She did an AMAZING! job as a host: She let Adam Savage to talk without interrupting him.

@AboveTheNoise

7 жыл бұрын

Lol. That was our master strategy...glad you picked up on it.

Great interview! Thanks for sharing.

@AboveTheNoise

7 жыл бұрын

Thanks for watching, Deep Look! We were already big Adam Savage fans, but spending time with him in person was even more fun and inspiring than we imagined.

There is a much greater audience out there who could take away invaluable advice from this video. Certainly a well done interview.

@AboveTheNoise

7 жыл бұрын

Thanks for the feedback -- and we hope it does get people thinking and asking more questions about the intersection of science and media literacy.

I didn't like what you did with the music. It was almost always under Shirin and almost never under Adam. The coming and going of the music tagged to a specific speaker is not a thing I would do. I would leave it out of the interview and leave it strictly in the intro and outro or leave it in the whole video. The choice of music was fine, unless it was used under the whole interview where it might become distracting, but it wasn't offensive to the senses.

@AboveTheNoise

7 жыл бұрын

Thanks for the feedback! It's good to hear from our viewers what works for them and what doesn't.

@jlshoem

7 жыл бұрын

I agree about the music, but you guys still have a lot to learn, and you are doing it very well.

Great interview! Fun to watch, smart questions. Well done!

I love these videos. And particularly this one. Like me, he never went to college, but considers himself a scientist.

Great Video you two and those who helped! I can't wait to see more,I can see this is going to be enjoyable and informative

@AboveTheNoise

7 жыл бұрын

Thanks so much for watching and sharing your feedback! Keep coming back every other Wednesday for new episodes...we have a lot of interesting stuff in the pipeline!

Excellent video, a shame this only has 7006 views though.

I have a concern with the philosophy; perhaps it is just semantics, but I was trained that fact is all around you. Facts are synonomous with data or observations in science. The thing that makes the facts is that multiple people can observe the phenomenon and come to the same conclusion about it - it was THIS big, it amassed THIS much, it turned blue when dipped in the solution, the ball accelerated at precisely 9.8 meters per second per second when released, the widget got to Mars and went into orbit there. Gravity and evolution are such facts; a creationist can observe speciation of bacteria in the lab, or do Galileo's experiments and observe the ways planets orbit in space. Now, a scientist will go beyond the facts, and say that he thinks evolution works in such-and-such a way. That is building a hypothesis, and eventually a theory. He collects together a bunch of facts and then says that this theory explains these facts. What makes it viable or not is: does the theory explain all the facts? Might it even explain facts we are going to observe tomorrow? Can we design a very specific observation (called an experiment) which has the power to falsify a theory? As long as this happens the theory is useful. If, however, and observation doesn't pan out as predicted by the theory, then the theory has to carefully limit the data it applies to, has to be updated in order to cover the new data, or perhaps scrapped in the face of a new theory which covers more data than the old one did. Since it is impossible to ever say you have exhausted all the possible data, that tomorrow will always have more new facts, it is impossible to ever say a theory is "proven". Theories have track records of how well evidenced they may be, but a theory will never, ever be a fact. They are eternally provisional, always awaiting that next observation that will start someone thinking that there may be a better way. While I'm at it, one last word: law. A scientific law is a particular facet of a theory, usually expressed in a pithy way using mathematics. As such a law fails if the theory that backs it up fails, and grows in explanatory power as the theory grows. "E = mc^2" is a law, and is limited in application to a special case within Special Relativity. In a nutshell, gravity is a fact, an observation. The Theory of Gravity is a stab at how gravity behaves, hopefully explaining how it works. A law of gravity says a force due to gravity is proportional to the two masses and inverse to the square of the distance between them.

@crispian67

5 жыл бұрын

puncheex: Great observations and summation of scientific method. While rigorous peer-reviewed testing of falsifiable hypotheses is seemingly successful in advancing general theories about the nature of things, according to critics such as philosophy of science professor Paul Feyerabend it has nevertheless has certain limitations. "Feyerabend held that deciding between competing scientific accounts was complicated by the incommensurability of scientific theories. Incommensurability means that scientific theories cannot be reconciled or synthesized because the interpretation and practice of science is always informed by theoretical assumptions, which leads to proponents of competing theories using different terms, engaged in different language-games and thus talking past each other. This for Feyerabend was another reason why the idea of science as proceeding according to universal, fixed laws was both historically inaccurate and prescriptively useless." Source: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epistemological_anarchism See also: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Against_Method

Very nice. Thank you.

@AboveTheNoise

7 жыл бұрын

You are so welcome, and thanks for watching.

This is gonna be a great show.

@AboveTheNoise

7 жыл бұрын

Yay! Thanks for watching and giving us a shout out!

6:32 Isaac-3PO?

This guy doesn't even know what the scientific method is. Its not trial and error, as he seems to believe.

I don't understand. Adam said that Science isn't a "Citadel of Facts", but did not put forward any evidence saying that it isn't. Also how is science in trouble?

@AboveTheNoise

7 жыл бұрын

Thanks for watching. Adam did say in the interview that the way we collect data and the relationship between things are always changing, which requires scientists to constantly update their research rather than think of scientific conclusions as static, absolute truth that never evolve over time or with new information. As for the trouble science faces, he refers generally to "anti-science" voices out there and criticisms that science has become too politicized -- all of which undermines, in his view, very real risks to our environment and science overall. But we'll reach out to him to see if he can give a response to your questions in his own words!

@pentadeuce1086

7 жыл бұрын

I haven't heard any Anti-science stuff, but I pretty much live under a rock.

@AboveTheNoise

7 жыл бұрын

Well, I think he's referring to things that are happening like all the climate science data being removed from the EPA website. www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/2017/04/28/epa-website-removes-climate-science-site-from-public-view-after-two-decades/?.f0d0cac2cdcf

@knife_wizard

7 жыл бұрын

Well, it just can't be. At the end of the day, research is done by people, or by things made by people, and we have to live with the fact that it may have some as-yet-undiscovered flaw. Science is a quest of improving the way we think, and uncovering the nature of reality, in as effective, rigorous, and consistent a manner as possible. Anyone who wants to dispute the claims made by scientific inquiry must show the same reliability in their results.

@georgeabreu6392

7 жыл бұрын

Stephan Stross I fall in full agreement.

Wow. So a non scientist is interviewed about science. Wonderful. NOT!!!

@puncheex2

7 жыл бұрын

Scientist is as scientist does. He may not have all the background that doing active state-of-the-art scientific research requires, but he is applying the scientific method to come to conclusions which are valid. Which id better than you seem to be doing.

@georgeabreu6392

7 жыл бұрын

Outer M. Wise Words. +1