Well I wouldn't say that string theory is philosophy but I agree. It hasn't yet become testable. But I think a more apt description about a mathematical model for future scientific development.
Human chromosome 2, Matching endogenous retro-viral sequences between the grate apes and humans, recessive genes, tail muscle in humans, Progressive patterns in comparative genes, Junk DNA, Single strain DNA.+multiple dating methods that agree with each other with an extremely low % margin of error proving the earth is old enough for the time needed for macro change and Ring species nylon eating bacteria(example of new information created from a mutation).
You were shown this in a class? What class? I'm very curious to know what kind of classroom this trash would get propagated, and what kind of teacher wouldn't understand the inaccuracies in it.
@iridescentsquids I'm pretty sure he didn't pick the video since he disagreed with it. I think what happened was that one of the TAs picked it without watching it first. Anyway, it's a terrible video and this guy deserves to be beaten with a baseball bat.
Agree, all the examples given are, in fact, science. Take the facts, come up with an idea of what the explanation is and then try to disprove it. If you can't disprove it, and it accounts for all known facts, then the idea becomes a theory. Theories don't have to be 'provable' just have to account for all the facts, as we know them.
Matching endogenous retro-viral sequences between the grate apes and humans,
recessive genes,
Wisdom teeth.
Progressive patterns in comparative
genes,
Junk DNA,
Single strain DNA.+multiple dating methods that agree with each other with an extremely low % margin of error proving the earth is old enough for the time needed for macro change and
Ring species
nylon eating bacteria(example of new information created from a mutation).
Sahelanthropus tchadensis, Ardipithecus ramidus, Australopithecus anamensis, Australopithecus afarensis, Kenyanthropus platyops, Australopithecus africanus, Australopithecus garhi, Australopithecus sediba, Australopithecus aethiopicus, Australopithecus robustus, Australopithecus boisei, Homo habilis, Homo georgicus, Homo erectus,, Homo ergaster, Homo antecessor, Homo heidelbergensis, Homo neanderthalensis, Homo floresiensis, Homo sapiens
Ah,doing a search for 'Scientific Method' and I come across this video again.
Borrowing from the Accounts name-What you ought to know is this is video Is either blatantly a lie or unintentional misleading.
Evidence.....EVIDENCE.This is what is the cornerstone of science.
A scientific 'theory' is the human explanation of this collected Evidence.Big Bang-we got evidence,it's called Background radiation.Dark matter- images exist of Gravitational lensing of stars showing the effect of DM.EVIDENCE!
@KittenKoder That's silly. I think you're just making stuff up based on some sort of anti-government ideology.
Today's scientific community is gigantic and tremendously varied. Grant money is available from both private and public sources.
Regardless of the source of funding, there is an enormous amount of integrity in the scientific process as a whole, which includes a rigorous peer review process and availability of data and methods to everybody, scientists and non-scientists alike.
@KittenKoder What exactly do you accuse me of being naive about? That the grant money is available from both private and public sources? Hardly a point you can refute.
Or perhaps you believe that there should be no public funding of scientific research at all?
The way conservative ideologues argue against government spending it wouldn't surprise me.
Anyway, if you have the balls to clarify your accusation, let's hear it.
@KittenKoder Money can be a motivator for "Bad Science," otherwise known as BS. But, when studying the scientific community, we must realize there is money to be had on all sides of a given topic of debate. Therefore, the scientific community as a whole tends to diminish a lot of this effect. So, one tends to lose a great deal of credibility when attacking the scientific community as a whole with such arguments. What you really outta know.
@frankleeseaux " So, one tends to lose a great deal of credibility when attacking the scientific community as a whole with such arguments."
What I was trying to say when I mentioned the scientific community being vast and varied. The accusation that scientists are lining up behind any study funded by government sounds absolutely ridiculous to me...I suspect (although I could be wrong) it's just an example of knee-jerk anti government nonsense KittenKoder wrote before thinking it through.
The thing is if you found proof that evolution was wrong or the big bang never happend you would become possibly the most famous scientist of 21st century, win the nobel prize and be able to get any university position you wanted. There is a reason that nobody has been able to do it.
Human chromosome 2, Matching endogenous retro-viral sequences between the grate apes and humans, recessive genes, tail muscle in humans, Progressive patterns in comparative genes, Junk DNA, Single strain DNA.+multiple dating methods that agree with each other with an extremely low % margin of error proving the earth is old enough for the time needed for macro change and Ring species nylon eating bacteria(example of new information created from a mutation).
Sahelanthropus tchadensis, Ardipithecus ramidus, Australopithecus anamensis, Australopithecus afarensis, Kenyanthropus platyops, Australopithecus africanus, Australopithecus garhi, Australopithecus sediba, Australopithecus aethiopicus, Australopithecus robustus, Australopithecus boisei, Homo habilis, Homo georgicus, Homo erectus,, Homo ergaster, Homo antecessor, Homo heidelbergensis, Homo neanderthalensis, Homo floresiensis, Homo sapiens
This video is a prime example of special pleading. The speaker claims to agree with science, and understand the scientific method, but only where it applies to those things which do not disagree with their own preconceived notions. This is all evidenced by their dismissal of the Big Bang Theory, and Dark Matter, as well as their dismissal, in another video, of the Theory of Evolution. In that video they give a misleading argument about evolution being related to the origin of life.
@frankleeseaux Sorry but when scientists speak of "Dark Matter" it's a code word for "we have no idea about over 98% of the Universe so all that stuff we'll call Dark Matter". It's the same for "Dark Energy". They admit this to themselves but to sound super smart name it something for the public. The Scientific Method was created by Christian Scientists due to their Theology that God is a god of reason and logic. Also Darwinian Evolution is nothing but atheistic philosophy and not science.
@Akihito007 Dark Matter is observed and measured, but "invisible," due to the reasons mentioned before. They DO NOT call it such simply out of some need to feel superior, or to seem such. Science is a brand of philosophy which relies on empirical facts and evidence in support of its arguments. All other forms of philosophy, such as religion, and meta-physics relies on anecdotal evidence which is easily refuted, and can be used to support any number of fallacious hypotheses.
@Akihito007 Frankly, I find your arguments to be lazy and unfounded by reason and understanding. I urge you to do some research of your own rather than relying on such baseless arguments to support your world view.
@Akihito007 "Sorry but when scientists speak of "Dark Matter" it's a code word for "we have no idea about over 98% of the Universe so all that stuff we'll call Dark Matter"." All of this is true. I do not deny this as a fact. But, that does not make the evidence for the existence of the so called, "Dark Matter" to exist, or dark energy, for that matter.
@Akihito007 "They admit this to themselves but to sound super smart name it something for the public."
Seems so silly to object to people giving a topic of inquiry a name.
We all give names to all kinds of things which are understood to various degrees. I'm sure you do the same. Why? Because we use LANGUAGE to communicate.
That's normal. No conspiracy there.
I think you need to study up on what constitutes science in order to improve your arguments. Right now you just look misinformed.
Theories are only ever called theories if they can be tested. The Big Bang Theory is one such theory. Otherwise it would still be called the Big Bang Hypothesis. The same is true of String Theory. Dark Matter is called such only because it has been observed and evidenced, but, remains unseen due to background radiation and light from nearby stars. So, while I agree that all things should remain in question, and one should demand evidence. But, this video is, otherwise, a bit misleading.
@oelsch That is an utter obfuscation of what I actually said. But, since you seem to be in the habit of comparing logic and reason, as well as science to religion, which, by my definition, is the antithesis of logic and reason, then there really is no reasoning with you, or means by which to reach understanding.
@frankleeseaux "Theories are only ever called theories if they can be tested."
This is according to the definition of the two terms provided by the speaker in this film. I don't believe this person is an idiot. Far from it. He says a lot of things in a lot of videos which are "spot on." But, I do believe this person is blinded by personal beliefs which are tied directly to his sense of ego/self identity.
@frankleeseaux "I don't believe this person is an idiot."
I think a very strong case can be made that he's dishonest, given that he gets so many facts wrong that are easy to confirm. For example, he says at 1:50 a lot of science isn't science..."it isn't science because it isn't provable" and includes the big bang as an example?! The scientific method is his topic, yet he gets it wrong on an 8th grade level. At what point can we consider it an outright lie and not just ego?
@iridescentsquids I'm glad you mention it in the way you do. I am perfectly willing to explore the potential for dishonesty in his approach. But, honesty can be a bit of a sticky wicket. I mean, honesty is all a matter of perspective and perception, or, in plain English... honesty is related to belief. That, on the surface level of association. However, there is a deeper level of honesty which goes largely ignored in modern culture. That is, intellectual honesty... to be cont.
@iridescentsquids Intellectual honesty is present at the moment we examine our own beliefs from the perspective of the skeptic. For instance, Had he displayed the least bit of intellectual honesty, he would have admitted the scientific facts about the scientific method, rather than obfuscating them behind blind rhetoric, and logic fallacies. Still, on the personal level, he may believe all those things he said. Thus he was honest, but, not with himself. to be cont... further
@iridescentsquids The lack of initial honesty, with himself in acquainting himself with the facts, lead directly to his obfuscation of those facts to maintain his preconceived world view, and to project that out into the ethos, where the rest of us may perceive it as an outright lie.
@frankleeseaux "The lack of initial honesty, with himself in acquainting himself with the facts,"
The best conmen sound and act sincere in the face of blatant lies.
My evidence for lies as opposed to intel. dishonesty: 1) he's a kind of educator. The videos are associated with a home-schooling network, so I hold him to a higher standard of factual accuracy than an editorial 2) I can't believe he isn't aware of evidence for his consistent factual errors. The facts are too easily available.
@iridescentsquids "The videos are associated with a home-schooling network" ??? Seriously? Hmm. I wonder if that home schooling network is theologically inclined. It would explain the obfuscation of scientific fact, and the denial of evidence. As such, he may simply be attempting to train theists in the common methods of science denial, so they can accept, without question, their belief in fairy tales.
@frankleeseaux "The videos are associated with a home-schooling network" ???"
I've seen them on sale as part of a Canadian home-school curriculum. Ironically, they call themselves "the brothers winn" and they produced these videos with the stated purpose of making education fun. Ug... Pushing your agenda and blatant falsehoods in a "fun" way to kids? Can it get any more wrong?
Anyways, they have a site and I think they are still trying to get these into schools.
Did you get your definition of the scientific method from conservapia? I don't know much about science but I don't make videos advertising that fact. Why didn't you pick up a phone and call an actual science teacher? Maybe we all would be enlightend by you efforts.
Im kind of freaked out by how many religious zealots and militant atheists are coming out of the woodwork when both of their investments are being questioned in the same breath.
@Yashendwirh "Im kind of freaked out by how many religious zealots and militant atheists are coming out of the woodwork when both of their investments are being questioned in the same breath."
It can just as easily be said that a phony middle-ground arrises out of these debates, the implication being that both sides of a debate are wrong just because debating can be uncomfortable.
@matthewpeirce Then why in every encyclopedia are they still listed as theories instead of fact :| I believe in all those things, but Im not going to glean their hypothetical vulnerabilities either.
@Yashendwirh "Then why in every encyclopedia are they still listed as theories instead of fact"
As with your comments on the Darwin video, this is a misrepresentation of "theory" as it pertains to science. Theories in science never "graduate" to become facts. Every scientific theory, no matter how viable or well-backed by evidence, can always be subjected to attempts at falsification. These are testable, not "hypothetical" vulnerabilities.
@WhatYouOughtToKnow I don't think you quite understand evolutionary theory. You should watch the second episode of Carl Sagan's Cosmos; it's available on Netflix, if you have an account.
Who is this monkey? Asserting corruption where it couldnt exist. An agenda? Such as? Not looking silly for the years it may take to be disproven??? Think about what you're saying.
Big bang theory and string theory on equal footing with religion? You just threw away your credibility.
Science is a work in progress, the unknown is the great stimulus to action, evolving. Religion is absolute.
String theory is still being proven, big bang is accepted as the best explanation because it is the best.
@mehico33 /facepalm THIS is what he was talking about. You're argueing like a jewish guy on christmas. He didn't say that the theoryes are wrong. He said that theire is no concrete proof. Like you said about the big bang "big bang is accepted as the best explanation because it is the best" Not because it's been proven, just because it's the most plausable. Also the agenda he was talking about was how every product is said to be 100% scientificaly tested and found reliable. Every single product
@gso619 Yes but he's wrong, he presents snake oil (ID) and medicine (evolution) as equal, one of which is known to work and well supported, one of which is hocus pocus BS. Irresponsible.
Its wrong to equate theory that stood up to all tests with an idea that A) does not stand up at all, and B) raises more questions than it answers. Simply wrong.
He asserts an agenda unjustly. Students work with the foundations their teachers leave them, science tells no one how they must think. They ought to.
@gso619 There are of course scientists who will ignore facts for shame, who don't want to appear to have wasted their lives. Understandable and inexcusable but one can hardly indict science (our highest ideal IMO) on account of this.
Sitting on the fence and refusing to throw out the trash (ID, my main beef) isn't admirable, he doesn't sound ignorant, this is why I'm taking issue.
Evolutionary theory is secure, rest assured of that. Its irresponsible to act as if it isn't
@gso619 "He didn't say that the theoryes are wrong. He said that theire is no concrete proof."
It is fundamentally wrong for him to suggest that a lot of "science isn't science" because it isn't provable. He does say this. "It isn't science because it isn't provable" (1:48).
This is a fundamental misrepresentation of what science is and how it works. I'd say it's just a dumb mistake, but he repeats this error in other videos. I suspect it's actually an intentional misrepresentation--A lie.
In 1997 I had an honest-to-goodness mystical experience that made known to me that science "is the false religion mentioned in the Book of Revelation." It was an amazing and disturbing experience, to say the least.
People, THESE are the End Times! Get right with the Savior of the World -- Jesus Christ -- immediately!
Today's brilliant men and women of science hardly give sin a mention. But I can assure you that the condition of sin affecting the world hasn't been forgotten by The Holy Trinity!
This is totally BS. Science has no hidden agendas. The big bang theory and string theory is not just a hypothesis. Scientists use measurement and observation to develop their theories. This video starts of explaining how the scientific method works but then it steers towards something about the scientific method that simply is not true.
Why would anyone do that? Can it be that there is some hidden agenda here?
Right wing Christian creationist fundamentalist maybe?
@rovfitta Agreed. Though, he may not see it as such. He may perceive himself as one who is perfectly accepting of science, so long as it does not perceptibly contradict his own preconceived sense of reality. Thus, his arguments make a strong case of special pleading. It's a logical fallacy at it's finest.
He's not using "Theory" in the way Science uses it.
In science, a Theory is an explanation or conclusion drawn about a full set of data. Evolutionary Theory takes into it's range all biological evidences and geological timelines for it's construction. Not all Theories are equal because some are completely wrong (Young-Earth Creation "Theory") and some have less evidence for their conclusions.
difference between science and religion is that science is a on going process that allows for change and input from VERIFIABLE outside labs (others using scientific methods). It also doesn't hold on to things if they are proven wrong. It provides a system that is structured without interpretation. Religion is interpretive by its nature and that it is still too easy for people to fall back on to the position since science can't prove it we have to give create of it to some unseen deity. VERY bad
This guy started out all right but then it went to shit when he started inferring there were conspiratorial scientists fixated on the supremacy of their theories.
@matthewpeirce What? You didn't even respond to what I was writing. I'm not talking about hypotheses. Facts are things we know is true (or at least when we presuppose the basic assumptions of science). Constructs and models are not facts (they are theories). If we only investigate things we know, we can't investigate much, so that's why we build theories (they can be useful even if we can't prove them). What you are saying about theories are true, but that was not what I was writing about.
It's not (or at least shouldn't be) the scientists who claim that theories are facts. You can't prove something that isn't directly observable, and I think every scientist know that. But people don't like uncertainty.
Some good points, however I'd like to add that philosophy is not merely 'unprovable conjecture' but rather a type of 'social science' - based on observation, questions and theories, which operate within a logical gamut. There are provable philosophical theories (which enter into our notions of "Law" or "Justice", for example) and there are improvable theories (like how many angels can dance on the head of a pin).
A theory of everything can't be tested, and can't be used to predict anything at any level, because it's not yet completed. But it's certainly not mere philosophy. When done, it will be testable through its hit record in the number of successful predictions made using the theory. That's what most creationists seem to miss.
The heavy debate on creationism however, is not about the validity of string or m-theory. It stands in relation to evolution, and evolution rests on solid evidence by now.
@SuperMcbatman But this is basically how my Biology professor in my University reviewed the scientific method. There IS no way for scientists to prove how the earth came along, so it can't be science. How is that controversial?
@OstracizedEmu "There IS no way for scientists to prove how the earth came along so it can't be science. How's that controversial?"
Such statements bother people because they don't accurately describe what we can/can not "know" through science. Also, such statements redefine science for social/political purposes (most often in an attempt to discredit the specific scientific theories that contradict or simply fail to support faith-based beliefs).
@OstracizedEmu You mean people's objections to the misrepresentations are ridiculous?
I guess people do get wrapped up in it. I do sometimes. But I think it's for good reason. It seems more ridiculous to me that an educator would teach things that aren't true than it does for people to stand up and point out the mistake/lie.
It's not just a matter of opinion. Science is an important part of all of our lives, and I think it's good to know how it really works.
@iridescentsquids No, I'm totally fine with the others objections. I just really dislike how uncivilized people get over these topics. I also think it's ridiculous that people can get so judgmental and defensive over something that they can't prove. Personally, if I can't prove something like evolution or anything religious, I'm not going to shove it down anyone's throats. I just don't think it makes sense.
@OstracizedEmu Yea, I pretty much agree. Except when somebody teaches things that aren't true or that bend the truth. That annoys me. When he complains that the theory of evolution has not been "proven" it is a misrepresentation because no matter how much fantastic evidence there is for any theory, a theory is never, ever proven in science. It's dishonest to present this as a weakness. The FACT is that science doesn't work that way. I definitely think that's an error worth correcting.
@OstracizedEmu In other words, people who know how science works are getting worked up over the things he says that aren't true, not so much the debate about evolution vs religion.
It's annoying and a bit scary when people think science really just comes down to opinion, or when lies about the limit of what we can/can not know through science are propagated along side religious doctrine as if they are somehow flip-sides of the same coin.
@iridescentsquids But he didn't say anything that wasn't true. My Biology professor in my (extremely liberal) university described the scientific method almost the same way. And I wasn't talking about the video; I was talking about some of the commentors.
I'm sorry, are you saying that as a general statement, or are you saying that is what I'm doing? I don't recall saying any of that. (I really appreciate your respect in this conversation, by the way)
@OstracizedEmu He says there's a lot of science out there that "isn't science because it isn't provable". Buuuuuullll@#$. He's completely wrong. Theories aren't provable, and they are one of the cornerstones of science.
He then goes on to say that if somebody is pushing a theory that hasn't been proven as true they are pushing an agenda. Bull@#@$ again. Although it's possible for people to push agendas (of course!) very well established theories are as near to "truth" as science EVER GETS.
NO, the Big Bang cannot be proven, THEORIES AREN'T PROVEN, but we can make predictions about things we ought to find IF it were true (such as cosmic background microwave radiation) these things have been found -- just as predicted by the theory. NOW all YOU Have to do, tor throw a wrench in it, is come up with ANOTHER coherent, testable (meaning it makes predictions of things we haven't found yet, but would find if it were true) that explains all the observations to date. WE'RE WAITING!!!
Doesn't matter if the Big Bang Theory will actually be validated, becuase people will just claim that "Well, everything is created by God, thus the Big Bang was created by God". And that my friends, is why religion is unbeatable!
A fact is known to be true by observation. Differences arise when connections between facts are supposed or cause/effect relationships are explained. And he also messed up the idea of a scientific theory. Sadly, I think most Americans would agree with his interpretation of how science works.
We can test the big bang theory with the cosmic microwave background radiation, and we can recreate the conditions of the big bang to about 10^-9 seconds. That's before even nuclei can form. Realize just because we weren't there that we can test the evidence that a certain phenomena like the big bang leaves behind.
We can test the big bang theory with the cosmic microwave background radiation, and we can recreate the conditions of the big bang to about 10^-9 seconds. That's before even nuclei can form. Realize just because we weren't there that we can test the evidence that a certain phenomena like the big bang leaves behind.
String theory is admitted by string theorist that it is not fact and is not testable; the media is what blows it out of proportion.
Dark matter is admitted by scientists as being something that is unknown...same as dark energy.
Big bang theory...Umm...not sure how this fits in with the other two..Maybe one can think it does superficially because mass media tends to warp science from its original view into a more, user friendly version. When we do this, however, original logic tends to leave
Um, the big bang has been tested indirectly. Observation that all stars are moving away from us, where the further a star away the fast they are moving. It follows that the universe is expanding. If it is expanding we would think that we would find that at some point in the past all matter was at the same point (Hypothesis). If this were the case we should find remenant heat traces from the early universe (test). We then stumbled upon the Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation (success).
Um, the big bang has been tested indirectly. Observation that all stars are moving away from us, where the further a star away the fast they are moving. It follows that the universe is expanding. If it is expanding we would think that we would find that at some point in the past all matter was at the same point (Hypothesis). If this were the case we should find remenant heat traces from the early universe (test). We then stumbled upon the Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation (success).
You can't be certain about anything, unless you know everything. And humans don't really know everything, so we can't call stuff scientific facts, but theories. A theory is as close to a certain as you can get in science.
Just goes to show that nice-looking, well-spoken young guys can be idiots too. All this dude knows about science is what his fundamentalist pastors have told him. Sad.
It really is amusing that you profess these things as faith, because the first actually isn't "the one accepted theory" and the second is literally a label for an unknown that obviously interacts with reality gravitationally. The third is an actual theory and has been tested many times to high degrees of accuracy and is so intertwined with another theory that we use daily that you'd have to falsify general relativity to falsify the big bang theory.
1) String theory doesn't fit what it means to be a scientific theory yet because as of yet there's no falsifiable test for it.
2) Dark matter isn't a theory it's literally a known unknown variable which is the current favored explanation to explain excess gravity in particular systems.
3) The big bang is merely the conclusion we get by applying Einstein's general relativity to current observations, which is why our understanding of the big bang stops at a singularity.
Science is thought of as the best answers we have based upon the available evidence. For example the big bang theory is what we get when we apply Einstein's general relativity to the observations we have, There are many positive and negative predictions within the big bang theory which is why it remains so robust
Proofs does not exist outside of math, so do not ask for it from science.
Dark matter exists. We just don't know what it is.
Also, the Big Bang theory is testable. It predicted the Cosmic Microwave Background radiation, which is why those who found it got a Nobel Prize for it.
The whole point of science is that you can't prove it. Science is SUPPORTED by EVIDENCE. The only things that are provable in science is if you use math to prove them. Remember Geometry? Yeah, those kinds of proofs.
I have concluded after watching all of his OPINION PIECES that it is better for him to stay away from talking about anything scientific...because he seems very biased. Or at least put up a disclaimer stating that these videos are decisively based on opinion.
@cdbone99 "The point of the video" seems to be well discussed, actually. The guy is deliberately misrepresenting the scientific process and the definition of "theory" as pertains to science. I don't think that "point" is going over very many heads here. Although there are obviously quite a few who don't see the deception.
Good misinterpretation of the word theory and misrepresentation of science in general. Nice try, but ultimately, complete fail. Creationism belongs in the church, not in the classroom.
Super string theory IS being tested right now, in Illinois.
Big Bang theory was never about a bang, its about the main argument between the groups of physicists is basically how fast the is expanding, not whether the universe expanded or exploded in a ball of fire. We KNOW IT IS EXPANDING.
A theory is an explanatory statement that's been REPEATEDLY CONFIRMED through TONS of experimental testing using experiment models that can be reproduced by other scientists, and is peer reviewed. If it's proven over and over again, then it's an accepted piece of scientific knowledge.
dose science claim to know the answer to everything? nope no it dose not . never has probably never will yet he seems to hint that "science" comes up with any old crap to explain things like everything else in this video its way way off but just what you would expect from someone who thinks ID has as much scientific merit as evolution.
tho its all just Theorys.. like atomic Theory thats powering my PC or is it ?
science and christianty doesnt go together. science has explained stuff that christianty wants to disprove so it will cover theirselves while the science was real and true and others want to be stupid and push it out of the way
@TronZEROPi "Trying to be smart" is really hard to do. Already am smart is very simple to do. If you believe that this guy knows his scientific method, then carry on this debate. Other than that, your comment fails to take its place.
I don't think you understand what scientific theory is. Its not a guess or philosphy based on opinion. Science has 'observable' occurances, and can ready change as new observations are discovered. Religion clings to beliefs, even when they are disproven.
The Big Bang theory, for instance, holds obversable occurances as the movement and shift of the stars. When they find new facts, they will adjust their theory accordingly.
The creation debate is not heated because of the big bang, but because of evolution , wich is proven, and tested everyday without ANY evidence against it. The scientific method is not ignorant people shouting what they want to people who actually do the research, but becoming more aware of what they are talking about and THEN try to find holes in the reasonning. science vs religion is not philosofical at ALL, it's just a book vs people who search for answers. You usually rock! u let me down man.
I agree with most of the tearing into the video that's been going on, but you have to remember, this video is meant for people who don't understand what's being talked about. A person with a good scientific grounding already knows that string theory and the big bang (hell, gravity for that matter) are theories which can, with sufficient evidence, be supplanted at any time. The common person will hear about the big bang and think it's being given as hard fact. All this says is to question.
Nah... there isn't any clarification going on with regards the legitimate limits of science. There's misrepresentation of what the limits of science actually are, what a theory actually is, and how science actually works. I'm surprised you would think the best way to educate people who don't understand the limits of science it to misrepresent science. Weird. Why not just get it right? No harm in that, is there?
@Skandalos Most of the more recent comments here seek to clarify the misconception presented in the video with regards to how science actually works, and are in fact defending the legitimate limits to knowledge AND legitimate knowledge derived from a scientific process (which the video fails to do). Most comments I see here have nothing to do with accepting science as a religion. Perhaps you're commenting on the wrong video? In the wrong thread?
Saying that bacteria should have cities by now is a little far fetched, evolution occurs due to changes in the environment and the chance mutation of genes, which happen to suit the new environment - therefore making the mutated gene more likely to be selected in future. There is a study on this exact phenomenon occurring in our time, in Australia - where a native predator adapts to and invasive toxic prey. Just google: Toxic cane toads induce morphological change in Australian snakes
You are mis-using the word "prove". Nothing is ever "proven" in science. Also, an hypothesis does not turn into a theory. As more evidence is discovered the theory is supported more and more. It is never "proven", however.
Actually big bang is just a name that describes an event that happened 13.4 B years ago. If you look at the galaxies (which are real, and the fact is they exist) you see them going apart (effect known as red light shift). If you reverse the process and look from where are they going apart, you see there is a point where it all started. -> big bang, this is all that physicist claim. Similar stuff is with gravity and dark matter.. I suggest you look it up and make a show about it.
Ok, I appreciate what ur doing here, teaching people about science and such, but I have to radically disagree with you on one thing. Things like dark matter, evolution (of all types; stellar, biological, planetary), and the "big bang" theory are indeed scientific. Period. They are plausible models that present a particular mechanism that explains and agrees with observable data. They are certainly "indirect" scientific theories, but that doesn't diminish their "scientific malleability."
@CarlSagan6 If it can be tested/proven, it isn't scientific. It's philosophy. No matter how you slice it, the things you mentioned are not proven facts. It's strange how zealous those who believe in such theories will cling to those beliefs. There's nothing wrong in believing in the theory of evolution, but presenting it as an indisputable fact when it's just a theory is just wrong.
@jrig123 Well of course those things I mentioned are not proven facts! A scientific theory doesn't have to be "proven fact" to be "scientific." :) I deeply agree with you that evolution is a scientific theory and not dogmatic fact (but keep in mind that a *scientific* theory is a very well supported model that explains a set of natural phenomena).
@jrig123 Look, those aforementioned theories (like evolution and the big bang) may not be the most directly accessible or provable theories out there, but that in no way means they are unscientific. They are models that can either agree or disagree with observable data. They can be falsified and tweaked precisely because they are subject to the rigors of the scientific method.
@jrig123 And we may never be able to prove them absolutely, but that’s okay! I’ll leave you with a quote from Sagan himself: “We have a method, and that method helps us to reach not absolute truth, only asymptotic approaches to the truth – never there, just closer and closer, always finding vast new oceans of undiscovered possibilities.”
Then you form a hypothesis: If this happens then this will happen. Ok.
If you test it and it turns out in favor of your hypothesis, then your hypothesis becomes a theory. NO. A theory is the result of LOTS of testing. And I mean a TON.
The Big Bang Theory cannot be tested. Yes and no. Its being worked on. No one claims the Big Bang Theory to be a fact. YET. But we don't claim that god did it. We say we don't know. Because we don't. Nothing wrong with that.
I agree that proving a hypothesis correct doesn't instantly make it a theory, so how can the Big Bang Theory even be called a theory? It certainly hasn't been PROVEN correct even once. It should be referred to as the Big Bang Hypothesis right?
@halstokes You never prove a theory. A theory remains a theory until it is proven wrong. It never becomes a fact. Its ALWAYS a theory.
A theory explains the evidence. So, when some one sees the evidence they try to explain it. Once they come up with a solid explanation, they find a way to test if that explanation works. After doing lots of tests showing that it works, it is called a theory. At least until a single good test shows otherwise. Tests are done by multiple scientists as well. No bias
Well, wouldn't evolution be a fact and natural selection be a theory of evolution? Like, evolution happens and natural selection is an explanation for it.
@killerboyfoolz Well, wouldn't evolution be a fact and natural selection be a theory of evolution? Like, evolution happens and natural selection is an explanation for it.
@halstokes "It should be referred to as the Big Bang Hypothesis right?"
Not exactly... The Big Bang Theory is just a hypothesis that has been prevalently supported by many series of experiments and it is one of the best, simplest explanation out of all hypotheses (Occam's Razor). In addition, hypotheses, as well as theories, cannot be proven under scientific methodology, only supported....
@DanHernbrott I'm sorry, science, schools, and your TV teach the big bang as fact. They are wrong because 1) It is stupid 2)There is no evidence 3) It is based on faulty assumptions. It is the religion of the world today, and protected zealously. The word "science" means "to know", not "to suppose"
@Tumenihobbies The big bang theory may be a well established theory, but it is still one that the scientific community considers very (very) much in flux: Meaning it's being reconfirmed, refined, and more robustly studied constantly. It's details are not well understood, despite the fantastic amount of evidence for it. There are even more than a few theories that offer different explanations for our observations, although they as yet do not hold up as well. I fear I'm talking over your head.
Its important to always hate religion because religion by any name is murder, rape, war mongering, racism, segregationalism, hatred of freedom, of thinking, of the Human spirit and religion hates life and Humans. Its time to put an end to this horrific brain and spiritual cancer known as religion and frankly its time to cull 5 billion failed fallen religious subhumans to make sure that an end to god concepts is permanent. Lets euthanize the faithful so they cant do any more harm to Humans
@699backstab You attack the disease, not the patient. Remember, the religion's the problem, not the religious. If you advocate for the slaughter of religious people just because they're religious you sink below their level; Despite knowing what the problem is you decide to act in the exact same way which is why religions are so poisonous.
Well I wouldn't say that string theory is philosophy but I agree. It hasn't yet become testable. But I think a more apt description about a mathematical model for future scientific development.
MobiusCoin 2 days ago
Tested
V
V
themrgoku1988 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
themrgoku1988 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
watch?v=S9am3mfaE6U
Sahelanthropus tchadensis, Ardipithecus ramidus, Australopithecus anamensis, Australopithecus afarensis, Kenyanthropus platyops, Australopithecus africanus, Australopithecus garhi, Australopithecus sediba, Australopithecus aethiopicus, Australopithecus robustus, Australopithecus boisei, Homo habilis, Homo georgicus, Homo erectus,, Homo ergaster, Homo antecessor, Homo heidelbergensis, Homo neanderthalensis, Homo floresiensis, Homo sapiens
themrgoku1988 1 week ago
we were shown this today in class. This guy is a fag.
Noodlez82 1 week ago
@Noodlez82 Wait wait wait....
You were shown this in a class? What class? I'm very curious to know what kind of classroom this trash would get propagated, and what kind of teacher wouldn't understand the inaccuracies in it.
iridescentsquids 6 days ago
@iridescentsquids I'm pretty sure he didn't pick the video since he disagreed with it. I think what happened was that one of the TAs picked it without watching it first. Anyway, it's a terrible video and this guy deserves to be beaten with a baseball bat.
Noodlez82 6 days ago
this is terrible.
pewing92 1 week ago
Agree, all the examples given are, in fact, science. Take the facts, come up with an idea of what the explanation is and then try to disprove it. If you can't disprove it, and it accounts for all known facts, then the idea becomes a theory. Theories don't have to be 'provable' just have to account for all the facts, as we know them.
Amnistar 1 week ago 2
Tested
V
V
TheMrgoku1985 2 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Human chromosome 2,
Matching endogenous retro-viral sequences between the grate apes and humans,
recessive genes,
Wisdom teeth.
Progressive patterns in comparative
genes,
Junk DNA,
Single strain DNA.+multiple dating methods that agree with each other with an extremely low % margin of error proving the earth is old enough for the time needed for macro change and
Ring species
nylon eating bacteria(example of new information created from a mutation).
TheMrgoku1985 2 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
watch?v=S9am3mfaE6U
Sahelanthropus tchadensis, Ardipithecus ramidus, Australopithecus anamensis, Australopithecus afarensis, Kenyanthropus platyops, Australopithecus africanus, Australopithecus garhi, Australopithecus sediba, Australopithecus aethiopicus, Australopithecus robustus, Australopithecus boisei, Homo habilis, Homo georgicus, Homo erectus,, Homo ergaster, Homo antecessor, Homo heidelbergensis, Homo neanderthalensis, Homo floresiensis, Homo sapiens
TheMrgoku1985 2 weeks ago
Ah,doing a search for 'Scientific Method' and I come across this video again.
Borrowing from the Accounts name-What you ought to know is this is video Is either blatantly a lie or unintentional misleading.
Evidence.....EVIDENCE.This is what is the cornerstone of science.
A scientific 'theory' is the human explanation of this collected Evidence.Big Bang-we got evidence,it's called Background radiation.Dark matter- images exist of Gravitational lensing of stars showing the effect of DM.EVIDENCE!
BXBZ88 2 weeks ago in playlist the scientific method
But the big bang can be tested...and has been...alot. Your ignorance of the supporting evidence does not hold sway over this fact.
pauliexcluded1 2 weeks ago
The modern scientific community is "whoever agrees with the scientists getting the most government money."
KittenKoder 3 weeks ago
@KittenKoder That's silly. I think you're just making stuff up based on some sort of anti-government ideology.
Today's scientific community is gigantic and tremendously varied. Grant money is available from both private and public sources.
Regardless of the source of funding, there is an enormous amount of integrity in the scientific process as a whole, which includes a rigorous peer review process and availability of data and methods to everybody, scientists and non-scientists alike.
iridescentsquids 2 weeks ago
@iridescentsquids Just lol .... you really are naive.
KittenKoder 2 weeks ago
Comment removed
iridescentsquids 2 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@KittenKoder "you really are naive.
OK. Let's hear the evidence. Enlighten me.
iridescentsquids 2 weeks ago
@KittenKoder What exactly do you accuse me of being naive about? That the grant money is available from both private and public sources? Hardly a point you can refute.
Or perhaps you believe that there should be no public funding of scientific research at all?
The way conservative ideologues argue against government spending it wouldn't surprise me.
Anyway, if you have the balls to clarify your accusation, let's hear it.
iridescentsquids 2 weeks ago
@KittenKoder Money can be a motivator for "Bad Science," otherwise known as BS. But, when studying the scientific community, we must realize there is money to be had on all sides of a given topic of debate. Therefore, the scientific community as a whole tends to diminish a lot of this effect. So, one tends to lose a great deal of credibility when attacking the scientific community as a whole with such arguments. What you really outta know.
frankleeseaux 2 weeks ago
@frankleeseaux " So, one tends to lose a great deal of credibility when attacking the scientific community as a whole with such arguments."
What I was trying to say when I mentioned the scientific community being vast and varied. The accusation that scientists are lining up behind any study funded by government sounds absolutely ridiculous to me...I suspect (although I could be wrong) it's just an example of knee-jerk anti government nonsense KittenKoder wrote before thinking it through.
iridescentsquids 2 weeks ago
Annoyed at the crap this guy started spewing towards the end...
JaySmith91 3 weeks ago
The thing is if you found proof that evolution was wrong or the big bang never happend you would become possibly the most famous scientist of 21st century, win the nobel prize and be able to get any university position you wanted. There is a reason that nobody has been able to do it.
starofcctv94 3 weeks ago
Tested
V
TheMrgoku1985 3 weeks ago
TheMrgoku1985 3 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
watch?v=S9am3mfaE6U
Sahelanthropus tchadensis, Ardipithecus ramidus, Australopithecus anamensis, Australopithecus afarensis, Kenyanthropus platyops, Australopithecus africanus, Australopithecus garhi, Australopithecus sediba, Australopithecus aethiopicus, Australopithecus robustus, Australopithecus boisei, Homo habilis, Homo georgicus, Homo erectus,, Homo ergaster, Homo antecessor, Homo heidelbergensis, Homo neanderthalensis, Homo floresiensis, Homo sapiens
TheMrgoku1985 3 weeks ago
This video is a prime example of special pleading. The speaker claims to agree with science, and understand the scientific method, but only where it applies to those things which do not disagree with their own preconceived notions. This is all evidenced by their dismissal of the Big Bang Theory, and Dark Matter, as well as their dismissal, in another video, of the Theory of Evolution. In that video they give a misleading argument about evolution being related to the origin of life.
frankleeseaux 3 weeks ago
@frankleeseaux Sorry but when scientists speak of "Dark Matter" it's a code word for "we have no idea about over 98% of the Universe so all that stuff we'll call Dark Matter". It's the same for "Dark Energy". They admit this to themselves but to sound super smart name it something for the public. The Scientific Method was created by Christian Scientists due to their Theology that God is a god of reason and logic. Also Darwinian Evolution is nothing but atheistic philosophy and not science.
Akihito007 2 weeks ago
@Akihito007 Dark Matter is observed and measured, but "invisible," due to the reasons mentioned before. They DO NOT call it such simply out of some need to feel superior, or to seem such. Science is a brand of philosophy which relies on empirical facts and evidence in support of its arguments. All other forms of philosophy, such as religion, and meta-physics relies on anecdotal evidence which is easily refuted, and can be used to support any number of fallacious hypotheses.
frankleeseaux 2 weeks ago
@Akihito007 Frankly, I find your arguments to be lazy and unfounded by reason and understanding. I urge you to do some research of your own rather than relying on such baseless arguments to support your world view.
frankleeseaux 2 weeks ago
@Akihito007 "Sorry but when scientists speak of "Dark Matter" it's a code word for "we have no idea about over 98% of the Universe so all that stuff we'll call Dark Matter"." All of this is true. I do not deny this as a fact. But, that does not make the evidence for the existence of the so called, "Dark Matter" to exist, or dark energy, for that matter.
frankleeseaux 2 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Akihito007 "They admit this to themselves but to sound super smart name it something for the public."
Seems so silly to object to people giving a topic of inquiry a name.
We all give names to all kinds of things which are understood to various degrees. I'm sure you do the same. Why? Because we use LANGUAGE to communicate.
That's normal. No conspiracy there.
I think you need to study up on what constitutes science in order to improve your arguments. Right now you just look misinformed.
iridescentsquids 2 weeks ago
Theories are only ever called theories if they can be tested. The Big Bang Theory is one such theory. Otherwise it would still be called the Big Bang Hypothesis. The same is true of String Theory. Dark Matter is called such only because it has been observed and evidenced, but, remains unseen due to background radiation and light from nearby stars. So, while I agree that all things should remain in question, and one should demand evidence. But, this video is, otherwise, a bit misleading.
frankleeseaux 3 weeks ago
@frankleeseaux I see, if you cant prove it, it's true and if you can't see it, it exists. Sounds like a religion to me.
oelsch 3 weeks ago
@oelsch That is an utter obfuscation of what I actually said. But, since you seem to be in the habit of comparing logic and reason, as well as science to religion, which, by my definition, is the antithesis of logic and reason, then there really is no reasoning with you, or means by which to reach understanding.
frankleeseaux 3 weeks ago
@frankleeseaux "Theories are only ever called theories if they can be tested."
This is according to the definition of the two terms provided by the speaker in this film. I don't believe this person is an idiot. Far from it. He says a lot of things in a lot of videos which are "spot on." But, I do believe this person is blinded by personal beliefs which are tied directly to his sense of ego/self identity.
frankleeseaux 3 weeks ago
@frankleeseaux "I don't believe this person is an idiot."
I think a very strong case can be made that he's dishonest, given that he gets so many facts wrong that are easy to confirm. For example, he says at 1:50 a lot of science isn't science..."it isn't science because it isn't provable" and includes the big bang as an example?! The scientific method is his topic, yet he gets it wrong on an 8th grade level. At what point can we consider it an outright lie and not just ego?
iridescentsquids 3 weeks ago
@iridescentsquids I'm glad you mention it in the way you do. I am perfectly willing to explore the potential for dishonesty in his approach. But, honesty can be a bit of a sticky wicket. I mean, honesty is all a matter of perspective and perception, or, in plain English... honesty is related to belief. That, on the surface level of association. However, there is a deeper level of honesty which goes largely ignored in modern culture. That is, intellectual honesty... to be cont.
frankleeseaux 3 weeks ago
@iridescentsquids Intellectual honesty is present at the moment we examine our own beliefs from the perspective of the skeptic. For instance, Had he displayed the least bit of intellectual honesty, he would have admitted the scientific facts about the scientific method, rather than obfuscating them behind blind rhetoric, and logic fallacies. Still, on the personal level, he may believe all those things he said. Thus he was honest, but, not with himself. to be cont... further
frankleeseaux 3 weeks ago
@iridescentsquids The lack of initial honesty, with himself in acquainting himself with the facts, lead directly to his obfuscation of those facts to maintain his preconceived world view, and to project that out into the ethos, where the rest of us may perceive it as an outright lie.
frankleeseaux 3 weeks ago
@frankleeseaux "The lack of initial honesty, with himself in acquainting himself with the facts,"
The best conmen sound and act sincere in the face of blatant lies.
My evidence for lies as opposed to intel. dishonesty: 1) he's a kind of educator. The videos are associated with a home-schooling network, so I hold him to a higher standard of factual accuracy than an editorial 2) I can't believe he isn't aware of evidence for his consistent factual errors. The facts are too easily available.
iridescentsquids 3 weeks ago
@iridescentsquids "The videos are associated with a home-schooling network" ??? Seriously? Hmm. I wonder if that home schooling network is theologically inclined. It would explain the obfuscation of scientific fact, and the denial of evidence. As such, he may simply be attempting to train theists in the common methods of science denial, so they can accept, without question, their belief in fairy tales.
frankleeseaux 2 weeks ago
@frankleeseaux "The videos are associated with a home-schooling network" ???"
I've seen them on sale as part of a Canadian home-school curriculum. Ironically, they call themselves "the brothers winn" and they produced these videos with the stated purpose of making education fun. Ug... Pushing your agenda and blatant falsehoods in a "fun" way to kids? Can it get any more wrong?
Anyways, they have a site and I think they are still trying to get these into schools.
iridescentsquids 2 weeks ago
Did you get your definition of the scientific method from conservapia? I don't know much about science but I don't make videos advertising that fact. Why didn't you pick up a phone and call an actual science teacher? Maybe we all would be enlightend by you efforts.
290davidc 3 weeks ago 2
Im kind of freaked out by how many religious zealots and militant atheists are coming out of the woodwork when both of their investments are being questioned in the same breath.
Yashendwirh 3 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Yashendwirh "Im kind of freaked out by how many religious zealots and militant atheists are coming out of the woodwork when both of their investments are being questioned in the same breath."
It can just as easily be said that a phony middle-ground arrises out of these debates, the implication being that both sides of a debate are wrong just because debating can be uncomfortable.
iridescentsquids 3 weeks ago
I have a feeling the likes and dislikes are indicative of how evenly split people are.
Yashendwirh 3 weeks ago
@matthewpeirce Then why in every encyclopedia are they still listed as theories instead of fact :| I believe in all those things, but Im not going to glean their hypothetical vulnerabilities either.
Yashendwirh 3 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Yashendwirh "Then why in every encyclopedia are they still listed as theories instead of fact"
As with your comments on the Darwin video, this is a misrepresentation of "theory" as it pertains to science. Theories in science never "graduate" to become facts. Every scientific theory, no matter how viable or well-backed by evidence, can always be subjected to attempts at falsification. These are testable, not "hypothetical" vulnerabilities.
iridescentsquids 3 weeks ago
@WhatYouOughtToKnow I don't think you quite understand evolutionary theory. You should watch the second episode of Carl Sagan's Cosmos; it's available on Netflix, if you have an account.
bleedingheart12009 1 month ago
Do you subscribe to the theory of evolution?
mizakzee 1 month ago
Who is this monkey? Asserting corruption where it couldnt exist. An agenda? Such as? Not looking silly for the years it may take to be disproven??? Think about what you're saying.
Big bang theory and string theory on equal footing with religion? You just threw away your credibility.
Science is a work in progress, the unknown is the great stimulus to action, evolving. Religion is absolute.
String theory is still being proven, big bang is accepted as the best explanation because it is the best.
mehico33 1 month ago
@mehico33 /facepalm THIS is what he was talking about. You're argueing like a jewish guy on christmas. He didn't say that the theoryes are wrong. He said that theire is no concrete proof. Like you said about the big bang "big bang is accepted as the best explanation because it is the best" Not because it's been proven, just because it's the most plausable. Also the agenda he was talking about was how every product is said to be 100% scientificaly tested and found reliable. Every single product
gso619 1 month ago
@gso619 Yes but he's wrong, he presents snake oil (ID) and medicine (evolution) as equal, one of which is known to work and well supported, one of which is hocus pocus BS. Irresponsible.
Its wrong to equate theory that stood up to all tests with an idea that A) does not stand up at all, and B) raises more questions than it answers. Simply wrong.
He asserts an agenda unjustly. Students work with the foundations their teachers leave them, science tells no one how they must think. They ought to.
mehico33 1 month ago
@gso619 There are of course scientists who will ignore facts for shame, who don't want to appear to have wasted their lives. Understandable and inexcusable but one can hardly indict science (our highest ideal IMO) on account of this.
Sitting on the fence and refusing to throw out the trash (ID, my main beef) isn't admirable, he doesn't sound ignorant, this is why I'm taking issue.
Evolutionary theory is secure, rest assured of that. Its irresponsible to act as if it isn't
mehico33 1 month ago
@gso619 "He didn't say that the theoryes are wrong. He said that theire is no concrete proof."
It is fundamentally wrong for him to suggest that a lot of "science isn't science" because it isn't provable. He does say this. "It isn't science because it isn't provable" (1:48).
This is a fundamental misrepresentation of what science is and how it works. I'd say it's just a dumb mistake, but he repeats this error in other videos. I suspect it's actually an intentional misrepresentation--A lie.
iridescentsquids 4 weeks ago
In 1997 I had an honest-to-goodness mystical experience that made known to me that science "is the false religion mentioned in the Book of Revelation." It was an amazing and disturbing experience, to say the least.
People, THESE are the End Times! Get right with the Savior of the World -- Jesus Christ -- immediately!
Today's brilliant men and women of science hardly give sin a mention. But I can assure you that the condition of sin affecting the world hasn't been forgotten by The Holy Trinity!
guyNbluejeans 1 month ago in playlist the scientific method
@guyNbluejeans Why do you believe in Jesus?
MuseFromGallifrey 1 month ago
This is totally BS. Science has no hidden agendas. The big bang theory and string theory is not just a hypothesis. Scientists use measurement and observation to develop their theories. This video starts of explaining how the scientific method works but then it steers towards something about the scientific method that simply is not true.
Why would anyone do that? Can it be that there is some hidden agenda here?
Right wing Christian creationist fundamentalist maybe?
rovfitta 1 month ago
@rovfitta That's definitely it. Right on the nose, you got it.
Chacoco2221 1 month ago
@rovfitta Agreed. Though, he may not see it as such. He may perceive himself as one who is perfectly accepting of science, so long as it does not perceptibly contradict his own preconceived sense of reality. Thus, his arguments make a strong case of special pleading. It's a logical fallacy at it's finest.
frankleeseaux 3 weeks ago
He's not using "Theory" in the way Science uses it.
In science, a Theory is an explanation or conclusion drawn about a full set of data. Evolutionary Theory takes into it's range all biological evidences and geological timelines for it's construction. Not all Theories are equal because some are completely wrong (Young-Earth Creation "Theory") and some have less evidence for their conclusions.
Hytegia 1 month ago
i learn this in science
ivanfarrell102 1 month ago
difference between science and religion is that science is a on going process that allows for change and input from VERIFIABLE outside labs (others using scientific methods). It also doesn't hold on to things if they are proven wrong. It provides a system that is structured without interpretation. Religion is interpretive by its nature and that it is still too easy for people to fall back on to the position since science can't prove it we have to give create of it to some unseen deity. VERY bad
mxferro 1 month ago
he didn't talk very fast, and he is correct, theories don't equal fact
masio13 1 month ago
Is this guys background really white? Or it a green screen?
celtik916 2 months ago
is it gated haha thats some funny stuff
mannymann321 2 months ago
I agree with him. I love how he can take serious controversial topics and make them funny without distorting the facts too much.
QuelDroma366 2 months ago
Comment removed
iridescentsquids 2 months ago
the ignorance...
nejtilsvampe 2 months ago
This guy started out all right but then it went to shit when he started inferring there were conspiratorial scientists fixated on the supremacy of their theories.
santosscribbles 2 months ago
@matthewpeirce What? You didn't even respond to what I was writing. I'm not talking about hypotheses. Facts are things we know is true (or at least when we presuppose the basic assumptions of science). Constructs and models are not facts (they are theories). If we only investigate things we know, we can't investigate much, so that's why we build theories (they can be useful even if we can't prove them). What you are saying about theories are true, but that was not what I was writing about.
SmultronsyltNatha 2 months ago
It's not (or at least shouldn't be) the scientists who claim that theories are facts. You can't prove something that isn't directly observable, and I think every scientist know that. But people don't like uncertainty.
SmultronsyltNatha 3 months ago
a theory that isn't subject to be disproven can't be proven.
apnwahoowa 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Some good points, however I'd like to add that philosophy is not merely 'unprovable conjecture' but rather a type of 'social science' - based on observation, questions and theories, which operate within a logical gamut. There are provable philosophical theories (which enter into our notions of "Law" or "Justice", for example) and there are improvable theories (like how many angels can dance on the head of a pin).
HomespunWisdom 3 months ago
Comment removed
HomespunWisdom 3 months ago
A theory of everything can't be tested, and can't be used to predict anything at any level, because it's not yet completed. But it's certainly not mere philosophy. When done, it will be testable through its hit record in the number of successful predictions made using the theory. That's what most creationists seem to miss.
The heavy debate on creationism however, is not about the validity of string or m-theory. It stands in relation to evolution, and evolution rests on solid evidence by now.
mljungberg10 3 months ago
What's so bad about this video??
OstracizedEmu 3 months ago
@OstracizedEmu Nothing - except it has bad ramifications for evolution if it he is right. Therefore it get's people pretty worked up
SuperMcbatman 2 months ago
@SuperMcbatman But this is basically how my Biology professor in my University reviewed the scientific method. There IS no way for scientists to prove how the earth came along, so it can't be science. How is that controversial?
OstracizedEmu 2 months ago
@OstracizedEmu "There IS no way for scientists to prove how the earth came along so it can't be science. How's that controversial?"
Such statements bother people because they don't accurately describe what we can/can not "know" through science. Also, such statements redefine science for social/political purposes (most often in an attempt to discredit the specific scientific theories that contradict or simply fail to support faith-based beliefs).
In other words, they aren't honest or accurate.
iridescentsquids 2 months ago
@iridescentsquids Ah, I see. Interesting. It's a bit ridiculous though.
OstracizedEmu 2 months ago
@OstracizedEmu You mean people's objections to the misrepresentations are ridiculous?
I guess people do get wrapped up in it. I do sometimes. But I think it's for good reason. It seems more ridiculous to me that an educator would teach things that aren't true than it does for people to stand up and point out the mistake/lie.
It's not just a matter of opinion. Science is an important part of all of our lives, and I think it's good to know how it really works.
That's my 2 cents, anyways.
iridescentsquids 2 months ago
@iridescentsquids No, I'm totally fine with the others objections. I just really dislike how uncivilized people get over these topics. I also think it's ridiculous that people can get so judgmental and defensive over something that they can't prove. Personally, if I can't prove something like evolution or anything religious, I'm not going to shove it down anyone's throats. I just don't think it makes sense.
OstracizedEmu 2 months ago
@OstracizedEmu Yea, I pretty much agree. Except when somebody teaches things that aren't true or that bend the truth. That annoys me. When he complains that the theory of evolution has not been "proven" it is a misrepresentation because no matter how much fantastic evidence there is for any theory, a theory is never, ever proven in science. It's dishonest to present this as a weakness. The FACT is that science doesn't work that way. I definitely think that's an error worth correcting.
iridescentsquids 2 months ago
@OstracizedEmu In other words, people who know how science works are getting worked up over the things he says that aren't true, not so much the debate about evolution vs religion.
It's annoying and a bit scary when people think science really just comes down to opinion, or when lies about the limit of what we can/can not know through science are propagated along side religious doctrine as if they are somehow flip-sides of the same coin.
iridescentsquids 2 months ago
@iridescentsquids But he didn't say anything that wasn't true. My Biology professor in my (extremely liberal) university described the scientific method almost the same way. And I wasn't talking about the video; I was talking about some of the commentors.
I'm sorry, are you saying that as a general statement, or are you saying that is what I'm doing? I don't recall saying any of that. (I really appreciate your respect in this conversation, by the way)
OstracizedEmu 2 months ago
@OstracizedEmu He says there's a lot of science out there that "isn't science because it isn't provable". Buuuuuullll@#$. He's completely wrong. Theories aren't provable, and they are one of the cornerstones of science.
He then goes on to say that if somebody is pushing a theory that hasn't been proven as true they are pushing an agenda. Bull@#@$ again. Although it's possible for people to push agendas (of course!) very well established theories are as near to "truth" as science EVER GETS.
iridescentsquids 2 months ago
I Didn't Understand the 1st sentence
FunnyFan0152 3 months ago
I don't know if i'm procrastinating or studying. :s
GeekyGirl1011 3 months ago 14
subbed
appleguy27 3 months ago
is it gated? lol
appleguy27 3 months ago
unsubscribed
moomanjoe 3 months ago
this is not at all The Scientific Method
mercuryZrising 3 months ago 3
NO, the Big Bang cannot be proven, THEORIES AREN'T PROVEN, but we can make predictions about things we ought to find IF it were true (such as cosmic background microwave radiation) these things have been found -- just as predicted by the theory. NOW all YOU Have to do, tor throw a wrench in it, is come up with ANOTHER coherent, testable (meaning it makes predictions of things we haven't found yet, but would find if it were true) that explains all the observations to date. WE'RE WAITING!!!
morticiamom1 3 months ago 3
I do agree with a lot of these videos, but this one seems kind of misinformed...
moshpotpaul 3 months ago 2
Doesn't matter if the Big Bang Theory will actually be validated, becuase people will just claim that "Well, everything is created by God, thus the Big Bang was created by God". And that my friends, is why religion is unbeatable!
DennanX 4 months ago
A fact is known to be true by observation. Differences arise when connections between facts are supposed or cause/effect relationships are explained. And he also messed up the idea of a scientific theory. Sadly, I think most Americans would agree with his interpretation of how science works.
drewman222 4 months ago
We can test the big bang theory with the cosmic microwave background radiation, and we can recreate the conditions of the big bang to about 10^-9 seconds. That's before even nuclei can form. Realize just because we weren't there that we can test the evidence that a certain phenomena like the big bang leaves behind.
MzBUZZKILINGTON 4 months ago
We can test the big bang theory with the cosmic microwave background radiation, and we can recreate the conditions of the big bang to about 10^-9 seconds. That's before even nuclei can form. Realize just because we weren't there that we can test the evidence that a certain phenomena like the big bang leaves behind.
MzBUZZKILINGTON 4 months ago
String theory is admitted by string theorist that it is not fact and is not testable; the media is what blows it out of proportion.
Dark matter is admitted by scientists as being something that is unknown...same as dark energy.
Big bang theory...Umm...not sure how this fits in with the other two..Maybe one can think it does superficially because mass media tends to warp science from its original view into a more, user friendly version. When we do this, however, original logic tends to leave
shawnwilliams77 4 months ago
Pause at 0:56 horror.
LogicStance 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Um, the big bang has been tested indirectly. Observation that all stars are moving away from us, where the further a star away the fast they are moving. It follows that the universe is expanding. If it is expanding we would think that we would find that at some point in the past all matter was at the same point (Hypothesis). If this were the case we should find remenant heat traces from the early universe (test). We then stumbled upon the Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation (success).
vengefuldiety 4 months ago
Um, the big bang has been tested indirectly. Observation that all stars are moving away from us, where the further a star away the fast they are moving. It follows that the universe is expanding. If it is expanding we would think that we would find that at some point in the past all matter was at the same point (Hypothesis). If this were the case we should find remenant heat traces from the early universe (test). We then stumbled upon the Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation (success).
vengefuldiety 4 months ago
He was doing so well until he tried to talk about specific scientific theories.
coolbanana165 4 months ago
Man youre speaking slowly in this compared to newer ones. Is this because your audience was hight schoolers like you said in another video?
josh18230 4 months ago
You can't be certain about anything, unless you know everything. And humans don't really know everything, so we can't call stuff scientific facts, but theories. A theory is as close to a certain as you can get in science.
EliasJordan3 4 months ago
Just goes to show that nice-looking, well-spoken young guys can be idiots too. All this dude knows about science is what his fundamentalist pastors have told him. Sad.
cufflink44 5 months ago
Here is science:
the like bar is fucked up, it's at 1/3(dislike) and you have 75% so 3/4 :D
I bet you belive in god.Still,i like your videos
superfunny1972 5 months ago
it's kind of sad that this was one of the first results when searching for videos on the scientific method.
Greatsocratesghost 5 months ago
why do you say comforterble? it's comfortAble, there's no R..
rw29x 5 months ago
It really is amusing that you profess these things as faith, because the first actually isn't "the one accepted theory" and the second is literally a label for an unknown that obviously interacts with reality gravitationally. The third is an actual theory and has been tested many times to high degrees of accuracy and is so intertwined with another theory that we use daily that you'd have to falsify general relativity to falsify the big bang theory.
garith21 5 months ago
1) String theory doesn't fit what it means to be a scientific theory yet because as of yet there's no falsifiable test for it.
2) Dark matter isn't a theory it's literally a known unknown variable which is the current favored explanation to explain excess gravity in particular systems.
3) The big bang is merely the conclusion we get by applying Einstein's general relativity to current observations, which is why our understanding of the big bang stops at a singularity.
garith21 5 months ago
Science is thought of as the best answers we have based upon the available evidence. For example the big bang theory is what we get when we apply Einstein's general relativity to the observations we have, There are many positive and negative predictions within the big bang theory which is why it remains so robust
garith21 5 months ago
Congratulations, people actually know less about the scientific method for having watched your video.
Kolumaic 5 months ago
Proofs does not exist outside of math, so do not ask for it from science.
Dark matter exists. We just don't know what it is.
Also, the Big Bang theory is testable. It predicted the Cosmic Microwave Background radiation, which is why those who found it got a Nobel Prize for it.
InterbredRollmops 5 months ago
The whole point of science is that you can't prove it. Science is SUPPORTED by EVIDENCE. The only things that are provable in science is if you use math to prove them. Remember Geometry? Yeah, those kinds of proofs.
mynameisnterin 5 months ago
This guy would do very well at Fox News.
I have concluded after watching all of his OPINION PIECES that it is better for him to stay away from talking about anything scientific...because he seems very biased. Or at least put up a disclaimer stating that these videos are decisively based on opinion.
WhamBamThankYouMadam 5 months ago
Observable, look it up, it's really not that hard to understand.
TheOther2Percent 5 months ago
this is very stupid!!!
234purplemonster 5 months ago
I see a LOT of people missing the point of the video here. Just straight over their heads.
cdbone99 5 months ago
@cdbone99 "The point of the video" seems to be well discussed, actually. The guy is deliberately misrepresenting the scientific process and the definition of "theory" as pertains to science. I don't think that "point" is going over very many heads here. Although there are obviously quite a few who don't see the deception.
iridescentsquids 4 months ago
Good misinterpretation of the word theory and misrepresentation of science in general. Nice try, but ultimately, complete fail. Creationism belongs in the church, not in the classroom.
Bear5177 5 months ago
"If you can't prove something is true then you cannot present it as fact"
therefore keep Creationism OUT of the science classroom.
Silvergordikuki 5 months ago
Super string theory IS being tested right now, in Illinois.
Big Bang theory was never about a bang, its about the main argument between the groups of physicists is basically how fast the is expanding, not whether the universe expanded or exploded in a ball of fire. We KNOW IT IS EXPANDING.
Silvergordikuki 5 months ago
A theory is an explanatory statement that's been REPEATEDLY CONFIRMED through TONS of experimental testing using experiment models that can be reproduced by other scientists, and is peer reviewed. If it's proven over and over again, then it's an accepted piece of scientific knowledge.
Silvergordikuki 5 months ago
Umm. thats not the definition of theory. You clearly need to do more research.
Silvergordikuki 5 months ago
dose science claim to know the answer to everything? nope no it dose not . never has probably never will yet he seems to hint that "science" comes up with any old crap to explain things like everything else in this video its way way off but just what you would expect from someone who thinks ID has as much scientific merit as evolution.
tho its all just Theorys.. like atomic Theory thats powering my PC or is it ?
Demo5 5 months ago
science and christianty doesnt go together. science has explained stuff that christianty wants to disprove so it will cover theirselves while the science was real and true and others want to be stupid and push it out of the way
unholyraviel1 5 months ago
This guy clearly is not a science person.
To become a theory, you must past many variable and repeated tests by not just yourself, but other random people.
You are describing that "theory" of yours a hypothesis or a guess.
Please go take as much biology courses you can untill you understand the scientific method correctly.
Phenomenon > question > rational logic > idea > test > hypothesis > Experimental design test > theory > Strict test > law
killerboyfoolz 5 months ago
@killerboyfoolz I really hate it when people try to look smart by being an ass. The show is clearly simplifying things.
TronZEROPi 5 months ago
@TronZEROPi "Trying to be smart" is really hard to do. Already am smart is very simple to do. If you believe that this guy knows his scientific method, then carry on this debate. Other than that, your comment fails to take its place.
killerboyfoolz 5 months ago
I don't think you understand what scientific theory is. Its not a guess or philosphy based on opinion. Science has 'observable' occurances, and can ready change as new observations are discovered. Religion clings to beliefs, even when they are disproven.
The Big Bang theory, for instance, holds obversable occurances as the movement and shift of the stars. When they find new facts, they will adjust their theory accordingly.
frootbat31 5 months ago
The creation debate is not heated because of the big bang, but because of evolution , wich is proven, and tested everyday without ANY evidence against it. The scientific method is not ignorant people shouting what they want to people who actually do the research, but becoming more aware of what they are talking about and THEN try to find holes in the reasonning. science vs religion is not philosofical at ALL, it's just a book vs people who search for answers. You usually rock! u let me down man.
ThinkerResearcher 5 months ago
until you run out of money... or cake.
archknight20 5 months ago
I liked it! Matt from Minnesota
m2me1952 6 months ago
¬¬ UNSUBSCRIBED
LauraandMoreLaura 6 months ago 3
did Kirk Cameron Direct this video - what a load of shit.
audas 6 months ago 3
"You can spend your whole life working on something that turns out to be completely wrong."You know such as religion.
profsat5 6 months ago
"You can spend your whole life working on something that turns out to be completely wrong."
Or you can spend i making extremely useless and rabidly annoying youtube videos.
Oh btw look up what "theory" actually means scientifically before talking about it in a video.
BuffyNatalieGagaFan 6 months ago
Ahh, so the universe works by magic. Got it.
conscript125 6 months ago
I agree with most of the tearing into the video that's been going on, but you have to remember, this video is meant for people who don't understand what's being talked about. A person with a good scientific grounding already knows that string theory and the big bang (hell, gravity for that matter) are theories which can, with sufficient evidence, be supplanted at any time. The common person will hear about the big bang and think it's being given as hard fact. All this says is to question.
ZeroBrutus 6 months ago
@ZeroBrutus "All this says is to question"
Nah... there isn't any clarification going on with regards the legitimate limits of science. There's misrepresentation of what the limits of science actually are, what a theory actually is, and how science actually works. I'm surprised you would think the best way to educate people who don't understand the limits of science it to misrepresent science. Weird. Why not just get it right? No harm in that, is there?
iridescentsquids 4 months ago
Actually the lot of comments to this video prove that for really many people science has become a substitute for religion.
Knowledge always comes from doubt, and NEVER from believing. Best recent example is the climate fear mongering.
Skandalos 6 months ago
@Skandalos Most of the more recent comments here seek to clarify the misconception presented in the video with regards to how science actually works, and are in fact defending the legitimate limits to knowledge AND legitimate knowledge derived from a scientific process (which the video fails to do). Most comments I see here have nothing to do with accepting science as a religion. Perhaps you're commenting on the wrong video? In the wrong thread?
iridescentsquids 4 months ago
Saying that bacteria should have cities by now is a little far fetched, evolution occurs due to changes in the environment and the chance mutation of genes, which happen to suit the new environment - therefore making the mutated gene more likely to be selected in future. There is a study on this exact phenomenon occurring in our time, in Australia - where a native predator adapts to and invasive toxic prey. Just google: Toxic cane toads induce morphological change in Australian snakes
baneysworld 6 months ago
If your going to make a video on science it probably best to understand it first.
whaleyjful 6 months ago
This post is full of fail.
superhappyjen 6 months ago
You are mis-using the word "prove". Nothing is ever "proven" in science. Also, an hypothesis does not turn into a theory. As more evidence is discovered the theory is supported more and more. It is never "proven", however.
tbdonnelly67 7 months ago
Actually big bang is just a name that describes an event that happened 13.4 B years ago. If you look at the galaxies (which are real, and the fact is they exist) you see them going apart (effect known as red light shift). If you reverse the process and look from where are they going apart, you see there is a point where it all started. -> big bang, this is all that physicist claim. Similar stuff is with gravity and dark matter.. I suggest you look it up and make a show about it.
integral123 7 months ago
Ok, I appreciate what ur doing here, teaching people about science and such, but I have to radically disagree with you on one thing. Things like dark matter, evolution (of all types; stellar, biological, planetary), and the "big bang" theory are indeed scientific. Period. They are plausible models that present a particular mechanism that explains and agrees with observable data. They are certainly "indirect" scientific theories, but that doesn't diminish their "scientific malleability."
CarlSagan6 7 months ago
@CarlSagan6 If it can be tested/proven, it isn't scientific. It's philosophy. No matter how you slice it, the things you mentioned are not proven facts. It's strange how zealous those who believe in such theories will cling to those beliefs. There's nothing wrong in believing in the theory of evolution, but presenting it as an indisputable fact when it's just a theory is just wrong.
jrig123 6 months ago
@jrig123 Well of course those things I mentioned are not proven facts! A scientific theory doesn't have to be "proven fact" to be "scientific." :) I deeply agree with you that evolution is a scientific theory and not dogmatic fact (but keep in mind that a *scientific* theory is a very well supported model that explains a set of natural phenomena).
CarlSagan6 6 months ago
@jrig123 Look, those aforementioned theories (like evolution and the big bang) may not be the most directly accessible or provable theories out there, but that in no way means they are unscientific. They are models that can either agree or disagree with observable data. They can be falsified and tweaked precisely because they are subject to the rigors of the scientific method.
CarlSagan6 6 months ago
@jrig123 And we may never be able to prove them absolutely, but that’s okay! I’ll leave you with a quote from Sagan himself: “We have a method, and that method helps us to reach not absolute truth, only asymptotic approaches to the truth – never there, just closer and closer, always finding vast new oceans of undiscovered possibilities.”
CarlSagan6 6 months ago
First you think about something. Ok.
Then you form a hypothesis: If this happens then this will happen. Ok.
If you test it and it turns out in favor of your hypothesis, then your hypothesis becomes a theory. NO. A theory is the result of LOTS of testing. And I mean a TON.
The Big Bang Theory cannot be tested. Yes and no. Its being worked on. No one claims the Big Bang Theory to be a fact. YET. But we don't claim that god did it. We say we don't know. Because we don't. Nothing wrong with that.
DanHernbrott 7 months ago 26
@DanHernbrott
I agree that proving a hypothesis correct doesn't instantly make it a theory, so how can the Big Bang Theory even be called a theory? It certainly hasn't been PROVEN correct even once. It should be referred to as the Big Bang Hypothesis right?
halstokes 5 months ago
@halstokes You never prove a theory. A theory remains a theory until it is proven wrong. It never becomes a fact. Its ALWAYS a theory.
A theory explains the evidence. So, when some one sees the evidence they try to explain it. Once they come up with a solid explanation, they find a way to test if that explanation works. After doing lots of tests showing that it works, it is called a theory. At least until a single good test shows otherwise. Tests are done by multiple scientists as well. No bias
DanHernbrott 5 months ago
@DanHernbrott Let me test your knowledge in the scientific method on darwin. Please say "I don't know" if you have no answer.
Evolution is a ____, and natural selection is a ____.
a) fact, theory
b)theory, fact
c) theory, theory
d) fact, fact.
killerboyfoolz 5 months ago
Well, wouldn't evolution be a fact and natural selection be a theory of evolution? Like, evolution happens and natural selection is an explanation for it.
DanHernbrott 5 months ago
@killerboyfoolz Well, wouldn't evolution be a fact and natural selection be a theory of evolution? Like, evolution happens and natural selection is an explanation for it.
DanHernbrott 5 months ago
@DanHernbrott Indeed yes. Very nice job sir. You are on the right path in searching for the truth.
killerboyfoolz 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@halstokes "It should be referred to as the Big Bang Hypothesis right?"
Not exactly... The Big Bang Theory is just a hypothesis that has been prevalently supported by many series of experiments and it is one of the best, simplest explanation out of all hypotheses (Occam's Razor). In addition, hypotheses, as well as theories, cannot be proven under scientific methodology, only supported....
IceAges14Aces 5 months ago
@DanHernbrott I'm sorry, science, schools, and your TV teach the big bang as fact. They are wrong because 1) It is stupid 2)There is no evidence 3) It is based on faulty assumptions. It is the religion of the world today, and protected zealously. The word "science" means "to know", not "to suppose"
Tumenihobbies 4 months ago
@Tumenihobbies When your explanation of why something is wrong begins with "It' is stupid" I see no reason to give you a decent response.
DanHernbrott 4 months ago
@Tumenihobbies The big bang theory may be a well established theory, but it is still one that the scientific community considers very (very) much in flux: Meaning it's being reconfirmed, refined, and more robustly studied constantly. It's details are not well understood, despite the fantastic amount of evidence for it. There are even more than a few theories that offer different explanations for our observations, although they as yet do not hold up as well. I fear I'm talking over your head.
iridescentsquids 3 months ago
Its important to always hate religion because religion by any name is murder, rape, war mongering, racism, segregationalism, hatred of freedom, of thinking, of the Human spirit and religion hates life and Humans. Its time to put an end to this horrific brain and spiritual cancer known as religion and frankly its time to cull 5 billion failed fallen religious subhumans to make sure that an end to god concepts is permanent. Lets euthanize the faithful so they cant do any more harm to Humans
699backstab 7 months ago
@699backstab You attack the disease, not the patient. Remember, the religion's the problem, not the religious. If you advocate for the slaughter of religious people just because they're religious you sink below their level; Despite knowing what the problem is you decide to act in the exact same way which is why religions are so poisonous.
PhobicOne 7 months ago