The debate "Are human are responsible for changing climate" was started by
September 19, 2019, 9:08 am.
287 people are on the agree side of this discussion, while 65 people are on the disagree side.
That might be enough to see the common perception.
It looks like most of the people in this community are on the agreeing side of this statement.
Nemiroff posted 21 arguments, TheExistentialist posted 20 arguments, DanielCartagena posted 1 argument, Joosh posted 1 argument to the agreers part.
Nemiroff posted 3 arguments to the disagreers part.
gopalved, Nemiroff, historybuff, TheExistentialist, everyonehasanopinion, Nikhilsoni, Persephone, Shrivali_16, Lind, JustLikeJackman, DanielCartagena, feito, dinosaurrawr, sasnath, sajjath, K1VK2DF, Mice, diecinueve, Joosh, SonaJohny, MightyJackalope, DebatorOfFacts, Agrumentman, StarianaMusicINFP, mr_potato_head, helpforr, meek, Debatelegend, noobem, Rayyan989, NoctaRavage, Zizza, carson, ao, bitchimaqueen and 252 visitors agree.
sibongo, Grant65, Annie17, jrardin12, Cisco, RoyDierlijk, StrangeTime and 58 visitors disagree.
"it is unfair to compare creation, which is faith/religion based with what i would imagine is intelligent design which is speculative anti-science based"
Sure; this is where author credibility and publication standards come into play and where databases really shine as compared to "Google".
The articles I linked were all published in journals that have credible editorial staff and the writers have multiple credentials. While not the same as a peer reviewed article, these articles are still far more credible than "creation.com" articles or "carm.org" stuff. I used this as an extreme to point out just how much better the sourcing is on a database especially for non-science subjects. The same can be said for articles on ethics, economics, law, theology, etc.... there may not be as many peer reviewed studies on those subject, but data base searches will at least give you academic papers and just conjecture from journalists or worse yet, pundits (which, let's be honest, a lot of people can't tell a pundit from a journalist these days).
"speed reading is often a trade off for accurate/effective reading"
yeah; the point of speed reading is to identify certain sections of a longer paper and then read sections that are most relevant for accuracy/retention.
I think it's important to note that there are tiers of what is the best evidence available. For example:
The highest tier would be systemic meta-analysis, followed by double blind studies, followed by regular scientific studies, followed by academic papers, followed by academic synapsis of studies, followed by credible journalist reporting, followed by non-journalist 3rd party reporting, and lastly anecdotal evidence.
Databases help you narrow down what type of evidence you're looking for. When I put in "creationism" I won't get any results in the scientific studies section, but I will get a lot of results in the academic papers area (professors of theology write dissertations on the subject all the time), I'll get a few more in literature reviews, a few more from journalists, and then I can go to google and get a ton of 3rd party articles. However, there is no reason to use the last since there are much better resources available from actual academics who won't overstate their position because their academic reputation is on the line. This is not the case with "creation.com" where overstating their case gets them more views and thus a higher priority on google searches.
it is unfair to compare creation, which is faith/religion based with what i would imagine is intelligent design which is speculative anti-science based. im not sure if the author is credible, but i will reserve judgement as i havent read the actual articles.
speed reading is often a trade off for accurate/effective reading. especially for someone who has to stop and google many terms throughout the 50 pages (this was more of a political document then scientific, so i dont expect as many technical terms as i would in other subjects like climate science.)
actually the best argument i saw for teaching creationism (in science class) is because it is part of science history, much like aether, original abiogenesis, and the geocentric model. I actually agree with that, but that depends on the technical definition of teaching vs mentioning.
ill respond to the black hole quotes later, and no problem on taking your time with replies. ive done it several times in this convo already.
We've established that people are generally bad at evaluating sources at all levels of education (source cited in earlier comment)
We've established that a large percentage of youtube videos (even when posted by experts) contain bad or missing information (source cited in earlier comment)
Depending on the search, we've established that YouTube and Google will push laymen content over professional content (source cited in earlier comment)
So what we are left with are two more arguments for google and youtube;
first: "scholarly articles are overly technical to the degree of being useless to laymen"
Using the EBSCO literature review database I found multiple articles on black holes and quantum particle physics which are written in laymen's terms (including an article by one of the researchers that actually discovered the Higgs Boson) that provide a general knowledge base on the subject. Furthermore, most databases.
Second: time it takes to find such articles.
I literally found both of these articles going over black holes and Dark Matter/quantum physics/higgs boson within the first 5 results of my searches "dark matter" and "black hole".
To summarize: Using free databases I can find both research papers and academic literature reviews/literature discussions that fulfill the need for both technical/advanced knowledge and general knowledge; I don't have to evaluate my sources nearly as carefully as I can generally just click on the author and get a quick summary of credentials; the database only searches for articles from credible sources; and I can get credible sources for almost any topic. If I use the Points of View database, and I click on a topic like "stem cells" the first page I get is literally an overview of the topic with definitions that you might encounter in scholarly articles:
Angiogenesis: The development of new blood vessels. In diseased hearts, angiogenesis is stimulated by the introduction of stem cells.
Cell lines: Groups of cells produced in a laboratory from common ancestry. The cells within a cell line are usually genetically identical to one another
"generalized info would be useless and redundant to experts."
The second article I provided includes a detailed discussion of where the field of particle physics is heading, what the complications are, why we are entering uncharted territory, where our knowledge gaps are etc... these types of discussions are useful to both laymen and professionals.
So the article I provided was exactly what you were asking for. It was a general explanation of black holes; the history of how we came to know; our current knowledge on them; and the most recent discoveries. I posted a few excerpts to show the "technicality" of the writing. As you can see, it's a very simple article and published through the university of the author (a theoretical physicist).
Here is another article I found very easily by doing a quick "dark matter" search on the literature review database
What Next for Particle Physics?
The discovery of the Higgs boson at the Large Hadron Collider was a triumph for the Standard Model Now the hunt is on for a deeper theory of reality.
This article was written by Jon Butterworth a particle physicist that worked on the ATLAS project at CERN.
The article first explains quantum physics (in very broad brush strokes, like you asked for....quantum physics is inherently a complex subject, but I figured getting a very simple article on a very complex subject is what you were asking for).
"The word boson causes no end of trouble when people report on the discovery of the Higgs boson, the master particle that allows the other fundamental paticles to have mass. It regularly gets pronounced "bosun," and once, while being interviewed on TV, I saw it spelled as "bosom." To clarify: Boson is the name for a generic class of particles. The Higgs boson is one, but so are many other particles."
"The best way we have of understanding fundamental particles is quantum field theory. In this theory, a state is a configuration describing all the particles in a system. The mathematics is such that if you swap the places of two identical fermions, with identical energies (say, two electrons), then you introduce a negative sign in the state. If you swap two bosons, there is no negative sign."
"The second argument is to me the most compelling. Astronomical observations tell us there is probably some dark matter out there (or else we really do not understand gravity). Many supersymmetry models predict a particle that would be an ideal candidate for dark matter. It may be right behind you. When two different branches of science have problems that seem to converge on the same solution, look out for progress."
literature review is "a written summary of *existing published research* on the subject." according to your link. and it can be short or the article itself.
it seems illogical for the entirety of fundamentals of a subject to fit in a short piece above an article. is this fundamental details, or a summary of other recent technical works on that subject? I was hoping for an example. for example: will an article about hawking radiation and black hole evaporation have a summary recounting how black holes occur from super massive stars? just like scholarly articles are overly technical to the degree of being useless to laymen, such generalized info would be useless and redundant to experts.
the definition you provide is a bit vague and can have any number of details or generalized knowledge. it doesnt state the information provided is basic fundamental introductory knowledge, although the language used doesnt rule that out either. an example, not necessarily regarding black holes, would make it clearer what these reviews actually cover.
Sorry I didn't get back to you on this quicker.....
I get that those articles may have pissed you off; however if you were arguing with someone who was pro-God or anti-evolution those sources are infinitely better than creation.com or carm.org etc... There is at least a credible author and the points their making are more subtle and nuanced.
"i was interested in the third article, and i opened it, and found about 50 pages"
Speed reading is a skill I guess...I don't think "lengthy" articles are a good reason to dismiss better sources.
you can always use find functions to look for certain points in the article.
Again; I think you'd be hard pressed to find a legitimate argument for teaching creationism in public schools that's better researched.
"if you want to learn the fundamentals of a subject like cosmology"
luckily ebsco has a literature center
So let's when I look for "black holes (cosmology)" in the literature center the 3rd article down is: Sonic Black Hole: Lurking in every active galaxy in our cosmic web is the densest and most elusive object known to physics, the black hole
here are some excerpts to give you an idea of the level of writing
"The difficulties in dealing with Einsteins ten coupled equations of the gravitational field of space and time, versus Newton's one equation, are enormous. To get a sense of the complexity we have in front of us, imagine a simplified analogy of the bending of space as a series of masses on springs linked together and in motion..."
" For stars greater yet, three times or more massive than the sun, even neutrons can't fight gravity. The nuclei collapse--and then our theories teeter on the edge of our understanding. In step black holes. Black holes became a theoretical reality with the Schwarzschild solution of general relativity (that describes how a star and a black hole warps space and time), and they became a physical possibility with the understanding of stellar evolution."
"Not only do black hole horizons have a sonic quality, but it was recently discovered that some black holes play a drone-like song. The figure above shows the sound wave generated by a black hole at the center of a galaxy in the Perseus cluster. The note of the black hole's sound was identified as a B-flat fifty octaves below middle C on a piano."
This might answer your question:
can you give me an example of this comprehensive literature review. are you saying that every scholarly publication comes with a college freshman level review of the topic? why?
what we need is for these experts to make casual publications of accurate data that skips many academia formalities... and they do all over the web and on good youtube channels. you will not find such casual, layman focused, material on traditional scholarly sources. you will only find them doing a regular search + critical thinking to avoid obvious trap sites.
Hmm most journal articles come with a comprehensive literature review that gives the needed context for the new art or whatever the discovery of the article is. If it's a proper article that is pertinent to the debate it would contain a great review of the literature relevant to the debate.
With that said I've never read a climate science journal article, and I don't find the topic interesting enough to bother, so that may not apply.
google scholars is not just Google, but it is a part of Google and occasionally placed on top of just Google's results. however that is not my main issue with scolarly sources.
i didn't open all of your suggestions because the first 2 pissed me off. there is nothing wrong with a scientist believing in creation or design, but to put speculation into a scolarly paper, i surely hope this scholars are historians or some field that is not science.
i was interested in the third article, and i opened it, and found about 50 pages, with no path to skip to a clear conclusion. at this point most laymen, and myself tend to check out. perhaps if this was a topic im passionate about, but not for some random debate i decide to chime in on. its not practical. scholarly sources are used by only 2 groups, scholars and students. they are inefficient, and impractical for casual debate, or curiosity learning of general fundamentals.
if you want to learn the fundamentals of a subject like cosmology, or even a sub topic of black holes, scholarly sources fail. please show me a scholarly article that has comprehensive fundamental knowledge of any broad topic (most studies super focus on fine details like hawking radiation). i bet i can find a youtube video in 10 minutes that will be far more comprehnsive than a scholarly article. they are not made for laymen and casuals and will only be counterproductive.
That's an academic database. It's not just "Google". There is a difference.
I'm not really surprised you found some decent sources on the topic of stem cells as a simple search. It gets more complicated as you narrow down a topic and as you look for evidence that is not in line with traditional scientific consensus.
Let's look at a common debate here on this Forum: Creationism vs Abiogenesis and evolution
It's pretty easy to find mostly reputable sources for the latter, but for the former, try using google to find scholarly articles on creationism.
On a database search I can find articles like "Physical Infinities: a Substitute for God?" by PETER J BUSSEY published in Science & Christian belief. A well written paper (granted it's using the god of the gaps argument for quite a bit of it) however, it's researched well, it makes interesting points, it's been peer reviewed, and the author is a professor at the School of Physics and Astronomy University of Glasgow.
I also found "Is evolution truly random? Chance as an ideological weapon in the 'evolution-creation' debate." by DIANE BISSEN who has studied design, humanities and social sciences, obtaining a M.Sc. in Anthropology, a M.A. in Museology, and a Ph.D. in Theory and History of Design; currently a professor at Concordia, University of Montreal. This paper argues for a guiding hand in evolution.
I also found "SEEING GOVERNMENT PURPOSE THROUGH THE OBJECTIVE OBSERVER'S EYES: THE EVOLUTION-INTELLIGENT DESIGN DEBATES" by KRISTIL. BOWMAN (* Assistant Professor of Law, Drake University Law School; J.D., Duke University; M.A., Duke University; B.A., Drake University.)published in the Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy. This is a piece on the legality of teaching creationism and the government's role in limiting the teaching of creationism in public schools. It's a great academic paper that makes fantastic legal arguments for allowing school districts to teach creationism without government interference.
I don't really get any quality results from google when I try and research pro-creationist arguments without limiting searches to certain journals. With the database search however, I don't even need to know any of the journal names. The search results are already curated.
the problem is that people want to believe that something is off. they dont usually believe in only 1 conspiracy. even if you pile up information up front, they will simply dig deeper, or go underground to get the info they want. climate change may be a special case due to being a national political issue is a highly partisan society... but other stuff like flat earth has as many debunk videos as support videos on youtube. its confirmation bias to the extreme, and again, not limited to digital.
as you said, the results based of your own previous searches. it isnt pushing fake information on you unless you went out of your way to seek it. some people perfer excitement over truth.
that is quite interesting, but alas the wider web can be superior.
stem cells: that is a definition. my google result came from medlineplus.gov it is just as detailed. i wish i could paste.
youtube on the other hand had a video by John hopkins university with 2 bioethisists discussing the ethical controversy surrounding the subject as result #2. result #1 was a private company result, but it wasnt a company that sold or wanted to push stem cell or anti, it was a company that sells medical graphics... so heck yeah i want to see their video, and it was completely uncontrovertial.
google btw now seems to provide a special section at the top for scholarly articles, highlighting 3 of them with a link for more results. i think they may have always had that section. scholar.google.com, they just now added highlight it more. sounds like an improvement.
i dont look up a .org or edu and stop thinking, that was just to focus the selection.
i am proven wrong about .coms tho.
as for previous search bias, as they improve their critical thinking and standards, the algorithm will prove increasingly benefitial. you, with high scholarly standards, may have quite the curated results indeed!
shall we run an experiment? google climate change skepticism and lets compare results. i wonder if we could get @daniel back in to see his results.
first result is a set of 3 scholarly articles
by dunlap, engels, and hall respectively.
cant copy paste so shortening the results with shortest identifiers.
skepticalscience.com "...skepticism examinded"
skepticalscience.com argument "...what the science really says"
berkely earth "skeptics guide to CC"
wikipedia "CC denial" (CC=climate change)
boston u "how to convince a CC skeptic"
yale "cc skepticism"
how stuff works "are skeptics right"
then science daily, and cnn.
"usually just add the word scholarly at the end of my search and look for .edu, .gov, or .org links. preferably ones from familiar organizations."
and that would be your first mistake in doing research. Looking for .edu or .org links does not mean credible. Go look at MartinLutherKing.org. The website, while having a credible sounding IP, it's actually a website run by the Neo-Nazi website Stormfront. With .edu addresses, you still have to determine who the professor is that wrote a particular article. Just because it's published on a .edu website does not make any single article credible. The .edu domain only means that the domain is owned by an accredited educational facility. Also, .com addresses aren't not-credible just because they have that domain name.
Nature.com is a peer reviewed journal you would have missed, JEMS.com is a peer reviewed journal you would have missed, etc..
Again; why is google a good source when you are fed information that is based on your previous bias (you and I for example won't get the same search results even if we type in the same terms), you can't rely on domain names as a way of Identifying credible sources, simply using the tag "scholarly" does very little to ensure accurate results, and I can easily get better, more accurate, plain english explanations on a topic through freely accessible through pre-filtered databases?
"the reason i advocate this methodology is because scholarly sources are ineffective at providing fundamental knowledge"
That depends heavily on how specific and where you begin your search.
Here is a quick project I did to illustrate database research. I'll post quotes here since you have to log onto the library website to use the databases, however, all of this is free and an account takes about 2 minutes to set up, so It's no really a barrier.
If I do search on Stem cells in the "Points of view" section of my local library database I get an explanation of the issue worded in plain English: "Embryonic stem cells are undifferentiated cells that show promise in the treatment of heart disease,....Human embryonic stem cell research is a controversial topic because the cells are derived from eight-celled human embryos called "blastocysts." To obtain stem cells from the inner cell mass of the blastocyst, the embryo must be disassembled....it does have the potential to grow into a baby, and this is the heart of the debate." at the end, I get info on the author:
Rosalyn Carson-Dewitt received an MD from Michigan State University in 1991. She is a medical and scientific writer and was editor-in-chief for Drugs, Alcohol and Tobacco: Learning About Addictive Behavior and Encyclopedia...
From there I can simply click a link that says "primary source documents" and I get periodicals published by reputable sources that describe the issues surrounding the topic. For example; on the first page I found an Article Entitled "Stem Cell Research: Confronting Scientific and Moral Issues". The article is in plain English describing the decision making process of the Bush vs Clinton administrations on funding stem cell research, the scientific potential etc... the Article is from the Congressional digest
From there I can click on a filter called "academic Journals"
Here I found an article published in Issues in Law & Medicine. Fall2016, Vol. 31 Issue 2, p217-220. 4p called :"Endogenous Tissue Regeneration and Restoration, Maximizing Our Human Potential: An Ethical Alternative to Human Embryonic Stem Cells."
The Overview section of the paper you get plain English text like "Conversely, is there sufficient focus on the use of stems cells obtained from adult sources? Although infrequently discussed, it is a medical fact that adult stem cells have cured dozens of diseases while no cure has ever been produced as a result of research using embryonic stem cells.
the reason i advocate this methodology is because scholarly sources are ineffective at providing fundamental knowledge. youtube has a lot of excellent, credible, simple information that academia simply refuses to provide.
educating people on how to find and evaluate information is far more valuable then simply providing them a handful of credible databases and hoping for the best. i dont think evaluating data is that hard, it just takes a few simple techniques.
i do not use +/-. i don't see their relevancy to bringing up scholarly sources. i usually just add the word scholarly at the end of my search and look for .edu, .gov, or .org links. preferably ones from familiar organizations.
the only time i use "-" is when im looking up a website but avoiding hits from that website itself while researching credibility.
but i do go to a newsstand for credible information ranging from the NYT to ScienceDaily. The point is you dont judge the credibility of a newsstand, you judge the credibility of the publication, and the content creators.
your suggestion of scholarly sources touches on another point i made that wasnt addressed... scholarly sources are absolutely terrible at providing a fundamental understanding of a topic to laymen. for example: im sure we can pull up many scholarly articles about the big bang, but none of them would provide a background understanding of the big bang as one of those cliche documentaries like cosmos or origins... which one could find on YouTube, not in scholarly resources. i would argue strongly that crash course astronomy would give a far more comprehensive fundamental understanding of the big bang and astronomy in general then even a collective of studies, and has a much higher likelyhood of having a laymen actually finish and comprehend the information.
re: Stanford study
ive seen this study before and it is quite depressing, mostly because the students didnt evaluate the information or source based on objective data, but nonsense like "how professional it looked", and "how many graphics it had". this idiocy sounds like it will translate into idiocy on print. the problem is not the medium but the students ability to think critically. im guessing if the national inquirer emulates the style of the NYT the students will be just as confused because the only thing they seem to be judging is stylistics.
5th to last paragraph states that the college students: "high production values, links to reputable new organizations, and polished about pages... swayed students into believing WITHOUT VERY MUCH SKEPTICISM the contents of the site."
i contend that the lack of skepticism and critical thought is the issue, and this problem will translate to ANY medium. having a database of good info is good, but releasing "educated" people without critical thought is still going to create many problems. these people may one day be our healers and leaders.
"but googling shows up plenty scholarly sources as well"
That depends heavily on the terms being searched and the specific modifiers like: +; -; "x"; allintext, etc... being used and most importantly HEAVILY DEPENDS ON YOUR PREVIOUS SEARCHES.
"also newsstands are not exactly curators of information. their selection is very much based on what you, or advertisers will pay money for, just like youtube. the newsstand is a shop, not a scholarly institution."
Exactly....that's why you wouldn't go to a newsstand to get credible information as the selection given to you is limited, bias, possibly outdated, and not verified. Going to a scholarly database is like going to the library to get information rather than a newsstand, the information will be curated for accuracy, completeness, and will be current. So why would you use a source that, even you acknowledge, primarily directs content to you not based on accuracy, but rather based on monetization?
"you cant tell a good publication from a bad one without critical thought."
Yeah I already linked: https://ed.stanford.edu/news/stanford-researchers-find-students-have-trouble-judging-credibility-information-online which shows that we're terrible at evaluating sources at all levels of education. So why on earth would you use a source that feeds you content that you'll have to scrutinize harder.
Google and YouTube are designed to return results that produce confirmation bias
According to Google, "personalized search gives them the ability to customize search results based on a user’s previous 180 days of search history, which is linked to an anonymous cookie in your browser. This is how Google personalizes results when you’re not signed in under a Google account. When you’re signed in, Google stores your Google web history and search is personalized even more....this helps explain why two people searching for the same keyword can generate different search results."
Why on earth would you advocate a research methodology that feeds you information based on your known biases rather than the best information? This mechanic alone should disqualify YouTube and Google as a credible search engine by any rational standard of information integrity. Even if your diligent enough to opt out of personalized results (which is not easy), Google can still personalize searches based on your geographic location and other factors.
but googling shows up plenty scholarly sources as well. also newsstands are not exactly curators of information. their selection is very much based on what you, or advertisers will pay money for, just like youtube. the newsstand is a shop, not a scholarly institution.
you said "you dont think print as a medium has had less idiots, ... i think peer reviewed journals and credible news organizations has had less idiots."
well yeah, video media in general has plenty of idiots, but credible news organizations web video channels also have way less idiots. you cant tell a good publication from a bad one without critical thought. the same can, and should, be applied to channels.
human causes global warming because:
- Car manufacturers
- Burning (carbon- based materials such as wood, garbage or fossil fuels)
- Illegal logging
- kaingin farming
- and more.
"fundamental critical thinking and verification is always a given. i would like you to explicitly say that print has had less idiots and charlatans if you think i am wrong"
I do think you're wrong on this. I don't think "print" as a medium has had less idiots, etc... I think peer reviewed journals, articles found on scholarly databases, and credible news organizations have WAY LESS idiots and charlatans than youtube; by a high enough degree in fact that there is no reason to use YouTube as a source.
"we definitely should start teaching those concepts at a younger age."
I agree. My wife is a librarian (hence a lot of the library resources since I use the sh*t out of libraries) and one of the first things they teach students of all ages is that Google, YouTube, Facebook, etc... are not considered credible sources. We need to start teaching kids how to use databases, how to read scientific papers, how to avoid means of research that produce false results, how to avoid confirmation bias, etc....
"my news stand analogy has yet to be addressed. the news stand is not credible, it individual publications may be"
YouTube is not credible for the same reasons that "googling" something isn't the same as doing research. The results being fed to you aren't being shown to you because they are the best; they are being shown to you because they are the most popular and have confirmation bias.
To address your analogy then, if you went to a newsstand and asked for information about new biological discoveries and the first 50 magazines offered to you were fake, incomplete, outdated, etc... and were presented to you just because they were popular or conformed to biases/preferences you had, you wouldn't go back to that newsstand to get credible information. Youtube, Google, etc.. are much the same in that regard. The information isn't presented to you based on accuracy, but rather popularity and your own preferences/biases that the algorithm already knows.
I guess that means YouTube isn't really like a newsstand at all, but rather like a personal curator of information that they give to you not based on what is best, but rather what is likely to make them more money in terms of advertisement, number of views, sponsored content, etc... since you have very little to no say as to what information you're presented with and what information you'd like excluded from your search.
link 1. invalid
"focuses on medications during pregnancy, thats an insanely specific subject"
Aren't all scientific searches incredibly specific? Isn't carbon isotope ratios from industrialized emissions vs natural emissions a very specific search? How does specificity make a link "invalid" ?
If I want to have a debate on big pharma and I decide one of my points was "studies conducted by pharma companies produce false safety claims for their medications", isn't there a better than 0% chance that I might want to look up drugs that companies claimed were safe for use during pregnancy but then turned out not to be?
link 2. invalid
" youtube videos are obviously not going to meet licensed lincensing facilities in education guidelines"
That doesn't make it invalid. Even videos uploaded by guideline bodies had significant errors as they were often outdated. This is an issue when you do research of any type. Say you wanted to do research on effectiveness of "no-breath CPR" vs "rescue breathing first CPR". You'd wanna look at the protocols for current single and multi-rescuer CPR vs previous guidelines and see where the deviation lies so you can analyze case studies based on specific scenarios. There is a topic on this site now that asks about teaching first aid; someone might be looking into this type of information for that topic. You'd have to concede that for that topic, Youtube is not a good source based on this research.
"yes, children need protection. we should not allow sponsored ads to mimic real content."
The paper discussed every age group from middle school to college. Even College student had a hard time discerning credible and non-credible sources. Since most people don't bother to educate themselves past college in terms of research methodology, do you really think this is better in adulthood?
"yes. credible sources made credible content. exactly what ive been saying."
You're kinda cherry picking here. Only 67% of the videos made by CREDIBLE SOURCES were actually useful. That means that even if a lay person evaluates a source as credible, there is still a 33% chance that the content is not. So the lay person would need intimate knowledge of the content in order assess whether or not a video is a good source. The study also found that non-credible source videos had a higher viewership by over 100%. So the youtube algorithm is more likely to feed you non-credible results.
link 1. invalid
focuses on medications during pregnancy, thats an insanely specific subject. chooses videos based on viewership and keywords, and ends up with 67% of their subject pool as law firm videos. thats ridiculous.
searching for general scientific knowledge won't get you flooded with lawyer clips. this study's findings are valid regarding lawyer ad practices, but doesn't say anything about generalized information availability.
link 2. invalid
science daily does not equal an official science education. youtube videos are obviously not going to meet licensed lincensing facilities in education guidelines. whether you watch a video, or read a physical article, you are not licensed in anything. no duh.
yes, children need protection. we should not allow sponsored ads to mimic real content. thats a seperate left/right debate that should have been resolved by now. however that doesnt speak to the validity of actual content. if the producer of the video has control over the ads, it could speak to his values, but still not his content.
yes. credible sources made credible content. exactly what ive been saying.
my news stand analogy has yet to be addressed. the news stand is not credible, it individual publications may be. credible channels provide credible content consistently, and can be counted on. non credible ones cannot. just like a rack of magazines.
fundamental critical thinking and verification is always a given. i would like you to explicitly say that print has had less idiots and charlatans if you think i am wrong. we definitely should start teaching those concepts at a younger age.
crash course actually released a series titled * "crash course media literacy" on YouTube* to help combat this problem.
highlighted and spread to emphasize cause it truly is important. but you cant deny the really good and effective quality content on this new newsstand just cause there is a flood if sensationalized Inquirer like garbage as well. theres a reason we refer to the Inquirer so iconically. it was a phenomenon. many in the early days of print also believed it would ruin discourse. a new media is always scary, but never worse.
....despite of being less useful (14% vs. 67%, P "less than" 0.001) when compared to videos uploaded by professional sources"
This serves to illustrate that even for teaching purposes, youtube videos are troublesome without professional guidance and a high degree of previous knowledge on the topic to evaluate accuracy.
Youtube has another major flaw, that is the fact that the algorithm youtube uses produces "popular" videos as opposed to accurate videos as the first set of results. So you're likely getting non-professional sources as the main search results. When doing a search on a academic database, this is not the case. You also don't need tons of prior knowledge to see if a piece of academic literature is complete unlike youtube.
"but you cant say all content on youtube is, by default, not credible"
perhaps there are outliers, but studies show it is not a reliable source in the grand scheme of things.
Study conclusion: "For the majority of medications, current YouTube video content does not adequately reflect what is known about the safety of their use in pregnancy and should be interpreted cautiously."
Conclusion:The majority of You-Tube video clips purporting to be about CPR are not relevant educational material. Of those that are focused on teaching CPR, only a small minority optimally meet the 2010 Resuscitation Guidelines
Couple that with:
People already have trouble judging credible sources in terms of websites etc.... now add to that videos that are cut down, sensationalized, perhaps edited, etc... and you have a recipe for misinformation, incomplete information, or maliciously doctored information being mistaken as credible.
"i wonder if you would consider YouTube hannels like crash course or "osmosis" credible?"
I think sources like this would be helpful in educating oneself on the topic overall, however, I don't think it is a source anyone should be using to support an argument; this is due to the fact that the content is (statistically at least) likely to be incomplete at best.
There does seem to be some educational value in youtube videos
However, even this source state "Search phrases yielded 69,300 videos, among which, 120 videos were evaluated and 85 videos were included in the final analysis. Of the 85 videos, only 45 videos (53%) were found to be useful while 40 videos (47%) were found to be non-useful. The majority (98%) of the useful videos were uploaded by professional sources. Overall, videos uploaded by non-professional sources had higher number of views (23,553 vs. 11,110, P?0.001) despite of being less useful (14% vs. 67%, P
i wonder if you would consider YouTube hannels like crash course or "osmosis" credible? they are certainly (organized) individuals, not mainstream organizations, which increases risks of errors, but the present information that is noncontroversial. they are like cliff notes for college courses. i think these make superior sources for layman to learn the fundamentals of a subject.
you need "some basic technical vocab" to read science daily, not scholarly papers.
you also dont go to scholarly papers to learn the fundamentals of a subject. scholarly papers assume you are already familiar with the subject, often discussing the technicalities of a minute detail (aka a single study) in intricate detail.
both reasons why laymen should be directed towards science daily and away from scholarly sources. scholarly sources are for scholars, students, and armchair scholars who want to dive into the expertise of usually a small handful of subjects. often 1.
you completely missed my news stand analogy.
lets look at a similar example.
instead of youtube, he picked up the inquirer, or the UFO, bigfoot equivalent to it (in print), and regurgitated a false positive without checking the sources. youtube doesnt change critical thinking. it makes knowledge easier... good and bad. science daily likely also has a youtube channel of equal credibility to their publication.
the same goes for showing you a paper article instead of making an argument. the internet did not invent plagarism. youtube could be claimed to not do enough to distinguish quality content... but you cant say all content on youtube is, by default, not credible.
you judge the publication, not the newsstand.
If you believe that the lay person isn't even able to learn some basic technical vocab to read relatively simple papers (you don't need super complicated papers to gain a fair understanding of a given subject, unless you're researching quantum physics or the like), do you really think they have the capacity to evaluate every channel that they watch on youtube?
Now, I don't have a problem with people using Youtube channels to disseminate world news, watch political commentary, etc... or even using it as a jumping off point to actually research a subject. YouTube would be a great resource to familiarize yourself with the basic jargon, concepts, etc... that you'd need to read an actual paper, but to try and use it as a source for an actual argument is a different story. Using YouTube as a source is essentially the same as saying "hey, argue against this person's point of view". It's not a debate, it's a request to engage with someone else's content. They're not presenting their own ideas, they're not presenting their own point of view, etc... they're simply passing off someone else's arguments as a position they hold when they can't justify their own opinion with facts.
Let's take Daniel as an example again. He tries to claim that Greenland was warmer 1000 years ago than it is today. He doesn't actually know that, he is simply regurgitating a false position that he heard somewhere. Because he doesn't know the source data and didn't look at the actual papers the creator of the video was using to make that claim he doesn't know any better and thinks it true. If he would have read a few simple papers on proxy climate data in the region he would have known that this argument is nonsensical. So even if you think a source is reputable, you still need to have some basic understanding of the jargon etc... to at least see if the claims they're making are actually supported by the facts. Why then, would you fact check someone else's arguments and then present their ideas as your own when you have to do the same work to simply come up with your own arguments and positions on a subject?
the presence of editorial staff is irrelevant to my argument. BBC, PBS, NPR etc are all channels on youtube. YouTube is not a publication, if is a collection of publications like a news stand. a news stand can hold science daily, the Inquirer, and the new york times. the presence of the inquirer does not discredit the entire newsstand. you dont judge the newsstand, you judge the individual publications, or in youtubes case, the individual channels.
once i verify that scishow for example is credible, i only need to check primary sources, overstating the facts, etc (pretty much copying your words here). its all the same. youtube is not a publications. mass judging their channels is a false approach. its like ignoring science daily because its sold next to the inquirer. youtube is not a publication. its a newsstand that hosts many publishers. most of whom suck. just like all media. its not hard to find reputable sources on youtube. and its not hard to verify their authenticity if one tries.
yes reputable sources are available, many on youtube. however, those are not scolarly sources. scholarly sources are meant for other experts. not only terms but the level of detail of scholarly sources is meant so that peers can repeat their experiments, burying conclusions in information that is useless to someone who trusts the sources and simply wants to find the conclusion. this happened to me while researching free will experiments. lots of statistical shorthand with p(0.1) and other mathematical statements that were defined in previous parts of the paper. All of the terms were familiar to me, but the structure of the paper and the conclusions was indecipherable without a sitting down and taking active notes. not something a casual is prepared to do, nor should it be logically expected. otherwise why would science daily even exist?
it is up to the sender of a message to ensure that the message is properly tailored to his intended audience. once you do that, then it is up to them to receive it properly. but if you dont send it properly then it is your fault it is rejected.
similarly sun tzu said that if an order is not clear and not followed, it is the generals fault. if the order is clear but not followed, it is the soldiers fault. you cant put all the onus on the receiving party and wash your hands of any responsibility.
Again, I disagree with the statement "to...the uploader and the content creator are usually one and the same, and if they are different, im sure only the content creator matters. And what you stated is true for ALL media."
BBC, PBS, NPR, etc... Have editorial staff for a reason and are reputable because of the standards of evidence for a story. I don't need to check the credibility of an author (unless it's an OPED of course) since I can trust that the editorial staff at those publications reviewed primary sources, checked for overstating the facts errors, and made sure the piece met journalistic standards of multiple confirmed sources. This is not the case on YouTube.
You have to check every piece yourself to see if the source they're referring to is accurate, if there corroborating evidence even exists, etc.... YouTube, as a platform has no journalistic standards.
Not every uploader is also the content creator. Uploaders with reputable sounding names can disseminate videos which aren't quite true.
For example: https://youtu.be/EfREntgxmDs
If you watched only the fake video, because some uploader you trusted put a copy of it up, you might actually believe Nancy pelosi was slurring her speech.
"every technical term was taught to experts using normal english definitions"
Sure and those definitions are readily available as are reputable sources that will break down scientific papers into plain English. The onus is on the person reading into a subject however, to come to terms with technical vocab or find sources that explain it to them to some degree. Not every scientific paper is very technical either. Most meta data studies are very technical in their methodology, but their results are pretty easily understandable.
Not knowing all the technical vocab usually isn't prohibitive to understanding the main point of most papers. It's only when you really want to know why the evidence supports a certain conclusion not that it supports a certain conclusion that knowledge of technical vocab is necessary
the uploader and the content creator are usually one and the same, and if they are different, im sure only the content creator matters. And what you stated is true for ALL media. Any article that wasnt peer reviewed and/or its creator and/or the publication should be evaluated. youtube is no different.
furthermore, if you evaluate the content, the creator and publisher are irrelevant. if a liar says 2+2=4, that doesnt make it wrong because the source is not credible, the information is! Also you are implying that people citing bad info is just a youtube problem. pragerU has its own website. we have long taught people to use critical thought. not everything you read online is real, not everything you read in print is real (national inquirer). the need to spread critical thinking is not new, and there is zero difference between youtube, the internet at large, or print in general. even before the internet there were fools who believed missinformation, and as today, they are the majority.
common jargon has levels, greenhouse gas is part of common vernacular nowadays, isotopes are less common. actual papers may use even more technical like redox reactions and use multiple per sentence which is how it becomes unreadable. not only does one have to consider the difficulty of the technical terms, but also their frequency which can easily overwhelm laymen.
i completely disagree that technical terms are at all necessary. one does not need to know carbon is a greenhouse gas, all they heed to know is that carbon traps the heat from the sun. every technical term was taugh to experts using normal english definitions.
i do thank you for the link, i will make good use of it as i return to school to continue my studies (the next step is very much paper heavy), but i think they are overkill in a casual setting. but my main point is that youtube is just as trustworthy, and requires just as much scrutiny as any non scholarly collection. this includes wherever you get your science daily from.
The main problem I have with youtube is the fact that you have to source every uploader as well as the source material used in the content of the video, as well as the creator of the video. Youtube is plagued with impersonation accounts or "fan accounts". If you look at the majority of people who cite "YouTube" as a source, they can't even be bothered to look critically at the source material of the video so now they have to go even further and verify that the creator is credible, and that the uploading account is credible.
DanielCartagena, for example, couldn't even be bothered to look up the basic facts about the arctic/antarctic sea ice, Greenland, or look at what information may be missing from the video he tried to use as a source. Now, do you think he's gonna look at who created the video he linked and looked at their credibility, and then go further and look at the uploader to make sure they're credible and didn't edit the video in some way?
"but im my experience official journals are not easy to find, access, or understand for lay people.'
This is a list of databases my local library system offers (you can sign up for free library cards online for almost any library system):
It's pretty easy to find anything and everything you might be looking for from credible sources there. You can use the "Point of View Reference center" to look at plain English summaries of both points of view of almost any subject and at the end are presented with primary source material to do further research. I just think people don't know how to actually research a subject and YouTube is an excuse to say you've educated yourself on a subject when you actually haven't.
Furthermore, for the purpose of actual inquiry into a subject you should familiarize yourself with common jargon. In climate change for example, you should know what greenhouse gases are, what emissions means, why Carbon isotope ratios are important, etc... It's not difficult to do a little bit of ancillary reading to get a better grasp on a subject. If you're not willing to do that, then you shouldn't be allowed to claim knowledge on the subject.
It's perfectly fine to be ignorant in a subject. I'm ignorant in many. Being intellectually honest enough to admit that though is tough for people and so they use YouTube as an excuse to have confirmation bias information pumped into them and then claim they did "research " on a topic when they haven't.
you have official channels for mainstream info like nasa, bbc, and discovery on youtube. you cant judge them the same as pragerU or infowars which also have/had YouTube channels. it is not youtube whose credibility should be judged, its the channels.
an analogy would be to disregard science daily because its sold on the same newsstand as the inquirer.... that doesnt make sense.
"its almost impossible to verify credibility on youtube".
that is wrong, as is your comparison to the national inquirer. the inquirer is not a platform, it is an editted news paper made to spread unverified gossip by design. YouTube is a platform that is as credible as the individual channel being judged, and it is always possible to verify a source or the information.
science daily is as credible as scishow, and is just as dumbed down, if not even more so. laymen credible youtube channels are as credible as layman credible articles. noncredible YouTube channels are as credible as noncredible articles.
i approve of science daily, but im my experience official journals are not easy to find, access, or understand for lay people. if you are dealing with a non expert, referring them to those sources will end up sending them right back to pragerU. you seem very professional in the science, but in a technical career that involves a ton of layman interaction (like medicine), translating technical jargon into common english is a necessity. any true expert should be able to explain their jargon in common English. if your target didnt understand your info, then it was just time wasted.
"youtube videos, like any media, range in credibility"
While that is sort of true; it is almost impossible to verify credibility on YouTube. Even though the subject of a given YouTube video may be credible, it might be harder to verify the up-loader and whether or not they edited the content to convey a message not in the scope of the original material, etc... There are simply better methods of research out there that aren't as problematic as youtube. Most people have a hard enough time discerning what is a credible website let alone whether or not any individual up-loader is credible.
"scholarly sources are a) not usually in common English"
Many Journals provide a "Plain English Summary" section for various papers. There are also secondary sources like "Science Daily", while not as credible as primary sources, there is at least only a presentation of the primary source without an associated opinion.
"b) often behind a prohibitive paywall."
Signing up for a free public library account will give you access to all their databases.
"does not justify blanket bashing of a medium"
I'm not bashing a medium; I'm bashing a publishing platform. You can put out videos that are disseminated through a more credible publishing platform. Saying look at "x youtube video" is akin to saying check out "x article in the National Enquirer". While the National Enquirer has published some true stories, it can hardly be considered a credible source.
looked up the video you were talking about. lets look at 2 of their points.
less huricanne *damage*
none of these are objective measures. its not looking at how many hurricanes, or how strong the hurricanes, but CHOOSES to look at damage... something we can minimize with technology. why arent they looking at direct evidence like how many hurricanes or how strong? hmmm?
drought, same thing. we try to minimize drought using better irrigration techniques and even international interventions. however, the most clear piece of evidence, global temperatures is ignored....
you dont need highly technical language to spot bullshit. just some critical thinking. you have to read between the lines.
pragerU videos are very bad. they sound like excellent logic when you dont think too hard. Similar to the very logical, but wrong, arguments for a stationary earth. (it doesn't feel like its moving, and this single sentence fits nicely into a fun pragerU graphic.)
i remember a pragerU video regarding masculinity. it declared a masculine man would be responsible and stay with the family, which sounds good so far.
then it deduced that a feminine man must be the opposite, and declared that feminine men are abandoning families and looking for 1 night stands. thats what we would call a playboy, and that is hardly feminine. rather then abandoning his family, i would imagine a feminine man would get emotional and cry to his woman to stay...
a playboy, and a responsible husband are both 2 different forms of masculinity. but thats too complex and inconvenient for pragerU. as existentialist pointed out, their climate change video happened to neglect alot of facts... which is highlighted by them saying ice is unaffected in antarctica, but being suspicously silent about the north arctic. selective truth is not truth. its propaganda.
youtube videos, like any media, range in credibility. it is not inconceivable for a peer reviewed scientist to make his own, fully credible, youtube video, just like a non credible person can make non credible articles.
evaluating sources for credibility is great advice, but scholarly sources are a) not usually in common English using tons of technical vernacular as their intended audience is other experts, not the broader public. and b) often behind a prohibitive paywall.
i agree that not all videos, especially pragerU are credible, but that does not justify blanket bashing of a medium, nor does it demand unrealistic expectations. it is the institution of science's fault for not being able to inform the public properly. they for the most part dont even try.
scishow, crashcourse, and many other are excellently sources with equivalent credibility to the best of science websites intended for laymen.
First off; Youtube videos are not credible sources for any topic. It would be very beneficial to learn how to evaluate sources for credibility, use scholastic databases, etc...
Let's talk about a few issues with the sea ice talking point.
First off; Arctic Sea Ice and glaciers are melting.
The fact that the Antarctic sea ice is not as affected by changing ocean temps due to the "Southern Ocean Circumpolar Current". This current prevents warmer ocean water from reaching the Antarctic sea ice zone, helping to isolate the continent. The winds within that ice zone keep the water extremely cold, enabling the sea ice cover to grow in recent years even as global temperatures have risen markedly.
The fact that the Antacrtic sea ice is growing has no impact on the climate change discussion as a whole as there are geographical mitigating factors.
Now, let's talk about that Greenland claim.
Scientists have estimated that the Greenland ice sheet is between 400,000 and 800,000 years old (ice core samples can be used to date this to a very reasonable degree of certainty). This means that the island today is unlikely to have been markedly different when Europeans settled there. However, there is evidence that the settled areas were warmer than today, with large birch woodlands providing both timber and fuel. This warmth coincided with the period known as the Medieval Climatic Anomaly, also known as the Medieval Warm Period
So not only was Greenland already mostly covered in ice when Europeans settled there, but also the relatively warm conditions during this period were not a global phenomenon. This contrasts with what we are seeing today, where warming is truly global.
Ice Proxy data shows the highest temps for Greenland in the past 2000 years being at around the year 410 with a 0.98 degree C above normal rating. As of 2018 that rating is 1.48 degrees C above normal. So it is objectively MUCH warmer today than it was during the warmest period in modern history. So your claim that Greenland is colder today than it was 1K years ago is simply FALSE.
Yes but you can't believe Climate Change will destroy everything, Human have a part, but Did you know that the ice in the south pole is growing? And that 1 thousand years ago you could have a vineyard in Greenland, because it wasn't cold as it is today,
check prager U videos on YouTube
Sequences of annual tree rings going back thousands of years have now been analyzed for their 13C/12C ratios. Because the age of each ring is precisely known** we can make a graph of the atmospheric 13C/12C ratio vs. time. What is found is at no time in the last 10,000 years are the 13C/12C ratios in the atmosphere as low as they are today. Furthermore, the 13C/12C ratios begin to decline dramatically just as the CO2 starts to increase — around 1850 AD. This is exactly what we expect if the increased CO2 is in fact due to fossil fuel burning. Furthermore, we can trace the absorption of CO2 into the ocean by measuring the 13C/12C ratio of surface ocean waters.
In addition to the data from tree rings, there are also of measurements of the 13C/12C ratio in the CO2 trapped in ice cores. The tree ring and ice core data both show that the total change in the 13C/12C ratio of the atmosphere since 1850 is about 0.15%. This sounds very small but is actually very large relative to natural variability. The results show that the full glacial-to-interglacial change in 13C/12C of the atmosphere — which took many thousand years — was about 0.03%, or about 5 times less than that observed in the last 150 years.
coal mines for small scales like steam trains have been open for a few hundred years... a few trains arent the same as clogged highways full of cars and giant factories all over the landscape. the massive dumping of co2 in our atmosphere started around 150 years ago.
wait, how long coal mines open.
by continuing to release extra co2 that was trapped underground as coal into the atmosphere.
this is something i have to think on. How did we create climate change.
Yeah, this is pretty much undeniable at this point in time.
1. CO2 is a greenhouse gas
2. we release CO2 in our cars and industry
3. therefore we release a greenhouse gas
4. greenhouse gases retain heat and heat up the earth
5. therefore something we release is retaining heat and heating up the earth.
6. therefore we are responsible for heating up the earth.