I’d like to see an episode on the anti-science rhetoric or more broadly the anti-intellectualism that some sectors of society have been propagating for decades.
Was waiting for an episode covering this topic for a long time, would love a follow up episode to address the impact of pseudoscience on our sociey. Thank you Paul!
I usually do the smile and nodding as well, but a few months ago, I let my brother have it about all the nonsense he continually spouts. I just couldn't take it anymore. I felt bad for yelling at him, but it reached a boiling point.
I have this question in my mind: why pseudoscientific theories seem to gain audience nowadays? My interpretation is that in the course of decades/centuries the gap to understand science is becoming bigger and bigger, so that understanding advancements in cutting edge research is hard (unless you subscribe Paul's channel) Pseudoscience providds a convenient accessible shortcut * don't need years of study to understand Egyptians, one afternoon of youtube videos and you're up to date with the state-of-the-art of ancient alien civilization * you don't need instruments that cost millions of dollars to shutter atomic nuclei, you can see with your naked eyes that the earth looks flat, it means it's flat There are other more profound sociological triggers that contribute to the success of pseudoscience, Paul, would like to hear your point of view, thank a lot for your amazing videos!
People throwing unscientific nonsense at me will *never* get a polite smile and nod. They will get as gentle a correction as I can manage under the circumstances. And 'gentle' is relative. ;)
I must add that usually most scientific discoveries aren’t discovered using the scientific method. That is more of a retrospective process. So it would be good to define where that line is.
Really interesting topic, but this is just my opinion, the constant extra visuals and background music is quite distracting. I had to watch this by listening in a separate window. Is there anywhere with a clean simple audio version of this?
Hi Sir, I have a simple (may be) question, there is a room and two persons are counting some identical objects say x, one person is counting x and putting it inside a bag, the role of another person is to just watch so that there is no mistake in counting. To save the time the person watching just says some random three digit number between 700 and 800 based on his visual judgement, now the question is what are the chances of that number being the exact number matching with the actual quality of item x after they finish the counting process.
People pretend like they know what they are talking about instead of just being honest and say, I don't know! There is no shame in that. To me it's quite exhausting to obtain truth and meaningful content from people and meanwhile dealing with all their insecurities.
Like you said: you have been immersed in the practice of science for decades. You have built up an intuition around it. Other people have built up their intuitions around what they heard, what works for them and what they dream about. I think you're gonna have some mathematicians going after you, tears welling up, "am I just a tool to you?" While I agree on the mindset part; that too is formed through all that time of immersion. There is no short-cut available. And I'm also afraid it is not a mindset that even captures all sciences. Last few years there had been several scandals with sociologists and psychologists and their research; including made-up data. Reproduction is not sexy enough, everyone wants to be the newest and shiniest.
Maybe I missed it but can you do an episode on how light is massless and travels through space time instantaneously from it's perspective yet it bends to a black hole. So massless photons are influenced in one regard while massless but also travels through spacetime instantaneously from it's perspective because it's massless. There's something I really want to know I don't know how to ask properly. Thanks.
The mass of the black hole warps the space around it. We see the light bend. The light takes, what is to it, a straight line through spacetime. Same way a satellite is travelling a straight path around and around the earth.
Anybody can say this , even those you would call pseudoscientist . You should not only value evidence, you should also value logic . If your theories don't meet both , then I think it is fair to say it is wrong .
In my own way I have always tried to be someone who helps educate others about science and scientific methods. I have unfortunately witnessed the real damage pseudoscience can do in the real world. So for me to sit and quietly allow somebody to disseminate lies or false information is not in my nature. Even if something just does not sound right I would rather work with them to discern the truth through available resources and research papers then to allow them to live in ignorance. If the person is purposefully spreading lies and misinformation I would rather confront them and know this then to assume that they are simply speaking out of ignorance. There are after all people in this world who get what maybe perverted pleasure out of lies and misinformation. How many people died needlessly from covid because they were told it was not real?
As one of the newest "enlightened beings" in this "universe", earth humans are fine not knowing what they do not know and are fine using flawed 100 year old theories that never reconcile. As a whole, this universe, including all densities is a 21 trillion linear-year old holographic. ALL matter is from 3 sources: Light, Sound and Color. To be tangible in earth's 3rd density, there are 8 copies of you simultaneously in multiple densities.
I suppose it wouldn't be good science to not be able to quote my sources, but a group of scientists claimed that the universe being infinite, most likely there would be extraterrestrial life, yet the probability of life existing on the closest solar system to the earth would be unlikely, while travelling space from such solar system cannot be possible, as such isn't supported by present definitive science.
Apropos Ghost Hunting: really good points. However, ghosts are material but not physical in and of themselves. They are made out of "emotional matter" or "desire matter" for lack of better terms. And this "emotional matter" is coupled to physical matter (like electromagnetic, weak, and strong fields; physical fields = matter) in a subtle sense, mostly not even barely noticeable, sometimes astoundingly powerful. There might be some kind of scientific method about how to discuss and study these things/creatures in the academic field of parapsychology, but you can hardly expect non-academically-trained, enthusiastic amateurs to employ the scientific method in ANY topic, including ghost hunting!
"Ghosts" have the ability to sometimes physically materialize their otherwise completely emotional material bodies, and these are the ONLY times they may be studied scientifically from the physical waking state of consciousness (even though they may be "scientifically" studied from consciousness states of dream, trance or meditation, and the results then brought back into waking consciousness through means prone to error and misrepresentation). It is pretty tough to study these things in a truly scientific sense, even though they evidently do exist, and sporadically interact with the physical material world of reality (a small part of reality).
@@sideshowbob8220 Ghosts are real. I know from my own experience. There is also a large evidence for ghosts in the literature, and in the anecdotal experience of countless of people. If you have not experienced real ghosts yourself then it is good that you are sceptical. Honest doubt is healthy. Blind faith is unhealthy and harmful. Science is the method of carefully examining what is, without trying to "get" certain beforehand decided upon results, instead accepting whatever results you get, no matter whether they reinforce or contradict your current beliefs and theories. In the scientific method we form hypotheses from the patterns we believe we see in our experience from already performed preliminary studies. Then we compare these hypotheses with other counter hypotheses. Then we design experiments that will allow us to test the plausibility of these hypotheses relative to each other, using whatever facts we get as results from our experiments. We take due care to make explicit as many of our assumptions, methodology and possible biases before, during and after performing these research experiments. In science, explaining theories are valuable, especially when we have factual evidence for the hypotheses making up those theories, that more strongly support these hypotheses than they support the known counter hypotheses. But also, in science the factual evidence is and must always be considered more important than our current best theories, EVEN when the factual evidence CANNOT be explained in any way from the theories we have up to now considered. To try to "explain away" such evidence as "mere anomalies" or "obviously faulty experiments" is definitely UNscientific, even though this is sometimes done and endorsed in academic science. Sometimes even the "science" endorsed and performed in academy, and backed by some powerful "consensus", is in fact pseudoscience, designed to support some results that have already in advance been agreed to be desired, for ideological, philosophical or even financial reasons. Sometimes real science is performed outside academy, though falsely labelled as pseudoscience by the powerful "consensus" snob inside scientific academy, for whatever unscientific reason. The methods used, and the attitude held, towards the research is what decides whether that research is scientific or not, this is not decided by any societal "authority". In science we should always be critical, and also openminded. Blind belief is not science, and neither is blind scepticism.
Both the UAP/UFO stuff as well as a lot of archeological findings in both Egypt and Peru don't fully square with the traditional explanation and narrative. There is a lot of inertia within the academic world, for an outsider this can easily be interpreted as an unwillingness to examine things in depth. That is fertile ground for pseudoscience.
The UAP/UFO stuff I have not a clue what's going on with that, but as far as Egypt and Peru, and any area of ancient history for that matter, new information and hypothesis regarding the information available are being introduced all the time. The fact that people who want to discover what was actually happening within the particular time and place which they are dedicated to studying aren't willing to recklessly embrace ideas based on little to no evidence available to them. There is also an overwhelming willingness of people to accept absolutely ludacris ideas regarding history without bothering to find out why historians who study areas believe what they believe. If the people who want to write books that are basically fiction and call it history were really interested in ancient history, there are still texts that can't even be read because they haven't yet been translated, not to mention the vast amounts of ancient tablets and papyruses sitting in the British museum yet to be translated. They recently discovered more tablets attributed to the Hittites. There's the bronze age collapse, identifying the sea people. There is a lot of history we know we don't know, and even more we don't have enough information to know what we don't know. But discovering those things won't be accomplished by those who don't bother to learn what is already known to build on. It's like people who claim that they have a unifying theory of physics, and it's all based on mental energy and quantum vibrations. They want to claim ultimate knowledge in fields of study they aren't willing to learn anything about.
@@mistyhaney5565 Yeah, that was pretty much what I meant. For the uap/ufo issue the most likely explanation is some kind of unknown atmospheric physics we don't yet know about - much like the blue jets and elves lighting that wasn't known until we had satellites with high enough temporal resolution. But the phenomenon should definitely be studied much more.
for flat earthers I ask why, when you fly from New York to London you fly north east across Maine, Iceland, Greenland Scotland and down to London . . . it is called great circle steering. why would it be called great circle steering for a flat plane. on a flat plane you would just fly directly. why, when you fly at altitude, you can see earths curvature? I don't fly and your questions are stupid. Why don't the oceans waters fall off the edge of the flat plane earth? why don't photos of earth from space show all the continents at once? response - they're doctored
It is really disgusting the amount of ignorance and disrespect shown in the comments to Dr Sutters work. just because a concept is beyond your grasp doesn't mean you have the right to try and make yourself feel smarter by trying to tear it down. Try educating yourself instead
I feel your pain. God, do I feel your pain! 😢 I have lost count of the conversations I've had online and elsewhere that made me want to cry out in frustration.
Constructive criticism: You take 33 mins to say "science uses symbols to represent observables". You could go on with statements that make sense to musicians, but not necessarily electronics engineers or architects. I.e., specialized languages. "Soul" is an awful word. If you parse the universe into irreducible objects you find yourself doing the same with statements that represent phenomena. You end up with the physical atom (not from the periodic table) and the symbol that represents it. We call this "semantic grounding". The choice for a symbol is arbitrary and has no intrinsic meaning. It gets it's meaning from the observable it refers to. E.g., The word "atom" is a pointer to the physical atom. btw... I've asked you this before "is the universe expanding or is matter shrinking" and you've repeatedly said "It's just expanding". That's how a technician would respond. Not a scientist. How do I know? because you've also followed this with "It just is." That is an authoritative response. You don''t read stuff about cognition, "the symbol grounding problem", A* algorithm and how this relates to modeling. As a result you sound as bad as any pseudo scientist (or TV scientist). You clearly don't understand what the word "time" refers to in a physical context. In my opinion, I would say your thinking is grounded in the models that we currently use to DESCRIBE observables and their believed relationships as if it were religion. Science is tentative. It's a process of stepwise refinement and many trips back to the drawing board and filled with false starts (like LK99 or cold fusion). And useful fictions.
I’m disappointed you don’t take at least a small polite step towards pointing out the truth! For Some people that present a real threat yes smile and keep quite, but for the rest of them, speak up! You’re a science educator, you should shine bright in moments like that! For good of society, help spread science literacy when presented with the opportunity! Don’t cower in the face of their ignorance, it’s not your problem they have bad information. You might actually be making things worse, you’ve been on enough science shows over the years that when they finally realize they were talking to you and you didn’t at least offer even the slightest pushback, that could reinforce their belief they were talking science facts! Stand up for what you believe in, what you’ve dedicated your live to!! I bet NDT would never let that happen if he was there!
Here's the problem: I expect he has done many times, only to be met with more nonsense. I suppose in the end, this is why he said at the beginning - ' It's just not worth it'. Talk to someone who believes in astrology to see what I mean. They can not be shaken.
@@Tonyv1951 you’re not wrong! But I still hold to the belief that someone at his level and a voluntary science commentator with a YT channel, he should be willing to communicate that science to people when those people don’t have accurate scientific information. “It’s just not worth it!” Is not a behavior I would expect of a professional dedicated to communicating science, it’s disappointing frankly! Ignorance should be challenged regardless of whether they listen or not. Maybe next time the ignorant will sit by quietly for fear of being challenged again and maybe they won’t teach others their ignorance so easily. But you make a good point!
I agree with what you are saying, and that is what I try to do also. Just smile, nod, politely let them say what they are going to say, except I am non confrontational so when asked what I think, I just reply "I don't know, there's things I have seen I can't explain." I mean, it's a true statement, and it lets them believe what they are going to believe, and I believe what I believe through scientific observation, research, question things, but also know the limits of my understanding. I tend to listen to the different points, weigh them out and apply my life's experience to come up with, as you say perfectly, the most honest, true, factual answers to life's questions.
I love this, but I wish you would have used a different word than "soul". The "purpose" of science is to understand the natural world and use that understanding to make testable and falsifiable predictions.
I would love to explore ideas like this with you and ask you your views. Scientists understand that the US government can claim patents as classified. There are scientists that are saying things that changes every aspect of science. Then the guy in charge of intelligence just said things are not what they seem. I can't imagine the conversation he had to have with his family. I believe his humanity. I'm afraid that narratives like this primes the world for deep ontological shock. If only our paths cross.
It's certainly better to lean towards verifiable knowledge as it pertains to achieving success in the material world than it is to believe in what ever you want just because it makes you feel better. On the other hand we live in a vast universe and the true nature of reality may be beyond our ability to fathom. For instance I think it is ironic that the author of this video uses the term "soul". While I agree that the term is useful as a way for the author to differentiate between the external trappings of science vs the underlying principals of science its is still ironic. The belief in the existence of a soul is in itself a form of pseudoscience. "Soul" - The spiritual or immaterial part of a human being or animal, regarded as immortal. Perhaps a term like "essence" would be more scientific. None the less even that term is still trying to point towards the part of a thing that is immaterial. If objective science were our only basis for understanding the universe there would be no value in any concept pertaining to something immaterial.
I'm not so sure. If we were naturally scientifically inclined perhaps, our language, however is built on thousands of years of intuition and superstition. Our brains are more receptive to feelings than methods and logic, which is why the language of the 'hard' sciences is mathematics.
I'm trying to meet people and date, and this is the biggest hurdle I've faced so far. At my age (early 40's), people are really set in their own ways and beliefs. Climate change deniers, antivaxers, holistic healers... I just can't connect with someone who thinks that airplanes spray chemicals on us to make us submissive. I'm taking a break from it. 😮💨
Great, but you left out the most psuedo of psuedo science … every "interpretation" ever derived from a tweakable mathematical model. The history of the geocentric paradigm and the epicyclic models of planetary motion is currently paralleled by: A paradigm of Chronocentric Atomism and mathematical models which are even more tweakable. And the resulting woo makes a heaven composed of Crystal Spheres look positively reasonable! Physics is going to have to learn to learn from its past errors if it is to reclaim that Soul of which you speak.
I disagree with you views on homeopathy. My grandfather was saved by it. The doctor told he can't survive long with medicines so just enjoy your time with him but my grandma used homeopathy to treat his conditions and he lived for 20 more years. Also homeopathy is not about changing everytime. The human body hasn't changed so much so why should we change the treatment method so much. Do doctor change composition of medicine every year? do doctors stoped using knifes and went for chainsaws, do we stopped using anesthetics which has the same composition during the Egyptian period? No and homeopathy is also one of them. Taking a herbal medicine will not kill you and if it doesn't works then you can go for a medical treatment. I'm saying we all stop going to hospitals but there is no problem in curing minor disease by home remedies. Also medicals also don't work on good faith. They are business so they charge for everything and they are not accountable for any side effects. I could have supported medcals for small remedy but they so much for evey thing and there is no accountability if anythings go wrong makes it harder for people to trust those institutions. I will trust medicals and doctors if they charge a affordable price for treatment and take accountability if any treatment goes wrong which I can't see for forceable future.
There's a lot of good stuff here for sure, my one and only pushback is to clarify that "science" simply means "to know" or "knowledge", but your explanation here implies that "natural science" is the only science. I'm a huge fan of yours, you are one of only two content providers I value enough to support with money each month and you've changed my mind on many things over the years just by simply being a joyful consistent advocate of knowledge and healthy skepticism. Partially due exactly to you, I'm immediately skeptical of any claim that "science" only means "natural science". I agree that the scientific method is almost entirely limited to natural science, but I disagree that natural science can rightfully claim to be the entirety of science. Or do I misunderstand you?
@@tonywells6990, I'm referring to Formal Sciences like logic, math, and information -- and even (debatably) philosophy -- abstract sciences which are distinct from Natural Science in that they are anchored in reason rather than observation, and which are arguably more fundamental than Natural Science as the "first principle" foundations upon which Natural Science is built. For this reason (depending on how you split the hairs), much -- if not the entire branch -- of Formal Science can be considered "supernatural" in the sense that it exists separate from and beyond the reach of natural/empirical science, but Natural Science does depend on Formal Science. Cheers 🍻
@@tonywells6990exactly, and so there are "alternatives" to natural science that do not equal "magic" or "pseudoscience". Formal Science (especially) and Social Science are valid branches of science that answer different questions in a different way than Natural Science, which is the point of my OP and I think addresses your initial reply. Kind regards. 🍻
@@SplashOfOrangeThey are not alternatives to natural science though. You can philosophise all you want about the bright lights in the sky but that won't help you understand them.
Is it pseudoscience to say "because scientists can predict the path of a lunar eclipse proves they're correct about climate change"? Because Mr Tyson made that claim.
Its just a really weak argument. If you know someone and that person says he is good at X then proves it. The next time when he says he is good at Y you will be more likely to believe that
House of cards physics that shoots into the dark hit something gets a novel but has no real idea of what's going on .or have no tactile connection or draw a picture of that thing. Use real words .
What if the ghost is made of dark matter and communicates via gravitational waves lmao just kidding great video and very interesting breakdown of pseudoscience.
Many things are questionable. Not here to convince anyone, but I've personally experienced the Sa'be people, a.k.a. Sasquatch, personally, as have thousands upon thousands of other former skeptics like myself. Don't pigeon hole everything you haven't witnessed personally into something that is impossible. Quantum/Newtonian physics comes to mind. While both are sound, and exist simultaneously, they do not support each other. Obvious, glaring gaps exist. The idea that we are so smart, and that there aren't holes in even the sacred "scientific method" suggests a level of hubris only found thus far in Homo Sapiens. It's a bit cringy. Respectfully, I can not support this presentation with a 👍.
Has science been employed around Covid and vaccines during the past 3 years. Fauci, said "if you question me you question science".. Someone else? said "We own the science". This arrogance plainly disgusts me.
@@irek1394i think if scientific institutions claim to be the only right source of information then they should be accountabe for potential failures. WHO said that there is no chance if air transmission of covid and travel restrictions should be lifted but what happened after that? People started spreading the virus around the world and WHO(a scientific organization) failed to get this simple thing right and made many people to loss their loved ones unnecessarily. Also there was a time ugenics was a scientific method of segregation but it was completely immoral so we abandoned it. Science is good for making life better but making life just by science is useless. What makes us human is doing something philosophical with science. Using advance computers to make fun videos, using geometry to make cartoons. These are the things we do. If we start living a perfect life with the most scientifically best way then we should be elemenated by AI because humans are the biggest threat to environment and themselves. So yeah science for doing things good but science for everything is bs
Could you not make a video that simply explains pseudoscience vs science? You are adding way too much of your personal emotions to the topic. This makes your video hardly worth watching.
Then make it yourself. It's part of the creative freedom to make the videos in the way the creator wants to :) it might speak to some people and it might not to the others. But it was a choice on his side and there are other people communicating science in their own ways anyway - find something to your liking!
@@wiktoriatluvi I just want to watch an informative video about pseudoscience vs science. I’m not interested in making a video to educate other people on the topic though. 🙄 Makes no sense to make a video so that I can watch it.
Thank you Dr. Sutter. I'm going to continue smiling and nodding whenever I encounter crackpots in the wild. When somebody says the Earth is 6,000 years old though, I'm just going to roll my eyes at them and walk away.
I’d like to see an episode on the anti-science rhetoric or more broadly the anti-intellectualism that some sectors of society have been propagating for decades.
Was waiting for an episode covering this topic for a long time, would love a follow up episode to address the impact of pseudoscience on our sociey.
Thank you Paul!
I usually do the smile and nodding as well, but a few months ago, I let my brother have it about all the nonsense he continually spouts. I just couldn't take it anymore.
I felt bad for yelling at him, but it reached a boiling point.
I have this question in my mind: why pseudoscientific theories seem to gain audience nowadays?
My interpretation is that in the course of decades/centuries the gap to understand science is becoming bigger and bigger, so that understanding advancements in cutting edge research is hard (unless you subscribe Paul's channel)
Pseudoscience providds a convenient accessible shortcut
* don't need years of study to understand Egyptians, one afternoon of youtube videos and you're up to date with the state-of-the-art of ancient alien civilization
* you don't need instruments that cost millions of dollars to shutter atomic nuclei, you can see with your naked eyes that the earth looks flat, it means it's flat
There are other more profound sociological triggers that contribute to the success of pseudoscience, Paul, would like to hear your point of view, thank a lot for your amazing videos!
People throwing unscientific nonsense at me will *never* get a polite smile and nod. They will get as gentle a correction as I can manage under the circumstances. And 'gentle' is relative. ;)
Regarding flat earth, why would we see the top sails first when a sail ship come up the horizon? That is a fact known for centuries….
I must add that usually most scientific discoveries aren’t discovered using the scientific method. That is more of a retrospective process.
So it would be good to define where that line is.
You spotted the pseudo-science. I came for the irony.
Really interesting topic, but this is just my opinion, the constant extra visuals and background music is quite distracting. I had to watch this by listening in a separate window. Is there anywhere with a clean simple audio version of this?
Yes, the audio-only podcast is always available at askaspaceman.com or wherever you listen to podcasts!
Hi Sir, I have a simple (may be) question, there is a room and two persons are counting some identical objects say x, one person is counting x and putting it inside a bag, the role of another person is to just watch so that there is no mistake in counting. To save the time the person watching just says some random three digit number between 700 and 800 based on his visual judgement, now the question is what are the chances of that number being the exact number matching with the actual quality of item x after they finish the counting process.
Fantastic video. Should be required viewing for all middle school science students.
People pretend like they know what they are talking about instead of just being honest and say, I don't know! There is no shame in that. To me it's quite exhausting to obtain truth and meaningful content from people and meanwhile dealing with all their insecurities.
Like you said: you have been immersed in the practice of science for decades. You have built up an intuition around it. Other people have built up their intuitions around what they heard, what works for them and what they dream about.
I think you're gonna have some mathematicians going after you, tears welling up, "am I just a tool to you?"
While I agree on the mindset part; that too is formed through all that time of immersion. There is no short-cut available. And I'm also afraid it is not a mindset that even captures all sciences. Last few years there had been several scandals with sociologists and psychologists and their research; including made-up data. Reproduction is not sexy enough, everyone wants to be the newest and shiniest.
It can't be said better! Thank you, Paul!
Wish a scientist would analyze the military videos of UFO performance.
They would probably say that the military is filled with conspiracy theorist
They would probably say that the military is filled with conspiracy theorist
They would probably say that the military is filled with conspiracy theorist
They would probably say that the military is filled with conspiracy theorist
They would probably say that the military is filled with conspiracy theorist
What a great video. What a great message. I hope not just millions but everyone can watch. Well done Dr. Sutter.
Maybe I missed it but can you do an episode on how light is massless and travels through space time instantaneously from it's perspective yet it bends to a black hole. So massless photons are influenced in one regard while massless but also travels through spacetime instantaneously from it's perspective because it's massless. There's something I really want to know I don't know how to ask properly. Thanks.
The mass of the black hole warps the space around it. We see the light bend. The light takes, what is to it, a straight line through spacetime. Same way a satellite is travelling a straight path around and around the earth.
Anybody can say this , even those you would call pseudoscientist .
You should not only value evidence, you should also value logic . If your theories don't meet both , then I think it is fair to say it is wrong .
Fantastic video. Loved it all. Except I have serious question, where exactly did the Egyptians tell us “literally how they built the pyramids”?
In my own way I have always tried to be someone who helps educate others about science and scientific methods. I have unfortunately witnessed the real damage pseudoscience can do in the real world. So for me to sit and quietly allow somebody to disseminate lies or false information is not in my nature. Even if something just does not sound right I would rather work with them to discern the truth through available resources and research papers then to allow them to live in ignorance. If the person is purposefully spreading lies and misinformation I would rather confront them and know this then to assume that they are simply speaking out of ignorance. There are after all people in this world who get what maybe perverted pleasure out of lies and misinformation. How many people died needlessly from covid because they were told it was not real?
I hope you include religions in that too , cluke
For me there are two definitions. One - false science. Two - revolutionary real science that is rejected because of conceit.
Great video! 👍Haven’t seen you on my feed for ages. 🧐🤔
As one of the newest "enlightened beings" in this "universe", earth humans are fine not knowing what they do not know and are fine using flawed 100 year old theories that never reconcile. As a whole, this universe, including all densities is a 21 trillion linear-year old holographic. ALL matter is from 3 sources: Light, Sound and Color. To be tangible in earth's 3rd density, there are 8 copies of you simultaneously in multiple densities.
I have to imagine the internet increased pseudoscience theories beyond what existed from all the millennium before the internet came about.
I suppose it wouldn't be good science to not be able to quote my sources, but a group of scientists claimed that the universe being infinite, most likely there would be extraterrestrial life, yet the probability of life existing on the closest solar system to the earth would be unlikely, while travelling space from such solar system cannot be possible, as such isn't supported by present definitive science.
I would love to watch a ghost hunting show where the host just says, "Ghosts are fake, this show is fake"!
I think you would first see a wrestling manager tell the audience that wrestling is fake before you see that 🤣
Why would they think it's a good idea to hire a cosmologist as a ghost hunting program host?
Apropos Ghost Hunting: really good points. However, ghosts are material but not physical in and of themselves. They are made out of "emotional matter" or "desire matter" for lack of better terms. And this "emotional matter" is coupled to physical matter (like electromagnetic, weak, and strong fields; physical fields = matter) in a subtle sense, mostly not even barely noticeable, sometimes astoundingly powerful.
There might be some kind of scientific method about how to discuss and study these things/creatures in the academic field of parapsychology, but you can hardly expect non-academically-trained, enthusiastic amateurs to employ the scientific method in ANY topic, including ghost hunting!
"Ghosts" have the ability to sometimes physically materialize their otherwise completely emotional material bodies, and these are the ONLY times they may be studied scientifically from the physical waking state of consciousness (even though they may be "scientifically" studied from consciousness states of dream, trance or meditation, and the results then brought back into waking consciousness through means prone to error and misrepresentation).
It is pretty tough to study these things in a truly scientific sense, even though they evidently do exist, and sporadically interact with the physical material world of reality (a small part of reality).
Ghosts aren't real. Isn't this a video about pseudoscience??
@@sideshowbob8220 Ghosts are real. I know from my own experience. There is also a large evidence for ghosts in the literature, and in the anecdotal experience of countless of people. If you have not experienced real ghosts yourself then it is good that you are sceptical. Honest doubt is healthy. Blind faith is unhealthy and harmful. Science is the method of carefully examining what is, without trying to "get" certain beforehand decided upon results, instead accepting whatever results you get, no matter whether they reinforce or contradict your current beliefs and theories. In the scientific method we form hypotheses from the patterns we believe we see in our experience from already performed preliminary studies. Then we compare these hypotheses with other counter hypotheses. Then we design experiments that will allow us to test the plausibility of these hypotheses relative to each other, using whatever facts we get as results from our experiments. We take due care to make explicit as many of our assumptions, methodology and possible biases before, during and after performing these research experiments. In science, explaining theories are valuable, especially when we have factual evidence for the hypotheses making up those theories, that more strongly support these hypotheses than they support the known counter hypotheses. But also, in science the factual evidence is and must always be considered more important than our current best theories, EVEN when the factual evidence CANNOT be explained in any way from the theories we have up to now considered. To try to "explain away" such evidence as "mere anomalies" or "obviously faulty experiments" is definitely UNscientific, even though this is sometimes done and endorsed in academic science. Sometimes even the "science" endorsed and performed in academy, and backed by some powerful "consensus", is in fact pseudoscience, designed to support some results that have already in advance been agreed to be desired, for ideological, philosophical or even financial reasons. Sometimes real science is performed outside academy, though falsely labelled as pseudoscience by the powerful "consensus" snob inside scientific academy, for whatever unscientific reason. The methods used, and the attitude held, towards the research is what decides whether that research is scientific or not, this is not decided by any societal "authority". In science we should always be critical, and also openminded. Blind belief is not science, and neither is blind scepticism.
Censorship is more dangerous to society than people who are wrong, stupid, lying, or just plain pieces of garbage!
Nicely produced and presented.
Both the UAP/UFO stuff as well as a lot of archeological findings in both Egypt and Peru don't fully square with the traditional explanation and narrative.
There is a lot of inertia within the academic world, for an outsider this can easily be interpreted as an unwillingness to examine things in depth.
That is fertile ground for pseudoscience.
The UAP/UFO stuff I have not a clue what's going on with that, but as far as Egypt and Peru, and any area of ancient history for that matter, new information and hypothesis regarding the information available are being introduced all the time. The fact that people who want to discover what was actually happening within the particular time and place which they are dedicated to studying aren't willing to recklessly embrace ideas based on little to no evidence available to them. There is also an overwhelming willingness of people to accept absolutely ludacris ideas regarding history without bothering to find out why historians who study areas believe what they believe. If the people who want to write books that are basically fiction and call it history were really interested in ancient history, there are still texts that can't even be read because they haven't yet been translated, not to mention the vast amounts of ancient tablets and papyruses sitting in the British museum yet to be translated. They recently discovered more tablets attributed to the Hittites. There's the bronze age collapse, identifying the sea people. There is a lot of history we know we don't know, and even more we don't have enough information to know what we don't know. But discovering those things won't be accomplished by those who don't bother to learn what is already known to build on. It's like people who claim that they have a unifying theory of physics, and it's all based on mental energy and quantum vibrations. They want to claim ultimate knowledge in fields of study they aren't willing to learn anything about.
@@mistyhaney5565 Yeah, that was pretty much what I meant.
For the uap/ufo issue the most likely explanation is some kind of unknown atmospheric physics we don't yet know about - much like the blue jets and elves lighting that wasn't known until we had satellites with high enough temporal resolution.
But the phenomenon should definitely be studied much more.
for flat earthers I ask why, when you fly from New York to London you fly north east across Maine, Iceland, Greenland Scotland and down to London . . . it is called great circle steering. why would it be called great circle steering for a flat plane. on a flat plane you would just fly directly. why, when you fly at altitude, you can see earths curvature? I don't fly and your questions are stupid.
Why don't the oceans waters fall off the edge of the flat plane earth?
why don't photos of earth from space show all the continents at once? response - they're doctored
How can you say what is science and what is pseudoscience if scientists who are invested in their own theories are promoting pseudoscience?
Does this mean Santa Clause is not real?
In the case of extra terrestrial intelligence one finding is a game changer.
"The only thing i know, is that i know nothing"
No need to be polite around us, Paul. If I ever go off the rails, please by all means go full blown Sabine Hossenfelder on my @$$.
It is really disgusting the amount of ignorance and disrespect shown in the comments to Dr Sutters work. just because a concept is beyond your grasp doesn't mean you have the right to try and make yourself feel smarter by trying to tear it down. Try educating yourself instead
I feel your pain. God, do I feel your pain! 😢
I have lost count of the conversations I've had online and elsewhere that made me want to cry out in frustration.
Constructive criticism: You take 33 mins to say "science uses symbols to represent observables". You could go on with statements that make sense to musicians, but not necessarily electronics engineers or architects. I.e., specialized languages.
"Soul" is an awful word.
If you parse the universe into irreducible objects you find yourself doing the same with statements that represent phenomena. You end up with the physical atom (not from the periodic table) and the symbol that represents it. We call this "semantic grounding". The choice for a symbol is arbitrary and has no intrinsic meaning. It gets it's meaning from the observable it refers to. E.g., The word "atom" is a pointer to the physical atom.
btw... I've asked you this before "is the universe expanding or is matter shrinking" and you've repeatedly said "It's just expanding". That's how a technician would respond. Not a scientist. How do I know? because you've also followed this with "It just is." That is an authoritative response. You don''t read stuff about cognition, "the symbol grounding problem", A* algorithm and how this relates to modeling. As a result you sound as bad as any pseudo scientist (or TV scientist). You clearly don't understand what the word "time" refers to in a physical context.
In my opinion, I would say your thinking is grounded in the models that we currently use to DESCRIBE observables and their believed relationships as if it were religion. Science is tentative. It's a process of stepwise refinement and many trips back to the drawing board and filled with false starts (like LK99 or cold fusion). And useful fictions.
I didn't understand most of what you said but based. Science is quite the religion today.
Is the flower of life the dark energy of our universe?
still we talk nonsens out of curiosity
I’m disappointed you don’t take at least a small polite step towards pointing out the truth! For Some people that present a real threat yes smile and keep quite, but for the rest of them, speak up! You’re a science educator, you should shine bright in moments like that! For good of society, help spread science literacy when presented with the opportunity! Don’t cower in the face of their ignorance, it’s not your problem they have bad information. You might actually be making things worse, you’ve been on enough science shows over the years that when they finally realize they were talking to you and you didn’t at least offer even the slightest pushback, that could reinforce their belief they were talking science facts! Stand up for what you believe in, what you’ve dedicated your live to!! I bet NDT would never let that happen if he was there!
Here's the problem: I expect he has done many times, only to be met with more nonsense. I suppose in the end, this is why he said at the beginning - ' It's just not worth it'. Talk to someone who believes in astrology to see what I mean. They can not be shaken.
@@Tonyv1951 you’re not wrong! But I still hold to the belief that someone at his level and a voluntary science commentator with a YT channel, he should be willing to communicate that science to people when those people don’t have accurate scientific information. “It’s just not worth it!” Is not a behavior I would expect of a professional dedicated to communicating science, it’s disappointing frankly! Ignorance should be challenged regardless of whether they listen or not. Maybe next time the ignorant will sit by quietly for fear of being challenged again and maybe they won’t teach others their ignorance so easily. But you make a good point!
Well said, Dr. Sutter. Thanks for the great video.
Great video, keep up the good fight Dr. Sutter. Seems like pseudoscience is too lucrative for people who won't endure the rigors of real science.
I agree with what you are saying, and that is what I try to do also. Just smile, nod, politely let them say what they are going to say, except I am non confrontational so when asked what I think, I just reply "I don't know, there's things I have seen I can't explain." I mean, it's a true statement, and it lets them believe what they are going to believe, and I believe what I believe through scientific observation, research, question things, but also know the limits of my understanding. I tend to listen to the different points, weigh them out and apply my life's experience to come up with, as you say perfectly, the most honest, true, factual answers to life's questions.
I love this, but I wish you would have used a different word than "soul". The "purpose" of science is to understand the natural world and use that understanding to make testable and falsifiable predictions.
I would love to explore ideas like this with you and ask you your views. Scientists understand that the US government can claim patents as classified. There are scientists that are saying things that changes every aspect of science. Then the guy in charge of intelligence just said things are not what they seem. I can't imagine the conversation he had to have with his family. I believe his humanity. I'm afraid that narratives like this primes the world for deep ontological shock. If only our paths cross.
It's certainly better to lean towards verifiable knowledge as it pertains to achieving success in the material world than it is to believe in what ever you want just because it makes you feel better. On the other hand we live in a vast universe and the true nature of reality may be beyond our ability to fathom. For instance I think it is ironic that the author of this video uses the term "soul". While I agree that the term is useful as a way for the author to differentiate between the external trappings of science vs the underlying principals of science its is still ironic. The belief in the existence of a soul is in itself a form of pseudoscience. "Soul" - The spiritual or immaterial part of a human being or animal, regarded as immortal. Perhaps a term like "essence" would be more scientific. None the less even that term is still trying to point towards the part of a thing that is immaterial. If objective science were our only basis for understanding the universe there would be no value in any concept pertaining to something immaterial.
I'm not so sure. If we were naturally scientifically inclined perhaps, our language, however is built on thousands of years of intuition and superstition. Our brains are more receptive to feelings than methods and logic, which is why the language of the 'hard' sciences is mathematics.
What do You Mean False, Do You Point/Allude to Ze Fall of Empiricism, Like Germany or Britannia.
I'm trying to meet people and date, and this is the biggest hurdle I've faced so far. At my age (early 40's), people are really set in their own ways and beliefs. Climate change deniers, antivaxers, holistic healers... I just can't connect with someone who thinks that airplanes spray chemicals on us to make us submissive. I'm taking a break from it. 😮💨
😂
Great, but you left out the most psuedo of psuedo science … every "interpretation" ever derived from a tweakable mathematical model.
The history of the geocentric paradigm and the epicyclic models of planetary motion is currently paralleled by:
A paradigm of Chronocentric Atomism and mathematical models which are even more tweakable. And the resulting woo makes a heaven composed of Crystal Spheres look positively reasonable!
Physics is going to have to learn to learn from its past errors if it is to reclaim that Soul of which you speak.
I disagree with you views on homeopathy. My grandfather was saved by it. The doctor told he can't survive long with medicines so just enjoy your time with him but my grandma used homeopathy to treat his conditions and he lived for 20 more years.
Also homeopathy is not about changing everytime. The human body hasn't changed so much so why should we change the treatment method so much. Do doctor change composition of medicine every year? do doctors stoped using knifes and went for chainsaws, do we stopped using anesthetics which has the same composition during the Egyptian period? No and homeopathy is also one of them.
Taking a herbal medicine will not kill you and if it doesn't works then you can go for a medical treatment. I'm saying we all stop going to hospitals but there is no problem in curing minor disease by home remedies. Also medicals also don't work on good faith. They are business so they charge for everything and they are not accountable for any side effects. I could have supported medcals for small remedy but they so much for evey thing and there is no accountability if anythings go wrong makes it harder for people to trust those institutions.
I will trust medicals and doctors if they charge a affordable price for treatment and take accountability if any treatment goes wrong which I can't see for forceable future.
If modern medicine is so bad why are we living longer than ever?
There's a lot of good stuff here for sure, my one and only pushback is to clarify that "science" simply means "to know" or "knowledge", but your explanation here implies that "natural science" is the only science. I'm a huge fan of yours, you are one of only two content providers I value enough to support with money each month and you've changed my mind on many things over the years just by simply being a joyful consistent advocate of knowledge and healthy skepticism. Partially due exactly to you, I'm immediately skeptical of any claim that "science" only means "natural science". I agree that the scientific method is almost entirely limited to natural science, but I disagree that natural science can rightfully claim to be the entirety of science. Or do I misunderstand you?
What is the alternative to natural science? The supernatural? That is not scientific.
@@tonywells6990, I'm referring to Formal Sciences like logic, math, and information -- and even (debatably) philosophy -- abstract sciences which are distinct from Natural Science in that they are anchored in reason rather than observation, and which are arguably more fundamental than Natural Science as the "first principle" foundations upon which Natural Science is built. For this reason (depending on how you split the hairs), much -- if not the entire branch -- of Formal Science can be considered "supernatural" in the sense that it exists separate from and beyond the reach of natural/empirical science, but Natural Science does depend on Formal Science.
Cheers 🍻
@@SplashOfOrange I suppose that is why physics, chemistry, biology etc. are called the natural sciences...
@@tonywells6990exactly, and so there are "alternatives" to natural science that do not equal "magic" or "pseudoscience". Formal Science (especially) and Social Science are valid branches of science that answer different questions in a different way than Natural Science, which is the point of my OP and I think addresses your initial reply.
Kind regards. 🍻
@@SplashOfOrangeThey are not alternatives to natural science though. You can philosophise all you want about the bright lights in the sky but that won't help you understand them.
Is it pseudoscience to say "because scientists can predict the path of a lunar eclipse proves they're correct about climate change"? Because Mr Tyson made that claim.
Its just a really weak argument. If you know someone and that person says he is good at X then proves it. The next time when he says he is good at Y you will be more likely to believe that
The strawman is a pathetic way to try and discredit someone smarter and better educated than you? try again and this time reference your sources
@@j.campbell4497 No you.
I'd say science by consensus can be far more dangerous.
Science "by" consensus is not science. But that does not mean that scientists working independently can not have opinions, and reach a consensus.
@@paulwary
You're right, I mean the modern take on it where the scientific consensus of the day is treated as gospil by the government and media.
@@MIKE_THE_BRUMMIE so what is your alternative? Should the government do the opposite of what science suggests?
@@matterasmachine its a figure of speech
@@matterasmachine its not hard to reread previous comments to know what Im taking about if you forgot
Brilliant as always...
House of cards physics that shoots into the dark hit something gets a novel but has no real idea of what's going on .or have no tactile connection or draw a picture of that thing. Use real words .
Hi doctor ... do me a favor and define pseudo science for me ....
What if the ghost is made of dark matter and communicates via gravitational waves lmao just kidding great video and very interesting breakdown of pseudoscience.
YIEW Paul's back! 💙
holy shit this is me
You lost when you said 'soul' of science.
I don't like wasting time either but until you know everything you don't really know anything. 👍
Me too
Many things are questionable. Not here to convince anyone, but I've personally experienced the Sa'be people, a.k.a. Sasquatch, personally, as have thousands upon thousands of other former skeptics like myself.
Don't pigeon hole everything you haven't witnessed personally into something that is impossible.
Quantum/Newtonian physics comes to mind. While both are sound, and exist simultaneously, they do not support each other. Obvious, glaring gaps exist.
The idea that we are so smart, and that there aren't holes in even the sacred "scientific method" suggests a level of hubris only found thus far in Homo Sapiens. It's a bit cringy.
Respectfully, I can not support this presentation with a 👍.
So whats your alternative to understand the world?
Has science been employed around Covid and vaccines during the past 3 years. Fauci, said "if you question me you question science".. Someone else? said "We own the science". This arrogance plainly disgusts me.
the fact that someone lied or/and was wrong makes the whole science bad suddenly?
@@irek1394i think if scientific institutions claim to be the only right source of information then they should be accountabe for potential failures. WHO said that there is no chance if air transmission of covid and travel restrictions should be lifted but what happened after that? People started spreading the virus around the world and WHO(a scientific organization) failed to get this simple thing right and made many people to loss their loved ones unnecessarily.
Also there was a time ugenics was a scientific method of segregation but it was completely immoral so we abandoned it. Science is good for making life better but making life just by science is useless. What makes us human is doing something philosophical with science. Using advance computers to make fun videos, using geometry to make cartoons. These are the things we do. If we start living a perfect life with the most scientifically best way then we should be elemenated by AI because humans are the biggest threat to environment and themselves. So yeah science for doing things good but science for everything is bs
✋ 'Promosm'
Could you not make a video that simply explains pseudoscience vs science? You are adding way too much of your personal emotions to the topic. This makes your video hardly worth watching.
Then make it yourself. It's part of the creative freedom to make the videos in the way the creator wants to :) it might speak to some people and it might not to the others. But it was a choice on his side and there are other people communicating science in their own ways anyway - find something to your liking!
@@wiktoriatluvi I just want to watch an informative video about pseudoscience vs science. I’m not interested in making a video to educate other people on the topic though. 🙄 Makes no sense to make a video so that I can watch it.
Yeah this drag's on way too long.
Piarates of the
❤❤❤
Thank you Dr. Sutter. I'm going to continue smiling and nodding whenever I encounter crackpots in the wild.
When somebody says the Earth is 6,000 years old though, I'm just going to roll my eyes at them and walk away.
I'm a bit disappointed. The sting to "ufology" was unnecessary, it may become moot very soon. Or not, but I wouldn't have risked that in 2023.