Its the same online to. Channels like TierZoo and Casual Geographic dominate because they're entertaining. But they're objectively (especially TierZoo) bad scources for actual information on wildlife. I'm generally fine with CG because he's a chill dude and he does admit he's not a professional and he tries to correct his mistake. But as someone who has personally interracted with TierZoo on his subreddit...Not so much.

@@megadracosaurus Oh my goodness!! Don’t even get me started on Tier Zoo. I blame him for the power scaling plague on zoology and paleontology… I respect CG though. A lot of his older Contant is pretty bad, but I admire that he’s willing to admit his mistakes. Honestly, I think people like him are an important bridge between the general public and actual scientists.

@@Nigel_BC Mhm. The entire ‘cheetahs suck’ myth started with him, even though actual research by professionals contradicts his claims.

@@megadracosaurus Actually, 🤓☝️the whole “cheetahs suck” thing started with a very old Harvard study. There have been studies that have since disputed these claims, but the stereotype had already spread. I agree that he is by no means perfect but he’s better than many other channels. As you said, he’s also a pretty chill dude. Maybe Lindsay Nicole is a better bridge but I haven’t watched all a lot of her videos so I don’t know. I’ve liked what I’ve seen so far though.

Colonial science is very much a real thing and it’s very well recorded. Forrest is not the only example. It’s very common in African conservation for westerners to come in, do some stuff and then leave. It’s also noticeable in a different field: paleontology. Mongolia is a very good example. Most if not all research is done by American, Chinese and South-Korean paleontologists. Mongolian paleontologists are very rarely credited, involved or be allowed to do their work due a lack of funding and resources. Mongolia’s own laws also make it so that its difficult for its own citizens to excavate anything. As a result, the average Mongolian citizen doesn’t have much influence and is actively discouraged in having an interest in the science, while the actual paleontologists are often passed over in favor of foreign researchers. At first glance, it may seem like some SJW thing but it is a genuine problem across most of the world.

@@megadracosaurus That's not "colonial" science though; it's simply unfair, and potentially dishonest. That doesn't make it "colonial". Using the term colonial here comes very much across as a deliberately politicised usage, and is akin to calling money laundering "colonial finance". If the foreign researchers are stealing the research of local researchers then that is totally wrong, but if it is simply a case of local researchers get little to no funding, but foreign researchers get lot of funding, and thus the latter can do lots of research which the former would like to do, then that is not a case of the foreign researchers doing anything wrong, it's just a case of their having the money to do research while the locals don't. There's nothing unjust or immoral about that, it's just not a nice situation for the local researchers to be in. And if you are suggesting that foreign researchers have an obligation to credit local researchers purely based on the idea that the locals have some right to the things being studied, then that's just silly. It looks to me like this use of the label "colonial" is done very deliberately for political reasons, rather than being purely descriptive.

@@andrewhall7176It’s not silly at all. If a local researcher spends years researching something, then a foreigner come’s in, writes down what the local researchers learned and heads back and publishes it as his own findings, then he should credit the local researchers. Or perhaps expert guides who knew the land and did all the hard work in discovering something, only for the colonial sciencetist to take credit for the discovery. We have ample examples of such things happening and the local experts being ignored, dismissed and downplayed. And it’s called colonial science because that’s where the term dates from: it was the norm for a long time in science and it arguably still is. Westerners would go to other countries, make use of local knowledge, resources etc and then go back without ever aknowleding anyone who did the hard work there nor thinking of things to improve the situation. Africa is once again a very good example. In a lot of projects, westerners call the shots. Local people, layman and professional alike, are often ignored and dismissed. This created problems because all the knowledge and skill is imported. It makes on site research and development difficult because the ‘colonial sciecentist’s’ stay is usually relatively short and they leave everything and everyone without thinking of how things should proceed.

It is also worth noting that social justice... is not a bad thing. We live in a democratic society, and this also necessitates opportunities for all people, on a national and global scale. And this has always been an ideal of democratic societies, among civil rights movements anyways. People should not be at a disadvantage for societal reasons beyond their control. In a way, the strive for increased recognition and funding for local science does relate to social justice. And that is not bad by any means either. There are clear benefits, for local communities or on a national scale with the strengthening of a country's academic community and its international recognition. Though not related to your point, the state of developing countries has a lot to do with international political and economic practices. They're the way there are... because that's what is enforced or promoted, not because this is inherent to these regions.

​@@megadracosaurus Well, first of all, the situation you are describing in your first paragraph is simply a researcher being dishonest. There's nothing "colonial" about it. It would be just as accurate to call it dishonesty. The researcher is claiming someone else's work as their own, or is failing to acknowledge another person's work. It is no different from if a local did it to another local. By calling it "colonial" rather than just dishonest, it is clear that the idea is to present it as being something a bit different from academic dishonesty, and to link such behaviour to colonialism. It is a way to try to make it seem as if there is an injustice beyond simply theft of ideas (as if theft of ideas by a foreigner is somehow worse than that of a local). It is also a way of trying to tie the scientific endeavors of the colonial powers, and their successor states, to theft of ideas. This is an inherently politically motivated use of the term. As for claiming that this was how Western scientists went about their research during the colonial period (by basically taking the credit for the hard work of the locals) this is actually false; they didn't do this. The work they claimed credit for was not work that some local sages had done and which they had stolen. If they were shown a plant they named it and classified it, but they did not say that they were the first to discover that plant; if the local tribe used it medicinally, they did not claim they were the first to have found a medicinal use for it. This idea you have of how science worked in the colonial period is not historically accurate, and is actually a caricature of how the colonial world functioned. You mention for instance a local guide taking someone to a specific site; this does not mean the person being taken to that site has a moral obligation to credit the guide when he writes up a description of the artifacts there, or ends up identifying the language used on some carvings. The guide didn't do that stuff, the researcher did. You didn't have colonial era researchers going round to locals who were already researching all of this stuff, and then stealing it. The researcher also doesn't have any moral requirement to make a place better or help to solve its problems if they do research there; that simply doesn't follow. You have no obligation to improve Haiti if you go there to study its insects, for instance. As for your Africa example, it's not the fault of the international experts if whoever is behind a major project (probably their government more so than anyone else) does not have a plan in place for when the expert leaves; that's just bad organisation. It's also certainly not their fault if there are no locals qualified enough to take over from them. The fault of both is generally going to lie just as much, if not more so, at the feet of the locals than any international players. The label "colonial science" is based on bad assumptions about how colonialism worked, bad assumptions about what rights people have and do not have (and why), bad assumptions about what obligations a researcher has (and why), and is clearly a politically loaded term. You already have far more neutral terms for what is actually going on, so why go for the less neutral one which is going to bring to mind a particular period of history and a particular group of societies? The answer is almost certainly that whoever coined that term, wanted to connect those societies and that time period with the dishonest behaviour of some researchers (although based on your comments it looks like this term is also applied to many totally honest endeavours and is used because there is the assumption that by doing research in a given country the researcher ipso facto has a moral obligation to the inhabitants of that country).

@@remixgarden632I mean, I hate to break it you, but…Forrest’s is actually treated with a lot of skeptism by many biologists nowadays. The video mentions a few of them, but there are quotend few number of articles, papers etc where Forrest is treated with a more skeptical outlook. They just never make it to mainstream news or scources. I’ve spoken with a lot of professionals over the years and I have yet to meet one who isn’t ateast a little bit suspicious of him. The mainstream loves Forrest, but in the world of conservation, science and academics, this isn’t universal. Particulary the herpentology community is rather negative about him, for what went down with Sergio and for promoting unethical individuals.

I genuinely had no idea people were so OK with theft and fraud, just as long as the person doing it is a famous person with a nice smile. Forrest is actively stealing credit from people who did the real hard work and continues to break his promises to them. This has consequences for the animals he claims to care about so much. Just look at the caiman. Forrest not only took credit for someone’s else’s work, but he then lied about how he’d continue to help with protecting the animals. And you think it’s OK because…he’s fun to watch, I guess? I dunno about you, but “stealing and lying is fine as long as you’re famous!” is not the great take you think it is. Forrest claims he’s a professional biologist who cares deeply about conservation. If that’s true, then he should be held to the same standards as other professionals. We’re not talking about Forrest here as a TV host, we’re talking about him here in the context of a professional zoologist and conservationist.

@@bmw895 If you're talking about Forrest, then you're certainly right.

Scanova is saying this stuff... because it's true. Galante is not an academic nor does he have a substantial amount of experience (like for instance Steve irwin had). He additionally never elaborates upon and backs up the claims he makes on videos (especially physical evidence, like the thylacine jawbone). He shows an outright inability to critically evaluate and justify his own claims, and compare them to those of other people. His claims in themselves are just absurd, especially in his youtube content. Nor does he actually consult authorities on these topics. It's quite literally as if he doesn't actually care about being an honest educational figure and is doing this shite solely for profit. While researchers have been presented in Extinct or Alive, his role has largely overshadowed them, and Gallante has effectively stolen credit in the press for a number of discoveries. This detracts attention from the actual scientists and their own published work. As Scanova brought up in the video, he has even falsely claimed credit for rediscoveries which were done by other scientists years prior. In short, Gallante is not credible and it's incredibly obvious if you'd just look a bit harder. Which is not hard to do, either. However, your reasoning for defense seems to be because he is a celebrity, not because you actually want to do any thinking for yourself and evaluate his actions.

@@bmw895 Only one of those accurate and his name starts with an F.

I find it interesting that my motives are now being assumed & that I am only giving him a pass because he is a celebrity or is entertaining to watch. 🤔 I assure you that this is not the case. I simply wanted to express that the way things are done in "Hollywood" or by networks when making these shows are oftentimes misleading & can even be downright offensive. Most of the time, the person hosting the show has very little ability to control this. A great example of this is Paul Rosolies experience working with Discovery. Paul unfortunately paid a huge price for his participation in that show. Paul's had pure intentions & had no prior experience in showbiz yet he was still shredded by critics. Anyway, my point is that Forrest Galante's motives & intentions could also be pure. We do not have all of the facts or know the details in each circumstance. I would rather give someone the benefit of the doubt until I learn otherwise. He clearly cares about wildlife and has been successful at making a career out of it so far. I think there are far worse offenders out there doing real damage to habitat 💔 & bringing harm to animals. Time & attention dedicated to those offenders would be more beneficial. Just my opinion.

YUP. Ubijara is one I recently remember where this was a serious issue. The paper got pulled because of it and I've seen pretty racist comments from the head paleontologist who described it as well so that doesn't help things.

@@ScanovatheCarnotaurus Indeed. I actually gave a presentation about the controversy surrounding the description of Tetrapodophis and it addressed similar issues. In case you don't know, Tetrapodophis is an extinct reptile, whose fossils were described as coming from Brazil's Crato Formation, but were found by the same paleontologist you mentioned in the private collection of the Bürgermeister Müller Museum in Solnhofen, Germany. The fossil really shouldn't have been there at all, but it was studied by a team of European paleontologists anyway. Understandably, a lot of controversy came out of this and it shined a light on the issue of parachute science in paleontology.

@@ScanovatheCarnotaurus Also, the racist comments you're referring to were made in an interview where said paleontologist was questioned about the circumstances of Tetrapodophis' discovery.

I did a research paper on the subject, and I was surprised at just how big the problem was.

@@kade-qt1zu Oh, yeah. It's a major issue. What kind of parachute science did you look at?

I know biologists who also hunt and fish. And Forrest, afaik, mainly hunts invasive fish. So just this once, he didn’t do anything wrong in that regard. The exception not the norm, lol.

@@megadracosaurus that is true tbf . i was a fan of him for a while but he seems to fake now

Don't know either much, butmust be small, minor stuff and as Scanova have put in the video at 0:44, these are by far very outnumbered by the bad stuff Galantes made. So while Galantes seem to have made ok actions in the past, all of bad he made then mostly afterward ruin and cancel these. So, by current standards (and even when these good/ok stuff were made), these ok contributions aren't no more relevants or worthnothing to be talk about. Nor relevant or enough to be use in defense of Galantes, who did too many bad and important stuff to be saved.

@@dudotolivier6363 I'd say the good things Forrest has done are largely tied to raising awareness of animal cruelty and occasionally saving them. On EoA, it occasionally happened he saved an animal from a trap or wildlife trafficker, which is always a good thing. And he insisted the crew would film the whaling practices on the Faroe Islands, something horrible to witness and something he actively fought to keep in when the network felt it was to depressing. While I am super critical of Forrest and his show, I do admit that moment was incredibly respecteble. He didn't need to expose himself to that. But he did. That scene alone is much better then any 'rediscovery' on the show because it was actuall real and sincere. He also spoke to the US Congress about non-lethal predator control and tried to raise awareness on wildlife trafficking and wet markets. All good things. Does that erase the bad stuff? No. I really don't think it does and we're right to call him out on it. But its still worth remembering. I do find it funny that absolutely NO Forrest stan in the comment section has brought this up, lol.

That’s not the insult you think it is

@@thedarkmasterthedarkmaster that was because you were being a racist asshole

@@thedarkmasterthedarkmaster also… given the way you’re replying… seems you be making alts

@@thedarkmasterthedarkmaster let me bring your words back on you- “Though complaining about ‘colonial science’ or ‘parachute science’ just seems like far left bs. Like Galente has definitely brought attention to these animals than those natives ever could. They should still be credited but don’t act as people would about these rediscoveries if not signal boosted by this guy” Just in case you didn’t read it the first time. This is you *verbatim* in context. Again, if you find nothing wrong with this, re-evaluate your life choices and what you consume online

Just like Forrest

@@thedarkmasterthedarkmaster because you were being racist

@@thedarkmasterthedarkmaster so did I. You were being racist

@@thedarkmasterthedarkmaster you also deleted the original comment. Which makes you a bit of a coward on top of being racist (and incredibly patronizing)

@@thedarkmasterthedarkmaster then you won’t mind me repeating your own words for a third time: let me bring your words back on you- “Though complaining about ‘colonial science’ or ‘parachute science’ just seems like far left bs. Like Galente has definitely brought attention to these animals than those natives ever could. They should still be credited but don’t act as people would about these rediscoveries if not signal boosted by this guy” Also, very likely KZbin deleted it more than anything. Their AI moderation is stupid at best

@@thedarkmasterthedarkmaster stop playing victim

@@thedarkmasterthedarkmaster let me bring your words back on you- “Though complaining about ‘colonial science’ or ‘parachute science’ just seems like far left bs. Like Galente has definitely brought attention to these animals than those natives ever could. They should still be credited but don’t act as people would about these rediscoveries if not signal boosted by this guy” If you don’t find anything wrong with what you said *verbatim* here, then you need to re-evaluate some things in your life and what things you consume online

@@thedarkmasterthedarkmasterUh, my guy? Yes, you did. I saw the original post you made to. Multiple people did. I even made a screenshot myself to. I’m willing to believe you when you say it may have come out wrong and that it wasn’t what you intended, but you did infact say that. Best not to deny it, and instead focus more so on how it came out different then you may have intended. You made a mistake, it’s not the end of the world. Best you can do is owe up it and correct it. We all word things wrongly sometimes and they come out different then intended.

@@thedarkmasterthedarkmaster sounds like you tried to backpedal by editing and the comment disappeared. That’s on you. I got the screenshot before you edited it

@@thedarkmasterthedarkmaster you getting called out for racism is a YOU problem. Not anyone else’s