Tiede-lehden mukaan Suomen hyttyslajeista ihmisiä ”vainoaa ainoastaan kymmenkunta, ja niistäkin todella äkäisiä on vain noin puolet”. https://www.tiede.fi/artikkeli/tiede-luonto/kohta-pistaa-pista-vastaan
The problem with bringing an actual scientist to the discussion is that they work with facts and theory, which doesn’t always translate to easily digestible bites (especially on-the-fly), whereas the WT are free to mould their neat, naive packages of misinformation and misquotes with little regard to science and actual facts (and the believing readers probably also won’t come across the facts on their own). A certain disparaging analogy with pigeons and chess comes to mind.
On the flip side, showing an actual scientist’s confidence and their reaction to creationist BS should help to dismantle the narrative of ”evolutionists” being confused or unsure in the slightest about the fact of evolution.
The thought of doing this has always terrified me. It’s all just rock, and I’d be scraping away much of the fossil while leaving much of the matrix unscraped, and the end result would bear little resemblance with what the specimen actually once was.
Interesting. I used to think psychopaths had certain immunity against suicidal behavior, but turns out that idea of Cleckley’s is now considered outdated in literature, at least according to ”Psychopathy, Antisocial Personality and Suicide” by Verona, Patrick & Joiner. (In their own study, they too found positive correlation between the impulsive/antisocial component of PCL-R (F2) and suicidal behavior.)
I went to claymath.org expecting to find very little I’d understand, but was positively surprised by the simple (less than 150 words!) description of this on the Riemann hypothesis problem page. Sure it’s not as detailed and accurate as this video, but it’s written to be accessible for anyone with even just a very basic grasp of mathematics.
I read ’Cambrian explosion’. Slightly disappointed it wasn’t.
This is why I dislike Schrödinger’s cat. For the Daily Mail kind of people, it’s a license to derive any macroscopic nonsense from QM, straight from the physicists themselves.
I’m sure he knows what he’s talking about, even if I still, after all three of these videos don’t. It’s as if he’s afraid of coming out of the depths he dwells in this subject, so as not to fool us (or himself?) into thinking it’s actually any simplified analogy he might come up with. I for one just can’t reach what he was getting at, and I think it’s a first for me in Numberphile videos.
This was awesome! I don’t know if it’s the different editing or just that the topic is so fascinating and the professor so good at explaining, or a superposition of all three. And I still have prof. Moriarty’s version to watch, happy times!