and way of delivering content to us, that's why I've been a long-time viewer of yours. As a psychologyst myself, just wanted to point out one little thing that might concern the content you've so magestfully brought us today.
The Electra Complex is NOT a Freudian idea nor is it mentioned in any freudian text; it is a junguian ideia. What we will find, whowever, is Freud referring to the girl's side of the Oedipux Complex as the Feminine Oedipus. (I'm not quite sure how it is named in English, I've read Freud in portuguese for my whole life since I'm brazilian.)
That said, there's only one thing that has not been explained in this video and I think is essencial for discussing Freud's ideias. That being the word "sexual" in his theory. That word has a whole different meaning when we're looking through psychoanalysis lens. Sexual and sexuality are two different concepts. Sexual means: "everything that can bring you pleasure", sexuality is, more preciseley, the stages and every thought that happens in each and every stage. That's why we call it the "psychosexual theory". This is largely covered in his book "Three Essays on the Therory of Sexuality" (1905).
That's why it can sound a little outstanding to the average viewer knowing that the child "discovers" masturbation. That concept is intrinsic to the sexual concept. That's a way to create tension and then remove said tension.
Another little thing is that the phallic stage is not centered in the genitals; it is, however, centered in the genital AREA. This stage is called "phallic" stage due to the concept of the "phallus" far too complex to fit in a Youtube comment. The genital stage is, of course, centered around the genitals.
About the "heteronormative" affirmation towards the end, you're correct. Though Freud explained that as his concept of "inversion" and it is NOT a sexual aberration. The way he goes about it is saying that everything regarding sex that's not going to reproduce the species is a "perversion". Knowing that, we can confidently say that oral sex, for exemple, is a form of perversion.
Of course we'd need to discuss perversion as whole, but for now, that's just a little bit of extra information.
These are some of Freud's texts that can help us understand a little bit more about what I said.
Three Essays on the Theory of Sexuality (1905);
Remembering, Repeating and Working-Through (1914);
On Narcissism: An Introduction (1914);
Instincs and their vicissitudes (1915);
The Dissolution of the Oedipus Complex (1924);
Thank you so much for this video, I really appreciate your work and everything you bring to the table.
You're amazing. <3
Sorry about the lengthy comment.
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
You should have come up with a better lie than one that can be verified in 30 seconds, dipshit. Also, this is what GPT has to say about Tour, if asked the right question:
"The origin of life is a complex and multidisciplinary field of study that seeks to understand how life first emerged on Earth from non-living matter. It involves aspects of chemistry, biology, geology, and astrobiology. Scientists who specialize in this field typically have a deep understanding of biochemistry, prebiotic chemistry, evolutionary biology, and related disciplines.
While James Tour may have a foundational knowledge of chemistry and related sciences that are relevant to the study of life's origins, it's essential to recognize that his primary research and expertise lie in other areas of chemistry and nanotechnology. The study of the origin of life often requires specialized training and extensive research specifically in that field."
Ooopsie. Looks like even ChatGPT knows Tour is clueless about OoL.
10
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
Congratz Dave! I do have 2 quick comments!
First, I think one channel that should have gone into your top 10 was definitely Formscapes. That video is very much exceptional work and I think it perfectly highlights what pseudo-intellectuals really are; apologists and frauds. "Science isn't dogma, you're just stupid." is one for the books!
Second, "Mr. Farina!" is going to make the science history books. I still talk with a few of my high school teachers, one who is a Chemistry teacher. I learned that she now has classroom memes on posters about James Tour, one such including the "ZERO!" meme. I asked her if she ever tells her students who James is, and she replied "No, most of them are already aware." Keep in mind, this is in Canada, so this has spread far! Half the world knows who James is now, and the infamy he will live with for the rest of his life will haunt him. Remember when you said in the 4th part of your 2nd series that you wanted all his followers to know what a fraud he is too? Well, his viewership went from a solid 150-200k per video to a whopping 15k avg. Looking at the comments of any video of his are all just ultra-devoted Christians. I think it is safe to say that James is dead, and you murdered him.
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
Dave, the teacher, with knowledge so grand,
Guiding the students with a steady hand,
With a heart full of passion, and a mind so bright,
He makes learning an adventure, day and night.
With a smile on his face, and a twinkle in his eye,
He teaches with patience, and never sighs,
For he knows that each student is unique,
And their potential is what he seeks.
He makes learning fun, and the lessons fly,
And the students' minds soar, to the sky,
For Dave is a true master of his craft,
And in his class, the students feel safe.
With a heart full of kindness, and a will to inspire,
Dave is the teacher, whom we admire,
For he's not just a teacher, but a friend as well,
And we're grateful to have him, in our academic hell.
So here's to you, dear Dave,
May your legacy forever stay,
For you are a teacher, of the finest grade,
and your impact on your students will never fade away.
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
"He was the most prodigious personification of all human inferiorities. He was an utterly incapable, unadapted, irresponsible, psychopathic personality, full of empty, infantile fantasies, but cursed with the keen intuition of a rat or a guttersnipe. He represented the shadow, the inferior part of everybodyâs personality, in an overwhelming degree, and this was another reason why they fell for him."
-- C.G. Jung, on Hitler and the Shadow
"The embrace, by working Americans, of policies that hurt their own interests can be understood on the basis of Ferencziâs model of identification with the aggressor. Intrafamilial child abuse is often followed by the abuserâs denial. Children typically comply with abuse, in behavior and by embracing the abuserâs false reality, under threat of emotional abandonment. Similarly in the sociopolitical sphere, increasing threats of cultural and economic dispossession have pressed working Americans to adopt an ideology that misrepresents reality and justifies their oppression. In society as in the family, there can be a compensatory narcissistic reaction to forfeiting oneâs rights that, ironically, encourages feelings of power and specialness while facilitating submission."
(The traumatic basis for the resurgence of right-wing politics among working Americans)
"Before mass leaders seize the power to fit reality to their lies, their propaganda is marked by its extreme contempt for facts as such, for in their opinion fact depends entirely on the power of man who can fabricate it.â
â Hannah Arendt, The Origins of Totalitarianism
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
Funny how Eric says that the JRE is where you go for real, open conversations about math, science, and other academic subjects, because they don't deal with plagiarism at Harvard. When, in fact, the President of Harvard was indeed ousted thanks to the efforts of his billionaire ally Bill Ackman -- ostensibly for plagiarism, but actually for giving the legally accurate but not politically correct response to a legal question from a congresswoman at a show hearing; Ackman then went on to allege "anti-Semitism" when journalists discovered that his wife's dissertation was littered with much more serious plagiarism, and tried to use his influence at the board of the news outlet's parent company to push the "anti-Semitism" angle, and for the story to be retracted.
Now THAT is championing the principles of free inquiry, I tell you what! What would we do without steadfast defenders of open, honest debate like Eric Weinstein and Joe Rogan?
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
 @ProfessorDaveExplains alright Professor Dave, I watched the video here. And I concur now that Ben is an idiot. Thank you for the great explanation in the video. My understanding of his debunk, bad attitude of his aside, is that he is taking papers, not reading them, selecting certain pieces that fit with his narrative, and then rolls it all into a doomsday event for followers. So the fact that he had some bits in that scenario correct, wouldn't surprise me. Especially considering I found some of that same information he used which WAS truthful, but couldn't fully comprehend what the papers said. Again, hitting the nail on the head in YOUR video about his followers not being able to understand the papers.
Not going to lie, he's very good at what he's doing. -_-
Thank you again Professor Dave. Have a sub from me, and I look forward to more of your content. As I stated before, just trying to educate myself a little further everyday. And also thank YOU for being respectful and keeping a level head with my ignorance. :)
If I missed anything else that he had wrong in that disaster is coming video, please feel free to share but I learned enough about his claims that I understand they're batpoop insane. I'd still like to learn more about these things though too......*shrugs
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
Reiner Protsch: Fraud and plagiarist. Detected, investigated and exposed by scientists.
Piltdown Man: Deliberate hoax. "Found" in 1912. Identified as a possible hoax by 1913. Confirmed to be a hoax in 1953. Detected, investigated and exposed by scientists. Fooled some scientists for forty years. Has now been fooling creationists for seventy.
Nebraska Man: A mistake rather than a hoax. However, Lucid showing a picture of a tusk at 34:42 is a definite hoax, intended to make the mistake seem ridiculous. The actual tooth is a molar, and quite similar to primate teeth. Discovered in 1917, mistakenly identified as anthropoid in 1922, questioned and disputed from the beginning, and retracted in 1927. The illustration was produced by the mass media, not by scientists, who derided it as a fantasy. Detected, investigated and exposed by scientists, within five years. Fooling creationists for almost a century now. We really should do something special for the centennial of its retraction.
Cardiff Giant: Deliberate hoax, immediately recognised as such by scientists. Only claimed as real by hucksters and preachers (is there a difference?). He's right that it was shown in multiple "museums"... simultaneously, which is a neat trick. Unable to procure the original, PT Barnum had a copy made and claimed that his fake fake was the real deal, and that the real fake was the fake. The ensuing lawsuit is when the whole truth came out. Both are still shown in museums, as examples of 19th century frauds. Nothing to do with evolution, except that it served its intended purpose of displaying the credulity and flawed thinking of those who oppose it.
Peking Man: Not a fraud. He speaks as if it was a single specimen, that was deliberately and suspiciously disposed of, implying some kind of coverup. What he's actually talking about is the loss of the original specimens, at least forty individuals, in 1941. See "Second Sino-Japanese War", or "World War II, Pacific Theatre" for a small clue on why things going missing in China during this period should not be considered suspicious. We still have copious evidence of the original specimens, including cast replicas, and more recently discovered specimens. Nobody doubts /Homo erectus pekinensis/.
Scientists identified Protsch, Piltdown, Nebraska, and Cardiff as not being legitimate.
Creationists ... didn't. And then they latched onto every example of science correcting itself as "proof" that science is wrong. And fell for the hoax that was made for the sole point of showing how gullible they are. And misidentified /Homo erectus pekinensis/ as a single fraud.
By my count, the score is four to negative one.
And pay attention to the dates. He only managed to find one example in the past seventy years, and had to stretch to find more than three in the last century and a half. Surely if the field is as riddled with error and fraud as creationists like to pretend, he would have many modern examples.
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
The idea that this novel coronavirus was "manufactured" as a "bioweapon" is conspiratorial, because of the elements of paranoid intentionality it implies. But the idea that an experimental coronavirus escaped from one of the two virology institutes in Wuhan is quite viable, despite the Nature article that was rushed out to assure the world otherwise. The Wuhan Institute of Virology was, in fact, conducting gain-of-function research in which they used coronaviruses found in bats, passing them through hundred of generations using various tissue hosts in the lab. This was done both with found viruses and altered versions of those natural bat coronaviruses-- there are discussions you can find among serious evolutionary biologists and virologists concerning the furin cleavage sites and the "spike protein" that makes this particular novel coronavirus so transmissible and deadly.
The sudden explosion of this virus into a worldwide pandemic did not follow the same epidemiological pattern that is seen in natural (as in non-human-meddled-with) animal viruses making the transition to humans-- rather, it was precisely what you would have expected from a virus that had emerged from a lab experimenting with making viruses more deadly and transmissible. But the public discourse about the virus in the United States was distorted enormously by our former president's embrace of the "manufactured bioweapon" conspiracy theory, and the fallacy of false dichotomy led a great many people to insist that the pathogen could not be man-made (out of other coronaviruses and genetic material from yet other viruses). Denying the conspiracy theory does not, in fact, mean the virus must have jumped naturally from bats to humans, but it became impossible to discuss without being accused of believing the unsupported conspiracy of the "deliberately manufactured bioweapon".
The findings of the WHO "investigation" are seriously flawed, and it can be very frustrating to explain specific reasons their findings in this particular case should not be taken as scientifically impartial and find yourself accused of doubting the WHO in general or science in general! Someone with a great deal to lose or gain from any particular answer to a question should not be entrusted with investigating that question, and the man allowed to "investigate" the origins of the novel coronavirus was the head of the same company that paid for, and arranged United States funding for, gain-of-function research at the Wuhan Institute of Virology: Dr. Peter Strozak of Eco-Health Alliance. I followed the details that were made public as closely as I could, and the "investigation" seems to have done very little other than take the word of the Chinese government-- which was very definitely the answer that was wanted, in this case, to "clear" the institute and its research programme of any possible hand in the history of the virus.
I advise you to look into the history of gain-of-function research, which was banned after an outbreak following the escape of a less devastating pathogen from a lab in the Soviet Union, but recently renewed despite the known dangers for scientific ends I do not believe warrant the funding of such research.
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
Actually I can understand why flat earthers are usually angry people. Just imagine their rage at being bombarded hour after hour, day after day by all these billion-dollar projects like Elon Musk's Space X - accompanied by tons of hyper-realistic videos, and videos from all these professors and physicists and astronomers and engineers with beautifully elegant mathematical constructs while their minds cannot even conceive of a single mathematical formula except their three flat earth equations (Flat Earth Because My Eyes, Round Earth Because Billionaire Illuminati, and You Explain, I Cannot Because <<< G O D >>>>) and being forced to use satellites for their internet in order for them to talk about not believing in satellites, and their UTTER BEWILDERMENT at seeing all these hundreds of thousands of brilliant college students, scientists, engineers, pilots, geologists, physicists, radar operators, designers, etc etc graduating and suddenly morphing into HOLLYWOOD ACTORS FOR THE REST OF THEIR LIVES with ONE and ONLY ONE GOAL IN LIFE: TO PISS OFF FLAT EARTHERS. Whew. And that's just scratching the surface. I bet if you took a look at their molars these would be ground into the gums from all the seething impotent rage they must feel. Tsk.
7
-
7
-
7
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
What I find interesting is that most flat-earthers are Republicans. Go figure.They are also the same people who watch ridiculous Youtube videos and then incorporate the information immediately into their belief system. There were many about the current virus, and when proven wrong you will be lucky to get them to change their mind, much less admit they were wrong. I am still waiting for Trump to apologize for accusing the left of manufacturing the Covid virus as a means to hurt him politically. These idiots believe that some anti-right cabal runs the US, without taking into account that every time something shady happens in an election, it benefits the right. Trump only won because of stupid people believing nonsense, untrue things, and getting angry over something that has no basis in reality. This is how you get morons who say Sandy Hook never happened, we never went to the moon, etc. They have their heads so far up their asses that you present them with provable facts and they still think they are right, even though all the evidence points to the opposite. One thing I've learned is this: stupid people, when they don't understand something, have to compensate by making something up. Instead of admitting they are stupid, they go to these great lengths to be "right."
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
I've been watching your videos for the past four years, along with other educational sources on YouTube, throughout my college journey. I graduated with a degree in Clinical Laboratory Science, and I want to thank you because I don't think I could have done it without your educational content.
However, I just recently discovered your debunk videos on your Debunks/Discussions/Debates playlist. I've been binge-watching them and have truly enjoyed them. They've made me rethink many beliefs I had regarding pseudoscience. I have to admit that I believed in many of the topics you debunked, like Quantum Mysticism, Billy Carson, and claims about water. Your videos have made me question those beliefs.
I believe what you're doing with these debunk videos is critical, especially in today's internet age where misinformation is spreading like never before. Many people lack basic scientific knowledge and will believe whatever is presented to them.
Keep up the great content! I'm looking forward to more of your debunk videos and especially hope you address Dr. Eric Berg and Sadhguru in the future, as you mentioned in your debunk videos about water. They have a large audience, and it now scares me how much pseudoscience they're spreading. Even I have fallen victim to their misinformation.
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
Dave, heard you're debating WItsit. Watch Globebusters Ep. 11.9 from 18:00 - 28:00, where they discuss Witsit's strategy against you. Witsit will be trying to call you out on some points you mentioned against David Weiss. I wanted to alert you to Witsit's major talking points:
(1) Earth doesn't move. It doesn't rotate and orbit the sun.
Foucault's Pendulum & optical gyros detect the aether's vortexing motion, not earth's spin. He'll mention papers showing the spin rate decreases with altitude, which shouldn't occur if it was the earth that is spinning. One such example is David Miller's papers. These are BS papers and lack statistical analysis, so the variance he detected is statistically insignificant. Statistics weren't carried out on papers of old, unlike today.
Another effective rebuttal is to ask him how the precession of Foucault's pendulum changes with latitude if it was the aether vortex that it detects. Witsit will then likely claim centrifugal forces generated by the universe's motion around us creates that pattern (called Mach's principle). But no such motion around us has ever been detected; there's no angular momentum to the universe. What we see is the universe expanding in all directions. The Gravity Probe B experiment disproves Mach's principle.
Regarding orbit, Witsit will claim Newton requires earth to change direction as it circles around the sun, which needs a force (gravity, the centripetal force), but Einstein says gravity isn't a force and earth moves in a geodesic - a straightline path thru curved spacetime. He'll also say the Michelson-Morley expt. showed earth doesn't orbit the sun, which is patently false. They were using the orbit to test for the aether. Also, he may bring up the Sagnac expt., Michelson-Gale and Airy's failure misunderstanding & misrepresenting each one of them.
Witsit will ask for exclusive evidence that earth orbits the sun. The answers are stellar aberration (James Bradley, 1727), stellar parallax (Friedrich Bessel, 1838), Romer's observation of Jupiter's moon Io, annual Doppler shift of stars (blue & red shifts) due to earth's orbit, Kepler's 3rd law etc. The 3rd law can be derived from Newtonian gravitational law, thereby providing a dynamic mechanism for earth's orbit. Witsit's alternative - geocentrism - lacks such a dynamic mechanism. It can only claim kinematic equivalence. His main rebuttal will be that aberration, parallax & Doppler shifts show it's the stars that are moving, not earth. But that's just a vague handwave dismissal. There are lots of nuances. For instance, aberration is the same for all stars and independent of their distance from earth, whereas parallax decreases with distance of the star. Aberration is 90 degrees out of phase with parallax because it depends on earth's velocity, while parallax depends on earth's position in its orbit. Aberration causes stars to trace circles at the ecliptic poles, straight lines at the ecliptic plane and ellipses everywhere in between. Such detailed nuances cannot be accounted for by geocentrism. Also, geocentrists try to explain parallax by claiming the stars orbit the sun while the sun goes around the earth. If this is the case, that can't even be called parallax and it will be a daily occurrence, not an annual event.
Witsit will also wrongly claim that earth's orbit cannot be measured. It has been measured with stellar aberration. The speed of earth's movement - 30 km/s is directly obtained from aberration given the contant speed of light. Moreover, in recent decades, acceleration of the solar system and even that of the Milky Way have been measured with VLBI (Very Long Baseline Interferometry). VLBI has also been used to measure Earth's wobbles. Witsit is still stuck with 19th century interferometry, and is not aware of VLBI. A new version of aberration using distant quasars instead of stars, can be used to detect the solar system's motion. There are papers available describing these. Please check them out.
(2) VHF radio over 30 MHz can be transmitted thousands of km showing the earth is flat. But this is explained by Sporadic E propagation, which Witsit ignores.
(3) Planar surveying shows earth is flat. But he ignores that planar surveying has a distance limit to it, beyond which only geodetic surveying is employed. If the earth was actually flat, such a limit to planar surveying wouldn't be there.
(4) Models of the earth's interior are wrong because the data obtained from the deepest hole dug in Russia at 12 km depth were in disagreement with geologists' predictions.
(5) Southern flights travel longer distances than on the globe by taking advantage of jet streams. Ask him how jet streams switch directions for return flights. And why do jet streams travel along the outer perimeter of the AE map? Makes no sense on FE. In reality, these winds are produced by the rotation of the earth from west to east.
(6) Antarctica can't be freely and privately explored due to the treaty. But that's the same for any hazardous place like Mt. Everest. Several tour operators carry a growing number of tourists not just to Antarctica but all the way to the South Pole every season. Note that flat earthers haven't so far taken up Will Duffy's offer to fly them to Antarctica, all expenses paid, and witness the 24h sun.
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
Good on Dave for rolling up his sleeves and not pulling a single punch. Even when asked by the audience to say something nice, he stuck to his guns. Building Tour back up would destroy the whole point of this debate.
Being nice has resulted in all this nonsense pseudoscience. Anti-vaccines, anti-mask, anti-science, flat earthâŠuntil you tell them what they believe is objectively stupid, nothing is going to happen. Sitting them down like theyâre infants and saying âhey, buddy, letâs talk about something for a minuteâ is a non-starter. Speak to them like theyâre adults, confront them directly, and be brutally honest. Even if it doesnât change the mind of the idiot in front of you, it might change the mind of those watching (in other words, someone who watches Daveâs debunk video or reads this comment).
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
Great video debunking this nonsense claim, Professor Dave. It's really gotten to the point where any new discovery that is slightly at odds with what we thought we knew about cosmology is touted off by creationists and crackpots as a "complete and total annihilation" of the theory. You pretty much gave them the response they're entitled to get: a few laughs and groans with a healthy dose of introductory science.
For anyone who wants to know a little more about Lerner's claim and why it's rubbish, you may want to look up something called the "Tolman surface brightness test." Basically, galaxies took up more of the volume of the early universe (which was much, much smaller back then), so we see them with a larger apparent size compared to nearby galaxies based on the light we receive in our telescopes. Lerner's entire "debunking" of big bang cosmology essentially revolves around that, while simultaneously misunderstanding (or ignoring) the fact that (as pointed out in this video and in the lead author's comment) galaxies evolve, grow, and merge with each other over time (contrary to what Lerner says). This is all beside the point anyway, as we don't yet have accurate spectroscopic redshifts of these galaxies from JWST, so we can't gauge their distances with high enough confidence for these extraordinary claims. I think some of the "high redshift" galaxies (the redshift estimated by other means) that have been discovered by JWST have already been shown to be closer than previously thought (so not as old as people like Lerner might argue). I wouldn't be surprised if most (or at least a large proportion) of these "too old" galaxies turn out the same way.
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
This is a great video, nice job.
I think there are 2 main causes behind flat earth belief. The first is the "need" to believe the earth is flat to go along with some whacked-out interpretation of religious scripture. The people in this category have willingly shut their brains off and are impervious to all facts, logic, and evidence. They're completely hopeless, and are to be ignored.
The second cause is a strong affinity for conspiracy fairytales. After all, the strongest predictor that somebody will believe in a given conspiracy tale is that they believe in other conspiracy tales. This concept is known as "crank magnetism." Couple this with low education and a longing to feel special in a world that has them down, and you've got very fertile ground for flat eartherism.
By necessity, all of the flat earth "evidence" and main talking points are extremely simplistic. They always tend toward very general, broad-brush assertions. They never "show their work" in a satisfying way; that is, they never derive formulas, they never provide diagrams that successfully illustrate a concept as a general case, they never offer a means of quantifying anything, they never offer a means of modeling or predicting anything, etc.
Indeed, to be a "good" flat earth argument it is absolutely essential that anybody - and I mean anybody - can understand the gist of what is being said, with zero effort, and requiring no relevant education or professional experience.
This aspect of simplicity is the defining trait of flat earth argumentation. That is why, in the flat earth cult, the road to erudition is paved with lazy conspiracism.
All you need to do is watch a few 10 minute Youtube conspiracy videos and suddenly you're catapulted from being an insecure know-nothing to somebody who is in possession of special knowledge. Having grown tired of feeling "dumb" in a fast-paced world where people who understand math and science always seem to get ahead, the flat earther candidate finds immense appeal in dead-simple Youtube videos and the ground-breaking revelations they purport to contain.
Â
It's not really hard to see how we got here. Take a climate where there exists widespread distrust in authority/government, throw in a service like Youtube that gives any old dummy a free-of-charge platform to broadcast whatever they want without having to adhere to any standard of accuracy or truth, and bring in a fringe audience of Dunning-Krugerites who "don't know what they don't know" in science and math, and boom, the earth is flat.
Â
The hypocrisy and utter dearth of intellectual honesty on display in flat earth is staggering. Its adherents constantly implore people to "wake up" and "do research" and "question everything" yet these same people live by an ethos that is characterized by an obstinate refusal to research anything at all. Instead of making an honest attempt at learning how things really work and how such things came to be known, they would prefer to credulously hitch their collective wagon to an endlessly repeated short list of untenable "arguments" they picked up from internet memes and scientifically illiterate conspiracy videos. "Do your own research?" They are the absolute worst offenders of what they claim to rail against.
If one must insist on learning everything about the world by lazily watching Youtube, then the kicker is, they can still do that and learn information that is actually true.
It's telling that FE'ers are always running away from the realities that have been uncovered by centuries of scientific discovery; you never see them running toward any kind of cohesive and self-consistent alternative. "We can't prove the earth is flat, but we know it isn't round, because NASA lies and Youtube told me so." This kind of baseless denial can only come from a deeply entrenched cult mindset, mental illness, low intelligence, willful ignorance, or some combo thereof.
I'll leave with some fitting words by Galileo:
"The eyes of an idiot perceive little by beholding the external appearance of a human body, as compared with the wonderful contrivances which a careful and practiced anatomist or philosopher discovers in that same body when he seeks out the use of all those muscles, tendons, nerves, and bones; or when examining the functions of the heart and the other principal organs, he seeks the seat of the vital faculties, notes and observes the admirable structure of the sense organs, and (without ever ceasing in his amazement and delight) contemplates the receptacles of the imagination, the memory, and the understanding. Likewise, that which presents itself to mere sight is as nothing in comparison with the high marvels that the ingenuity of learned men discovers in the heavens by long and accurate observation."
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
As a PhD student who has worked in academia on a major physics experiment for four going on five years, I was definitely taken aback by this video by Sabine. The absolute boneheaded assertion that scientists don't care about the results they produce as long as they keep being paid... And that they are lying to the public... This makes my blood boil. Now I am only experienced in my particular area of particle physics... But every scientist, graduate student, researcher I have met has cared about what they work on, and want the best results possible. In addition, she harped on experiments like DUNE because she says they are wastes of public tax payer dollars. Ignoring the fact that these experiments still only use a small fraction of the total US budget (because the science budget I think is around 1%), there are so many reasons why funding these experiments, even if they don't produce results that change the foundations of physics, are in the public interest. For one they increase our knowledge of physics and pushes the field forward (especially in the case of DUNE). And many times they strive to measure something that has been impossible previously, so they need to develop new technology that did not exist before which could be used in other fields or help lead to more technological advancements that could benefit society. And lastly, what I think is perhaps the most important, is these experiments train hundreds even thousands of early career researchers, where they not only learn how to perform research, but they also learn many new skills like software, hardware, engineering, etc that helps them to become a more skilled researcher which can enable them to pursue various successful careers. This effect of training young scientists, like myself in fact, should not be ignored.
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
Excellent lecture, Prof Dave, Although I feel that it was less a debunking of "Electric Universe" and more a guide to debunking all pseudoscience and the mindset of those who follow, using EU an an example. You hit on the points so well that I have to now watch this repeatedly so I ingrain the questions of talking points like; 'citation, please?', 'where is the phenomenon [today]?', and 'what can/has been made using it?'. This was also a valuable lesson in hypothesis breakdown, asking further questions of the hypothesis before declaring an idea for experiment to prove theory. A side note: this was on of your more 'polite' debunking videoes as less insults were hurled, but you did state that this had an allure of having real science involved, and not the pull-out-of-your-ass-a-paranoid-knee-jerk-reaction-to-actual-science-math-and-learning, that that you usually encounter. Science on, Prof. Dave, We await more [true] education.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
You probably wonât see this comment, but anyways⊠Iâm a professional artist, but Iâve always wanted to understand science deeper partly out of passion, partly as a tribute to my grandpa who was a space rocket engineer in Soviet Russia. I watch you for many years, you helped me to connect the dots between quantum reality, organic matter, neurons, ideas in our brain, to abstract concepts like time, space and dimensions. Itâs not easy for an artist to easily grasp those concepts, and I really love your explanations and the ethics of this channel. I use those concepts at work with my team, to make our projects more substantial (weâre doing animation tv series) and up to date, even if weâre talking about stuff like superpower, time travel, overcoming mental problems, interacting with nature/space or just mindfulness. The more I learned from this channel the more I was like âcome on, do you know ALL of the science?.. even crash course have different hosts/teams for different fields, how on earth can you possibly understand and explain everything?..â But now to think that youâre also an artistic and geeky person yourself made head finally explode and my heart skip a beat, come on man thatâs just so much for one person, but also so inspiring really đđł sending you some love and support from Russia.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
And I tell you folks, I'm the smartest chemist there is, and it's all fake news, sad, very sad, and so Jack, a very fine guy, I'm sure he is, one day he comes to me, tears in his eyes, trembling and he tells me, sir, please, can you help us ? You're the only one who can solve this ! And I say you can't do it without me, that's right, a tremendous problem, and I have the most bigly intellect, folks, you know that, and I said no can do Jack, and I have the email to prove it, right there in my pocket, but the nasty scientists, they deleted the email server, very sad. It goes all the way to the Youtube swamp, it's all subscriber fraud, if you count only real subscribers, I'm the winner by a lot. I have so many scientist friends, tremendous guys, and they tell me "can I ask you something", and I say "of course", and they say "why are you the only one making so much sense ?" and it's true folks, but I'm always censored, as you can clearly see, I can't say anything at all.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
Something to add about the room rental:
Student union's in UK universities have multiple societies, Islamic societies are very common. To book a room for society activities, student union's typically require that those participating are members of the society, (paid membership to the society + a basic guild of societies membership), especially if they are renting facilities from the student union to do so, instead of the event being hosted at a bar or something. This is usually cheap for students of said university, expensive for former students, and very expensive for those who are not affiliated with the university (upwards of ÂŁ100).
So if Subboor has had one of his friends at this university book this room for an Islamic society event, it's clear that there is no way that this could feasibly be a venue for the debate anyway, as there's no way that the university would allow this even if they were aware of it, as it would require that all, if not the majority, of attendees (students) have memberships to the Islamic society. As an example, the live music society at my university requires that at least half of your band members have society memberships if you wish to perform at a society-run event.
3
-
3
-
3
-
I see a lot of folks pointing to The Safire Project as proof to the validity of The Electric Universe. Hereâs why itâs not. Itâs literally just a large vacuum chamber used to generate different kinds of plasma discharges. Sometimes they use it to try and replicate patterns found in nature. Other times they look at the patterns they produce and see if they can find similar patterns in nature. Thatâs it. Itâs like blowing up a grenade and saying âsee how the shrapnel flew out? See how a small thing released all this energy?â, and then using that as evidence that supernovae are caused by stars full of gunpowder.
Besides, The Safire Project wasnât even designed to prove the Electric Universe, and they donât claim it does as far as I can tell. They simply say, âTo date, the Safire Project has not found any disparities with the EU/ES modelâ which is not a shock, because it wasn't designed to do that either. Itâs not designed to prove anything. Theyâre not doing tests which would prove or falsify their model, which is what real science would do, and has done countless times with the crazy, unintuitive, predictions made General Relativity.
In addition to this, real science has actually been done on many predictions made by various versions of The Electric Universe where it falls flat on its face, whereas General Relativity passes with flying colors. The Safire Project exists solely so that Electric Universe proponents can stand up, wave their hands and say âSee, weâre doing science, too.â
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
Hi Dave. I never commented on your videos before. I'm a late in life career changer to medicine. Your videos were definitely a part of what let me get a strong MCAT score this summer (CARS was the weak link, of course). You are known far and wide as a fantastic teacher. Your A&P stuff, along with Crash Course, taught me everything I know about A&P.
Anyhoo, I just wanted to say that I feel like if it upsets you or you don't enjoy engaging with conspiracy thinking, you should just leave it. It doesn't behoove an excellent thinker to engage in arguments about facts that have been verified centuries ago, or debate actual arithmetic. If the clicks are profitable, I would say, keep at it, as long as it doesn't drain your energy.
It's funny, I think something should be done about conspiracy thinking in general -- it is costing lives these days -- but it's tricky. I would say, if you could successfully communicate with someone, there would be a purpose, but if it bothers you that people on the interweb are wrong about something, you're just going to be unhappy.
Well, thanks for trying at least. And thanks for the MCAT help. You must know that there are countless students who have found success in their courses and have gotten into schools because of you.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
Flat earthers implore others to do research, while simultaneously asking "where is the proof of the globe?" Even if we defer to the unreasonable "rules" of flat earthers and summarily disregard the thousands of photographs of the planet showing it is irrefutably round, we still have the fact that the heliocentric globe model is the only answer anybody in human history thus far has come up with that conforms to known laws of physics and matches every observation we can make from the ground with pinpoint accuracy, including (but not limited to): location and timing of sunrises anywhere in the world on any day, location and timing of sunsets anywhere in the world on any day, timing and duration of seasons, varying of climate with location on the planet, shape and angular orientation of solar analemmas at any time of day from any location on the planet, 24-hour sunlight in the arctic circle on or about the June solstice, 24-hour sunlight in the Antarctic circle on or about the December solstice, timing and duration of eclipses as seem from all parts of the planet, timing and magnitude of equinox sun angles from anywhere on the planet, Mercury solar transits (one is coming in November 2019 - don't miss it!), Venus solar transits, retrograde motion of Mars, varying of the moon's apparent rotation with latitude, changing of visible stars with latitude, changing of visible stars with seasons -- shall I continue?
Aside from maybe the solar transits, these are examples of naked eye observations that anybody can do themselves. Not only that, but these observations are impossible to coherently account for in the errant nonsense of flat earth. Keep in mind, any time you think that flat earth can kinda-sorta account for one observation, you need to simultaneously account for all other observations in all situations, and this is utterly impossible because flat earth is nothing but shallow denialist memes, pathological ignorance, and Youtube foolishness. Heck, they can't even satisfactorily explain sunsets as a standalone phenomenon, let alone as part of a cohesive overall model that takes everything else into account as well. I know it must hurt these fools when they realize it, but flat earth is a complete joke of a cult that will never go anywhere beyond the seedy underbelly of Youtube and a few Facebook echo-chamber pages. If you choose to hitch your trailer to that sad-sack train, that is your prerogative, but I hope you don't end up regretting wasting your life and sacrificing your personal relationships at the altar of infantile, trivially debunkable gibberish.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
"Makes something so ridiculous so appealing to so many people."
1. Most people are laypeople. They are not well informed about the reality of any particular field.
2. Most people do not trust existing institutions, often because of their real untrustworthy behavior. This becomes a generalized mistrust in institutions because they lack the political and economic understanding to isolate the causes of untrustworthy behavior.
3. A priori, there's no ability to discern credible from non-credible information without at least some specialized knowledge for context purposes, but mainstream information, such as that produced but mainstream scientific institutions, may be considered untrustworthy because it came from those institutions, which may be untrustworthy. Alternatives to the mainstream are seen as potentially trustworthy because they frame themselves as such. This inflates the credentials of any and all heterodox ideas.
4. Easy solutions that provide comfortable answers to societal questions at seemingly low cost are often given the benefit of the doubt if they sound plausible, even if they're considered nonsensical by mainstream scientific institutions. Laypeople with no scientific training cannot discern whether an idea is a real heterodox theory or outdated or quack nonsense. The idea that becomes the next plate tectonics, the next electric universe, the next NeoLamarckism, and the next intelligent design all seem equally likely and equally nonmainstream to them. They cannot tell if some non-mainstream idea has a chance of being true, once had such a chance, or never had a chance, and will usually overestimate any heterodox idea that conforms to their sense of reality's validity as being most likely true. Especially if it claims to provide cheap medical benefits.
5. Because from the perspective of a layperson with no scientific training, mainstream scientific institutions seem no more valid than any other potentially flawed information source with its own set of agendas, and any claims they make such as practicing the sole way of knowing to make technological progress possible, or the only way of knowing with a consistent model of reality and accurate predictive capability, are just as valid as the claims of a prosletizing religion to them.
6. Laypeople use an empirical model for understanding science, not a rational one. They think more about correlation than underlying causation and they're definitely not going to do any math even if they are handed the numbers. They are constantly told the extraordinary discoveries of "science" that seem to have no real consistent underlying method to their madness, either because they don't know the math to explain it, or because it's actually sensationalism, clickbait, or media reporting nonsense studies resulting from the incentives for researchers to overpublish.
The intuitive response is to just assume that all hypotheses are equiprobable and you shouldn't have steep prior probabilities against certain hypotheses being true. OR alternatively, that "science" doesn't know what the fuck it's talking about. Either one leads them to be highly willing to believe very weak P-hacked or worse evidence for extraordinary claims, without even demanding proof, and makes them resistant to scientifically-minded people trying to debunk such claims. Afterall, if thinking about chocolate makes you lose AND gain weight according to "science," why can't telling water you love it make it energized into a hexagonal structure?
7. Most people are not taught to think critically. Or are taught NOT to think critically. Thus, generalized trust or distrust of not just the source but the type of source often replace any rational reason to believe a claim.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
 @ProfessorDaveExplains Haha, I admit that was a bit confusing. I'm talking to the Internet. I've been watching Sabine since a long time ago, when she was alone doing her own editing, singing, dancing, with her husband playing guitar sometimes. That's because I am interested in quantum mechanics and computing and science news in general, so this has been one of my favorite channels for some time for learning about quantum physics and some more. With the occasional joke or rant that made it entertaining.
Then it became a business. Which means, she hired a team, got sponsors and started Mr. Beast style as YT recommends in order to succeed in this business. Which also means, that other people make you say shit even if you don't want, because they want to get paid. And they use all the tricks and gimmicks, like stock footage and memes every couple of seconds like every other channel. Also carefully pick and test thumbnails. I've seen her upload a new video that didn't watch and a few hours later the same video with a new more provocative thumbnail. Add the hundreds of AI videos (I mean about science) made the same style filled with plagiarism and it makes science look like a joke.
This is so stupid, that I don't care about the content anymore. Yeah, she attracts science deniers and I have unsubscribed and stopped supporting months ago. I'm sure that if I feel this way, there are a lot of people who feel the same way too.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Prof Dave, i have a video request.
Lately, ive seen a lot of folks defending the Shroud of Turin as the burial cloth of Jesus, citing the presence or lack of organic compounds like vanillin, bilirubin, and then the inage of the man on the shroud wasn't painted (no paint, no brush strokes), so if it was a middle ages forgery, how was the image produced, and so on. Maybe find a popular vid defending the Shroud as an authentic 1st century relic, with apolgetics for the STRP findings and then explain why they're mistaken/lying.
If your schedule permits it, I'd love to see whether or not we are "AHHHH CLUELESS" when it comes to the origin of the Shroud of Turin. And if you're busy with other projects, that's okay too. Thanks!
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
I'm more interested in the substance than the theatrics, so I want to point out some things that passed by, but weren't adressed.
1) why polysaccharides? Specifically forming the glucose dimer abiotically. Sugar chains form no big role in any of the mainstream OoL scenario's, they're a molecular late comer. Lipids are more fundamental and relevant, but they weren't mentioned in the now infamous blackboard clueless list. If monomeric sugars can be formed by the formose reaction or equivalent, you can develop nucleic acid replication, catalysis, and even translation, before you need to worry about glucose metabolism and linear and branched polysaccharides.
2) this problem of looking at OoL as stripped down modern life seems to apply in general to Tour. Assuming the first life was a cell (rather than a self replicating system in a compartmentalized environment, driven by an external energy gradient), assuming that the first nucleic acids didn't have heterogenous or simply other backbones (like treose or glycerol or whatever) but pure ribose, assuming that all modern amino acids were there and part of translation (rather than expanding a smaller and chemically simpler "alphabet" over time), while at the same time worrying about sequence specific untemplated polymerization of amino acids, which is contradicted by the previous assumption of translation being there from the start (in which case untemplated polymerization is irrelevant).
3) the odds of a random protein sequence having specific function X is not one in twenty to the power of length. Take the example of the enzyme that dimerizes glucose. The first thing that demolishes the p=0.05^L calculation is asking "which one?". There isn't just one sequence that does this. Unless you think every species with this enzyme has an identical copy. They don't. The minimum amount of functional ones isn't 1, it's the amount of known functional variants, which will be easily thousands to millions in this case. And that's besides the unsampled mutants with comparable function. Tour seems to be unaware of the sequence-structure-function relationship of proteins. It's not nearly as specified as he thinks it is.
4) A crucial part missing from Tours argument about half lives of ribozymes is the production rate, he ONLY mentions the degradation rate. It's like arguing you can't fill a bathtub with no drain plug. You can if the tap is open, and the rate of water coming from the tap is slightly higher than the rate at which the drain can take it away.
If a piece of RNA that can do self replication exists, in an environment that can hydrolyze it while also having the environment that allows replication (presence of monomers and probably catalytic metal ions), it can persist as long as the production rate by replication is equal or larger than the degradation rate.
Say the average lifetime is 8 hours. [edited; for mistakingly writing "half life" there earlier] That means that if this molecule makes a copy of itself in 7 hours 56 minutes for example, on average the amount will rise, slowly but exponentially. And every mutation that increases this speed or accuracy, will have the highest rate and eventually dominates the population.
For comparison, replicating a nucleic acid in the order of hundred bases in about 8 hours is pretty slow. Modern life does it in the order of seconds. So we could give the ribozyme in this hypothetical example the leeway of being 20 to 30 thousand times slower and still outliving degradation.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
I think you need to know yourself and your research. But that is at best half the equation. Itâs as important, if not more important, to know your audience. The one example in this brief excerpt was the biochemist who was communicating primarily within his research area (if I understood the discussion properly). I find this to be a small subset of the communication needs. More often, you are communicating with people in the same or closely related fields. This is still relatively less demanding, as your audience typically shares a common vocabulary and world-view.
Outside of these, there is such a broad range of necessary communications. Other scientists, the media, politicians, students, the general public, just to name a few. All of these are important audiences, demanding different approaches. Then there are even subsets of these, for example, your general public audience could be broadly accepting of your work/field, or they could even be antagonistic towards it.
I find many in the scientific arena to shy away from any of the audiences outside of the first paragraph. This is a shame, because quite often the information is critical for a fully-informed representative government, and a reasonably informed electorate (or future electorate).
I end with a piece of wisdom that my Ph.D. Advisor left me with: â[i]f you canât explain your research to a reasonably educated high school graduate (or student), then YOU donât really understand it.â (J. J. OâBrien).
Thanks for the excerpt, it appears to be a podcast well worth hearing.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Wouldn't be surprised if it turns out she's got ties to the AFD -- the new N*zi party in Germany.
She certainly demonstrates herself as a pick-me for the far-right anti-science crowd.
And as the far-right fascists take over government and now are taking over media, they have masses of money (it turns out having zero empathy for other people makes it really easy to lie, cheat, and steal to get masses of wealth a disastrously under-regulated system). And now they are consolidating power of our various sorts of media - soon everything we see or hear will be controlled by them. Or that's their goal, anyway. Scientific words are being banned from science and pulled from informational resources, women are being erased from science and technology (good luck on that one, Sabine -- I guess she'll be one of the "good ones" for awhile) and of course anyone not falling in line with the MAGA ideal Aryan or whatever, are likewise being erased and having rights deleted.
History is for sure repeating itself. And we're seeing a lot of people deciding that money is the most important thing and that they are happy to sell out the rest of the human race to side with fascists. And some people -- seemingly fewer, but that's likely just colored by my anxiety of the situation -- are making a point to stand against it.
Science is, predictably, a massive target for the fascist regime(s). Anything that cares more about truth than it does about following their declarations of the "strong men" is not going to be acceptable. Hurts their feelings, makes them feel weak. If things continue, we'll wind up with pseudo science as the science allowed in the US. I do think we've slid into a new "dark age"... and that, actually, it started quite some time ago without us realizing it, we'd been coasting on past momentum. There's still much worse to come if we sit by and let it happen. Hopefully, we're at or very near the peak of this new dark age, it'll just be a blip, and will be able to claw back civilization and humanity within our lifetimes. But my fear is that far too many remain apathetic or in denial -- or worse, complicit -- to take it seriously yet.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
 @ProfessorDaveExplains well, tbh my dear mr dave, I adore your content. It's easy to digest, very educational and most importantly, very entertaining. Specially the debunks of flattards and religious con-men. And yes, I would agree, this actually is not the proper vid for this comment. And perhaps i misjudged the title and thumbnail, of the vid in question. And in this matter, I should apologize for at least 2 things, good sir. First of all, the title and thumbnail of your Trump vid, made me decide, to not want to watch that vid(I am in no way a fan, however, he was a hilarious man, and the outrage over his wording, and some questionable deeds, or actions, was a delight to observe for me #MomWheresMyPocorn). Soo, in my opinion, i have no right to have an opinion about the vid in question đ€Ł. I might actually watch it later. That being said, I do appreciate you reacting to my comment, taking it serious as you do, makes me appreciate you even more. It shows, you respect you audience!
PS i saw you on discovery science, a while ago. Can't recall wich show, but it was definitely you. Keep it up and with humble respect, this Dutchman offers his apology, for taking an uninformed shot at your content, without any effort taken to see things in context.
Keep it going. I â€ïž u đ
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
 @ProfessorDaveExplains Again, about the debate. Tour kept saying, âthey havenât done thisâ, âthey said theyâd do that but havenât.â How is that an argument for anything? The purpose of science is to discover. So what if something hasnât been done yet? You tried to show that his claims were untrue, why not point out even if true, it cannot mean it would never be done, that he cannot assert it will never be done. Last point. It seems your logical strategy to bring research papers to dispute Tout was not effective in that format. I imagine if the two of you presented separately at a conference, your data intense approach would have the time it needed. Instead, his Gish gallop forced you to constantly search for a paper to refute him, while he moved on to something else, forcing you to look for another paper. Your approach to prove he lies needed more time than the format allowed. I kept waiting for you to appeal to the moderator by asking him to tell Tour to shut up. Your composure earned my additional respect for your strength of character. Is there something you could share on how you did that?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
I watched the same thing on two sources: One by Professor Dave and the other by Crash Course Astronomy, and let me make a few points.
1. I am a lay person, I do not understand science, haven't studied it beyond a certain limit. For such a person, this 17 minute video was Godsend (ironical, isn't it) because it has such a beautiful explanation. Crash Course explanation was lacking in several fundamentals which made it easy for me to UNDERSTAND exactly what is happening. Not the surface understanding, I actually understood the process and absorbed it from this video.
2. I loved that you explained the Chandrashekhar limit and mentioned it by name. Again, Crash Course mentioned several scientists who were white and while they used the Chandrashekhar limit over and over again, they did not mention the name of the concept OR the name or the scientist who came up with it even ONCE. It felt like they were portraying it to be the work of white scientists, thereby taking away the merit of BIPOC scientists. I've spoken to several physicists and they have all mentioned that you CANNOT explain Black holes and white dwarves without the Chandrashekhar limit. This means that to not mention the name of the principle (but mentioning Pauli's exclusionary principle or Heisenberg's uncertainty principle in detail) shows that the credit has been taken away DELIBERATELY and the time that should have been spent on Chandrashekhar limit was given to them because of race.
3. I know this is a scientific video, but inclusion and crediting the scientists of colour is an important step in ensuring scientific advancement itself. It is a form of motivation and acceptance, and that their work will not be appropriated by white scientists.
Thanks for this video
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Dave, this might sound like an understatement, but you're truly doing god's work exposing those fraudsters. In my lifetime, my entire worldview has been shattering for the second time in the past few months. The first time was when I left religion due to its dogma, only to fall for other equally dogmatic personalities and ideas. Gladly, it looks like I'll have to revise many of my beliefs yet again. ^^
I feel bad for getting stuck in an echo chamber of anti-establishmentarianists who only sold cynicism, hopelessness, and fear. I know I might fall into another echo chamber, but one grows, learns and improves. For that, I'm thankful for your work, as well as others who expose the perpetuated lies and dogma. â€
1
-
â @zerothehero123 Dr. Jaffe is wrong. I shoot video of med school classes for a living (I'm actually in a class now), and so, in a way, I've been in med school for the last 9 years. Of course, it depends on the school, but there is more than a couple of hours taught on lifestyle and nutrition, but only in an evidence-based context. As an example, I had an ingrown toenail recently that got infected. No amount a meditation or nutrition would have cleared it up. Had I not taken antibiotics, I probably would have lost my toe, possibly my leg, and perhaps my life. I took antibiotics, the podiatrist cut off half my toenail, and I was fine. That's not to say that nutrition and lifestyle don't have positive, evidence-based effects. They certainly do, and the lack of those can lead to actual medical problems, such as diabetes.
But here's the thing: medical treatments are evidence-based. Our students do get a course in CAM, but they emphasize the fact that most CAM (complementary and alternative medicine) doesn't have evidence to back it up. I personally want my students to learn evidence-based medicine. Do you know what they call alternative medicine that works? Medicine.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Saturday 04/01/2025. Somewhere in North Europe...
Thanks P. Dave, You are a beacon in this darkness. I try to share as much as possible your content, but I see that people are not so interested in science, and avoid thinking that, it is science, that brought their worshipping totems: the smartphones (for instance), which phisically are attached to us and just centimeterrs away when we sleep. I love technology and I won't renounce to any of it except, perhaps, what clowns-liars-usurpers as Musk can bring. His IA and his chips and his ideas constant stealing. He should be held accountable.
Again, thanks and love from an unconditional fan and follower, as I was educated in science in an European school of engineering, and there was a single language: true-based facts, proven by scientific method/s.
Hail Science and Intellectualism...
And same encoragement as told to other FE debunker, not a single second spent again on FE bullshit.
We must ignore them, as they thrive on views and I dont what to be a source of income of these mother s
Ps: BTW you have a beautiful family!!!
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
You gave him too much ground to start with.
You were right to reject his premise that god exists, but you granted that it logically follows that we would expect an existing God to create a universe that permits life. And thatâs unproven.
He tries to back up that conclusion by appealing to the âgoodness of moral interactions,â but thatâs an unproven assertion. In fact, we canât assume that life (or âmoral interactionâ) is good without implicitly assuming a conscious being to recognize it as good, unless we want to go the route of moral realism, which is a shaky argument.
You see, heâs sneaking in other premises to logically arrive at that conclusion, but he never explicitly told you those premises, and you never explicitly granted them.
But he also fails to see the issue with his Bayesian analysis on that subject. And hereâs why:
The prior probability of a god instantiating the singularity is not 50%. In fact, we must consider ALL of the hypotheses for the origin of the singularity (and even then we are assuming it wasnât always there). Then we must distribute the probability evenly across all hypotheses, until we have further evidence to give weight to some of them. The problem is that there are an infinite number of âpossibleâ explanations of the origin of the singularity, so the prior probability that God created it is infinitesimally small, as with every other hypotheses. Heâs creating a false dichotomy by lumping all of the non-theistic hypotheses into one category and giving it equal weight to the theistic hypothesis.
The main issue here is that, since none of these hypotheses seem to be testable, then we are stuck with our prior probabilities, and we just established that the prior probability of a god creating the universe is infinitesimally small.
On top of that, even if we knew that some of these hypotheses could be testable, appeals to explanatory power are going to be problematic here, because we could easily posit a non-theistic unconscious universe-creating machine that spits out an infinite number of universes in every possible configuration, including some that eventually permit life after they expand for a while. And then we could just state that we are in a specific universe that happens to permit life, and that we cannot see the other universes, because thatâs how universes work according to observation.
And then he might respond, âwell why did we happen to find ourselves in this specific universe and not another one that doesnât permit life?â And thatâs a nonsensical question, because the only reason we exist to ask such a question is because this universe unfolded in a way that brought us to life. So we canât actually approach that question from an outside perspective.
Now, since we can construct a hypothesis that is guaranteed to predict everything in our universe (the one I just mentioned above), then the theistic hypothesis is equivalent at best, and probably worse.
Moreover, if you want to add in all of the attributes we ascribe to the Abrahamic god, then the theistic hypothesis loses some of its predictive power, since it makes a lot of extra claims that defy everything we know and observe about physics. It would have to account for those anomalies.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
I've finished all 165 videos in the playlist. Let me just say this series is incredible and it truly makes every single new concept in math seem unimaginably easy. You'll think calculus and linear algebra are tough but by the end you'll treat them like they're 2+2=4, and it's all because of how well these videos explain them. Some other closing thoughts and information about the contents:
The 165 videos here reach up to about the second year in math university(mostly Analysis and later some cursory Vector Fields), and a lot of the latter-half lessons here lean more on the Applied Math side than Pure Math. This is probably intended and it's a good thing, considering all the related fields Dave specialises in. Meaning that the math you're going to learn in this series all have strong practical applications in Physics, Engineering, but also Computer Science, in case you wish to become a programmer. While not strictly necessary, and you can perfectly understand without, I might recommend knowing at least a bit about classical Physics once you reach the calculus lessons in math and beyond, although, if like most of the population you've went to school, you've probably had basic Physics classes and that alone is enough.
In any case, the math you learn here is going to be more or less all you need for most Physics or Engineering. Anything beyond will probably concern the very bleeding edge in contemporary math or physics, and is probably things I can't even begin to comprehend..
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1