We are frustrated about this too - we want everyone, everywhere to be able to see everything immediately. I think these geoblocking restrictions are a holdover from the previous media environment
Was watching some other Veritasium videos and thought, "He should do one on Kuhn's Structure of Scientific Revolutions!" Beat me to it. By several years.
The Chicken-Pro. The best camera system for photographing items that need the sharpest images for scientific analysis. Things such as BIGFOOT, NESSIE, GHOSTS, UFOs, and of course, last but certainly not least. GOD!!!
Derrick I really miss your 2veritasium videos. The instant videos without any huge effort but you still deliver a philosophical thought. These videos really help people like us who have to stay put to their curriculum books and don't have the ability to wander into philosophy and watches your videos for entertainment purposes.
It is still important for everybody to know that science is never completely wrong. When we say Einstein came and revolutionized science, it doesn't mean he said that science was completely and absolutely wrong about a subject, in fact, what Einstein dis was he basically went deeper on that particular subject. That is what is incredibly amazing about science, this is never completely true and this is never completely false and it always go deeper on its knowledge in a way that makes it the closest possible to an absolute truth.
Moreover, I have changed my view entirely about EINSTEIN to be revolutionary. Yes, he is, but his revolution is not going against GALILEI's and NEWTON's classical physics but rather _side by side_ with both. SR is basically GALILEI's principle of relativity (of motion) consequently applied to MAXWELL's very equations of electrodynamics. The idea of a fixed aether which states a privileged reference frame was actually a step back from the original GALILEI idea.
@@jensphiliphohmann1876 The aether was not realy a step back from the galileian principals. It was rather the result that came from applying galileian relativity to the maxwell equations. Maxwell and galilei combined implied that there must be an identifiable global frame of reference. Only the failed measurement of the effects of the aether showed that you cant just apply galileian relativity to light. And that is the riddle Einstein solved by assuming that light is constant and the new relativity principle must take this into account. From that assumption (and some others like the existance of inertial frames of reference where the physical laws take their "simplest form") follows then that the perception of time and length depends on the reference frame.
@@lit2701 A global frame of reference identifiable _by the laws of physics alone_ (this is important: GALILEI's principle of relativity does not forbid a resting frame being identifiable by astronomical methods yet the laws of physics are the same) directly contradicts GALILEI.
I loooove those "walking around rambling about something fascinating" kindd of videos you do!! 😁 I love the usual ones too, but these ones are a little bit like just taking a walk with a really well read and smart friend. Love it!
This kind of vlogs are pretty cool. Just you talking about things that are in your mind raw and without editing, I'd love to see more of them in the future!
I hate this shit VPN comments. IT DOES NOT SOLVE THE PROBLEM! Yes, you can find all Vsauce Episodes on UA-cam Red very easy and yes you can use a PROXY (VPN works too, but I doubt anyone uses a real one.). But as I said - it doesn't solve the problem that you can watch the series normally from anywhere in the world.
Normal or gradual science is the discovery of new information that adds to humanity’s body of knowledge. Revolutionary science tears down and builds up a new foundation, rewriting what humanity previously thought it knew.
Yes and no? Depends what you mean by 'information'. Are refined methedologies 'information'? Is superior technical aptitute 'information'? Better equipment? etc. Normal science progresses alongside developments in all of these things and more. Normal science might be more completely defined as something like: the continuing refinement and expansion of scientific theory and praxis under a given paradigm. Revoluntionary science is actually rarely destructive. I suppose some of the oldest paradigms, such the emission theory of vision, could be said to be destroyed: so long forgotten are they by anyone who is not a philosopher or historian of some sort. But what about classical mechanics? Has that been destroyed? If so why did I learn F=ma at school? Why did I learn the three laws (well four technically but not everyone lists the zeroeth law as a law) of classical thermodynamics? The paradigms these theories were originally based on have been suppassed but we also know they are still very powerful systems that are almost completely accurate for slow macroscopic phenomena. Using more complex methods such as relativistic mechanics or statistical thermodynamics for these phenomena is possible but it is also typically massively wasteful of time and effort. Paradigms typically displace other paradigms. When we finally, hopefully, enter into our next paradigm shift through say a quantum theory of gravity that completely unites relativistic mechanics and quantumn mechanics, we won't discard the preceding mechanics. The quantum gravity theory would become the overarching paradigm all physics was based off and represent the pinnacle of our understanding of the physical world but you would only need its full power to describe certain anomalous cases at present, such as certain phenomena relating to black holes or, possibly, relative motion and mass of galaxies etc., or when extreme precision was required. Otherwise, our present theories would be as good or better at describing the phenomena they are designed to describe. This ties into the idea that paradigms are incommensurable. If two paradigms are built on fundementally different foundations and thus utterly alien to one another, neither can destroy the other only supplant through superior predictive and explanatory power. This in turn means strictly less powerful paradigms that were once the cutting edge of scientific theory and praxis can survive, even thrive, so long as they are sufficiently powerful to meet a need with less effort than the dominant paradigm. Worth also noting here that not all paradigms are necessarily completely immiscible even if they are completely incommensurable (and this could be challenged too). An example might be pyschology. Currently, as I understand it, there are competing paradigms based on subjective lived experience and objective observation of lived experience against neurobiological models of the brain and the nervous system. It is likely the resolution of these conflicts will not be the complete disgarding of one or the other but actually a merging of the insights from both. Addiction, as an illness, can neither be completely explained biologically or socially. fMRIs of people exposed to amusing stimuli may eventually be able to reliably tell you whether someone is amused or not but such a technique, while valuable for primary research, will never supplant just asking someone using established questioning techniques. There will probably be a mixing of both paradigms depending on the exact setting of the research or the clinical practice. That's also ignoring whole other swathes of pyschology such as pyschogeography but I can't cover everything... Sorry to any passing pyschologists who feel unrepresented.
I am so tired of this. It's a fucking proxy, not VPN. VPNs are used for a totally different things.
6 років тому+1
Paradigm shifts are sometimes also the results of serendipity, where the way one sees the world changes by chance. I love how it often appears in chemistry, when a compound thought useful for something appears to be a game changer for something absolutely different.
WOW! "The Structure of Scientific Revolutions" by Thomas Kuhn was my textbook in Science History, when I was a Philosophy student in "La Sapienza" university, many, many years ago!
In the global world of 2018, how is it not possible to release something on the Internet, world wide straight away? I'd love to see the show. Hope I can find it somewhere else....
thanks - I think there should be no problem releasing this show to the world but on that service they probably have other content with geoblocking restrictions and I'm guessing they are not setup for one-off exceptions. I'm just guessing. And this is news I got at the last minute too - so sorry!
2veritasium thank you so much for replying, it means a lot. No matter what I'm always impressed by your work. I keep my fingers crossed for it to air in Europe somehow at some point. I'll enjoy your great UA-cam videos in the meantime. Have a great day!
this is the first time i have seen you making a cut in these videos, not sure if it's truly the first time, but first time i have noticed in the past few years of your vlogging.
sometimes I intentionally make no cuts (but I have done them before). I made a few here to shorten some rambles and keep the total video under 10 min (in case that threshold puts anyone off)
2veritasium i sure can understand the point about cutting out the rambling part if you consider it unfit, but adjusting the material length just to avoid triggering people sounds absurd and would be quite sad to be honest (i just hope it was a joke).
I think the focus on misconceptions actually helps to perpetuate them and creates the kind of people who you constantly see pointing out stuff that is ultimately immaterial like whether you use metric or imperial.
“The Structure of Scientific Revolutions” good read. I read it in the 1980's along with E. W. Deming & J. M. Juran's papers on implementing TQM(Total Quality Management) and TQC(Total Quality Control). Both of which are management sciences. It was interesting to note that it took nearly 40 years for US Business to adopt TQM/TQC practices after WWII when the Japanese adopted those practices. Took a major paradigm shift in management practices to get us up to speed with Japan and a good portion of Europe.
I despise them... they are a last minute, no effort into the video. No topic, there is nothing new. He hasn’t even done his hair or cared what he looked like. This is the epitome of UA-cam garbage.. sad, because I was drawn to UA-cam because of veritasium videos and vsauce. Vsauce is youtube red only, and this is what we get from veritasium... sad
Gosh, after I heard that the new series was called paradigms, I was wondering if you were going to talk about Kuhn. As someone who was majoring in physics, taking a philosophy of science course was probably one of the best things I did, as it let me reflect a lot more on what we are actually doing outside of the grunt work. I also remember reading a speech Kuhn had done at some point (or at least I think it was Kuhn) where he spoke about how a lot of the sciences differentiate themselves from other subjects in that there is rarely a focus on the history of the subject. Like I might know Michaelson-Morley or caloric theory, but it's only after knowing the current paradigm and the details aren't necessary. However, knowing what has been attempted in the past I feel can also make us more aware of our biases towards current theories, just a reminder that even though these are just our best explanations at this time, we're still fallible.
Super international youtube channels produce a super series only for US viewers. Well, I guess it's kind of a paradigm shift... Don't know what to think about that :/
Structure of Scientific Revolutions - one of my all time favorite books, influenced how I thought about science and progression of knowledge/technology. Did a seminar based around Kuhn as the central hub then overlapped that with experimental bias problems, finally leading into the implications regarding objective measurement re Copenhagen qm. Best of luck with paradigms series!
I really like your videos and look forward to the new ideas you have planned. Are you going to address past paradigms only or are you also going to show Science as it is shifting today?
The problem with science is the funding. Sometimes, scientists will get money for their research or publications only if they serve the interests of few people. Here you get resources to make better and greater projects, but it reduces your ability to spread the knowledge by using a new service that have limitations on who can watch it.
You have grown man... The quality of your work has improved several folds over the years. Good luck with your ambitions captain. You're an inspiration.
Derek, you have just embarked on something which I've been craving for years. A breakdown not of what we know, but how we know older knowledge is wrong and what evidence convinces us that our current understanding is correct (as far as we can determine) I wish you all the success in the world for this, and I can't wait for it to be globally released (cough... Vpns)
This is a fun video, but you disproved your title on your own in the first minute. Just like most revolutionary things, the normal builds slowly until something gives, and then massive changes happen. It was because of the normal science that the "anomaly" was discovered and understood. The video could've been called "What's the difference between routine and revolutionary science?" The current title and gives an impression that the routine science is less valuable, but the latter cannot be without the former.
the point of the title is that there is more than just one way science works, it's not all routine science. And I don't think that makes routine science lesser. As you point out routine science by its very nature gives us revolutionary science.
Hmmm... Well... I think these paradigm shifts were more common when science wasn't a profession, and it was a hobby of a few rich people with no modern science protocols. The very example you gave us is from this amateurish period of science. Well, let's see where these new series will take us regarding to this point. Congratulations on your new work! Looks promising!
I think those advances were made in a time where very little was understood about how our world worked. There were a lot of things to be discovered through simple experiments. Gravity was investigated by seeing how fast an object fell, the motion of the planets was discovered with a dinky little telescope, the colours of light were found with a simple prism. All of this stuff was easy to investigate. Now, pretty much all of the easily investigatable things have been discovered. We've moved on to the LHC and massive telescopes and electron microscopes and advanced medical research that needs a lot of experience to perform. We're still moving forwards, but to do so requires expensive equipment and lots of experience, so those massive paradigm shifts are harder to reach.
"Amateurish"? You show easy dismissal to some great minds that did some important preliminary work. 'Amateur' means only that they were not being paid - they didn't need to be, of course. But they must have done something quite considerable right to have made the contribution they did. I cannot see any honest modern professional (that is, 'paid')scientist using such derogatory language when describing those people or their work, they know all too well the value of it to where science is today.
JamEngulfer a "dinky little telescope" was, at the time, very rare and expensive precision technology. Grinding lenses and mirrors may seem trivial nowadays, but it was not back then. And Newton had to invent a whole new field of math (calculus) just to describe his observations. Light bulb inventors struggled because in the beginning no pump existed that could draw a sufficient vacuum to keep the wire from oxidizing.
Holy shit it's really rare to see someone talk about philosophy of science in the "UA-cam science community". I'm really glad you're popularizing this topic because it sure as hell does not get discussed enough
I understant vrv funding this, and wanting to get away from youtube, but it pains me to see paywalls. they should release it for free after a number of months, but not tell anyone. thats how id run things at least
I an not happy with all these alternatives to UA-cam, but on the other hand I am kind reassured by the fact that non of them is going to be a thing. Do anyone remember Vessel?
Just happened to be reading a journal article today that is related to this video: E. P. Wigner, Invariance in Physical Theory, from "Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society . . ." , Vol: 93, Pages 521-526, 1949. You no doubt know that Wigner was a Nobel Prize winning scientist with a very broad background.
I'm excited to pay for this new show! It sounds intriguing. As someone who struggles at times exploring the boundaries of various paradigms, I'm curious to learn about the social upheaval cause by paradigm shifts. Especially within the domain of Science.
Great elaboration! I always look at it like this: Science provides theories that can only really be disproven. One can acquire evidence to support the theory, sure, but the theory can still be wrong. That's something a lot of people (even scientists) seem to forget. However, the real question is; if it is wrong, what would be placed in its stead? Once such a theory is suggested, this issue of paradigm shift occurs, because you need to convince people, they may actually believe something that is faulty or incomplete. Which is, for me, the most exciting thing about science! Isn't it amazing to learn more of the complexity of nature? The resistance to change your ideas is almost like inertia of the mind. It's funny we tend to feel that inertia so strongly at times.
DaftBunny theories The majority of people who have a theory are not claiming the theory is a fact and therefore they are neither right or wrong. It isn't a game for people to win at. There is no bifurcation logical fallacy... We accept that a theory is a fluctuating field of probability... Only amateurs treat a theory as if it's a fact and when they do it becomes eerily similar to a religious belief.
I agree that a theory is not a binary thing. Which is pretty much covered by saying that a theory can only really be disproven. But we must assume some theories to be true (at least for the time being) when doing science. Otherwise deductions would always be endless. I guess that's what you mean too, a proper scientist does indeed treat a theory as a 'likelyhood'. When one thing is more likely than another, we assume it true untill disproven in order to further understand the next piece of the puzzle. I don't know whether that makes it fair to say that treating a theory as fact makes you an amateur. We often 'assume something to be true', which is basically calling it a fact. Just with the notion that future experimentation may change our view. I think the fault lies in forgetting about the latter. But maybe that's just nitpicking and rethinking what the word 'fact' really means...
DaftBunny yeah, your entire waffling post is ridiculous... we do not presume the theory is true. It's a fluctuating field of probability. If the evidence is strong then the probability it is true is high and therefore denotes a need to study further or formulate a test of some sort to verify. It only directs our time in a more efficient fashion. We must never presume that it's true or a fact. If you want to change the definition of believing, true or the word fact then you're creating a debate where there is none by changing the definition of the word or you're arguing over the definition of the word what just makes you a stupid fucking asshole. Every simpleton who's addicted to arguing for the sake of arguing will boil everything down to a debate over semantics when they have no pot to piss in. It's fucking pathetic. Grow the fuck up. You're welcome. My logic is infallible... The secret to being right all the time is never pretend to know anything you don't know. Just accept you don't know and then you'll be right all the time because the majority of the time it's true that you do not know.
DaftBunny here's where the majority of your personality comes from. It's fake. You're conditioned and you're emulating everyone else. You've been brainwashed to associate the concept of winning with a dopamine release. Your entire personality has been gamified and you become your own shill... Here you are arguing the stupidest shit I've ever seen proving that you are your own shill. I see this every single day on social media. The majority of you come here just to satisfy your petty and childish need to play your games of high school debate team bullshit and delude yourselves into a false sense of security or value in an intellectual capacity of which you have little to none. If you argue from ignorance then you're an asshole. If you are you from ignorance with someone who's smarter than you then you're a fanatical asshole. ua-cam.com/video/mFx7jnNRkPI/v-deo.html
Best sponser ad ever. That video was suberb, and I'm going to link all of my friends and explain to them how their world models impact their thinking. Subscribed on their service. Thanks for the great content man.
So the thing I would love to see more of, and don't see enough, is a science channel that dedicates itself to pointing out things in science that are not well understood. If your channel could skillfully stitch together the voids in scientific understanding to help "us" see more clearly what in science is assumed to be true and what questions are rarely addressed (because they are impossible to measure with our current technology), that would be SOOOOO GOOOD! I hope your new channel attempts to tackle that as much as is reasonibly possible.
I hate this shit VPN comments. IT DOES NOT SOLVE THE PROBLEM! Yes, you can find all Vsauce Episodes on UA-cam Red very easy and yes you can use a PROXY (VPN works too, but I doubt anyone uses a real one.). But as I said - it doesn't solve the problem that you can watch the series normally from anywhere in the world.
Yes, especially as the IP location is not everything. Most of the time, your credit card has to come from the right country as well. I can't even fully blame vrv or UA-cam Red for not being available everywhere, it must cost millions to work out the legal formalities...
According to Ernst Mayr, ''the scientific revolutions do not at all go on like Kuhn says. According to Kuhn, a paradigm is totally replaced by a new paradigm, while Darwin in 1869, when he proposed the theory of natural selection, it was not at once accepted, in fact it took 80 years before it became a majority view, but it competed for this whole period with 3 other explanatory theories of evolution. So I developed gradually ideas in this field that are quite different from the standard opinions of the historians of science, most of which have come out of physics.''
True. I'd even argue it's not accurate even within physics. So-called revolutionary science is just normal science at the edges of our understanding. The quantum and relativistic "revolutions" were just scientists following the normal scientific method and uncovering some extremely counterintuitive results.
Pretty awesome that you are tackling the Philosophy of Science. It is a fascinating and complicated subject which makes you really question your assumptions about everything.
Yeah, don't make a patreon were everybody with a bit of money can help you finance your thing, and then make it accesible for everyone, no just make a US only stuff from a private company people have to pay for, because it is what sharing science is about. Right ?
I think that is why his patreon is set up on a per video basis. So you don't give him $2 a month like usual, you give him $2 every time he uploads a video to UA-cam. That allows him to work on other projects without scamming those that are supporting him.
I'm really sorry about that. Unfortunately I only have so much control (and I was told after we had already made Paradigms that the video wouldn't be available outside US). Like I say, I'm sorry and trying to find ways to fix it.
Great video, thanks for sharing. I think its important for us to see how scientists actually work and move through ideas. It takes a long time and lots of conferences, lots of debates, lots of critique. Its not a clean cut, quick jump, rather a slow crawl.
Careful. When you split science into different groups you're helping creationist to undermine it, since they too say that there are different types of science: historical science (which isn't science but just history) and observational science.
That is not the proper attitude to deal with these things. If there are different categories, then they exist. Whether or not they can be used by creationists is irrelevant. That said, I don't think paradigms is a good way of viewing science. Kuhn's examples of "revolutionary" science are just normal science that uncover really counterintuitive facts.
Vampyricon These categories are not practical. And we create categories, they don't exist in nature. Which is why we have to be careful what categories we create.
I don't like that,I have Liked all your videos, but this time You really make me consider disliking.. You made a great series with an effort never seen before and you made it exclusive, not only for payer but Us residents only, you realise that you excluded half for making it a paid service and most of the other half for not going international. that's not a good deal for you (to advance your career) Nor vrv who want audience, nor us.. the audience. --You have always made a great positive impact on me, and I really believe you care about that So please reconsider going on with this.
Heartening to see a high profile science spokesperson taking up this challenge. Talking to scientists who don't read Kuhn (which is most of them) can be very frustrating.
I discovered Thomas Kuhn in the late-1970s while doing a "Science in a Social Context" option at university, and thought yeah, I get that! Have to see about the VRV access though!
You are using the word "paradigms" when in some cases you should be using the word "model". A model consists of axioms and arguments, mathematics is a model, quantum mechanics is a model general relativity is a model all of these are models with different axioms which cause them to be incompatible. A paradigm is a mode of thinking some models work within similar paradigms and some models don't.
you need to look at the Feynman lectures at least look at the online videos on youtube to see how math is built on axioms and physics was built with no axioms, R. Feynman really knew how to explain things so i will let you watch him...
"Physics was built with no axioms". Every model is built with axioms. Axioms are things we assume to be true, for example A+B = B+A is an axiom of mathematics. An axiom of Newtonian mechanics is v=s/t. To say a model isn't built with the fundamental building blocks of all models is crazy. So if Feynman said such a thing then he is arguing against logic, literally, the field of logic requires an argument to be built of axioms.
Hmm... I don't quite understand the distinction you're trying to draw here, which is odd because I think I've tried to make a similar point on a different comment. Quantum mechanics requires completely different thinking to relativistic mechanics, as I understand it (don't eat me; I'm a philosopher not a physicist). The paradigm, for Kuhn, represents the peak of scientific understanding in a given field that contextualises and allows all other understanding. A paradigm roughly represents an interally consistant and rigorous body of scientific theory and praxis that has explanatory and predictive power (we can quibble and cavet a lot here but I don't want to write a full-blown paper and I don't have Kuhn to hand). A paradigm is a way of doing science. Some examples: We continue to use classical mechanics because we know it is accurate enough for most purposes having checked it with relativistic mechanics. The two theories are still incommensurable and of the two relativistic mechanics is clearly the paradigmatic one. The correct way of thinking about the interactions of macroscopic physical objects is relativistic. Classical mechanics provides a handy and much simpler shortcut. Before the discovery of special and general relativity, physicists could and did think about the world in a very different way. Space was an absolute and it was passive. It might be an absolute container (Newton crudely paraphrased or a fixed set of relations between objects (Leibnitz very crudely paraphrased) or a fundemental and absolute feature of human understanding that may or may not represent physical reality (far too crude a paraphrasing of Kant). Now we know space is active. I am sitting in my chair because the Earth physically warps space. The geometry of space now has real, measurable physical consequences. We also know that concepts such as 'length' or the passage of time are relative to one's motion/mass. Move fast enough or stand near a body massive enough and you will contract due to Lorentz contraction. That is to say, your observed length will be shorter than your rest length. Likewise with time dilation. You still experience every second one after another but to an external observer your seconds take minutes, hours or days to pass. Newton and Kant would be fundementally unable to understand that time could stretch or length could shrink due simply to relative motion and the fact that the speed of light is constant... as well a whole bunch of crazy maths and complicated thought experiments. They operated within a different agreed paradigm even though they all had competing theories within that paradigm. Also I should point out that mathematics is an entire field of enquiry full of models. So far as I understand it, you cannot derive the entirety of mathematics from a single set of compatible axioms and arguments. This is also true, to a somewhat lesser extent, with quantum mechanics. There are lots of ways of modelling quantumn phenomena. Lots of theories and approaches. Heck, there are at least half a dozen major basic interpretations of quantum mechanics. They all lead to the same mathematical answers but they sure as heck have radically incompatible conceptual and metaphysical implications. This is part of the reason Kuhn focuses on specific examples of transition from one way of doing a science to another, one paradigm to another, and those examples are somewhat simplified compared to what a true historian of science would say about those transitions. Getting too far into the weeds of competing models and theories can massively overcomplicate what is fundamentally a philosophical or, at least, meta-scientific discussion (many scientists seem to be allergy to philosophy nowadays).
Axioms are not things assumed to be true, though they can be. Axioms are those propositions that do not need to be demonstrated by argument. This can be due to their necessity, their self-evidence (this is obviously going to be intersubjective and argument dependant so kinda tricky to give an example) or arbitrary (chosen as a starting point for advancing an argument; many philosophical thought experiments start with an arbitrary and often quite weird scenario). Also, another weird thing is you keep describing everything as a model. This is not correct usage for science. Science, at least as I was taught it at school, as a student of the philosophy of science and as I've taught it in schools, builds up to theories not models. Models are the things teachers or professors or indeed academics construct to aid the understanding of a particular scientific theory often by embodying it. Potassium permanganate can be used to generate a simple model of diffusion for children for example. This works because the teacher knows and understands the basics of diffusion as a theory so they know pouring a little brightly coloured solution into colourless water will lead to the colour gradually spreading through the entire beaker. You can visibly speed up or slow down the solution using different temperature solutions or by adding more or less permanganate. This toy model of diffusion is not constructed from axioms and it does not really constitute scientific knowledge, though it can develop it in others. It is a piece of scientific and pedagogical know-how or praxis derived from the body of scientific knowledge both theoretical and experimental relating to diffusion.
Cogito ergo sum ("I think, therefore I am") is an axiom of René Descartes. This axiom may in fact be false, which puts all other conclusions in doubt. We would need a new paradigm to define our existence. Are we just random fluctuations in the quantum vacuum?
You made knowledgeable videos giving insite to such great things. Now it just discussions about some concept or idea which no one even thought before you told them.
I like to think of science as a 'guess and check' process at its very core. You make (logical) guesses for a phenomenon, keep running with it while it delivers true results, and when it fails, you refine it/build on it and keep going! Eventually, you will have a theory that matches up with reality rather well.THIS is why science works, and will *necessarily* always work as a falsifiable theory. It is built that way.
I thought this was going to be the other mysconception......that "science" is a "thing" (or a belief). Differnt cultures and ethnic backgrounds may follow one religious belief or another and some people may believe in science. While actually its not the same thing, religions will tell you absolutes, moses had 10 commandements... no more or less, moses DID split the seas (well god actually), Thats just the way the story is without question. Science *is not* just another one of thousands of alternative religious of beliefs that can have flaws disproven, Science is not absolute and doesn't pretend to know everything so cannot just be dismissed as "wrong". (my own 2 cents aside... some also say its not exclusive of religion but I digress). Science *is* the human race endeavoring to learn and reason how and why things appear without just accepting things in blissful ignornace so that we may prosper. we test, we analyse, we reason and hypothesise and then test more. It's a process of progressive reason and learning. And at the end there's sometimes cake.
Hi! Sorry for my english. No time to check it now. I think, if somebody believes in utopia, it is religion. Scientist say they hope and dont believe. That are just words, I cant see in their hidden feelings. If somebody says we will go faster than light, because before people was believing we can never fly (wrong), and we fly today...it is religious. Seeing the good and the ugly side effects od science, we do not know if it will save us, or kill us (or zombiefy us). Distopia-utopia, fifty-fifty. If you believe in the bright technological future, you are religious.
Again, just words. I am just saying, that if you say: It is 100% that we will go faster than the speed of light, than you are religious. I think it is very heavy to live without a picture of the future, especially if you have kids. I think, the religious behaviour is more basic, than we think, and most of the scientific minds like to bath in the thoughts of the pink utopia. But, because they hide it, they will say: no belief, just hope. The peoples who like to faint in the technological utopist sci-fi pleasure, are very similar to the ones who are dreaming about new Jerusalem, or Nirvana.
Toms Tech The one big problem with all of this is that people think the Holy Bible is just a book of stories. Every single word of it is true. I think "science" is amazing and it's great that we have come so far in the knowledge of our world, but we are so behind in the spiritual realm of things. God has created everything here and so much more. If we would start believing the Word of God and do what it says, the sky is the limit in what we would achieve. And some of us already are heading in that direction. Please try to disprove God or Jesus or whatever you think is wrong. Try to with every ounce of your existence. Many of us came to Christ by coming to the realization that it is actually %100 truth.
I hate this shit VPN comments. IT DOES NOT SOLVE THE PROBLEM! Yes, you can find all Vsauce Episodes on UA-cam Red very easy and yes you can use a PROXY (VPN works too, but I doubt anyone uses a real one.). But as I said - it doesn't solve the problem that you can watch the series normally from anywhere in the world.
+ Dark. I'm in China and have to use a VPN just to watch UA-cam! I'm a physics teacher, it's a terrible shame most Chinese students wont be able to watch videos like this unless I show them. VPNs are a great thing.
+C brtdgh : I never said VPN is a bad thing. I use VPN all the time to do my work at the university. The problem I have is the comments with: "The solution is VPN!". No! The problem is that they use a provider which is not available in other countries. I don't know the analytics, but I doubt 90% of the audience is from the US. Additionally, a VPN is no magic weapon against region logs. If it is not a free service, they can check e.g. your credit card info too.
Yes it's not the long-term solution (unless you live in China...), just a band aid, I totally agree. My Astrill VPN doesn't even work for certain services like BBC Iplayer, which improved their ability to detect users with VPN software.
I admire you a lot, and you have taught me so much, but I don't know how to feel about you putting the series I would definitely love to watch behind a paywall with VRV. I understand the need to be compensated for your very hard work, but yeah... oh well.
Plate tectonics / Continental drift is also a pretty interesting example of this. Alfred Wegener proposed idea in 1915 of what we view now as fact that is plate tectonics. But in his time he was laughed and ridiculed by the scientific community. It took 60 years for us to develop technology to actually look at the sea bed in the 70s to actually realize Alfred Wegener's theory was correct.
![What Is Reality? [Official Film]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/w0ztlIAYTCU/mqdefault.jpg)
"Only in the US", presented by a Canadian-Australian.
"Education for everyone" (certain conditions may apply)
And a collaboration with Henry Reich, who lived in Canada for a long time, and MinuteEarth, who has members from all over the world.
so the australian-canadian and the canadian-canadian just made a video that can't be viewed in canada
TheHelixNebula USE US VPN
We are frustrated about this too - we want everyone, everywhere to be able to see everything immediately. I think these geoblocking restrictions are a holdover from the previous media environment
2veritasium Everyone (Not literally everyone but you know what I mean...) says it's your falut but it isn't. Keep up the good work, Henry!
Loved the first episode of Paradigms, I never knew eyesight was such a hotly debated topic.
hey is derek op?
@@N0URii he is incredibly op.
@@N0URii absurdly op
first ... and last ):
"i'm really sorry, if you're nott in the US" he says, with a canadian accent
so the australian-canadian and the canadian-canadian just made a video that can't be viewed in canada
Jimothy US VPN
Henry is American...
or Australia.
OK let's meet halfway - he's Canadian-American
Was watching some other Veritasium videos and thought, "He should do one on Kuhn's Structure of Scientific Revolutions!" Beat me to it. By several years.
Camera stability! Did you use a chicken?
You should watch Tom Scott's video on video stabilisation
Elyass S Good video, but Yakoable is also referencing a good video (one of Destin's early ones).
A chicken - Brilliant!!! Gotta get me a chicken!
The Chicken-Pro. The best camera system for photographing items that need the sharpest images for scientific analysis. Things such as BIGFOOT, NESSIE, GHOSTS, UFOs, and of course, last but certainly not least. GOD!!!
dang it.. US only..
VPN
vpn bruh
Use Tunnelbear the simple to use vpn app
Wrong
Thanks Linus.
Derrick I really miss your 2veritasium videos. The instant videos without any huge effort but you still deliver a philosophical thought. These videos really help people like us who have to stay put to their curriculum books and don't have the ability to wander into philosophy and watches your videos for entertainment purposes.
Alrighty
Canadian here, looking forward to VRV here!
Awesome video, Derek! Looking forward to your series on paradigm shifts!
I don't remember he's Canadian until I here him say Sorry. xD Love the content Derek, Keep it up!
Isn't he from Australia?
both...
Yet another vid.me...
Soary lol
Born in Australia, moved to Canada at age two and back to Australia to complete a PhD in science communication.
I'm sooooo glad I relocated to the US so I can be further enlightened. Praise be!
VRV, US only.
Set sails, mateys!
Maddin1313 another plunderer aye?
VPN...
YARRR!
Maddin1313 VPN!
ua-cam.com/video/IBH4g_ua5es/v-deo.html
Love it. I read Structure of Scientific Revolutions in college, 35 years ago, and it's still one of my favorite books.
yeah, I found it eye-opening and wondered why I had never heard of it before.
Bruh, same. Our college professor made us read it and it's really one of those books that will change the way you think about paradigms.
Hey Vsauce Michael Here: But what is misconception!
Yaman Sanghavi forced joke
But what is force?
Yaman Sanghavi F=ma
Hey Vsau... but what is Vsauce?
Erixus25 but what is "what" ?
It is still important for everybody to know that science is never completely wrong. When we say Einstein came and revolutionized science, it doesn't mean he said that science was completely and absolutely wrong about a subject, in fact, what Einstein dis was he basically went deeper on that particular subject. That is what is incredibly amazing about science, this is never completely true and this is never completely false and it always go deeper on its knowledge in a way that makes it the closest possible to an absolute truth.
+
Moreover, I have changed my view entirely about EINSTEIN to be revolutionary.
Yes, he is, but his revolution is not going against GALILEI's and NEWTON's classical physics but rather _side by side_ with both.
SR is basically GALILEI's principle of relativity (of motion) consequently applied to MAXWELL's very equations of electrodynamics.
The idea of a fixed aether which states a privileged reference frame was actually a step back from the original GALILEI idea.
@@jensphiliphohmann1876 The aether was not realy a step back from the galileian principals. It was rather the result that came from applying galileian relativity to the maxwell equations. Maxwell and galilei combined implied that there must be an identifiable global frame of reference. Only the failed measurement of the effects of the aether showed that you cant just apply galileian relativity to light. And that is the riddle Einstein solved by assuming that light is constant and the new relativity principle must take this into account. From that assumption (and some others like the existance of inertial frames of reference where the physical laws take their "simplest form") follows then that the perception of time and length depends on the reference frame.
@@lit2701
A global frame of reference identifiable _by the laws of physics alone_ (this is important: GALILEI's principle of relativity does not forbid a resting frame being identifiable by astronomical methods yet the laws of physics are the same) directly contradicts GALILEI.
@@jensphiliphohmann1876 Ok maybe i dont understand what you mean by "it contradicts galilei". Could you elaborate?
Please find a way to make Paradigm available for the rest of the world! :'( I can't wait to watch it!!!
Adam Pitas USE US VPN
@@forhandle111 We're not all fucking nerds. Why would we want to pay to slow our internet down?
I genuinely hope you secured the rights to redistribute that content outside of vrv to a wider, global audience at some point.
I'm hoping they will make it available globally at some point.
Razvan Caliman good looking out.
Damn... You must have strong arms to hold that camera :D
it's a pretty light rig, GH5 on a Zhiyun crane, maybe a kg or two tops
whats a kg. Cant relate. I use pounds
PinHead Larry
Don't worry about it..
It's for smart people only
PinHead Larry *_ROASTED_*
Just like a litre of water...
I loooove those "walking around rambling about something fascinating" kindd of videos you do!! 😁 I love the usual ones too, but these ones are a little bit like just taking a walk with a really well read and smart friend. Love it!
This kind of vlogs are pretty cool. Just you talking about things that are in your mind raw and without editing, I'd love to see more of them in the future!
Thanks from the 95% of your viewers who don't live in the US ;)
Florian R US VPN
I hate this shit VPN comments. IT DOES NOT SOLVE THE PROBLEM! Yes, you can find all Vsauce Episodes on UA-cam Red very easy and yes you can use a PROXY (VPN works too, but I doubt anyone uses a real one.). But as I said - it doesn't solve the problem that you can watch the series normally from anywhere in the world.
His audience is likely about 45% US
I'm italian and for some reason I can watch it
Its ok dude! Dont be so sad
a paradime is 4 nickles, duh
Please make this available outside of the US too! This series is shaping up to be fantastic, I'd love to be able to watch it all.
I'll be graduating this May with a degree in History, Philosophy, Sociology of Science! Excited to see Thomas Kuhn's ideas popularized
Normal or gradual science is the discovery of new information that adds to humanity’s body of knowledge. Revolutionary science tears down and builds up a new foundation, rewriting what humanity previously thought it knew.
Yes and no? Depends what you mean by 'information'. Are refined methedologies 'information'? Is superior technical aptitute 'information'? Better equipment? etc. Normal science progresses alongside developments in all of these things and more. Normal science might be more completely defined as something like: the continuing refinement and expansion of scientific theory and praxis under a given paradigm.
Revoluntionary science is actually rarely destructive. I suppose some of the oldest paradigms, such the emission theory of vision, could be said to be destroyed: so long forgotten are they by anyone who is not a philosopher or historian of some sort. But what about classical mechanics? Has that been destroyed? If so why did I learn F=ma at school? Why did I learn the three laws (well four technically but not everyone lists the zeroeth law as a law) of classical thermodynamics? The paradigms these theories were originally based on have been suppassed but we also know they are still very powerful systems that are almost completely accurate for slow macroscopic phenomena. Using more complex methods such as relativistic mechanics or statistical thermodynamics for these phenomena is possible but it is also typically massively wasteful of time and effort. Paradigms typically displace other paradigms. When we finally, hopefully, enter into our next paradigm shift through say a quantum theory of gravity that completely unites relativistic mechanics and quantumn mechanics, we won't discard the preceding mechanics. The quantum gravity theory would become the overarching paradigm all physics was based off and represent the pinnacle of our understanding of the physical world but you would only need its full power to describe certain anomalous cases at present, such as certain phenomena relating to black holes or, possibly, relative motion and mass of galaxies etc., or when extreme precision was required. Otherwise, our present theories would be as good or better at describing the phenomena they are designed to describe. This ties into the idea that paradigms are incommensurable. If two paradigms are built on fundementally different foundations and thus utterly alien to one another, neither can destroy the other only supplant through superior predictive and explanatory power. This in turn means strictly less powerful paradigms that were once the cutting edge of scientific theory and praxis can survive, even thrive, so long as they are sufficiently powerful to meet a need with less effort than the dominant paradigm.
Worth also noting here that not all paradigms are necessarily completely immiscible even if they are completely incommensurable (and this could be challenged too). An example might be pyschology. Currently, as I understand it, there are competing paradigms based on subjective lived experience and objective observation of lived experience against neurobiological models of the brain and the nervous system. It is likely the resolution of these conflicts will not be the complete disgarding of one or the other but actually a merging of the insights from both. Addiction, as an illness, can neither be completely explained biologically or socially. fMRIs of people exposed to amusing stimuli may eventually be able to reliably tell you whether someone is amused or not but such a technique, while valuable for primary research, will never supplant just asking someone using established questioning techniques. There will probably be a mixing of both paradigms depending on the exact setting of the research or the clinical practice. That's also ignoring whole other swathes of pyschology such as pyschogeography but I can't cover everything... Sorry to any passing pyschologists who feel unrepresented.
When and where it's gonna be available outside USA?
RDSk VPN
so the australian-canadian and the canadian-canadian just made a video that can't be viewed in canada
The Pirate Bay, next day
RDSk USE US VPN
I am so tired of this. It's a fucking proxy, not VPN. VPNs are used for a totally different things.
Paradigm shifts are sometimes also the results of serendipity, where the way one sees the world changes by chance. I love how it often appears in chemistry, when a compound thought useful for something appears to be a game changer for something absolutely different.
WOW! "The Structure of Scientific Revolutions" by Thomas Kuhn was my textbook in Science History, when I was a Philosophy student in "La Sapienza" university, many, many years ago!
In the global world of 2018, how is it not possible to release something on the Internet, world wide straight away? I'd love to see the show. Hope I can find it somewhere else....
thanks - I think there should be no problem releasing this show to the world but on that service they probably have other content with geoblocking restrictions and I'm guessing they are not setup for one-off exceptions. I'm just guessing. And this is news I got at the last minute too - so sorry!
2veritasium thank you so much for replying, it means a lot. No matter what I'm always impressed by your work. I keep my fingers crossed for it to air in Europe somehow at some point.
I'll enjoy your great UA-cam videos in the meantime.
Have a great day!
Apparently, it will require a paradigm shift.
this is the first time i have seen you making a cut in these videos, not sure if it's truly the first time, but first time i have noticed in the past few years of your vlogging.
sometimes I intentionally make no cuts (but I have done them before). I made a few here to shorten some rambles and keep the total video under 10 min (in case that threshold puts anyone off)
2veritasium i sure can understand the point about cutting out the rambling part if you consider it unfit, but adjusting the material length just to avoid triggering people sounds absurd and would be quite sad to be honest (i just hope it was a joke).
I think the focus on misconceptions actually helps to perpetuate them and creates the kind of people who you constantly see pointing out stuff that is ultimately immaterial like whether you use metric or imperial.
“The Structure of Scientific Revolutions” good read. I read it in the 1980's along with E. W. Deming & J. M. Juran's papers on implementing TQM(Total Quality Management) and TQC(Total Quality Control). Both of which are management sciences. It was interesting to note that it took nearly 40 years for US Business to adopt TQM/TQC practices after WWII when the Japanese adopted those practices. Took a major paradigm shift in management practices to get us up to speed with Japan and a good portion of Europe.
I really like these off the cuff/unpolished videos. 💛
thank you! I will try to make more err... unpolished content in future. I think they are a bit more personable.
Me, too. I'm impressed that you did the whole first part without any cuts, Teleprompter or notes. I know that comes from years of practice.
I despise them... they are a last minute, no effort into the video. No topic, there is nothing new. He hasn’t even done his hair or cared what he looked like. This is the epitome of UA-cam garbage..
sad, because I was drawn to UA-cam because of veritasium videos and vsauce. Vsauce is youtube red only, and this is what we get from veritasium...
sad
L borate it actually takes a lot of experience and work to make a video as seemingly unpolished/spontaneous as this is.
Antonio L. Rodríguez Exactly! 💛
Meh, mostly a plug and a Geo-blocked one at it. Thumb down it is.
Gosh, after I heard that the new series was called paradigms, I was wondering if you were going to talk about Kuhn. As someone who was majoring in physics, taking a philosophy of science course was probably one of the best things I did, as it let me reflect a lot more on what we are actually doing outside of the grunt work.
I also remember reading a speech Kuhn had done at some point (or at least I think it was Kuhn) where he spoke about how a lot of the sciences differentiate themselves from other subjects in that there is rarely a focus on the history of the subject. Like I might know Michaelson-Morley or caloric theory, but it's only after knowing the current paradigm and the details aren't necessary. However, knowing what has been attempted in the past I feel can also make us more aware of our biases towards current theories, just a reminder that even though these are just our best explanations at this time, we're still fallible.
Derek:Available only in the US
ME: *mom we’re moving*
gg, add for your own series on curiositystream on your own video :P In all my years on this platform thats a first.
Yo dawg...
Super international youtube channels produce a super series only for US viewers. Well, I guess it's kind of a paradigm shift...
Don't know what to think about that :/
Structure of Scientific Revolutions - one of my all time favorite books, influenced how I thought about science and progression of knowledge/technology. Did a seminar based around Kuhn as the central hub then overlapped that with experimental bias problems, finally leading into the implications regarding objective measurement re Copenhagen qm. Best of luck with paradigms series!
Great idea for a series! Already have vrv so this makes me happy :)
Yeah, thanks. Just like Vsauce's UA-cam Red series, there is no way for me to watch it. Whatever.
sogerc1 just google it
You can find all episodes really easy
Intr-adevar, thx!
sogerc1 Become a pirate like me. I can watch all the UA-cam Red videos.
Nu gasesc emisiunea lui Derek pe alte platforme. Spuneti-mi si mie daca gasiti ceva 🏴☠️
I didnt know Vsauce had a series on YTR. what is it about?
Please do something for the international audience ..I am really desperate to watch this!
We need this vrv service globally.
I really like your videos and look forward to the new ideas you have planned. Are you going to address past paradigms only or are you also going to show Science as it is shifting today?
The problem with science is the funding. Sometimes, scientists will get money for their research or publications only if they serve the interests of few people.
Here you get resources to make better and greater projects, but it reduces your ability to spread the knowledge by using a new service that have limitations on who can watch it.
2 bad not available in Europe
You have grown man... The quality of your work has improved several folds over the years. Good luck with your ambitions captain. You're an inspiration.
Derek, you have just embarked on something which I've been craving for years. A breakdown not of what we know, but how we know older knowledge is wrong and what evidence convinces us that our current understanding is correct (as far as we can determine)
I wish you all the success in the world for this, and I can't wait for it to be globally released (cough... Vpns)
This is a fun video, but you disproved your title on your own in the first minute. Just like most revolutionary things, the normal builds slowly until something gives, and then massive changes happen. It was because of the normal science that the "anomaly" was discovered and understood. The video could've been called "What's the difference between routine and revolutionary science?" The current title and gives an impression that the routine science is less valuable, but the latter cannot be without the former.
the point of the title is that there is more than just one way science works, it's not all routine science. And I don't think that makes routine science lesser. As you point out routine science by its very nature gives us revolutionary science.
So the clickbait title of this video is only true if we accept a false dichotomy? Hmmm...
It's a pretty widespread misconception that science is all 'normal', or all 'revolutionary', depending on who you ask.
SgtLion citation needed.
2veritasium, I can dig. Love your work!
Hmmm... Well... I think these paradigm shifts were more common when science wasn't a profession, and it was a hobby of a few rich people with no modern science protocols. The very example you gave us is from this amateurish period of science. Well, let's see where these new series will take us regarding to this point.
Congratulations on your new work! Looks promising!
I think those advances were made in a time where very little was understood about how our world worked. There were a lot of things to be discovered through simple experiments. Gravity was investigated by seeing how fast an object fell, the motion of the planets was discovered with a dinky little telescope, the colours of light were found with a simple prism. All of this stuff was easy to investigate. Now, pretty much all of the easily investigatable things have been discovered. We've moved on to the LHC and massive telescopes and electron microscopes and advanced medical research that needs a lot of experience to perform.
We're still moving forwards, but to do so requires expensive equipment and lots of experience, so those massive paradigm shifts are harder to reach.
I see you on so many different kinds of youtube channles. Jared Dines, Rob Scallon etc. and then Veritasium. I salute your tastes and interests!
GuttORm321 Well, I guess what you said applies to both of us, eh!? 😁 Cheers! 🍺
"Amateurish"? You show easy dismissal to some great minds that did some important preliminary work. 'Amateur' means only that they were not being paid - they didn't need to be, of course. But they must have done something quite considerable right to have made the contribution they did. I cannot see any honest modern professional (that is, 'paid')scientist using such derogatory language when describing those people or their work, they know all too well the value of it to where science is today.
JamEngulfer a "dinky little telescope" was, at the time, very rare and expensive precision technology. Grinding lenses and mirrors may seem trivial nowadays, but it was not back then.
And Newton had to invent a whole new field of math (calculus) just to describe his observations.
Light bulb inventors struggled because in the beginning no pump existed that could draw a sufficient vacuum to keep the wire from oxidizing.
Holy shit it's really rare to see someone talk about philosophy of science in the "UA-cam science community". I'm really glad you're popularizing this topic because it sure as hell does not get discussed enough
this just reminds me "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence"
I understant vrv funding this, and wanting to get away from youtube, but it pains me to see paywalls. they should release it for free after a number of months, but not tell anyone. thats how id run things at least
360p is the new 4k!
I like it how you're always going for a walk whenever you do these type of vids
I start with vocabulary (usually involving reading).
and then go for a hands on lab/demo/exploration.
Misconceptions get ironed out as they emerge.
I an not happy with all these alternatives to UA-cam, but on the other hand I am kind reassured by the fact that non of them is going to be a thing. Do anyone remember Vessel?
lol
ollythebest94 No service lasts forever. UA-cam and Facebook will both die in time.
Welcome back :D
thank you! I'll have more on the main channel in a few days
2veritasium Can't wait :D
Just happened to be reading a journal article today that is related to this video: E. P. Wigner, Invariance in Physical Theory, from "Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society . . ." , Vol: 93, Pages 521-526, 1949. You no doubt know that Wigner was a Nobel Prize winning scientist with a very broad background.
I'm excited to pay for this new show! It sounds intriguing. As someone who struggles at times exploring the boundaries of various paradigms, I'm curious to learn about the social upheaval cause by paradigm shifts. Especially within the domain of Science.
Great elaboration! I always look at it like this: Science provides theories that can only really be disproven. One can acquire evidence to support the theory, sure, but the theory can still be wrong. That's something a lot of people (even scientists) seem to forget. However, the real question is; if it is wrong, what would be placed in its stead? Once such a theory is suggested, this issue of paradigm shift occurs, because you need to convince people, they may actually believe something that is faulty or incomplete. Which is, for me, the most exciting thing about science! Isn't it amazing to learn more of the complexity of nature? The resistance to change your ideas is almost like inertia of the mind. It's funny we tend to feel that inertia so strongly at times.
Well said!!!
DaftBunny theories The majority of people who have a theory are not claiming the theory is a fact and therefore they are neither right or wrong.
It isn't a game for people to win at. There is no bifurcation logical fallacy...
We accept that a theory is a fluctuating field of probability...
Only amateurs treat a theory as if it's a fact and when they do it becomes eerily similar to a religious belief.
I agree that a theory is not a binary thing. Which is pretty much covered by saying that a theory can only really be disproven. But we must assume some theories to be true (at least for the time being) when doing science. Otherwise deductions would always be endless. I guess that's what you mean too, a proper scientist does indeed treat a theory as a 'likelyhood'. When one thing is more likely than another, we assume it true untill disproven in order to further understand the next piece of the puzzle.
I don't know whether that makes it fair to say that treating a theory as fact makes you an amateur. We often 'assume something to be true', which is basically calling it a fact. Just with the notion that future experimentation may change our view. I think the fault lies in forgetting about the latter. But maybe that's just nitpicking and rethinking what the word 'fact' really means...
DaftBunny yeah, your entire waffling post is ridiculous... we do not presume the theory is true. It's a fluctuating field of probability. If the evidence is strong then the probability it is true is high and therefore denotes a need to study further or formulate a test of some sort to verify. It only directs our time in a more efficient fashion. We must never presume that it's true or a fact.
If you want to change the definition of believing, true or the word fact then you're creating a debate where there is none by changing the definition of the word or you're arguing over the definition of the word what just makes you a stupid fucking asshole.
Every simpleton who's addicted to arguing for the sake of arguing will boil everything down to a debate over semantics when they have no pot to piss in. It's fucking pathetic. Grow the fuck up.
You're welcome.
My logic is infallible...
The secret to being right all the time is never pretend to know anything you don't know. Just accept you don't know and then you'll be right all the time because the majority of the time it's true that you do not know.
DaftBunny here's where the majority of your personality comes from. It's fake. You're conditioned and you're emulating everyone else. You've been brainwashed to associate the concept of winning with a dopamine release. Your entire personality has been gamified and you become your own shill...
Here you are arguing the stupidest shit I've ever seen proving that you are your own shill.
I see this every single day on social media. The majority of you come here just to satisfy your petty and childish need to play your games of high school debate team bullshit and delude yourselves into a false sense of security or value in an intellectual capacity of which you have little to none.
If you argue from ignorance then you're an asshole. If you are you from ignorance with someone who's smarter than you then you're a fanatical asshole.
ua-cam.com/video/mFx7jnNRkPI/v-deo.html
there are no misconceptions on science
only people who dont know enough think they do
Best sponser ad ever. That video was suberb, and I'm going to link all of my friends and explain to them how their world models impact their thinking. Subscribed on their service. Thanks for the great content man.
I love the stereophonic mic - thank you for the efforts that you continue to make as you share your thoughts with us.
Stupid US only services, good video though :D
CybranM US VPN
After so long 😭
Anurup Mohanty Delete that profile pic.
G.G. why? 🤔
Anurup Mohanty It spreads cancer.
G.G. okay I changed 😂😂
Anurup Mohanty You make me proud :,)
I really hope you'll be able to distribute these new videos to the rest of the world too - would love to watch them and even pay for it!
So the thing I would love to see more of, and don't see enough, is a science channel that dedicates itself to pointing out things in science that are not well understood. If your channel could skillfully stitch together the voids in scientific understanding to help "us" see more clearly what in science is assumed to be true and what questions are rarely addressed (because they are impossible to measure with our current technology), that would be SOOOOO GOOOD! I hope your new channel attempts to tackle that as much as is reasonibly possible.
Oh great, more content that I actually want to pay for, but can't cause I'm not from the US. Hope there'll be a torrent :(
Opera VPN
lol
I hate this shit VPN comments. IT DOES NOT SOLVE THE PROBLEM! Yes, you can find all Vsauce Episodes on UA-cam Red very easy and yes you can use a PROXY (VPN works too, but I doubt anyone uses a real one.). But as I said - it doesn't solve the problem that you can watch the series normally from anywhere in the world.
Yes, especially as the IP location is not everything. Most of the time, your credit card has to come from the right country as well. I can't even fully blame vrv or UA-cam Red for not being available everywhere, it must cost millions to work out the legal formalities...
This channel became popular because of being free and for everyone.
According to Ernst Mayr, ''the scientific revolutions do not at all go on like Kuhn says. According to Kuhn, a paradigm is totally replaced by a new paradigm, while Darwin in 1869, when he proposed the theory of natural selection, it was not at once accepted, in fact it took 80 years before it became a majority view, but it competed for this whole period with 3 other explanatory theories of evolution. So I developed gradually ideas in this field that are quite different from the standard opinions of the historians of science, most of which have come out of physics.''
But in the end Darwin formed a new paradigm!
True. I'd even argue it's not accurate even within physics. So-called revolutionary science is just normal science at the edges of our understanding. The quantum and relativistic "revolutions" were just scientists following the normal scientific method and uncovering some extremely counterintuitive results.
Theories before: how things work
Theories now: where to look
I paused to comment this right before the series and was surprised about alp the comments
Well, that VRV "Paradigms" short is really quite good. More please.
His Canadian genes kick in at 9:19
+
vrv,.... sounds like another buisness failure within a few years.
*months
Pretty sure he tried verve a little while back and now they dropped the vowels so it's more edgy
Probably true, but they are funding him to work on a project he has been dreaming of. Can’t really fault him for saying yes.
Nah they will probably grow and do alright, then get bought up by one of the incumbents and shut down. That's what happened to Vessel.
pretty sure the "dreaming" part came after the "funding" part
Pretty awesome that you are tackling the Philosophy of Science. It is a fascinating and complicated subject which makes you really question your assumptions about everything.
imagine being on a picnic with your fam when suddenly a wild Derek appears from the bushes dropping *knawledge*
Yeah, don't make a patreon were everybody with a bit of money can help you finance your thing, and then make it accesible for everyone, no just make a US only stuff from a private company people have to pay for, because it is what sharing science is about. Right ?
There doesn't seem to be a Patreon he is pushing towards?
And he is still putting out videos on UA-cam for free.
I think that is why his patreon is set up on a per video basis. So you don't give him $2 a month like usual, you give him $2 every time he uploads a video to UA-cam. That allows him to work on other projects without scamming those that are supporting him.
This is a great video. But I will not recommend it to others due to your usage of a not globally available service. That's a complete fail.
I'm really sorry about that. Unfortunately I only have so much control (and I was told after we had already made Paradigms that the video wouldn't be available outside US). Like I say, I'm sorry and trying to find ways to fix it.
2veritasium And is now fixed!
+2veritasium thanks!
+Len Smith how is it fixed?
I read kuhn's book in my physics education research class last semester. Learned quite a bit.
Great video, thanks for sharing.
I think its important for us to see how scientists actually work and move through ideas. It takes a long time and lots of conferences, lots of debates, lots of critique.
Its not a clean cut, quick jump, rather a slow crawl.
Careful. When you split science into different groups you're helping creationist to undermine it, since they too say that there are different types of science: historical science (which isn't science but just history) and observational science.
That is not the proper attitude to deal with these things. If there are different categories, then they exist. Whether or not they can be used by creationists is irrelevant. That said, I don't think paradigms is a good way of viewing science. Kuhn's examples of "revolutionary" science are just normal science that uncover really counterintuitive facts.
Vampyricon These categories are not practical.
And we create categories, they don't exist in nature.
Which is why we have to be careful what categories we create.
You're right. These aren't useful categories.
I don't like that,I have Liked all your videos, but this time You really make me consider disliking..
You made a great series with an effort never seen before and you made it exclusive, not only for payer but Us residents only, you realise that you excluded half for making it a paid service and most of the other half for not going international.
that's not a good deal for you (to advance your career) Nor vrv who want audience, nor us.. the audience.
--You have always made a great positive impact on me, and I really believe you care about that So please reconsider going on with this.
Heartening to see a high profile science spokesperson taking up this challenge. Talking to scientists who don't read Kuhn (which is most of them) can be very frustrating.
I discovered Thomas Kuhn in the late-1970s while doing a "Science in a Social Context" option at university, and thought yeah, I get that! Have to see about the VRV access though!
The round earth is a misconception, it's actually a cube.
Fawzan Fawzi It's actually a 4D romboide.
Fawzan Fawzi You idiot!! The earth is donut shaped. Do your research!
Last time i checked it was a hexadecaeder
Fawzan Fawzi The earth isn't round. A perfect sphere is impossible.
Abrar Fahyaz Are you homer? Do you watch 'The Simpsons'? Do you know the Homers Theory of the Donut Universe theory?
You are using the word "paradigms" when in some cases you should be using the word "model".
A model consists of axioms and arguments, mathematics is a model, quantum mechanics is a model general relativity is a model all of these are models with different axioms which cause them to be incompatible. A paradigm is a mode of thinking some models work within similar paradigms and some models don't.
you need to look at the Feynman lectures at least look at the online videos on youtube to see how math is built on axioms and physics was built with no axioms, R. Feynman really knew how to explain things so i will let you watch him...
"Physics was built with no axioms". Every model is built with axioms. Axioms are things we assume to be true, for example A+B = B+A is an axiom of mathematics. An axiom of Newtonian mechanics is v=s/t.
To say a model isn't built with the fundamental building blocks of all models is crazy. So if Feynman said such a thing then he is arguing against logic, literally, the field of logic requires an argument to be built of axioms.
Hmm... I don't quite understand the distinction you're trying to draw here, which is odd because I think I've tried to make a similar point on a different comment. Quantum mechanics requires completely different thinking to relativistic mechanics, as I understand it (don't eat me; I'm a philosopher not a physicist). The paradigm, for Kuhn, represents the peak of scientific understanding in a given field that contextualises and allows all other understanding. A paradigm roughly represents an interally consistant and rigorous body of scientific theory and praxis that has explanatory and predictive power (we can quibble and cavet a lot here but I don't want to write a full-blown paper and I don't have Kuhn to hand). A paradigm is a way of doing science.
Some examples:
We continue to use classical mechanics because we know it is accurate enough for most purposes having checked it with relativistic mechanics. The two theories are still incommensurable and of the two relativistic mechanics is clearly the paradigmatic one. The correct way of thinking about the interactions of macroscopic physical objects is relativistic. Classical mechanics provides a handy and much simpler shortcut.
Before the discovery of special and general relativity, physicists could and did think about the world in a very different way. Space was an absolute and it was passive. It might be an absolute container (Newton crudely paraphrased or a fixed set of relations between objects (Leibnitz very crudely paraphrased) or a fundemental and absolute feature of human understanding that may or may not represent physical reality (far too crude a paraphrasing of Kant). Now we know space is active. I am sitting in my chair because the Earth physically warps space. The geometry of space now has real, measurable physical consequences. We also know that concepts such as 'length' or the passage of time are relative to one's motion/mass. Move fast enough or stand near a body massive enough and you will contract due to Lorentz contraction. That is to say, your observed length will be shorter than your rest length. Likewise with time dilation. You still experience every second one after another but to an external observer your seconds take minutes, hours or days to pass. Newton and Kant would be fundementally unable to understand that time could stretch or length could shrink due simply to relative motion and the fact that the speed of light is constant... as well a whole bunch of crazy maths and complicated thought experiments. They operated within a different agreed paradigm even though they all had competing theories within that paradigm.
Also I should point out that mathematics is an entire field of enquiry full of models. So far as I understand it, you cannot derive the entirety of mathematics from a single set of compatible axioms and arguments. This is also true, to a somewhat lesser extent, with quantum mechanics. There are lots of ways of modelling quantumn phenomena. Lots of theories and approaches. Heck, there are at least half a dozen major basic interpretations of quantum mechanics. They all lead to the same mathematical answers but they sure as heck have radically incompatible conceptual and metaphysical implications. This is part of the reason Kuhn focuses on specific examples of transition from one way of doing a science to another, one paradigm to another, and those examples are somewhat simplified compared to what a true historian of science would say about those transitions. Getting too far into the weeds of competing models and theories can massively overcomplicate what is fundamentally a philosophical or, at least, meta-scientific discussion (many scientists seem to be allergy to philosophy nowadays).
Axioms are not things assumed to be true, though they can be. Axioms are those propositions that do not need to be demonstrated by argument. This can be due to their necessity, their self-evidence (this is obviously going to be intersubjective and argument dependant so kinda tricky to give an example) or arbitrary (chosen as a starting point for advancing an argument; many philosophical thought experiments start with an arbitrary and often quite weird scenario).
Also, another weird thing is you keep describing everything as a model. This is not correct usage for science. Science, at least as I was taught it at school, as a student of the philosophy of science and as I've taught it in schools, builds up to theories not models. Models are the things teachers or professors or indeed academics construct to aid the understanding of a particular scientific theory often by embodying it. Potassium permanganate can be used to generate a simple model of diffusion for children for example. This works because the teacher knows and understands the basics of diffusion as a theory so they know pouring a little brightly coloured solution into colourless water will lead to the colour gradually spreading through the entire beaker. You can visibly speed up or slow down the solution using different temperature solutions or by adding more or less permanganate. This toy model of diffusion is not constructed from axioms and it does not really constitute scientific knowledge, though it can develop it in others. It is a piece of scientific and pedagogical know-how or praxis derived from the body of scientific knowledge both theoretical and experimental relating to diffusion.
Cogito ergo sum ("I think, therefore I am") is an axiom of René Descartes. This axiom may in fact be false, which puts all other conclusions in doubt. We would need a new paradigm to define our existence. Are we just random fluctuations in the quantum vacuum?
You made knowledgeable videos giving insite to such great things. Now it just discussions about some concept or idea which no one even thought before you told them.
I like to think of science as a 'guess and check' process at its very core. You make (logical) guesses for a phenomenon, keep running with it while it delivers true results, and when it fails, you refine it/build on it and keep going! Eventually, you will have a theory that matches up with reality rather well.THIS is why science works, and will *necessarily* always work as a falsifiable theory. It is built that way.
I thought this was going to be the other mysconception......that "science" is a "thing" (or a belief).
Differnt cultures and ethnic backgrounds may follow one religious belief or another and some people may believe in science.
While actually its not the same thing, religions will tell you absolutes, moses had 10 commandements... no more or less, moses DID split the seas (well god actually), Thats just the way the story is without question.
Science *is not* just another one of thousands of alternative religious of beliefs that can have flaws disproven, Science is not absolute and doesn't pretend to know everything so cannot just be dismissed as "wrong". (my own 2 cents aside... some also say its not exclusive of religion but I digress).
Science *is* the human race endeavoring to learn and reason how and why things appear without just accepting things in blissful ignornace so that we may prosper. we test, we analyse, we reason and hypothesise and then test more. It's a process of progressive reason and learning.
And at the end there's sometimes cake.
Very well said!!!
Hi! Sorry for my english. No time to check it now. I think, if somebody believes in utopia, it is religion. Scientist say they hope and dont believe. That are just words, I cant see in their hidden feelings. If somebody says we will go faster than light, because before people was believing we can never fly (wrong), and we fly today...it is religious. Seeing the good and the ugly side effects od science, we do not know if it will save us, or kill us (or zombiefy us). Distopia-utopia, fifty-fifty. If you believe in the bright technological future, you are religious.
@Ferenc Ivanics Having beliefs or rather even believing in something is not the same as religion.
Again, just words. I am just saying, that if you say: It is 100% that we will go faster than the speed of light, than you are religious. I think it is very heavy to live without a picture of the future, especially if you have kids. I think, the religious behaviour is more basic, than we think, and most of the scientific minds like to bath in the thoughts of the pink utopia. But, because they hide it, they will say: no belief, just hope. The peoples who like to faint in the technological utopist sci-fi pleasure, are very similar to the ones who are dreaming about new Jerusalem, or Nirvana.
Toms Tech The one big problem with all of this is that people think the Holy Bible is just a book of stories. Every single word of it is true. I think "science" is amazing and it's great that we have come so far in the knowledge of our world, but we are so behind in the spiritual realm of things. God has created everything here and so much more. If we would start believing the Word of God and do what it says, the sky is the limit in what we would achieve. And some of us already are heading in that direction. Please try to disprove God or Jesus or whatever you think is wrong. Try to with every ounce of your existence. Many of us came to Christ by coming to the realization that it is actually %100 truth.
Just use a VPN if you're not in US =)
I hate this shit VPN comments. IT DOES NOT SOLVE THE PROBLEM! Yes, you can find all Vsauce Episodes on UA-cam Red very easy and yes you can use a PROXY (VPN works too, but I doubt anyone uses a real one.). But as I said - it doesn't solve the problem that you can watch the series normally from anywhere in the world.
+ Dark. I'm in China and have to use a VPN just to watch UA-cam! I'm a physics teacher, it's a terrible shame most Chinese students wont be able to watch videos like this unless I show them. VPNs are a great thing.
+C brtdgh : I never said VPN is a bad thing. I use VPN all the time to do my work at the university. The problem I have is the comments with: "The solution is VPN!". No! The problem is that they use a provider which is not available in other countries. I don't know the analytics, but I doubt 90% of the audience is from the US. Additionally, a VPN is no magic weapon against region logs. If it is not a free service, they can check e.g. your credit card info too.
Yes it's not the long-term solution (unless you live in China...), just a band aid, I totally agree. My Astrill VPN doesn't even work for certain services like BBC Iplayer, which improved their ability to detect users with VPN software.
It doesn't solve the root of the problem, of course. But in the meantime it allows people to bypass around the problem
I admire you a lot, and you have taught me so much, but I don't know how to feel about you putting the series I would definitely love to watch behind a paywall with VRV. I understand the need to be compensated for your very hard work, but yeah... oh well.
I really admire how you talk about science and how much you understand how science works. Not as in the actual information, science itself
The earth is neither flat nor round. It's a cube.
W O K E
wow, is that the 21st century version of revolutionary science?
San Samman yup
Such an important video and the first few comments are "first".
I once saw how a video's author got around this problem by posting "first" comment himself :)
I don't see how your comment is more valuable
It isn't. Just an observation from an annoyed viewer.
Take aspirin, u will feel better :)
ya such an important ad
Well... VRV is now forwarded to Crunchyrolls.
Great to watch videos of you. Please post them more often
Misconception of science? Like 42 genders? 🤣
If that is science at all.
Not in UK? Disliked.
Or you could say what good free VPNs, with good bandwidth are there instead being a dick. Just a suggestion.
TheNeurall US VPN
TheNeurall Search engines are your friend, my friend. But to answer your question, I have been using protonVPN recently, free and no data limits.
Never in the UK ua-cam.com/video/DAysKw4TITA/v-deo.html
Plate tectonics / Continental drift is also a pretty interesting example of this. Alfred Wegener proposed idea in 1915 of what we view now as fact that is plate tectonics. But in his time he was laughed and ridiculed by the scientific community.
It took 60 years for us to develop technology to actually look at the sea bed in the 70s to actually realize Alfred Wegener's theory was correct.
Great idea Derek. I wonder what new ideas would be there if someone made this kind of series 100 years from now.