I think it's very important to make science accessible to people in ways that do not require a PhD to understand its importance and limitations. The most successful scientific results are the ones that can be communicated that way, because if we can explain something simply, there is a good chance someone will find a mistake and help us move forward. What I have come to realize is that the science we can make accessible in that way with current technology is significantly broader than many close friends in academia think it is. I remain hopeful, though. Progress is being made.
@MafiaCow01 Says:
When I started my BacSci, I hadn't put any thought into going into research.
Then I did the compulsory unit that taught us about research, and the grant chasing and news articles that go with it.
At that point I realised a definitely didn't want to go into research.
@nickblacksoul4318 Says:
Yeah things like this are always popping up ,if you stop to think about it you will figure it out if you don't you will take it as truth and you can't always analyze them , this one I knew it was a hype and I don't care, because quantum computing is in it's fist infancy
@HyungnamGu Says:
scientific investigations have confirmed that the superconducting-like phenomena (such as sharp resistivity drops and partial levitation) observed in LK-99 samples are caused by copper sulfide impurities.
These impurities are not inherent to the intended LK-99 compound but are a byproduct of the manufacturing process, which involves heating lead oxide and lead sulfate to create lanarkite, then mixing it with copper phosphide.
@HyungnamGu Says:
Although primordial gravitational waves have not been detected, researchers have successfully detected "lensing" B-modes, which are caused by the distortion of CMB light by large-scale structures (galaxies) over the past 14 billion years.
@NurWed-mi5ow Says:
keadaan sekarang sedikit dipengaruhi masa lalu dan sedikit oleh kondisi masa depan
@darkknight8098 Says:
I think you are right
But just because we don't know yet or the things aren't as great as the sound
Doesn't mean we should call them BS
They are a step in the direction
@filipsemerad2299 Says:
I study plasma physics and nuclear fusion, so I feel a bit offended😂
@HyungnamGu Says:
Science hype, the exaggeration of scientific findings, stems from intense academic/commercial competition, funding pressures, and a desire for fame, driven by universities, media, corporations, and scientists themselves, all amplified by the digital age's demand for clicks and sensational stories, leading to overblown promises about breakthroughs like AI or genetics that often fall short of initial excitement.
Key Drivers of Science Hype
Academic & Institutional Pressures:
Competition: Fierce competition for funding, prestigious publications, and career advancement incentivizes overstating results.
Self-Promotion: University press offices and institutions use hype in press releases to attract attention, funding, and students.
Publishing Incentives: Journals favor exciting, positive, and sensational language, boosting an article's chance of publication and press coverage.
Media & Public Engagement:
Sensationalism: The media's need for “hooks” and captivating headlines often leads to oversimplification and exaggeration.
Digital Age: Social media amplifies hype, creating echo chambers where sensational claims spread rapidly.
Public Interest: Public interest in "miracle cures" or futuristic tech (like AI) creates a market for hype, notes The Guardian and Quora.
Commercial & Financial Interests:
Commercialization: A strong push to commercialize research creates pressure to highlight potential profits, even if uncertain.
Corporate Involvement: Major tech and pharma companies often fuel hype to drive markets and investment (e.g., in quantum computing).
The Nature of Science Itself:
Uncertainty vs. Presentation: Science inherently involves uncertainty, but hype presents findings as conclusive and transformative, misleading audiences.
Cognitive Biases: Researchers can overestimate the impact of their own work, contributing to unintentional hype.
In essence, science hype is a complex feedback loop where systemic pressures meet human motivations and media dynamics, often leading to unrealistic expectations that can eventually backfire, notes the Science | AAAS and ResearchGate.
@Augcliffe Says:
“Scientist need to get funding for their research”…let’s not underestimate this line.
@charlesrackoff9696 Says:
Here is what we learned from the neutrino story: If your result is unbelievable, keep checking all the cables and all the connections until you find a problem. On the other hand, if you like the result and find it believable, don't look too closely at all those connections because you might lose a really great publication.
@andrewtormanen Says:
It seemed to me when I was doing research that my peers would purposely write their papers as badly and obtusely as possible to obfuscate the fact that their experiments didn't really do anything of note. It was exhausting to read BS slop and not get anything out of it and is one of the main reasons why I left the research field.
@GageKelley-r2v Says:
I remember one of thosr articlrs where they mention creating a particle out of nothingthing usrs electromagnetic fields, and my immediate thought was "but a bunch of energy went in, what are they talking about?". Another eas whrn i had heard second hand that they turned lrad to gold. Turns out you can, but adding s ubatomic particlr that i forgot which it was, but that provides a ridiculously small amount of gold, so its entirely impractical.
@spidermanandsnape Says:
I'm watching this years later, and I think this is still very relevant. Sensationalism gets so much attention, but slow, tested truth doesn't and it's getting worse and worse with AI and social media. It's why fact checking is so important, but even that gets hard too, especially when you aren't an expert and can only understand what you're told and broken down for you
@Beddy27 Says:
10:55 Fusion has been 5 to 10 years away since 1970s or so
@abelsikaonga491 Says:
0:31 and thank me later
@Garfield_Minecraft Says:
science is for dumb people, I'm even too smart to be reading science articles now
@calinionut-alin2154 Says:
They did a simulation....just. if that man say that his phone do the math, why don t do himself a simulation to see if is true or not
@AdRock Says:
You sellout. Owned by private equity. Awful.
@binfeng5051 Says:
That’s why I subscribed this YouTube channel.😂don’t to be hyped 😅
@mobilephil244 Says:
Journalists are usually people who didn't pay attention in science lessons at school and think everyone else didn't either. They don't care about the consequences of their drivel, they just want the readership. Part of the fix would be to make sure ALL journalists MUST be qualified and experienced in science and engineering before they are allowed to write about it.
@melonmelon2848 Says:
Colossal's direwolf this sounded like, the garner media attention to fund further research part, anyone see the similarity? 🙄
@Ariel.Altamirano4 Says:
Genius and very much funny
@SedativeMouse Says:
Assuming an established body of knowledge doesn't have gaps is rather amusing.
@Hyungnam1970 Says:
Science hype refers to the excessive or misleading exaggeration of scientific findings or claims, often in popular media or by institutions seeking to promote their research. This can involve overstating the significance of a study, drawing unfounded causal conclusions, or implying broader implications than the data actually supports. Examples include breathless press releases, catchy but uninformative graphical abstracts, and over-claiming the generality of methods in scientific papers.
Here's a breakdown of examples:
1. Overstating Significance:
Claiming a "breakthrough" when the research is incremental:
Instead of acknowledging a small step forward, hype might present it as a major advancement, especially in press releases.
Using percentages to make results seem bigger than they are:
A small increase in a study might be presented as a significant percentage change, creating the impression of a larger impact.
Suggesting a phenomenon observed in a small group affects everyone:
For instance, a study on marathon runners might be hyped as a universal truth about exercise and health without acknowledging the limitations of the sample.
2. Unfounded Causational Statements:
Linking a correlation to a direct cause:
Instead of stating that two things are related, hype might claim that one causes the other, even if there's no evidence to support that.
Drawing broad conclusions from limited data:
Hyping a study's findings to the general public without acknowledging its limitations or potential biases.
3. Other forms of science hype:
Catchy but uninformative graphical abstracts:
These can be used to grab attention in scientific papers, but might not accurately reflect the content of the research.
Over-claiming the generality of methods in papers:
For example, a study using a specific type of data might be hyped as a universal method for all similar research, even if it's not applicable.
Predatory journals:
These journals often publish questionable or unsubstantiated research, further spreading hype and misinformation.
Fakery:
In some cases, deliberate fabrication of scientific findings can be presented as legitimate research, leading to hype and misinformation.
@flavioferreira6220 Says:
But this is happening in every field, not just science. Hard times.
@kelechi09 Says:
"There is no facts, only interpretations."--Nietzsche
The problem of truth is the problem of perspective. Perhaps there is more than one truth, and by seeing it from a different perspective, we have a more complete understanding of "the truth," if there really is such a thing. Science isn't religion and isn't a pursuit of immutable truth, just relative truths-- posterior distributions with faith in their reproducibility and probability that they represent the most likely and most common instantiation of "reality"
@ShadowriverUB Says:
I think room temperature super conductor thing is more possitive, as it was not said it provfn, it made everyone hunt for proof and following that following science of it was fun and magnetized lot of people to look on sciance and maybe inspired it.
@otwock2 Says:
Amen! I'm so tired with this LLM (the only "AI" today) hype and quantum computers hype...
@avrilrandle5576 Says:
Ah, of course it's AdS/CFT... string theory nonsense always finds a way to try and make itself seem reasonable even now... I wish string theory people would stop insisting to everyone else that their higher-dimension manifolds, none of which we actually live in, are somehow "real."
Scientific sunk cost fallacy at it worst...
@thomasb.8808 Says:
Big rule to apply when reading a "science" article :
If there is a question in the title, the answer is most likely to be no.
@Boomboi27 Says:
Wait, energy isn't stored in chemical bonds.
@MJ46.91 Says:
Scientific propaganda?!
@juxyper Says:
4:00 veritasium inflation theory
@darosaweb Says:
I came from the future: let's talk Pyramid and Lidar 😂
@phantomdraigon6961 Says:
It's fine tho 4:36 it's fine though we have just found another method that doesn't work which means a step closer to the truth. Isn't that what's great about science?
@gasman11 Says:
Just because you can do something on a computer doesn't make it real I can play a game on a computer, but it is created not real you can make anything real on a computer
@NmpPnm Says:
Schoupify
@snoopstp4189 Says:
was waiting for the self report.. @ 4:00
@pesokpesok Says:
Unfortunatly the saying, from this video of "Lie travels around the world while truth is still putting its shoes on", does not limit itself to scientific realm only. Big, bombastic false statements are instantly repeated and spread by millions, while even the most conclusive proof of that statement being false - gets ignored by most, because it takes time to disproof a lie, the very time a false statement has to reach millions. Modern polititians are sucessfully using this advatage, one of the most recent examples was a lie about Haitians eating pets in a certain city. That lie has started as a simple facebook post from a woman who lost her cat and blamed her Haitian neighbours of eating it. It was picked up by current ruling party and energetically pushed at every opportunity, despite the mayor as well as a police chief of that city issuing statements that there were no reports of this at all. By the time the woman found her cat in her own basement - the lie took on a life of its own and even grew to include wild geese in addition to the pets. Even now, months after it was publically proven to be false - there are millions that still believe it
This problem will only get worse as its easy and only takes few seconds to make up a lie, that just happens to support your beliefs, while it might take days/weeks or even months to conclusively prove it to be a lie, and by that time the damage is done and no amount of evidence will sway some people from believing the lie. We can fight this by requiring all news channels to run an automatic and instant AI truth checker during all of the political statements being broadcast, but i doubt this will be allowed under a current president
@Curio_LB Says:
This video is really interesting! I recently started my own channel on similar science topics. If you’re interested, feel free to check it out!
@IRMacGuyver Says:
You should do a video that researches if climate change is caused more by asphalt, HVACs, and the heat island effect than CO2. Cause Isaac Asimov predicted the heat island effect would cause temperatures to rise more than any greenhouse gasses.
@IRMacGuyver Says:
The problem with science communication is that every year of school you learn that what you learned last year isn't true.
@aqua-bery Says:
TL;DR it's capitalism.
@chrisd3674 Says:
I'm scientific, have my master's in aero and mechanical engineering and love science--but some of these announcements don't pass the sniff test. There are no mainstream topics in science I categorically disbelieve, with the one exception of the conclusion that the universe is 13.8 billion years old. Rather, I didn't and don't believe we have a whole enough understanding of the evidence to determine the age with any confidence. I know your typical scientist will tell you that the age estimate is just part of a theory, but it has been treated with 99.9% certainty by the community for a long time. So, before James Webb was launched, I made it a point to write several essays about why I thought it would see fully-formed galaxies at very high redshifts...I walked through each piece of evidence for a 13.8 billion year age, explained why it might not support the age estimate (with the CMB being a perfect blackbody being the hardest to interpret any other way.) Again though, it just didn't pass the sniff test to make such a tremendous claim about the nature of the entire Universe, based on modeling it as if it's something we actually have a grasp on.
The worst scientific announcements have to do with correlational studies about health. E.g., the classic announcement that drinking coffee at least 5 times a week in the morning CAUSE a longer life. Well, people who drink coffee regularly in that manner tend to have desk/office jobs, and those people tend to have better healthcare. Or, when they said that living near high-power powerlines or train tracks damaged health--when there was a third factor causing both, i.e., lack of money to live anywhere else or have better healthcare (not to mention they might have had less money due to health reasons to begin with).
K, ramble over. There is way too much BS in scientific research these days. Trust but verify is a good approach with most things in life.
@cpttrps5376 Says:
I will never understand why sometimes we lie about things that are so much more amazing than the lie
@Vvengance Says:
12:45 God bless YouTube premium ifykyk
@hippothehippo Says:
You can simplify the problem with scientific communication to just be that scientists often don’t care about language or arts and so they’re absolutely god awful at communicating what they’ve actually found. Nothing I’ve read in a paper has itself been confusing according to the graphs, but the didactic associated with it is always (pardon my french) ass.
@TotalDec Says:
Since this happens (plural), it's on purpose. Society is ultimately to blame. If you don't understand science in Today's World, you are to blame. If someone has his wallet stole 10 times, he might like being robbed.
@rovanderby759 Says:
Journalists want sensation, scientists want the truth, combining the two is like trying to mix oil with water
LATEST COMMENTS