Пікірлер

• 
  @melissajensen4901Күн бұрын

  Dude, I am one minute in to this video, and you literally just debunked a straw-man.

• 
  @TheGabo-eh1tgКүн бұрын

  Science is not logic......that is your first error..... logic is philosophy ..... science is a method of investigation. Science has no truths....the best they can do is have a law..... logic seeks truth,,,,, Science as interpreted today by woke nihilistic socialists try to elevate it to philosophy and claim a truth..... Obama is the worst.... he loved to say "the science is settled" when pushing his Marxist theories on climate change. Science is not in the business of finding truth and is never settled,,,, truth is for philosophers not scientists.

• 
  @EuroUser1Ай бұрын

  The video fails to address a very relevant point: anecdotal evidence can be right-away made up, for a wide variety spurious reasons.

• 
  @thesciencelens6 күн бұрын

  Without a doubt. Although, you could argue at that point it's stopped being anecdotal and just become straight up lies.

• 
  @EuroUser14 күн бұрын

  @@thesciencelens My point is that the investigator has essentially no way to tell apart an honest anecdote from a lie. And this is the biggest weakness of anecdotal evidence. Faking an experiment is difficult, and the experiment can be repeated later to confirm or dismiss the alleged results. While faking an anecdote is much easier, and there's no standard way to confirm it.

• 
  @Abrenes06Ай бұрын

  Love your vids!

• 
  @thesciencelens6 күн бұрын

  Thanks for watching!

• 
  @Abrenes06Ай бұрын

  Nice video! Great information!

• 
  @SneakySteevy2 ай бұрын

  One could claim that something is not real simply because no one has proven its existence. Thats the burden of proof.

• 
  @thesciencelens6 күн бұрын

  It's true that a lack of evidence doesn't disprove something's existence, and people are free to believe whatever they want. But in an argument you can't expect another person to accept that something exists unless you have evidence.

• 
  @SneakySteevy2 ай бұрын

  Why almost all logical fallacies focus only on the fallacies of the Republican?

• 
  @thesciencelens6 күн бұрын

  I try to be politically neutral when choosing my examples. Is there an example of a fallacy that you see from the other side of the fence that you think I should address?

• 
  @randharrisx2 ай бұрын

  Let us say, it is claimed that 35k civilians were bombed to death, 75% of which were women and children. Can we dismiss these claims as a mere drop in the bucket of human population, especially in the larger span of cumulative human history? we can easily counter by saying it's dishonest to cherry pick such numbers and even go on to say such low number of deaths don't amount to much to warrant any attention. Also, we can even go farther and say the perpetrators, historically lost many more, so cry more as you cherry pick more?

• 
  @thesciencelens6 күн бұрын

  I'm not sure I agree with you that this would be cherry picking data. Can you clarify a little more what you mean?

• 
  @matb39542 ай бұрын

  Terrific video!!

• 
  @thesciencelens2 ай бұрын

  Thanks so much!

• 
  @tobiyusuf84123 ай бұрын

  love your videos

• 
  @thesciencelens2 ай бұрын

  Thanks so much. Really appreciate it.

• 
  @sparce233 ай бұрын

  Great vid, keep it up!

• 
  @thesciencelens2 ай бұрын

  Thanks! I appreciate you watching.

• 
  @rianzog3 ай бұрын

  This needs more views!

• 
  @thesciencelens2 ай бұрын

  Thanks for watching!

• 
  @sketcher19983 ай бұрын

  Wait, this channel had only got 699 subscribers and this video only 103 views, wtf

• 
  @thesciencelens2 ай бұрын

  You're too kind :)

• 
  @adventurousappetite3 ай бұрын

  This was such a great video! I never really thought about patterns in any way other than clothing! Thanks for teaching me otherwise.

• 
  @thesciencelens2 ай бұрын

  You are so welcome!

• 
  @womp63383 ай бұрын

  burden of proof has nothing to do with logical fallacy. just because you might have burden of proof in scientific context, does not mean you are incorrect.

• 
  @thesciencelens3 ай бұрын

  It doesn't mean you're incorrect, but you shouldn't expect others to agree with you without evidence.

• 
  @womp63383 ай бұрын

  @@thesciencelens yeah but it’s also lazy to just dismiss everything without care because modern science only studies things that will give profit. So it’s very skewed in one direction. But if people question it just based on logic and assertions it gets dismissed. That’s why modern science is so stagnant.

• 
  @climatechangeanswer3 ай бұрын

  No, your video is very wrong. kzread.info/dash/bejne/fKx2lduyYqudmpc.html

• 
  @user-vo1fu7tm1r5 ай бұрын

  I want to ask: if someone present a fact or evidence or information that contradicts my beliefs and I examined them and found out that the information does not prove my beliefs wrong or that the information proves to be false and on that basis I refuse and dismiss the "fact" or "information", is it confirmation bias?

• 
  @thesciencelens3 ай бұрын

  From what you've described I would say no. You've been open to the idea of being contradicted, examined the evidence and found that it's not strong enough to change your mind. To me that's the right way to approach the situation.

• 
  @EastBayE5 ай бұрын

  You drop a lot of toast. By the way, butter is denser and heavier than toast which should make the butter side indeed more likely to pull downward in gravity than the lighter side….

• 
  @thesciencelens3 ай бұрын

  Ha. I stand corrected :)

• 
  @EastBayE2 ай бұрын

  @@thesciencelens Seriously though, thanks for educating people on this important topic👍. Should be seen in every school.

• 
  @illusionzfg9 ай бұрын

  Great content thank you sir.

• 
  @thesciencelens8 ай бұрын

  Thanks for watching!

• 
  @EmbraceTheStruggle2410 ай бұрын

  While objective information is important; the way it is interpreted can fit the mold of black and white thinking. Experimenting and operant conditoning are part of how bias is the way it is too; even if it isn't always meant to be conformation bias.

• 
  @thesciencelens10 ай бұрын

  There's so much to think and learn about when it comes to critical thinking as a pursuit. Thanks for sharing!

• 
  @EmbraceTheStruggle2410 ай бұрын

  @@thesciencelens yep definitely ^_^ sometimes my own bias can get the better of me like when it comes to codependency, but really it is just trivial a lot of the time - in concern to my folks and peers.

• 
  @EmbraceTheStruggle2410 ай бұрын

  @@thesciencelens overall though, I believe conformation bias is neither always fundamentally good or bad, as it keeps us aware of our surroundings and events (like the pandemic or even global warming or climate change).

• 
  @joshuawingate325310 ай бұрын

  Fax

• 
  @thesciencelens10 ай бұрын

  Thanks for watching!

• 
  @joshuawingate325310 ай бұрын

  I love your content

• 
  @thesciencelens10 ай бұрын

  Thanks! I'm glad you enjoy it. I'm on a break at the moment because I just started a new job but hoping to bring out a new video soon.

• 
  @jagadeeshgurana449011 ай бұрын

  Wow that's amazing to learn about our own biases. It would be great to become completely bias-free but Its too difficult and not really a thing that's needed. Thanks for the video

• 
  @thesciencelens10 ай бұрын

  I know exactly what you mean! It's impossible to be bias free. I think the important thing is to practice critically thinking as much as we can so when it comes time to make big decisions we can have a better chance of making the right one. Thanks for watching!

• 
  @adventurousappetite Жыл бұрын

  Love the intro! I have a famously bad memory, but was shocked about those famous movie lines! Great video.

• 
  @eddieb8337 Жыл бұрын

  Assumes that there is no bias in Google's search algorithms...

• 
  @thesciencelens10 ай бұрын

  Very true. We definitely need to be careful about that.

• 
  @Hellformer_ Жыл бұрын

  Good video

• 
  @thesciencelens Жыл бұрын

  Glad you enjoyed it!

• 
  @frodojuniormlg653 Жыл бұрын

  Great video! for me i feel like for example 1 the teleological fits best but for example 2 teleological just feels wrong so ill go with duty based there but i do have some feedback i would've realy liked to see a mention of Moral relativism and the gronding problem i think those 2 things completely destroy the idea of ethics the only reson people still believe objective moral facts is because they feel like there are moral facts but that i just not a good argument to make a reality claim on in my opinion

• 
  @thesciencelens Жыл бұрын

  Thanks for the feedback! You make an interesting point. I'll have to read up on the gronding problem as I'm not familiar with it. And I'll definitely have a think about how I might be able to incorporate moral relativism into a future video. Cheers!

• 
  @frodojuniormlg653 Жыл бұрын

  @@thesciencelens that would be awesome i would love to hear your take on it also your most recent video about memory is great keep it up man i think you might just blow up soon you make great quality content <3

• 
  @briankeegan8089 Жыл бұрын

  Nice job. Hope you don't mind if my critical thinking students have a look this fall. Evidence is Module 5.

• 
  @thesciencelens Жыл бұрын

  I'm glad you liked it! If you're interested, I just made all of my worksheets available for free on my website at www.thesciencelens.com/resources.html. If you use them with your students or just one of the videos I'd be keen to hear how they go.

• 
  @jonathanb9889 Жыл бұрын

  Imagine living around the 1900s and betting on a static universe because you knew what a "hundred scientist" believed. Now, a hundred years later, we wonder how they all got it wrong and what might we believe today because we found another "hundred scientist" who "peer-reviewed" themselves into agreement.

• 
  @thesciencelens Жыл бұрын

  There are, of course, plenty of examples of when the scientific consensus was wrong. The problem is those examples are more salient that the times it was right, which are much more common. This is what I mean when I say it's about playing the odds. If you had gone against the scientific consensus in the 1900s it's unlikely you would have said that the Universe was expanding (because there was no available evidence to suggest so), so you would have been wrong. If you go against the scientific consensus today you would still be wrong. If you had believed the scientific consensus, on the other hand, you would have been wrong in the 1900s but right today. So, science doesn't always get it right, but it's a safer bet.

• 
  @thedoc58489 ай бұрын

  ​@@thesciencelensso you agree that consensus can not establish truth

• 
  @Mike-xi4zt Жыл бұрын

  Butter adds weight to one side of the piece of bread.. and it will tend to work like a badminton cock

• 
  @Devin7Eleven Жыл бұрын

  1. Qualifications doesn’t mean its impossible for you to lie, be wrong, or not be automatically trustworthy. Specialization doesn’t mean they can’t say true things about a subject they don’t have an official paper in. 2. Checking for bias is important 3. Truth isn’t predicated by how many people believe it. The majority CAN be wrong. If the scientific consensus is biased then the whole industry is corrupted

• 
  @Lionoid_Eagleshark Жыл бұрын

  That's why he said "more often than not".

• 
  @thesciencelens Жыл бұрын

  Everything you said is true. But it's about playing the odds. A specialist's opinion on their area of expertise is more likely to be correct than a non-specialist. The consensus of 100 specialists is more likely to be correct that the opinion of 1. And a single expert is more likely to be biased than an entire group. Of course, it's important to remain vigilant because science can get it wrong and systems can be flawed. But as non-specialists we have to remain humble about our understanding of specific topics, which is why, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, it's safer to trust science.

• 
  @lapimano23 ай бұрын

  ​@@thesciencelensI think your argument is flawed, and i will try to showcase the problem here with an analogy. (I assume the premises you provided are true for example: ":And a single expert is more likely to be biased than an entire group." Although I don't see that you backed these claims up with anything, but for the sake of this argument i will look away from that for now). So the analogy: Lets imagine someone is brought into court for murder charges, and his lawyer says that only 0.001 of people are murderers (I just made this number up to showcase a very small percentage) and therefore its very unlikely that his client is indeed a murderer, and therefore the charges should be dropped. According to the logic you presented, where "it's about the odds" the lawyer's argument is correct, when in reality we obviously know its not. Actually in that case there were information available which indicated that in that specific case the percentage should be much higher (for example he was caught red handed). The main problem here is that a general rule is used as a basis, and while the general rule can be true in itself, after closer inspection there are other important factors which would greatly alter the odds and those factors are disregarded. I think it is kind of a "fallacy" related to "supression of evidence" or "cherry picking" or the "accident fallacy". I think when its abut trusting a scientists (or anything in general) its important to weigh in other factors, other than their expertise and the consensus (aka appeal to authority/popularity fallacy). An easy example for these factors would be to look after the interest of the scientist: who is supporting them with money (sorry for bad english), also an other one: to look for political interests behind it: if a controversial theory comes from a well known dictatorship (or something similar in some regards), who is advocating certain ideologies just like the nazi Germany was, or the USSR, than it automatically should raise doubt about the integrity of the theory.

• 
  @samanthadonelan8559 Жыл бұрын

  Thank you for all of that wonderful information! I have a question, how do you determine the reliability of a scientist’s credentials? Thanks!

• 
  @thesciencelens Жыл бұрын

  Hey! Thanks for commenting and sorry for the delayed response. I would start by looking for their profile on the webpage of the company or university that they work for. There you should their qualifications and where they studied. If you see PHD after their name that's a good sign :) Next, I would jump onto Google Scholar and do a search for their name, to see if they've been published in any peer reviewed journals. Being peer reviewed means their work has been checked by other experts in the field so is held to a high standard. There's a channel called 'Smart Student' that has a few videos on using Google Scholar and checking credentials. This video might be a good place to start - kzread.info/dash/bejne/pmyTpblvdrmeccY.html You could also check out my other videos on Checking for Peer Review or Appeal to Authority. Peer Review - kzread.info/dash/bejne/hZ9hxdWcZdnQnbw.html Appeal to Authority - kzread.info/dash/bejne/iaeDsJemd8i8pNI.html Thanks for watching!

• 
  @ianedwards8933 Жыл бұрын

  I absolutely LOVE the fact that the basis of the explanation for this video is a reference to the NES days of old. The "because it's not 1989" line was also hilarious... Brilliant!

• 
  @thesciencelens Жыл бұрын

  I thought you'd like that one!

• 
  @adibachowdhury1891 Жыл бұрын

  You deserve more views. Great video.

• 
  @thesciencelens Жыл бұрын

  Thanks! I appreciate the support.

• 
  @tdiddle8950 Жыл бұрын

  Every day, MD's use both experimental data (tests) and anecdotal evidence (a patient's report of symptoms) to make diagnoses, which, in sum, effect modern medicine. Is modern medicine reliable scientifically? Now THAT'S a good question!

• 
  @thesciencelens Жыл бұрын

  Oh man, I feel woefully unqualified to answer THAT question! But I think it's a great one.

• 
  @LearningEngineercom6 ай бұрын

  A report of symptoms isn't anecdotal evidence. The doctor isn't extrapolating out what the patient reports to the general population which is why we don't use anecdotal evidence, they are just applying the symptoms to the patient.

• 
  @LearningEngineercom6 ай бұрын

  It depends on what you mean by reliable. And compared to what else?

• 
  @tdiddle8950 Жыл бұрын

  Anecdotal evidence has been proven to give valid data with a large enough sample-group.

• 
  @thesciencelens Жыл бұрын

  There's definitely value in anecdotal evidence. And when used correctly can yield some important insights. The logical fallacy is in taking one or a handful of examples thinking that they mean more than they do. I'm interested to see what AI will be able to do with a large set of anecdotes moving forward. For a human to find meaning in a set of 1000 stories would take years, but I can see the right AI model doing it in a fraction of the time.

• 
  @tdiddle8950 Жыл бұрын

  @@thesciencelens As always, thanks for replying. I like these little YT discussions we're having.

• 
  @tjmns8 ай бұрын

  ​ If 1000 people are reporting a severe adverse reaction to something immediately after eating or taking something. Its legit ! Millions of dollars of food are removed from supermarket shelves from just a few negative reports sometimes. And only from a small sample. The system in this case is logical, because its better to be safe than sorry.

• 
  @LearningEngineercom6 ай бұрын

  @@thesciencelens Let me help. Examples can't be extrapolated out to the general population because they are not representative of the general population. You can have specific populations like people with cancer or some other condition when performing clinical trials.

• 
  @eliosgreek8028 Жыл бұрын

  Great video

• 
  @thesciencelens Жыл бұрын

  Thanks! Glad you liked it :)

• 
  @jesonlozil Жыл бұрын

  600 views and 60 likes makes me sad about where our world is heading. It doesn't represent the quality of your work, you are amazing.

• 
  @thesciencelens Жыл бұрын

  Thanks, mate! I appreciate the support. There are probably things I could be doing to promote the channel more, but for the time being I'm happy to let it grow slowly. But make sure to give it a share if you know someone that would enjoy it!

• 
  @alanrobertson9790 Жыл бұрын

  Time index 1.30. "People believed not because of the evidence presented but because they saw him as an authority" (not vebatim). Precisely, this is the fallacy of authority! Why then is the rest of the video devoted to checking, one, two, three fashion on the credentials of people making claims! Can't you see that this is falling into the precise trap of the fallacy of authority. A claim is substatiated by the quality of the argument or data presented not by the expertise of the presenter be this real or fallacious. Arguments are not won based on the qualifications of the man making the argument, but by the argument.

• 
  @thesciencelens Жыл бұрын

  Hi Alan. Thanks for commenting. You're right that assuming a person is correct based on their credentials is a logical fallacy, whether that person is qualified or not. But there's a significant difference between a legitimate appeal to authority (where a person is an expert discussing their area of expertise) and an appeal to false authority. It's not reasonable to expect most people to have sufficient knowledge of esoteric topics to determine whose argument is strongest when two experts disagree. So, my advice on checking credentials and consensus is not meant to help people determine who has the strongest argument, but rather whose information and opinion is most likely correct. As I mention in the video 'Sometimes we do just need to trust experts', and this approach helps us make sure that trust is well placed without having to go out and get a science degree.

• 
  @alanrobertson9790 Жыл бұрын

  @@thesciencelens "But there's a significant difference between a legitimate appeal to authority (where a person is an expert discussing their area of expertise) and an appeal to false authority". No there is no difference at all! If correctness depends on whether an argument is valid, or data is presented then who states it is irrelevant. In this situation expertise or not is logically redundant. Think of it this way, A) An expert says X but presents no evidence B) An expert says X with evidence C) An non-expert says X with evidence. Which of these is most persuasive? To my mind B) and C) are equally persuasive and A) has no value at all. The value of an argument depends on the argument, who is saying it matters not. The fallacy of expertise or authority is believing something because of the credentials of who is saying it when no or only a weak argument is presented. Within the scientific method what weight is given to expertise, numbers of people believing or consensus. Answer nothing at all. I can give you a hierarchy of proof but this isn't it.

• 
  @thesciencelens Жыл бұрын

  From a strictly logical perspective, sure, there is no difference between those two types of appeal to authority. But strict logic and the messiness of the world don't always jibe. And in practice there is certainly a difference. To continue your examples, let's say expert A makes and argument with evidence and expert B makes an argument with evidence. Who should a lay person believe? They don't have the expertise to evaluate the validity of the evidence/arguments, so they have to choose who to put their trust in. The odds are that if expert A is more qualified and is in agreement with other experts then they're argument is more likely correct. What I try to do with these videos is not to teach logic, but how we can think about these problems through a scientific lens.

• 
  @alanrobertson9790 Жыл бұрын

  @@thesciencelens As an aside, but from your example, where 2 experts each give some contradictory evidence without coming to a decisive conclusion the trick is to identify the key deciding factor. For example there was an actual youtube religious debate where one side points to the suffering of religious wars and the other the good works of those who believe. The key factor is what constitutes proof and how does religious belief compare to that. As I said in another comment I dont think comparing credentials is part of the scientific process.

• 
  @thesciencelens Жыл бұрын

  @@alanrobertson9790 Sure, if you can identify an issue with the argument, then by all means use logic as the basis of your decision. But sometimes people aren't able to do that. Other times they may have more confidence in their understanding of an argument than they should. You're right, it's not part of the scientific method. But the scientific community as a general rule places value on qualifications and consensus.

• 
  @farhanizzaz5283 Жыл бұрын

  Amazing video from an underrated channel, i think you should make more shorts to grow your channel, since most people nowadays spent more times on shorts rather than a long video

• 
  @thesciencelens Жыл бұрын

  Thanks! I appreciate the nice comment. I'll definitely consider your suggestion about making shorts. I haven't done it so far because my schedule is already pretty full but you're right that it could be good for the channel. Cheers!

• 
  @vahidyarmohamadi1437 Жыл бұрын

  Great video thank you 👍

• 
  @thesciencelens Жыл бұрын

  Thank you for watching!

• 
  @tdiddle8950 Жыл бұрын

  I don't know about Australia, but here in the US there is a lot of reason to believe that the FDA is in the pocket of the pharmaceutical and big agricultural lobby, so, again, I say how critically do we need to think about even conventional science?

• 
  @thesciencelens Жыл бұрын

  Pharmaceuticals and agriculture certainly are big business in the States and you have to wonder what kind of influence that brings. There are still checks in place and I genuinely believe that most scientists are competent, dedicated and want to do the right thing regardless of who they work for. But, unfortunately some high profile examples where unscrupulous people cheated the system have eroded a lot of people's faith in science as a process. In my personal opinion, a measure of skepticism of science is healthy, but I still consider it the best way to gather reliable information.

• 
  @tdiddle8950 Жыл бұрын

  @@thesciencelens To understand the whole thing, I think it's necessary to understand the history of science and the church from the beginning. I state that even modern science is strongly adverse to the even the precepts of spirituality (or any other type of competing, alternative thinking), because the church held such a powerful sway over rational ideas for so long, even in the case of scientists being executed by the church in the past. This then has set up draconian mindset wherever science and alternative ideas met. For instance, for me, a very educated and logical thinker, reincarnation has been conclusively proven. Please see the Division of Perceptual Studies of the Medical College of the University of Virginia for proof that reincarnation exists. For the most part, such knowledge is sacrosanct amongst mainstream scientists, but the proof is there, and it's being dismissed out of hand simply because it doesn't fit within the academic paradigm of (sponsored) science today. Can we not agree that history shows all of us, including scientists, to be fools, because we are ALWAYS proven to be wrong, or at least inadequate, by the process of time?

• 
  @tdiddle8950 Жыл бұрын

  Ahh, cancer. Well of course I have something to say about that. Surprise, surprise. Firstly, I think we need to understand the very nature of cancer, which is a natural process and cannot be 'cured.' In fact, the process which naturally causes cancer is the same process which caused humans to arise from troglodytes. Discounting human-made toxins (and I'll get to that), cancer occurs in Nature, stemming from cosmic radiation. This is part of the same process that causes evolution (along with natural selection), because cosmic radiation causes knock-out in DNA, meaning that cosmic rays collide with DNA and literally damage parts of it, which then causes mutation and is both quite unavoidable and in fact rather adventitious. Now to cancer and human-made toxins. What is causing an historical and significant rise in cancer rates is modern society itself? Human-made toxins in our environment...and other human factors like malnourishment, stress, and ennui (basically a lack of purpose)...are causing cancer rates to rise dramatically. So, I can cure cancer...no problem...humans en masse have to change their lifestyle. Otherwise. we should return to leeches and bleeding as medical treatment, because it will have the same, approximate effect. If I thought there were a 'cure' for cancer, I would dedicate my life to that and I would have figured it out already.

• 
  @tdiddle8950 Жыл бұрын

  In fact, the stressors of modern society are causing cancer that is actually pushing humans to evolve and to cope with the environment that they are creating. Though, I admit, it's a hard pill to swallow to see it that way.

• 
  @thesciencelens Жыл бұрын

  The phrase 'a cure for cancer' is also misleading since there are so many different types of cancer. Cancer isn't a disease, it's a category of diseases. So there won't and never will be a singe way of treating it. Side note, I read a while ago that another contributing factor to cancer rates is our increasing life expectancy. The longer you live, the greater the odds that you will be affected by cancer. It's a sad irony.

• 
  @tdiddle8950 Жыл бұрын

  @@thesciencelens "On a long enough timeframe any human's survival rate is zero." That's a paraphrased quote from the movie "Fight Club." Yes, I completely agree with you that increased longevity via modern medicine causes certain ailments to present as intractable. Such is undeniable...we have to die of something I harken from more of a neuroscience background, and so, it has always been apparent to me that more prevalent rates of Alzheimer's disease come from medical and pharmaceutical intervention that artificially (at least in the context of evolution) extends human life-span.

• 
  @tdiddle8950 Жыл бұрын

  Making you need something that you don't. Are you familiar with Edward Bernays? He was Sigmund Freud's nephew, and he took his uncle's understanding of immediate gratification and weaponized it in advertising. In a time where it was considered unseemly for women to smoke, this man was contracted by a tobacco consortium to find a way to get women to smoke. He paid women in a beauty pageant in Manhattan in 1928 (a campaign that was called "Torches of Freedom") to all break out a cigarette and smoke at a predetermined time...with the press carefully cultivated to be onsite...with a purposeful plan to force women's consumption of tobacco to become mainstream. And...it worked.

• 
  @tdiddle8950 Жыл бұрын

  Actually, he successfully conjoined women smoking with the then nascent women's liberation movement.

• 
  @thesciencelens Жыл бұрын

  I've listened to a couple of podcasts about Edward Bernays. Not a good dude. He's the reason that we have the phrase 'banana republic', because he helped the CIA overthrow the Guatemalan government in order to sell more bananas. He had no respect for people or their intelligence.

• 
  @tdiddle8950 Жыл бұрын

  I have a better example than the Nesquik example. I always thought it was completely irrational that I saw Hershey's chocolate syrup billed as a 'fat-free' food. Of course the actual product is fat-free, but it's filled with sugar, which of course the body converts into fat if it isn't metabolized fairly quickly.

• 
  @thesciencelens Жыл бұрын

  They made a joke like that on The Simpsons when Apu was promoting his fat free sodas haha.

• 
  @tdiddle8950 Жыл бұрын

  I was wondering just the other day if a person represents themselves as an MD on a commercial, are there any laws that govern that? Certainly advertising laws here in the US require that statements made in a commercial are truthful (well that's a minefield), and I figure that actors play MD's in commercials, but is there a requirement that the statements the actors make be made by a real MD? If not, it should be so.

• 
  @thesciencelens Жыл бұрын

  That's an interesting question. I don't know a lot about the legal side of advertising so I might have to do some reading about it. I'm sure laws vary from country to country as well.

• 
  @tdiddle8950 Жыл бұрын

  Okay, I've watched more, and I do like what I'm seeing, but my central question to you, dear Sir, is:: "What, exactly , is factual information?" I'm an intellectual and have a proclivity towards information that comes from 'reputable sources,' but what truly is a reputable source? History shows us all to ignorant fools, so what is the difference between being wrong (in a historical context) using reputable sources and being wrong by using less than reputable sources? And think about this: the science that we all exalt is created by people who need financing. I often say that every scientist needs a paycheck, and whoever writes that check gets to ultimately choose the direction of our beloved science.

• 
  @thesciencelens Жыл бұрын

  You're right. I think if I had to sum up what I try to communicate with my videos it's that you'll never be able to reach an absolute truth in real life. Every measurement is a little bit wrong, no source is completely reliable, even our own senses and brains let us down. All we can do is try to understand these problems of knowledge so that when we can be slightly less wrong, or, wrong for the right reasons.

• 
  @tdiddle8950 Жыл бұрын

  @@thesciencelens Yes, I see what you're saying now. KZread is not the best social media platform. So, the understanding of the lack of absolute knowledge in this world, and the understanding that we, as humans, have less than perfect perceptions is the basis upon which I found my spirituality. We can understand nothing for sure in this world, so we should be open to everything, but fools to nothing. Indeed, I am very much into the philosophy, or metaphysics, of both science and spirituality. I won't go into this too much here, but I strongly believe that the scientific method itself, though a great tool (think of skyscrapers and rocket ships having been built successfully) is only a tool and not something that is absolute or fundamental. Think of it this way...satellite communication would not be possible with only Newtonian physics. For satellites that are distant from the earth to keep time with the earth itself, something that is essential for quality data transfer to occur, Relativity is required, because the time is different as one goes further away from the gravitational pull of the earth. Time can literally be different in two different places that we experience here on earth. Then, in my opinion, if one truly understands observer created reality (with an open mind), then one has to understand that the mindset and thoughts of the scientist actually effect the very basis of the elements of the experiment itself.

• 
  @thesciencelens Жыл бұрын

  @@tdiddle8950 Well put. I also think that there's more to understanding the world than can be provided by science. That's why I called my channel 'The Science Lens', because I consider it a way of looking at the world, not the answer to all of its questions. To paraphrase a quote from Einstein - Logic will get you from A to B, imagination will take you anywhere.

• 
  @tdiddle8950 Жыл бұрын

  @@thesciencelens Amazing quote! You can't get better than that!

• 
  @tdiddle8950 Жыл бұрын

  In group bias? Have you heard of the Stanford Prison Experiment? PS, I've just started watching, and I will watch a little more, but then I will likely subscribe. I love to support quality up and coming YT channels (as I wish to be one soon myself).

• 
  @thesciencelens Жыл бұрын

  The Stanford Prison Experiment is a pretty crazy story. Pretty disturbing how quickly that got out of hand! Thanks for watching and commenting. Send me a note when your channel is up and running and I'll check it out!

• 
  @tdiddle8950 Жыл бұрын

  @@thesciencelens From a psychological perspective, it shows how very deeply social roles effect how we perceive the world. The same principle is operant in science in general.

• 
  @privateprivate8366 Жыл бұрын

  I don’t seem to have this issue. But, I’ve been smacked HARD with a prime example of it. I am going through probate. I believe my sister is a malignant case of narcissism and the DK Effect. I’ve never seen such overconfidence, in conjunction with not knowing anything and continuously telling the judge that I don’t know what I’m doing. Never said I knew what I was doing. I’m pro se (representing myself legally). I knew I didn’t know and that’s why I jumped on the internet, to get probate going. But I at least KNOW I’m not a lawyer. Heck, I’m a graphics professional. But, my sister? She doesn’t know the difference between a caregiver/squatter and an estate executor. She doesn’t know there wasn’t going to even be an executor, until our mother passed. Judging by things, she really doesn’t even know what a caregiver is and doesn’t even know she’s a squatter. Doesn’t know she doesn’t own the property she’s been squatting in, just because she’s paying property taxes. Doesn’t know she can’t insure or sell it. But she is CERTAINLY CONVINCED that the way to do things is to just move in, pay property taxes and maintain the property. Wanna know HOW overconfident she is? When the judge appointed a court-appointed admin - my sister STILL acted as if she was executor and even property manager. Spoke over the judge and said, “But I’m executor.” I told the court that I don’t really think she recognizes them as an authority. And when the court approved me changing the lock on the property I’d receive? My sister sent them an email telling them she didn’t agree - broke in and changed the lock again, so I couldn’t get in. I’m going to make the assumption that, once probate ends, I may need to have her arrested for breaking and entering. So, that’s how bad it can be and I’m sure there’s worse stories.

• 
  @thesciencelens Жыл бұрын

  Whoa. That's quite a story! Sounds like you're dealing with a lot. Family's can be tough. Thanks for sharing. Definitely seems like an example of this effect. I hope everything with the house works out.

• 
  @privateprivate8366 Жыл бұрын

  @@thesciencelens well, fortunately, once probate is complete and deeds are transferred, we’ll no longer be related, which will be as part of my Will. Never seen anything like it. But, perhaps, DK can be a part of malignant narcissism. Time for Kung Fu.

• 
  @mz2984 Жыл бұрын

  I enjoyed this video, because it was easy to understand along with the handy illustration curve. I also appreciated that the references were cited and mentioned in the video. Very few presenters do this. I'm a mature student fairly new in studying a Higher National in engineering (UK) so this was a great topic for me to ve aware of, especially now that I know the importance for citing references in my assignments.

• 
  @thesciencelens Жыл бұрын

  I'm glad you enjoyed it! I do think it's important to cite sources. Not only to give credit to people for their hard work but also to show people where to go if they want to learn more. Good luck with the studies!