But praying to science is ok, right? We read the science textbook with the family every Sunday and recite verses from it before dinner. On pi day we sacrifice low ESR Capacitors to science.
Rampant narcissism explains a lot. If you’re the center of the universe and the only one who understands anything, why should you listen to anyone else, let alone make an effort to process and understand information? Great insight!
THANK YOU FRAN, for putting into words a perspective I've been unable to for decades, 7 decades. I find you to be an awesome lady whom I think we'd get along great together. Tinkering with electronics, playing music, recording, communicating. Processing different perspectives. Having the patience to listen and process the perspectives of others in a way to comprehend what that person's view is we can have a new piece of an never ending puzzle. No, I do not find you to have any narcissistic traits. I hope you don't mind that I have shared this video on other platforms.
I think many people have trouble trusting "science" for a couple of reasons. One of late, is how it has become politicized and at at times isn't remotely science at all and is subjected to "spin" and "bias by omission", etc. The other is that many simply cannot grasp something that is complicated or complex. It takes a pretty high level of understanding to grasp some things and I like to say the topic is typically learned only by the "theory of diminishing deception." That's how math is taught, actually. First you are taught to count, but soon find there is more. Basic arithmetic. But still more. Algebra. And on and on with plane and solid geometry, trigonometry, calculus, matrix algebra, and on and on. Most people can't start in the middle or the top. Electric cars are a great example. "Doncha know EV's are clean?" Well, not if you consider where the electricity comes from, the materials used in the auto and how they are manufactured. The difficulty of recycling batteries. Etc. Etc. But with many things like this, you have to be at least moderately up that curve of "diminishing deception" to have a clue. And if you are still at the bumper sticker slogan level, you haven't even begun the journey to know the science you should know to intelligently participate..
@@esecallum Bingo. I pointed out to many people that the mandates and lockdowns varied from state to state and county to county. I would ask my friends which entities were following the science. The answer was always whichever one they agreed with.
Impossible to comprehend the intricacies behind the newest science without having an advanced degree in that particular scientific field. You really have no choice but to either trust the experts or get ONE of those PHDs yourself. Very few have the talent to get one and even fewer have the talent to get more than one. And even if you do have the talent you need the opportunity as well. I have a BS in mathematics and I STILL don't understand why there's no general formula in radicals for the quintic, even after looking into it for months, and that was discovered 200 years ago. Even something that old can be EXTREMELY complex. So, since 99% of us don't have the combination of talent/opportunity/interest to follow the research ourselves, we HAVE to trust the experts, and then it becomes a matter of really having faith in the work of the experts.
I love real science, especially the kind that involves deep thinking, not government funding. And if you are going to base your findings and insights based on statistics, you better expose all your raw data and built-in biases. Transparency is key.
To some extent, this is also the result of post-modernist thinking. Without getting into the more esoteric details, one of the principles of post-modernism is that objective truth does not exist; only subjective experience matters. Thus, the thinking goes, two people can only validly communicate with each other to the extent each has a commonly shared experience (and even then, those experiences are inevitably shaped by one's personal history). Devolved strains of this sort of thinking find their way into popular culture, which, coupled with cognitive bias, acts as gasoline for narcissistic fires. You can see this in lines like "you can't tell me anything, because why is your experience more valid than mine?" And so, everyone becomes their own expert, because nobody is an expert when nobody can agree on an objective reality. When I see that sort of thinking, I always counter that if they really believe that, they should go play in traffic. Because who's to say that semi barreling down the road is actually there?
"Religion is a culture of faith; science is a culture of doubt." - Richard Feynman "Science is the belief in the ignorance of experts." - Richard Feynman
To change it is to teach people how to recognize and prevent cognitive biases. Sadly, even scientists, who are supposed to be the one trained on recognizing those biases, fell preyed by the biases themselves frequently.
Understanding is the pursuit. "The science"(tific method) is a tool of the Understanding. And the tool can be misused just as any tool could be. The ones that misuse the tool for personal gain should be identified and shown to do so by others, so that others may increase thier understanding so that they may make their decisions informed.
Either believe spell check or don't, but you don't have to accept realty. You can reject offers and look for a more suitable property. That's just good business, Amos. 😉
If a result is shown to be reproducible over and over, I think you can safe in saying it is now an established fact. You don’t question what happens when you jump from a building do you? You fall because of gravity. If you u want to question that……
Thank you! It would drive me crazy during covid when people would be like "I believe Science!" as a way to shutdown dissent. If scientists did that, then we would never learn anything new. The biggest asset for a scientist is the willingness to be proven wrong.
It's amazing that this conversation even has to take place. The whole idea of critical thinking is: study the arguments FOR a theory, study the arguments AGAINST said theory. TEST those theories through experimentation. Analyse data and declare what is MOST PROBABLE given the current information available. Review the work of others and have others review your work! How hard can it be? And... at what point does "belief" become involved? Because i just don't understand HOW belief COULD be involved!
Not so much belief as "faith." Specifically faith in things which can't (as yet) be quantified or qualified. As the phrase goes, _faith in things not seen._
I have seen people who know a lot about science in full denial, despite being in the perfect position to know better. It's about about being emotionally invested in reactionary politics. It's about conveniently leaving common sense behind and joining a mob mentality because of some cultural change that feels like a threat (even though it very rarely is). Social media is very suited to stirring that particular pot way beyond any sensible proportions.
Semantics I know, But I “believe” in science. I say this as a lay person that resigns my understanding of the world in the hands of qualified people who use the scientific method in a attempt to understand it. Great channel. 👍
As Americans we must trust in our institutions because without them we no longer have a democracy. A democratic government, along with its agencies and institutions, is the only thing capable of protecting the poor from exploitation by the rich and powerful.
@@mr.pavone9719 I agree that 'trust' is technically a better word though 'believe' is grammatically correct as well. Prohibiting the use of either in a semantic capitulation when describing an acceptance of scientific knowledge limits simple communication though. If everyone had to completely understand every subject that relies on complex science before they would trust its efficacy no one would ever get on an airplane or use a computer again. That's just not practical. It's ok to trust scientific claims from sources with proven and repeatable results. It brings to mind a response I made in a comment section to a religious apologist who accused science of being just another faith-based religion. Here was my reply: "No, I do not have 'faith' in science. Rather, I grant an earned trust in predictable outcomes based on critical analysis of the quantifiable properties of energy, matter and time. If that concept seems confusing, smug or somehow evil, perhaps one can pray for a better understanding. I doubt, however that it would help."
Good on you. I feel like I say this ALL THE TIME. I hear the common “oh, he believes in science” and I always correct them saying I don’t and I use the word ‘believe’ very carefully. I ‘understand’ the scientific method as a tool to understand my universe. But then again colloquial word usage can be frustrating. I have to correct the difference between ‘theory’ and ‘hypothesis’ all the time too.
I believe the science behind radios is accurate, but I darn sure don't understand it. No way I could make a radio even if I was given the tools to do it.
On my way to getting my Chemistry degree I had to prove everything I used. My Physics professor never let me or anyone in the class say anything was so without proving it.
Hopefully he didn't ask you to prove that for every action there's an equal but opposite reaction. As far as I know that's an axiom that's used in proofs, and axioms are usually unprovable building blocks that are just accepted because they're simple and no one has an argument against them.
@@jhoughjr1 Right. At some point you're bound to reach something so obvious it can't be proven. It would be brutal to ask for a proof of something like that.
I agree completely except for your emphasis on physical mediums. It seems silly to me to buy something I'm going to read and throw away instead of reading the same info from the same sources on an electronic device. I do prefer books because it is easier on the eyes for longer reading sessions but for everything else my computer or phone works best.
But electronic copies can be edited under your nose, hard copies cannot be changed once in the wild, only collected and burnt. Wikipedia is a perfect example of the flaws of electronic information.
@@paulmcgrath2175 wikipedia is made to be edited in real time so it really isn't a good example. An ebook would be a better example. It is very easy to prove if an ebook has been manipulated from the original source with a hash. Electronic versions of information are technically harder to manipulate without the user knowing because they are so easy to hash. Something could be changed in a hard copy and the only way to find it would be to have an original and the copy side by side. This is not a legitimate reason to avoid electronic copies of information.
So well said! The way I look at is this - I believe in the scientific method. Like you said - collecting data, analyzing it, and coming to an informed conclusion. My high-school electronics teacher once said this to me, and I think it sums up science perfectly. "The more you learn and understand, the more you understand how much more there is to learn"
There are two types of people, the one set have ROM style memory, they seem able to remember an awful lot, but are unable to change any fact after it has gone into their brain. The other set have RAM style memory, who seem to have little difficulty when the world view changes, but don't seem to remember as much stuff.
The scientific method itself is about questioning and challenging every preconception and every assumption. This is why ANY science you can't challenge or question is NOT scientific!! It is therefore IMHO logical to ask WHY we aren't allowed to question some things...
Yes! The social media "echo chamber" effect tells peoples' developing brains that they are always perfectly right, regardless of what they believe. That leaves them open to be told what to believe, rather than having to do the heavy lifting of thinking for themselves. Sigh.
I agree with this completely. But despite that, I avoid mainstream news. I have for close to 30 years. I don't do it because of believing or not believing it, but because there is a tendency of mainstream news to try to tell us what's important and what's not. Not so much that the story on the front page is correct or lies, but that the story on the front page is something that I don't feel is important, and I want to decide for myself what's important. Also, I just feel healthier if the mainstream news isn't a part of my life. I wake up each day feeling more positive about the world.
Interesting video. When people ask me if I believe in science, I say no. It's not a belief system. I understand how science comes to conclusions with the data available. In some cases, I simply understand the science.
I appreciate your take on this important subject. One should never believe in science any more or less than they believe in any other persons opinion. Science is not about the faith in it it is about the exploration of it,
That was science before the almost total submission to big financial interests of scientific research. Today we should question the assumption that science is a tool for objective observation and prediction. Today science is in the service of the few rich,with very very few exceptions.
I delivered the Philadelphia Bulletin newspaper when I was a kid. I read headlines now at the supermarket or wherever I see Newspapers sold, but rarely buy them. ✌
I think "I believe science" is just a layperson's way of saying they trust the process. I certainly don't trust scientists blindly, but the process (method) appears to work.
In my more than sixty five years here listening to people around me talk, I've noticed not only the decline of critical thought but it's demise in 'normal' conversation. People these days sit around and talk about what they believe. When I was a child, people talked about what they knew, what they did, what they thought, or what they'd heard. You almost never heard what a person's beliefs were. You could surmise them through the conversation. Now that's all you ever know about anyone . . . what they say they believe.
I generally agree with what you say with the caveat that you have to believe some science because you can't know every kind of knowledge and some must be trusted as true. The hard part is using critical thinking to find sources and evaluate them as trust worthy. The advantages with science is everything is available in scientific journals, so if something is bullshit, somebody will try replicate the previous results at some point and when that fails that knowledge will be put to the shopping block. I don't understand why people have that unrealistic expectation for a perfect science. Maybe it's the effect of being soaked in superlative marketing all the time.
I’m with you on that. However there’s another layer: a scientific theory. This is something that even some scientists often do not agree with, having the alternative theories or just basic disagreement. Still, like you said, it is a question of understanding but not belief. On the opposite side of a scientific theory is a scientific evidence. And that one is not debatable (I assume that “scientific” means “objective” in this case).
Scientific method is a powerful tool and you don't need a degree to make use of it. Reading is important too, but the best science is hands-on, and there are only so many hours in a day. I learned a hell of a lot more from flying a ;hang glider than reading about NACA airfoil data. You must develop a physical relationship with the world and integrate your science methodology as you go.
We train new hires and the first thing they want to do, is break the 'laws of physics'. They are so used to video games and other experiences, they come into a real environment and expect that machines and equipment should behave the way they wish them to do. Amazing. But i've been training for over 40 years now, and all are subject to not observing, but jumping in with assumptions - YOU CAN NEVER BREAK THE LAWS OF PHYSICS! now, are we in the matrix or not? that is the question for me. God Bless Fran! thank you for being so 'Fran'!
Knowledge about science is very interesting for a person that doesn't know anything about science. It is very interesting for a person who does not know to listen to a person who know
The struggle between those who blindly accept things and those who question those things.. science is asking the question, finding a result, and releasing data for scrutiny and dupilcation by others..
Exactly! Thank you! Science is NOT a religion, or anything at all for that matter. It is merely nothing more than a word used to describe the practice of using objective observation and deductive reasoning combined with trial-and-error problem solving to either prove or disprove any given hypothesis.
For philosophical reasons I do say I believe in the scientific method and what it produces. I say this as someone who reads papers on the areas I'm interested in.
Slime Molds are indeed FASCINATING! It makes you wonder about the origins of our intelligence. Forests are almost intelligent in the same way - and use fungi as kind of a brain among trees Cephalopod intelligence wiggs me out. Not sure if I should be eating calamari. …but it’s soooo delicious.
Science is not a destination. It is a vehicle for exploring the nature of reality. Even Einstein said that he would never be able to understand it all. That's okay. We don't need to understand it all. But it sure is fun and exciting discovering what we can!
You know that expression "cut from the same mold" to indicate total similarity? My adaptation has always been "cut from the same slime mold" to indicate that two people are not just similar, they are disgusting in the same way. Now maybe I'd better study slime molds in case the gunk of them is actually glorious . . .
Fran, knowledge is defined as such: "the fact or condition of knowing something with familiarity gained through experience or association." So, it's not just about reading something in your phone or a book/newspaper, etc. Otherwise, I think you really nailed our current situation in our society.
Science has religions / cults of its own. Try having a free and open discussion about the climate change and green energy. People will get very emotional and will not discuss facts.
When people (incl certain scientists) ask or say a thing like "if you believe in science", they clearly need to get back to the definition of the word. Science is not about believing, there is nothing to believe. Science doesn't care what you believe or your thoughts are. Science is nothing more than a method to come up with answers. Whatever that is, is not important, it's about following a certain method. So if people ask or say, if they "believe" in science, my standard answer is; if they believe in a method that isn't as objective as possible? In the end the whole question or sentence is wrong. It's like saying, "do you believe in water". Science is a method, it's not like a religion or philosophy of life. So there is nothing to believe in. If you think certain assumptions are wrong (which happens all the time within science), there is absolutely nothing to let you to prove otherwise.
Maybe my idea of "believe in science" is not the same as others? When I say I believe in science I mean I believe that it is possible to have data, hypothesis, testing, more data, and then perform analysis to determine the most likely cause/outcome/whatever. IMO, if you don't believe that its possible to scientifically test something then no amount of data or critical thinking is possible from the data and tests
Thank you Fran, never a more truer rant outed, it saddens me when I sat in a lunchroom and everyone was in their phone, no talking just silence maybe they were all learning something but probably not. Though I must admit the silence was golden. Keep doing what you do Fran we all love you for who you are. Cheers.
I see people nowadays want everything the easy way and this is how they also deal with knowledge. They take over opinions, without ever having given the opinions an actual thought. If they actually would have to read books, they read secondary literature, for example a complete book summarized in one page by somebody else. In addition, people tend to take over the most simple explanation without questioning it. I guess I am about your age, but I am German Austrian. My grandmothers had notebooks, in which they listed every single book they had read, and also wrote a summary and what they would think about the various topics in the book. Reading books is like having a talk with the author and questioning the author and his or her assumptions. I have red several books I don't agree with. I still keep them. I have sometimes changed my opinions, because the more I learned, the more I could understand, and then could give things another thought. Nietzsche, who I really like, once said, that the wise man (meaning men and women of course) changes his opinion. This is true. Only stupid people would hold on to a opinion or assumption, if it has been prooved to be wrong. Sadly, also scientists nowadays very often do so. But sticking to a thesis, just because it has been declared a corner stone in science some decades ago and even if we now get more data prooving it wrong, is a quite stupid thing to do. Banning books or scientists or authors is censorship, which is not adequate for a free society. We can only thrive in any possible aspect, if we are free. I also totally agree with you saying that the world has become narcissistic. This is a subject that makes me very sad.
When I'm looking at a really long mathematical proof, it will usually contain a lot of lemmas or other proofs inside of it. Some I get curious about and start looking up how they work, and others I just accept as true because it wears me out to search any further or I'm just not clever enough to understand them. One's level of intelligence definitely is a factor in how far they are able and willing to dig deeper into written knowledge. Many CAN'T go very much deeper than a book summarizing content. Others can but are just plain lazy. Hard to tell what percentage.
These people are nothing new. Unfortunately, I went to a school, in the '80s, where the classroom was full of people who didn't want to learn, especially about computers or science, yet believed they knew everything and thought they could win an argument by shouting the loudest or throwing insults around. Much like flat-earthers today. These people have been around forever. The internet has just made their presence more evident.
Weirdly enough, I don’t recall the “Flt earthrs” movement or the like prior to the internet. The IT age has created provided unfortunate parity between science and nuttery.
@@wayne2101 I, also, went to school in the '70s. ('70s - Primary school and '80s - Secondary/High school) The decades weren't the problem. The geographical location and type of school was. Rough areas, rough schools.
@@ticktock7483 When it comes to when I was at school I wasn't specifically referring to Flerfs. (Although, I am pretty sure there were a handful at the time). I'm just referring that kind of anti-learning/anti-science/anti-"authority" mentality, using Flerfs as a currently, recognisable example of the general type of nuttery in question!
Fran you are right. I learnt French up to the point it got too time consuming. I did the right thing for me.. Electro mechanical engineering for me easier.
Einstein might argue the point about facts, once upon a time the earth was "flat", everyone who was anyone, knew this as "fact". Facts are theories believed to be true, at lease based on the available information at the time.
I'm with you on the "believing in science" concept. Well put. I'm not really with you totally on smart phones and social media. I think critical thinking still comes into play no matter what medium you choose. It used to be TV that was rotting our brains. If it wasn't for social media and smart phones, I wouldn't be watching your channel. That said, I do enjoy the content of your channel.
Very well said Fran! Government’s, Dictators, Emperors, Kings………have always wanted the masses illiterate and ignorant because those people are more easily controlled and molded into whatever they need them to be. I was always on my guard about what I was taught in school, some of it I knew was reality and some with a grain of salt. Most of the things I have learned in my life were from doing things with trial and error. I learned most all I know today about electronics from reading, watching great videos when that became an option from good folks like you, Paul Carlson, Alan Wolke……and many others. I am almost 60 so what I did learn in school was not politically motivated like today. They cared about the students more than an agenda driven philosophy. My day job for 30 years was being a certified Tool and Die maker, 15 years of that I became a CNC programmer. All I learned about programming I learned from reading manuals and books about G and M codes, macro programming……….People who worked for me in my department used to come running to me every time they had an issue. I used to tell them, “you know, if you learned more by reading books I learned from you could do this yourself “. I would generally get that’s what they pay you the big bucks for! My reply was “ the more you learn the more you earn “. The sad part is they were content to be ignorant. No responsibility when you can blame it all on someone else when things go wrong. I noticed this pattern was more prevalent in the younger people. That work ethic I learned from my dad and grandfather who actually was born in the 1890’s and served in WWI stuck with me. My dad had me doing carpentry, plumbing, electrical at about 10 years old. A bit later he taught me how to rebuild engines in cars, motorcycles……… just a lot of hands on stuff that made my job much easier to do. Parents don’t do this nearly as much as they once did. Now they give the kids videos games and computers but no life experience at all. It seems ignorance is bliss is the way of life these days. All I know if the world went back to the Stone Age tomorrow I could survive because of life lessons I was taught. When I see these street surveys asking young people who the first President was and they are clueless it just makes me glad I grew up in a time where parents, teachers and co-worker’s actually cared you learned something. I may have gotten off track here a bit but you get it.
Let’s go through this: Science: the study of natural phenomenon Rational: a reasonable belief based on known evidence Hypothesis: a belief or suggestion of how something works Theory: an accepted belief of how something works based on a long history of repeated and reproduceable results Peer Review: requesting some experts in the field of knowledge critique the hypothesis Now let’s look at a complex example: For years we believed a spinning electrical generator knocked an electron off a copper wire and that electron traveled through an electrical grid and returned or displaced a weaker electron in route repeatedly, until a replacement electron returned, and the original condition was re-established. That was a hypothesis, then a theory, and is now a debunked theory. However, we still use that model! The model works even though the theory was disproven…. So this is a good example of we don’t know how the energy really moves but there are hypothesis and rational people understand the energy is moving and can be controlled by known system.
"Science is a systematic enterprise that builds and organizes knowledge in the form of testable explanations and predictions about the universe." The idea is that one should make personal decisions about one's life based on the disciplined examination of multitudes of examples with conclusions critically reviewed by others practiced and recognized as skillful in that discipline rather than on what happened to your neighbor's brother-in-law's co-worker's aunt. I will say this, however. When the systematic enterprise fails, it fails spectacularly. And as are all other enterprises it is subject to corruption, human foible, and misuse by the unprincipled.
Banned from what? She is just telling the truth, her truth - which I do believe in - but it may not be everybodies truth. That is not her problem - and nobody get banned for that.
AMEN! Knowledge is power. People today prefer being robots or sheep spoonfed by the government, church, education(college), The commercial world, hollywood, social media, any place besides their own brain and ability to critically think about and question EVERYTHING, humbly dig deep and discover the very sometimes scary REAL TRUTH about the world around them.
on point across the board. just like in the book 'the art of war'. the best way 2 rule the masses is 2 keep them ignorant. you rock as always fran. thank you 4 being you! slime molds huh... that must b what's growing on & in the brains of book banners. lmao later everyone! take it easy fran. [i'm off 2 get some frankin berrys now. they sound great!] =o)
"Science" should not be taught in schools. Rather the focus should be on the "scientific method" with appropriate examples. Doing this should result in a better appreciation of what is meant by critical thinking, and what is meant by some a scientists when they say their discovery was only made possible when they stood on the shoulders of those who went before.
We as a society are stronger and more powerful when we communicate and learn from one another. Where I see our society failing is with all things that keep us a part. I feel this started with cults, then VHS tapes, DVD’s, cable TV, and now hand held streaming devices. People are interacting less and less with each other, which I feel is the root of all this division and we are seeing among us. I dropped the cable years ago and when I am not out with friends and/or family, my entertainment is either some retro TV off the antenna, radio, or listening to very interesting people on UA-cam like yourself!
Yes, we all need connection, but we often try finding it in unfulfilling ways. Social media doesn't amplify our humanity and bring us together. It's a great tool for staying in touch with those we already are close to, and if we do it right we can find new ones to get close to, but reality is the only place in which we can be happy. I can't give someone a smile over a shared secret, a reassuring hug, a comfortable silence, or a playful nudge over the web. I can easily annoy someone, make them feel bad, or ignore them though. Connection is built on much subtler stuff, much of which can only flourish when being around one another in person.
Ma Pani rację. Ja jednak popieram tych którzy podejrzliwie/krytycznie podchodzą do źródeł wiedzy. W tych źródłach z czasem pojawiło się tyle nieprawdy i manipulacji, że nikt nie ma tyle czasu, aby je najpierw przeczytać, potem zrozumieć, potem zrozumieć na tyle żeby żeby je logicznie zanegować i porzucić. Tak nie da się zrobić z wiedzą którą jest przydatna i potrzebna w skomplikowanym świecie stąd ludzie muszą i stosują drogi na skróty.
It’s just refreshing to hear your perspective and saying what perhaps should be obvious. We have so much freedom and access to seek out alternative perspectives, some of us just don’t know or perhaps don’t even want to use those tools. The part that I worry about is that it just seems that the desire or curiosity isn’t there.
If your not following the scientific method it’s not science. . Perform research. ... Establish your hypothesis. ... Test your hypothesis by conducting an experiment. ... Make an observation. ... Analyze the results and draw a conclusion. ... Present the findings.
Science admits when it's wrong, belief claims to never be wrong... I have more than a few relatives that insist they know the way, truth, and just can't be wrong ..I just ignore them and call it a day. Though sometimes, Them What Knows It All can be entertaining. In the words of my physics teacher, learning is hands on and brain on....
Attacking intellectualism and academia is one of the hallmarks of fascism. All knowledge and information will come straight from Dear leader and those who He deems worthy of passing on knowledge and information. Conservatives in America are now fully embracing this ideal.
hi Fran, i'm a brand new subscriber, and now hooked....i really like what you've got to say....i just accidentally found you yesterday afternoon, and so far you are awesome. how long you been out here on youtube?
If a high school graduate cannot properly define both hypothesis and theory then education has failed them. When science is "wrong" the facts remain unchanged. What changes is one's understanding of why the facts occur.
Don't get me started on "follow the science"™
But praying to science is ok, right? We read the science textbook with the family every Sunday and recite verses from it before dinner. On pi day we sacrifice low ESR Capacitors to science.
Rampant narcissism explains a lot. If you’re the center of the universe and the only one who understands anything, why should you listen to anyone else, let alone make an effort to process and understand information? Great insight!
Need to beware of Egos so massive that they bend light around themselves, and fool others into doing their bidding.
THANK YOU FRAN, for putting into words a perspective I've been unable to for decades, 7 decades. I find you to be an awesome lady whom I think we'd get along great together. Tinkering with electronics, playing music, recording, communicating.
Processing different perspectives. Having the patience to listen and process the perspectives of others in a way to comprehend what that person's view is we can have a new piece of an never ending puzzle.
No, I do not find you to have any narcissistic traits.
I hope you don't mind that I have shared this video on other platforms.
I think many people have trouble trusting "science" for a couple of reasons. One of late, is how it has become politicized and at at times isn't remotely science at all and is subjected to "spin" and "bias by omission", etc. The other is that many simply cannot grasp something that is complicated or complex. It takes a pretty high level of understanding to grasp some things and I like to say the topic is typically learned only by the "theory of diminishing deception." That's how math is taught, actually. First you are taught to count, but soon find there is more. Basic arithmetic. But still more. Algebra. And on and on with plane and solid geometry, trigonometry, calculus, matrix algebra, and on and on. Most people can't start in the middle or the top. Electric cars are a great example. "Doncha know EV's are clean?" Well, not if you consider where the electricity comes from, the materials used in the auto and how they are manufactured. The difficulty of recycling batteries. Etc. Etc. But with many things like this, you have to be at least moderately up that curve of "diminishing deception" to have a clue. And if you are still at the bumper sticker slogan level, you haven't even begun the journey to know the science you should know to intelligently participate..
@@esecallum Bingo. I pointed out to many people that the mandates and lockdowns varied from state to state and county to county. I would ask my friends which entities were following the science. The answer was always whichever one they agreed with.
Impossible to comprehend the intricacies behind the newest science without having an advanced degree in that particular scientific field. You really have no choice but to either trust the experts or get ONE of those PHDs yourself. Very few have the talent to get one and even fewer have the talent to get more than one. And even if you do have the talent you need the opportunity as well. I have a BS in mathematics and I STILL don't understand why there's no general formula in radicals for the quintic, even after looking into it for months, and that was discovered 200 years ago. Even something that old can be EXTREMELY complex. So, since 99% of us don't have the combination of talent/opportunity/interest to follow the research ourselves, we HAVE to trust the experts, and then it becomes a matter of really having faith in the work of the experts.
Generally speaking, science is being politicized by people who aren't themselves scientists.
@@heronimousbrapson863 Very well said.
I love real science, especially the kind that involves deep thinking, not government funding. And if you are going to base your findings and insights based on statistics, you better expose all your raw data and built-in biases. Transparency is key.
To some extent, this is also the result of post-modernist thinking. Without getting into the more esoteric details, one of the principles of post-modernism is that objective truth does not exist; only subjective experience matters. Thus, the thinking goes, two people can only validly communicate with each other to the extent each has a commonly shared experience (and even then, those experiences are inevitably shaped by one's personal history). Devolved strains of this sort of thinking find their way into popular culture, which, coupled with cognitive bias, acts as gasoline for narcissistic fires. You can see this in lines like "you can't tell me anything, because why is your experience more valid than mine?" And so, everyone becomes their own expert, because nobody is an expert when nobody can agree on an objective reality.
When I see that sort of thinking, I always counter that if they really believe that, they should go play in traffic. Because who's to say that semi barreling down the road is actually there?
"Religion is a culture of faith; science is a culture of doubt." - Richard Feynman
"Science is the belief in the ignorance of experts." - Richard Feynman
Amen. He and I both worked for the same org. Many years apart from each other.
@@BobDarlington Friends Of Tuva?
@@DrMackSplackem friends of Los Alamos.
To change it is to teach people how to recognize and prevent cognitive biases. Sadly, even scientists, who are supposed to be the one trained on recognizing those biases, fell preyed by the biases themselves frequently.
Understanding is the pursuit. "The science"(tific method) is a tool of the Understanding. And the tool can be misused just as any tool could be. The ones that misuse the tool for personal gain should be identified and shown to do so by others, so that others may increase thier understanding so that they may make their decisions informed.
Indeed. Just accept reality. Science is a methodology.
Either believe spell check or don't, but you don't have to accept realty. You can reject offers and look for a more suitable property. That's just good business, Amos. 😉
@@eljuano28 An ongoing issue for old people typing on a phone with tiny print. Lol
I reject your reality and substitute my own!
@@PhoenixMoonbeam I don't hold any personal claim on reality ;)
@@bcsr4ever I think you missed the joke. ( reality has been substituted for hypothesis)
100% science is designed to be questioned.
If a result is shown to be reproducible over and over, I think you can safe in saying it is now an established fact.
You don’t question what happens when you jump from a building do you? You fall because of gravity. If you u want to question that……
Thank you! It would drive me crazy during covid when people would be like "I believe Science!" as a way to shutdown dissent. If scientists did that, then we would never learn anything new. The biggest asset for a scientist is the willingness to be proven wrong.
I think you missed the entire point
The point of this video obviously went over your head.
It's amazing that this conversation even has to take place. The whole idea of critical thinking is: study the arguments FOR a theory, study the arguments AGAINST said theory. TEST those theories through experimentation. Analyse data and declare what is MOST PROBABLE given the current information available. Review the work of others and have others review your work! How hard can it be? And... at what point does "belief" become involved? Because i just don't understand HOW belief COULD be involved!
You are entirely correct. Science is not a religion. Religion is what requires belief.
Not so much belief as "faith." Specifically faith in things which can't (as yet) be quantified or qualified. As the phrase goes, _faith in things not seen._
Not believe but understand. That's the whole point! But it's difficult. It requires thinking.
You are spectacular, Fran. I get a lot from your work.
In your thumbnail image, I can spot two books on the shelf that I own: "Contact" by Carl Sagan & "Student Calculator Math Book" by Texas Instruments.
I have seen people who know a lot about science in full denial, despite being in the perfect position to know better. It's about about being emotionally invested in reactionary politics. It's about conveniently leaving common sense behind and joining a mob mentality because of some cultural change that feels like a threat (even though it very rarely is). Social media is very suited to stirring that particular pot way beyond any sensible proportions.
My grandpa told me that a wise man is someone that always has an open mind an doesn't really claim to know much
Semantics I know, But I “believe” in science. I say this as a lay person that resigns my understanding of the world in the hands of qualified people who use the scientific method in a attempt to understand it.
Great channel. 👍
I would say I "trust" experts rather than "believe" in science.
Even then I'm pretty skeptical of the experts given that profits are usually at stake.
As Americans we must trust in our institutions because without them we no longer have a democracy.
A democratic government, along with its agencies and institutions, is the only thing capable of protecting the poor from exploitation by the rich and powerful.
Yes. I believe the intent is to "rely" on science instead of "rely" on some belief.
Yet many don't actually handle their field of science in an academic manner. ;-)
@@mr.pavone9719
I agree that 'trust' is technically a better word though 'believe' is grammatically correct as well. Prohibiting the use of either in a semantic capitulation when describing an acceptance of scientific knowledge limits simple communication though. If everyone had to completely understand every subject that relies on complex science before they would trust its efficacy no one would ever get on an airplane or use a computer again. That's just not practical. It's ok to trust scientific claims from sources with proven and repeatable results.
It brings to mind a response I made in a comment section to a religious apologist who accused science of being just another faith-based religion. Here was my reply:
"No, I do not have 'faith' in science. Rather, I grant an earned trust in predictable outcomes based on critical analysis of the quantifiable properties of energy, matter and time. If that concept seems confusing, smug or somehow evil, perhaps one can pray for a better understanding. I doubt, however that it would help."
Good on you. I feel like I say this ALL THE TIME. I hear the common “oh, he believes in science” and I always correct them saying I don’t and I use the word ‘believe’ very carefully. I ‘understand’ the scientific method as a tool to understand my universe. But then again colloquial word usage can be frustrating. I have to correct the difference between ‘theory’ and ‘hypothesis’ all the time too.
I believe the science behind radios is accurate, but I darn sure don't understand it. No way I could make a radio even if I was given the tools to do it.
@@jhoughjr1 I barely understand the principles of an LC circuit.
On my way to getting my Chemistry degree I had to prove everything I used. My Physics professor never let me or anyone in the class say anything was so without proving it.
Hopefully he didn't ask you to prove that for every action there's an equal but opposite reaction. As far as I know that's an axiom that's used in proofs, and axioms are usually unprovable building blocks that are just accepted because they're simple and no one has an argument against them.
@@jhoughjr1 Right. At some point you're bound to reach something so obvious it can't be proven. It would be brutal to ask for a proof of something like that.
You MUST do a 30-60s short on this (like title/description) if you wish to reach the people who REALLY need to hear your brilliant message.
I agree completely except for your emphasis on physical mediums. It seems silly to me to buy something I'm going to read and throw away instead of reading the same info from the same sources on an electronic device. I do prefer books because it is easier on the eyes for longer reading sessions but for everything else my computer or phone works best.
But electronic copies can be edited under your nose, hard copies cannot be changed once in the wild, only collected and burnt. Wikipedia is a perfect example of the flaws of electronic information.
@@paulmcgrath2175 wikipedia is made to be edited in real time so it really isn't a good example. An ebook would be a better example. It is very easy to prove if an ebook has been manipulated from the original source with a hash. Electronic versions of information are technically harder to manipulate without the user knowing because they are so easy to hash. Something could be changed in a hard copy and the only way to find it would be to have an original and the copy side by side. This is not a legitimate reason to avoid electronic copies of information.
There is a huge difference between religion and faith. But I understand what you're saying and I agree.
So well said! The way I look at is this - I believe in the scientific method. Like you said - collecting data, analyzing it, and coming to an informed conclusion.
My high-school electronics teacher once said this to me, and I think it sums up science perfectly. "The more you learn and understand, the more you understand how much more there is to learn"
Here's one that I've always pondered on. Like Science, if you don't believe in it. Why teach it at school? And the same goes for ALL of it.
"Critical thinking, objective reasoning, common sense. It's a lifestyle." - Rainman Ray
Exactly. Science is not a matter of belief, but of evidence.
Like Lichtenberg said:
»When a book hits a head and it sounds hollow, it`s not always the book`s fault.«
There are two types of people, the one set have ROM style memory, they seem able to remember an awful lot, but are unable to change any fact after it has gone into their brain. The other set have RAM style memory, who seem to have little difficulty when the world view changes, but don't seem to remember as much stuff.
The scientific method itself is about questioning and challenging every preconception and every assumption.
This is why ANY science you can't challenge or question is NOT scientific!! It is therefore IMHO logical to ask WHY we aren't allowed to question some things...
"science is not a religion" couldn't agree with you more. Unfortunately today, people increasingly seem to be treating it as such.
It's about understanding facts. Belief is just wishful thinking or speculation and has nothing to do with reality.
Yes! The social media "echo chamber" effect tells peoples' developing brains that they are always perfectly right, regardless of what they believe. That leaves them open to be told what to believe, rather than having to do the heavy lifting of thinking for themselves. Sigh.
I agree with this completely. But despite that, I avoid mainstream news. I have for close to 30 years. I don't do it because of believing or not believing it, but because there is a tendency of mainstream news to try to tell us what's important and what's not. Not so much that the story on the front page is correct or lies, but that the story on the front page is something that I don't feel is important, and I want to decide for myself what's important.
Also, I just feel healthier if the mainstream news isn't a part of my life. I wake up each day feeling more positive about the world.
Interesting video. When people ask me if I believe in science, I say no. It's not a belief system. I understand how science comes to conclusions with the data available. In some cases, I simply understand the science.
I appreciate your take on this important subject. One should never believe in science any more or less than they believe in any other persons opinion. Science is not about the faith in it it is about the exploration of it,
That was science before the almost total submission to big financial interests of scientific research.
Today we should question the assumption that science is a tool for objective observation and prediction.
Today science is in the service of the few rich,with very very few exceptions.
I delivered the Philadelphia Bulletin newspaper when I was a kid. I read headlines now at the supermarket or wherever I see Newspapers sold, but rarely buy them. ✌
I think "I believe science" is just a layperson's way of saying they trust the process. I certainly don't trust scientists blindly, but the process (method) appears to work.
There's so much math and physics I have no capacity to understand. Usually the approach, 'If it works, it works', is enough.
Love ya, Fran! THANK YOU for sharing this info. So true.
In my more than sixty five years here listening to people around me talk, I've noticed not only the decline of critical thought but it's demise in 'normal' conversation. People these days sit around and talk about what they believe. When I was a child, people talked about what they knew, what they did, what they thought, or what they'd heard. You almost never heard what a person's beliefs were. You could surmise them through the conversation. Now that's all you ever know about anyone . . . what they say they believe.
slime moulds
octopuses
Never hesitate to say "I don't know. I'll find out."
I generally agree with what you say with the caveat that you have to believe some science because you can't know every kind of knowledge and some must be trusted as true. The hard part is using critical thinking to find sources and evaluate them as trust worthy. The advantages with science is everything is available in scientific journals, so if something is bullshit, somebody will try replicate the previous results at some point and when that fails that knowledge will be put to the shopping block. I don't understand why people have that unrealistic expectation for a perfect science. Maybe it's the effect of being soaked in superlative marketing all the time.
I’m with you on that. However there’s another layer: a scientific theory. This is something that even some scientists often do not agree with, having the alternative theories or just basic disagreement. Still, like you said, it is a question of understanding but not belief. On the opposite side of a scientific theory is a scientific evidence. And that one is not debatable (I assume that “scientific” means “objective” in this case).
Scientific method is a powerful tool and you don't need a degree to make use of it. Reading is important too, but the best science is hands-on, and there are only so many hours in a day. I learned a hell of a lot more from flying a ;hang glider than reading about NACA airfoil data. You must develop a physical relationship with the world and integrate your science methodology as you go.
We train new hires and the first thing they want to do, is break the 'laws of physics'. They are so used to video games and other experiences, they come into a real environment and expect that machines and equipment should behave the way they wish them to do. Amazing. But i've been training for over 40 years now, and all are subject to not observing, but jumping in with assumptions - YOU CAN NEVER BREAK THE LAWS OF PHYSICS! now, are we in the matrix or not? that is the question for me. God Bless Fran! thank you for being so 'Fran'!
Knowledge about science is very interesting for a person that doesn't know anything about science. It is very interesting for a person who does not know to listen to a person who know
The struggle between those who blindly accept things and those who question those things.. science is asking the question, finding a result, and releasing data for scrutiny and dupilcation by others..
Exactly! Thank you! Science is NOT a religion, or anything at all for that matter. It is merely nothing more than a word used to describe the practice of using objective observation and deductive reasoning combined with trial-and-error problem solving to either prove or disprove any given hypothesis.
Awesome Video Fran! Cheers to you slimemold!
For philosophical reasons I do say I believe in the scientific method and what it produces. I say this as someone who reads papers on the areas I'm interested in.
Slime Molds are indeed FASCINATING! It makes you wonder about the origins of our intelligence. Forests are almost intelligent in the same way - and use fungi as kind of a brain among trees Cephalopod intelligence wiggs me out. Not sure if I should be eating calamari. …but it’s soooo delicious.
I wanna say something, but my english are limited. I understand your words and i will never forget.
You are excellent!! Also, you the double Simian line in you palms. As do I. Very rare!!
Science is not a destination. It is a vehicle for exploring the nature of reality. Even Einstein said that he would never be able to understand it all. That's okay. We don't need to understand it all. But it sure is fun and exciting discovering what we can!
You know that expression "cut from the same mold" to indicate total similarity? My adaptation has always been "cut from the same slime mold" to indicate that two people are not just similar, they are disgusting in the same way. Now maybe I'd better study slime molds in case the gunk of them is actually glorious . . .
Fran, knowledge is defined as such: "the fact or condition of knowing something with familiarity gained through experience or association." So, it's not just about reading something in your phone or a book/newspaper, etc.
Otherwise, I think you really nailed our current situation in our society.
Science has religions / cults of its own.
Try having a free and open discussion about the climate change and green energy.
People will get very emotional and will not discuss facts.
Thanks Fran!
When people (incl certain scientists) ask or say a thing like "if you believe in science", they clearly need to get back to the definition of the word.
Science is not about believing, there is nothing to believe. Science doesn't care what you believe or your thoughts are.
Science is nothing more than a method to come up with answers.
Whatever that is, is not important, it's about following a certain method.
So if people ask or say, if they "believe" in science, my standard answer is; if they believe in a method that isn't as objective as possible?
In the end the whole question or sentence is wrong. It's like saying, "do you believe in water".
Science is a method, it's not like a religion or philosophy of life. So there is nothing to believe in.
If you think certain assumptions are wrong (which happens all the time within science), there is absolutely nothing to let you to prove otherwise.
Maybe my idea of "believe in science" is not the same as others? When I say I believe in science I mean I believe that it is possible to have data, hypothesis, testing, more data, and then perform analysis to determine the most likely cause/outcome/whatever.
IMO, if you don't believe that its possible to scientifically test something then no amount of data or critical thinking is possible from the data and tests
Thank you Fran, never a more truer rant outed, it saddens me when I sat in a lunchroom and everyone was in their phone, no talking just silence maybe they were all learning something but probably not. Though I must admit the silence was golden.
Keep doing what you do Fran we all love you for who you are. Cheers.
I see people nowadays want everything the easy way and this is how they also deal with knowledge. They take over opinions, without ever having given the opinions an actual thought. If they actually would have to read books, they read secondary literature, for example a complete book summarized in one page by somebody else. In addition, people tend to take over the most simple explanation without questioning it.
I guess I am about your age, but I am German Austrian. My grandmothers had notebooks, in which they listed every single book they had read, and also wrote a summary and what they would think about the various topics in the book. Reading books is like having a talk with the author and questioning the author and his or her assumptions. I have red several books I don't agree with. I still keep them. I have sometimes changed my opinions, because the more I learned, the more I could understand, and then could give things another thought. Nietzsche, who I really like, once said, that the wise man (meaning men and women of course) changes his opinion. This is true. Only stupid people would hold on to a opinion or assumption, if it has been prooved to be wrong. Sadly, also scientists nowadays very often do so. But sticking to a thesis, just because it has been declared a corner stone in science some decades ago and even if we now get more data prooving it wrong, is a quite stupid thing to do. Banning books or scientists or authors is censorship, which is not adequate for a free society. We can only thrive in any possible aspect, if we are free.
I also totally agree with you saying that the world has become narcissistic. This is a subject that makes me very sad.
When I'm looking at a really long mathematical proof, it will usually contain a lot of lemmas or other proofs inside of it. Some I get curious about and start looking up how they work, and others I just accept as true because it wears me out to search any further or I'm just not clever enough to understand them.
One's level of intelligence definitely is a factor in how far they are able and willing to dig deeper into written knowledge. Many CAN'T go very much deeper than a book summarizing content. Others can but are just plain lazy. Hard to tell what percentage.
These people are nothing new.
Unfortunately, I went to a school, in the '80s, where the classroom was full of people who didn't want to learn, especially about computers or science, yet believed they knew everything and thought they could win an argument by shouting the loudest or throwing insults around.
Much like flat-earthers today.
These people have been around forever.
The internet has just made their presence more evident.
Weirdly enough, I don’t recall the “Flt earthrs” movement or the like prior to the internet. The IT age has created provided unfortunate parity between science and nuttery.
I’m glad I went to school in the ‘70s then.
@@wayne2101 I, also, went to school in the '70s. ('70s - Primary school and '80s - Secondary/High school)
The decades weren't the problem.
The geographical location and type of school was.
Rough areas, rough schools.
@@ticktock7483 When it comes to when I was at school I wasn't specifically referring to Flerfs. (Although, I am pretty sure there were a handful at the time). I'm just referring that kind of anti-learning/anti-science/anti-"authority" mentality, using Flerfs as a currently, recognisable example of the general type of nuttery in question!
Science is basically a system of asking questions.
Fran you are right. I learnt French up to the point it got too time consuming. I did the right thing for me.. Electro mechanical engineering for me easier.
I “trust” rather than believe. A fact is a fact.
Einstein might argue the point about facts, once upon a time the earth was "flat", everyone who was anyone, knew this as "fact". Facts are theories believed to be true, at lease based on the available information at the time.
I'm with you on the "believing in science" concept. Well put. I'm not really with you totally on smart phones and social media. I think critical thinking still comes into play no matter what medium you choose. It used to be TV that was rotting our brains. If it wasn't for social media and smart phones, I wouldn't be watching your channel. That said, I do enjoy the content of your channel.
I wish you’d been my science teacher in high school, Fran.
Pier review is great, however it greatly depends on the " Piers " who are doing the reviewing.
Very well said Fran! Government’s, Dictators, Emperors, Kings………have always wanted the masses illiterate and ignorant because those people are more easily controlled and molded into whatever they need them to be. I was always on my guard about what I was taught in school, some of it I knew was reality and some with a grain of salt. Most of the things I have learned in my life were from doing things with trial and error. I learned most all I know today about electronics from reading, watching great videos when that became an option from good folks like you, Paul Carlson, Alan Wolke……and many others. I am almost 60 so what I did learn in school was not politically motivated like today. They cared about the students more than an agenda driven philosophy. My day job for 30 years was being a certified Tool and Die maker, 15 years of that I became a CNC programmer. All I learned about programming I learned from reading manuals and books about G and M codes, macro programming……….People who worked for me in my department used to come running to me every time they had an issue. I used to tell them, “you know, if you learned more by reading books I learned from you could do this yourself “. I would generally get that’s what they pay you the big bucks for! My reply was “ the more you learn the more you earn “. The sad part is they were content to be ignorant. No responsibility when you can blame it all on someone else when things go wrong. I noticed this pattern was more prevalent in the younger people. That work ethic I learned from my dad and grandfather who actually was born in the 1890’s and served in WWI stuck with me. My dad had me doing carpentry, plumbing, electrical at about 10 years old. A bit later he taught me how to rebuild engines in cars, motorcycles……… just a lot of hands on stuff that made my job much easier to do. Parents don’t do this nearly as much as they once did. Now they give the kids videos games and computers but no life experience at all. It seems ignorance is bliss is the way of life these days. All I know if the world went back to the Stone Age tomorrow I could survive because of life lessons I was taught. When I see these street surveys asking young people who the first President was and they are clueless it just makes me glad I grew up in a time where parents, teachers and co-worker’s actually cared you learned something. I may have gotten off track here a bit but you get it.
Let’s go through this:
Science: the study of natural phenomenon
Rational: a reasonable belief based on known evidence
Hypothesis: a belief or suggestion of how something works
Theory: an accepted belief of how something works based on a long history of repeated and reproduceable results
Peer Review: requesting some experts in the field of knowledge critique the hypothesis
Now let’s look at a complex example: For years we believed a spinning electrical generator knocked an electron off a copper wire and that electron traveled through an electrical grid and returned or displaced a weaker electron in route repeatedly, until a replacement electron returned, and the original condition was re-established. That was a hypothesis, then a theory, and is now a debunked theory. However, we still use that model! The model works even though the theory was disproven…. So this is a good example of we don’t know how the energy really moves but there are hypothesis and rational people understand the energy is moving and can be controlled by known system.
That process is the best way of weeding out bad ideas, but even it can't catch everything.
"Science is a systematic enterprise that builds and organizes knowledge in the form of testable explanations and predictions about the universe." The idea is that one should make personal decisions about one's life based on the disciplined examination of multitudes of examples with conclusions critically reviewed by others practiced and recognized as skillful in that discipline rather than on what happened to your neighbor's brother-in-law's co-worker's aunt.
I will say this, however. When the systematic enterprise fails, it fails spectacularly. And as are all other enterprises it is subject to corruption, human foible, and misuse by the unprincipled.
Whenever the words *BLISSFUL* and *IGNORANCE* are found together so poignantly, you get idiots. 😉
How on earth are you not banned for this ? Thanks for sharing !
Banned from what? She is just telling the truth, her truth - which I do believe in - but it may not be everybodies truth. That is not her problem - and nobody get banned for that.
AMEN! Knowledge is power. People today prefer being robots or sheep spoonfed by the government, church, education(college), The commercial world, hollywood, social media, any place besides their own brain and ability to critically think about and question EVERYTHING, humbly dig deep and discover the very sometimes scary REAL TRUTH about the world around them.
on point across the board. just like in the book 'the art of war'. the best way 2 rule the masses is 2 keep them ignorant.
you rock as always fran. thank you 4 being you! slime molds huh... that must b what's growing on & in the brains of book banners. lmao later everyone! take it easy fran. [i'm off 2 get some frankin berrys now. they sound great!] =o)
I like the distinction you make between belief and understanding.
Thank you again Fran, don't give up your workS !
The top "SCIENCE" on your shirt looks like it's in the old Sperry-Rand font.
Knowing is a constant losing of beliefs. But 90% of people needs a faith, not knowing.
Eek! Fran, you're changing my brain.
It All Comes Down To "Show Your Work".
My parents were both scientists, believing was not ever applied to science…
"Science" should not be taught in schools. Rather the focus should be on the "scientific method" with appropriate examples. Doing this should result in a better appreciation of what is meant by critical thinking, and what is meant by some a scientists when they say their discovery was only made possible when they stood on the shoulders of those who went before.
I trust the results of the scientific method.
Too bad the scientific method can't always be applied to everything.
We as a society are stronger and more powerful when we communicate and learn from one another. Where I see our society failing is with all things that keep us a part. I feel this started with cults, then VHS tapes, DVD’s, cable TV, and now hand held streaming devices.
People are interacting less and less with each other, which I feel is the root of all this division and we are seeing among us.
I dropped the cable years ago and when I am not out with friends and/or family, my entertainment is either some retro TV off the antenna, radio, or listening to very interesting people on UA-cam like yourself!
Yes, we all need connection, but we often try finding it in unfulfilling ways. Social media doesn't amplify our humanity and bring us together. It's a great tool for staying in touch with those we already are close to, and if we do it right we can find new ones to get close to, but reality is the only place in which we can be happy.
I can't give someone a smile over a shared secret, a reassuring hug, a comfortable silence, or a playful nudge over the web. I can easily annoy someone, make them feel bad, or ignore them though. Connection is built on much subtler stuff, much of which can only flourish when being around one another in person.
Ma Pani rację. Ja jednak popieram tych którzy podejrzliwie/krytycznie podchodzą do źródeł wiedzy. W tych źródłach z czasem pojawiło się tyle nieprawdy i manipulacji, że nikt nie ma tyle czasu, aby je najpierw przeczytać, potem zrozumieć, potem zrozumieć na tyle żeby żeby je logicznie zanegować i porzucić. Tak nie da się zrobić z wiedzą którą jest przydatna i potrzebna w skomplikowanym świecie stąd ludzie muszą i stosują drogi na skróty.
It’s just refreshing to hear your perspective and saying what perhaps should be obvious. We have so much freedom and access to seek out alternative perspectives, some of us just don’t know or perhaps don’t even want to use those tools. The part that I worry about is that it just seems that the desire or curiosity isn’t there.
If your not following the scientific method it’s not science.
.
Perform research. ...
Establish your hypothesis. ...
Test your hypothesis by conducting an experiment. ...
Make an observation. ...
Analyze the results and draw a conclusion. ...
Present the findings.
Science admits when it's wrong, belief claims to never be wrong...
I have more than a few relatives that insist they know the way, truth, and just can't be wrong ..I just ignore them and call it a day. Though sometimes, Them What Knows It All can be entertaining.
In the words of my physics teacher, learning is hands on and brain on....
Thanks!
Yes, being critcal of theory is required for a healthy slime mold
in less than 15 mins...this should be a TED talk...best 15 mins I have spent on the internet...thank you
You nailed it Fran!
Attacking intellectualism and academia is one of the hallmarks of fascism.
All knowledge and information will come straight from Dear leader and those who He deems worthy of passing on knowledge and information. Conservatives in America are now fully embracing this ideal.
hi Fran, i'm a brand new subscriber, and now hooked....i really like what you've got to say....i just accidentally found you yesterday afternoon, and so far you are awesome. how long you been out here on youtube?
If a high school graduate cannot properly define both hypothesis and theory then education has failed them.
When science is "wrong" the facts remain unchanged. What changes is one's understanding of why the facts occur.