Atoms: Do we need it? What is it? Where is it? How much?

@butterflygroundhog

3 ай бұрын

Thanks, I thought I had forgotten that song!

@AnnoyingNewsletters

2 ай бұрын

*_Quantum quantum quantum quantum quantum_*

@TabAtkinsJr

2 ай бұрын

Thank you, I also had this exact rap line come up in my head several times as well.

The line "you're not the devil's advocate, you're just the devil" is so hard

@idontwantahandlethough

3 ай бұрын

I love that so much

@mrshlee

3 ай бұрын

The whole devils advocate thing is annoying to me because the angle is generally pushing for the churches opinion? "The devil would be fine with women's rights and abortion rights... these people are playing god's advocate"

@eddie5484

3 ай бұрын

@@mrshlee Don't you know there ain't no devil, there's just go when he's drunk.

@eliepepin317

3 ай бұрын

I might be wrong, but I think she was about to say '..., you're just the devil's [something]' (not just 'you're just the devil') and then cut it (I don't know what the 'something' was going to be though ^^)

@coregazer

3 ай бұрын

That sounds like the kind of line that's just going to encourage people to dismiss opposing points of view though? Doesn't exactly encourage intellectual honesty or humility...

Don’t worry: ”my personality is just thermodynamics” holds true for every personality.

@davidgustavsson4000

3 ай бұрын

Pro tip: any "why" question can accurately be answered "Because in the long run it increases the universe's entropy"

@Usrnet

3 ай бұрын

⁠@@davidgustavsson4000the long run starts in Greek with the merely word atoms. Some five geometric figures between square to sphere them being the first periodic system. I give you that. I still miss reasoning tho.

@jell0goeswiggle

2 ай бұрын

​@@UsrnetNo that's not right. The long run starts in Marathon, Greece and ends in Athens.

Your description of structured debate reminds me of how Steve Mould and Mehdi Electroboom had a back and forth posting videos trying to explain the motion of chained metal balls pouring out of a standing glass. They both had a hypothesis and they tried to convince one-another of their idea, but they also had a week between videos to collect their thoughts. So it was more spectacle debate, but they were both acting in good faith. They acknowledged each other's points in their videos, but at the same time they also made an effort not to lose the debate. It was good content 😆

@ma3xiu1

3 ай бұрын

I quite enjoyed that exchange. There certainly is a "spectacle" element to this type of debate which can make it entertaining for a particular audience. It differs from the "evolution vs creation" type of debate though in that both sides are grounded in science, and the exchange while entertaining also serves to educate as the two sides model the types of thinking processes that one needs to engage in an attempt to understand a natural phenomenon more deply.

@HarryNicNicholas

3 ай бұрын

what fascinated me about that back and forth was that both parties seemed to have to rely on intuition as to what was happening, that whatever it was they were trying to "prove" was really elusive, the action is truly strange but the forces and principles involved were really confused within the experiments. i forget, did they come to any conclusion? two very entertaining people with two very different styles.

@HarryNicNicholas

3 ай бұрын

@@ma3xiu1 flat earth and creation debates are just not very bright people trying to force everyone back into the dark ages, not a debate at all really, just displays of ignorance from people who can't accept they lost. ID and creationism should have died with the dover trials, but no, they keep banging on about it.

@spiguy

3 ай бұрын

ElectroBoom and Veritasium also had a similar back-and-forth when they argued about electrons, energy flux, and current.

@Broockle

3 ай бұрын

@@ma3xiu1 ye good point. It was educational, we were learning and adapting our opinion as they were kinda. Million times more worthwhile than any evolution debate 😅

I grew up being told to hold religion/conspiracy as higher than science, so when the " spectacle debates" happened, I saw science being raised, not lowered. It was an important part of my life. I can see now that it does degrade it now, but I think it depends on someone's current perspective. It might harm more people, and then it helps, but it helped me to bridge the gap to elevating real science.

@DrunkenHotei

3 ай бұрын

Your case is an important one to share, and I thank you for it. I think the existence of people like you is being overlooked in Dr. Collier's evaluation, and that this is a serious flaw with her position on debate.

@user-lz1yb6qk3f

25 күн бұрын

​@@DrunkenHotei, totally agreed. Good debate will bring those lost souls to the beacon of science.

"The goal of the scientific debate is not to win the debate. The goal is to get the right answer." I wish our judicial system worked that way.

@falseprofit9801

3 ай бұрын

critical legal studies says "hello"

@michaelmicek

3 ай бұрын

Me: It's okay if my current opinion is wrong, I'm just trying to find the right answer. Other: you only care about being right. Me: yes... wait... is that a problem? (Turns out, yes...)

@OneBigBug

3 ай бұрын

The issue is that having "good" kinds of debate are only suitable for circumstances where nobody cares who wins or loses, which you can do with scientific theories because it's much more important that we can build nuclear power plants than that John was right and Bill was wrong, even to Bill and John. As soon as you make it about something where one side winning matters, because it's about someone's very direct physical freedom, or the rights of women, or whether or not billions of dollars are being wasted on a grift, you have to have "ugly" debate where the strategy of the debate needs to be about convincing people you are right, because the alternative is that you lose and then women don't have rights anymore. You can't have everyone work together, peace and harmony style cooperatively towards the correct answer if sometimes you're going to murder one side if they lose. The judicial system does a reasonable job of trying to make that uglier system of debate as fair as possible. It doesn't succeed at that, and the result still often sucks, because ultimately it comes down to convincing people of things, and people are often stupid and go into everything with stupid preconceptions, but I think it's probably the best way you could set up a system that doesn't rely on an omniscient super intelligence. Would it be really nice if we didn't need to work on being persuasive as opposed to working towards the truth? Well, yeah, but then we're just going to get rolled by people who did develop those things, because those skills are fundamentally actually really important, and will absolutely be used by anyone with a vested interest in the conclusion.

@MelindaGreen

3 ай бұрын

Right according to whom?

@MortyrSC2

3 ай бұрын

That's dialectic not a debate.

The truth springs from arguments amongst friends. David Hume What I like about this quote is the implied importance of good faith in debates, and debate spectacles are not based on good faith.

@CheatOnlyDeath

3 ай бұрын

But even good faith debates suffer from the same issues if there is not a governing principle of reason and evidence

@Astro2024

3 ай бұрын

That's a good quote. But here's a thought from an overthinker: some friendships are toxic and artificial so the truth may never be reached

@yw1971

3 ай бұрын

The Talmud said it 1200 years earlier: 'when writers vie, wisdom mounts'

@777Looper

3 ай бұрын

Even bad faith arguments, if conducted according to valid principles of logic, do a great job of pointing out inconsistencies in relevant perspectives. Debates between friends are the metabolism. Debates between opponents are the immune system. You actually need both.

@777Looper

3 ай бұрын

@@user-hy9nh4yk3p I have no idea what you just said to me but it seemed both genuine and fairly sophisticated, so thank you.

Unironically: High school debate clubs are exactly what "spectacle debates" are good for. Because in a club/competition like that, the goal isn't to find the true answer to a question, the goal is to learn how rhetoric works, and how persuasive arguments work, and other skills like public speaking. To my understanding, actual debate competitions are won by the team with the strongest argument, with FULL understanding that the strongest argument is not the same as the truest answer. But that doesn't mean that its useless to learn what makes a strong argument in the first place.

@charlesspringer4709

3 ай бұрын

High School formal debate is a public speaking art form, like theater.

@ytpanda398

2 ай бұрын

As someone who participated in school debates for a long time, and pretty well at that, this is exactly the point of it and I felt slightly disappointed by the characterisation of public debate as solely a means for spectacle and focussing on the grifters and clowns. I understand a lot of it is like that, but it's not the real purpose of debate

@essneyallen6777

2 ай бұрын

So what you are saying is that debate is theatre for people who don't like art? (I kid. That's funny to me though)

@charlesspringer4709

2 ай бұрын

@@essneyallen6777 Take a look at Ted Cruise. A brilliant man and student who triumphed at ever level of debate in high school and college and law school. However he has retained the bombastic speaking style that served so so well on the debate stage but is plain creepy and sounds insincere in politics. Like those parodies that used to be popular of a Shakespeare actor who can not give up the style in everyday life. Behold, these pancakes are but round and plain!

@GrumpyOldFart2

2 ай бұрын

@@charlesspringer4709*sigh*….I’m going to be THAT person. I mean no harm. *Cruz

you've kind of explained the way I feel about what you call “spectacle debate” and I've always known as “Classical™ Debate” as being less about the merits of the idea being debated and more about the psychological constitution of the participants, and the ability of one party of withstand the psychological pressure that their opponents subject to them without cracking or, as you put it, bursting to tears.

@gg829

2 ай бұрын

Yup, and it is exactly why such debates are less than useless when it comes to determining the actual truth of the matter discussed.

About the debates thing, it kind'a reminds me of this one quote from Mark Twain. "Don't argue with stupid people. They'll simply drag you down to their level, and beat you with experience."

@Boardwoards

3 ай бұрын

Sounds like a skill issue if you're smart and can't work through the experience of stupid people. Sounds like the real definition of smart being quick like a shortcut rather than true intelligence. Similar to how those with guile think they're not just tricking themselves deep down.

@rustygear447

3 ай бұрын

​@@Boardwoardsthat's the most pompous trash comment I've seen in ages.

@Boardwoards

3 ай бұрын

@@rustygear447 really? It's not pompous to say that stupid people aren't worth engaging because of a fear that you won't be able to prove them wrong? Is that not exactly what twain was saying?

@possibledog

3 ай бұрын

or more colloquially, "Never wrestle with a pig. You'll get covered in pigshit and the pig will enjoy it."

@peterwilson8039

3 ай бұрын

@@Boardwoards There's a similar Chinese saying "Never argue with an idiot - people might not know the difference." My criteria is that if we're discussing legitimate facts and presenting different, but still reasonably logical points of view, that's fine, but once the other person resorts to trying to bully and and intimidate me - that doesn't wash. That's not how you win an argument. That's how you demonstrate stupidity.

I just looked up your publications thinking you did a more "fundamental" physics so I was very surprised to see you do galaxy/star cluster astrophysics. Your videos are amazing and your range into the history of physics and theoretical physics is excellent.

This reminds me of the debate between Jordan Peterson and Slavoj Zizek. The audience cheers and shouts every two sentences spoken as if they are watching a fight between two teams. Zizek tries to tell them the goal of the debate is not to 'win' but to have a serious discussion about important topics, of course the audience carries on screaming.

The debate bro community will never recover from Angela's brutal put-down

@MattMcIrvin

3 ай бұрын

nah, they'll demand a debate on the merits of debates

@voicelessv9364

3 ай бұрын

Debate bros won't even debate you they will debate a strawman and then say "this you?" ​@MattMcIrvin

@phangkuanhoong7967

3 ай бұрын

nah. they'll just keep grifting.

@ChefTinman

3 ай бұрын

I'm trying to decide if the better pun is using "beat a dead horse" or "no horse in the race".

@rodrigoserafim8834

3 ай бұрын

She denounces the "subtly demonstrating a belief in hierarchies of humanity" while placing herself at the top as someone who should never be questioned or challenged. I will take dialogue, even mediatic garbage dialogue, over authoritarian elitism everyday. And know that she is "dog-whistling" as well, only for her preferred ideology of "oppressor-oppressed" politics, that legitimizes one side to do whatever they want in the name of "the greater good". And now, by her own rules, my statement is also not up to debate as well, it is stated here as a fact, unchallenged, immovable. And somehow, each person holding their immovable view of the word, never engaging, is supposed to be a better world. No, thank you.

Big fan of "we can't observe atoms, so I'm going to discard material reality in favor of trying to abstractly logic my way through physics, because that's much more grounded"

@alexanderkonczal3908

3 ай бұрын

the BBC "Sherlock" view of intelligence

@uncleanunicorn4571

3 ай бұрын

I have a book From the iron age that says where matter came from, That matters much more than all your pesky science and calculations. I can scream very loud and you have no rights.

@whitemakesright2177

2 ай бұрын

Yeah, it's ironic because the whole theory is about energy, but you can't see energy, either.

@whitemakesright2177

2 ай бұрын

​@@uncleanunicorn4571 Ostwald was an atheist, his theories had nothing to do with the Bible or any other ancient text.

@tear728

2 ай бұрын

I think you missed the point of the video

It's fun that Einstein, who was very much a Machian at heart, basically confirmed atoms (on top of what the other people did, who you mention) with his work on Brownian motion.

The spirit of the Machian view lived on in the anti-materialist views of the proponents of the Copenhagen interpretation of QM. "Who cares about what it means to make a measurement, all that matters is making predictions for the outcomes of measurements." Now we have wonderful sci-fi books and shows talking about how consciousness collapses the wave function and I can't help but let it ruin my enjoyment a little. 🤧😂

@Boardwoards

3 ай бұрын

Can you tell me why the energetics shit wouldn't include statistics? Or am I missing something?

@hedgehog3180

Ай бұрын

I mean the Copenhagen interpretation is very much the opposite of the pop QM interpretation so I don't know if it can be blamed for it.

@vogarner

Ай бұрын

@@hedgehog3180 I don't know what you mean by pop interpretations. What I mean is that Copenhagen, the dominant story we're told, refuses to address the measurement problem and thereby allows for the confusion that leads to people taking about consciousness collapsing the wave function and other nonsense.

Clippy pops up: It looks like you're saying "energy" without an equation! Do you need help?

@mikedavis979

3 ай бұрын

awesome comment!!!!

@Boardwoards

3 ай бұрын

Do you provide help?

@RandomNooby

3 ай бұрын

lol

@thomaskalinowski8851

3 ай бұрын

Badgey pops up: It looks like you're saying "energy" without an equation! Can I teach you a lesson?

@awaredeshmukh3202

3 ай бұрын

​@@thomaskalinowski8851 [backing away slowly] Computer, end program!

Spectacle Debate!!!! Haha, haha... Wow, hitting the nail right on the head, just wow fantastic. I wish I had this phrase to use 20 or 30 years ago. So true is this observation, and it's one that has frustrated me since I was little. Arguments of science//religion/politics/thesis/names and numbers.. it doesn't matter. Thank you, Angela. You Rock.!!! Gr8! Peace ☮💜Love

I've inherited and inhabited the quirk of saying "It's fine" in the same manner Angela does. English isn't even my first language. I just throw in an English "It's fine" at the end of a sentence to abbreviate "It's not worth pondering on; that wasn't the point of this sentence"

The Bill Nye debate still was valuable for me because of the last question raised: What would change your mind? It demonstrated to me the degree of certainty the creation people have. I'd have never thought that possible

I know it’s only been out for 20 minutes, but I went ahead and skipped to the part about debate spectacle. While I ultimately agree that the spectacle isn’t valuable, I would keep in mind that it does force some people to be exposed to it things they haven’t seen before. Before the Ken Ham, Bill Nye debate, I believed in creationism. I grew up in rural WV and was taught creationism in school. I was also taught rebuttals to evolution in 7th grade. That Ken, Bill debate actually changed my mind with the closing statements when they were asked what would change your mind. It got me to start looking into evolution. While I’m not in a lab science, I am now a PhD student. So I’m not saying that the spectacle is valuable to Science (capital S), but those types of debates CAN have value. I’m not saying that it was worth it because he changed my little mind. But if I’m being honest, I think it’s very elitist to expect non experts to read the literature of a field as a way to learn something. As someone in a highly specialized field, people would learn nothing by reading my papers.

@Seldomheardabout

3 ай бұрын

Why it can't be both? Even spectacles can be a learning experience.

@Cap683

3 ай бұрын

Bill Nye is one of my favorite KZread science advocates and as well as an advocate for critical thinking in general but it is obvious that the Ken Ham "debate" was a circus and although you did get a wake up experience from this, Angela is absolutely correct and this was in no way a "science debate."

@alexmarsh8464

3 ай бұрын

@@Cap683 where did I say it was a science debate? I didn’t say it was a science debate. Angela was saying debate spectacle has no value and that’s where I disagree.

@andrewfleenor7459

3 ай бұрын

I would still say that your learning was more of a side effect of the debate than it actually working as designed. You got exposed to some ideas, and that kind of worked, but the point of a debate is allegedly about the arguments. Arguments only succeed in a "spectacle debate" by chance and sophistry, not their merits. There are more efficient, less damaging ways to expose people to ideas. And the odds are, if that debate wasn't there to be your first exposure to sane evolutionary ideas then one of those other ways would have come along eventually.

@ummon

3 ай бұрын

@@andrewfleenor7459 That's simply not true. No belief system is a monolith and everyone who rejects a belief system they were born into has a story about being exposed to contrary or just other beliefs. I'm not advocating for performative debate, but it is worth considering that in some cases belief systems are so insular and locked down that sometimes that may be one of very few avenues for people within that system to be exposed to contrary ideas at all.

I really had to laugh when I heard your epilog. I was sure there wouldn't be any link in the description to anything having to do with a podcast you kidded about wanting to start, and I was right. These videos are the best thing in the science communication genre on KZread. Keep it up. I mean, a few other science communicators do a great job, but they do it in a very straight forward manner, i.e. topic + explanation. I love your very intelligent indirect approach. You and "Tibees" (Toby Hendy), both very, very different in personality and style, but both great to watch. Btw, I work a lot in critical editions of German scientific authors ranging from the 15th-20th century and get to see their approaches "up close." Before the Enlightnment everything was "God, God, God did it". Everything. Literally everything.This slowly toned down during the Enlightenment, but it took quite a while to disappear. A famous "debate" in budding and quasi physics philosophy (mid 18th century) was the harsh conflict between Friedrich Schlegel and Friedrich Jacobi. Both were mixing early "physics" into their philosophy, as was very popular at the time, and though to a lesser degree than earlier, they couldn't help mixing God into the equation and "discussion", which made for quite the popcorn drama. Not to mention a load of wordsalad ("not not not A of not B not" etc.). From our modern perspective, their "debate" was quite tiresome. It wasn't until about 50 years later that the likes of Franz von Baader etc. "politely" removed God from the equation.

I start taking notes in my spreadsheet as soon as most of Angela's videos play for even a few minutes. She is amazing, and the things she teaches me alter my perception of further knowledge and learning. Angela Rocks!!! Gr8! Peace ☮💜Love

The way i view "devil advovate", it's a tool to gain deeper roots of your beliefs, understanding new ways to think about your beliefs, and to understand how to precise and deliberate to communicate your opinion to the best of your ability. It's important because each of us has a different perception to reality, based on our upringings.

@user-sl6gn1ss8p

2 ай бұрын

yeah, but, like, maybe don't interrupt unprompted two random women lamenting the loss of their reproductive rights just to "play devil's advocate". I agree it can be a good tool, but can definitely also be abused.

@achi5170

2 ай бұрын

@@user-sl6gn1ss8p "Abused" How? "[...] don't interrupt unprompted two random women lamenting the loss of their reproductive rights [...]" What if two neo-nazis sat at the bar, lamenting over alleged "zionism's destructive influence over western civilization"? Wouldn't most people interrupt to play the devil's advocate? (In your eyes, from your humble perspective): You see two people who seem to be absolutely clueless about the topic they're trying (and failing) to properly discuss, making WILD statements and thoughtlessly repeating meaningless slogans and falsehoods as if they're truisms. Do you care about what they are discussing? Does it matter anymore if it's "zionism" or "loss of reproductive rights" (whatever these are supposed to mean)? Does it matter what gender they are? If they are random or not? If you were prompted or not? None of these matter - there are people, right in front of you, displaying obliviousness of the highest order. It would be cruel to let them be that way. So you try the most delicate tool there is.

@treeaboo

2 ай бұрын

"Devil's Advocate" is most useful in interrogating your own beliefs, rather than interrogating another's, where it's usually used as a pretext to argue one's own opposing view in a way that seems more 'polite', with the shield when questioned on it of "Oh I was just playing devil's advocate!" to avoid criticism or debating the "Devil's" position at all.

@markcorrigan3930

Ай бұрын

Anime profile pic.

I'm really big into politics, and sometimes people ask me "Oh, did you watch the debates" and I'm like "Why? They're a complete waste of time for everyone." I'm glad more people are coming around to this perspective. Interestingly, the Jordan Peterson Zizek debate disappointed a lot of people because it ended up being much more like a real academic debate and people wanted a spectacle where they'd just try to humiliate each other.

@mathguy97

3 ай бұрын

the Jordan Peterson Zizek debate was not a debate. It was Zizek educating an idiot. Peterson walked back on literally every single claim he made.

@somedudeok1451

3 ай бұрын

People are incredibly stupid and believe bad things. And unfortunately we have to bother with that. If we refuse to talk to people about their stupid ideas in order to reason them out of them, then they'll just go and vote in a way that kills humanity. Then there will be no more scientific debate at all, because funding for science will have dried up and we will slowly enter another dark age on an increasingly inhospitable planet. Let's not, ok?

@nescius2

3 ай бұрын

@@mathguy97 it was a debate, its all the other things you call debates which are not.

@mathguy97

3 ай бұрын

@@nescius2 Sure buddy.

@musicdev

3 ай бұрын

@@mathguy97lmao came here to say this

On the scientific debate of atomic theory, there's a nice quote by statistician George E P Box: "All models are wrong, but some are useful"

This is the best summary of debate that I've seen. Separating "spectacle" from scientific and civil debate makes so much sense I'm frustrated I hadn't heard it sooner. It's easy to see when two people are talking over each other with no intent on actually moving their position, but it's helpful to be able to recognize when the two have fundamentally different goals. Saving this video for future reference.

For every like I'll study for 1 hour

@AmitSingh-vt6ws

2 ай бұрын

47th like Are you keeping up?

@mistamunsta

Ай бұрын

I'm sorry for you

@bangalactic8427

Ай бұрын

Aged like milk

@bangalactic8427

Ай бұрын

I wish you had a little hand highlighting the words of the paper you're reading, like old school sing-alongs

@drsatan9617

Ай бұрын

What are you studying?

I might be sensing a slight trend towards more comedic physics content. If so, I say keep going!

@21palica

3 ай бұрын

Warp 3, on my mark. Engage! 😉🖖

@mehill00

3 ай бұрын

Her wit and hilarity has been on display from the beginning. Angela is a gem.

Angela, will you be commenting on Sabine Hossenfelder's latest video entitled "My dream died, and now I'm here". Just wondering what's your take on her utter condemnation of the current research environment.

@jonathancangelosi2439

3 ай бұрын

I’m curious too. I totally agree with her criticisms. Academic capitalism is a scourge on higher education. The most lucrative research avenues are in oil, pharma, or the military, and due to lack of public funding, most tenure-track faculty end up having to write grants (a process which I have not once heard anything positive about), and grad students often end up doing research in those areas. The only research that we’re allowed to do is research that is profitable to someone (often at the cost of everyone else). Dr. Fatima just put out a great video on colonialism in STEM that complements Sabine’s video quite well imo.

@zotfotpiq

3 ай бұрын

"i'm too smart for academia. you didn't fire me, i quit!" 😂

@mememaster9703

3 ай бұрын

@@jonathancangelosi2439 yet she did a shallow paid video with bad sources she misused, defending capitalism. shes done tons of other BAD videos too about philosophy thats way out of her field. She couldnt make it in academia because shes too incompetent to be there.

@jindrichjochec296

3 ай бұрын

I'd be interested too

@JamesObscura

3 ай бұрын

I hope not Sabines politics are absolute trash and she's not worth interacting with.

Holy crap this video dropped some hard-hitters. OOF. While I've chilled out in recent years, I'm still a terminally-online neurodivergent white dude without a higher education, so some of the lines you presented here have warranted some fairly uncomfortable personal reflection. The differences between attacking a problem and attacking an opponent, situations where a devil's advocate may be inappropriate or unneeded, the futility of thinking that engaging with crackpots is a level playing field... Ohhh there are some memories resurfacing that I'd rather keep buried.

@achi5170

2 ай бұрын

"[...] inappropriate or unneeded [...]" no such thing.

The internet's colloquial understanding of "debate" is modeled after debate between religious apologists and people who think evolution is how biology works. The purpose isn't to advance the subject. The purpose is to pose a question the other person doesn't have a prepared answer for, and declare victory when they can't clap back. All it shows is who was better prepared and who was better at what Wittgenstein called "language games". It's depressing.

@IisLasagna

29 күн бұрын

Ngl, very fun to be in one even if it goes nowhere bc I get new questions to ask myself and see how good I am at arguing my point

As a life-long scientist with an MSc in physics (UBC, 1977) I love hearing your take on science, including the historical aspects.

I don't watch you for the science. I watch for the sass and sarcasm. The end clip was hilarious.

I really appreciate the videos you post. I may not know too much about science, but your videos reiterate and robustly support the value of learning and about communicating how we learn to others. In education, we talk a lot about "content literacy." That is, thinking like a historian/scientist/mathematician/musician/artist and the techniques we use in the fields. It is important that we express and model how to think in our fields, and show the value of learning process over all the traditional formalities such as spectacle debate. You inspire me to continue what I'm doing (helping students learn) and to learn more about science, which you reignited my interest in learning. Thank you so much!

My metaphysics brain laughs at my chemistry brain and physics brain.

@yaldabaoth2

3 ай бұрын

You know that metaphysics has nothing to with science, yes?

@matthewlennon6289

3 ай бұрын

perhaps precisely the point… least that’s how I read it

@danielhughes213

3 ай бұрын

My metaphysics brain is curled up, cry-laughing at itself while the imagined ghost of W.V.O. Quine tries unsuccessfully to console it.

@RobertKuusk

3 ай бұрын

​@@yaldabaoth2how so? Look at people like Planck who wrote magnificent metaphysics articles.

@MrOksim

3 ай бұрын

​​​​@@yaldabaoth2 we all learn that but actually that is a metaphysical thing to say. Metaphysics is inescapable just as beliefs are. Pretending that science has nothing to do with engaging with abstract concepts, human made stuff, beliefs or worldviews is just ignorant and technocratic.

Excellent video Dr. Kendrick-Collier. Keep up the good work. 👌🏾

@Garnilator

3 ай бұрын

Fuck the big 3, there's only big she

Some people just need simple explanations from a trusted source to learn science, but others don't know what is or is not a trusted source, or maybe they're skeptical of scientists in general. Merely publishing explanations will not reach these people. But a venue where their objections can be responded to, a representative from their side they trust and respect, with a spectacle that draws lots of eyeballs, seems like an ideal way to reach people who would simply ignore you otherwise.

Thanks for the references, they show so well that there´s much more to the picture than meets the eye. So far I read the first two, which are great, but I was particularly curious about the one about "mechanism and irreversibility". The latter led me to another curious book, called "Entropic Creation. Religious Contexts of Thermodynamics and Cosmology", by Helge S. Kragh... I guess this is a clumsy way of thanking you for such a stimulating video.

I was really in agreement with everything you were saying until you got to the Bill Nye part. I agree with your whole analysis of the event and the motives of the participants except that I believe that there will be some good faith people in the audience. I watched a bunch of spectacle debates by Hitchens and Dawkins when I was younger and the exposure to their ideas and methods did have a positive influence on my thinking. Even if they were really out to sell books. If not for that I may have become a devout Catholic. I remembered the words echoing in my mind as I drove to school and I was thinking it makes too much sense. There's no way they are wrong. One other nuance I wanted to add is that if the good faith person and the bad faith person are equally skilled at rhetoric then I believe the good faith person has the advantage in a fair contest. I also want to re-iterate that I'm in agreement with the opening statements in the video. Debating Science is not that same as debating immaterial things like philosophy and religion. All that being said I do see the bad guys winning in these online discord debates. I understand why you wouldn't want to debate one of these psychos. They use every dirty trick in the book and then act like they are the smartest people on Earth for using methods that no judge would accept. It's become a branding strategy for niche audiences.

@BlisaBLisa

3 ай бұрын

yeah, i was thinking of gutsick gibbons video about the creation museum and how she described being taught creationism growing up, how the people who are STILL creationists are often just the people who were raised that way and kept isolated from other ideas by the people who profit off their ignorance. the audience there absolutely can benefit from being shown different ideas.

@Mukna132

3 ай бұрын

I would disagree that the good faith person has the advantage. The bad faith person has a vastly stronger rhetoric to choose from

@laststand6420

3 ай бұрын

Many modern science advocates forget that to reason properly you must first agree on axioms. Logic only works if your axioms are accurate to reality. This is why the debates between Christians and Atheists are often so pointless, you can both be using logic, but if you can't agree on axioms then no amount of logic will ever bridge the gap between you. As Jesus said "He who has ears to hear, let him hear."

I paid for college by participating in academic competitive debate. What I liked about it? You knew going in it was a game (and generally was good about picking much fairer debate topics!) and you generally weren't there to change people's minds. Now, of course, that did happen! But generally the only value of 'spectacle debate' (love the term) is getting ideas in front of people who otherwise might never see them.

My Physics teacher in high school used to say, "Chemistry is a really cool part of Physics..."

This is SUCH a great take on debate culture. I used to teach high-school, and as though that weren't bad enough, they made me coach the Debate team (mostly because no one else wanted to do it, and I was the Philosophy/Religion/English teacher - which to the administrative mind is the same thing as Debate). I hated it. I hate the whole idea of debate, but especially the kind of formal, competitive debate I had to coach. I could hardly think of anything more antithetical to the true spirit of philosophy and academic discourse than formal Debate. But the kids were fun, despite it all. I can't deny that.

This video, and the last part about scientific versus spectacle debate, is a tour de force. This is a lightbulb moment for me. Thank you Angela!

I had a very good comment for the first part of your video, then you did this switch around and I completely forgot what I was going to say. That is what I am like in debates.

Lucky you, Angela. I have an engineer's brain, and a lazy cat's brain. That means I have a hard time getting off my butt to do work, unless I am intrigued by a problem, when the engineer pops up.

@bretbell2418

3 ай бұрын

I remember those days! I wonder what the pronouns are for my two problem solving him?eshpe?res? Oh yeah. Their are more than 2 in there. Ya'll please leave Sabine alone. Shut up! No!😕

@411bvRGiskard

3 ай бұрын

@@bretbell2418Sabine ain’t gonna fk you bro

98% agree with your stance. I spent many years putting together debates for a non-profit atheist advocacy group. Allowing crazy people with pseudoscience a platform is often unproductive, but in certain carefully crafted scenarios, it can be beneficial. It allows people who would otherwise never hear dissenting voices an opportunity to hear the science and perhaps change their minds. A debate isn't about changing the opinions of the speakers, it is about changing the opinion of the audience. The Ham/Nye debate was certainly a garbage/ spectacle debate that shouldn't have happened. Nye should be embarrassed.

@bretbell2418

3 ай бұрын

Who said that the only way to be sure that you have a mind is that it can be changed? Paraphrased.

@BlisaBLisa

3 ай бұрын

yeah, debate is a tool that shouldnt be treated as the only valid tool or be treated as useless. it has to be used in the right context and by people who know what theyre doing. i dont think people should assume a good scientist even a good science communicator will be good at debate, bc debate is its own skill. i think people like ben shapiro have poisoned the idea of debate in a lot of peoples minds lol

@KeithDart

3 ай бұрын

Ya, which is why I often "debate" certain people online. It's not for them, it's for the passive listener/reader that might be on the fence.

@Desmond-Dark

3 ай бұрын

@@BlisaBLisa I find it extremely off putting that so many people in the comments, are putting down debates. It's OBVIOUS that SOME people engaging in a debate are going to operate in bad faith. That doesn't mean debate itself is bad or useless. I've lost a tremendous amount of respect for most of Angela's audience. I also don't like that Angela doesn't even address the anti debate ignorance in her comments.

@BlisaBLisa

3 ай бұрын

@@Desmond-Dark I understand why she doesn’t get them she doesn’t really think that way, she is coming at this from a scientist point of view where a scientific debate is not like regular debate bc it’s about getting to the truth and not about winning. A lot of ppl have had bad experiences with debate-me type people and the most common perception people have of debate are people like Ben Shapiro.

These videos are always very comforting to me, because I always keep hearing that everything is fine. Kidding aside, right on point as usual.

Goddamn, I love the history of science, and I specially love how you present it.

@bretbell2418

3 ай бұрын

Yes!!!

@411bvRGiskard

3 ай бұрын

@@bretbell2418Agree. But the real genius in her videos is that the main topic is a gateway into multiple deeper rooted topics on being human.

There was written a book by Harry Houdini, "Miracle Mongers and Their Methods", I believe is the title that is most famous. I read this book as a lad,, and it was titled differently with the words "Eaters, Fakirs, Firewalkers" and something else. It is a fantastic human view into con artistry, and it pertains to today and how we act/react. Gr8! Peace ☮💜Love

You genuinely inspire me. Potential book title. "Understanding in reverse" I'm only hesitant because I've been learning about the writing process and everything that goes along with publishing a book. I almost wish I just went for it but no, I had to go and learn all about it and it's terrifying! I have that tendency to learn a lot and I'm finding out that I don't know anything about most things. It looks like i would have to learn a lot more about psychology so I don't sound like an idiot so, I probably won't write a book. But you are inspiring. You are!

OH MY GOD I WAS ABLE TO CATCH ONE WITHIN 15 MINUTES LETS GO I LOVE YOUR CHANNEL SO MUCH!!! ❤❤❤❤❤

I loved this whole video, but I want to push back on one point. The Hamm/Nye debate was a hugely significant event in my life since it's the first domino to fall in my path toward leaving creationism. I don't even remember the specific arguments used, but what stood out to me was the way they argued. Nye spoke to persuade, while Hamm spoke to rally the base. That caused me to go back to the AIG content I had consumed since childhood (I was then in my late 20s) and realize how bad their science was. So in that respect I know at least one person changed their mind because of that debate. Yes it's anecdotal, but consider this an existence proof rather than an argument about prevalence. It can happen.

I for one can’t wait to subscribe to your podcast, especially with all the Famous People you’ll have on. Brilliant ending!

This is great stuff...seriously...I hope you expand on this video and someday write a book (or better, books!) on Physics, Science Communications, and Philosophy of Science!

i am doing stem solely for the dramaaa. we love it when the girlies fight.

@timmydirtyrat6015

3 ай бұрын

PREACH SIS 🔥

While Dalton came up with atomic theory in the early 1800s, chemists were apparently divided on the issue for a time because Dmitri Mendeleev, who developed the periodic table, did not believe that atoms were a thing

@mikedavis979

3 ай бұрын

😲

@carlosgaspar8447

3 ай бұрын

i'm pretty sure we still have not "seen" an atom. maybe a cluster of "atoms".

@raffaeledivora9517

3 ай бұрын

​@@carlosgaspar8447 They can be seen in many ways, even directly with light in optical traps (impressive picture from just a couple years ago). As they have been seen routinely for decades in TEMs. Consequently I am forced to conclude you are either quite a bit out of date with your informations sources, or simply are using unsuitable ones.

@carlosgaspar8447

3 ай бұрын

@@raffaeledivora9517 some quick google searches from what i can understand, the optical traps just hold the atom in place so to speak for experimental use. photos of atoms in say crystals are computer renderings using algorithms based on models, etc. i'm not fluent in this field but it's also my understanding that we don't even have a picture of a dna molecule. and that electron microscopes are limited to nanoparticles such as viruses.

@carlosgaspar8447

3 ай бұрын

@@raffaeledivora9517 perhaps a better example is that of the pictures we have "seen" of black holes. after billions of data points are analyzed and compared to theory, a model is created to sort out the garbage which then leaves us with a picture of a black hole according to theory. wow. very impressive.

That's a very broad set of related topics to take on in a single video. I thoroughly enjoyed your quite successful effort. I can't even imagine myself doing as well. So, yeah. Kudos.

"So, depending on which brain is in my brain at any one time; the answer to a question will change." - May be the most accurate description of myself. Thank you so much for stating it more clearly what I cannot, thanks!

My deconversion actually started with watching the bill Nye Ken ham debate lol

It is very funny to hear your view on how science choose to leave philosophy. From the philosophy side we always talk about it as how we kick people out once they turn their ideas into something that can be measured and operated on. We declare "You are no longer doing philosophy, you are doing chemistry, get out!" Or physics, or biology, or psychology, or linguistics. Philosophy births all fields, and over time all that we are left with is the bullshit that doesn't turn into science.

Off topic, but I heard you mention that you were born in Eastern KY and I'm from Louisville and even though we grew up like nowhere near each other it's still cool to see a fellow Kentuckian killing it on youtube. Keep up the great work!

In my senior design course for my engineering degree they decided we should do debates. The topic my group was assigned was: "Is it moral to lie in a scientific paper?" We were assigned the "it is moral" side. I just couldn't believe they made us "debate" that point, let alone defend it.

Let me play devils advocate here... I'm half joking. A friend once lovingly said I would literally advocate for the devil (I have actually done this). I do believe there is value to "playing devils advocate" but not in the sense of a public debate or casual conversation. But instead to improve your own ability to analyze the reasoning of your own thoughts. It helps to prevent yourself from becoming dogmatic. Also with the Bill Nye, Ken Ham debate, there was a significant amount of good that's come from it. Bill Nye began a number of peoples deconstruction from creationism, with that debate. He wasn't there to convince ken, and nobody could. The goal (of which I would say he succeeded) was to get the audience (not the Kentucky crowd) to think about it and see how irrational ken was. I tend to believe that's the point of all the spectacle debates is to show insulated members the counter to the dogma they know. Yes its counter productive when those communities don't already exist before the debate, like flat earth. but when you have massive insulated communities that may never hear the opposing positions arguments (like creationism), then I think its good.

36:59 So glad you included the Sartre quote

@falseprofit9801

3 ай бұрын

It's one of the best quotes on the subject. So many quotable lines come from Sartre.

Love your channel, and efforts to communicate science! Can you do an explainer on what a theoretical physicist's average day looks like? I'm sure a typical workday varies greatly depending on what you are working on.

Dr. Collier, that was very illuminating. I actually learned a lot listening to you. And funny as hell! Thank you very much!

It's not just a show, it's a mode of persuasion. I have turned away from some of the cruelest beliefs I've had, not due to trying to solve a problem collectively with someone else, but in a mutual attempt to persuade the other side. That person did good that day.

@I_Love_Learning

3 ай бұрын

Yeah, I feel like this video should have better defined debate and its uses.

@PastPresented

3 ай бұрын

You can have a "mutual attempt to persuade the other side" in the comments under a video; it doesn't need to be a show.

@connormcgee4711

3 ай бұрын

@@PastPresented Good point!

@zacharychristy8928

3 ай бұрын

@@PastPresented why would it need to just be retricted to the comments? Just because we decided "debate bad"? Sounds kinda silly.

@PastPresented

3 ай бұрын

@@zacharychristy8928 I didn't say it would "need to just be retricted to the comments"- I just suggested that it should work well in the sort of format offered by a video comments section (in effect, pretty much any text-based format). Text-based debate minimises the effectiveness of rhetorical tricks and sophistry.

I mean, there's also Democritis and Leucippus who theorized matter is composed of different atoms which combine in some way to make microscopic structures (although they seemed to imagine some kind of series of hooks and barbs that caused them to interlock when mixed together and could be pulled apart rather than, like, covalent bonds and shit).

@carneades4409

3 ай бұрын

For an especially fun part of a more developed ancient version of atomic theory, there's Lucretius' attempt to give a mechanical account of magnetism (On the Nature of Things VI.809-1086).

@sharonminsuk

3 ай бұрын

You might be interested to think about how Velcro works. On the one hand, it's literally hooks and barbs. On the other hand, it's also atomic forces. Once you start describing the hooks and barbs at the microscopic level, the distinction kind of withers away. I don't know anything about Democritis and leucippus, but from your description I would say they were right on the money! They just didn't have the modern language to say how the hooks and barbs actually worked.

Awesome, I was just thinking about your channel! Always a good day when you upload

i feel like a scientific debate with Forrest Valkai might be an interesting and productive one also his puppy dog energy when talking about scientific topics is infectious

There's a difference between debate and informing the public and being part of a show trial.

I generally agree with you about spectacle debate, but I think challenging debate in general comes from a place of trauma. I learn so much from debating. It helps me learn why people disagree with me, and find failures in my own reasoning.

@ChuckSkullDiner

3 ай бұрын

There are debates that are not "spectacle" if people do it in good faith. But it's very rare if it has an audience.

@Bobbel888

3 ай бұрын

"place of trauma" would e.g. what?

@6ThreeSided9

3 ай бұрын

@@Bobbel888 Stressful arguments online.

@no.6377

Ай бұрын

​....that's a trauma now😂?​@@6ThreeSided9

I am absolutely fascinated by all these videos as someone who gets a headache when studying any math more sophisticated than regular stats (psych major, glad I don't need calculus) because there is something super cool about watching someone who's into fields of study that are completely different than your own. Interdisciplinary stuff is neat. I also really like the historical parts because I am absolutely addicted to context.

I'm super excited for your podcast!

Rules for engaging in debate: 1) You can't debate unless you can articulate your opponent's position in a way that they actually agree with. 2) you aren't allowed to debate if you are only recognizable with a headset and podcast mic.

@ZenobiaofPalmyra

3 ай бұрын

"MR BUNELLI!!!"

@somedudeok1451

3 ай бұрын

90% of the people who vote can't explain their opponents arguments. If you don't talk to them about their stupid ideas and reason them out of them, then they will vote to cause harm.

@houktg

3 ай бұрын

If you're looking at it as "this is my opponent who I'm trying to beat" then you're engaging in debate spectacle and everyone has already lost

@mgmchenry

3 ай бұрын

@@ZenobiaofPalmyra I would be a happier person if I didn't know what you were referencing. I'm pretty sure I agree with Destiny about some things but I don't have any interest in hearing him speak again. That display was just sad. I don't understand why Lex put that disaster together.

@horacefairview5349

3 ай бұрын

​@@mgmchenry You can't say that was on destiny though.... Norm was not interested in any type of debate.

"And grift the customers." Shots fired! 😂

@somedudeok1451

3 ай бұрын

If you don't debate them, they'll just claim that the scientists are too scared to debate. Better give their audience the change to be reasoned out of their bad ideas through exposure to scientific facts, than to leave them with their bad ideas ready to cause harm through votes and indoctrinating their children.

This is very similar to a debate in cognitive science about embodied cognition vs. cognitivism. Cognitivism posits a lot of internal mechanisms and processes in the mind, think like working memory or stages of visual processing, while embodied cognition disagrees with the creation of these theoretical unobservable mechanisms that, while possibly explanatory, ultimately aren’t necessary (so they claim). So the embodied folk have other routes (dynamical systems and philosophy mostly) they use to try to explain behavior and cognition with, in my opinion, fairly limited success. It’s really interesting that similar debates crop up across disciplines.

The marrying a horse thing goes straight back to Caligula, who made a Knight of a horse, and had it attend meetings of the Roman Senate. And of course, the reign of Caligula featured persecution of Christians in the Collusium.

Anxiously awaiting your new podcast, "It all ends in tears."

Angela, I admire your ability to plainly state what is fucked up with the loudest talking heads. You highlight how maddening the idiocy of societal opinion is so articulately and so candidly that you remind me of the most grounded people I know. I appreciate your willingness to express this in the same breaths as scientific discourse. We need more plain speech in science to drive engagement, and you do it well. Bravo

@GH-oi2jf

3 ай бұрын

"brava"

This was truly excellent. I've had mixed feelings about "spectacle debates" in the past, but you absolutely shut down my ambivalence. Well done. You even, at the end, anticipated the one caveat I had while listening, that there _are_ some issues that are not about scientific truth, but rather, about decisions that society must make. And here, matters are (usually) not scientific, but instead are about preferences, or economics, or morality (though Sam Harris would make an argument that even moral decisions can be decided scientifically). Anyway, great video.

"My personality is just talking about thermodynamics" @4:06. That's just the canvas that elucidates your personality, showing how fun you are.

There can actually be utility in the debate you described, between the pro-gay-marriage and the don't let people marry their horses, but it requires the teacher to teach the class about logic and reason. In that case, the anti-position is a slippery slope argument, and the teacher should teach the students the universal answer to all slippery slope arguments, which Socrates first made. I'll put it here for completeness: All slippery slope arguments take the same form: We are over here at point A. At the opposite extreme is point B. If we take one step away from point A, we will inevitably slide all the way to point B, so we have to stay at point A. The universal answer to slippery slope arguments is this: If we take one step away from point A, we don't inevitably slide all the way to B, we stop wherever in the hell Reason tells us to stop! That's the answer to all such arguments, and (based on popular arguments I see every friggin day) a teacher who taught this widely would be doing a service to civilization worthy of a MacArthur Fellowship.

@rickandrygel913

3 ай бұрын

Most people follow feelings not reason

@j.f.christ8421

3 ай бұрын

@@rickandrygel913 Do you want to make the baby Jesus cry?

@rickandrygel913

3 ай бұрын

@@j.f.christ8421 that makes no sense...

@KamikazethecatII

3 ай бұрын

“But Mr. Locke, won’t saying everyone is equal mean we have to give rights to women too!” “Nonsense, we must only stop where reason demands it. Nobody could ever be so foolish as to think women deserve political equality.” What one generation considers reasonable is not what the next might. Gay marriage was once as unreasonable and abhorrent as horse marriage. Why can’t people’s sentiments toward the latter change just as their sentiments toward the former?

@charlesspringer4709

3 ай бұрын

Well....there have been people marry a horse or a doll or an anime character, it it is happeneing. One has to ask why anybody cares. At the moment I want to adopt a million or two people with college loans and claim them as dependents.

OMG, you can see the future! I was going to say we should debate debating. There you are at the end, popping in and taking that away from me. I do have one question. How long did it take you to simmer down after working yourself up to that "shit" statement? Love your form of snark.

@zacharychristy8928

3 ай бұрын

"Debate debating" doesn't seem very productive at all. What does that leave as a recourse to a growing number of people believing in harmful or unscientific ideas? Ignoring them? That doesn't seem to work very well.

@IceFerret2

3 ай бұрын

@@zacharychristy8928 It was a joke. The only recourse is a high quality education. Something I think is lacking in many of those with harmful or unscientific ideas.

I couldn't put my finger on it for so long, but now i see the Arthur plushie on your desk and it's blowing my mind.

It’s interesting you mentioned municipal debates. You should look up “the law of triviality” or colloquially “the bike shed effect.”

This is my favorite video of yours. Thank you for making it.

42:30 Angela, please, 156,000 people care about you.

found your channel, you've got a new fan 😮😮

I'm reminded of a time when I attended a counter-demonstration in DC. There was a large "muscular Christianity" movement with a rally in DC (the "Promise Keepers"), and I wanted to hang out with the opposition. I'm talking to this one guy (on the other "side") and we're having a reasonable conversation. Then some random camera shows up and waits for us to "perform" - and to be fair, I did see disgusting things like a child evangelist and a bearded secularist yelling at one another, and it's like, OK, that's just programming vs programming. In our case, it was probably more interesting since, if you looked at us and were forced to guess, as I was more "clean cut" and he much less so, that we both probably be arguing for the other side. But we weren't arguing, and we both looked at the camera and just didn't say anything until it left. I was glad neither of us felt compelled to "perform".

@narfwhals7843

Ай бұрын

"muscular Chrstianity" sounds like a category you'd find on certain websites.

@delusionnnnn

Ай бұрын

@@narfwhals7843 Arguably more problematic than a guilt-porn grift - the head of the PK movement admitted that he didn't really care whether people accepted the Christian message of the PKs as long as they voted Republican. I'd take a porn grift over leveraging peoples' religion for votes.

It's appropriate to refer to Viennese people from the Dual Monarchy as Austrian. Hell, they'd be perfectly happy if you called them German. Edit: I missed an opportunity to say "Wiener"

im glad scientists are as petty and dramatic as the rest of us lmao

@thepapschmearmd

3 ай бұрын

We’re all just people after all.

@oscarstaszky1960

3 ай бұрын

always has been lmao don't even lemme tell ya about the Fossil Wars

@KitagumaIgen

3 ай бұрын

How very dare you? I'm very calm and reasonable, my opponents on the other hand are stubborn and refuse to listen to arguments...

I've heard this explained as the difference between _"debate"_ and _"discourse."_ _Debate_ is when you're trying to win. _Discourse_ is when you're trying to find a synthesis between apparently contradictory ideas.

@Flashv28

3 ай бұрын

Well formulated, I agree.

Can't wait for the podcast!

Time to strap in for another ride!

@zornu

3 ай бұрын

buckle your seatbelt

Hell ya I grew up reading Time Cube Gene Ray stuff and I'm so happy that i can enjoy physics videos today. Thanks for the vid and all your work

Great essay..totally agree with you regarding debate as spectacle..I really appreciate your well-communicated videos

37:40 Surgical technologist here: Very very respectfully, I couldn't disagree with you more here. I recently moved to the south and it became immediately apparent to me that almost NONE of the medical professionals here believe in evolution (or science as a whole). I was in a surgery a few months ago where it was brought up that I believed in evolution and the surgeon, CRNA and anesthesiologist all ganged up on me to laugh at the stupidity of my beliefs. The CRNA literally said "Look he's evolving!", the surgeon said "I didn't come from monkeys" and "There's a reason why it's still only a theory after 150 years". THE SURGEON said this! The reality is that the scientific community has 0 credibility among like 40 percent of the American public, even highly educated professionals. 40 percent of our country are young earth creationists. That's why half the country refused to take the vaccine. And when you guys outright refuse to debate dumb ideas because you assume the average person got a good education and trusts science as a process -- you're just losing a massive amount of support from otherwise intelligent, highly educated people, who've been turned against science by their local churches and ideologies. People like my colleagues who COULD be convinced if you guys started actually publicly defending science instead of assuming that the average person will simply trust the global scientific consensus. I know this because one of those colleagues actually started changing their tune after watching some debates I sent them where it was evident that the scientists had actual evidence and the creationists... Had bible passages. I wouldn't say he's a full on "evolutionist" now, but he no longer sees evolution as the fundamentally stupid caricature he believed it to be. The point of debate spectacles is to get people living within echo chambers to at least hear what the other side has to say. I don't wanna come off as critical because I genuinely love the video (and just finished binging like half your channel lol) but it sounds to me like many of my favorite scientist KZreadrs have no idea how deep the mistrust of science goes in America. Would love to hear your thoughts.

I want to start off by saying that I do think spectacle debate is shameful to be compared to scientific debate. However, I still think that scientists participating in spectacle debates is important, because even if (or when) they lose, there will always be those people on the fence who were once on the disillusioned side (creationism, etc) and needed that little push to properly educate themselves. I think that these types of debates, however, are perfect for the likes of Bill Nye, Neil DeGrasse Tyson, etc, who have more experience in the "communication" part of science communication. For example, I don't particularly like NDT, but some of his debates with the disillusioned groups (i.e. Ben Shapiro) were actually quite productive, simply because he is more familiar with the art of spectacle debate. Also, I don't think any scientific is going to be swayed to the creationist side; so it's not like the creationists would sell any more books than they already are. As you said, people watching these debates will already have decided who they agree with. However, there is a much more likely chance that some creationists switch to the scientific side. For this (perhaps small) possibility of educating others I believe the spectacle debate has some value.

@BlisaBLisa

3 ай бұрын

yeah i thought the creationist example was not the best for her to use, people in that kind of audience absolutely could be swayed, a lot of them are only creationists because they were raised that way and taught from a young age how to argue against "evolutionist talking points" a lot of these people are genuinely just ignorant

@jjmatejka

3 ай бұрын

The point is that a respectable scientist *might* change a few minds if they debate a whacko, but they *will* give the wacko's position credibility. Science communication is not about an individual, transactional exchange. If you worry about possible edge-case results when making your strategy, you will fail.

@BlisaBLisa

3 ай бұрын

@@jjmatejka sometimes the whackos position is not fringe but popular or even mainstream, like climate change denial. It really depends on the context whether or not a debate is beneficial

@topofsm

Ай бұрын

You may be right, but Angela's case example of the Ham-Nye debate is a perfect example of what you shouldn't do, in that it was basically a publicity stunt for Ham to launch his anti-science ark park and was able to fundraise off the debate and convince Kentucky to subsidize the Ark Encounter. It basically facilitated theft of the people of Kentucky. It's been my go-to example against debatebros for years for that reason. You can accept the premise that some people were taught evolution as a result of the debate, but is it really worth that enormous cost?

@BlisaBLisa

Ай бұрын

​ @topofsm i dont think thats a good reason to be entierly against the kind of debates op is talking about. you are right that the ham-nye debate is an example of what not to do but thats not what spectacle debate is lol thats just bad spectacle debate. a debate about creationism in front of a mostly creationist audience is a pretty good setting for a debate if the pro evolution side is actually prepared (and if its not something the creationist side is using to promote something else) most of the people in that audience are genuienly just ignorant and sort of isolated, especially the children for whom this might be the first time they hear creationism challanged. creationists are usually taught from a young age how to "refute" evolution, like they are taught specific points to bring up in an argument. their only knowledge of evolution is this completely false ideological version they were taught by creationists, getting to hear an actual scientist explain evolution can be really impactful. like the op said its really unlikely anyone on the evolution side is going to be won over by the creationists, esp since creationism relies so much on keeping the people in their grasp ignorant. gutsick gibbon has a rly nice video about the creationist museum and she talks about this sort of thing, her and her mom were raised creationists and she talks about how its such a small and ever shrinking group that the only reason it still exists at all is that people like Ham are doing anything they can to hold on to whats left.