During the last few weeks I have produced a series of short videos on the topic of “How to Deal with Controversies in Science”. I am asking you to please view my videos and give me some feedback. They are each less than 10 minutes long.
The videos do not require any science background so that, like the little boy in “The Emperor’s New Clothes”, you will not need to be an expert to confidently doubt the experts.
I have posted Parts 1 and 2, so far. These two videos provide the philosophical and logical tools we will use to analyze scientific controversies. Global Warming will be analyzed in Part 3. (It is complete, but I am waiting for Parts 1 and 2 to sink in before posting Part 3.)
Part 1 deals with the philosophical foundations of Modern Science, Popper’s Theory of Demarcation, improper induction and pseudo-science.
Part 2 deals with the nature of controversy. Essentially, two sides present seemingly logical arguments but form opposite conclusions. This is usually a result of one of both sides incorporating logical fallacies into their arguments. So Part 2 is a survey of common logical fallacies.
Please check these out. Give me some feedback and, if you like them, share them with others.
(I hope these Rumble links work)
Part 1
Part 2
20 replies on “My video series: How to Deal with Controversies in Science”
I’m sorry, I somehow missed this when you posted it. I was going back over the member blog listings because as of yet there was no new video content from Bill & Co. today and found your post. Things tend to scroll off the landing page fairly quickly as more blog posts are created and this post of yours slipped under my radar.
I think you’re doing an excellent job here. I have only a couple suggestions and won’t be offended in the least if you don’t incorporate them.
In the procedural fallacies I think you should include ‘rationalization’ also. There is some discussion whether rationalization is a bona fide logical fallacy or if it’s just a negative quirk of human psychology in the form of a defense mechanism. Either way, it’s used in a lot of arguments and after all, your video is oriented towards addressing controversy by arguing from logic and truth. Rationalization is one of the more common means human beings employ to avoid the truth.
The other thing I’d like to point out is to be very careful with Rumble. There are several tiers of monetization offered by that platform and some of the higher, more lucrative (for Rumble) tiers require you to sign away the rights to your content. This effectively allows Rumble to own your work. Personally I think you should never do that because you just don’t know what the future may hold.
Though you’re probably not overly concerned with making money from your content it’s not something you should just ignore either. It is after all YOUR work and I can see that you spent a lot more than just ten minutes per video producing that work.
Also the audience on Rumble is orders of magnitude smaller than the audience on YouTube so … If you haven’t signed away the rights to your work and if your purpose is to reach as broad an audience as is possible with your accurate and vital message (which it is), then you should consider posting this to YouTube too.
The pittance that YouTube might make on your work is dwarfed by the effectiveness of your information. You would actually be doing more harm than good for YouTube if you post this video series there. Especially if YouTube pulls it’s usual trick and posts a ‘warning’ on your third video about climate change. People could then click on that warning and apply the principles you put forward to that subject. This is a case where the perfidy of YouTube could easily work against them. I’m all for turning YouTube’s sneaky deceptions against YouTube by the application of facts and sound reasoning.
Thanks for the comments. I arbitrarily set my time limit for each video to about ten minutes because I am afraid that people won’t watch videos that are longer unless it’s something they really like. Because of that time limit, I can’t fit any more fallacies into the video.
I am ashamed to say that I didn’t understand the consequences of the different Rumble monetization choices. I’m not even sure which one I selected. You’re right that I don’t expect to make any income from them. I’m primarily interested in getting the word out.
In that regard, you’re also right that I should post them on YouTube. Much, much bigger potential audience.
The Rumble videos were my first drafts, so to speak. Some friends have pointed out some misspellings and some other minor details. So I’m going to fix a few things before I upload to YouTube.
We had a power out here last week, so I’m behind on that work and have been offline for almost a week.
Since I didn’t have a link for the 3rd video in my original post, I’m afraid I may have to keep re-posting it occasionally to keep it near the top. So, once again, here is the link for Part 3: Global Warming Bad Science.
https://rumble.com/v29d4y2-dealing-with-controversies-in-science-global-warming-and-bad-science.html
These are very clear and concise presentations; however, I have one quibble so far. In episode 2, you asserted during the Division Fallacy discussion that the lake is blue because it reflects the blue sky. The question then must be asked: “Why is the sky blue?”. I think that this is a more accurate description, and it leads to a correct answer for the follow-up question concerning the sky:
Cheers!
I appreciate your comment and about why the lake is blue, but I could not get into the question of why the sky is blue for several reasons.
I hope I don’t sound defensive but here are a few constraints I was working under:
Keep the videos under ten minutes.
Keep a general audience level of science and technology.
Use *simple* as possible examples for the fallacies.
Within the context of the Division fallacy example, it doesn’t matter why the sky is blue. Only that it is, and that it reflects from the water’s surface.
If I also went into why the sky is blue, it would have distracted from the simple example and would also have added precious time that I couldn’t afford.
It was very difficult to keep the video under ten minutes and I had to leave out a lot of things because of time.
Thank you very much for viewing and for the input. And please check out Part 3 (link in comment below). It is the whole purpose of Parts 1 and 2.
I understand that the complexity of the topic prevented you from describing the “why is the sky blue”; however, my point was to quibble about what you did mention: why is the lake blue? It is not due to reflection of the sky, rather it is due to the scattering of light within the bulk of the fluid. These are fundamentally different physical processes, and I think that glossing over this detail undermines the intent of your presentation of different logical fallacies.
$0.02 spent.
Point taken. Although it is not “not reflection”. There are components from both. Depends strongly on the angle you are looking.
I debated with myself about putting that in. Maybe I shouldn’t have.
I was just thinking…I could take that part out or maybe I could say reflection of the blue sky or scattering of the light, depending on the angle you’re looking.
That would only add a couple seconds. Do you think it’s worth the trouble or should I leave it be?
Your suggested modifications to the script sound good to me.
Is it worth it? I suppose it all depends upon whether or not you are as pedantic as I am. For example, I have been attempting for the past few months to validate a 40-year-old mathematical algorithm, which was never properly documented to show the original derivation — all so that I may justify some needed modifications. It’s been a thorn in my mind for too long, and I find my lack of success to be extremely frustrating. My pedantic nature causes me to refuse defeat, because the software that implements the algorithm is incomplete without the correct documentation.
My $.02 is to leave it the way it is because your target audience is not like Dave P. That is to say that very few if any of the sort of people you are trying to reach are the sorts that would struggle for months over a 40 year-old algorithm.
Dave is the exception and people like Dave already know why the sky is blue and are already conversant with the things you’re presenting in this video series.
Dave is a smart guy, which he has demonstrated repeatedly on our member’s forums and commentary.
Your videos, in my thinking, are aimed at people who do not know the things you’re presenting in them. They are a a remedial attempt to reduce ignorance and are thereby targeted at an audience which is ignorant of the things you’re presenting.
You do a great job of presenting these things. It’s simple, easy to follow and uses multiple portals to the human brain (language both spoken and written). Both your reasoning and presentation are sound. Thus …
I think you should avoid anything that needlessly complicates what you’re saying in these videos. The physics of why the sky is blue are physics. You’re not trying to give a class on why light scatters the way it does, you’re trying to give examples of various Bad Science. Keep it simple so you don’t take your audience down a distracting rabbit hole.
Here is the link to Part 3: Global Warming and Bad Science
The purpose of this video is to show that Global Warming Theory can be quickly and incontrovertibly debunked on logical principles alone.
Since it does not require a scientific background to understand it, this can be a very powerful weapon.
https://rumble.com/v29d4y2-dealing-with-controversies-in-science-global-warming-and-bad-science.html
Here I go on one of my “rants”. I have programmed computers for over 20 years. One of the first things I learned about computers is: “garbage in, garbage out” : bad data leads to bad results.
But even given good data, a programmer can influence results. You dealt with this under confirmation bias. But ….
To prove a point I could write a program using good input data, that when CO2 levels reach say, 543 ppm, the Earth would leave its orbit, plunge into the sun, and come out at absolute zero. With no-one dying until they look at a thermometer and then die of a heart attack.
And finding that code would be very difficult to any non programmer to find, since it would be hidden in pieces with obscure variable names. You’d have to wade through hundreds if not thousands of lines of code, most of which really did nothing that effected the results, but looked good.
A combination of bias and appeal to authority. The code looks highly technical, but is garbage.
A program is only as good as the input and intentions of the programmer.
The models have to reflect the real world. And they dont.
There. I feel better.😏
Thanks for your rant, Harry. I have done almost exactly the kinds of simulations the climate modelers do for 25 years or more. I did partially ionized plasma simulations which are, actually, much more complicated than the atmosphere from a physics perspective.
However, with the plasma simulations we knew, exactly, the geometry of the system, the composition of the gas, the chemistry in the gas/plasma, radiation trapping, surface interactions and the applied electric and magnetic fields. Plus, we had experiments which enabled us to test and verify almost every aspect of our models.
Yet there were still some uncertain parameters which could make huge changes in the results. As close as we could get but it still wasn’t real.
What kind of junk science is this? Test and verify? You can’t get grants unless your model puts out the results that the grantor desires! 😉
One of my big pet peeves with “Climate Models” is that they don’t take their models, dial them back to conditions 100 years ago and look at the prediction for 50 years ago or 25 years ago or today from those models, and then verify the level of accuracy of their models.
Without that level of effort and transparency I have never believed any of the models.
That’s an interesting perspective I had not thought of. Thanks, I’ll add that arrow to my quiver.
Or to put it more simply …
The most effective lies are the ones that contain 99% truth.
That goes for computer models as much as it goes for anything else.
It’s incredibly easy to slip in an untruth when creating a computer model and you have made that quite clear. The motivation to do that is also quite clear.
Pretty much when any “computer model” is mentioned, I ask “How close does it match the real world given the data you feed it?”
If it is way off, it’s either the data or the program.
And as Steve says “Embrace the healing power of “and”.”
That seems obvious to me, too. GIGO.
What really blows my mind is the fact that people look at the computer models and when they don’t match the real world they insist the models are right and it’s the universe that gets it wrong.
Even worse are those with no knowledge of computer models and don’t know what the acronym “GIGO” stands for yet insist that climate change is settled science because someone said it is. Which is pure, undiluted, unadulterated confirmation bias and the opposite of an understanding of logic, science or common sense.
At the rate information technology is developing and as the gathering of data broadens exponentially we just might be able to produce accurate computer models that actually match real world conditions … In a hundred and fifty or two hundred years I’m fairly certain that’s going to be a reality.
Right now this whole argument is political and not at all scientific. Science is playing patsy to politics and that’s bad for everyone because it does not advance actual science. It advances hogwash. The application of hogwash gets us clean hogs and nothing more.
One of the best, and easily understandable explanations I’ve seen.
Therefore, you will get ad hominem attacks or get cancelled when you try to present it.
Which is actually proof you are on target.
Thanks for your comment. I have uploaded the third video, which was the whole point of the first two. I’ll be interested on your opinion of Part 3.
Together, these videos should make it easy for anyone to clearly see that CO2 is not a significant driver of global warming and no amount of technical blather can counter that conclusion.