Any recommendations for "positive" science debunking sites or creators?
Any recommendations for "positive" science debunking sites or creators?
Looking for resources that avoid berating people and just simply lay out the data with it's context from professionals in the field.
I don't know if I'm changing or the format of constantly pointing out how stupid someone is just gets more views, but it's getting to be hard to digest. I'm all for learning new things and possible deceptions on claims being made, just without all the sarcasm and personal attacks.
I used to enjoy Thunderf00t, and while his content is probably the same from the beginning I just can't do that condescending speech for 30mins anymore. My brain just starts to tune it out but I want the information. Professor Dave Explains, is probably borderline for me, Adam Something used to be less energetic with sarcasm in his past videos. Basically anyone that seems to have a personal vendetta with the people involved.
I believe I've ran across more positive debunking lately which might be why I want to shift my focus. Some notable mentions: Kyle Hill - Youtube's Science Scam Crisis (more humorous presentation), acollierastro - harvard & aliens & crackpots: a disambiguation of Avi Loeb (spends most of the time actually talking about history versus attacking Avi Loeb), Fraser Cain - A Big Problem with Modern Science Communication (just an all around kind presenter).
I'm open to any field or subject matter, just wanting creators that aren't raising their blood pressure while having to use an extremely incredulous negative tone to get their point across. I love to share the more positive videos with others when a conversation comes up and they've been sucked into a scam video that's twisted the narrative. I know if it's hard for me to watch, then they aren't going to get more than 2 minutes into a video with that type of approach.
Edit: Thank you everyone for all the awesome recommendations! I've added a lot of subscriptions and will make a master-list of all the sources to upload for anyone else looking.
You're viewing a single thread.
Just as an aside, the "people involved" are science deniers. They are malignant sociopaths who invent disinformation for personal gain. And the people who believe them are often violent when challenged.
Scientists have avoided berating people and patiently laid out the data with context from professionals in the field since the beginning of science. This has made the science deniers bolder, and their followers more violent. The professionals are targeted, and the concept of expertise is demonized. That isn't hyperbole, religious fundamentalists cast education as a tool of the devil.
Anyone who publicly debunks fake science and myths will eventually fall to sarcasm, derision, and anger, because that is what their opposition deserves and requires. We should mock the obstinately ignorant. We should respond to stupidity with anger, because it is not an innocent mistake. It is a threat to society, and it may be what kills us all.
We should respond to stupidity with anger
This is really harmful rhetoric, while I’m sure you didn’t mean it in this way, you’re essentially saying that people should be treated badly simply for being misinformed or, worse, for having an intellectual disability. Wilful ignorance deserves derision, but we absolutely shouldn’t be hateful towards people who aren’t as lucky to be as educated or as intellectually talented as we are
The difference between stupidity and ignorance is intent.
According to who? Because every dictionary I checked has the first definition of stupidity as being something along the lines of “lacking in intelligence”, “having a lack of wit or intellect”, “slowness or incoherence with regards to reasoning”, and ignorance defined as something along the lines of “a lack of knowledge”, “uneducated on some facts” etc.
Neither of those have any involvement whatsoever with intent.
If you want a term to describe intentional ignorance, then the best phrase imo is “wilful ignorance”. If you want a phrase that means that someone is intentionally refusing to accept facts or reason because it would conflict with their beliefs, then “dogmatic” or “bigoted” are better suited than stupid. If someone genuinely doesn’t understand something then you should not be angry with them, that’s just cruel.
While all of that is true, I don't feel like that's a stance I wish to take. How do you bridge that gap so that other's can come out of that space? Berating a child for their beliefs does little in the long run if they have an echo chamber they can retreat to. I completely understand if that's not your concern and you would rather not waste the time with science deniers, it can be dangerous and frustrating as you've stated.
These are not children. There is content for children to learn and understand science. There is content for adults to learn and understand reality, for that matter. Debunking lies and disinformation is not a context that calls for temperance. If someone questions whether climate change is real, or if worm pills are as effective as a vaccine, they should be made to feel stupid. They should be ashamed of giving voice to their ignorance. Asking a question is how you learn. Spreading lies is anathema to education, though.