Hearted Youtube comments on Professor Dave Explains (@ProfessorDaveExplains) channel.

  1. 8400
  2. 6900
  3. 4600
  4. 4500
  5. 4400
  6. 4400
  7. 4300
  8. 4200
  9. 4000
  10. 3700
  11. 3600
  12. 3600
  13. 3500
  14. 3300
  15. 3100
  16. 3100
  17. 2900
  18. 2700
  19. 2200
  20. 2200
  21. 2200
  22. 2200
  23. 2000
  24. 2000
  25. 1900
  26. 1900
  27. 1800
  28. 1700
  29. 1700
  30. 1700
  31. 1700
  32. 1600
  33. 1500
  34. 1500
  35. 1500
  36. 1400
  37. 1400
  38. 1400
  39. 1300
  40. 1300
  41. 1300
  42. 1300
  43. 1200
  44. 1200
  45. 1200
  46. 1200
  47. 1200
  48. 1200
  49. 1100
  50. 1100
  51. 1100
  52. 1000
  53. 1000
  54. 1000
  55. 975
  56. 971
  57. 924
  58. 916
  59. 908
  60. 905
  61. 902
  62. 901
  63. 897
  64. 890
  65. 858
  66. 855
  67. 845
  68. 845
  69. 837
  70. 831
  71. 825
  72. 812
  73. 807
  74. 804
  75. 791
  76. 780
  77. 779
  78. 765
  79. 760
  80. 757
  81. 733
  82. 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
  83. 717
  84. 715
  85. 709
  86. 705
  87. 704
  88. 695
  89. 691
  90. 687
  91. 682
  92. 677
  93. 671
  94. 650
  95. 645
  96. 642
  97. 642
  98. 640
  99. 630
  100. 625
  101. 623
  102. 612
  103. 609
  104. 598
  105. 597
  106. 583
  107. 582
  108. 577
  109. 570
  110. 568
  111. 562
  112. 550
  113. 540
  114. 536
  115. 536
  116. 531
  117. 526
  118. 525
  119. 520
  120. 516
  121. 512
  122. 500
  123. 497
  124. 496
  125. 495
  126. 487
  127. 482
  128. 482
  129. 475
  130. 466
  131. 466
  132. 464
  133. 462
  134. 451
  135. 450
  136. 450
  137. Professor Dave, I hope my comment makes it to your eyes at some point. I know you’re a busy guy so reading every comment on your YouTube channel is likely impossible. But I’ll leave this in the hope that you see it at some point. Mostly I want to say thank you. My daughter has some slight learning disabilities and her mother, my ex wife, is a flat earther. My daughter is 15 but with her learning issues has roughly a 2nd or 3rd grade math and science capability. Her mother had at one point attempted to “teach” my kid flat earth garbage. Basically, she was unsuccessful in part because I found your channel. The higher level debunks were a bit over her head, as physics and some other things are a bit out of reach for her still. But your videos that used zero science and only needed observation are the thing that made the switch flip in her brain. So you at bare minimum helped a LOT in saving her from the flat rabbit hole. We watched several of your other debunk videos and a lot of the more intricate science started to stick with her as well. Then, as I searched around on your channel, I found your tutorial videos. They’re absolutely amazing and are helping her with every aspect of math and science in school. They’re presented in a way that’s perfect for her. So we’ve been going through a bunch of your older videos and hitting all the stuff that’s at her level. And that level is going up very quickly! Plus, it’s given her a way to get legitimately interested in science, which had not been the case before. Your channel has become an invaluable resource for my family. I thank you so much!
    446
  138. 445
  139. 442
  140. 441
  141. 439
  142. 439
  143. 438
  144. 434
  145. 430
  146. 428
  147. 428
  148. 426
  149. 421
  150. 417
  151. 417
  152. 414
  153. 413
  154. 412
  155. 407
  156. 405
  157. 403
  158. 402
  159. 395
  160. 391
  161. 391
  162. 390
  163. 389
  164. 387
  165. 386
  166. 381
  167. 380
  168. 380
  169. 379
  170. 379
  171. 378
  172. 377
  173. 373
  174. 369
  175. 368
  176. Hi Professor Dave, I was originally a mathematician working in topology but I eventually transitioned to what I call "applied pure math" and eventually to machine learning. 42:12 just aggravates me because creating algorithms to work through data is what machine learning is about. He is just denouncing a whole field of study into something that is basically an impossible endeavor. Now, for those who are interested, I will try to explain how the scientists processed the blackhole data. They used three algorithms: 1) An algorithm to clean up the convoluted data. We call this deconvolution. Simply, this process uses fourier transforms. This algorithm is called CLEAN and has been improved over time. 2) An algorithm for regularized maximum likelihood estimation with sparse modeling and L1-regularization. The definitions and methods are a bit technical here, but it is basically an algorithm to: - Pick the right samples so that it will be more informative and accurate - Prevent overfitting (when the sample is too specific that the model cannot be applied to the whole data/the general case). 3) Regularized maximum likelihood algorithm with maximum entropy regularization. This algorithm is for processing VLBI (Very Long Baseline Interferometry) data. This is what creates the image. VLBI means using radio waves to predict the shape of the object. As a final note, these are not arcane methods known only by a select group of people. The packages used to implement the algorithms are available on github. https://github.com/achael/eht-imaging (For VLBI data manipulation) https://github.com/astrosmili/smili (sparse modeling for Interferometry) Other than the regular python data processing packages these are the ones they used. Robitaille should have looked at this before he makes his baseless claims Feel free to reply if anyone wanna ask anything
    366
  177. 364
  178. 362
  179. 360
  180. 360
  181. 358
  182. 357
  183. 357
  184. 356
  185. 355
  186. 351
  187. 350
  188. 350
  189. 349
  190. 348
  191. 344
  192. 342
  193. 339
  194. 338
  195. 338
  196. 336
  197. 336
  198. 329
  199. 329
  200. 327
  201. 326
  202. 325
  203. 322
  204. 322
  205. 321
  206. 321
  207. 319
  208. 316
  209. 313
  210. 313
  211. 311
  212. 311
  213. 310
  214. 308
  215. 307
  216. 307
  217. 303
  218. 302
  219. 298
  220. 296
  221. 295
  222. 288
  223. 288
  224. 288
  225. 287
  226. 287
  227. 286
  228. 285
  229. 283
  230. 283
  231. 280
  232. 280
  233. 280
  234. 279
  235. 278
  236. 277
  237. 276
  238. 274
  239. 272
  240. 271
  241. 267
  242. 266
  243. 265
  244. 265
  245. 263
  246. 261
  247. 260
  248. 259
  249. 257
  250. 257
  251. 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
  252. 255
  253. 252
  254. 252
  255. 252
  256. 251
  257. 249
  258. 248
  259. 247
  260. 246
  261. 243
  262. 242
  263. 241
  264. 240
  265. 238
  266. 237
  267. 237
  268. 236
  269. 234
  270. 233
  271. 231
  272. 231
  273. 231
  274. 231
  275. 230
  276. 228
  277. 226
  278. 226
  279. 225
  280. 223
  281. 223
  282. 219
  283. 218
  284. 218
  285. 217
  286. 214
  287. 213
  288. 211
  289. 211
  290. 210
  291. 210
  292. 207
  293. 205
  294. 205
  295. 205
  296. 204
  297. 204
  298. 204
  299. 203
  300. 202
  301. 202
  302. 202
  303. 201
  304. 200
  305. 200
  306. 200
  307. 199
  308. 196
  309. 195
  310. 192
  311. 192
  312. 192
  313. 192
  314. 192
  315. 191
  316. 191
  317. 190
  318. 189
  319. 189
  320. 187
  321. 186
  322. Hey Dave, I’ve 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 you’ve helped me through; so far you’ve helped me get through Physics, Biology, and now you’re helping me through Chemistry. Having ADHD, providing the information in distinct, easy-to-follow videos as opposed to a textbook was very helpful. You’ve 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 notebook’s worth of reference just from the notes that I’ve taken on your videos alone(though the notes are a bit disorganized and, quite literally, all over the place; I don’t tend to keep them all in one spot). I’ve even recently started on your series on Economics in my spare time because I’m 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, you’re an amazing content creator. I’ve probably watched your demolition of anti-science hacks about a million times. I’ve 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. I’ve even started using your stuff in my debate club, especially against people who think like Creationists and Flerfs. I’ve seen one or two minds change after I’ve linked your content. I eventually found myself using your mannerisms and tone during debates, which is honestly great, because if I’m wrong about something, it hits a lot harder and I actually learn from the experience. Another thing I’ve 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
  323. 184
  324. 183
  325. 181
  326. 181
  327. 180
  328. 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
  329. 179
  330. 176
  331. 176
  332. 175
  333. 174
  334. 173
  335. 172
  336. 172
  337. 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
  338. 170
  339. 170
  340. 168
  341. 168
  342. 167
  343. 165
  344. 164
  345. 164
  346. 163
  347. 162
  348. 162
  349. 161
  350. 161
  351. 160
  352. 160
  353. 160
  354. 159
  355. 159
  356. 159
  357. 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
  358. 159
  359. 158
  360. 157
  361. 157
  362. 155
  363. 155
  364. 154
  365. 153
  366. 152
  367. 151
  368. 151
  369. 151
  370. 150
  371. 150
  372. 149
  373. 149
  374. 149
  375. 149
  376. 148
  377. 146
  378. 146
  379. 145
  380. 145
  381. 144
  382. 144
  383. 144
  384. 142
  385. 142
  386. 142
  387. 141
  388. 140
  389. 138
  390. 138
  391. 137
  392. 137
  393. 137
  394. 136
  395. 136
  396. 135
  397. 134
  398. 134
  399. 134
  400. 133
  401. 133
  402. 132
  403. 131
  404. 131
  405. 131
  406. 130
  407. 130
  408. 130
  409. 128
  410. 128
  411. 127
  412. 126
  413. 126
  414. 125
  415. 125
  416. 125
  417. 124
  418. 123
  419. 123
  420. 122
  421. 122
  422. 122
  423. 121
  424. 121
  425. 119
  426. 119
  427. 119
  428. 118
  429. 118
  430. 118
  431. 118
  432. 117
  433. 117
  434. 116
  435. 116
  436. 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
  437. 116
  438. 115
  439. 115
  440. 114
  441. 113
  442. 112
  443. 112
  444. 111
  445. 110
  446. 108
  447. 108
  448. 108
  449. 107
  450. 107
  451. 107
  452. 107
  453. 107
  454. 106
  455. 106
  456. 106
  457. 106
  458. 105
  459. 105
  460. 105
  461. 105
  462. 104
  463. 103
  464. 103
  465. 103
  466. 102
  467. 102
  468. 102
  469. 102
  470. 101
  471. 101
  472. 100
  473. 100
  474. 100
  475. 99
  476. 99
  477. 99
  478. 99
  479. 99
  480. 98
  481. 98
  482. 98
  483. 98
  484. 97
  485. 97
  486. 97
  487. 97
  488. 96
  489. 95
  490. 95
  491. 95
  492. 95
  493. 94
  494. 94
  495. 94
  496. 94
  497. 94
  498. 93
  499. 93
  500. 93
  501. 92
  502. 92
  503. 92
  504. 92
  505. 91
  506. 91
  507. 90
  508. 90
  509. 89
  510. 89
  511. 89
  512. 89
  513. 88
  514. 88
  515. 87
  516. 87
  517. 87
  518. 86
  519. 86
  520. 86
  521. 86
  522. 85
  523. 85
  524. 85
  525. 85
  526. 85
  527. 85
  528. 85
  529. 84
  530. 84
  531. 83
  532. 83
  533. 83
  534. 83
  535. 83
  536. 82
  537. 82
  538. 82
  539. 82
  540. 81
  541. 81
  542. 80
  543. 80
  544. 80
  545. 79
  546. 79
  547. 78
  548. 78
  549. 78
  550. 78
  551. 78
  552. 78
  553. 77
  554. 77
  555. 77
  556. 77
  557. 76
  558. 76
  559. 76
  560. 75
  561. 75
  562. 75
  563. 75
  564. 75
  565. 74
  566. 74
  567. 74
  568. 74
  569. 74
  570. 74
  571. 74
  572. 74
  573. 73
  574. 73
  575. 73
  576. 72
  577. 72
  578. 72
  579. 72
  580. 72
  581. 72
  582. 72
  583. 71
  584. 71
  585. 71
  586. 71
  587. 71
  588. 70
  589. 70
  590. 70
  591. 70
  592. 70
  593. 70
  594. 69
  595. 69
  596. 69
  597. 69
  598. 69
  599. 69
  600. 69
  601. 68
  602. 68
  603. 68
  604. 68
  605. 68
  606. 68
  607. 67
  608. 67
  609. 67
  610. 67
  611. 67
  612. 67
  613. 66
  614. 66
  615. 66
  616. 66
  617. 66
  618. 66
  619. 65
  620. 65
  621. 65
  622. 65
  623. 65
  624. 64
  625. 64
  626. 64
  627. 64
  628. 64
  629. 64
  630. 63
  631. 63
  632. 63
  633. 63
  634. 62
  635. 62
  636. 62
  637. 61
  638. 61
  639. 61
  640. 61
  641. 61
  642. 61
  643. 60
  644. 60
  645. 60
  646. 60
  647. 60
  648. 60
  649. 59
  650. 59
  651. 59
  652. 58
  653. 58
  654. 58
  655. 58
  656. 57
  657. 57
  658. 57
  659. 57
  660. 56
  661. 56
  662. 56
  663. 56
  664. 56
  665. 56
  666. 56
  667. 56
  668. 55
  669. 55
  670. 55
  671. 55
  672. 55
  673. 55
  674. 55
  675. 54
  676. 54
  677. 54
  678. 54
  679. 54
  680. 54
  681. 53
  682. 53
  683. 53
  684. 53
  685. 53
  686. 52
  687. 52
  688. 52
  689. 52
  690. 52
  691. 52
  692. 52
  693. 52
  694. 51
  695. 51
  696. 51
  697. 51
  698. 51
  699. 51
  700. 51
  701. 51
  702. 51
  703. 51
  704. 51
  705. 50
  706. 50
  707. 50
  708. 50
  709. 50
  710. 50
  711. 49
  712. 49
  713. 49
  714. 49
  715. 49
  716. 49
  717. 49
  718. 49
  719. 49
  720. 49
  721. 49
  722. 49
  723. 48
  724. 48
  725. 48
  726. 48
  727. 48
  728. 48
  729. 48
  730. 48
  731. 48
  732. 48
  733. 48
  734. 48
  735. 47
  736. 47
  737. 47
  738. 47
  739. 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
  740. 47
  741. 47
  742. 46
  743. 46
  744. 46
  745. 46
  746. 46
  747. 46
  748. 45
  749. 45
  750. 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
  751. 45
  752. 45
  753. 45
  754. 44
  755. 44
  756. 44
  757. 44
  758. 44
  759. 44
  760. 44
  761. 44
  762. 44
  763. 43
  764. This may be a long comment as I reacting as I watch! Damn.. So I have been watching Suspicious Observers for over a year now. I do think that solar activity has the greatest impact on earth next to the moon due to its proximity. I'm about 2 minutes into your video, and the manner in which Davidson communicated with you via email is extremely immature and beyond uncalled for. It is one thing to speak immaturely such as in his "salt streams," which I view as humor more than anything. It is another to communicate directly with an individual that way. I fully acknowledge that I am prone to cults because I was raised in one (Pentecostal Christian) and later fell for vegan propaganda in my early 20s which has taken me over a year to heal from. I at least never donated or spent money on Davidson, but I do feel like I have wasted a lot of time. 5 minutes in, and I am disappointed to see that Davidson completely misrepresented the paper concerning radiation prior to earthquakes... I also appreciate the point you made about physics and how one can only extrapolate so far. I remember as a child in the Pentecostal cult, which is a doomsday cult faction within Christianity, I used to be terrified of the Rapture. I would have nightmares of the world coming to an end. The pastor swore up and down every year that we were close to the end and that Jesus was returning, but we were still alive every year. And yet this pastor had nice cars and guilted the congregation into giving him more money. I'm 16 minutes into this video now. I just wanted to say thank you. I've unsubscribed from Suspicious Observers and will not entertain that man anymore.
    43
  765. 43
  766. 43
  767. 43
  768. 42
  769. 42
  770. 42
  771. 42
  772. 42
  773. 41
  774. 41
  775. 41
  776. 41
  777. 41
  778. 41
  779. 41
  780. 41
  781. 41
  782. 41
  783. 40
  784. 40
  785. 40
  786. 40
  787. 40
  788. 40
  789. 40
  790. 40
  791. 40
  792. 40
  793. 39
  794. 39
  795. 39
  796. 39
  797. 39
  798. 39
  799. 39
  800. 39
  801. 39
  802. 39
  803. 39
  804. 39
  805. 39
  806. 38
  807. 38
  808. 38
  809. 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
  810. 38
  811. 38
  812. 38
  813. 37
  814. 37
  815. 37
  816. 37
  817. 37
  818. 37
  819. 37
  820. 37
  821. 36
  822. 36
  823. 36
  824. 36
  825. 36
  826. 36
  827. 36
  828. 36
  829. 36
  830. 36
  831. 36
  832. 36
  833. 36
  834. 36
  835. 36
  836. 36
  837. 36
  838. 35
  839. 35
  840. 35
  841. 35
  842. 35
  843. 35
  844. 35
  845. 35
  846. 35
  847. 35
  848. 35
  849. 35
  850. 35
  851. 34
  852. 34
  853. 34
  854. 34
  855. 34
  856. 34
  857. 34
  858. 34
  859. 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
  860. 33
  861. 33
  862. 33
  863. 33
  864. 33
  865. 33
  866. 33
  867. 33
  868. 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
  869. 33
  870. 33
  871. 32
  872. 32
  873. 32
  874. 32
  875. 32
  876. 32
  877. 32
  878. 32
  879. 32
  880. 31
  881. 31
  882. 31
  883. 31
  884. 31
  885. 31
  886. 31
  887. 31
  888. 31
  889. 31
  890. 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
  891. 31
  892. 31
  893. 30
  894. 30
  895. 30
  896. 30
  897. 30
  898. 30
  899. 30
  900. 30
  901. 30
  902. 30
  903. 30
  904. 30
  905. 30
  906. 30
  907. 29
  908. 29
  909. 29
  910. 29
  911. 29
  912. 29
  913. 29
  914. 29
  915. 29
  916. 29
  917. 29
  918. 29
  919. 29
  920. 29
  921. 29
  922. 28
  923. 28
  924. 28
  925. 28
  926. 28
  927. 28
  928. 28
  929. 28
  930. 28
  931. 28
  932. 27
  933. 27
  934. 27
  935. 27
  936. 27
  937. 27
  938. 27
  939. 27
  940. 27
  941. 26
  942. 26
  943. 26
  944. 26
  945. 26
  946. 26
  947. 26
  948. 26
  949. 26
  950. 26
  951. 26
  952. 26
  953. 26
  954. 26
  955. 26
  956. 26
  957. 26
  958. 26
  959. 26
  960. 26
  961. 26
  962. 26
  963. 25
  964. 25
  965. 25
  966. 25
  967. 25
  968. 25
  969. 25
  970. 25
  971. 25
  972. 25
  973. 25
  974. 25
  975. 25
  976. 25
  977. 25
  978. 25
  979. 25
  980. 24
  981. 24
  982. 24
  983. 24
  984. 24
  985. 24
  986. 24
  987. 24
  988. 24
  989. 24
  990. 24
  991. 24
  992. 23
  993. 23
  994. 23
  995. 23
  996. 23
  997. 23
  998. 23
  999. 23
  1000. 23
  1001. 23
  1002. 23
  1003. 23
  1004. 23
  1005. 23
  1006. 23
  1007. 22
  1008. 22
  1009. 22
  1010. 22
  1011. 22
  1012. 22
  1013. 22
  1014. 22
  1015. 22
  1016. 22
  1017. 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
  1018. 22
  1019. 22
  1020. 22
  1021. 22
  1022. 22
  1023. 22
  1024. 22
  1025. 22
  1026. 22
  1027. 21
  1028. 21
  1029. 21
  1030. 21
  1031. 21
  1032. 21
  1033. 21
  1034. 21
  1035. 21
  1036. 21
  1037. 21
  1038. 21
  1039. 21
  1040. 21
  1041. 21
  1042. 21
  1043. 20
  1044. 20
  1045. 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
  1046. 20
  1047. 20
  1048. 20
  1049. 20
  1050. 20
  1051. 20
  1052. 20
  1053. 20
  1054. 20
  1055. 20
  1056. 20
  1057. 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
  1058. 20
  1059. 20
  1060. 20
  1061. 20
  1062. 19
  1063. 19
  1064. 19
  1065. 19
  1066. 19
  1067. 19
  1068. 19
  1069. 19
  1070. 19
  1071. 19
  1072. 19
  1073. 19
  1074. 19
  1075. 19
  1076. 19
  1077. 19
  1078. The right-wing war on public education and higher education has been going on since the 80s but really started seeing frightening successes due to the 08 recession and started seeing terrifying success starting in 2017. It was a calculation right-wingers made under Reagan. A relatively funded public school system and low cost or no cost college education for most(that Reagan's administration dismantled) would not have allowed public opinion on wealth to make the massive change it did... or for such extreme changes in wealth inequality to be ignored. There was a near universal belief that wealth beyond a certain point was immoral, unethical, and absolutely antithetical to any serious adherence to or faith in the major religions in the United States. Right-wing information operations helped to change American culture to a ME ME ME attitude being acceptable for those who had everything 100 people could possibly want... and middle to low income people became ammunition & fodder for right-wing talking heads to blame everything on. The fact that mega-church pastors aren't ridiculed into exile is preposterous. Evangelists owning multiple private jets while people starve or live in poverty so miserable they're far more likely to turn to drugs for a false escape from reality should be a top target of riducule from society, media, and actual religious people. The country was given away with cash on top on the 80s to the rich to a point that is nearly impossible to reverse. Trillions of dollars have been funneled to the top while everyone in the bottom 98% has paid for it to happen or provided the labor that made economic growth possible in the United States (the workers got told to f off over and over again as they were getting screwed more ways than they could possibly imagine).
    19
  1079. 19
  1080. 18
  1081. 18
  1082. 18
  1083. 18
  1084. 18
  1085. 18
  1086. 18
  1087. 18
  1088. 18
  1089. 18
  1090. 18
  1091. 18
  1092. 18
  1093. 18
  1094. 18
  1095. 18
  1096. 18
  1097. 18
  1098. 18
  1099. 18
  1100. 18
  1101. 18
  1102. 18
  1103. 18
  1104. 17
  1105. 17
  1106. 17
  1107. 17
  1108. 17
  1109. 17
  1110. 17
  1111. 17
  1112. 17
  1113. 17
  1114. 17
  1115. 17
  1116. I think its clear to anyone who understands science in general let alone chemistry to see that Dave was the clear logical side in this whole debate. Me being a former Christian makes it so i can view both viewpoints through the lens of either party. From the creationist perspective i would have looked at Daves character and used that as fuel to suggest that James was the real winner. However, now coming from a logical perspective and not one from an idealogical bias i see that it doesn't matter how Dave behaved during this exchange. Dave could have pulled down his pants and took a dump on the moderators lap and it wouldn't change the fact that Dave was still correct in all his assertions. There are two things i do think Dave could have done better though. One being that i wish he elaborated more on his points instead of leaving it up to the audiance to already understand basic chemistry, definitions of words, and what credentials the people publishing the papers he brought up had. Secondly i wish he held James under his boot more in a manner similar to that of which he held Dave Weise the flat earther so he could humiliate him more. james was far more assertive than Dave in this exchange and that could easily sway a gullible audience who don't have the background knowledge needed to decide a winner. All in all this whole debade was a 10/10. Very entertaining and i'm glad i got to see it in person for myself. A few things i've noticed by being there is James mic was Far more louder than Daves sadly. And although you can tell he was louder in the video the recording doesn't do justice to just how much louder James was. james yelled throughout the whole debate but it sounds like he's talking normally through all of the recording. Which made it even more annoying when James wouldn't let Dave speak the entire time trying to distract from the points Dave was making. So Dave good job in this exchange. I hope to see more in the future and thanks hanging out aterwards and for sharing some drinks with us at Valhalla. Being a houston native if you want me to take a dump on James Tours office i got you~
    17
  1117. 17
  1118. 17
  1119. 17
  1120. 17
  1121. 17
  1122. 17
  1123. 17
  1124. 17
  1125. 17
  1126. if you want a summary of this whole "debate" you can see the whole thing play out in this one microcosm example. from the following time stamp of (34:40) to about (40:40). in this gap we have Professor Dave ask Professor James a question concerning the nature of his claim that science textbooks teach a bad/inappropriate/ill-intentioned kind of primordial soup model. when pressed on this question, Professor Tour deflect the question by simply saying that Dave is clueless and emphasizes the claim that Dave never showed him the chemistry. Despite Professor Dave having the materials to show that Professor Tour was making a bad lie about textbooks (or at least making poor claims and false statements towards the contents of the textbooks) and making false claims about the nature of Professor Tour's talks/exchanges with Bruce Lipshutz. Plus, Professor Tour didn't even deny the allegations of lying NOR attempt to defuse them. He simply just side-stepped them and went on a tirade about the lack of chemistry being shown to him. Completely dogged the question. Completely avoided it in its entirety. Then he went on to shift the topic of the talk and engage with some other topics /subjects. Only to loosely return to these points in piecemeal later on. Such a poor show of public speaking, listening and engagement of honest dialogue in general. This alone shows me that the man (Professor Tour) had no intention of having a good fair and honest discussion. Only wanted to delude the talks and make a show of the whole meeting. Meanwhile, Professor Dave did a fine job holding this man down to his claims and expose him for his lies, and his slander against scientists and their honest work. Good on you, Professor Dave. We need more people like you around! :D
    17
  1127. 16
  1128. 16
  1129. 16
  1130. 16
  1131. 16
  1132. 16
  1133. 16
  1134. 16
  1135. 16
  1136. 16
  1137. 16
  1138. 16
  1139. 16
  1140. 16
  1141. 16
  1142. 16
  1143. 16
  1144. 16
  1145. 16
  1146. 16
  1147. 16
  1148. 16
  1149. 16
  1150. 16
  1151. 16
  1152. 16
  1153. 16
  1154. 16
  1155. 16
  1156. 16
  1157. 16
  1158. 16
  1159. 16
  1160. 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
  1161. 16
  1162. 16
  1163. 16
  1164. 15
  1165. 15
  1166. 15
  1167. 15
  1168. 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
  1169. 15
  1170. 15
  1171. 15
  1172. 15
  1173. 15
  1174. 15
  1175. 15
  1176. 15
  1177. 15
  1178. 15
  1179. 15
  1180. 15
  1181. 15
  1182. 15
  1183. 15
  1184. 15
  1185. 15
  1186. 15
  1187. 15
  1188. 15
  1189. 15
  1190. 14
  1191. 14
  1192. 14
  1193. 14
  1194. 14
  1195. 14
  1196. 14
  1197. 14
  1198. 14
  1199. 14
  1200. 14
  1201. 14
  1202. 14
  1203. 14
  1204. 14
  1205. 14
  1206. 14
  1207. Hey Dave, (Just a warning this comment has nothing to do with the video, I just wanted to reach out to you so I found the latest video on your channel) I really appreciate your work. You got me through high school with your Physics and Math videos, and now for chemistry which I’m upgrading post high school. I was also very deeply religious and anti-evolution when I first started watching your stuff, I come from a Muslim background. Subboor, one of the guys you debunked- I worshipped that guy. I watched every one of his videos (while also watching your academic videos not knowing you even had debunking videos of any sort) and used his arguments everywhere in my online keyboard debates lol. Any way, I’ve come such a long way from that now. Your videos got me through some difficult self doubt periods and also existential crises when I eventually left my faith. I just wanted to know how one could be happy without God. I watched you and thought maybe deep down you were pretending to be happy or pretending like what you said made you satisfied. I just didn’t understand. I know you don’t have to not believe in God to accept science, but everything about my religion screams anti science and anti human rights. Don’t know how I found myself and make sense of most of the things in my life, but i did. And now it feels so good to watch your debunking videos because I understand exactly where you’re coming from. Or at least maybe close to it. It was so hard to let go of that old religious mindset. But I’m here and I have to thank you for it in part.
    14
  1208. 14
  1209. 14
  1210. 14
  1211. 14
  1212. 14
  1213. 14
  1214. 14
  1215. 14
  1216. 14
  1217. 14
  1218. 14
  1219. 14
  1220. 14
  1221. 14
  1222. 14
  1223. 14
  1224. 14
  1225. 13
  1226. 13
  1227. 13
  1228. 13
  1229. 13
  1230. 13
  1231. 13
  1232. 13
  1233. 13
  1234. 13
  1235. 13
  1236. 13
  1237. 13
  1238. 13
  1239. 13
  1240. 13
  1241. 13
  1242. 13
  1243. 13
  1244. 13
  1245. 13
  1246. 13
  1247. 13
  1248. 13
  1249. 13
  1250. 13
  1251. 13
  1252. 13
  1253. 13
  1254. 13
  1255. 13
  1256. 13
  1257. 13
  1258. 13
  1259. 13
  1260. 13
  1261. 13
  1262. 13
  1263. 13
  1264. 13
  1265. 13
  1266. 13
  1267. 13
  1268. 12
  1269. 12
  1270. 12
  1271. 12
  1272. 12
  1273. 12
  1274. 12
  1275. 12
  1276. 12
  1277. 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.  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. 
    12
  1278. 12
  1279. 12
  1280. 12
  1281. 12
  1282. 12
  1283. 12
  1284. 12
  1285. 12
  1286. 12
  1287. 12
  1288. 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. 👍😀
    12
  1289. 12
  1290. 12
  1291. 12
  1292. 12
  1293. 12
  1294. 12
  1295. 12
  1296. 12
  1297. 12
  1298. 12
  1299. 12
  1300. 12
  1301. 12
  1302. 12
  1303. 12
  1304. 12
  1305. 12
  1306. 12
  1307. 12
  1308. 12
  1309. 12
  1310. 12
  1311. 12
  1312. 12
  1313. 12
  1314. 12
  1315. 12
  1316. 12
  1317. 11
  1318. 11
  1319. 11
  1320. 11
  1321. 11
  1322. 11
  1323. 11
  1324. 11
  1325. 11
  1326. 11
  1327. 11
  1328. 11
  1329. 11
  1330. 11
  1331. 11
  1332. 11
  1333. 11
  1334. 11
  1335. 11
  1336. 11
  1337. 11
  1338. 11
  1339. 11
  1340. 11
  1341. 11
  1342. 11
  1343. 11
  1344. 11
  1345. 11
  1346. 11
  1347. 11
  1348. 11
  1349. 11
  1350. 11
  1351. 11
  1352. 11
  1353. 11
  1354. 11
  1355. 11
  1356. 11
  1357. 11
  1358. 11
  1359. 11
  1360. 11
  1361. 11
  1362. 11
  1363. 11
  1364. 11
  1365. 11
  1366. 11
  1367. 11
  1368. 11
  1369. 11
  1370. 11
  1371. 11
  1372. 11
  1373. 11
  1374. 11
  1375. 11
  1376. 11
  1377. 10
  1378. 10
  1379. 10
  1380. 10
  1381. 10
  1382. 10
  1383. 10
  1384. 10
  1385. 10
  1386. 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
  1387. 10
  1388. 10
  1389. 10
  1390. 10
  1391. 10
  1392. 10
  1393. 10
  1394. 10
  1395. 10
  1396. 10
  1397. 10
  1398. 10
  1399. 10
  1400. 10
  1401. 10
  1402. 10
  1403. 10
  1404. 10
  1405. 10
  1406. 10
  1407. 10
  1408. 10
  1409. 10
  1410. 10
  1411. 10
  1412. 10
  1413. 10
  1414. 10
  1415. 10
  1416. 10
  1417. 10
  1418. 10
  1419. 10
  1420. 10
  1421. 10
  1422. 10
  1423. 10
  1424. 10
  1425. 10
  1426. 10
  1427. 10
  1428. 10
  1429. 10
  1430. 10
  1431. 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
  1432. 10
  1433. 10
  1434. 10
  1435. 10
  1436. 10
  1437. 10
  1438. 10
  1439. 10
  1440. 9
  1441. 9
  1442. 9
  1443. 9
  1444. 9
  1445. 9
  1446. 9
  1447. 9
  1448. 9
  1449. 9
  1450. 9
  1451. 9
  1452. 9
  1453. 9
  1454. 9
  1455. 9
  1456. 9
  1457. 9
  1458. 9
  1459. 9
  1460. 9
  1461. 9
  1462. 9
  1463. 9
  1464. 9
  1465. 9
  1466. 9
  1467. 9
  1468. 9
  1469. 9
  1470. 9
  1471. 9
  1472. 9
  1473. 9
  1474. 9
  1475. 9
  1476. 9
  1477. 9
  1478. 9
  1479. 9
  1480. 9
  1481. 9
  1482. 9
  1483. 9
  1484. 9
  1485. 9
  1486. 9
  1487. 9
  1488. 9
  1489. 9
  1490. 9
  1491. 9
  1492. 9
  1493. 9
  1494. 9
  1495. 9
  1496. 9
  1497. 9
  1498. 9
  1499. 9
  1500. 9
  1501. 9
  1502. 9
  1503. 9
  1504. 9
  1505. 9
  1506. 9
  1507. 9
  1508. 9
  1509. 9
  1510. 9
  1511. 9
  1512. 9
  1513. 9
  1514. 9
  1515. 9
  1516. 9
  1517. 9
  1518. 9
  1519. 9
  1520. 9
  1521. 9
  1522. 9
  1523. 9
  1524. 9
  1525. 8
  1526. 8
  1527. 8
  1528. 8
  1529. 8
  1530. 8
  1531. 8
  1532. 8
  1533. 8
  1534. 8
  1535. 8
  1536. 8
  1537. 8
  1538. 8
  1539. 8
  1540. 8
  1541. 8
  1542. 8
  1543. 8
  1544. 8
  1545. 8
  1546. 8
  1547. 8
  1548. 8
  1549. 8
  1550. 8
  1551. 8
  1552. 8
  1553. 8
  1554. 8
  1555. 8
  1556. 8
  1557. 8
  1558. 8
  1559. 8
  1560. 8
  1561. 8
  1562. 8
  1563. 8
  1564. 8
  1565. 8
  1566. 8
  1567. 8
  1568. 8
  1569. 8
  1570. 8
  1571. 8
  1572. 8
  1573. "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 everybody’s 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 Ferenczi’s model of identification with the aggressor. Intrafamilial child abuse is often followed by the abuser’s denial. Children typically comply with abuse, in behavior and by embracing the abuser’s 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 one’s 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.” ― Hannah Arendt, The Origins of Totalitarianism
    8
  1574. 8
  1575. 8
  1576. 8
  1577. 8
  1578. 8
  1579. 8
  1580. 8
  1581. 8
  1582. 8
  1583. 8
  1584. 8
  1585. 8
  1586. 8
  1587. 8
  1588. 8
  1589. 8
  1590. 8
  1591. 8
  1592. 8
  1593. 8
  1594. 8
  1595. 8
  1596. 8
  1597. 8
  1598. 8
  1599. 8
  1600. 8
  1601. 8
  1602. 8
  1603. 8
  1604. 8
  1605. 8
  1606. 8
  1607. 8
  1608. 8
  1609. 8
  1610. 8
  1611. 8
  1612. 8
  1613. 8
  1614. 8
  1615. 8
  1616. 8
  1617. 8
  1618. 8
  1619. 8
  1620. 7
  1621. 7
  1622. 7
  1623. 7
  1624. 7
  1625. 7
  1626. 7
  1627. 7
  1628. 7
  1629. 7
  1630. 7
  1631. 7
  1632. 7
  1633. 7
  1634. 7
  1635. 7
  1636. 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
  1637. 7
  1638. 7
  1639. 7
  1640. 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
  1641. 7
  1642. 7
  1643. 7
  1644. 7
  1645. 7
  1646. 7
  1647. 7
  1648. 7
  1649. 7
  1650. 7
  1651. 7
  1652. 7
  1653. 7
  1654. 7
  1655. 7
  1656. 7
  1657. 7
  1658. 7
  1659. 7
  1660. 7
  1661. 7
  1662. 7
  1663. 7
  1664. 7
  1665. 7
  1666. 7
  1667. 7
  1668. 7
  1669. 7
  1670. 7
  1671. 7
  1672. 7
  1673. 7
  1674. 7
  1675. 7
  1676. 7
  1677. 7
  1678. 7
  1679. 7
  1680. 7
  1681. 7
  1682. 7
  1683. 7
  1684. 7
  1685. 7
  1686. 7
  1687. 7
  1688. 7
  1689. 7
  1690. 7
  1691. 7
  1692. 7
  1693. 7
  1694. 7
  1695. 7
  1696. 7
  1697. 7
  1698. 7
  1699. 7
  1700. 7
  1701. 7
  1702. 7
  1703. 7
  1704. 7
  1705. 7
  1706. 7
  1707. 7
  1708. 7
  1709. 7
  1710. 7
  1711. 7
  1712. 7
  1713. 7
  1714. 7
  1715. 7
  1716. 7
  1717. 7
  1718. 6
  1719. 6
  1720. 6
  1721. 6
  1722. 6
  1723. 6
  1724. 6
  1725. 6
  1726. 6
  1727. 6
  1728. 6
  1729. 6
  1730. 6
  1731. 6
  1732. 6
  1733. 6
  1734. 6
  1735. 6
  1736. 6
  1737. 6
  1738. 6
  1739. 6
  1740. 6
  1741. 6
  1742. 6
  1743. 6
  1744. 6
  1745. 6
  1746. 6
  1747. 6
  1748. 6
  1749. 6
  1750. 6
  1751. 6
  1752. 6
  1753. 6
  1754. 6
  1755. 6
  1756. 6
  1757. 6
  1758. 6
  1759. 6
  1760. 6
  1761. 6
  1762. 6
  1763. 6
  1764. 6
  1765. 6
  1766. 6
  1767. 6
  1768. 6
  1769. 6
  1770. 6
  1771. 6
  1772. 6
  1773. 6
  1774. 6
  1775. 6
  1776. 6
  1777. 6
  1778. 6
  1779. 6
  1780. 6
  1781. 6
  1782. 6
  1783. 6
  1784. 6
  1785. 6
  1786. 6
  1787. 6
  1788. 6
  1789. 6
  1790. 6
  1791. 6
  1792. 6
  1793. 6
  1794. 6
  1795. 6
  1796. 6
  1797. 6
  1798. 6
  1799. 6
  1800. 6
  1801. 6
  1802. 6
  1803. 6
  1804. 6
  1805. 6
  1806. 6
  1807. 6
  1808. 6
  1809. 6
  1810. 6
  1811. 6
  1812. 6
  1813. 6
  1814. 6
  1815. 6
  1816. 6
  1817. 6
  1818. 6
  1819. 6
  1820. 6
  1821. 6
  1822. 6
  1823. 6
  1824. 6
  1825. 6
  1826. 6
  1827. 6
  1828. 6
  1829. 6
  1830. 6
  1831. 6
  1832. 6
  1833. 6
  1834. 6
  1835. 6
  1836. 6
  1837. 6
  1838. 6
  1839. 6
  1840. 5
  1841. 5
  1842. 5
  1843. 5
  1844. 5
  1845. 5
  1846. 5
  1847. 5
  1848. 5
  1849. 5
  1850. 5
  1851. 5
  1852. 5
  1853. 5
  1854. 5
  1855. 5
  1856. 5
  1857. 5
  1858. 5
  1859. 5
  1860. 5
  1861. 5
  1862. 5
  1863. 5
  1864. 5
  1865. 5
  1866. 5
  1867. 5
  1868. 5
  1869. 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
  1870. 5
  1871. 5
  1872. 5
  1873. 5
  1874. 5
  1875. 5
  1876. 5
  1877. 5
  1878. 5
  1879. 5
  1880. 5
  1881. 5
  1882. 5
  1883. 5
  1884. 5
  1885. 5
  1886. 5
  1887. 5
  1888. 5
  1889. 5
  1890. 5
  1891. 5
  1892. 5
  1893. 5
  1894. 5
  1895. 5
  1896. 5
  1897. 5
  1898. 5
  1899. 5
  1900. 5
  1901. 5
  1902. 5
  1903. 5
  1904. 5
  1905. 5
  1906. 5
  1907. 5
  1908. 5
  1909. 5
  1910. 5
  1911. 5
  1912. 5
  1913. 5
  1914. 5
  1915. 5
  1916. 5
  1917. 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
  1918. 5
  1919. 5
  1920. 5
  1921. 5
  1922. 5
  1923. 5
  1924. 5
  1925. 5
  1926. 5
  1927. 5
  1928. 5
  1929. 5
  1930. 5
  1931. 5
  1932. 5
  1933. 5
  1934. 5
  1935. 5
  1936. 5
  1937. 5
  1938. 5
  1939. 5
  1940. 5
  1941. 5
  1942. 5
  1943. 5
  1944. 5
  1945. 5
  1946. 5
  1947. 5
  1948. 5
  1949. 5
  1950. 5
  1951. 5
  1952. 5
  1953. 5
  1954. 5
  1955. 5
  1956. 5
  1957. 5
  1958. 5
  1959. 5
  1960. 5
  1961. 5
  1962. 5
  1963. 5
  1964. 5
  1965. 5
  1966. 5
  1967. 5
  1968. 5
  1969. 5
  1970. 5
  1971. 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.   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.   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
  1972. 5
  1973. 5
  1974. 5
  1975. 5
  1976. 5
  1977. 5
  1978. 5
  1979. 5
  1980. 5
  1981. 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
  1982. 5
  1983. 5
  1984. 5
  1985. 5
  1986. 5
  1987. 5
  1988. 5
  1989. 4
  1990. 4
  1991. 4
  1992. 4
  1993. 4
  1994. 4
  1995. 4
  1996. 4
  1997. 4
  1998. 4
  1999. 4
  2000. 4
  2001. 4
  2002. 4
  2003. 4
  2004. 4
  2005. 4
  2006. 4
  2007. 4
  2008. 4
  2009. 4
  2010. 4
  2011. 4
  2012. 4
  2013. 4
  2014. 4
  2015. 4
  2016. 4
  2017. 4
  2018. 4
  2019. 4
  2020. 4
  2021. 4
  2022. 4
  2023. 4
  2024. 4
  2025. 4
  2026. 4
  2027. 4
  2028. 4
  2029. 4
  2030. 4
  2031. 4
  2032. 4
  2033. 4
  2034. 4
  2035. 4
  2036. 4
  2037. 4
  2038. 4
  2039. 4
  2040. 4
  2041. 4
  2042. 4
  2043. 4
  2044. 4
  2045. 4
  2046. 4
  2047. 4
  2048. 4
  2049. 4
  2050. 4
  2051. 4
  2052. 4
  2053. 4
  2054. 4
  2055. 4
  2056. 4
  2057. 4
  2058. 4
  2059. 4
  2060. 4
  2061. 4
  2062. 4
  2063. 4
  2064. 4
  2065. 4
  2066. 4
  2067. 4
  2068. 4
  2069. 4
  2070. 4
  2071. 4
  2072. 4
  2073. 4
  2074. 4
  2075. 4
  2076. 4
  2077. 4
  2078. 4
  2079. 4
  2080. 4
  2081. 4
  2082. 4
  2083. 4
  2084. 4
  2085. 4
  2086. 4
  2087. 4
  2088. 4
  2089. 4
  2090. 4
  2091. 4
  2092. 4
  2093. 4
  2094. 4
  2095. 4
  2096. 4
  2097. 4
  2098. 4
  2099. 4
  2100. 4
  2101. 4
  2102. 4
  2103. 4
  2104. 4
  2105. 4
  2106. 4
  2107. 4
  2108. 4
  2109. 4
  2110. 4
  2111. 4
  2112. 4
  2113. 4
  2114. 4
  2115. 4
  2116. 4
  2117. 4
  2118. 4
  2119. 4
  2120. 4
  2121. 4
  2122. 4
  2123. 4
  2124. 4
  2125. 4
  2126. 4
  2127. 4
  2128. 4
  2129. 4
  2130. 4
  2131. 4
  2132. 4
  2133. 4
  2134. 4
  2135. 4
  2136. 4
  2137. 4
  2138. 4
  2139. 4
  2140. 4
  2141. 4
  2142. 4
  2143. 4
  2144. 4
  2145. 4
  2146. 4
  2147. 4
  2148. 4
  2149. 4
  2150. 4
  2151. 4
  2152. 4
  2153. 4
  2154. 4
  2155. 4
  2156. 4
  2157. 4
  2158. 4
  2159. 4
  2160. 4
  2161. 4
  2162. 4
  2163. 4
  2164. 4
  2165. 4
  2166. 4
  2167. 4
  2168. 4
  2169. 4
  2170. 4
  2171. 4
  2172. 4
  2173. 4
  2174. 4
  2175. 4
  2176. 4
  2177. 4
  2178. 4
  2179. 4
  2180. 4
  2181. 4
  2182. 4
  2183. 4
  2184. 4
  2185. 4
  2186. 4
  2187. 4
  2188. 4
  2189. 4
  2190. 4
  2191. 4
  2192. 4
  2193. 4
  2194. 3
  2195. 3
  2196. 3
  2197. 3
  2198. 3
  2199. 3
  2200. 3
  2201. 3
  2202. 3
  2203. 3
  2204. 3
  2205. 3
  2206. 3
  2207. 3
  2208. 3
  2209. 3
  2210. 3
  2211. 3
  2212. 3
  2213. 3
  2214. 3
  2215. 3
  2216. 3
  2217. 3
  2218. 3
  2219. 3
  2220. 3
  2221. 3
  2222. 3
  2223. 3
  2224. 3
  2225. 3
  2226. 3
  2227. 3
  2228. 3
  2229. 3
  2230. 3
  2231. 3
  2232. 3
  2233. 3
  2234. 3
  2235. 3
  2236. 3
  2237. 3
  2238. 3
  2239. 3
  2240. 3
  2241. 3
  2242. 3
  2243. 3
  2244. 3
  2245. 3
  2246. 3
  2247. 3
  2248. 3
  2249. 3
  2250. 3
  2251. 3
  2252. 3
  2253. 3
  2254. 3
  2255. 3
  2256. 3
  2257. 3
  2258. 3
  2259. 3
  2260. 3
  2261. 3
  2262. 3
  2263. 3
  2264. 3
  2265. 3
  2266. 3
  2267. 3
  2268. 3
  2269. 3
  2270. 3
  2271. 3
  2272. 3
  2273. 3
  2274. 3
  2275. 3
  2276. 3
  2277. 3
  2278. 3
  2279. 3
  2280. 3
  2281. 3
  2282. 3
  2283. 3
  2284. 3
  2285. 3
  2286. 3
  2287. 3
  2288. 3
  2289. 3
  2290. 3
  2291. 3
  2292. 3
  2293. 3
  2294. 3
  2295. 3
  2296. 3
  2297. 3
  2298. 3
  2299. 3
  2300. 3
  2301. 3
  2302. 3
  2303. 3
  2304. 3
  2305. 3
  2306. 3
  2307. 3
  2308. 3
  2309. 3
  2310. 3
  2311. 3
  2312. 3
  2313. 3
  2314. 3
  2315. 3
  2316. 3
  2317. 3
  2318. 3
  2319. 3
  2320. 3
  2321. 3
  2322. 3
  2323. 3
  2324. 3
  2325. 3
  2326. 3
  2327. 3
  2328. 3
  2329. 3
  2330. 3
  2331. 3
  2332. 3
  2333. 3
  2334. 3
  2335. I see a lot of folks pointing to The Safire Project as proof to the validity of The Electric Universe. Here’s why it’s not. It’s 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. That’s it. It’s like blowing up a grenade and saying “see how the shrapnel flew out? See how a small thing released all this energy?”, and then using that as evidence that supernovae are caused by stars full of gunpowder. Besides, The Safire Project wasn’t even designed to prove the Electric Universe, and they don’t claim it does as far as I can tell. They simply say, “To date, the Safire Project has not found any disparities with the EU/ES model” which is not a shock, because it wasn't designed to do that either. It’s not designed to prove anything. They’re 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 “See, we’re doing science, too.”
    3
  2336. 3
  2337. 3
  2338. 3
  2339. 3
  2340. 3
  2341. 3
  2342. 3
  2343. 3
  2344. 3
  2345. 3
  2346. 3
  2347. 3
  2348. 3
  2349. 3
  2350. 3
  2351. 3
  2352. 3
  2353. 3
  2354. 3
  2355. 3
  2356. 3
  2357. 3
  2358. 3
  2359. 3
  2360. 3
  2361. 3
  2362. 3
  2363. 3
  2364. 3
  2365. 3
  2366. 3
  2367. 3
  2368. 3
  2369. 3
  2370. 3
  2371. 3
  2372. 3
  2373. 3
  2374. 3
  2375. 3
  2376. 3
  2377. 3
  2378. 3
  2379. 3
  2380. 3
  2381. 3
  2382. 3
  2383. 3
  2384. 3
  2385. 3
  2386. 3
  2387. 3
  2388. 3
  2389. 3
  2390. 3
  2391. 3
  2392. 3
  2393. 3
  2394. 3
  2395. 3
  2396. 3
  2397. 3
  2398. 3
  2399. 3
  2400. 3
  2401. 3
  2402. 3
  2403. 3
  2404. 3
  2405. 3
  2406. 3
  2407. 3
  2408. 3
  2409. 3
  2410. 3
  2411. 3
  2412. 3
  2413. 3
  2414. 3
  2415. 3
  2416. 3
  2417. 3
  2418. 3
  2419. 3
  2420. 3
  2421. 3
  2422. 3
  2423. 3
  2424. 3
  2425. 3
  2426. Professor Dave thank you for all the content you have made. I am a high school student from south east asia (probably not where most of your viewers come from ) who was never really interested in academics but now I am very interested in learning in general. But I especially thank you for THIS content! I have two teachers in social science who are advocates of creationism and what not, they twist science into something that agrees with their religion and my classmates who are bright and interested to science unfortunately gets sucked into their false science like creationism and what not. But because of your videos I have started to do more research on evolution and watching your debunking creationism videos also gave me some talking points over the bullshit that my teachers in social science spew and I have managed to convince some students that evolution is indeed real and that there is empirical data for it and creationism is dumb. My social science teachers were obviously not impressed and they are saying that I was blasphemous(?) and indoctrinating their students, they said that if I was so smart and confident about evolution that I would go against a teacher I should make a research paper then they'll believe me but I highly doubt it. After they found out that I have been "indoctrinating" their students, I notice that the grades they gave me has become much lower than before. Please continue to make this kind of content Prof.Dave! And I apologize for my english if there is something wrong with it.
    3
  2427. 3
  2428. 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
  2429. 3
  2430. 3
  2431. 3
  2432. 3
  2433. 3
  2434. 3
  2435. 3
  2436. 3
  2437. 3
  2438. 3
  2439. 3
  2440. 3
  2441. 3
  2442. 3
  2443. 3
  2444. 3
  2445. 3
  2446. 3
  2447. 3
  2448. 3
  2449. 3
  2450. 3
  2451. 3
  2452. 3
  2453. 3
  2454. 3
  2455. 3
  2456. 3
  2457. 3
  2458. 3
  2459. 3
  2460. 3
  2461. 3
  2462. 3
  2463. 3
  2464. 3
  2465. 3
  2466. 3
  2467. 3
  2468. 3
  2469. 3
  2470. 3
  2471. 3
  2472. 3
  2473. 3
  2474. 3
  2475. 3
  2476. 3
  2477. 2
  2478. 2
  2479. 2
  2480. 2
  2481. 2
  2482. 2
  2483. 2
  2484. 2
  2485. 2
  2486. 2
  2487. 2
  2488. 2
  2489. 2
  2490. 2
  2491. 2
  2492. 2
  2493. 2
  2494. 2
  2495. 2
  2496. 2
  2497. 2
  2498. 2
  2499. 2
  2500. 2
  2501. 2
  2502. 2
  2503. 2
  2504. 2
  2505. 2
  2506. 2
  2507. 2
  2508. 2
  2509. 2
  2510. 2
  2511. 2
  2512. 2
  2513. 2
  2514. 2
  2515. 2
  2516. 2
  2517. 2
  2518. 2
  2519. 2
  2520. 2
  2521. 2
  2522. 2
  2523. 2
  2524. 2
  2525. 2
  2526. 2
  2527. 2
  2528. 2
  2529. 2
  2530. 2
  2531. 2
  2532. 2
  2533. 2
  2534. 2
  2535. 2
  2536. 2
  2537. 2
  2538. 2
  2539. 2
  2540. 2
  2541. 2
  2542. 2
  2543. 2
  2544. 2
  2545. 2
  2546. 2
  2547. 2
  2548. 2
  2549. 2
  2550. 2
  2551. 2
  2552. 2
  2553. 2
  2554. 2
  2555. 2
  2556. 2
  2557. 2
  2558. 2
  2559. 2
  2560. 2
  2561. 2
  2562. 2
  2563. 2
  2564. 2
  2565. 2
  2566. 2
  2567. 2
  2568. 2
  2569. 2
  2570. 2
  2571. 2
  2572. 2
  2573. 2
  2574. 2
  2575. 2
  2576. 2
  2577. 2
  2578. 2
  2579. "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
  2580. 2
  2581. 2
  2582. 2
  2583. 2
  2584. 2
  2585. 2
  2586. 2
  2587. 2
  2588. 2
  2589. 2
  2590. 2
  2591. 2
  2592. 2
  2593. 2
  2594. 2
  2595. 2
  2596. 2
  2597. 2
  2598. 2
  2599. 2
  2600. 2
  2601. 2
  2602. 2
  2603. 2
  2604. 2
  2605. 2
  2606. 2
  2607. 2
  2608. 2
  2609. 2
  2610. 2
  2611. 2
  2612. 2
  2613. 2
  2614. 2
  2615. 2
  2616. 2
  2617. 2
  2618. 2
  2619. 2
  2620. 2
  2621. 2
  2622. 2
  2623. 2
  2624. 2
  2625. 2
  2626. 2
  2627. 2
  2628. 2
  2629. 2
  2630. 2
  2631. 2
  2632. 2
  2633. 2
  2634. 2
  2635. 2
  2636. 2
  2637. 2
  2638. 2
  2639. 2
  2640. 2
  2641. 2
  2642. 2
  2643. 2
  2644. 2
  2645. 2
  2646. 2
  2647. 2
  2648. 2
  2649. 2
  2650. 2
  2651. 2
  2652. 2
  2653. 2
  2654. 2
  2655. 2
  2656. 2
  2657. 2
  2658. 2
  2659. 2
  2660. 2
  2661. 2
  2662. 2
  2663. 2
  2664. 2
  2665. 2
  2666. 2
  2667. 2
  2668. 2
  2669. 2
  2670. 2
  2671. 2
  2672. 2
  2673. 2
  2674. 2
  2675. 2
  2676. 2
  2677. 2
  2678. 2
  2679. 2
  2680. 2
  2681. 2
  2682. 2
  2683. 2
  2684. 2
  2685. 2
  2686. 2
  2687. 2
  2688. 2
  2689. 2
  2690. 2
  2691. 2
  2692. 2
  2693. 2
  2694. 2
  2695. 2
  2696. 2
  2697. 2
  2698. 2
  2699. 2
  2700. 2
  2701. 2
  2702. 2
  2703. 2
  2704. 2
  2705. 2
  2706. 2
  2707. 2
  2708. 2
  2709. 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
  2710. 2
  2711. 2
  2712. 2
  2713. 2
  2714. 2
  2715. 2
  2716. 2
  2717. 2
  2718. 2
  2719. 2
  2720. 2
  2721. 2
  2722. 2
  2723. 2
  2724. 2
  2725. 2
  2726. 2
  2727. 2
  2728. 2
  2729. 2
  2730. 2
  2731. 2
  2732. 2
  2733. 2
  2734. 2
  2735. 2
  2736. 2
  2737. 2
  2738. 2
  2739. I think you need to know yourself and your research. But that is at best half the equation. It’s 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: “[i]f you can’t explain your research to a reasonably educated high school graduate (or student), then YOU don’t really understand it.” (J. J. O’Brien). Thanks for the excerpt, it appears to be a podcast well worth hearing.
    2
  2740. 2
  2741. 2
  2742. 2
  2743. 2
  2744. 2
  2745. 2
  2746. 2
  2747. 2
  2748. 2
  2749. 2
  2750. 2
  2751. 2
  2752. 2
  2753. 2
  2754. 2
  2755. 2
  2756. 2
  2757. 2
  2758. 2
  2759. 2
  2760. 2
  2761. 2
  2762. 2
  2763. 2
  2764. 2
  2765. 2
  2766. 2
  2767. 2
  2768. 2
  2769. 2
  2770. 2
  2771. 2
  2772. 2
  2773. 2
  2774. 2
  2775. 2
  2776. 2
  2777. 2
  2778. 2
  2779. 2
  2780. 2
  2781. 2
  2782. 2
  2783. 2
  2784. 2
  2785. 2
  2786. 2
  2787. 2
  2788. 2
  2789. 2
  2790. 2
  2791. 2
  2792. 2
  2793. 2
  2794. 2
  2795. 2
  2796. 2
  2797. 2
  2798. 2
  2799. 2
  2800. 2
  2801. 2
  2802. 2
  2803. 2
  2804. 2
  2805. 2
  2806. 2
  2807. 2
  2808. 2
  2809. 2
  2810. 2
  2811. 2
  2812. 2
  2813. 2
  2814. 2
  2815. 2
  2816. 2
  2817. 2
  2818. 2
  2819. 2
  2820. 2
  2821. 2
  2822. 2
  2823. 2
  2824. 2
  2825. 2
  2826. 2
  2827. 2
  2828. 2
  2829. 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
  2830. 2
  2831. 2
  2832. 2
  2833. 2
  2834. 2
  2835. 2
  2836. 2
  2837. 2
  2838. 2
  2839. 2
  2840. 2
  2841. 2
  2842. 2
  2843. 2
  2844. 2
  2845. 2
  2846. 2
  2847. 2
  2848. 2
  2849. 2
  2850. 2
  2851. 2
  2852. 2
  2853. 2
  2854. 2
  2855. 2
  2856. 2
  2857. 1
  2858. 1
  2859. 1
  2860. 1
  2861. 1
  2862. 1
  2863. 1
  2864. 1
  2865. 1
  2866. 1
  2867. 1
  2868. 1
  2869. 1
  2870. 1
  2871. 1
  2872. 1
  2873. 1
  2874. 1
  2875. 1
  2876. 1
  2877. 1
  2878. 1
  2879. 1
  2880. 1
  2881. 1
  2882. 1
  2883. 1
  2884. 1
  2885. 1
  2886. 1
  2887. 1
  2888. 1
  2889. 1
  2890. 1
  2891. 1
  2892. 1
  2893. 1
  2894. 1
  2895. 1
  2896. 1
  2897. 1
  2898. 1
  2899. 1
  2900. 1
  2901. 1
  2902. 1
  2903. 1
  2904. 1
  2905. 1
  2906. 1
  2907. 1
  2908. 1
  2909. 1
  2910. 1
  2911. 1
  2912. 1
  2913. 1
  2914. 1
  2915. 1
  2916. 1
  2917. 1
  2918. 1
  2919. 1
  2920. 1
  2921. 1
  2922. 1
  2923. 1
  2924. 1
  2925. 1
  2926. 1
  2927. 1
  2928. 1
  2929. 1
  2930. 1
  2931. 1
  2932. 1
  2933. 1
  2934. 1
  2935. 1
  2936. 1
  2937. 1
  2938. 1
  2939. 1
  2940. 1
  2941. 1
  2942. 1
  2943. 1
  2944. 1
  2945. 1
  2946. 1
  2947. 1
  2948. 1
  2949. 1
  2950. 1
  2951. 1
  2952. 1
  2953. 1
  2954. 1
  2955. 1
  2956. 1
  2957. 1
  2958. 1
  2959. 1
  2960. 1
  2961. 1
  2962. 1
  2963. 1
  2964. 1
  2965. 1
  2966. 1
  2967. 1
  2968. 1
  2969. 1
  2970. 1
  2971. 1
  2972. 1
  2973. 1
  2974. 1
  2975. 1
  2976. 1
  2977. 1
  2978. 1
  2979. 1
  2980. 1
  2981. 1
  2982. 1
  2983. 1
  2984. 1
  2985. 1
  2986. 1
  2987. 1
  2988. 1
  2989. 1
  2990. 1
  2991. 1
  2992. 1
  2993. 1
  2994. 1
  2995. 1
  2996. 1
  2997. 1
  2998. 1
  2999. 1
  3000. 1
  3001. 1
  3002. 1
  3003. 1
  3004. 1
  3005. 1
  3006. 1
  3007. 1
  3008. 1
  3009. 1
  3010. 1
  3011. 1
  3012. 1
  3013. 1
  3014. 1
  3015. 1
  3016. 1
  3017. 1
  3018. 1
  3019. 1
  3020. 1
  3021. 1
  3022. 1
  3023. 1
  3024. 1
  3025. 1
  3026. 1
  3027. 1
  3028. 1
  3029. 1
  3030. 1
  3031. 1
  3032. 1
  3033. 1
  3034. 1
  3035. 1
  3036. 1
  3037. 1
  3038. 1
  3039. 1
  3040. 1
  3041. 1
  3042. 1
  3043. 1
  3044. 1
  3045. 1
  3046. 1
  3047. 1
  3048. 1
  3049. 1
  3050. 1
  3051. 1
  3052. 1
  3053. 1
  3054. 1
  3055. 1
  3056. 1
  3057. 1
  3058. 1
  3059. 1
  3060. 1
  3061. 1
  3062. 1
  3063. 1
  3064. 1
  3065. 1
  3066. 1
  3067. 1
  3068. 1
  3069. 1
  3070. 1
  3071. 1
  3072. 1
  3073. 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
  3074. 1
  3075. 1
  3076. 1
  3077. 1
  3078. 1
  3079. 1
  3080. 1
  3081. 1
  3082. 1
  3083. 1
  3084. 1
  3085. 1
  3086. 1
  3087. 1
  3088. 1
  3089. 1
  3090. 1
  3091. 1
  3092. 1
  3093. 1
  3094. 1
  3095. 1
  3096. 1
  3097. 1
  3098. 1
  3099. 1
  3100. 1
  3101. 1
  3102. 1
  3103. 1
  3104. 1
  3105. 1
  3106. 1
  3107. 1
  3108. 1
  3109. 1
  3110. 1
  3111. 1
  3112. 1
  3113. 1
  3114. 1
  3115. 1
  3116. 1
  3117. 1
  3118. 1
  3119. 1
  3120. 1
  3121. 1
  3122. 1
  3123. 1
  3124. 1
  3125. 1
  3126. 1
  3127. 1
  3128. 1
  3129. 1
  3130. 1
  3131. 1
  3132. 1
  3133. 1
  3134. 1
  3135. 1
  3136. 1
  3137. 1
  3138. 1
  3139. 1
  3140. 1
  3141. 1
  3142. 1
  3143. 1
  3144. 1
  3145. 1
  3146. 1
  3147. 1
  3148. 1
  3149. 1
  3150. 1
  3151. 1
  3152. 1
  3153. 1
  3154. 1
  3155. 1
  3156. 1
  3157. 1
  3158. 1
  3159. 1
  3160. 1
  3161. 1
  3162. 1
  3163. 1
  3164. 1
  3165. 1
  3166. 1
  3167. 1
  3168. 1
  3169. 1
  3170. 1
  3171. 1
  3172. 1
  3173. 1
  3174. 1
  3175. 1
  3176. 1
  3177. 1
  3178. 1
  3179. 1
  3180. 1
  3181. 1
  3182. 1
  3183. 1
  3184. 1
  3185. 1
  3186. 1
  3187. 1
  3188. 1
  3189. 1
  3190. 1
  3191. 1
  3192. 1
  3193. 1
  3194. 1
  3195. 1
  3196. 1
  3197. 1
  3198. 1
  3199. 1
  3200. 1
  3201. 1
  3202. 1
  3203. 1
  3204. 1
  3205. 1
  3206. 1
  3207. 1
  3208. 1
  3209. 1
  3210. 1
  3211. 1
  3212. 1
  3213. 1
  3214. 1
  3215. 1
  3216. 1
  3217. 1
  3218. 1
  3219. 1
  3220. 1
  3221. 1
  3222. 1
  3223. 1
  3224. 1
  3225. Great to hear you like music so much. I do as well. I do plan to actually donate to you. I only give money out to what I believe is a good cause. I feel yours is one. The money will probably be in March maybe late February but as you may hear that quite often I plan to live up to it. Anyway my questions about chemistry are actually not because of any school I'm attending. My wife and daughters think I am crazy to study that subject but it's out of pure love of science. I am 49 now and have always loved science. I love chemistry but only over the past 2 years have I really had time to delve into it. And it's fun and never too late to learn. Desire to learn is a precious tool that some people just do not have. Or don't know it. Always loved Astronomy too. Self taught myself that quite extensively and still like to dabble into it from time to time. Love answering questions about it. A young boy next door is fascinated with it and always comes with questions. And good ones too ! The other morning I get "If Venus looked just like Earth from space would we still be able to see it from here?" .. I go on to tell him yes but not nearly as brilliant due to the fact Venus has reflective cloud cover blanketing the entire planet whereas Earth has it too, but of course not as much coverage. And that makes a difference. Anyway, thanks a million Prof. Dave for your videos. I left the chemistry alone back in 89 after joining the military, but it feels great to be diving into it once again. Thanks for your time and will be contacting you soon for that donation. I feel it is for a great cause as I mentioned before.
    1
  3226. 1
  3227. 1
  3228. 1
  3229. 1
  3230. 1
  3231. 1
  3232. 1
  3233. 1
  3234. 1
  3235. 1
  3236. 1
  3237. 1
  3238. 1
  3239. 1
  3240. 1
  3241. 1
  3242. 1
  3243. 1
  3244. 1
  3245. 1
  3246. 1
  3247. 1
  3248. 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 that’s unproven. He tries to back up that conclusion by appealing to the “goodness of moral interactions,” but that’s an unproven assertion. In fact, we can’t assume that life (or “moral interaction”) 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, he’s 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 here’s 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 wasn’t 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 “possible” explanations of the origin of the singularity, so the prior probability that God created it is infinitesimally small, as with every other hypotheses. He’s 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 that’s how universes work according to observation. And then he might respond, “well why did we happen to find ourselves in this specific universe and not another one that doesn’t permit life?” And that’s 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 can’t 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
  3249. 1
  3250. 1
  3251. 1
  3252. 1
  3253. 1
  3254. 1
  3255. 1
  3256. 1
  3257. 1
  3258. 1
  3259. 1
  3260. 1
  3261. 1
  3262. 1
  3263. 1
  3264. 1
  3265. 1
  3266. 1
  3267. 1
  3268. 1
  3269. 1
  3270. 1
  3271. 1
  3272. 1
  3273. 1
  3274. 1
  3275. 1
  3276. 1
  3277. 1
  3278. 1
  3279. 1
  3280. 1
  3281. 1
  3282. 1
  3283. 1
  3284. 1
  3285. 1
  3286. 1
  3287. 1
  3288. 1
  3289. 1
  3290. 1
  3291. 1
  3292. 1
  3293. 1
  3294. 1