To be wrong time and time again doesn't make people very reliable. We just stop asking them again, on the matter or subject in question.
In this subject (global climate cathastrophe) the consequenses and demands on people and nature are just to big to be mucked around with. Give us the facts, not some mumbo-jumbo horseshit excuse for being dead wrong.
@darkhairedguy if we view scientists and science as infallible, we're the same as religious folk and their superstitious nonsense. he's not saying that it's totally okay to be wrong, so go out and talk out of your ass and just apologize later. he's saying that to admit being wrong instead of considering your opinion infallible is constructive and builds trust, rather than being an ideologue. science isn't definitive either, it's always changing. what's fact today isnt the whole story tomorrow
We don't mind that your argument was flawed. That was clearly evident the first time I viewed your video. We are angry that you and the scientific community are wrong about the FACTS yet you refuse to admit it. That puts you in the :( group. Scientists refuse to calmly stand in front of the camera and say "yes, we screwed up, there is no strong correlation between man's actions and global warming." Post a follow-up regarding the absence of warming and the cover-up and join the :) group.
Wait wait wait just a second mr physics teacher, I may be wrong but you said no one can ever be always right, so is there a group there for the never wrong people? Btw any update video on your original vid?
This is more about manipulation tahn aoubt sience in my ooipn, see? To some it may seem like I need spellcheck but you can understand what I wrote, because like this guy said the brain is an amazing thing, it works in ways that we can barely understand. This seems like me when I use semantics and rhetoric to make it seem like I'm right. It's like in Thank you for Smoking, I don't have to be right, I just have to make you look wrong. It freaked me out when he said what I always did in that movie.
You overlook that some people are concerned with giving the impression that they are always right, even when they are proven wrong. Some corrupt and/or influential people can pull this off.
In this scene, credibility can be lost among scientists and critics, but not among those who either can't, won't, or didn't think to apply critical thinking. A good number of those people weigh in on policy, just like the non-critics.
I find a very tragic irony in this. Jean-Paul Sartre sneezes.
REAL Free energy technology exists!But the Big corporations spend millions to ensure that information does not spread to the masses,Get a motor that works with the power of magnets only at LT-MAGNET-MOTORdotCOM ,Be a part of the energy revolution!
I think that the IPCC using articles that haven't been peer reviewed such as the article about the melting himalayan glaciers is damaging to their reputation. Of course this is a single article among thousands of properly peer reviewed papers that they have cited but it was covered up by the head of the IPCC who knew about it but said nothing which is the main reason to worry about the peer review process in the IPCC and whether it differs from the process used in unpoliticized science.
@beatlemaniac1000 A total idiot u are. Who said hes on his work schedule? And if he was? I surely appreciate his exposure on the matter. It's morons like you that should be fired. Oh, wait... You MUST want his job! Gotcha!
there has been a conspiracy to avoid or deny science whenever it is convenient- scientific fact.Hopefully Copenhagen will change this. I care about climate, the government didn't, but I have no children or property, so damned if I'll do THEIR caring for them, and I think they do AT LAST admit there is a problem. I only hope they haven't just led us up the garden path again with whatever we want to hear, and corruption doesn't get the better of them again. Come on- It never was about the science!
science has only recently been accepted widely.. look at history.. religion reigned supreme for basically all of time.. we've only been schooled in science for the past century.. before that it was reserved for only a few
@aceflashheart SOME conspiracy theorists actually have more science backing them than their critics, so be aware that you're using a gross generality. I do agree with you, but only so far.
Huh, me wrong? fuck that woke me up. Nah, he's wrong about me being wrong. I'm never wrong, back to sleep. Credibility with people, ha, ha, respect ha ha, from who? from the monkeys who are fucking up the world in the first place.
I've not read all the comments, but your assertion that people can be 'always or sometimes' wrong leaves out one rather annoying group of humans. Those who are _always_ wrong. Sure, some of them are not that dangerous, as they never have positions of influence. Unfortunately some of those people become priests/politicians/snakeoil salesmen/etc. and do a great deal of damage to the world.
Funny how my comment is being blocked. I wonder why. Perhaps it absolutely offended someones intellect. Might have brought them out of looney land for too long than is comfortable.
Admit being wrong? Well thatd be just dandy sir, But, According to you, HOW? Let's review your logic. You JUST CLAIMED Nothing is fully knowable. IF that's true as You Claim, Correct and Incorrect are Unattainable, Irrelevant, & unknowable! How can you be Right about Anything if Nothing is certainly uncontestably Right? How can a claim be Wrong? It can't! If you stick to your own logic instead of convieniently departing from it at whim, Your entire argument falls apart!
I have created a simple, but useful page, which has all the links to this series of videos listed in the correct order.
The site name is of the standard format with the usual (US) extension after the dot. The site name is then followed by a forward slash and the name of the page, so the first word is my site name and the second bit is the page name (but you need to put D O T h t m on the end).
Nothing a relativist says has much logic to it shadow. They pick and choose what they want to believe at whim, anytime reality is offensive, and assume everyone else does the same. They love to snap back to reality when there is opportunity to be pretentious or pedantic, yet must adopt universal objectivistivity when they cross traffic or anything else requiring Logic in life, seeing how they uncannily can't imagine/preceive speeding trucks out of existence and such.
lol i said paris is in the triangle. does that mean im stupid?..... probably
but!
i dont think its wrong to admit you are(or can be) wrong. but shuld u go about changing your argument if the opposing party can not prove that you are wrong? provide evidence that makes more logical sense than what you had stated previously?
Basically the whole admit/never admit is a ploy to get agw skeptics to doubt their assumptions, while you retain your own alleged absolute Doubt (another deceit, I say you really believe in agw) even if you profess Nothings absolute WTH? I apprehend your multiple intentions & I see through you. And to that "dude" commenter, no disrespect but I honestly believe your bass ackwards. You Am, therefore you Think. You merely SelfAware you think.
In response to the first minute of blather on pt 2 I would say you like to deceive people then bait and switch to pull more relativist dogs manure.how can I trust you after the candle deciet? Yeah I get it now, perfectly. On the "I'm not trained enough" quote I retort with: would you like to go to mattresses over that assumption?
I don't know that the toy set in front of you- is necessarily missing a green piece/belongs to your daughter- or that you even have a daughter. It also might not be a toy set at all.
About the equation, I will cautiously state that you have your work cut out to prove that it is not wrong. Now watch me crash and burn.
Okay I've paused before being told, I will attempt to figure out the tricks. Here goes:
You might not be in a sitting position.
You might not be sitting in a chair, I can't see for sure.
I can think of a shedload about the whiteboard- maybe its not actually there, maybe you're not infront of it, maybe the equation is somehow not technically 'on it'.
What we see in the whole global warming discussion goes beyond science. It's a power dispute among goverment, economy and the very own science to determine on how the mankind is supposed to produce wealth from now on. I BELIEVE (assuming that even it´s proven, I have to trust on one's authority on the subject) that global warming is actually happening and that it is going to affect the whole social context. What I'm not sure of what to do is the measures we're gonna have to employ to "fix" it.
Very well argumented, very coherent. Congratulations!
If only you hadn't forgotten to explain WHO determines RIGHT and WRONG (in the1+1=10 case you cited, for instance), instead of just naming the shortcomings of human knowledge.
To understand my point, you gonna have to remember that by the time global warming issue was only discussed majorly among the scientists, there was nearly no controversy about it. But now it is also a political matter, so you can see why people want to contradict it.
I'm sending this to friends and family, not because of the underlining issue at hand, but because they need to hear what you just said at 4:10. That should be on repeat for every human to hear 24/7 around the world. People who can admit that they are wrong in the face of empirical evidence are MORE trustworthy than those who cannot. It might as well have been in some alien dialect the way most people on this planet act.
i did not get the , the. But i did knew i was wrong, something was not spaced right. but i did not have time to remember what it might be because i did not pause the vid the second time, and looked up in time to see him playing with that squishy ball thing.
I am thinking knowing i was wrong but not why is a credible sign that i think like an untrained scientist.woo hoo...so why does life confuse me SO?
"More useful beliefs"? I would think that, not only is the utility of a particular belief impossible to determine without relying on other beliefs and value judgements which are just as uncertain, but that a belief is likely to be as useful as it is true, as that would allow you to act in accordance with reality to a greater extent. I think a search for a "more useful belief" is insulting to very idea of truth.
if admitting that your wrong makes you more reliable, why then do science journals not just print all submitted articles and then retract the flawed ones they have recieved peer feedback?
I don't know specifics, but logic would tell me that they don't want arguments they know are flawed to be in circulation. They don't want someone who doesn't know the difference to read it, and act upon something thats wrong.
Also, they don't want people who do know the difference to tell them things they've already heard several times before.
I don't know for certain, but thats what I come up with using the logic I possess.
Would someone please correct me if you actually know this answer?
In a binary (base 2)system, there are only 2 digits, 0 and 1. the first few numbers in binary are 0,1,10,11,100,101,110,111 etc.
The binary system is commonly use in computers, along with the hexadecimal (base 16) system. If you have ever recieved an error report on your computer, you have probably seen a hexadecimal number(mixed numbers and letters). Wikapedia has a good explanation of both systems, just type Binary Numeral System.
another way to "prove" 1+1 does not equal 2 is to convert 1 to fractional thirds (3/3),divide by three(1/3),convert to decimal value(0.333...to infinity),multiply by 3(0.999 to infinity) then add it to itself. 1+1=1.9999....8 at infinity. This is why the peer review process is critical!
actually it would NOT equal 1.9999....8at infinity.
.9999 to infinity IS 1. You may be skeptical, but the remainder from the problem 1 - .999 to infinity becomes infinitely smaller and therefore it is equal to 0 so 1 - .999 to infinity = 0 so 1 = .999 to infinity and .9 repeating + .9 repeating = 2 not 1.99999....8at infinity.
Darn! That means I can't really make assumptions on the facts presented at me based on just the current visual perspective. Just like the second the. Woah! I think my brain itches.
The one who came in the name of the Almighty shall bring storms of the Universe to the planet Earth, where the disobeying children shall be punished as Father takes revenge upon those who have murdered, deceived and tried to destroy His Creation in His Good Spirit. Beware humans, for scientist will save you not from the sword of the Father. In your shoes I would rather show some respect and appreciation for the Father and His Creation, instead of tossing and turning weeds.
What good does it do to not admit your mistakes? If you never admit you are doing something wrong, you will never learn to do it right, but stubbornly keep doing it wrong. You will never solve anything that way. Refusing to admit your mistakes is the dumbest thing you can do, yet a lot of people seem to think admitting their mistakes is a weakness.
If you know you are doing something wrong, should you keep doing it wrong? Of course not.
@FidelioRoo Those who are not always right are sometimes wrong, regardless of the frequency. It does not matter whether they are always wrong or wrong only once, they are sometimes wrong. I know that may be difficult to understand, it's the principles of logic. Likewise, I would state that it is statistically impossible for someone to always be wrong and remain live more than a few minutes. =D
The problem with peer-review is group-think. There are some ideas that are rejected by the prevailing assumptions (society's confirmation bias). If peer review formally existed during Galileo's day, would his theories have "floated to the top" when the Catholic Church sat on the top? How about today when the Bush administration sits at the top (stem cells anyone?)?
Except that very few qualified scientists share remotely any part of the Bush Administration's perspective on the morality or immorality of stem cell research - and though the Bush Administration can cut funds, it cannot burn or dismember scientists whose work they do not like. Also we live in a globally networked world where scientists continue their work regardless of what various fundamentalists of any stripe blather about...and are independently funded.
i was watching a youtube video. john coleman founder of the weather channel. was saying that ipcc report was alter. and al gore should be sued.i would like to ask him to what about oil companies. when they so call sciencetist. alter data
If I catch your meaning from your videos, you are more interested in teaching people how to think about climate change than what to think. Is that correct?
You are one of the greatest teachers ive ever ``had´´ i normally hate nature science and is more into social studies and such.. but youre actuly makeing nature science exciteing, understandable and teaching.. thanks !
Look at what you did. It's 2 in the morning and you got me thinking.....and I like it. Good stuff. I wish I had a teacher like you when I was in school.
I would like to question the assertion that if you are not wrong, but admit you are, like is all giggles and joy. We could use the plight of Galileo as a starting point. Anybody want to take up debate?
Let's say that, IF you are wrong, THEN you will admit it.
Within that group, there are two types of people: Those who are sometimes wrong (who admit it when they are) and those who are never wrong (who will never meet the IF condition, and thus never need to admit they're wrong, even though they would if they were).
See what he means?
(He's also speaking generally, not in terms of specific arguments. Galileo could admit he made mistakes.)
Very well put. Yes, I appreciate it wasn't an absolute statement. But we still guage 'right' by popular consensus - peer review in wonderingminds debate - which is the same rules we used to prove Galileo and Darwin were wrong. While I don't contend the larger issue, I do enjoy questioning the reasoning.
Both Darwin and Galileo were in the minority but we now accept their views as right. Peer review was used to 'prove' them wrong, so its not enough to say that popular consensus means you are right. There can be as much danger in being right and proved wrong as there is in being wrong and proved right. Life is not giggles and joy if you are 'right' and popular consensus proves you 'wrong'.
You misstate peer review. I'll use Galileo here (google Huxley for Darwin).
Galileo posited his theory based on evidence. It wasn't challenged via peers -- it was challenged purely by church doctrine, without providing any evidence to back up their claims. As the evidence mounted, Galileo was eventually proven correct -- and the church eventually admitted its mistake.
Before it apologized, the church was in the "Sometimes wrong / never admit it" category -- and look what happened.
tempeststormwind...how the heck does fire have anything to do with this debate? I accept your evidence for that. Now give me evidence that c02 and temperature can have a feedback affect. You're just making up that fact to make yourself feel better. The evidence shows that temperature affects c02, not vice versa.
Fire was an analogy, showing that sometimes an effect of one process can cause the same process at different occasions.
tinyurl com/284x85 -- One example paper explaining how temperature rises can lead to increased CO2.
Due to the greenhouse effect -- which has been observed and understood for over a century -- increased CO2 can also lead to increased temperature. The burden of proof on this point is firmly on you for this.
That, in climatology, is what's referred to as a feedback.
Filling in the blanks alright ... temperature rises a bit, CO2 rises a bit ... so one is causing the other ... temperature is causing CO2 to rise ... or was that the other way around ?
The CO2 lag is well-understood in the climate literature. The problem comes from when the general public assumes that one effect can only have one cause, instead of the two having a feedback effect.
Consider this analogy: Fire produces heat. By your logic, since heat is a product of fire, it can't cause fire -- so all those boy scouts with magnifying lenses are Doing It Wrong.
skepticalscience com/co2-lags-temperature htm
That's a nicely readable summary of the lag, with links to cited papers.
No, because of the difference between correlation and causation. We have causal links for CO2 increasing temperature and for temperature affecting solubility (therefore influencing CO2). See the link I posted for a better explanation -- and THAT is the explanation you need to rebuke, not my 500-character summaries thereof.
Watch the video: this is addressed (far more eloquently than I can manage) at the end of part 2 and the very beginning of part 3.
The "I'm not really sitting"-thing is not really correct. The first time anyone named that very same act "sitting", they were doing the exact same thing, though they probably weren't aware of the scientific details. It's like saying water isn't water anymore now that we know it's H2O.
I'd love to be as idealistic as you about the profession of science. It's unfortunate that so many climate scientists have discarded their respectability and integrity for a nice big paycheck from the allies of Al Gore and such. If this is what you teach your students, you leave them woefully unprepared for the real world.
I actually saw a Triangle, the words Paris and Spring, knew there were other words but admitted I didn't catch it and waited to see the data again instead of pulling assumptions out of my ass..that's "real Science". What is the saying...Only thing I know for sure is I know nothing (until i find the answers or see the data..then even then I could oull the wrong conclusion out of my ass)
One of the biggest stumbling blocks for any scientific approach to studying something is one of isolation. Many things can not be studied as a whole and when you isolate them they are no longer subject to the same rules of function. Just ask any engineering student who has had to study linear systems and design. If you really wish to break your brain and further yourself investigate the Philosphy of logic so you can avoid the fallacies of any argument made.
At the same, some could say blind-faith believers in God are in the same boat, as claiming to KNOW "God exists."
The only difference is there are those who claim to present evidence of God, and such evidence not widely accepted at face value or reviewed with seriousness, nor sources accepted as credible.
Isn't DNA enough evidence? Anyway... I love the logic you're presenting.
Belief, or disbelief, in God is inherently a faith-based position, and thus not subject to scientific/critical thought. You cannot scientifically conclude the existence *or* nonexistence of God (insofar as current observations have demonstrated). "God exists" is unfalsifiable.
"The wonderful thing about science is that it doesn't ask for your faith. It just asks for your eyes."-Randall Munroe
Believers in God KNOW God exists because there is evidence that God exists, it is very very stirring, very powerful, very compelling evidence..
..it is also 100% SUBJECTIVE Evidence.
The really obnoxious thing about the devout is they forget that Subjective part and assume the compelling evidence they see for God's existance is blatantly obvious to everybody, and those who deny it are either dullards or are being deliberetly deceptive.
With this logic, are athiests infallible, perfect, all-knowing, all-seeing individuals? Statements like "God does not exist" is a fairly definitive statement.
To be wrong time and time again doesn't make people very reliable. We just stop asking them again, on the matter or subject in question.
In this subject (global climate cathastrophe) the consequenses and demands on people and nature are just to big to be mucked around with. Give us the facts, not some mumbo-jumbo horseshit excuse for being dead wrong.
darkhairedguy 2 months ago
@darkhairedguy if we view scientists and science as infallible, we're the same as religious folk and their superstitious nonsense. he's not saying that it's totally okay to be wrong, so go out and talk out of your ass and just apologize later. he's saying that to admit being wrong instead of considering your opinion infallible is constructive and builds trust, rather than being an ideologue. science isn't definitive either, it's always changing. what's fact today isnt the whole story tomorrow
SoCalAries 2 months ago
HAAAAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAHA he's wearing a hat... that's funny and creative.
gopc32 3 months ago
Maybe YOU are the 1 who is wrong. Ever plugged that into your formulas?
MrShiftaltnumlock 5 months ago
How can we do this without John Denver?
Leon Panetta is the only hero I can think of that has significanty bettered US policy on the environment.
committeesq 6 months ago
eat well excersize,,, die anyway,,,
spend tons of money on idiotic social issues,,, die anyway,,,
Sun remains a main sequence star, continually growing warmer and brighter by ~10% every 1 billion years.
no matter what you do,,, the sun will GET you in the end,,,
unless you LEAVE,,, that is where mankind needs to spend its money,,,
on LEAVING,,,
lars008 7 months ago
We don't mind that your argument was flawed. That was clearly evident the first time I viewed your video. We are angry that you and the scientific community are wrong about the FACTS yet you refuse to admit it. That puts you in the :( group. Scientists refuse to calmly stand in front of the camera and say "yes, we screwed up, there is no strong correlation between man's actions and global warming." Post a follow-up regarding the absence of warming and the cover-up and join the :) group.
ashleykaye208 7 months ago
@ashleykaye208 Bravo! Well said....
MrShiftaltnumlock 5 months ago
Trust me , Im a physisist.
(dont tell us you manipulation technigue for you last video and this one)
Made me L0L. I also noticed that you used the brainwash technigue and that is illegal dont use it (dont trust you world it isnt true ,,,,,,, MATRIX)
The phantom
supremeuniverseruler 7 months ago
HOLY CRAP PIRATES STOPPED CLIMATE CHANGE!!!!
BugsnClovers 8 months ago
Wait wait wait just a second mr physics teacher, I may be wrong but you said no one can ever be always right, so is there a group there for the never wrong people? Btw any update video on your original vid?
BugsnClovers 8 months ago
This is more about manipulation tahn aoubt sience in my ooipn, see? To some it may seem like I need spellcheck but you can understand what I wrote, because like this guy said the brain is an amazing thing, it works in ways that we can barely understand. This seems like me when I use semantics and rhetoric to make it seem like I'm right. It's like in Thank you for Smoking, I don't have to be right, I just have to make you look wrong. It freaked me out when he said what I always did in that movie.
BugsnClovers 8 months ago
"Paris in the Spring?"
I put Paris in the strong, SooOooO close!
MrKillJoy200 8 months ago
yoo are smart :)
vajckoslanina 9 months ago
that Paris is the the spring was cool lol. It worked
MrGezamo 10 months ago
well done!
nirlahav 11 months ago
i put "the paris in the spring"
pizzabaggle 1 year ago
Those who admit they are ever wrong don't get hired!
lemurcat47 1 year ago
You overlook that some people are concerned with giving the impression that they are always right, even when they are proven wrong. Some corrupt and/or influential people can pull this off.
In this scene, credibility can be lost among scientists and critics, but not among those who either can't, won't, or didn't think to apply critical thinking. A good number of those people weigh in on policy, just like the non-critics.
I find a very tragic irony in this. Jean-Paul Sartre sneezes.
maharito 1 year ago
REAL Free energy technology exists!But the Big corporations spend millions to ensure that information does not spread to the masses,Get a motor that works with the power of magnets only at LT-MAGNET-MOTORdotCOM ,Be a part of the energy revolution!
rebelliouseoagj 1 year ago
Sneaky Alanis Morissette reference there.
terryk1233 1 year ago
HE SAID "ANAL" at 7:32!!!
ghombar 1 year ago
you are missing a third sub group for the "never admit" and "admit" they are wrong diagram...what about people that are "always wrong"?
HeywoodJablowem 1 year ago
Aw....You lost the hat when you're standing in front of the white board...
I got used to the hat so much that you actually look a little werid without it...
Harakuroi 1 year ago
I love your videos.. i'd subscribe if i can find the button!
FLPman 1 year ago
Can I say that I'd love to have taken your class in school?
stingernick 1 year ago 4
I think that the IPCC using articles that haven't been peer reviewed such as the article about the melting himalayan glaciers is damaging to their reputation. Of course this is a single article among thousands of properly peer reviewed papers that they have cited but it was covered up by the head of the IPCC who knew about it but said nothing which is the main reason to worry about the peer review process in the IPCC and whether it differs from the process used in unpoliticized science.
richard250933 1 year ago
Comment removed
snipessssss 1 year ago
damn if we want to stop global warming, we need more pirates?lol
skillaphill 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
if your disgusted with this teachers misuse of taxpayer funds call his boss @ Central High School
(503) 606-2217 his name is greg craven
beatlemaniac1000 1 year ago
@beatlemaniac1000 A total idiot u are. Who said hes on his work schedule? And if he was? I surely appreciate his exposure on the matter. It's morons like you that should be fired. Oh, wait... You MUST want his job! Gotcha!
Loser.
Forcado101 1 year ago
there has been a conspiracy to avoid or deny science whenever it is convenient- scientific fact.Hopefully Copenhagen will change this. I care about climate, the government didn't, but I have no children or property, so damned if I'll do THEIR caring for them, and I think they do AT LAST admit there is a problem. I only hope they haven't just led us up the garden path again with whatever we want to hear, and corruption doesn't get the better of them again. Come on- It never was about the science!
altrn8tiv 2 years ago
Comment removed
osamito 2 years ago
Comment removed
osamito 2 years ago
Comment removed
osamito 2 years ago
When the hell did the world becomne so full of conspiricy theorists?
When did people start doubting science? The greatest provider we've ever had...
aceflashheart 2 years ago 7
@aceflashheart
science has only recently been accepted widely.. look at history.. religion reigned supreme for basically all of time.. we've only been schooled in science for the past century.. before that it was reserved for only a few
FLPman 1 year ago
@aceflashheart SOME conspiracy theorists actually have more science backing them than their critics, so be aware that you're using a gross generality. I do agree with you, but only so far.
SoCalAries 2 months ago
when a scientist admits that he's or was wrong he's most likely nearly dead...
keesgressie 2 years ago
Then I guess that says something about todays Scientists, doesn't it?
Fluffball176 2 years ago
Huh, me wrong? fuck that woke me up. Nah, he's wrong about me being wrong. I'm never wrong, back to sleep. Credibility with people, ha, ha, respect ha ha, from who? from the monkeys who are fucking up the world in the first place.
Hakiblack 2 years ago
No one is always wrong. That is a logical fallacy.
DoucheBagster 2 years ago
I've not read all the comments, but your assertion that people can be 'always or sometimes' wrong leaves out one rather annoying group of humans. Those who are _always_ wrong. Sure, some of them are not that dangerous, as they never have positions of influence. Unfortunately some of those people become priests/politicians/snakeoil salesmen/etc. and do a great deal of damage to the world.
TheSaturnalia 2 years ago
i just started a pirate club to save global warming! anyone want to be a member?
MichaelDeMichele 2 years ago
yar matie
OmegaB33f 2 years ago
Funny how my comment is being blocked. I wonder why. Perhaps it absolutely offended someones intellect. Might have brought them out of looney land for too long than is comfortable.
Premier112 2 years ago
what was your comment?
youtooberdudebro 2 years ago
Admit being wrong? Well thatd be just dandy sir, But, According to you, HOW? Let's review your logic. You JUST CLAIMED Nothing is fully knowable. IF that's true as You Claim, Correct and Incorrect are Unattainable, Irrelevant, & unknowable! How can you be Right about Anything if Nothing is certainly uncontestably Right? How can a claim be Wrong? It can't! If you stick to your own logic instead of convieniently departing from it at whim, Your entire argument falls apart!
Premier112 2 years ago
I'm twenty one... I wish I had you in High School....
GuyApollo 2 years ago
"trying to be deliberately conscious of our assumptions"---perfect
But where do we stop? :)
One of my favourite sayings is: I'm prepared to be wrong and please enlighten me..
Right on about admitting one is wrong. No biggie. Move along and continue learning.
Do you ever lose an argument with your wife? hahahaha! By God she better be highly intelligent LOL.
Thank you for this interesting video.
FunNotNuts 2 years ago
Right! This is why I own a shotgun too!
So that when we live in the Mad Max post-apocalyptic world that people in the 'B' column will eventually create, I'll be ready!
raddeejay 2 years ago
What about people who are always wrong and never admit it. I believe our last president had that issue.
gill1391 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
I have created a simple, but useful page, which has all the links to this series of videos listed in the correct order.
The site name is of the standard format with the usual (US) extension after the dot. The site name is then followed by a forward slash and the name of the page, so the first word is my site name and the second bit is the page name (but you need to put D O T h t m on the end).
pharmgateway howitallends
PharmGateway 2 years ago
Nothing a relativist says has much logic to it shadow. They pick and choose what they want to believe at whim, anytime reality is offensive, and assume everyone else does the same. They love to snap back to reality when there is opportunity to be pretentious or pedantic, yet must adopt universal objectivistivity when they cross traffic or anything else requiring Logic in life, seeing how they uncannily can't imagine/preceive speeding trucks out of existence and such.
Premier112 2 years ago
lol i said paris is in the triangle. does that mean im stupid?..... probably
but!
i dont think its wrong to admit you are(or can be) wrong. but shuld u go about changing your argument if the opposing party can not prove that you are wrong? provide evidence that makes more logical sense than what you had stated previously?
shadow1piece 2 years ago
Basically the whole admit/never admit is a ploy to get agw skeptics to doubt their assumptions, while you retain your own alleged absolute Doubt (another deceit, I say you really believe in agw) even if you profess Nothings absolute WTH? I apprehend your multiple intentions & I see through you. And to that "dude" commenter, no disrespect but I honestly believe your bass ackwards. You Am, therefore you Think. You merely SelfAware you think.
Premier112 2 years ago
In response to the first minute of blather on pt 2 I would say you like to deceive people then bait and switch to pull more relativist dogs manure.how can I trust you after the candle deciet? Yeah I get it now, perfectly. On the "I'm not trained enough" quote I retort with: would you like to go to mattresses over that assumption?
Premier112 2 years ago
Did Newton improve Aristotle?
Did Einstein improve Newton?
All in science would say yes.
You are clearly not in that influential sphere, nor is Al Gore.
You hover in the pedestrian ranks using pseudo-science as a parlor trick just as magicians use mirrors.
It's very entertaining, yet also very dangerous.
carlotessarini 2 years ago
"I think therefore I am" This is the only truth I believe.
But perhaps this is false
dude123321321 2 years ago
i wrote paris in the spring, but i realised that there was something missing that spring wasnt in the centre when it flashed up
DeemotheAtheist 2 years ago
love the FSM chart at the end
MaximumDARTH 2 years ago
if your never wrong you could not admit that your wrong because that would be wrong
MistahX99 2 years ago
hmm.. there is also a subgroup @ 4:54 that one would say that the people that will "never admit" that they are wrong are "always wrong"
sniped101 2 years ago
k i paused it... cant think of much...
maybe the green and blue pieces were switched? i duno..
sniped101 2 years ago
Also:
I don't know that the toy set in front of you- is necessarily missing a green piece/belongs to your daughter- or that you even have a daughter. It also might not be a toy set at all.
About the equation, I will cautiously state that you have your work cut out to prove that it is not wrong. Now watch me crash and burn.
uraniumgrenade 2 years ago
Okay I've paused before being told, I will attempt to figure out the tricks. Here goes:
You might not be in a sitting position.
You might not be sitting in a chair, I can't see for sure.
I can think of a shedload about the whiteboard- maybe its not actually there, maybe you're not infront of it, maybe the equation is somehow not technically 'on it'.
uraniumgrenade 2 years ago
lol i have opinions, but their to biased
Skiddla 2 years ago
7:32
cmalchik 2 years ago
anal XDDDDDDD
supermariobrothers1 2 years ago
WooHoo lets all become pirates!! ^^
floydsghost 2 years ago
What we see in the whole global warming discussion goes beyond science. It's a power dispute among goverment, economy and the very own science to determine on how the mankind is supposed to produce wealth from now on. I BELIEVE (assuming that even it´s proven, I have to trust on one's authority on the subject) that global warming is actually happening and that it is going to affect the whole social context. What I'm not sure of what to do is the measures we're gonna have to employ to "fix" it.
icarotcc 2 years ago 2
Very well argumented, very coherent. Congratulations!
If only you hadn't forgotten to explain WHO determines RIGHT and WRONG (in the1+1=10 case you cited, for instance), instead of just naming the shortcomings of human knowledge.
To understand my point, you gonna have to remember that by the time global warming issue was only discussed majorly among the scientists, there was nearly no controversy about it. But now it is also a political matter, so you can see why people want to contradict it.
icarotcc 2 years ago
lol clever video
SaifullahMemon 2 years ago
lol how can the "never wrong" people admit theyre wrong if theyre never wrong?lol
theyll probably be pretty unhappy admitting theyre wrong after finding out they were right afterall.
7notsolucky 2 years ago 2
ohohoho! is funny 'cause you're a scientist, and you said anal....
oooooooh...
112048112048 2 years ago
HAHA xD
orgminyak 2 years ago
I'm sending this to friends and family, not because of the underlining issue at hand, but because they need to hear what you just said at 4:10. That should be on repeat for every human to hear 24/7 around the world. People who can admit that they are wrong in the face of empirical evidence are MORE trustworthy than those who cannot. It might as well have been in some alien dialect the way most people on this planet act.
shaheed79 2 years ago
i did not get the , the. But i did knew i was wrong, something was not spaced right. but i did not have time to remember what it might be because i did not pause the vid the second time, and looked up in time to see him playing with that squishy ball thing.
I am thinking knowing i was wrong but not why is a credible sign that i think like an untrained scientist.woo hoo...so why does life confuse me SO?
insanezenmistress 2 years ago 4
FUCK YEA I GOT THE FLASH SCREEN THING RIGHT
well kinda i only remembered up to "Paris is the the" i didn't see the "spring"
i feel left out... i wasn't in any category
V0spa 2 years ago
the newspaper :D was obvious used to do it as a child
Akirilus 2 years ago
CSP is the solution.... (And I'm not wrong...) Well at least somewhat...
Thanks for the effort!
fireofenergy 2 years ago
What is CSP? I'd be interested to know.
rileannas 2 years ago
This video made me even more excited about science than I already am.
rileannas 2 years ago
that is the greatest thing i've ever heared. Science is the shizznit
Xenophanes21 2 years ago
eloquently put.
mdiem 2 years ago
I think you are very wize
maynya 3 years ago
(paused at 0:15)
The board is in binary; I got that immediately, being an amateur computer programmer.
There's something in your hand . . . it looks kind of like either a whiteboard eraser or a remote, but I don't want to make assumptions.
I can see a reflection of the toy on the table, but I don't see any green piece. Yeah, by my best judgement, the green piece is missing.
Oh, it was a blue one. Nice.
MTGandP 3 years ago
becasue i knew he was goign to be tricky my first guess was the blue and green where out of order.
insanezenmistress 2 years ago
yay more pirates. wenches and mead for all.
violence and debauchery to save the world.
like the last 20 sec :)
braunblender 3 years ago
"More useful beliefs"? I would think that, not only is the utility of a particular belief impossible to determine without relying on other beliefs and value judgements which are just as uncertain, but that a belief is likely to be as useful as it is true, as that would allow you to act in accordance with reality to a greater extent. I think a search for a "more useful belief" is insulting to very idea of truth.
ronarprfct 3 years ago
if admitting that your wrong makes you more reliable, why then do science journals not just print all submitted articles and then retract the flawed ones they have recieved peer feedback?
xlif3x 3 years ago
I don't know specifics, but logic would tell me that they don't want arguments they know are flawed to be in circulation. They don't want someone who doesn't know the difference to read it, and act upon something thats wrong.
Also, they don't want people who do know the difference to tell them things they've already heard several times before.
I don't know for certain, but thats what I come up with using the logic I possess.
Would someone please correct me if you actually know this answer?
Kryton87 3 years ago
Wait I don't understand the 1+1=10 trick. Can someone explain it to me please?
Kouabara 3 years ago
In a binary (base 2)system, there are only 2 digits, 0 and 1. the first few numbers in binary are 0,1,10,11,100,101,110,111 etc.
The binary system is commonly use in computers, along with the hexadecimal (base 16) system. If you have ever recieved an error report on your computer, you have probably seen a hexadecimal number(mixed numbers and letters). Wikapedia has a good explanation of both systems, just type Binary Numeral System.
cansurfer1 3 years ago
another way to "prove" 1+1 does not equal 2 is to convert 1 to fractional thirds (3/3),divide by three(1/3),convert to decimal value(0.333...to infinity),multiply by 3(0.999 to infinity) then add it to itself. 1+1=1.9999....8 at infinity. This is why the peer review process is critical!
cansurfer1 3 years ago
actually it would NOT equal 1.9999....8at infinity.
.9999 to infinity IS 1. You may be skeptical, but the remainder from the problem 1 - .999 to infinity becomes infinitely smaller and therefore it is equal to 0 so 1 - .999 to infinity = 0 so 1 = .999 to infinity and .9 repeating + .9 repeating = 2 not 1.99999....8at infinity.
roninrage18 3 years ago
google binary, basically in a 2 number base system *10* is how you write the number 2
xlif3x 3 years ago
Darn! That means I can't really make assumptions on the facts presented at me based on just the current visual perspective. Just like the second the. Woah! I think my brain itches.
AplG7Rocks 3 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
The one who came in the name of the Almighty shall bring storms of the Universe to the planet Earth, where the disobeying children shall be punished as Father takes revenge upon those who have murdered, deceived and tried to destroy His Creation in His Good Spirit. Beware humans, for scientist will save you not from the sword of the Father. In your shoes I would rather show some respect and appreciation for the Father and His Creation, instead of tossing and turning weeds.
ayetam 3 years ago
i like that you are logical in everthing you say.
kittymeowers 3 years ago
What good does it do to not admit your mistakes? If you never admit you are doing something wrong, you will never learn to do it right, but stubbornly keep doing it wrong. You will never solve anything that way. Refusing to admit your mistakes is the dumbest thing you can do, yet a lot of people seem to think admitting their mistakes is a weakness.
If you know you are doing something wrong, should you keep doing it wrong? Of course not.
Also great videos. I will show them to people.
Nails077 3 years ago
really enjoying this.
you're sexy
minomeshank 3 years ago
5 stars on the Pirate relation to global warming! We gotta get more men in the seas Yarrrr!
Kyocus 3 years ago
oddly i too noticed the 1+1 was 10... onmly coz i took too long prooving douglas adams 6 x 9 = 42 joke lol...
nikmindage 3 years ago
Man you are awesome!!! Thanks for putting so much energy into this.
777999777999 3 years ago 2
Hah! Eight seconds in I knew the equation was correct!
But I'm a computer geek.
Weaseldog2001 3 years ago
You should get a Teacher of the Year award!
I'm heading off too look up the nomination process...
CityzenJane 3 years ago 14
Thank you !!!
ChrisBlack2007 3 years ago 3
What about the people who are ALWAYS wrong? =|
FidelioRoo 3 years ago 10
@FidelioRoo
-then they must have never admitted that they were wrong, so therefore they have not made room for improvement.
prater282 1 year ago
@FidelioRoo Those who are not always right are sometimes wrong, regardless of the frequency. It does not matter whether they are always wrong or wrong only once, they are sometimes wrong. I know that may be difficult to understand, it's the principles of logic. Likewise, I would state that it is statistically impossible for someone to always be wrong and remain live more than a few minutes. =D
architechnik 1 year ago
I assume that the video maker knows a few pastafarians, or is one himself.
wetyewruyrtsutrdhjfg 3 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
o its news paper clever ow screw this i am going to watch rugby
n2488 3 years ago
o and nice hat
n2488 3 years ago
i think u should relax but good work
n2488 3 years ago
I'm confused.
Well, that may just be because I'm playing Pokemon Yellow and typing this in the middle of the video without pausing.
But I like to multitask.
angrykitty101 3 years ago
The problem with peer-review is group-think. There are some ideas that are rejected by the prevailing assumptions (society's confirmation bias). If peer review formally existed during Galileo's day, would his theories have "floated to the top" when the Catholic Church sat on the top? How about today when the Bush administration sits at the top (stem cells anyone?)?
gunnerrat 3 years ago
Except that very few qualified scientists share remotely any part of the Bush Administration's perspective on the morality or immorality of stem cell research - and though the Bush Administration can cut funds, it cannot burn or dismember scientists whose work they do not like. Also we live in a globally networked world where scientists continue their work regardless of what various fundamentalists of any stripe blather about...and are independently funded.
Peer review is not group think...
CityzenJane 3 years ago
Yes.
wonderingmind42 3 years ago
i was watching a youtube video. john coleman founder of the weather channel. was saying that ipcc report was alter. and al gore should be sued.i would like to ask him to what about oil companies. when they so call sciencetist. alter data
ash4432 3 years ago
What about those of us who are always wrong? JK
11A11A2B1B2B3 3 years ago
Yeah, that's just a pisser.
wonderingmind42 3 years ago
If I catch your meaning from your videos, you are more interested in teaching people how to think about climate change than what to think. Is that correct?
11A11A2B1B2B3 3 years ago
the end bit, that just summed up this whole argument, GREAT!
r0flz0rs 3 years ago
Such a amazing person :)
You do communicate very well with ppl... thx you for this!
i din't have "the the" i saw "the"... :)
Need to work on this :) haha! i choses the B group into much all video you do :) since im not pretty lucky at loterry :)
greenseed666 3 years ago
I WANT HIS SHIRT!!!!
iwishiwasagenius 3 years ago
does anyone acctually know this dude? it would be phat 2 meet him aye =p
KID433321 3 years ago
yeh for sure lol.... this guy rocks!
KID433321 3 years ago
You are one of the greatest teachers ive ever ``had´´ i normally hate nature science and is more into social studies and such.. but youre actuly makeing nature science exciteing, understandable and teaching.. thanks !
stikkontakt4 3 years ago
I wish you were my lecturer :)
AbedeuS 3 years ago
...YOU ROCK!!!!
rx321j 3 years ago
Your students are very lucky people. It would be great if there where more teachers like you.
Blorch 3 years ago
i have this paused at 30 seconds
the equation on the board is true in binary
pre-emptive booya
WoodPaneling 3 years ago
he likes to say infallible a lot.
cestTRESjfoekun 3 years ago
I love your hats... And where do you teach? Caused I'd take science classes just to have you as my teacher... (And I'm a theatre major).
hellseyes369 3 years ago
i wish politicians were more like scientists.
ParapaDrifter 3 years ago
I wish you were my physics teacher. Actually, my chemistry teacher, because my chem teacher sucks.
AjaPuppy1 3 years ago
hell he's teachin you now... who needs public school when you have youtube :D
ParapaDrifter 3 years ago
word
stikkontakt4 3 years ago
man wat school do u teach at i wanna go there lol
Stewie0416 3 years ago
I bet you are a really fun and cool teacher. Your students must love you. Keep up the energy and quirky sense of humor. You make learning fun.
Phloid82 3 years ago 3
Thank you 4 people like this wondering mind, we just need more of them speaking up. =p
Faith86peace 3 years ago 4
Data is wrong. The number of pirates in the world has actually increased.;..... hmmm, might be a connection there.
desertblbuesman 3 years ago
Define "pirates"
dusparr 3 years ago
Let's stick to the old definition of those who sail the seas robbing the possessions other sailers. (power boats and ships included.:)
desertblbuesman 3 years ago
Then the number have actually been going down.
dusparr 3 years ago
Look at what you did. It's 2 in the morning and you got me thinking.....and I like it. Good stuff. I wish I had a teacher like you when I was in school.
yafullashit 3 years ago 4
srry 4 the trio comments, 2 of them were meant as replies...
some ppl know of the saying: there are 10 kinds of ppl in the world, those who know binary and those who dont.
WATCHMYWATCH 3 years ago
I Object!
He said that he would wear a different HAT for each video, when he himself admitted that it was newspaper.
dusparr 3 years ago
newspaper made into a hat?
WATCHMYWATCH 3 years ago
my upper comment was meant as a reply to dusparr
WATCHMYWATCH 3 years ago
But a newspaper is not a native subset of hats, so therefore HE LIED!
dusparr 3 years ago
haha, i wrote "park in the driveway". whats my problem?
robopunk666 3 years ago
typo error, i guess, hehe
bErNardOcArPio 3 years ago
yay for FSM pirate-global warming chart in the end!
Chrishizzlez 4 years ago
I would like to question the assertion that if you are not wrong, but admit you are, like is all giggles and joy. We could use the plight of Galileo as a starting point. Anybody want to take up debate?
AjnaKotobide 4 years ago
You're missing what he said. Here's a reframing.
Let's say that, IF you are wrong, THEN you will admit it.
Within that group, there are two types of people: Those who are sometimes wrong (who admit it when they are) and those who are never wrong (who will never meet the IF condition, and thus never need to admit they're wrong, even though they would if they were).
See what he means?
(He's also speaking generally, not in terms of specific arguments. Galileo could admit he made mistakes.)
TempestStormwind 4 years ago
Very well put. Yes, I appreciate it wasn't an absolute statement. But we still guage 'right' by popular consensus - peer review in wonderingminds debate - which is the same rules we used to prove Galileo and Darwin were wrong. While I don't contend the larger issue, I do enjoy questioning the reasoning.
AjnaKotobide 4 years ago
"which is the same rules we used to prove Galileo and Darwin were wrong."
Pardon?
LivinLife2006 3 years ago
Both Darwin and Galileo were in the minority but we now accept their views as right. Peer review was used to 'prove' them wrong, so its not enough to say that popular consensus means you are right. There can be as much danger in being right and proved wrong as there is in being wrong and proved right. Life is not giggles and joy if you are 'right' and popular consensus proves you 'wrong'.
AjnaKotobide 3 years ago
You misstate peer review. I'll use Galileo here (google Huxley for Darwin).
Galileo posited his theory based on evidence. It wasn't challenged via peers -- it was challenged purely by church doctrine, without providing any evidence to back up their claims. As the evidence mounted, Galileo was eventually proven correct -- and the church eventually admitted its mistake.
Before it apologized, the church was in the "Sometimes wrong / never admit it" category -- and look what happened.
TempestStormwind 3 years ago
tempeststormwind...how the heck does fire have anything to do with this debate? I accept your evidence for that. Now give me evidence that c02 and temperature can have a feedback affect. You're just making up that fact to make yourself feel better. The evidence shows that temperature affects c02, not vice versa.
alcedias0 4 years ago
Fire was an analogy, showing that sometimes an effect of one process can cause the same process at different occasions.
tinyurl com/284x85 -- One example paper explaining how temperature rises can lead to increased CO2.
Due to the greenhouse effect -- which has been observed and understood for over a century -- increased CO2 can also lead to increased temperature. The burden of proof on this point is firmly on you for this.
That, in climatology, is what's referred to as a feedback.
TempestStormwind 4 years ago
Hello! sorry for my spelling ;)
This debate is very intressting...
Very creative, inspiring. The last word of this is never to be ended. Go on and debate.
I will follow the debate whenever i can and think things over for myself +talk to others about it. =)
Have a nice time... // some random guy from Sweden.....
kloop99 4 years ago
Filling in the blanks alright ... temperature rises a bit, CO2 rises a bit ... so one is causing the other ... temperature is causing CO2 to rise ... or was that the other way around ?
sydneydoc 4 years ago
The CO2 lag is well-understood in the climate literature. The problem comes from when the general public assumes that one effect can only have one cause, instead of the two having a feedback effect.
Consider this analogy: Fire produces heat. By your logic, since heat is a product of fire, it can't cause fire -- so all those boy scouts with magnifying lenses are Doing It Wrong.
skepticalscience com/co2-lags-temperature htm
That's a nicely readable summary of the lag, with links to cited papers.
TempestStormwind 4 years ago
You can also correlate global temperature rise with the increase in pirates.
I suppose your feedback loop means that the hotter it gets, the more pirates there are and the more pirates, the hotter it gets !
sydneydoc 4 years ago
No, because of the difference between correlation and causation. We have causal links for CO2 increasing temperature and for temperature affecting solubility (therefore influencing CO2). See the link I posted for a better explanation -- and THAT is the explanation you need to rebuke, not my 500-character summaries thereof.
Watch the video: this is addressed (far more eloquently than I can manage) at the end of part 2 and the very beginning of part 3.
TempestStormwind 4 years ago
The "I'm not really sitting"-thing is not really correct. The first time anyone named that very same act "sitting", they were doing the exact same thing, though they probably weren't aware of the scientific details. It's like saying water isn't water anymore now that we know it's H2O.
vidaro 4 years ago
I'd love to be as idealistic as you about the profession of science. It's unfortunate that so many climate scientists have discarded their respectability and integrity for a nice big paycheck from the allies of Al Gore and such. If this is what you teach your students, you leave them woefully unprepared for the real world.
vladsilvacce 4 years ago
I actually saw a Triangle, the words Paris and Spring, knew there were other words but admitted I didn't catch it and waited to see the data again instead of pulling assumptions out of my ass..that's "real Science". What is the saying...Only thing I know for sure is I know nothing (until i find the answers or see the data..then even then I could oull the wrong conclusion out of my ass)
TheRealArchAngel 4 years ago
One of the biggest stumbling blocks for any scientific approach to studying something is one of isolation. Many things can not be studied as a whole and when you isolate them they are no longer subject to the same rules of function. Just ask any engineering student who has had to study linear systems and design. If you really wish to break your brain and further yourself investigate the Philosphy of logic so you can avoid the fallacies of any argument made.
Kjokia 4 years ago
At the same, some could say blind-faith believers in God are in the same boat, as claiming to KNOW "God exists."
The only difference is there are those who claim to present evidence of God, and such evidence not widely accepted at face value or reviewed with seriousness, nor sources accepted as credible.
Isn't DNA enough evidence? Anyway... I love the logic you're presenting.
SculptureJim 4 years ago
Belief, or disbelief, in God is inherently a faith-based position, and thus not subject to scientific/critical thought. You cannot scientifically conclude the existence *or* nonexistence of God (insofar as current observations have demonstrated). "God exists" is unfalsifiable.
"The wonderful thing about science is that it doesn't ask for your faith. It just asks for your eyes."-Randall Munroe
See also:
tinyurl com/2smaar
tinyurl com/3cy3jt
TempestStormwind 4 years ago 3
Believers in God KNOW God exists because there is evidence that God exists, it is very very stirring, very powerful, very compelling evidence..
..it is also 100% SUBJECTIVE Evidence.
The really obnoxious thing about the devout is they forget that Subjective part and assume the compelling evidence they see for God's existance is blatantly obvious to everybody, and those who deny it are either dullards or are being deliberetly deceptive.
Leslie48 4 years ago 2
With this logic, are athiests infallible, perfect, all-knowing, all-seeing individuals? Statements like "God does not exist" is a fairly definitive statement.
SculptureJim 4 years ago
Everything does not need to devolve into a theism vs atheism debate.
IrishKraut 4 years ago 3