Can anyone tell me what documentary the last sentence on some of C0nc0rdance's videos are from? I mean "Every cell of each plant and animal contains genetic information coded onto the DNA molecule. The model rep..."
As someone who (should) be graduating with a Humanities degree this summer and wants to go into journalism, I will be staying well away from writing science news. I wouldn't want to incur the ire of Ben Goldacre, who I very much admire!
You (or is it Ben?) rail repeatedly against the humanities here, implying it's full of gullible idiots with no understanding of science.
Is that really true? Or is it just fickle "my major is better than your major" tribalism.
This is bothering me more and more because i'm a soon to be mature-age-student currently trying to decide what to study. I'm encountering the typical anti-humanities/arts flack of from those studying STEM majors, it's childish bullshit and i wish it'd stop.
I've read a lot of scientific papers, but perhaps not the same ones you have. Which ones would you say are most persuasive? Could you cite them properly, please, I hate having to hunt?
Proper citation, minimal:
First author, "Title", Journal (year of publication).
Isn't Goldcare contradicting himself when he complains of the media treating scientists as authority figures, before going onto to demonise "humanities graduates" by way of complaining of a lack of elite science journalists who are not also "science graduates"? Isn't that treating "science graduates" as authority figures?
When he's talking about Hawkes, he's basically saying "correlation =/= causation"? It got a bit confusing.
Also, what do you think of Sanjay Gupta? When I see him in the morning, I'm happy, because he takes time to explain what the story is about. I personally haven't seen him blow something out of proportion or make a mistake someone like me would notice. Though CNN is definitely a culprit of medical story cliffhangers and the like.
Six years on and still, to society's shame, true.
A light in the darkness, here in the UK, is a noticeable increase in science-related programmes on TV and radio (many of which are also on the BBC World Service). Examples (radio): "More or Less", "The Material World", "The Life Scientific", "One Planet", "The Infinite Monkey Cage". All available as podcasts, by the way :)
ah, the age-old bitter rivalry. Look, I know loads of us who enjoy studying humanities feel a strong science complex, although I personally don't (I mostly study social sciences, though), and many science students and scientists wouldn't dream of admitting the value of the humanities. It's quite childish, in my view, and utterly pointless.
I think that scientific press releases *should* be written by non-scientists, since they are more likely to know how someone outside the field will understand something. This goes for all fields, scientific or not. You have to ask who your audience is, and communicate to *them.* But after the piece is written, it should be run past people in the field to make sure it's right.
@C0nc0rdance Great video. However as someone who works in PR and is a journalism grad, your description of how press releases get sent out at 12:50 is incorrect. At no point would a member of a PR team send out a press release until it has been approved by an expert. It would never EVER be sent out with just the approval of the non scientist boss. No pr firm worth their salt would make that mistake.
Of course, this is written by science journalist and physician Ben Goldacre, so I can't speak to his experiences. I work in industry, and the kind of statements I see written by our marketing people in promotional material or on the annual report are usually pretty poorly phrased, inaccurate, or completely out of date. I don't think it's stupidity. I rather suspect it's fear of error. Whole sections are removed in editing because they might be misconstrued.
It is much easier for an editor to use general statements, but cut controversial or unclear content. It is usually the first to go.
Imagine 1000 words on some new trend in physics. The editor only has room for 600. The general gist can't be cut, the human angle is too valuable to generating interest... so they cut the technical details. It neuters the science out of a science article.
I suspect it happens at each level of the process, like Chinese Whispers.
I think it's a bit unfair to expect all scientists to be able to not just perform science but to also be master raconteurs and spin doctors. Surely it is the job of the science-journalist to understand the field they are working in, or at least have the interviewing skills to ask enough questions to write a correct article.
Of course the scarier thought is that they do understand science, they just understand writing hysterical articles for newspapers better. Bad science can make good copy.
It seems that every story that shows correlation also suggests causation. The most recent one was a study that showed women who took vitamins didn't live as long. The conclusion was that taking vitamins shortens your life. I ask people how it could be that this conclusion could be false and they can't imagine how it could be false. After I explain about self-selection bias they understand.
Anyone else hate the word 'Boffins' as used in tabloids. I usually picture Jon Tickle, in a lab coat, with big wild curly hair and fat round glasses. With a test tube in his hand. With smoke coming out of it. Or sometimes it's Les from Vic Reeves Big Night Out. He never fails to raise a smile when he sees a spirit level, but he's afraid of chives.
and the solution is so simple, and some quality newspapers and quality TV shows do it:
scientists that also have journalistic skills need to be in charge of science-related content. Professors of biology or physics are the first choice. Its not enough if normal journalists without any scientific education ask scientists. To get science journalism that is interesting and informative and does not make me angry, you need to put a real scientists IN CHARGE of that content.
I have to agree with previous comments that the Goldacre's generalizations about "humanities graduates" are a bit harsh, almost as if they are scientifically damaged people :s All hope is not lost though! e.g. check
I have to say that his statements on science reporting are so true though. So many times I've found myself unable to find even what study a whole series of reports in different newspapers are referring to. They'll just say "A recent study at the University of Baltimore said...".
And then the polar opposite, where papers put words into a scientist's mouth without seeming to have ever read his/her conclusions or statements, and the scientist is demonized by the public according to those words.
Oh how this is true. I have always told people don't put too much credit behind the science in the news, but instead go find the actual article they are talking about to get the real facts. Most will not do this either due to not caring enough, not having access or not understanding how to read science papers, since in reality part of science education is how to read and interpret the science literature. And yes most scientist do not communicate well to laymen, which doesn't help the matter
Where I live there are two different newspapers. One of them is at a low reading level for people with less education, and the other is more sophisticated. Specifically, the Calgary Sun and the Calgary Herald respectively.
So instead of following what C Everett Coop said on the statistics .What is the mechanism for acquiring lung cancer from second hand smoke or smoking cigarettes.I asked an ear nose and throat Doctor. He said you need to have cellular damage to get cancer.Never heard that from any where or anyone..
From what I've read, cancer happens when cells lose the ability to regulate their growth. Chemicals in cigarette smoke have been found to affect cells that they get into in ways that are directly related to the formation of cancer [ex. benzene (a 6-carbon ring) is an extremely flat molecule, and because of that it can easily slip in and interrupt biochemical processes occurring inside your cells].
@matt22mccarthy Apparently some of us have weaker cell walls.At 63 and having a wife die from lung cancer at 48 .Me having smoked twice as much and being exposed to all these bad chemicals Asbestos from years of changing clutches and brakes on trucks.Acetone benzine gasoline diesel fuel diesel smoke to the point of black mucus ,smoking cigarettes with grease on them.Dirty engine oil on my hands face in my eyes and ears and yes even swallowing some.Coop says I am dead.
Seeing how journalism is bad at understanding and reporting science makes me wonder how better it is at understanding and reporting politics, law, society facts, geopolitics, statistics, police investigations, economy, arts and culture, etc...
When a newspaper has horoscopes, though they are in the entertainment page, how much more credibility has anything else printed in it?
I'm in the humanities myself, I've noticed some of the hostility my professors have against science, it's a little unnerving sometimes, and also makes them look rather ignorant. I'm a big fan of science though. Science > everything else.
Your, Ben's, authority figure statement reminds me of one of my journalism courses. Every statement had to be backed up by an authority figure and a quote.
Looking at just data? In one assignment it was allowed. That was an exception that required ignoring a semester of short cut education.
Some of us humanities graduates are actively reading on other fields as well to have and keep up our vast general knowledge and deepen that knowledge as much as possible without actually studying the subject. So perhaps your generalisation is the result of US/UK students; doesn't include all of us.
What do you think about the ig-nobel prize? In a way, it's an attempt to use the !wacky science story" for good instead of evil, as a way to get people interested in science trough humour.
I have to ask, Concordance, when you say "humanities" so generally, who are you referring to exactly? The Psych students? Philosophy students or teaching students? Maybe the arts students, or something equally as tenuous. I'm a linguistics student, and to the best of my knowledge a vast amount of research that's done in linguistics is by the scientific method. As far as i'm aware, the generalisations you're making to humanities students don't apply to my field, i guess i'm just bothered by this
@FullCircleStories I know you were talking to C, but I must interject. If you're in a serious art like music or functional visual art, there is nothing tenuous about it. My music bachelors was MUCH more difficult to complete than my bachelors in mathematics. Also, music research is done with the same rigor as any average scientific journal you can find. Just a thought. (Otherwise, I agree with the point I think you're making).
@XavierMacX Yeah the more i thought about it the more each field does have its own way of doing things which is quite thorough in its own way. I think the point of distinction i wanted to make was against the more tenuous aspects of the arts and humanities - but i mean even Psych and other social sciences have just as tight requirements for research
@FullCircleStories For sure. Also, psychology and the social sciences are for the most part slightly newer (at least their formalized versions are) so they are still figuring things out in terms of rigor. Psychology is getting pretty solid, but I think economics and some others still need to catch up a bit. In any case, everyone can learn from the scientific method! Here's hoping the media start listening to smart YouTubers such as yourself and C0nc0rdance.
@FullCircleStories I don't know if you realize, you're arguing with the words of Ben Goldacre, and C0nc0rdance made a note at one point in the video he doesn't mirror every word.
For my own response, you must know that linguistics is a "social science" and, like psychology, I wouldn't call that a humanities study (even though college coursebooks might differ). I have no clue if what he says about humanities is on the mark, but his criticisms more speak to me against radical political stances.
@klutterkicker I didn't expect my comment to bring so much attention in! Thanks for the response, i just don't want to be thrown in with a group i don't feel i belong too. Everything we do in linguistics seems to be by the scientific method, perhaps i'm wrong but we don't work with vague and ambiguous terms - if we want to prove something we need evidence, and good research, much like any scientific field.
@klutterkicker One quick thing, the notion of "I don't know if you realize, you're arguing with the words of Ben Goldacre, " is really very silly, I can't quite put into words what i'm thinking, but you're almost committing an appeal to authority here. I mean, did anyone tell Einstein he was arguing with Newtown when he furthered our understanding of physics? Not to say i'm doing the same, but it's the same idea. Critically think about everything you read, and don't put anyone on a pedestal.
I think the point being made by klutter is that I'm reading an essay written by another person. I can't answer for the intent of the author, so asking what 'I' mean by "humanities" is unproductive.
I don't mind taking credit for the brilliance of Dr. Goldacre, but your questions or criticisms are not something I can address.
@FullCircleStories It's a fairly codified term which refers to any discipline which studies the human condition using non-empirical techniques. Languages are considered humanities, but linguistics are social sciences because they use the scientific method to make inferences about society. I think the social sciences are poorly defined in general.
I can't speak for C0nc, but I believe he is referring to people who graduate from english, philosophy or the like - as opposed to natural sciences.
You misunderstand two things here. First of all, this is a VERBATIM reading of Ben Goldacre's Guardian article. C0nc0rdance disagrees with parts of it, which he writes in the video if you watch it, but they are not his words. Secondly, when Ben Goldacre says 'humanities', he is referring to any subject that is not firmly art or science. I hate to disappoint you, but linguistics, psychology and philosophy are NOT science by any definition.
@G0lfYankee Oh. I can eat my own words. In flaming @FullCircleStories for not reading the description, I completely missed the entire conversation below in which said user was flammed for not reading the description. GolfYankee fail.
@G0lfYankee Lol no dramas dude. I was commenting on the usage of the "humanities" fields, regardless of who made them or why, they seemed quite condescending. absb075 in another comment before said "but linguistics are social sciences because they use the scientific method to make inferences about society." and i think this touches on the point i was trying to make. It felt uncomfortable being thrown in with airy fairy arts students when the majority of what i learn is done by empirical research
Another brilliant video, and thank you for not dumbing-it-down too much.
Important, complex and difficult concepts can only be distilled to a critical level before collapsing inward upon themselves into unintelligible gibberish.
I don't disagree that science journalism is very poor but I really wish both you and Goldacre would lay off "humanities graduates". I agree that we may not be the most qualified to write about science, but we're not all idiots or Romantics. Some even know a thing or two about t-tests. Your beef is with a very small subset of humanities grads -- scientific illiterates who are also science journalists -- so don't make generalizations about our education or our psychology. It's beyond insulting.
Surely such a characterisation of humanities majors is inaccurate, especially considering the part about irrelevant scientists in their ivory tower? Grey elephants etc.
I think YouTube has ruined my attention span. Maybe I’m just too rushed or there are way too many vids to watch. Too much news, too much stuff. But I just wanted you to get to the point. Say what you mean in as few as words as possible. Anyway, THUMPS UP as always. Thanks.
@C0nc0rdance - Excellent video, these are exactly why I'm forever sub'd to you. I too have often wondered about to glaring pattern of "scientific studies have shown..." stories reported by mainstream outlets. This video at least provides a realistic and likely explanation.
Next time keep you cellphone an arms length away from your mic and point it opposite direction, while recording, to keep it from recording cellphone signal noise ^^
You are applying hypothetic-deductive (or empirical-analytic if you preffer) methods to something that is clearly an item for Historical-hermeneutic research.. you should probably leave it to the humanists ;)
There are science communication graduate programs popping up around the world. I know of three: a Master's program in Wales, a Ph.D. in Australia, and a Graduate Diploma in Canada (of which I am a graduate). I specialize in children's outreach programming, but some of my fellow grads went into journalism.
What bothers me is that so many people will see a report of a study (usually poor reporting of a preliminary study) and accept it and nothing will ever change their minds.
Just this morning I saw a report about a new study that showed no link between cell phone use and brain cancer, I mentioned that I've seen other studies that agree with that and a lady sitting nearby said "We don't know that"
@C0nc0rdance Good work, I'm probably going to show this to my Critical Thinking class when we cover how to "judge scientific theories". Could have done without all of the Humanities bashing, though. (This is coming from a Phil M.A. student who holds "science" in the highest regard.)
@dashpowers22 I think C0nc0rdance's video "Why Most Published Research Findings Are False" is another good video on the topic, and might suit the needs of your class just as well or better.
The upside to this mistake is that it proves you to most likely be the most well read person within fifty miles of your current location at all times. :-)
It's not fair for you to use James Watson as an example of "bad science". His statements on race, evolution and intelligence caused the politically correct people to go batshit insane. I believe he backpedaled because of fear and intimidation.
I've given up on reading science stories churned out by the media. They are all drivel. So how do those of us in science petition to change this horribly broken system? Should we write letters to the editor expressing concerns over the accuracy of their so-called "science pieces"? I can not see that getting very far. Do we need to become science communicators? While that isn't a bad idea I think I already spend too much time at my desk and not enough time in the lab. Agh!
I should profess my love for thee, C0nc0rdance, anyone who wouldst take a moment to note that Frankenstein was well written (surely a compliment to Mary Shelley) deserves a good cheer from me. I love that novel and I enjoy Shelley as one of my favorite mentors.
i'm gonna be a humanities graduate, in my linguistics class were doing a project specifically related to this, writing a press release type article that specifically doesn't screw up the information in the original published paper, they should probably do that in the like journalism classes too though..
Sounds like we just need to make a news channel ran by scientists dedicated to talking about science to the lay people in a way that they can understand.
I remember watching a Michael Shermer talk and when he was introduced and the announcer mentioned he had appeared on the Oprah Winfrey show a good proportion of the audience laughed out loud. This attitude, imo, is indicative of the failure of science to address the problem of communicating with non-scientists. It is difficult to engage with those whom you hold in contempt.
Oi, some of us humanity students want to fucking murder the rest who think they qualify to talk about science. It's like a science student trying to do anthro or something.
@revjimbob Oh he knows his stuff, when he's on the right topic. it's just not the stuff that he's famous for talking about. All we get to hear is his bullshit.
i love getting smarter by watching youtube videos. make me feel good when people make fun of me for watching youtube all the time but when a conversation comes up about MSG i can school everyone with my facts and data.
I'm not going to defend the jerks that publish crap for the Daily Mail, but don't you find it a bit absurd that a video titled "Don't Dumb Me Down" blatantly and repeatedly categorises humanities grads as a bunch of uneducated twats. Yes, "cryptobiosis" won't get past the editor, but neither will a text discussing the relationship between Saussure's lange and parole, one of the simplest concepts in linguistics, which both the author and the editor really should understand pretty darn well.
@Yupiyeahs Yeah I get what your saying. I agree that science reporting on the whole is abyssmal, but you'd think that scientists would be getting relevant news from anywhere BUT a tabloid newspaper. It's SUPPOSED to be for the layperson. As such it needs to be comprehensible to someone who didn't pursue a scientific path into higher education, but what it doesn't need to be is sensationalist or misleading.
@Beelzeboogie "Yeah I get what your saying. I agree that science reporting on the whole is abyssmal, but you'd think that scientists would be getting relevant news from anywhere BUT a tabloid newspaper. It's SUPPOSED to be for the layperson. As such it needs to be comprehensible to someone who didn't pursue a scientific path into higher education, but what it doesn't need to be is sensationalist or misleading.."
Exactly. Just quoting you so other people can see this.
Maybe we should be publishing segments of scientific papers or whole papers, and if you are too lazy to look up a word or too stupid to understand what is going on, thats your problem. If the humanities majors can make references to their French philosophers, scientists should get their papers published in popular media.
Great video as usual, but it really could have done with less vilification of the humanities. I'm an English major, and a great lover of scientific thought, theories, processes and realities. I've met numerous other humanities majors who think similarly. We're not all bad, man.
Excellent. Now take everything you address here and apply it to the bullshit spewed out by the Creation Research Society, Creation Ministries Intl., Answers in Genesis or Discovery Institute.
A surgeon friend of mine working in the NHS who knew Wakefield told me at the time the MMR paper was flawed. He described Wakefield as an idiot who could not do statistics. This guy knew stats, he did an extra "S" paper on stats for fun back in 1981. When we still had a real education system.
I saw something hilarious earlier; I walked past a big metal box at the side of the street, and there was a large yellow warning label saying "DANGER! NON-IONISING RADIATION!"
Why didn't they just come out and say "WARNING! NO RISK OF CANCER FROM THIS METAL BOX! STANDING NEAR IT WILL HAVE NO EFFECT ON YOU!"
@theneonfire Because prolonged exposure to the box was not part of testing protocol. Please euthanize it by depositing it into the nearest incinerator.
I don't know if you'd be up to this but it would be awesome if you could do a monthly or even bimonthly video on a book you'd like people to read and why. It's just a random idea but by god it would be awesome because I would actually be able use my biases for something awesome. Like pretending to be half as wellread as you.
I have watched videos with Goldacre, I like him a lot. One thingy, its more accurate to say that the scientific method and empiricism were ESTABLISHED 200 years ago, than saying they started then. Although its a detail its a huge injustice to Archimedes, Eratosthenes and loads of others. Also PR is an invention of Edward Bernays, a man who exploited Scientific insight without being a Scientist. So PR sucks in Science. Why are not Unis making a PR-Science degree. It could come in handy.
The whole thing is a bit crap. People understand, just fine, all sorts of media presented information without it being reduced. Sports statistics and the stock market being prime examples. If the media just started using the actual data people would catch on, even if it might be a slow starter. People would start seeing the processes and patterns employed and would be able to understand just fine and be demystified. People are kept 'dumb' simply because the media doesn't show the real stuff.
How can such a chain of ignorant informers bring the true meaning of one certain research, if people are debating for hours on the meaning of one single word
(and call it philosopy XD ).
Humanity needs to invent some kind of "scientific language", which will not allow for opposing double meanings and vague descriptions.
Even if you're being exceedingly charitable the Wakefield MMR paper was never characterizable as a "good small case series report". It was a manufactured fraud from the beginning, tainted with grossly unethical investigative methods and explicitly designed to fear monger about the vaccine in current use in order to give his own newly patented version a better chance in the marketplace.
I agree with you. I think it looked different in 2005, when this was written. The more we dug, the dirtier Wakefield was.
I've gotten my hands on some of the raw data from the real-time PCR detection of gut measles replication in the study, and I'm going to put together a short video detailing why it was fraud. The scientific smoking gun. He clearly forged his data.
*laugh* I had never heard of her, and I was reading it like "Gilliam". Those crazy Brits and their mispronunciations of proper American English. Al-yew-minnium, indeed!
Fascinating video, and I feel compelled to reply as a journalist who has had to occasionally cover science. Perhaps I'm something of an exception though in that I graduated with a double major, one in humanities and the other in science. What I hear from editors however is that when writing a science piece I need to 'dumb it down' or it sounds 'too dry' if I use much jargon.
"Bad Man Die" LOL!
mphello 3 weeks ago
Excellent video.
Helsinkisillest 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Can anyone tell me what documentary the last sentence on some of C0nc0rdance's videos are from? I mean "Every cell of each plant and animal contains genetic information coded onto the DNA molecule. The model rep..."
IblameBlame 1 month ago
As someone who (should) be graduating with a Humanities degree this summer and wants to go into journalism, I will be staying well away from writing science news. I wouldn't want to incur the ire of Ben Goldacre, who I very much admire!
sonotfastfood 3 months ago in playlist More videos from C0nc0rdance
You (or is it Ben?) rail repeatedly against the humanities here, implying it's full of gullible idiots with no understanding of science.
Is that really true? Or is it just fickle "my major is better than your major" tribalism.
This is bothering me more and more because i'm a soon to be mature-age-student currently trying to decide what to study. I'm encountering the typical anti-humanities/arts flack of from those studying STEM majors, it's childish bullshit and i wish it'd stop.
roidroid 3 months ago
I disagree. wow vaccinations are not OK and never were. I'm sure you've read the studies and done the research. Why lie?
Girls4RonPaul 3 months ago
@Girls4RonPaul
I've read a lot of scientific papers, but perhaps not the same ones you have. Which ones would you say are most persuasive? Could you cite them properly, please, I hate having to hunt?
Proper citation, minimal:
First author, "Title", Journal (year of publication).
C0nc0rdance 3 months ago 11
@C0nc0rdance lol as if :) Does Jenny McCarthy count?
salerio61 3 months ago
nice work!
brandtproduction 3 months ago
Thank you for sharing this vid and of Ben's article.
thedeeliciousplum 4 months ago
Isn't Goldcare contradicting himself when he complains of the media treating scientists as authority figures, before going onto to demonise "humanities graduates" by way of complaining of a lack of elite science journalists who are not also "science graduates"? Isn't that treating "science graduates" as authority figures?
niriop 4 months ago
you are brilliant
JRHartleberry 4 months ago
When he's talking about Hawkes, he's basically saying "correlation =/= causation"? It got a bit confusing.
Also, what do you think of Sanjay Gupta? When I see him in the morning, I'm happy, because he takes time to explain what the story is about. I personally haven't seen him blow something out of proportion or make a mistake someone like me would notice. Though CNN is definitely a culprit of medical story cliffhangers and the like.
boss1001 4 months ago
Newpapers are in the business of making money by selling paper.. they are not in the business of reporting news!!
uncleboring 4 months ago
Six years on and still, to society's shame, true.
A light in the darkness, here in the UK, is a noticeable increase in science-related programmes on TV and radio (many of which are also on the BBC World Service). Examples (radio): "More or Less", "The Material World", "The Life Scientific", "One Planet", "The Infinite Monkey Cage". All available as podcasts, by the way :)
LsBaba 4 months ago
Spot on. Sick of this sensationalist nonsense.
gasgas270 4 months ago
ah, the age-old bitter rivalry. Look, I know loads of us who enjoy studying humanities feel a strong science complex, although I personally don't (I mostly study social sciences, though), and many science students and scientists wouldn't dream of admitting the value of the humanities. It's quite childish, in my view, and utterly pointless.
glottidum 4 months ago
it's pronounced woh-rik not war-wik...
Pirate44444 4 months ago
BA is a very insightful British commentator and knows more than most about how the media makes fun of science.
lawbag1 4 months ago
Ben Goldacre is a fantastic writer, and a great speaker. If anyone in the UK has the chance to see him at a show somewhere I recommend it
ItsAudioworm 4 months ago
I think that scientific press releases *should* be written by non-scientists, since they are more likely to know how someone outside the field will understand something. This goes for all fields, scientific or not. You have to ask who your audience is, and communicate to *them.* But after the piece is written, it should be run past people in the field to make sure it's right.
Naiant 4 months ago
As an Anthropology Major. I would like to personally thank all "post-modernist" for making cultural Anthropology a laughing stock
SteampunkPagan 4 months ago
Those damned humanities graduates, what a bunch of simplistic morons. Don't you just hate the way they misrepresent and oversimplify science?
tctheunbeliever 4 months ago
@C0nc0rdance Not sure whether that was you on a Ben Goldacre quote, but was still inaccurate non the less.
Jools86 4 months ago
@C0nc0rdance Great video. However as someone who works in PR and is a journalism grad, your description of how press releases get sent out at 12:50 is incorrect. At no point would a member of a PR team send out a press release until it has been approved by an expert. It would never EVER be sent out with just the approval of the non scientist boss. No pr firm worth their salt would make that mistake.
Jools86 4 months ago
@Jools86
Of course, this is written by science journalist and physician Ben Goldacre, so I can't speak to his experiences. I work in industry, and the kind of statements I see written by our marketing people in promotional material or on the annual report are usually pretty poorly phrased, inaccurate, or completely out of date. I don't think it's stupidity. I rather suspect it's fear of error. Whole sections are removed in editing because they might be misconstrued.
C0nc0rdance 4 months ago 2
It is much easier for an editor to use general statements, but cut controversial or unclear content. It is usually the first to go.
Imagine 1000 words on some new trend in physics. The editor only has room for 600. The general gist can't be cut, the human angle is too valuable to generating interest... so they cut the technical details. It neuters the science out of a science article.
I suspect it happens at each level of the process, like Chinese Whispers.
C0nc0rdance 4 months ago
@C0nc0rdance S.978 take a look and pass it on !!!
parsonman05 4 months ago
Damn science, you scary.
brongarago 4 months ago
I think it's a bit unfair to expect all scientists to be able to not just perform science but to also be master raconteurs and spin doctors. Surely it is the job of the science-journalist to understand the field they are working in, or at least have the interviewing skills to ask enough questions to write a correct article.
Of course the scarier thought is that they do understand science, they just understand writing hysterical articles for newspapers better. Bad science can make good copy.
centuryten 4 months ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
You resort to arguments from authority all the time.
You are as pseudo-scientific as the fringe thinkers you depreciate.
Also, I didn't find Frankenstein well written.
OldSchopenhauer 4 months ago
I actually got the book Bad Science as a gift. Haven't gotten around to reading it yet. Anyway, on to watching the video.
Pushtrak 4 months ago
"Bad Science" should be required reading for every HS student.
TheFallibleFiend 4 months ago
@TheFallibleFiend Bad Science should be required for every literate person who ever goes to the doctor or eats.
TheAtheologian 4 months ago
It seems that every story that shows correlation also suggests causation. The most recent one was a study that showed women who took vitamins didn't live as long. The conclusion was that taking vitamins shortens your life. I ask people how it could be that this conclusion could be false and they can't imagine how it could be false. After I explain about self-selection bias they understand.
WarmWeatherGuy 4 months ago
They dumb down the finance stuff too. Trust me.
Snagabott 4 months ago
It's amazing how fake the world is. Unbelievable - is really the word.
theDracoIX 4 months ago
Anyone else hate the word 'Boffins' as used in tabloids. I usually picture Jon Tickle, in a lab coat, with big wild curly hair and fat round glasses. With a test tube in his hand. With smoke coming out of it. Or sometimes it's Les from Vic Reeves Big Night Out. He never fails to raise a smile when he sees a spirit level, but he's afraid of chives.
I never think of real scientists.
FreindlyRanger 4 months ago
C0nc0rdance, you do like Ben, right?
iasedu 4 months ago
and the solution is so simple, and some quality newspapers and quality TV shows do it:
scientists that also have journalistic skills need to be in charge of science-related content. Professors of biology or physics are the first choice. Its not enough if normal journalists without any scientific education ask scientists. To get science journalism that is interesting and informative and does not make me angry, you need to put a real scientists IN CHARGE of that content.
kurtilein3 4 months ago
I have to agree with previous comments that the Goldacre's generalizations about "humanities graduates" are a bit harsh, almost as if they are scientifically damaged people :s All hope is not lost though! e.g. check
home.tudelft.nl/en/study/master-of-science/master-programmes/science-education-and-communication/science-communication-track/
Training scientists to communicate ^_^
zottejakke3 4 months ago
Sadly true...
akylae101 4 months ago
Comment removed
klutterkicker 4 months ago
I have to say that his statements on science reporting are so true though. So many times I've found myself unable to find even what study a whole series of reports in different newspapers are referring to. They'll just say "A recent study at the University of Baltimore said...".
And then the polar opposite, where papers put words into a scientist's mouth without seeming to have ever read his/her conclusions or statements, and the scientist is demonized by the public according to those words.
klutterkicker 4 months ago
Oh how this is true. I have always told people don't put too much credit behind the science in the news, but instead go find the actual article they are talking about to get the real facts. Most will not do this either due to not caring enough, not having access or not understanding how to read science papers, since in reality part of science education is how to read and interpret the science literature. And yes most scientist do not communicate well to laymen, which doesn't help the matter
vnorthru 4 months ago
Where I live there are two different newspapers. One of them is at a low reading level for people with less education, and the other is more sophisticated. Specifically, the Calgary Sun and the Calgary Herald respectively.
CMO999 4 months ago
Comment removed
RatherRandomRandy 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
6:27 You're not fooling anyone.
alabamamanable 4 months ago
Never knew humanities grads hated science so much :P
JustAnotherHumanist 4 months ago
So I cant even trust New scientist?!
marcarmstrong88 4 months ago
So instead of following what C Everett Coop said on the statistics .What is the mechanism for acquiring lung cancer from second hand smoke or smoking cigarettes.I asked an ear nose and throat Doctor. He said you need to have cellular damage to get cancer.Never heard that from any where or anyone..
no1saphead 4 months ago
@no1saphead
From what I've read, cancer happens when cells lose the ability to regulate their growth. Chemicals in cigarette smoke have been found to affect cells that they get into in ways that are directly related to the formation of cancer [ex. benzene (a 6-carbon ring) is an extremely flat molecule, and because of that it can easily slip in and interrupt biochemical processes occurring inside your cells].
matt22mccarthy 4 months ago
@matt22mccarthy Apparently some of us have weaker cell walls.At 63 and having a wife die from lung cancer at 48 .Me having smoked twice as much and being exposed to all these bad chemicals Asbestos from years of changing clutches and brakes on trucks.Acetone benzine gasoline diesel fuel diesel smoke to the point of black mucus ,smoking cigarettes with grease on them.Dirty engine oil on my hands face in my eyes and ears and yes even swallowing some.Coop says I am dead.
no1saphead 4 months ago
Seeing how journalism is bad at understanding and reporting science makes me wonder how better it is at understanding and reporting politics, law, society facts, geopolitics, statistics, police investigations, economy, arts and culture, etc...
When a newspaper has horoscopes, though they are in the entertainment page, how much more credibility has anything else printed in it?
synsei1 4 months ago
The wakefield studies were a fraud...not a valid small case series report. Dr. Wakefield actually fudged the data on purpose.
pdblouin33 4 months ago
I'm in the humanities myself, I've noticed some of the hostility my professors have against science, it's a little unnerving sometimes, and also makes them look rather ignorant. I'm a big fan of science though. Science > everything else.
Sybsop 4 months ago
Your, Ben's, authority figure statement reminds me of one of my journalism courses. Every statement had to be backed up by an authority figure and a quote.
Looking at just data? In one assignment it was allowed. That was an exception that required ignoring a semester of short cut education.
GideonWells 4 months ago
Some of us humanities graduates are actively reading on other fields as well to have and keep up our vast general knowledge and deepen that knowledge as much as possible without actually studying the subject. So perhaps your generalisation is the result of US/UK students; doesn't include all of us.
mirkwoodian 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@mirkwoodian "[...] deepen that knowledge as much as possible without actually studying the subject"
This will, contrary to popular belief, fail.
qwasdninja 4 months ago
Once again Scientists are baffled.
TIPinkUnicorn 4 months ago
a-mazing
koed15 4 months ago
What do you think about the ig-nobel prize? In a way, it's an attempt to use the !wacky science story" for good instead of evil, as a way to get people interested in science trough humour.
Owlor 4 months ago
Amazing Video, keep up up the good work
unfunperson 4 months ago
great vid
goozbaghali 4 months ago
I have to ask, Concordance, when you say "humanities" so generally, who are you referring to exactly? The Psych students? Philosophy students or teaching students? Maybe the arts students, or something equally as tenuous. I'm a linguistics student, and to the best of my knowledge a vast amount of research that's done in linguistics is by the scientific method. As far as i'm aware, the generalisations you're making to humanities students don't apply to my field, i guess i'm just bothered by this
FullCircleStories 4 months ago 13
@FullCircleStories I know you were talking to C, but I must interject. If you're in a serious art like music or functional visual art, there is nothing tenuous about it. My music bachelors was MUCH more difficult to complete than my bachelors in mathematics. Also, music research is done with the same rigor as any average scientific journal you can find. Just a thought. (Otherwise, I agree with the point I think you're making).
XavierMacX 4 months ago
@XavierMacX Yeah the more i thought about it the more each field does have its own way of doing things which is quite thorough in its own way. I think the point of distinction i wanted to make was against the more tenuous aspects of the arts and humanities - but i mean even Psych and other social sciences have just as tight requirements for research
FullCircleStories 4 months ago
@FullCircleStories For sure. Also, psychology and the social sciences are for the most part slightly newer (at least their formalized versions are) so they are still figuring things out in terms of rigor. Psychology is getting pretty solid, but I think economics and some others still need to catch up a bit. In any case, everyone can learn from the scientific method! Here's hoping the media start listening to smart YouTubers such as yourself and C0nc0rdance.
XavierMacX 4 months ago
@XavierMacX I wouldn't call myself smart! But thanks
FullCircleStories 4 months ago
@FullCircleStories I don't know if you realize, you're arguing with the words of Ben Goldacre, and C0nc0rdance made a note at one point in the video he doesn't mirror every word.
For my own response, you must know that linguistics is a "social science" and, like psychology, I wouldn't call that a humanities study (even though college coursebooks might differ). I have no clue if what he says about humanities is on the mark, but his criticisms more speak to me against radical political stances.
klutterkicker 4 months ago 21
@klutterkicker I didn't expect my comment to bring so much attention in! Thanks for the response, i just don't want to be thrown in with a group i don't feel i belong too. Everything we do in linguistics seems to be by the scientific method, perhaps i'm wrong but we don't work with vague and ambiguous terms - if we want to prove something we need evidence, and good research, much like any scientific field.
FullCircleStories 4 months ago
@klutterkicker One quick thing, the notion of "I don't know if you realize, you're arguing with the words of Ben Goldacre, " is really very silly, I can't quite put into words what i'm thinking, but you're almost committing an appeal to authority here. I mean, did anyone tell Einstein he was arguing with Newtown when he furthered our understanding of physics? Not to say i'm doing the same, but it's the same idea. Critically think about everything you read, and don't put anyone on a pedestal.
FullCircleStories 4 months ago
@FullCircleStories
I think the point being made by klutter is that I'm reading an essay written by another person. I can't answer for the intent of the author, so asking what 'I' mean by "humanities" is unproductive.
I don't mind taking credit for the brilliance of Dr. Goldacre, but your questions or criticisms are not something I can address.
C0nc0rdance 4 months ago
@C0nc0rdance That's fine, i'm sorry for causing so much trouble here =(
FullCircleStories 4 months ago
@C0nc0rdance Thanks for clarifying to FCS, that is what I was assuming when I wrote that post.
@FullCircleStories I don't think you've caused any trouble, it's just often hard to communicate everything in 500 characters or less. ;)
klutterkicker 4 months ago
@FullCircleStories It's a fairly codified term which refers to any discipline which studies the human condition using non-empirical techniques. Languages are considered humanities, but linguistics are social sciences because they use the scientific method to make inferences about society. I think the social sciences are poorly defined in general.
I can't speak for C0nc, but I believe he is referring to people who graduate from english, philosophy or the like - as opposed to natural sciences.
absb075 4 months ago
Comment removed
froznfood 4 months ago
@FullCircleStories *Read the description*
You misunderstand two things here. First of all, this is a VERBATIM reading of Ben Goldacre's Guardian article. C0nc0rdance disagrees with parts of it, which he writes in the video if you watch it, but they are not his words. Secondly, when Ben Goldacre says 'humanities', he is referring to any subject that is not firmly art or science. I hate to disappoint you, but linguistics, psychology and philosophy are NOT science by any definition.
G0lfYankee 4 months ago
@G0lfYankee Oh. I can eat my own words. In flaming @FullCircleStories for not reading the description, I completely missed the entire conversation below in which said user was flammed for not reading the description. GolfYankee fail.
G0lfYankee 4 months ago
@G0lfYankee Lol no dramas dude. I was commenting on the usage of the "humanities" fields, regardless of who made them or why, they seemed quite condescending. absb075 in another comment before said "but linguistics are social sciences because they use the scientific method to make inferences about society." and i think this touches on the point i was trying to make. It felt uncomfortable being thrown in with airy fairy arts students when the majority of what i learn is done by empirical research
FullCircleStories 4 months ago
I enjoyed the headline "BAD MAN DIE!". I hadn't realized Rupert Murdoch had bought the Wall Street Journal.
GoblinXXX 4 months ago
Comment removed
FullCircleStories 4 months ago
Another brilliant video, and thank you for not dumbing-it-down too much.
Important, complex and difficult concepts can only be distilled to a critical level before collapsing inward upon themselves into unintelligible gibberish.
InternalCompass 4 months ago
Well done. Thanks
movieklump 4 months ago
Damn you're good...lol
takfarinas1 4 months ago
You sound like the user Evidenc3.
Ledwix 4 months ago
"Evolution is just a theory" = poor science communication in action.
gatorboymike 4 months ago
@gatorboymike it isn't science communication though is it?
aardjazz 4 months ago
I don't disagree that science journalism is very poor but I really wish both you and Goldacre would lay off "humanities graduates". I agree that we may not be the most qualified to write about science, but we're not all idiots or Romantics. Some even know a thing or two about t-tests. Your beef is with a very small subset of humanities grads -- scientific illiterates who are also science journalists -- so don't make generalizations about our education or our psychology. It's beyond insulting.
scaredsky 4 months ago
@scaredsky Unfortunately, the empty wagons rattle the most. The humanities graduates that know nothing about science make the most noise about it.
GoblinXXX 4 months ago
Surely such a characterisation of humanities majors is inaccurate, especially considering the part about irrelevant scientists in their ivory tower? Grey elephants etc.
Lunji 4 months ago
I think YouTube has ruined my attention span. Maybe I’m just too rushed or there are way too many vids to watch. Too much news, too much stuff. But I just wanted you to get to the point. Say what you mean in as few as words as possible. Anyway, THUMPS UP as always. Thanks.
itsasin1969 4 months ago
I swear, Concordance's videos are the only ones with engaging, thought provoking responses raised by thinking people.
Richy15251 4 months ago
@C0nc0rdance - Excellent video, these are exactly why I'm forever sub'd to you. I too have often wondered about to glaring pattern of "scientific studies have shown..." stories reported by mainstream outlets. This video at least provides a realistic and likely explanation.
Thanks =)
PainAddict666 4 months ago
What's wrong with Kevin Warwick at 10:41? He hasn't manufactured data, nor is a TV host.
tyrongkojy 4 months ago
I forgive you for the poor audio quality, but you're on thin ice.
OpiatedBliss 4 months ago
what is wrong with Kevin Warwick? "Transhumanist Advocate"? Is that a bad thing?
Sahuagin 4 months ago
Next time keep you cellphone an arms length away from your mic and point it opposite direction, while recording, to keep it from recording cellphone signal noise ^^
tsjoencinema 4 months ago
Ben Goldrace recently gave a very entertaining Ted talk:
watch?v=h4MhbkWJzKk
Pulsar89 4 months ago
You are applying hypothetic-deductive (or empirical-analytic if you preffer) methods to something that is clearly an item for Historical-hermeneutic research.. you should probably leave it to the humanists ;)
sp4zzer 4 months ago
Awesome loved it! Thanks mate!
Christopholaes 4 months ago
There are science communication graduate programs popping up around the world. I know of three: a Master's program in Wales, a Ph.D. in Australia, and a Graduate Diploma in Canada (of which I am a graduate). I specialize in children's outreach programming, but some of my fellow grads went into journalism.
Gforce2424 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
This makes so much sense to me!
TanUv90 4 months ago
What bothers me is that so many people will see a report of a study (usually poor reporting of a preliminary study) and accept it and nothing will ever change their minds.
Just this morning I saw a report about a new study that showed no link between cell phone use and brain cancer, I mentioned that I've seen other studies that agree with that and a lady sitting nearby said "We don't know that"
OtherGonzo 4 months ago
YouTube should be filled with people like you and potholer54...!
lovingboarding 4 months ago
@C0nc0rdance Good work, I'm probably going to show this to my Critical Thinking class when we cover how to "judge scientific theories". Could have done without all of the Humanities bashing, though. (This is coming from a Phil M.A. student who holds "science" in the highest regard.)
dashpowers22 4 months ago
@dashpowers22 I think C0nc0rdance's video "Why Most Published Research Findings Are False" is another good video on the topic, and might suit the needs of your class just as well or better.
quaternio 4 months ago
@quaternio Thanks for the suggestion. There are so many good C0nc0rdance videos!
dashpowers22 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
'Hegemony' is pronounced "heh-GEM-uh-nee".
The upside to this mistake is that it proves you to most likely be the most well read person within fifty miles of your current location at all times. :-)
zEropoint68 4 months ago
Comment removed
zEropoint68 4 months ago
So...is taking a baby aspirin daily or every other day a good thing? Or not a good thing?
BJ219 4 months ago
It's not fair for you to use James Watson as an example of "bad science". His statements on race, evolution and intelligence caused the politically correct people to go batshit insane. I believe he backpedaled because of fear and intimidation.
DKshad0w 4 months ago
I think there's a typo in your third law, should be "than" not "that." Honest mistake I'm sure
RhetoricalBullshit 4 months ago
I've given up on reading science stories churned out by the media. They are all drivel. So how do those of us in science petition to change this horribly broken system? Should we write letters to the editor expressing concerns over the accuracy of their so-called "science pieces"? I can not see that getting very far. Do we need to become science communicators? While that isn't a bad idea I think I already spend too much time at my desk and not enough time in the lab. Agh!
leptonsoup337 4 months ago
9:23 Perhaps that is the reason why creationists sometimes consider science to be another "religion".
Akira625 4 months ago
I should profess my love for thee, C0nc0rdance, anyone who wouldst take a moment to note that Frankenstein was well written (surely a compliment to Mary Shelley) deserves a good cheer from me. I love that novel and I enjoy Shelley as one of my favorite mentors.
ThePrinceOfMillAve 4 months ago
Very interesting, this is training on how to watch media. Very good, very educational.
TenchiJeff 4 months ago
Hey C0nc0rdance, What's the best site to get science news?
phurphy 4 months ago
i'm gonna be a humanities graduate, in my linguistics class were doing a project specifically related to this, writing a press release type article that specifically doesn't screw up the information in the original published paper, they should probably do that in the like journalism classes too though..
freakstupid11 4 months ago
Sounds like we just need to make a news channel ran by scientists dedicated to talking about science to the lay people in a way that they can understand.
bloodyhawk989 4 months ago
As much as I love Goldacre; a TAD harsh on us humanities students I think, but I can understand why he'd be frustrated with us.
Beelzeboogie 4 months ago
one of the best vids u made so far. nicely brought the key points home.
beyondEV 4 months ago
I remember watching a Michael Shermer talk and when he was introduced and the announcer mentioned he had appeared on the Oprah Winfrey show a good proportion of the audience laughed out loud. This attitude, imo, is indicative of the failure of science to address the problem of communicating with non-scientists. It is difficult to engage with those whom you hold in contempt.
colourmegone 4 months ago
This has really re-inspired me to make a living as a good, proper science communicator! Thanks @c0nc0rdance
M1ssMyr1ad 4 months ago
Oi, some of us humanity students want to fucking murder the rest who think they qualify to talk about science. It's like a science student trying to do anthro or something.
0Krusnik0 4 months ago
Dr Kevin Warwick is an idiot. A few years ago he implanted into his arm the type of chip you put in a dog's ear and claimed he was a fucking cyborg.
He is a shameless media whore.
revjimbob 4 months ago
@revjimbob Oh he knows his stuff, when he's on the right topic. it's just not the stuff that he's famous for talking about. All we get to hear is his bullshit.
Beelzeboogie 4 months ago
@Beelzeboogie
The bullshit has made me think of him as a bit of a charlatan. Wasn't aware he had done any respectable stuff.
revjimbob 4 months ago
i love getting smarter by watching youtube videos. make me feel good when people make fun of me for watching youtube all the time but when a conversation comes up about MSG i can school everyone with my facts and data.
kiddhitta 4 months ago
I'm not going to defend the jerks that publish crap for the Daily Mail, but don't you find it a bit absurd that a video titled "Don't Dumb Me Down" blatantly and repeatedly categorises humanities grads as a bunch of uneducated twats. Yes, "cryptobiosis" won't get past the editor, but neither will a text discussing the relationship between Saussure's lange and parole, one of the simplest concepts in linguistics, which both the author and the editor really should understand pretty darn well.
Yupiyeahs 4 months ago
@Yupiyeahs Yeah I get what your saying. I agree that science reporting on the whole is abyssmal, but you'd think that scientists would be getting relevant news from anywhere BUT a tabloid newspaper. It's SUPPOSED to be for the layperson. As such it needs to be comprehensible to someone who didn't pursue a scientific path into higher education, but what it doesn't need to be is sensationalist or misleading.
Beelzeboogie 4 months ago
@Beelzeboogie "Yeah I get what your saying. I agree that science reporting on the whole is abyssmal, but you'd think that scientists would be getting relevant news from anywhere BUT a tabloid newspaper. It's SUPPOSED to be for the layperson. As such it needs to be comprehensible to someone who didn't pursue a scientific path into higher education, but what it doesn't need to be is sensationalist or misleading.."
Exactly. Just quoting you so other people can see this.
XavierMacX 4 months ago
Humanities students get so much stick. I'm never gonna live down being one.. :(
behean2 4 months ago
And this is why it's such a great pity that potholer54 isn't still an active science correspondant in the mass media
un2mensch 4 months ago
Maybe we should be publishing segments of scientific papers or whole papers, and if you are too lazy to look up a word or too stupid to understand what is going on, thats your problem. If the humanities majors can make references to their French philosophers, scientists should get their papers published in popular media.
TheSH1N1GAM1 4 months ago
Great video as usual, but it really could have done with less vilification of the humanities. I'm an English major, and a great lover of scientific thought, theories, processes and realities. I've met numerous other humanities majors who think similarly. We're not all bad, man.
razieldumas 4 months ago
@razieldumas
Just to be clear: C0nc0rdance was reading an article from Ben Goldacre. These weren't his own words.
Pulsar89 4 months ago
@Pulsar89 Ohhhh...okay. Well, all blame is deflected from C0nc0rdance, then. :)
razieldumas 4 months ago
Oh shit...
Xkcd and smbc!
Fuck yeah.
applefrog111 4 months ago
Excellent. Now take everything you address here and apply it to the bullshit spewed out by the Creation Research Society, Creation Ministries Intl., Answers in Genesis or Discovery Institute.
deepashtray 4 months ago
XKCD!
applefrog111 4 months ago
Was your heart broken by a humanities graduate student?
superfisto 4 months ago
Excellent as always.
Trinivalts 4 months ago
A surgeon friend of mine working in the NHS who knew Wakefield told me at the time the MMR paper was flawed. He described Wakefield as an idiot who could not do statistics. This guy knew stats, he did an extra "S" paper on stats for fun back in 1981. When we still had a real education system.
NoFaithNoPain 4 months ago
I saw something hilarious earlier; I walked past a big metal box at the side of the street, and there was a large yellow warning label saying "DANGER! NON-IONISING RADIATION!"
Why didn't they just come out and say "WARNING! NO RISK OF CANCER FROM THIS METAL BOX! STANDING NEAR IT WILL HAVE NO EFFECT ON YOU!"
theneonfire 4 months ago 13
@theneonfire Because prolonged exposure to the box was not part of testing protocol. Please euthanize it by depositing it into the nearest incinerator.
mistereveready 4 months ago
@theneonfire
lol I saw something like this in Austria: it was a warning that said "Danger Insulated high voltage cabling"
ArsonistInUrFirewall 4 months ago
I don't know if you'd be up to this but it would be awesome if you could do a monthly or even bimonthly video on a book you'd like people to read and why. It's just a random idea but by god it would be awesome because I would actually be able use my biases for something awesome. Like pretending to be half as wellread as you.
ForYeensSake 4 months ago
I have watched videos with Goldacre, I like him a lot. One thingy, its more accurate to say that the scientific method and empiricism were ESTABLISHED 200 years ago, than saying they started then. Although its a detail its a huge injustice to Archimedes, Eratosthenes and loads of others. Also PR is an invention of Edward Bernays, a man who exploited Scientific insight without being a Scientist. So PR sucks in Science. Why are not Unis making a PR-Science degree. It could come in handy.
ONESPECIES 4 months ago
C0nc0rdance,
What is your own background, and what do you do for a living?
Darienbeagle 4 months ago
On mail order viagra; "I don't use the stuff" ...........good save.
Projectionist101 4 months ago
I love XKCD I find alot of its stuff on science really interesting and funny.
lonewolfM16 4 months ago
The whole thing is a bit crap. People understand, just fine, all sorts of media presented information without it being reduced. Sports statistics and the stock market being prime examples. If the media just started using the actual data people would catch on, even if it might be a slow starter. People would start seeing the processes and patterns employed and would be able to understand just fine and be demystified. People are kept 'dumb' simply because the media doesn't show the real stuff.
savageecho 4 months ago
Brilliant video as always C0nc0rdance, although I'm surprised there was no mention of the crocus flower "smart bomb" cancer treatment in the video.
Moussyed 4 months ago
@C0nc0rdance
How can such a chain of ignorant informers bring the true meaning of one certain research, if people are debating for hours on the meaning of one single word
(and call it philosopy XD ).
Humanity needs to invent some kind of "scientific language", which will not allow for opposing double meanings and vague descriptions.
Maybe then it'll be a bit more simple?
SEThatered 4 months ago
The transcript is very useful.
Alpinex105 4 months ago
Tuesday is the most depressing day of the year. Every Tuesday. Every year.
I hate Tuesdays.
TheAtheistSwede 4 months ago
Even if you're being exceedingly charitable the Wakefield MMR paper was never characterizable as a "good small case series report". It was a manufactured fraud from the beginning, tainted with grossly unethical investigative methods and explicitly designed to fear monger about the vaccine in current use in order to give his own newly patented version a better chance in the marketplace.
10mintwo 4 months ago 7
@10mintwo
I agree with you. I think it looked different in 2005, when this was written. The more we dug, the dirtier Wakefield was.
I've gotten my hands on some of the raw data from the real-time PCR detection of gut measles replication in the study, and I'm going to put together a short video detailing why it was fraud. The scientific smoking gun. He clearly forged his data.
C0nc0rdance 4 months ago 11
Pronounced Jill-ian
aldunamesaretaken 4 months ago
@aldunamesaretaken
*laugh* I had never heard of her, and I was reading it like "Gilliam". Those crazy Brits and their mispronunciations of proper American English. Al-yew-minnium, indeed!
C0nc0rdance 4 months ago 12
@C0nc0rdance whilst we're correcting pronunciation... "Warwick" is pronounced "worrick" ;)
p.s. it's our language, nonsensical pronunciation is our prerogative! Just be glad he didn't bust out the "cholmondeley" (pronounced "chumly")
jadcott 4 months ago
@C0nc0rdance you need to say Bloke more in your videos, love it...
IceSlice21 4 months ago
I'm now a humanities student and I'm a science fan. Great article, thanks for presenting it so well.
But I would just like to add that I personally feel a bit demonized here! We're not all relativists and incompetent morons!
Happypast 4 months ago 3
Comment removed
Alpinex105 4 months ago
Fascinating video, and I feel compelled to reply as a journalist who has had to occasionally cover science. Perhaps I'm something of an exception though in that I graduated with a double major, one in humanities and the other in science. What I hear from editors however is that when writing a science piece I need to 'dumb it down' or it sounds 'too dry' if I use much jargon.
JGonspy 4 months ago
"OMG DID U GUIZ HERE ABOUT THE NEUTRINO THAT WENT FASTER THAN LIGHT EINSTEIN WAS WRONG!!!"
ronocko 4 months ago 2
@7:17 I see I am not the only one who noticed the world is ending+evolution is dying trend.
Every few years evolution 'starts dying' and the world starts ending.
GallusSapien