anybody who thinks feynman would believe in global warming is delusional. it's either pseudo-science or junk science, take your pick. to its credit as not being pseudo-science, it has made certain predictions... unfortunately not a single one has ever been right.
@adlozi by studying genetics and molecular biology. This is how a lot of modern day taxonomy is done. You do not need fossil evidence to prove evolution (it does help though, especially in explaining it to believe that wrongly disagree with it). By knowing the rate of random mutations, and calculating base changes between individual organisms, you can pretty much design a close to perfect phylogenetic tree, thus proving evolution. Hope this helped!
For christ sake people! You're going to have to do a little better than that if you want to debate climate change on a Feynman video. No one has ever questioned the greenhouse effect. (ok no one reasonable) You can prove it in a grade 6 science class. The thing is, that's just one process in a very complex system. The debate is: Is the system self righting? and: What is the scale of natural variation of these gasses over time, how do they compare to human production?
It hurts me a bit to hear Feynman call social science pseudoscience. I got great respect for the man, but I don't think it's fair to say that because social science isn't as good at producing laws, it isn't science. Chemistry has few laws too. Not because people don't know anything about chemistry, but because things are too complex for laws to formulated yet. And social science is yet harder than that, because experiments are that much harder make. Economists do not have labs to experiment in.
@SimaanFreeloader Great Expression! You are thinking, and you are thinking clearly! Now you need to re-read what you wrote... If you think about your own words and expressions, you will conclude the same thing as did Feynman: Oh, that is pseudoscience! Cause we can't do this or that, we can't get as precise. (Remember there are lots of ways to think that are logical, but not Scientific -- take Math for one example. Pseudoscience does not mean "bad science".)
@ExBoydWho No, I do not. Just because something which is being studied is very complex does not mean that any attempt at describing it necessarily has to be pseudoscience. As long as the ways of studying it follows the scientific method, where claims can be falsified by empirical evidence, then it still should be viewed as science. And yes, pseudoscience actually does mean "bad science", or rather it means something which isn't even science at all, but just pretends to be it.
"I know what it means to know something" - that's an amazing summation of the scientific perspective. It is inherently more difficult to prove a statement like "organic food is healthy" because that is almost purely qualitative statement and not easily quantifiable. Not even one of those 4 words can even be specifically defined and agreed upon by a majority of experts. Even the nature of the word "is" may be debated among philosophers, lawyers, and presidents.
This vid would also apply to all those keyboard warriors who think they are experts in fitness because they have read up on fitness. As to why their advice doesn't work on themselves, oh it's because they aren't practicing it rigorously enough themselves, they don't aim for low bf% or they don't want to bulk up..... ;D
@VeronicaHastings Indeed. They are so accurate they only adjust their estimates by 50% or more once in a while. Anybody that believes we understand all the variables of global climate, are full of it. The irony is, it doesn't even matter. People respond better to local issues, and there are plenty of local cases to be made for controlling pollution. The global climate change angle is making it less likely people will care and act, not more.
@VeronicaHastings Or "It doesn't matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn't matter how smart you are. If it doesn't agree with experiment, it's wrong. "
The whole UEA crowd got shown up as a bunch of sneaky crooks. They were utterly rumbled. Why can't you eco-nutters get over this?
@VeronicaHastings Would be nice to say if there had been anywhere close to enough time to measure the models' predictive skills. Just hindcasting isn't good enough. Early weather models did this, they were awful and had less skill than
Why? Any group that makes the claim "the science is settled" would surely incur Feynman's wrath. Science is never settled. There are always as-yet-unprobed aspects. Brilliant minds like Feynman, Einstein, Newton and Maxwell always looked for ways in which their theories could be knocked down, unlike politically-motivated warmists. Their science is "settled" didn't ya know?
@happyuk06 "The science isn't settled" is a far cry from "global warming isn't happening". No one thinks the science is completely settled in that we know absolutely every variable that affects the climate. But we know enough to know we're pretty close, just like how we can launch rockets at the moon with pinpoint accuracy even if we don't know how to reconcile quantum mechanics with relativity.
@happyuk06 A better analogy to substitute for yours is if Einstein had looked at Newtonian mechanics, noticed that it didn't jive with the curvature of light around planets, and conclude that there is no such thing as force, mass, or acceleration. I'm pretty sure that kind of "we don't know everything therefore we don't know anything" attitude isn't what Feynman had in mind.
@happyuk06 Yep. The science isn't quite settled on climate change. I mean, look at these knock-down arguments offered to us by climate change skeptics:
"Why CO2 Can't Cause Global Warming:
-1st Law of Thermo
-Le Chatelier's Principle" - Fox News
/sarcasm Seriously now, a high-school science student who paid attention in class should be able to refute this bullshit, so do you really think R P Feynman would have trouble? There's a reason 97% of scientists accept climate change.
@happyuk06 You realize that climate science is applied physics, right? We've known about the greenhouse effect since the days of Fourier. Gases that have IR-active vibrational modes absorb IR radiation. If you increase the partial pressure of these gases in the atmosphere, the equilibrium temperature of the earth will rise. Predicting how long it takes to reach that equilibrium, however, is complicated, but the pH of the oceans will drop, and the planet will be hotter on average.
"Are you kidding?? If Feynman was around, he'd be shaking his head very hard at the global warming skeptics.'
Actually Feynman wouldn't care, he's apolitical. He not trying to prove how right he is by confirming with strangers on youtube. Only if you possessed an iota of his intellect.
>watches video, clap
>reads comments
>visit to video is now ruined
Man I don't even know why I bother scrolling down.
SecretAgentC1ank 5 days ago
anybody who thinks feynman would believe in global warming is delusional. it's either pseudo-science or junk science, take your pick. to its credit as not being pseudo-science, it has made certain predictions... unfortunately not a single one has ever been right.
blubblez12345 1 week ago
hmm.. how about archeology? Archeology is part of social science. If archeology wouldn't exist, how we would prove the theory of evolution?
adlozi 2 weeks ago
@adlozi by studying genetics and molecular biology. This is how a lot of modern day taxonomy is done. You do not need fossil evidence to prove evolution (it does help though, especially in explaining it to believe that wrongly disagree with it). By knowing the rate of random mutations, and calculating base changes between individual organisms, you can pretty much design a close to perfect phylogenetic tree, thus proving evolution. Hope this helped!
blinx999 2 weeks ago
@tomaskvapil he says, "...but what happens is--on an even more mundane level--we get experts on everything..."
yichijin 3 weeks ago
For christ sake people! You're going to have to do a little better than that if you want to debate climate change on a Feynman video. No one has ever questioned the greenhouse effect. (ok no one reasonable) You can prove it in a grade 6 science class. The thing is, that's just one process in a very complex system. The debate is: Is the system self righting? and: What is the scale of natural variation of these gasses over time, how do they compare to human production?
MisterFusion113 1 month ago in playlist Liked videos
It hurts me a bit to hear Feynman call social science pseudoscience. I got great respect for the man, but I don't think it's fair to say that because social science isn't as good at producing laws, it isn't science. Chemistry has few laws too. Not because people don't know anything about chemistry, but because things are too complex for laws to formulated yet. And social science is yet harder than that, because experiments are that much harder make. Economists do not have labs to experiment in.
SimaanFreeloader 1 month ago
@SimaanFreeloader Great Expression! You are thinking, and you are thinking clearly! Now you need to re-read what you wrote... If you think about your own words and expressions, you will conclude the same thing as did Feynman: Oh, that is pseudoscience! Cause we can't do this or that, we can't get as precise. (Remember there are lots of ways to think that are logical, but not Scientific -- take Math for one example. Pseudoscience does not mean "bad science".)
ExBoydWho 1 month ago
@ExBoydWho No, I do not. Just because something which is being studied is very complex does not mean that any attempt at describing it necessarily has to be pseudoscience. As long as the ways of studying it follows the scientific method, where claims can be falsified by empirical evidence, then it still should be viewed as science. And yes, pseudoscience actually does mean "bad science", or rather it means something which isn't even science at all, but just pretends to be it.
SimaanFreeloader 1 month ago
beautifully put, wonderful man here
andwhatfire 1 month ago
What does he say at 0:41 - 0:45 please help me
tomaskvapil 1 month ago
Richard P Feynmman was the next most brillant physicist to ever grace Planet Earth.
Phi1618ish 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
"Are you kidding?? If Feynman was around, he'd be shaking his head very hard at the global warming skeptics."
What arrogence when we can suppose to talk for Feynman :)
danielgardiner81 3 months ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Global warming = pseudoscience
givemeblowjob69 3 months ago
"I know what it means to know something" - that's an amazing summation of the scientific perspective. It is inherently more difficult to prove a statement like "organic food is healthy" because that is almost purely qualitative statement and not easily quantifiable. Not even one of those 4 words can even be specifically defined and agreed upon by a majority of experts. Even the nature of the word "is" may be debated among philosophers, lawyers, and presidents.
StrongHeartLives 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Some people want young white females to mix with non-white males.
I made a one-minute video highlighting a very tiny sample of race-mixing advertisements.
I love white people, and I am opposed to race-mixing. But I do not hate non-whites.
If you click on my name “autumntree2011” highlighted in blue below this comment, you can watch my video.
(I'm not a fan of Hitler or KKK.)
autumntree2011 4 months ago
This vid would also apply to all those keyboard warriors who think they are experts in fitness because they have read up on fitness. As to why their advice doesn't work on themselves, oh it's because they aren't practicing it rigorously enough themselves, they don't aim for low bf% or they don't want to bulk up..... ;D
crandf 4 months ago
the vignette with the music at the beginning was unnecessary
eiriklil 4 months ago
I'm sure if Feynman were around now he'd give these Global Warming charlatans some words to remember.
happyuk06 4 months ago
@happyuk06 Indeed. He would tell them their science is accurate and their computer models more precise than anything he could have imagined.
VeronicaHastings 4 months ago 8
@VeronicaHastings Indeed. They are so accurate they only adjust their estimates by 50% or more once in a while. Anybody that believes we understand all the variables of global climate, are full of it. The irony is, it doesn't even matter. People respond better to local issues, and there are plenty of local cases to be made for controlling pollution. The global climate change angle is making it less likely people will care and act, not more.
frodehauge 4 months ago
@frodehauge Can you give me a credible source showing the estimates being adjusted by 50% once in a while? Thanks.
VeronicaHastings 4 months ago 2
@VeronicaHastings Really? And not "I believe that a scientist looking at nonscientific problems is just as dumb as the next guy. "
happyuk06 4 months ago
@VeronicaHastings Or "It doesn't matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn't matter how smart you are. If it doesn't agree with experiment, it's wrong. "
The whole UEA crowd got shown up as a bunch of sneaky crooks. They were utterly rumbled. Why can't you eco-nutters get over this?
happyuk06 4 months ago
@happyuk06 I'm not an eco-nutter!
VeronicaHastings 4 months ago
Comment removed
12edDemon 4 months ago
@VeronicaHastings Would be nice to say if there had been anywhere close to enough time to measure the models' predictive skills. Just hindcasting isn't good enough. Early weather models did this, they were awful and had less skill than
ZeroRed78 2 weeks ago
@VeronicaHastings than forecasters with their crude methods.
ZeroRed78 2 weeks ago
@VeronicaHastings … and yet their "predictions" totally wrong!
macmarine 1 day ago
@happyuk06 Are you kidding?? If Feynman was around, he'd be shaking his head very hard at the global warming skeptics.
RoderE 4 months ago 8
@RoderE
Why? Any group that makes the claim "the science is settled" would surely incur Feynman's wrath. Science is never settled. There are always as-yet-unprobed aspects. Brilliant minds like Feynman, Einstein, Newton and Maxwell always looked for ways in which their theories could be knocked down, unlike politically-motivated warmists. Their science is "settled" didn't ya know?
happyuk06 4 months ago
@happyuk06 "The science isn't settled" is a far cry from "global warming isn't happening". No one thinks the science is completely settled in that we know absolutely every variable that affects the climate. But we know enough to know we're pretty close, just like how we can launch rockets at the moon with pinpoint accuracy even if we don't know how to reconcile quantum mechanics with relativity.
RoderE 4 months ago
@happyuk06 A better analogy to substitute for yours is if Einstein had looked at Newtonian mechanics, noticed that it didn't jive with the curvature of light around planets, and conclude that there is no such thing as force, mass, or acceleration. I'm pretty sure that kind of "we don't know everything therefore we don't know anything" attitude isn't what Feynman had in mind.
RoderE 4 months ago
@happyuk06 Yep. The science isn't quite settled on climate change. I mean, look at these knock-down arguments offered to us by climate change skeptics:
"Why CO2 Can't Cause Global Warming:
-1st Law of Thermo
-Le Chatelier's Principle" - Fox News
/sarcasm Seriously now, a high-school science student who paid attention in class should be able to refute this bullshit, so do you really think R P Feynman would have trouble? There's a reason 97% of scientists accept climate change.
jaimesthesaint 2 months ago
@happyuk06 You realize that climate science is applied physics, right? We've known about the greenhouse effect since the days of Fourier. Gases that have IR-active vibrational modes absorb IR radiation. If you increase the partial pressure of these gases in the atmosphere, the equilibrium temperature of the earth will rise. Predicting how long it takes to reach that equilibrium, however, is complicated, but the pH of the oceans will drop, and the planet will be hotter on average.
MetalMilitia5488 2 months ago
Comment removed
12edDemon 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@RoderE
"Are you kidding?? If Feynman was around, he'd be shaking his head very hard at the global warming skeptics.'
Actually Feynman wouldn't care, he's apolitical. He not trying to prove how right he is by confirming with strangers on youtube. Only if you possessed an iota of his intellect.
Alas, you will die ignorant. I envy you.
Romansteel13 1 month ago
@RoderE How about we not assume what he'd think about global warming.
TKDdans 1 month ago
Nice photos.
VanostranIV 5 months ago