My favorite question is "explain how is that the universe / space is finite, yet it can grow endlessly". ;) After explaining, try to imagine it. Another one would be - "define life". You actually cant =)
And when the sun is low in the sky we get the reds of sunset instead....
I thought the Water reflected the sky and thats where why the sea is blue.....
Also, all substances absorb differnt wavelengths of light and radiate back others... givving them their intrinsic colours when illuminated with white light ect...
Maybe this could explain how the sea is green sometimes and never red at sunset :D. lol
I get the feeling Im wrong though :).
Its true the Sea will go dark when thre are clouds
I think this is the sunlight refracting ( bendind) through our atmosphere.
SO pure white light is made up of Red, Indigo, Yellow, Green, Blue, Indigo and Violet. These all are characterised by their wavelengths/ frequencies i think.
NOw i think they will all refract to a different degree because of this and due to the angle that the sun comes through our atmosphere the blue light happens to be the one that meets our eyes. Hence the sky is blue.
@helimax The sky appears blue because you are looking at light scattered off particles in the atmosphere. When you look at the sun you are seeing yellow, orange and red (the shorter wavelengths get scattered before they reach your eyes), but you "see" yellow because our eyes are more sensitive to it. The sun appears reddish at sunset because the light has to pass through more atmosphere and eventually the yellows and oranges get scattered also. Hence, the colours of the sky at sunset.
Planes get lift from wings via aerofoil right? So i think the shape of the wing means air has to travel further above than below the wing. So there is less air pressure above the wing( Same ammount of passing air has to fill this space as below) and more pressure from below... this exerts a force on the wing...connected to the plane and hey presto up we go...
I'm not sure how they can climb when upside down , love to know ... anybody?
@helimax your explanation of lift is pretty much spot on, so to fill in, flying upside down is only really possible in fighters and planes with high power:weight ratio. Basically the engines are so powerful that you can use the elevators to control the pitch of the aircraft such that when the wind hits the wing you're forcing your way over the top, like a swamp boat getting up on the plane. Thus, although possible, it's terribly inefficient due to the drag from the high angle of attack.
@GeoffonTour Good explanation. The principle of decreased air pressure on the top of an airfoil is called Bernoulli's principle and upside down flight is accomplished by increased angle of attack in most cases but not all. In some high performance planes the airfoil is symmetrical or almost symmetrical so the wings angle of attack rather right side up or upside down creates equal lift. The only thing to add is that planes have a built in angle of attack as related to the fuselage cont.....
@GeoffonTour This built in angle is called incidence. This will cause a plane to maintain lift while the pilot sits relatively level. So, when the plane is upside down it does require additional down elevator but this is because the angle of incidence is now on a negative angle relative to air flow. The plane will also have more drag because to maintain inverted flight the plane will be pointed nose up which creates more drag. Still in a symmetrical wing creates equal lift per aoa either way.
Haha. The commentator doesn't know as much as he thinks he does either. He answered 3 incorrectly. The sun's rays spread over a larger area the farther away you get from the equator and this is why it's colder nearer the poles but this is unrelated to the seasons. The reason it's warmer in the summer is because the days are longer due to the tilt of the earths spin axis. When it is tilted towards the sun locations above the equator spend more time in the sun then the darkness. it's GEOMETRY!!!
Okay. I stopped the video at 2:04. Time to make a fool of myself:
1) Energy from the sun, carbon dioxide from the air, minerals from the ground
2) Of course if there's any "juice" in the battery and you can connect one contact of the small bulb directly to one pole of the battery and the other one to the other pole of the battery with the wire. But what is the other bulb needed for? Must be a trick question. (And of course a 12 V car battery might immediately burn the little torch bulb.)
For me (being Russian) it is kind of surprising to watch how this lecturer insults the audience with some primary school questions and gets sure that the audience really does not know the answers... That is so weird... I considered English and Americans a bit smarter. And, btw, the chair came not primarily from air, but from water also and air, hence synthesis, plays the role of fuel for energy production. The idea of not being tabula rasa needs more facts, the argument is weak.
@RBSM100 CO2 comes from the air, while H2O, nitrogen and other minerals from the ground. The bulk of the mass of wood is from cellulose and lignin, consisting of carbon, hydrogen and oxygen atoms. Carbon is 6 times heavier than hydrogen, oxygen 8 times heavier, and while each carbon provides 2 oxygen, every 2 hydrogen only provides 1 oxygen, so statistically more oxygen comes from the air. Despite being outnumbered by hydrogen atoms, the carbon plus oxygen from the air outweigh the groundwater.
(5:05) "How much [CO2] we emit" - flashes up a picture of what appears to be cooling towers emitting STEAM. Makes me sad :(, especially given the subject of the talk.
I am highly incredulous about the MIT thing ... was there a real study? Or two students you tracked down answered wrong? Doesn't feel scientific to me, but I'm open to being surprised!
@daveadler He didn't say that. The earth's orbit is indeed slightly elliptical (but we're used to seeing side on angles of the solar system where it looks very elliptical), it's just that's not the reason for summer and winter. In the northern hemisphere we're closer to the sun during winter time, but the earth's tilt spread's the sun's rays over a greater area in winter as compared to summer, reducing their intensity and cooling us down.
I'm a 27 year old programmer from India but I knew the correct answers to all 4 questions since I was a kid. I'm surprised to learn most people get them wrong. Education in the Western world must be worse than I'd thought. Or perhaps I'm just weird.
I go to a University that was once a polytechnic, and because of this still places emphasis on practical, hands on work, and work-study. Because of this our graduates have higher rates of employment.
Theory is one thing, but playing is more important that being "taught".
Kepler's first law of planetary motion is: 1. "The orbit of every planet is an ellipse with the sun at a focus."
A circle is just one form of an ellipse, but most of the planets follow an orbit of low eccentricity, meaning that they can be crudely approximated as circles. So it is not evident from the orbit of the planets that the orbits are indeed elliptic.
I got all four right. But not a single one of the answers was something I learned in college. Go figure! (As I recall, I learned the answers to all four of these questions from everyday conversations.)
Ha! Got all the questions right. Had to pause the clip to think about the first one though. It took me a minute to reason through to the correct answer.
well, the questions are not hard, but you just have to think about it first, before blurb out the first thought come to your mind.
The only one I thought was tricky was the 4th one. Initially, because I remember one of them had a weird orbit that's tilted and overlaps with another one, but I can't remember which planet was it. As it turns out after googling, it was Pluto which isn't a planet anymore. So that question was indeed tricky.
This reminds me of a book I had when I was a kid. One small kid says that he can pick up the other big kid when he obviously cant. The big kid bets him and loses. So how did the small kid pick him up? he walked the big kid to the beach and picked him up in water because objects weigh less in water. I thought that answer was such bull shit when I read it. yeah, and I can fly... so long as I have a space ship to take me into zero g.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
My point is that these questions have trick answers. It's not that we're improperly educated, it's that we don't have that trick to help solve the problem.
I once boosted a friend's car with a single wire coat hanger.
I moved my car so that the [steel] bumpers touched, establishing a ground connection, then I held the coat hanger wire [with gloved hands] to the positive battery posts in each car....he cranked the starter, the wire got red hot in a few seconds, the car started....and I threw the wire away.
Also, The orbit of the Earth (and all other planets) IS elliptical. by a variation of 91.5 million miles. This is not the cause for the seasons, but it DOES happen.
Actually, funny thing, If your in the northern hemisphere, your closer to the sun during the winter.
All planetary orbits are elliptical....they are nearly circular, but not quite. It is true that we are closer to the sun during winter [in the northern hemisphere].
Actually, he didn't say that the earth was further from the sun. He said that the northern hemisphere happened to be further from the sun during their winter (because of the tilt, not because of the ellipse, slight or not.)
I got all of these right and I don't have even a single college level science course. Probably the difference between me and most people is that I actually enjoyed science, so I paid attention and actually thought about the concepts, rather than just trying to memorize. The fact that MIT graduates got the light bulb one wrong infuriates me, as it only took me about 5 seconds to think of a way to light it. Probably would have been less if I'd been handed the lightbulb battery and wire.
Just stating the facts, Jack. More intelligent does not always mean "better" in the real world, if anyone can testify to that it's me. I'm not trying to brag; I'd have most likely been better of overall if I had been born less intelligent.
"I'd have most likely been better of overall if I had been born less intelligent."
Such speculation is quite useless at this point. What are you trying to do? Argue humbly from your position of intelligence as a possible hindrance on one of your possible lives? This is not new news. Everyone knows that this is possible, it just doesn't have anything to do with the topic at hand.
True enough; my original point however was not my own intelligence, it was that the reason I had no trouble with this questions is that I approached science differently than most other people.
If science education focused less on forcing memorization of facts, and actually taught how to think critically about concepts in science questions like this wouldn't be hard at all. I mentioned the MIT grads not because I was angry at them personally, but because I was angry at the failure of the school
I think I have the answers to some questions about how kids are learning so badly...
I am in the top 2% of teachers in the country and am currently, sick, on compassionate leave or suspended take your PICK. How did this happen... I cannot speak at the moment because I need to eat... but if you u tube HOMERTON HOUSE u can see me teach (because educationlists are for life.. Check my 'favourites' and comments there, My silent argument. Dont miss my son's video SALISBURY SCHOOL THE SPECIAL YEARS X
yes, they are. they are in near-circular elliptical orbits. for example sun-earth distance varies only 3-4% as earth goes about the sun. Jonathan Drori is saying that those educational materials mislead people into thinking that the orbits are very elliptical.
Imo, this is a really weak TED video. It really depends on weather you are interested in natural sciences or not.
I think I could answer all the questions correctly when I was between 8 and 12 years old (not sure about the plane and the ocean, maybe a bit later).
And we did also do all this stuff at school! But if you are not interested you might neiter bother to understand how it works nor bother to remember how it works.
The point is getting people interested in natural sciences!
I guess we were not looking at the same video because I see nothing week about a guy that can point out huge problems with our school system. A school system that is almost making us dumber by the minute.
Saying that its just about being interested is not listening to what this man is saying. Do you think it takes more interest to understand that the mass of the tree comes from the air and not the ground?
1) I think that (imo!) this is a weak video as all the things he did say were already clear to me (including the problems with the school system) and are quite obvious.
2) I did not say that his point is not valid, some people in my "highschool" actually thought that "the stars" are reflecting light from the sun as the moon is doing.
3)I can only speak for the German school system and there are similar problems (see 2.)
4) My point was that all the examples he is giving concearn natural sciences. And that the biggest problem (imo) is that teachers (especially in natural sciences and math) do not manage to get their students interested in the stuff they are teaching. So basically if you are not interested in what the teacher is saying because (from your point of view) it is boring, you just won't remember it and are very unlikely to put any efforts into.
I'm still in Highschool as a Junior. My biology teacher asked what is science? and people couldn't answer that question, so I raised my hand and said it's the study of everything in the cosmos. People are more interested in getting "bitches and hoes".
@Kujien And you would have been wrong, although it is a good guess as to what science is.
You could say that religions are also the 'study of everything in the cosmos'. In the strictest sense of the word in modern context, science is the system of acquiring and the body of knowledge acquired through the scientific method.
Can you hook both ends of a single wire to a bulb and make it light? YES: coil the center around an iron core and wave a powerful magnet back and forth over it.
I would like to remind people that it is somewhat silly to base anything off of the remarks made by people on Youtube. I encourage you to read the comments on any youtube video and feel dismayed at human progress.
As to people stating "these questions are super easy" and the like: many studies show that self reporting is notoriously unreliable. Very few people are going to post "hey everyone, i am a total idiot! these questions stumped me! I'm a nitwit!" somethin' to think about.
Actually, youtube's anonymity allows many users to be more honest than they ought to be. You even hinted at this yourself, by highlighting the uncivil nature of most youtube responses, representative of the very unrestrained nature of most youtube commentators. So the argument that they might be holding anything back is nullified by the anonymity of a youtube username.
My argument is not nullified in any way. Self-reporting remains unreliable. google it, if I am wrong on this, I will be surprised. Furthermore, people who feel passionately about something are more like to respond. Thus, someone who thinks this is "easy" is more likely to post than someone who went "oh yeah, kinda tricky, that was neat!" You find this in most unscientific surveys, such as surveys that require people to call in. My argument still stands as strong as before. Just google it.
it's actually still correct if you consider the questions as the ones WE'RE debating. I could say "those" but both ways work fine, but if you wan't to be a bi** about it be my guest. English isn't even my native language. I wonder how well you speak other languages... take care
He asked "science television producers" and "science educators" (teachers) and 7yolds
my answers:
1) Carbon from air, hydrogen, nitrogen and everythig else from the soil through water.
2) put one end of the battery against the bulb directly or better still cut the wire into 2.
3) Earth's north pole points more towards the sun in sumer hence we get longer days and near-perpendicular (hence more powerful per unit area) sunlight.
4) Eliptical orbits (ovals) It's hard to draw something 3D on paper.
I'm no geographer, but I know MIT is on the east coast. I'm no cinema critic, But the film reference is to Steve Martin in "The Jerk," not Woody Allen.
Another really great video from TED: I learnt something new (the trees question) and I'm glad there are people thinking seriously about how to handle popular misconceptions of science.
it might be the fact that i'm still in school but i have learned all of these things, and i did the light bulb experiment in 7th grade and it's very simple if you know how a battery works. maybe it's this problem i have where i realize i don't know something, and start asking questions, idk
The orbits are ellipses, and he admitted as much when he said that the northern hemisphere was farther away in its summer than the southern hemisphere was in its summer. He got it wrong when he said the orbits were not in ellipsis. What he probability meant was that the orbits were not in ellipses that were centered, which would be implied by the textbook illustration that he showed. The actual ellipses are very subtle, and except in the case of comets, are almost unperceivable.
For all intent and purposes, the Earth is flat. Look around, everywhere you look, it is (essentially) flat. Only when you travel great distances does its roundness intrude. You could also say that the (apparently) parabolic path of a ball thrown through the air was a piece of an orbit around the distant Earth-center, or that the escape path of an intruder comet was an ellipse with its far focus on infinity. All would be true, and all somewhat misleading in their truth.
Is there a formal point in mathematics at which almost becomes equal-to? The orbit of the moon is roughly a circle, or roughly an ellipse, or roughly an ever-widening spiral. It even can be looked at as traveling in a strange looping path, if viewed from above the plane of the solar-system. We abuse these absolutes when we demand that nature obey one influence to the exclusion of all others.
Except that you couldn't really say that about those things because for all intents and purposes, those things aren't true.
The orbit of the planets around the sun are technically elliptical, but by such a small degree as to be indistinguishable without extremely precise measurement. To draw the orbits on a paper would be to draw a perfect circle.
You can actually see the curvature of the earth from the ground, you can see that a thrown ball does not achieve orbit, etc.
That is because your view is blocked by objects between yourself and the horizon, and you must be in a place where the ground is perfectly "flat". In places like the Salt Flats in Nevada, or the VW test track in Germany, you CAN actually see the curvature of the earth because the ground is so flat for such a long distance.
It's not an elliptical orbit. The fact that some hemispheres are closer is simply due to the fact that the Earth is on a slight angle, the poles are not on the bottom and the top, it is set on a slight angle of about 17 degrees. I was under the impression that only Venus was an elliptically orbiting planet.
In 2000 The Earth was 91,405,436 miles from Sun at perihelion and 94,511,989 miles from Sun at aphelion. So, not MUCH of an elipse. They didn't tell us how much they exaggerated the diagrams when they taught us Kepler.
How do you get such an idea? Any number of sources all agree that Venus has the most circular orbit in the solar system, with an eccentricity of 0.01. In addition to its nearly circular orbit, Venus is unique for another reason: it rotates backwards (or in a retrograde direction). If you could look down at the Solar System from above, all of the planets orbit in a clockwise direction. But Venus rotates in a counter-clockwise direction.
how does an airplane actually fly? i thought the explanation had to do with Bernoulli's law and pressure differences but if that's the case, how does an airplane fly upside down?
The Equal transit time theory is a fallacy. A completely flat wing on a paper airplane for example generates lift with neither the top or bottom of the wing being longer than the other.
Angle of attack (simply tilting the wing) is much more of a determining factor for lift. The air over the top of the wing is compressed by the angle of attack and conservation of mass states that the air must then speed up, generating lift.
i feel like this barely introduced me to anything of substance... i'm not sure the way he structured this lesson and the examples he used will resonate with many people (or *enough* people, for the usual quality of ted)... i'm not sure many people will be able to explain a model of 'what they learned' after hearing this... like the magnetism and gravity examples, people may end up testing worse after this lesson than before it... maybe there is a lesson in the irony?...
No we didn't. His conclusion was that, with all our book learning and college degrees, we still didn't know as much as we think we do. He was trying to support that conclusion with the premise that most people won't do particularly well on the 4 questions he posted, and he even cites the example of the "graduate engineering students" who couldn't light up a light bulb. We're posting our scores to proclaim that his premises are false, and the argument uncogent. Damn right we got the point.
No matter how many of us say we got it right it has no bearing on his point; if 30% of viewers got the answers right and half of them announced it here so what? He has statistics on his side (presumably). If he said no one can answer those questions correctly, you might have a point.
Exactly. You're "assuming," without evidence, that his data is reliable. He did not provide us his sample population ( he only references them anecdotically), so it might just be that they had selectively interviewed really dumb people to shoddily premise his conclusion. Many are posting their scores (and we really have no way of knowing the percentage of total viewers they represent) b/c they're surprised to discover that the problems are easy.
If it turns out that his premise (that, as evidenced by people's scores on his test, the conclusion that "we do not know as much as we think we do" follows) is probably false, then his inductive argument might be strong, but it would be uncogent and consequently, useless for any purpose whatsoever.
True we can't rely on his unsubstantiated claims.. although I hope he keeps in mind my his own message about seeking confirmation for our misconceptions, in which case he would have probably used sound methodology. But in any case, the fact that millions of youtubers got it right doesn't prove anything either. "We're posting our scores to proclaim that his premises are false" that was my main focus. That statement is based on a lot of assumptions.
Sry, I should've inserted "probably" before false. The more people get his questions right, the higher the chances of his premises being false. It would be impossible (as you rightly pointed out) to prove that they're 100% false because some people will always get them all wrong, but for the most part, they probably will be (again, as long as more people seem to be getting it right, than not).
Actually, if you took a tally of all the people posting their scores, you'll find that most of them are expressing favorable results. Of course, maybe many who got it wrong simply didn't post their scores... but then again, maybe many who got it all right were just too humble to post their scores. Therefore, given the available data, it's "reasonable" to say more people are getting it right.
And you might say that: "Well, maybe more youtube people get it right, and more of the people he interviewed just didn't get it right." I would say, youtube is a far more representative population of the "ordinary people" who he was using to premise the conclusion that "we really don't know as much as we think we do," than the people he might've selectively interviewed. Again, further adding momentum to my claim that his premise is PROBABLY false.
The posts here are "statistically insignificant"! Besides, I can see why people would post good scores on the other hand I don't see why they would post bad ones. How many comments say "I got all wrong, and I'm a physics professor! ...we really don't know shit!"?
YTVB and 1 or 2 other people thought it was hard. This being the case, you have about 94% of posts relating to the question's difficulty saying it was easy, while only 6% said it was hard. If you think my statistics are botched, go ahead and prove me wrong...provide me the complete names of those who found it difficult, as I did for those who found it easy below. Now, I don't know what you've been taught, but a 94%-6% difference is overwhelmingly, statistically, fucking significant!
Ok, seems we aren't getting anywhere with this but let me just point out that your 94% only represents those who CLAIMED it was easy (did we say something about evidence earlier?) out of those who posted, out of those who attempted (and possibly didn't even). It has no bearing on people's ability to answer the questions correctly... unless u are willing to make several assumptions! :P
Yep, I get how this works. This is where I present the cold facts, and you reply by inventing a hypothetical counterargument. The fact remains: The speaker was able to control who he interviewed for his test. I, on the other hand, could not control the people who watched or commented on this video. The sample I'm taking my argument from, thought imperfect, is far more random and representative than what the speaker used.
There is no absolute quota for when a sample is just "large enough," or when it's just "representative enough." All these arguments are entirely comparative and probabilistic, not distinctively wrong or right. You compare one with the other, and choose which appears to be more reasonable. That's all I've been saying. Because If one claim appears to be more reasonable than the other, based on the available evidence, doesn't mean either one of them is wrong or right.
U simply don't get that people are much more likely to post positive scores... for a variety of reasons, such as (like u mentioned) proving the guy wrong, demonstrating how smart they are, and so on.. some would lie! U can't prove him wrong with those figures. I'm wouldn't bet on him either, but PERSONALLY I consider data from a TED presentation to be more trusty than the feedback from random strangers.
...And they aren't so random either by the way, the title of the video doesn't just attract anyone.
If you think that people will post their scores in a representative ratio, then my friend you are making one hell of an assumption. Where are the cold facts on that? In any case what is the probability of him being wrong? U haven't even had a peek at his data, what are u comparing? (yes I said data in my previous post, I meant information, i.e. his conclusion.)
"The sample I'm taking my argument from, thought imperfect, is far more random and representative than what the speaker used." Really? Can you try to back that up please? If you could serve some cold facts with that it would be nice too :)
You keep jumbling my arguments. I said above, that there is no such thing as the perfect "random sample," or the perfect "representative sample." It's all comparative, it's all probabilistic. The speaker actively went out to interview people who shockingly, managed to suck so hard on his test questions to elicit many of us to respond with surprise because the questions weren't even that hard. This is stuff you learn in elementary school for God's sake.
To summarize all I've been trying to say for the past several posts, I simply refuse to believe that people are that stupid, and unsurprisingly, 94% of people commenting on the questions also agreed with me. Oh and most of us aren't "graduate engineers" either. Otherwise, where would we have the time to watch youtube videos? :P This argument as gone on too long, so I'll be leaving it to others to form their own judgments. I'm done here.
hmmm... "94% of people commenting on the questions also agreed with me" sounds a bit disingenuous... more like 94% of those that posted their scores, unsurprisingly!!
94 to 6 percent is not statistically significant by necessity. To be significant it requires that the selection is big enough - that is, population in the numbers big enough that flukes will barely register, and that the selection of this big number covers a representative cross of all relevant traits.
Tweaking those things is how newspapers manage to always ALWAYS have the statistics they want. :P
What number is "big enough" for you, and what are the "relevant traits" you're talking about? Don't go hiding baseless arguments behind vague notions.
This is a perfect example of douche bag teachers. They want to humiliate their students with the student's stupidity rather encourage the students with their smartness. Teachers get slapped down all the time if they try to change and improve the agenda, so they stop after a while. Agenda is politics and power and is set by superiors. Schools are intentionally designed for 10% F's, 20% D's and 40% C's. Stupid you. Thinking doesn't work. Believe us. Buy our product. Vote for me.
The first question is the hard one. The rest are, while still difficult, can have their answers easily found, but most people just don't know them. Wikipedia FTW!
Children build models of the world which are sometimes wrong but very persistent - often we unintentionally reinforce them. The kids grow up, keeping the same ideas. Most of us, including science teachers, hold curious misconceptions.
So listen to kid's ideas about the world. Once articulated, it's easier to work with them. Hands-on experiments help too.
That's what I was trying to say.
I'll continue to follow the conversation with interest, and humility! Jon, London
Ok apart from the solar system question the other ones are fine with me. Does this mean I have the equivalent intelligence of a 7 year old? I used to pick on people like the lecturer at school due to them needing to get out more and get a girlfriend/get laid for Gods sake!
yer nkow what i hate about those mensa puzzles.all that genuis.round of applause, yet they can't shift a dodgy politian in power or prevent heartbreak from callous loved one or prevent a truck hitting your car despite your alert driving.hmmm yes
This has been flagged as spam show
Thumbs up if you got more than half of the questions right.
sk8rdman 4 months ago
My favorite question is "explain how is that the universe / space is finite, yet it can grow endlessly". ;) After explaining, try to imagine it. Another one would be - "define life". You actually cant =)
shebotnov 7 months ago
So the people are really that retarded who cant connect a battery to a light bulb and dont know about h20+c20? Human race - fail
shebotnov 7 months ago
dude that Nokia commercial. was freakin Mind Blowing.
it's commercials like that that define reality.
it reminds me of that old 1984 mac commercial.
wow.
alvisc2002 1 year ago
And when the sun is low in the sky we get the reds of sunset instead....
I thought the Water reflected the sky and thats where why the sea is blue.....
Also, all substances absorb differnt wavelengths of light and radiate back others... givving them their intrinsic colours when illuminated with white light ect...
Maybe this could explain how the sea is green sometimes and never red at sunset :D. lol
I get the feeling Im wrong though :).
Its true the Sea will go dark when thre are clouds
helimax 1 year ago
As for the Sea bieng blue.......
I think this is the sunlight refracting ( bendind) through our atmosphere.
SO pure white light is made up of Red, Indigo, Yellow, Green, Blue, Indigo and Violet. These all are characterised by their wavelengths/ frequencies i think.
NOw i think they will all refract to a different degree because of this and due to the angle that the sun comes through our atmosphere the blue light happens to be the one that meets our eyes. Hence the sky is blue.
helimax 1 year ago
@helimax The sky appears blue because you are looking at light scattered off particles in the atmosphere. When you look at the sun you are seeing yellow, orange and red (the shorter wavelengths get scattered before they reach your eyes), but you "see" yellow because our eyes are more sensitive to it. The sun appears reddish at sunset because the light has to pass through more atmosphere and eventually the yellows and oranges get scattered also. Hence, the colours of the sky at sunset.
marcliv851 1 year ago
Planes get lift from wings via aerofoil right? So i think the shape of the wing means air has to travel further above than below the wing. So there is less air pressure above the wing( Same ammount of passing air has to fill this space as below) and more pressure from below... this exerts a force on the wing...connected to the plane and hey presto up we go...
I'm not sure how they can climb when upside down , love to know ... anybody?
helimax 1 year ago
@helimax your explanation of lift is pretty much spot on, so to fill in, flying upside down is only really possible in fighters and planes with high power:weight ratio. Basically the engines are so powerful that you can use the elevators to control the pitch of the aircraft such that when the wind hits the wing you're forcing your way over the top, like a swamp boat getting up on the plane. Thus, although possible, it's terribly inefficient due to the drag from the high angle of attack.
GeoffonTour 8 months ago
@GeoffonTour Good explanation. The principle of decreased air pressure on the top of an airfoil is called Bernoulli's principle and upside down flight is accomplished by increased angle of attack in most cases but not all. In some high performance planes the airfoil is symmetrical or almost symmetrical so the wings angle of attack rather right side up or upside down creates equal lift. The only thing to add is that planes have a built in angle of attack as related to the fuselage cont.....
AldoBr549 3 months ago
@GeoffonTour This built in angle is called incidence. This will cause a plane to maintain lift while the pilot sits relatively level. So, when the plane is upside down it does require additional down elevator but this is because the angle of incidence is now on a negative angle relative to air flow. The plane will also have more drag because to maintain inverted flight the plane will be pointed nose up which creates more drag. Still in a symmetrical wing creates equal lift per aoa either way.
AldoBr549 3 months ago
welcome to the fourth screen
kroltze 1 year ago
Haha. The commentator doesn't know as much as he thinks he does either. He answered 3 incorrectly. The sun's rays spread over a larger area the farther away you get from the equator and this is why it's colder nearer the poles but this is unrelated to the seasons. The reason it's warmer in the summer is because the days are longer due to the tilt of the earths spin axis. When it is tilted towards the sun locations above the equator spend more time in the sun then the darkness. it's GEOMETRY!!!
marcliv851 1 year ago
Are there really scientifically literate people couldn't answer those questions?
I'm staggered...
NevilleRhysBarnes 1 year ago
i like the nokia commercial at the end but its biased
lol.
corncornrocks 1 year ago
3) Because of the angle of the earth in relation to the sun.
4) Nope. I know they are somewhat elliptical but don't remember the details.
And now I'll resume the video and get owned... ;-)
clothearednincompoop 1 year ago
Okay. I stopped the video at 2:04. Time to make a fool of myself:
1) Energy from the sun, carbon dioxide from the air, minerals from the ground
2) Of course if there's any "juice" in the battery and you can connect one contact of the small bulb directly to one pole of the battery and the other one to the other pole of the battery with the wire. But what is the other bulb needed for? Must be a trick question. (And of course a 12 V car battery might immediately burn the little torch bulb.)
clothearednincompoop 1 year ago
For me (being Russian) it is kind of surprising to watch how this lecturer insults the audience with some primary school questions and gets sure that the audience really does not know the answers... That is so weird... I considered English and Americans a bit smarter. And, btw, the chair came not primarily from air, but from water also and air, hence synthesis, plays the role of fuel for energy production. The idea of not being tabula rasa needs more facts, the argument is weak.
RBSM100 1 year ago
@RBSM100 CO2 comes from the air, while H2O, nitrogen and other minerals from the ground. The bulk of the mass of wood is from cellulose and lignin, consisting of carbon, hydrogen and oxygen atoms. Carbon is 6 times heavier than hydrogen, oxygen 8 times heavier, and while each carbon provides 2 oxygen, every 2 hydrogen only provides 1 oxygen, so statistically more oxygen comes from the air. Despite being outnumbered by hydrogen atoms, the carbon plus oxygen from the air outweigh the groundwater.
83N170 1 year ago 3
that's an epic Nokia commercial at the end
bencr06 1 year ago
ffs
Izwat 1 year ago
Inspiring!
But plants grow from minerals out of the ground...
LanteanKnight 1 year ago
(5:05) "How much [CO2] we emit" - flashes up a picture of what appears to be cooling towers emitting STEAM. Makes me sad :(, especially given the subject of the talk.
I am highly incredulous about the MIT thing ... was there a real study? Or two students you tracked down answered wrong? Doesn't feel scientific to me, but I'm open to being surprised!
lolflux 1 year ago
so, the earth's orbit is not elliptical...yet it's farther away during the northern hemisphere's summer...hmm...
daveadler 1 year ago
@daveadler He didn't say that. The earth's orbit is indeed slightly elliptical (but we're used to seeing side on angles of the solar system where it looks very elliptical), it's just that's not the reason for summer and winter. In the northern hemisphere we're closer to the sun during winter time, but the earth's tilt spread's the sun's rays over a greater area in winter as compared to summer, reducing their intensity and cooling us down.
83N170 1 year ago
*wen i was five
suyashpy 1 year ago
surprised that science graduates cant do the battery thing. i used to play wid it wen i was .
suyashpy 1 year ago
Great video!
mixerjason 1 year ago
I'm a 27 year old programmer from India but I knew the correct answers to all 4 questions since I was a kid. I'm surprised to learn most people get them wrong. Education in the Western world must be worse than I'd thought. Or perhaps I'm just weird.
SirTubelot 1 year ago
His argument is all over the place, or at least, it sounds like it. I think he may have a problem with articulation.
thecortni 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
lolpokpok.mybrute. com register now
poxmelie1 2 years ago
Trees - mostly air, but also water, usually from soil (and some nutrients)
MIT - East coast (It's not Malibu Institute of Technology)
Pluto and Neptune orbits cross (in distance from the sun)(although maybe Pluto isn't a planet anymore?)
funkalunatic 2 years ago
I understood everything in this video, even the Nokia commercial at the end.
Do I win something ?
I know that I 'm gonna get a few 'thumbs down' but I can understand that...
labyrinthshadow 2 years ago 24
the battery and lightbublb is real easy I had known it since child hood
mjufpn 2 years ago
Airplanes generally lose altitude when they do rolls unless they are thrust to mass ratios similar to a rocket.
gitmeout 2 years ago
I agree: we often miss important ideas buried in facts. However, I figure ~71% of cellulose comes from CO2 or 'air' and ~29% comes from water.
The basic equation is Energy + 6(CO2) + 6(H2O) => C6H12O6 [sugar => wood] + 6(O2)
Molecular weight- C=12, O=16, H=1
6 Carbon Dioxide molecules = 6 Carbons + 12 Oxygens => Molecular Weight of [(6*12)+ (12*16)] = 264
6 Water molecules = 12 Hydrogens + 6 Oxygens => Molecular Weight of [(12*1) + (6*16)] = 108
(you could argue that water comes from air)
dcraman 2 years ago 2
Comment removed
dcraman 2 years ago
I go to a University that was once a polytechnic, and because of this still places emphasis on practical, hands on work, and work-study. Because of this our graduates have higher rates of employment.
Theory is one thing, but playing is more important that being "taught".
MegOMegOMegO 2 years ago 5
Kepler's first law of planetary motion is: 1. "The orbit of every planet is an ellipse with the sun at a focus."
A circle is just one form of an ellipse, but most of the planets follow an orbit of low eccentricity, meaning that they can be crudely approximated as circles. So it is not evident from the orbit of the planets that the orbits are indeed elliptic.
42fba 2 years ago
holy smokes I got them all right too
earfetish 3 years ago
I got all four right. But not a single one of the answers was something I learned in college. Go figure! (As I recall, I learned the answers to all four of these questions from everyday conversations.)
TheMathGuy 3 years ago 2
Ha! Got all the questions right. Had to pause the clip to think about the first one though. It took me a minute to reason through to the correct answer.
Duke1839 3 years ago
well, the questions are not hard, but you just have to think about it first, before blurb out the first thought come to your mind.
The only one I thought was tricky was the 4th one. Initially, because I remember one of them had a weird orbit that's tilted and overlaps with another one, but I can't remember which planet was it. As it turns out after googling, it was Pluto which isn't a planet anymore. So that question was indeed tricky.
xingfenzhen 3 years ago
This reminds me of a book I had when I was a kid. One small kid says that he can pick up the other big kid when he obviously cant. The big kid bets him and loses. So how did the small kid pick him up? he walked the big kid to the beach and picked him up in water because objects weigh less in water. I thought that answer was such bull shit when I read it. yeah, and I can fly... so long as I have a space ship to take me into zero g.
halcyonyear 3 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
My point is that these questions have trick answers. It's not that we're improperly educated, it's that we don't have that trick to help solve the problem.
halcyonyear 3 years ago
you're all a bunch of idiots. stop argueing.
i luf this vid 0o
bezrabotni 3 years ago
I once boosted a friend's car with a single wire coat hanger.
I moved my car so that the [steel] bumpers touched, establishing a ground connection, then I held the coat hanger wire [with gloved hands] to the positive battery posts in each car....he cranked the starter, the wire got red hot in a few seconds, the car started....and I threw the wire away.
kshackleton 3 years ago
Is the last question about the ocean still being blue on a cloudy day a trick question?
I live in the Seattle area, and taking a ferry across the Puget Sound(Ocean Water) on a cloudy day, it is NOT blue.
flamablesteve 3 years ago
Also, The orbit of the Earth (and all other planets) IS elliptical. by a variation of 91.5 million miles. This is not the cause for the seasons, but it DOES happen.
Actually, funny thing, If your in the northern hemisphere, your closer to the sun during the winter.
flamablesteve 3 years ago
I mean, the 91.5 million miles is the closer time. The variation is 3.5 million miles.
flamablesteve 3 years ago
...
I just noticed that he said the same thing. That the Earth is farther from the sun during the Northern hemisphere summer.
Which would have to mean an ellipse.
So he actually contradicts himself!
flamablesteve 3 years ago
All planetary orbits are elliptical....they are nearly circular, but not quite. It is true that we are closer to the sun during winter [in the northern hemisphere].
kshackleton 3 years ago 19
Actually, he didn't say that the earth was further from the sun. He said that the northern hemisphere happened to be further from the sun during their winter (because of the tilt, not because of the ellipse, slight or not.)
phlaree 2 years ago
Did he say MIT is on the west coast?
flamablesteve 3 years ago
Nevermind, I didn't hear him right.
flamablesteve 3 years ago
I got all of these right and I don't have even a single college level science course. Probably the difference between me and most people is that I actually enjoyed science, so I paid attention and actually thought about the concepts, rather than just trying to memorize. The fact that MIT graduates got the light bulb one wrong infuriates me, as it only took me about 5 seconds to think of a way to light it. Probably would have been less if I'd been handed the lightbulb battery and wire.
cyxgun 3 years ago 2
Yet, you still haven't avoided hubris^^
HumanStrategy 3 years ago
Just stating the facts, Jack. More intelligent does not always mean "better" in the real world, if anyone can testify to that it's me. I'm not trying to brag; I'd have most likely been better of overall if I had been born less intelligent.
cyxgun 3 years ago
"I'd have most likely been better of overall if I had been born less intelligent."
Such speculation is quite useless at this point. What are you trying to do? Argue humbly from your position of intelligence as a possible hindrance on one of your possible lives? This is not new news. Everyone knows that this is possible, it just doesn't have anything to do with the topic at hand.
HumanStrategy 3 years ago
True enough; my original point however was not my own intelligence, it was that the reason I had no trouble with this questions is that I approached science differently than most other people.
If science education focused less on forcing memorization of facts, and actually taught how to think critically about concepts in science questions like this wouldn't be hard at all. I mentioned the MIT grads not because I was angry at them personally, but because I was angry at the failure of the school
cyxgun 3 years ago
"my original point however was not my own intelligence"
"it just doesn't have anything to do with the topic at hand."
You must not have read my last sentence before you posted huh
HumanStrategy 3 years ago
Sheesh, apart from this nebulous lightbulb question (I don't even know what a torch bulb is) the questions are trivial.
SerbAtheist 3 years ago
What's the deal with the Nokia ad at the end of the segment? I'm pretty sure they just announced that they are officially taking over the world.
mleeopard 3 years ago
Nokia is a TED sponsor I believe. BMW used to be (or perhaps still is) another sponsor, and there are BMW ads in other TED videos.
ehsanul 3 years ago
hmmm....
rajbow1 3 years ago
I think I have the answers to some questions about how kids are learning so badly...
I am in the top 2% of teachers in the country and am currently, sick, on compassionate leave or suspended take your PICK. How did this happen... I cannot speak at the moment because I need to eat... but if you u tube HOMERTON HOUSE u can see me teach (because educationlists are for life.. Check my 'favourites' and comments there, My silent argument. Dont miss my son's video SALISBURY SCHOOL THE SPECIAL YEARS X
deirdrestrachan 3 years ago
MTRobot! is great! good job! speachless!
ardierock 3 years ago
I thought planets are on an elliptical orbit. Aren't they?
awanashot 3 years ago
i guess it all depends on how we look at it?
SIRNUTSO 3 years ago
yes, they are. they are in near-circular elliptical orbits. for example sun-earth distance varies only 3-4% as earth goes about the sun. Jonathan Drori is saying that those educational materials mislead people into thinking that the orbits are very elliptical.
technically circles are ellipses.
bcjew 3 years ago 2
Thank you! Informative replies always appreciated. :)
awanashot 3 years ago
Imo, this is a really weak TED video. It really depends on weather you are interested in natural sciences or not.
I think I could answer all the questions correctly when I was between 8 and 12 years old (not sure about the plane and the ocean, maybe a bit later).
And we did also do all this stuff at school! But if you are not interested you might neiter bother to understand how it works nor bother to remember how it works.
The point is getting people interested in natural sciences!
MTRobot 3 years ago
I guess we were not looking at the same video because I see nothing week about a guy that can point out huge problems with our school system. A school system that is almost making us dumber by the minute.
Saying that its just about being interested is not listening to what this man is saying. Do you think it takes more interest to understand that the mass of the tree comes from the air and not the ground?
theiamania 3 years ago
I think you got me wrong.
1) I think that (imo!) this is a weak video as all the things he did say were already clear to me (including the problems with the school system) and are quite obvious.
2) I did not say that his point is not valid, some people in my "highschool" actually thought that "the stars" are reflecting light from the sun as the moon is doing.
3)I can only speak for the German school system and there are similar problems (see 2.)
MTRobot 3 years ago
4) My point was that all the examples he is giving concearn natural sciences. And that the biggest problem (imo) is that teachers (especially in natural sciences and math) do not manage to get their students interested in the stuff they are teaching. So basically if you are not interested in what the teacher is saying because (from your point of view) it is boring, you just won't remember it and are very unlikely to put any efforts into.
This is not the only problem of course...
MTRobot 3 years ago
I'm still in Highschool as a Junior. My biology teacher asked what is science? and people couldn't answer that question, so I raised my hand and said it's the study of everything in the cosmos. People are more interested in getting "bitches and hoes".
Kujien 3 years ago 2
both science and "bitches and hoes" are noble pursuits. I pursue both, as a matter of fact!
Trouble is, the latter is much easier and immediately gratifying than the former.
DanHipp 3 years ago
@Kujien And you would have been wrong, although it is a good guess as to what science is.
You could say that religions are also the 'study of everything in the cosmos'. In the strictest sense of the word in modern context, science is the system of acquiring and the body of knowledge acquired through the scientific method.
RakshasaCat 1 year ago
Can you hook both ends of a single wire to a bulb and make it light? YES: coil the center around an iron core and wave a powerful magnet back and forth over it.
descendantofmankind 3 years ago
i like this way the best.
Eequality72521 3 years ago
I would like to remind people that it is somewhat silly to base anything off of the remarks made by people on Youtube. I encourage you to read the comments on any youtube video and feel dismayed at human progress.
As to people stating "these questions are super easy" and the like: many studies show that self reporting is notoriously unreliable. Very few people are going to post "hey everyone, i am a total idiot! these questions stumped me! I'm a nitwit!" somethin' to think about.
diraska 3 years ago 2
Actually, youtube's anonymity allows many users to be more honest than they ought to be. You even hinted at this yourself, by highlighting the uncivil nature of most youtube responses, representative of the very unrestrained nature of most youtube commentators. So the argument that they might be holding anything back is nullified by the anonymity of a youtube username.
Mrmoc7 3 years ago
My argument is not nullified in any way. Self-reporting remains unreliable. google it, if I am wrong on this, I will be surprised. Furthermore, people who feel passionately about something are more like to respond. Thus, someone who thinks this is "easy" is more likely to post than someone who went "oh yeah, kinda tricky, that was neat!" You find this in most unscientific surveys, such as surveys that require people to call in. My argument still stands as strong as before. Just google it.
diraska 3 years ago
it's actually still correct if you consider the questions as the ones WE'RE debating. I could say "those" but both ways work fine, but if you wan't to be a bi** about it be my guest. English isn't even my native language. I wonder how well you speak other languages... take care
20051470 3 years ago
this is ridiculous i don't believe that they couldn´t actually answer all this questions. ...the light bulb... COME ON!!!
20051470 3 years ago
"...all this questions...? They don't know light bulbs, you don't know grammar. LOL
LTL220 3 years ago
He asked "science television producers" and "science educators" (teachers) and 7yolds
my answers:
1) Carbon from air, hydrogen, nitrogen and everythig else from the soil through water.
2) put one end of the battery against the bulb directly or better still cut the wire into 2.
3) Earth's north pole points more towards the sun in sumer hence we get longer days and near-perpendicular (hence more powerful per unit area) sunlight.
4) Eliptical orbits (ovals) It's hard to draw something 3D on paper.
Paulginz 3 years ago 3
heres an idea
fuck off
goodsirknight 3 years ago
I'm no geographer, but I know MIT is on the east coast. I'm no cinema critic, But the film reference is to Steve Martin in "The Jerk," not Woody Allen.
lmelvina 3 years ago
As long as you don't draw a perfect circular orbit, your fine. As no one CAN draw a perfect circle it's impossible NOT to do it correctly :)
And the rest are easy.
Thanatos914 3 years ago
I could answer all of those without aid. My solar system probably was not exactly 100% accurate though.
trentspencerktm 3 years ago
Another really great video from TED: I learnt something new (the trees question) and I'm glad there are people thinking seriously about how to handle popular misconceptions of science.
mlpoulter 3 years ago
it might be the fact that i'm still in school but i have learned all of these things, and i did the light bulb experiment in 7th grade and it's very simple if you know how a battery works. maybe it's this problem i have where i realize i don't know something, and start asking questions, idk
lolll666 3 years ago
I got 2 & 3 right...wo hoo
YTvb 3 years ago
Did he say the planets don't orbit in ellipses? I'm pretty sure they do, I think it has something to do with Kepler's Law.
jhobbz45 3 years ago 2
You are absolutely correct.
VivekisV 3 years ago
The orbits are ellipses, and he admitted as much when he said that the northern hemisphere was farther away in its summer than the southern hemisphere was in its summer. He got it wrong when he said the orbits were not in ellipsis. What he probability meant was that the orbits were not in ellipses that were centered, which would be implied by the textbook illustration that he showed. The actual ellipses are very subtle, and except in the case of comets, are almost unperceivable.
FatherChrismas 3 years ago
Yes, the ellipses are so minute that it wouldn't be perceptible even if you drew them perfectly to proportion.
For all intents and purposes, the orbits are circular.
KurNorock 3 years ago
For all intent and purposes, the Earth is flat. Look around, everywhere you look, it is (essentially) flat. Only when you travel great distances does its roundness intrude. You could also say that the (apparently) parabolic path of a ball thrown through the air was a piece of an orbit around the distant Earth-center, or that the escape path of an intruder comet was an ellipse with its far focus on infinity. All would be true, and all somewhat misleading in their truth.
FatherChrismas 3 years ago
Is there a formal point in mathematics at which almost becomes equal-to? The orbit of the moon is roughly a circle, or roughly an ellipse, or roughly an ever-widening spiral. It even can be looked at as traveling in a strange looping path, if viewed from above the plane of the solar-system. We abuse these absolutes when we demand that nature obey one influence to the exclusion of all others.
FatherChrismas 3 years ago
Except that you couldn't really say that about those things because for all intents and purposes, those things aren't true.
The orbit of the planets around the sun are technically elliptical, but by such a small degree as to be indistinguishable without extremely precise measurement. To draw the orbits on a paper would be to draw a perfect circle.
You can actually see the curvature of the earth from the ground, you can see that a thrown ball does not achieve orbit, etc.
KurNorock 3 years ago
You must be very tall. Im 6'5", and I still cant see the curvature of the Earth from the ground.
FatherChrismas 3 years ago
That is because your view is blocked by objects between yourself and the horizon, and you must be in a place where the ground is perfectly "flat". In places like the Salt Flats in Nevada, or the VW test track in Germany, you CAN actually see the curvature of the earth because the ground is so flat for such a long distance.
KurNorock 3 years ago
Youre working too hard on this idea.
FatherChrismas 3 years ago
It's not an elliptical orbit. The fact that some hemispheres are closer is simply due to the fact that the Earth is on a slight angle, the poles are not on the bottom and the top, it is set on a slight angle of about 17 degrees. I was under the impression that only Venus was an elliptically orbiting planet.
LeadedMockery 3 years ago
Kepler's first law: Planets move in ellipses with the Sun at one focus.
FatherChrismas 3 years ago
In 2000 The Earth was 91,405,436 miles from Sun at perihelion and 94,511,989 miles from Sun at aphelion. So, not MUCH of an elipse. They didn't tell us how much they exaggerated the diagrams when they taught us Kepler.
sustaincain 3 years ago
How do you get such an idea? Any number of sources all agree that Venus has the most circular orbit in the solar system, with an eccentricity of 0.01. In addition to its nearly circular orbit, Venus is unique for another reason: it rotates backwards (or in a retrograde direction). If you could look down at the Solar System from above, all of the planets orbit in a clockwise direction. But Venus rotates in a counter-clockwise direction.
sustaincain 3 years ago
"...probability meant..."
Ouch!
FatherChrismas 3 years ago
Very mind-opening.
Skypeace89 3 years ago
very interesting.but it's left me wondering.
how does an airplane actually fly? i thought the explanation had to do with Bernoulli's law and pressure differences but if that's the case, how does an airplane fly upside down?
zapopaul 3 years ago
The Equal transit time theory is a fallacy. A completely flat wing on a paper airplane for example generates lift with neither the top or bottom of the wing being longer than the other.
Angle of attack (simply tilting the wing) is much more of a determining factor for lift. The air over the top of the wing is compressed by the angle of attack and conservation of mass states that the air must then speed up, generating lift.
That is why planes can fly upside down.
KurNorock 3 years ago
this vid must have 50 million views ASAP! ....
REP: c, e, s, a, r.
CUSTOMER: Ohhhh!!! Cesar!
Zayrek 3 years ago
Because most people went to public schools.
UnconcernedCitizen 3 years ago
Great vid. Thanks.
UnconcernedCitizen 3 years ago
Is youtube really slow on some videos for anyone else?
imthunder 3 years ago
I would enjoy this more if he were naked.. hehehe.
bralen24 3 years ago
i feel like this barely introduced me to anything of substance... i'm not sure the way he structured this lesson and the examples he used will resonate with many people (or *enough* people, for the usual quality of ted)... i'm not sure many people will be able to explain a model of 'what they learned' after hearing this... like the magnetism and gravity examples, people may end up testing worse after this lesson than before it... maybe there is a lesson in the irony?...
todaysprogramming 3 years ago
All you guys who are posting how easy the questions are missed the point of the talk.
windex72 3 years ago
No we didn't. His conclusion was that, with all our book learning and college degrees, we still didn't know as much as we think we do. He was trying to support that conclusion with the premise that most people won't do particularly well on the 4 questions he posted, and he even cites the example of the "graduate engineering students" who couldn't light up a light bulb. We're posting our scores to proclaim that his premises are false, and the argument uncogent. Damn right we got the point.
Mrmoc7 3 years ago
No matter how many of us say we got it right it has no bearing on his point; if 30% of viewers got the answers right and half of them announced it here so what? He has statistics on his side (presumably). If he said no one can answer those questions correctly, you might have a point.
rovrola 3 years ago
"He has statistics on his side (presumably)."
Exactly. You're "assuming," without evidence, that his data is reliable. He did not provide us his sample population ( he only references them anecdotically), so it might just be that they had selectively interviewed really dumb people to shoddily premise his conclusion. Many are posting their scores (and we really have no way of knowing the percentage of total viewers they represent) b/c they're surprised to discover that the problems are easy.
Mrmoc7 3 years ago
If it turns out that his premise (that, as evidenced by people's scores on his test, the conclusion that "we do not know as much as we think we do" follows) is probably false, then his inductive argument might be strong, but it would be uncogent and consequently, useless for any purpose whatsoever.
Mrmoc7 3 years ago
True we can't rely on his unsubstantiated claims.. although I hope he keeps in mind my his own message about seeking confirmation for our misconceptions, in which case he would have probably used sound methodology. But in any case, the fact that millions of youtubers got it right doesn't prove anything either. "We're posting our scores to proclaim that his premises are false" that was my main focus. That statement is based on a lot of assumptions.
rovrola 3 years ago
Sry, I should've inserted "probably" before false. The more people get his questions right, the higher the chances of his premises being false. It would be impossible (as you rightly pointed out) to prove that they're 100% false because some people will always get them all wrong, but for the most part, they probably will be (again, as long as more people seem to be getting it right, than not).
Mrmoc7 3 years ago
Er.. u really can't tell whether it's more or less people scoring.
rovrola 3 years ago
Actually, if you took a tally of all the people posting their scores, you'll find that most of them are expressing favorable results. Of course, maybe many who got it wrong simply didn't post their scores... but then again, maybe many who got it all right were just too humble to post their scores. Therefore, given the available data, it's "reasonable" to say more people are getting it right.
Mrmoc7 3 years ago
And you might say that: "Well, maybe more youtube people get it right, and more of the people he interviewed just didn't get it right." I would say, youtube is a far more representative population of the "ordinary people" who he was using to premise the conclusion that "we really don't know as much as we think we do," than the people he might've selectively interviewed. Again, further adding momentum to my claim that his premise is PROBABLY false.
Mrmoc7 3 years ago
The posts here are "statistically insignificant"! Besides, I can see why people would post good scores on the other hand I don't see why they would post bad ones. How many comments say "I got all wrong, and I'm a physics professor! ...we really don't know shit!"?
rovrola 3 years ago
I'm not the only one who thinks the questions are easy. Others are: 20051470, truthiness, azure, sukiwang, 6gunner, thomaswastaken, joshbuckler, roidroid, gp861, akylae (who found it so easy, that he's now calling Americans stupid), takerdust, wiriyakS, atimholt, calumlittle, zeldarooles, trevillianc, MrBiggman, peripheralparhelion, jahganga, almightscoop, lazerjo, mrkurt, knight3857, zack77, johnsnith, gilaweri, canonpix, annoyingjames, LHall, trents, schistopher, thanatos, & Paulgin.
Mrmoc7 3 years ago
YTVB and 1 or 2 other people thought it was hard. This being the case, you have about 94% of posts relating to the question's difficulty saying it was easy, while only 6% said it was hard. If you think my statistics are botched, go ahead and prove me wrong...provide me the complete names of those who found it difficult, as I did for those who found it easy below. Now, I don't know what you've been taught, but a 94%-6% difference is overwhelmingly, statistically, fucking significant!
Mrmoc7 3 years ago
Ok, seems we aren't getting anywhere with this but let me just point out that your 94% only represents those who CLAIMED it was easy (did we say something about evidence earlier?) out of those who posted, out of those who attempted (and possibly didn't even). It has no bearing on people's ability to answer the questions correctly... unless u are willing to make several assumptions! :P
rovrola 3 years ago
Yep, I get how this works. This is where I present the cold facts, and you reply by inventing a hypothetical counterargument. The fact remains: The speaker was able to control who he interviewed for his test. I, on the other hand, could not control the people who watched or commented on this video. The sample I'm taking my argument from, thought imperfect, is far more random and representative than what the speaker used.
Mrmoc7 3 years ago
There is no absolute quota for when a sample is just "large enough," or when it's just "representative enough." All these arguments are entirely comparative and probabilistic, not distinctively wrong or right. You compare one with the other, and choose which appears to be more reasonable. That's all I've been saying. Because If one claim appears to be more reasonable than the other, based on the available evidence, doesn't mean either one of them is wrong or right.
Mrmoc7 3 years ago
U simply don't get that people are much more likely to post positive scores... for a variety of reasons, such as (like u mentioned) proving the guy wrong, demonstrating how smart they are, and so on.. some would lie! U can't prove him wrong with those figures. I'm wouldn't bet on him either, but PERSONALLY I consider data from a TED presentation to be more trusty than the feedback from random strangers.
rovrola 3 years ago
...And they aren't so random either by the way, the title of the video doesn't just attract anyone.
If you think that people will post their scores in a representative ratio, then my friend you are making one hell of an assumption. Where are the cold facts on that? In any case what is the probability of him being wrong? U haven't even had a peek at his data, what are u comparing? (yes I said data in my previous post, I meant information, i.e. his conclusion.)
rovrola 3 years ago
"The sample I'm taking my argument from, thought imperfect, is far more random and representative than what the speaker used." Really? Can you try to back that up please? If you could serve some cold facts with that it would be nice too :)
rovrola 3 years ago
You keep jumbling my arguments. I said above, that there is no such thing as the perfect "random sample," or the perfect "representative sample." It's all comparative, it's all probabilistic. The speaker actively went out to interview people who shockingly, managed to suck so hard on his test questions to elicit many of us to respond with surprise because the questions weren't even that hard. This is stuff you learn in elementary school for God's sake.
Mrmoc7 3 years ago
To summarize all I've been trying to say for the past several posts, I simply refuse to believe that people are that stupid, and unsurprisingly, 94% of people commenting on the questions also agreed with me. Oh and most of us aren't "graduate engineers" either. Otherwise, where would we have the time to watch youtube videos? :P This argument as gone on too long, so I'll be leaving it to others to form their own judgments. I'm done here.
Mrmoc7 3 years ago
hmmm... "94% of people commenting on the questions also agreed with me" sounds a bit disingenuous... more like 94% of those that posted their scores, unsurprisingly!!
rovrola 3 years ago
94 to 6 percent is not statistically significant by necessity. To be significant it requires that the selection is big enough - that is, population in the numbers big enough that flukes will barely register, and that the selection of this big number covers a representative cross of all relevant traits.
Tweaking those things is how newspapers manage to always ALWAYS have the statistics they want. :P
EtherealN 3 years ago
What number is "big enough" for you, and what are the "relevant traits" you're talking about? Don't go hiding baseless arguments behind vague notions.
Mrmoc7 3 years ago
I hate this video i was expecting ground breaking questions that would leave you puzzled. This just made me angry
LHallmAn 3 years ago
easy
AnnoyingJames 3 years ago
Lol, why does this video leave me feeling as if I'm smarter than I really am? I scored 3/4, and came very close on the 4th one.
Mrmoc7 3 years ago
This is a perfect example of douche bag teachers. They want to humiliate their students with the student's stupidity rather encourage the students with their smartness. Teachers get slapped down all the time if they try to change and improve the agenda, so they stop after a while. Agenda is politics and power and is set by superiors. Schools are intentionally designed for 10% F's, 20% D's and 40% C's. Stupid you. Thinking doesn't work. Believe us. Buy our product. Vote for me.
camgere 3 years ago 2
The first question is the hard one. The rest are, while still difficult, can have their answers easily found, but most people just don't know them. Wikipedia FTW!
BecauseWeCanFilms 3 years ago
wait. so... the solar system is not an eclipse?
whopassedthegas 3 years ago
sorry but this guy is retarded. i got all of those answers right and i think almost everyone else would know them.
the elliptical thing is so stupid. no one thinks that you tard.
is it just me or is this shit obvious.
fuck man, people need to start smoking weed and eating mushrooms
gilaweri 3 years ago
I know, where are these people that can't answer these questions right? I learned this shit in 3rd form science.
Canonpixmalogitechko 3 years ago
Love the Nokia ad
triiigun 3 years ago
apart from the 1st question all the questions were easy
johnsnith 3 years ago
e. none of the below
UnconcernedCitizen 3 years ago
d. all of the above
UnconcernedCitizen 3 years ago
Doesn't back up that air-mass claim
mffnman964 3 years ago
these questions are absurdly easy
ZacK77k77 3 years ago 2
Interesting conversation!
Children build models of the world which are sometimes wrong but very persistent - often we unintentionally reinforce them. The kids grow up, keeping the same ideas. Most of us, including science teachers, hold curious misconceptions.
So listen to kid's ideas about the world. Once articulated, it's easier to work with them. Hands-on experiments help too.
That's what I was trying to say.
I'll continue to follow the conversation with interest, and humility! Jon, London
jondrori 3 years ago
I wish he was my teacher in school lol I'd have cared a bit more for science.
themysterycaper 3 years ago 4
Ok apart from the solar system question the other ones are fine with me. Does this mean I have the equivalent intelligence of a 7 year old? I used to pick on people like the lecturer at school due to them needing to get out more and get a girlfriend/get laid for Gods sake!
knight3857 3 years ago
sorry mate. MIT isn't on the west coast of america. it's in Massachusetts.
markusx2468 3 years ago
Ayy! Sit down in the front!
TeePain87 3 years ago
yer nkow what i hate about those mensa puzzles.all that genuis.round of applause, yet they can't shift a dodgy politian in power or prevent heartbreak from callous loved one or prevent a truck hitting your car despite your alert driving.hmmm yes
misterfisherman 3 years ago
cool this is cool
danielb3ta 3 years ago 2
I didn't understand the 'torch' question, not knowing that 'torch' is actually Brit lingo for flashlight.
MesaMIV 3 years ago
I used to think there was no such thing as a stupid question. I know now they have to come in groups of 4.
mrkurt13 3 years ago
Yeah - they really weren't very good questions.
AlmightScoop 3 years ago
I learned the answer to a majority of those in 6-8th grade
Lazerjo2000 3 years ago