3 ms·

You've used an electron microscope? They've been around since 1933 you know - we should all have ready access by now, no? If you look at a video, do you belie

You've used an electron microscope? They've been around since 1933 you know - we should all have ready access by now, no? If you look at a video, do you believe its true? Take a look at this one, to see the problems: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nFLs6nufCj4 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nFLs6nufCj4 You really cannot trust what is presented on a screen. There really is no equivalent to personally testing science or any thesis personally. You will be illuminated, rather than falsely believing you 'know', when all you know is a story.

ntsplnkv2 6y ago
That is an example of an experiment. If that experiment reveals some truth then it should be repeatable. If it isn't repeatable it isn't going to be considered always true and has no particular value. Videos like this are made all the time for marketing, media, entertainment purposes. Anti-science propagandists make videos like this all the time - but they aren't accepted because they aren't typically repeatable or filled with flaws. We trust the process because the process bears fruit - computers, cars, power, electricity, cell phones, cures of disease, antibiotics, etc. We experience all of these things daily. Now black holes and hawking radiation? Perhaps these things are a bit harder and require leaps of faith - but that is reality in a specialized modern society. You trust the car mechanic to know what's wrong, although sometimes you encounter a fraud who will lie to make more money. That doesn't make all mechanics bad.
Retric 6y ago
That video is making the false claim that individual aspects of a video can’t be independently falsified. A simple example is to track down the original referenced paper. Another is knowing that at the time the video was created, VFX wasn’t good enough to fake the shot. That’s not verification of say the amount of effort involved, as they could be scamming their backers or whatnot. But, it does demonstrate the difference between being skeptical and a conspiracy theorist. A skeptic looks for individual evidence to support every independent assertion, where a conspiracy theory is based on the assumption that individual truths are linked. Using multiple different takes to make a video is independent of the accuracy of the experiment. A trained crow would be able to fake what a crow learning to solve a puzzle does.
- feralimal 6y ago
  With all respect, I think you missed the point. I am talking about how information is presented to us, and how we are put in a position of having to accept whatever is presented despite not being presented any evidence. This is not a conspiracy, it is logic. The video is saying that information is presented to us in such a way that it is impossible to know whether it is true or false. When you edit the shots and do not present a single continuous shot, you have disabled the audience's ability to discern for themselves. And even if we were presented with an uncut edit, with CGI technology being as good as it is, we still cannot be sure nowadays. The effect of being presented with endless streams of information like this, throughout our lives, in school and on TV, is that our ability to be clear about what we know is overwhelmed. And our nature is that we accept it all. We have been trained to sit back and accept whatever we are told. What's irritating to me is that we also have the front to call that 'knowledge'. When we see something like the crow 'science' in that film, we think we know. But we do not. We have the illusion of knowledge, but in reality we are in the dark. Without the deconstruction of that film, I think most would watch this and accept this as true. This is a state worse than ignorance. At least an ignorant person knows they do not 'know'. Thinking you 'know' when you do not, is actually negative knowledge - its worse than ignorance. When you reflect on this, you will see that this the default means of receiving information. We sit back and let the news/the scientists/whoever make a bunch of claims. And most will accept all these by default. Simply because its on TV! And everyone thinks they are cleverer that that... whilst having verified nothing!
  - Retric 6y ago
    > with CGI technology being as good as it is, we still cannot be sure nowadays. CGI is still extremely limited. There is an ever expanding list of things that can be reasonably faked, but high definition turbulent flows for example are not one of them. Now you personally may simply not know where that line is, but that doesn’t mean nobody does. Which is my point, your personal level of ignorance isn’t universal. Science is still surprisingly accessible, learning and verifying say thermodynamics can give you more confidence about say global warming than simple blind trust. The same is true of a great many spurious claims from say kickstarts that can’t work as advertised. Which means a slick video on it’s own isn’t enough. PS: I don’t mean for this as a personal attack, more a suggestion that if you find separating fact from fiction difficult there is a path forward.

ntsplnkv2 6y ago

That is an example of an experiment. If that experiment reveals some truth then it should be repeatable. If it isn't repeatable it isn't going to be considered always true and has no particular value. Videos like this are made all the time for marketing, media, entertainment purposes. Anti-science propagandists make videos like this all the time - but they aren't accepted because they aren't typically repeatable or filled with flaws. We trust the process because the process bears fruit - computers, cars, power, electricity, cell phones, cures of disease, antibiotics, etc. We experience all of these things daily. Now black holes and hawking radiation? Perhaps these things are a bit harder and require leaps of faith - but that is reality in a specialized modern society. You trust the car mechanic to know what's wrong, although sometimes you encounter a fraud who will lie to make more money. That doesn't make all mechanics bad.

Retric 6y ago

That video is making the false claim that individual aspects of a video can’t be independently falsified. A simple example is to track down the original referenced paper. Another is knowing that at the time the video was created, VFX wasn’t good enough to fake the shot. That’s not verification of say the amount of effort involved, as they could be scamming their backers or whatnot. But, it does demonstrate the difference between being skeptical and a conspiracy theorist. A skeptic looks for individual evidence to support every independent assertion, where a conspiracy theory is based on the assumption that individual truths are linked. Using multiple different takes to make a video is independent of the accuracy of the experiment. A trained crow would be able to fake what a crow learning to solve a puzzle does.

feralimal 6y ago
With all respect, I think you missed the point. I am talking about how information is presented to us, and how we are put in a position of having to accept whatever is presented despite not being presented any evidence. This is not a conspiracy, it is logic. The video is saying that information is presented to us in such a way that it is impossible to know whether it is true or false. When you edit the shots and do not present a single continuous shot, you have disabled the audience's ability to discern for themselves. And even if we were presented with an uncut edit, with CGI technology being as good as it is, we still cannot be sure nowadays. The effect of being presented with endless streams of information like this, throughout our lives, in school and on TV, is that our ability to be clear about what we know is overwhelmed. And our nature is that we accept it all. We have been trained to sit back and accept whatever we are told. What's irritating to me is that we also have the front to call that 'knowledge'. When we see something like the crow 'science' in that film, we think we know. But we do not. We have the illusion of knowledge, but in reality we are in the dark. Without the deconstruction of that film, I think most would watch this and accept this as true. This is a state worse than ignorance. At least an ignorant person knows they do not 'know'. Thinking you 'know' when you do not, is actually negative knowledge - its worse than ignorance. When you reflect on this, you will see that this the default means of receiving information. We sit back and let the news/the scientists/whoever make a bunch of claims. And most will accept all these by default. Simply because its on TV! And everyone thinks they are cleverer that that... whilst having verified nothing!
- Retric 6y ago
  > with CGI technology being as good as it is, we still cannot be sure nowadays. CGI is still extremely limited. There is an ever expanding list of things that can be reasonably faked, but high definition turbulent flows for example are not one of them. Now you personally may simply not know where that line is, but that doesn’t mean nobody does. Which is my point, your personal level of ignorance isn’t universal. Science is still surprisingly accessible, learning and verifying say thermodynamics can give you more confidence about say global warming than simple blind trust. The same is true of a great many spurious claims from say kickstarts that can’t work as advertised. Which means a slick video on it’s own isn’t enough. PS: I don’t mean for this as a personal attack, more a suggestion that if you find separating fact from fiction difficult there is a path forward.