A Big Problem with Modern Science Communication

What's going on with the Hubble Tension and does it really imply a Crisis in Cosmology? How to stay sceptical but at the same time keep an open mind? What big discoveries should we expect in the coming future? Looking for answers to all these questions with Dr Ethan Siegel.
👉 Ethan Siegel's blog at Big Think:
bigthink.com/people/ethansiegel/
👉 New JWST data confirms, worsens the Hubble tension:
bigthink.com/starts-with-a-ba...
🦄 Support us on Patreon:
/ universetoday
📚 Suggest books in the book club:
/ universe-today-book-club
00:00:00 Intro
00:01:54 Big Questions
00:03:18 The Crisis in Cosmology
00:16:49 Problem with modern science communication
00:28:17 How to keep an open mind
00:37:02 Next big discoveries
00:46:52 Theory vs Practice
00:52:10 Iterative approach in science
01:03:55 What's next
📰 EMAIL NEWSLETTER
Read by 60,000 people every Friday. Written by Fraser. No ads.
Subscribe for Free: universetoday.com/newsletter
🎧 PODCASTS
Universe Today: universetoday.fireside.fm/
Astronomy Cast: www.astronomycast.com/
🤳 OTHER SOCIAL MEDIA
Mastodon: astrodon.social/@fcain
Twitter: / fcain
Twitter: / universetoday
Facebook: / universetoday
Instagram: / universetoday
📩 CONTACT FRASER
[e-mail]
⚖️ LICENSE
Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International (CC BY 4.0)
You are free to use my work for any purpose you like, just mention me as the source and link back to this video.

[@TanyaLairdCivil]

I just can't stop imagining Dr. Siegel standing next to a railroad in a black cape and top hat, cackling with glee as he ties someone to a railroad track, or possibly builds a bomb out of sticks of TNT and a ticking alarm clock.

[@mrzoinky5999]

LOL Yah he was born 140 years too late.

[@petevenuti7355]

It's just the stash, he needs is a monocle and the right hat to play the part😅

[@esecallum]

YEAH..a taxtbook villian... funny

[@beesod6412]

OMG I love Dr Siegel, communicates so well, please have him on again some time, thanks good sirs!

[@frasercain]

Did you see the time he took over my QA? kzbin.info/www/bejne/aIjQoGiFg9iXY9U

[@beesod6412]

I totally missed this, big thanks for the link! @@frasercain

[@XJapa1n09]

I just revisited the show and I remember watching it, but it seems like it was only 6 months ago! I can’t believe it’s been 3+ years 🤦🏻‍♂️

[@Kalumbatsch]

I think he could communicate better if he dialed the gesticulation and facial expressions way down. It's really distracting.

[@PedroDiMaggio-dk4lb]

His facial hair is repulsive

[@user-bl1pw2th4l]

I love how Ethan sits and fully listens to the questions being asked and never interrupts! Such a great skill.

[@petevenuti7355]

Complimenting that is like a participation award, it should be just basic manners and good practice for any intelligent dialogue. One should be able to take for granted that. But yes it's a good thing. Need to see more of that.

[@tonywells6990]

Ethan is one of my favourite science communicators too. Any time there's some new 'discoveries' I'm sceptical of I check his blogs first.

[@sakuraslight]

Fraser: "What are we going to do tonight Dr Siegel. " Dr Ethan Siegel. "The same thing we do every night Fraser. Try to take over THE WORLD" You guys are great. thanx for the interview Fraser and Dr Siegel.

[@maneatingduck]

Very interesting interview, thanks! I have never seen Dr. Siegel in a video, he's a fantastic communicator :) I'll definitely keep an eye out for other appearances by him.

[@TheJensahlgrd]

Awesome interview! Thanks Fraser and Ethan!

[@frasercain]

Thanks, I'm glad you enjoyed it.

[@francistremblay8098]

the second I swa that dude's stach appear in my suggestions, I'm imidiaTEly knew I'd love him. Spoken like a TRUE scientist. THANK YOU you're one of the few thank you really

[@jwwebnaut7045]

In a podcast for the layman or -woman, I think the problem is more how *we* should discern between the chaff and the wheat. My personal solution is twofold: 1. Don't fall for clickbait. I never click on a title like "Scientists Are Shocked..." 2. Select some authors you feel you can trust an stay with them. Eg, You, Hossenfelder, Petrov, Ash, "Dr. Becky" etc. Next, there is a novel with the title "In Praise of Slowness". Try to adopt it, and take things slowly. Less prone to errors. On the other hand, I really like your features about upcoming or nascent developments, eg. the proposal to put swarms of small telescopes in orbit - fascinating. Clear Skies and keep up the good work!

[@timjohnson3913]

you lost me at Petrov

[@frasercain]

I wonder where things are going to go with the rise of giant amounts of clickbait AI that gets generated?

[@jwwebnaut7045]

@@timjohnson3913 Anton Petrov - good channel (just an unpleasant voice)

[@jwwebnaut7045]

@@frasercain Stick to bloggers you know or are personally recommended to you. I can not say better; algorithmic tests seem to be too error prone.

[@VViatro]

@@timjohnson3913 I think he is also producer of this channel :P

[@ritalewis1021]

So grateful people like this exist. Gives me hope for the future.

[@con9467]

Me too... but I have no hope for Dr. Siegel's sense of style 😩

[@cjc363636]

@@con9467 I love his style! If Vegas had resident scientist lectures, that style would be perfect!

[@agentdarkboote]

I love Dr Ethan! He's such a great writer and communicator. I have never seen him in video form though 😅

[@frasercain]

Yeah, he's quite an animated guy.

[@con9467]

@@frasercain He also looks completely ridiculous. I double dog dare you to rock the same look!

[@Edward-om8mz]

I follow you 4 quite a long time n love it. But, today you blow my mind with your guest. GENIUS . WONDERFUL. THANKS SO MUCH

[@JohnSostrom]

Absolutely great talk with Dr Siegel. There are a number things discussed that caught my interest. I particularly liked his statement about funding and where that gets tied up with politics. People fail to see how science affects their lives 5 or 10 years in the future. I get so frustrated when folks stomp across the media slamming their flag "Why are we spending money here when there is this or that issue here on the planet."

[@petevenuti7355]

What got my attention is when he said "as a non pants wearer" 20:55

[@sebastianclarke2441]

I've been listening to Ethan's amazing podcast and reading the occasional Forbes piece for some years. I can agree that he is one of the truest voices of reason in science and its great to finally see him in front of the camera. This was an utterly enthralling talk, thanks!!

[@NunoPereira.]

Astonishing science communicator with a broad perspective and providing excellent explanations.

[@xavierdemers-bouchard2747]

Wow. What a skilled communicator. So clear and easy to follow. Dr Siegel took me with him as we explored the mysteries of Science, not just space. Thank you both!

[@universemaps]

Fraser Cain and Ethan Siegel are an absolute dream team! Ethan's ability to articulate his thoughts in real-time mirrors the elegance of his writing. Thank you so much to both. Can't wait for the second part of this interview!

[@smedspets695]

Looks like sonic movie villain

[@charlie9462]

OMG I love the truth 👍 great information and interview. Thanks so much..

[@blind1337nedm]

man this guy is a hoot. i could watch and listen to him for days ive never felt so connected to a random science guy. clear yet deep explanations, entertaining, and you two have a great dynamic. Does Dr Siegel have a youtube channel or other videos? im hooked.

[@AlaskaB83]

Great stuff as always. Love the channel!

[@Mac.Garceau]

Yes, this, more, please!

[@akshayb9798]

Woah, this interview was such a revelation. Thanks for the information!!

[@frasercain]

Thanks a lot, he's one of my favorites.

[@chrisnewell3331]

We are so lucky to have this great content that keeps me learning and keeps me excited about the new horizons.

[@ApteraEV2024]

1:09:00 BRAVO DR, ETHAN SIEGEL! WILL CHECK OUT YOUR WORKS , ALSO!❤❤❤❤❤🎉 👏 👏 👏 👏 🎉

[@user-li7ec3fg6h]

Wow! Great! An outstanding Interview! The explanations are absolut super! Thank you very much Fraiser and Ethan(!)!

[@frasercain]

Thanks, I'm glad you enjoyed it.

[@wetkneehouston5755]

Ah snap it's Dr Robotnik, run Sonic. Just kidding, that was a great interview. Loved watching

[@dienicy]

Awesome talk. Thanks!

[@cavetroll666]

Amazing content thank you

[@Qrul]

After listening to Dr. Ethan Siegel I have even more respect for him. This was a great Q & A, thanks for the interview. I am definitely looking for more podcasts and media from him.

[@frasercain]

I'm glad you enjoyed it. He's terrific.

[@MeissnerEffect]

Top class interview in every respect! ✨🦋

[@koriw1701]

Dr. Siegel has a great way of cutting through the hubris (aka the mchutzpah) of the greater scientific community and just cutting straight into the heart of a topic, without an ego getting in the way. Thanks Fraser

[@legoseanland1760]

The songs listed at the end also qualify, that was painful. Glad this wasn’t my discovery vid for your channel 😂

[@tycannah4271]

Wonderful interview on the scientific method and those fantastic whiskers

[@booJay]

I'm a simple scientist. I see Ethan Siegel, I click.

[@pigbenis8366]

This is my first time seeing Ethan and man, his mustache and beard are glorious. He's so animated, clear, concise, and i love it.

[@Nick3DvB]

It's a bold choice, but he's pulling it off!

[@oamunkres2884]

Such a fascinating interview

[@krishnaalister6010]

I love the show as always, Fraser. You and Dave Farina are my favourite science commentators. You two have very different styles from each other, and I would love to see you discuss science together. Any chance you could get him on for an interview?

[@crowlsyong]

I like how Ethan talks- he is clear and enunciates himself well.

[@ApteraEV2024]

Thanks for Sharing Dr. FRAISER CAIN❤🎉

[@stevenking7352]

Fantastic program.

[@crowlsyong]

I think this is my favorite guest. I love his vibes.

[@joeykimble62]

We love Dr. Siegel!!!

[@andytroo]

50:00 theory vs practice - i want to give the video a second thumbs up for that discription

[@seanleigh]

Looking forward to the conversation.

[@XJapa1n09]

I am watching for the second time. There’s so much in this, I really realize how much I am lacking in brainpower to really grasp the things that are being talked about.

[@robbannstrom]

I think I'll do just the same thing...

[@megalithia9805]

I don’t like the word “crisis” either, but clearly there are several major unresolved problems in astrophysics: the Hubble tension, dark matter, dark energy. With respect to dark matter and dark energy one could fairly say that astrophysicists don’t understand 95% of the stuff they study for a living. It’s a little embarrassing. But we will continue to work the scientific method with our awesome new instruments, and over time the answers will come. It is amazing to study the history of this field and realize that a mere 500 years ago, the prevailing theory was that the earth was the center of the universe. Five hundred years is an eyeblink in geological and astronomical time. Think of where we will be in a 1000 years or 10,000 years from now if we’re still around. It would not surprise me if a dozen or more major paradigm changes occur in that time. It feels to me like we are on the verge of one of those changes now. It’s an exciting time to be alive and follow the developments in this field!

[@frasercain]

I'm not sure how that's "embarassing." They discovered the discrepancy in the first place and now they're trying to explain it. Each new instrument resolves it better and better, but science is an exhausting process, where you don't know when and where you'll get the answers. I'm pretty hopeful for the combo of Vera Rubin, Euclid and Nancy Grace Roman. Of course, more answers just bring more questions. :-)

[@davidwhiteford4936]

Well communicated Philosophy of Science, it's major propositions, and examples of it's everyday use and how it functions!

[@hervigdewilde3599]

"All the best freaks are here..." - Marillion 👍 The "Rasputin the Wizard" thumbnail was an apt choice - a very interesting chap, indeed... 😄

[@timsmith5339]

Dr. Siegel is another one of those awesome characters that the world needs more of. Long may he educate us. He touched on a point that some take great exception too. Why do we spend so much on science when there is much suffering in the world. He also touched on the answer. For a start, we don't spend much on science, we certainly spend more on arms, sports, entertainment and so on. Any and all could be cut back to help those less fortunate. If you or I thought it would make a difference then we would do so without hesitation. We know it wouldn't though. In all likely hood, it would simply get lost without discernible effect except to line the pockets of those who benefit from the suffering. Science though is bringing about genuine improvements in peoples lives. Science is the reason we don't risk a grisly death from predation, cold, hunger etc. every moment of our lives. From 100% of people living life like that, we are now at much better percentage and continuously getting better. It's not an instant cure but it is the only one that works.

[@frasercain]

Whenever people make that comment, I always say compared to what should we spend less money on science and more money on the military. So yeah, I totally agree with you

[@Kelnx]

Dr. Seigel is one odd looking fellow, but he's one of my favorite communicators out there. I love how he breaks things down to the most important bits and swats away all of the fluff that most science journalism injects into a story.

[@frasercain]

Yeah, I don't even notice it anymore. I just am so excited to talk to him about space and astronomy and I really depend on his perspective for science news and especially a lot of the cosmology stuff. He's great!.

[@KOZMOuvBORG]

11:27 ♫ Crisis! What Crisis? ♪ - SuperTramp

[@frasercain]

Hah, I had no idea that was an album. :-)

[@speakz6935]

James Callaghan

[@papachis9535]

So, what percentage of GDP (or any other measure of one’s choosing) should be spent on physics and astronomy research efforts in order to satisfy the requirements of theorists and experimentalists, and to ensure effective forward motion?

[@GadZookz]

Great show. There is a keen mind behind that moustache.

[@ApteraEV2024]

If you average out the entire cosmos, there is a total mass density of 9.9 x 10^-30 grams per cubic centimeter, which is equivalent to 5.9 protons per cubic meter.Feb 1, 2017

[@robertc.4609]

Next year a solar eclipse will be happening close to myself and I'm wondering what I should get to observe it. I know I need special glasses/gear to observe it without damaging my eyes but I wanted to ask a source I trust about advice/suggestions. I'm also thinking of trying to get pictures but I need to see what camera I can get my hands on.

[@cafaque]

Good morning!

[@user-bl1pw2th4l]

Ok, so why have I never heard of Dr Ethan Siegel before????????? 😭😭😭😭😭😭😭😭😭😭😭

[@F8LDragon2]

what are the best resources to see dialogue about scientific discoveries

[@rgc121044]

Assuming we exist inside the observable universe, is jwst traveling towards the center, where the beginning took place, or is it traveling towards the edge??? (how do we know we are looking at the center instead of the edge?)

[@frasercain]

It's not traveling anywhere, it's in a position about 1.5 million km from Earth.

[@rgc121044]

@@frasercain Thank you very much Fraser.... Wow, am I confused... It picks up light that reaches it and it seems to me this light is coming from the region at the center of the observable universe? ( I am avoiding the use of the term "big bang")... could it also pick up light from galaxies at the edge of the observable universe? How would we know? (red shift versus blue shift)

[@frasercain]

Well looks in any direction and sees back in time. So it sees close to the edge of the observable Universe in every direction. We are all the centers of our own observable Universe. Think about what it's like to walk in thick fog. You can see a few meters around you and then everything is obscured. But if you move to a new place, you can see a different region, and your old spot is obscured again. You're always at the center of the observable Universe.

[@shodan6401]

Funny, you had a similar interview with an author (apologies, I forget his name), and he had almost the opposite view. The concern with ∆CDM is not about trying to criticize the hypothesis itself. It's about the culture of the Cosmology establishment. Once we posit a hypothesis, the literal definition of the Scientific Method is to try to invalidate that hypothesis. That is science. Instead, what has developed is the opposite approach. The thrust of the community is to force the model to match the data. We should be using the data to create our model. A primary example is: When the LCDM was challenged by the Horizon Problem, in which the actual observations demonstrated that the universe was much to heterogeneous and homogenous over too vast a distance, which invalidated the model, what transpired was an unknown physicist literally invented a process that was made up out of whole cloth, wherein the universe was now supposed to have gone through an exponential expansion, called Cosmic Inflation. This was literally, a free parameter invented to wedge the model into a new shape because it didn't fit the data. Like stuffing a size twelve foot into a size six shoe. So the model is weakened because we've added a free parameter. But worse than that, it causes us to look away from what the data is actually telling us. There's a similar story with Dark Matter. The mass of the universe that we can measure simply doesn't account for the effects that we measure with our direct observations. And the rate of galaxy rotations doesn't match the total mass of the galaxy that we measure. So, a material that is purely an invention of our minds, that doesn't exist anywhere in nature and doesn't conform to the normal laws of physics, that we call Dark Matter. In more than half a century, after building tremendous facilities and spending hundreds of billions of dollars, no such material has ever been found. Why would we expect to find something that we literally just made-up? Are we also searching for unicorns? I'm well aware that the measurements *predict* that some hidden mass is present. We fully expected to find it. But again, this is because we added another free parameter to our model and then tried to force the universe into that model, instead of exploring all of the other ideas, other information that the universe could be telling us. Instead, to force the model onto the observations, an imaginary material was thought into existence, and all research and investment went into trying to make that imaginary material an actual reality. That's an abandonment of the Scientific Method. I cannot even begin to count the number of people who have said that Dark Matter is a FACT. Without a trace of irony. Wait, what?? Last I checked, gravity is not a fact. I believe it's still called the Theory of Gravity. It's a damned good theory. Hasn't failed yet, as far as I know. But apparently, this made-up substance that has never been found has a higher confidence than gravity....? I could go on, there's some glaring questions about Redshift. You mention the Hubble Tension. They invented Dark Energy. There are advanced galaxies that are far too old. There are these enormous structures that have some serious age issues. Yes, cartoon man here is correct. There are a collection of different issues that poke holes in different aspects of the model. That's not really the problem with the LCDM. The major problem is that an entire field of science is essentially working in concert to DEFEND a hypothesis. That's how you end up with a flat Earth or Earth at the center of the universe. Every time that there is a challenge to the model, something new is invented, some free parameter is added to fix it. That's simply NOT science. We should be TRYING to break it. Because that's the only way we'll know that the model is wrong. That's what's exciting. How are we ever going to learn what is ACTUALLY happening out there if we just keep adding Duct Tape to our 100 year old model? I'm not sure who this guy is, but if your main concern is looking like a circus act and waving your hands around and talking about how clean the mirror is on JWST, then maybe it's time for some self reflection. I'm not looking to be ENTERTAINED, I'm looking for knowledge. I'm seeking truth about the world around me. Saying that the JWST is TOO good is just avoiding the question. You've allowed yourself to become self deluded. Assess everything you know, and then question it. The minute you have to defend a hypothesis by talking about how great it has been for so long, and believe that you can iron out the wrinkles, you've already lost the plot. That's not science. Science is: Give me a hypothesis. Now let's try to break it...

[@alexsie3012]

I wonder how much of outer edge of the observable universe have we looked at? JWST has looked at one point but has it also looked in the opposite direction and every other point in between, and is that even possible? That would have to be a huge amount of data.

[@KA4UPW]

This i will watch a couple more times

[@ericfielding2540]

I have seen Ethan Siegel’s articles, but he also does a great job talking on camera. I wonder how much time he spends on maintaining his complex hair style.

[@MrJdsenior]

Ethan is a nut, in a very good way. ;-) He definitely gets extra points for the awesome face fur. That's a killer handlebar. People talk about red shift due to space expansion RATHER THAN doppler, but hey guys, doesn't it have to be the addition of BOTH, and isn't that obvious? If both are observed phenomena, then one of these can't just disappear in the equation. You get instantaneous doppler from the receding velocity, and then further red shift by spatial expansion. Clue me in Mr theoretical physicist, what am I missing here? Circumspect and careful...YES! What a concept. Superb speaker. It's so nice to listen to someone like this rather than some mostly clueless faker like Tyson. I'm going to locate more of this guy's talks. Really superb segment Fraser! Cosmology and cosmological physics are SOOO interesting. The only problem with understanding it at a significant level is the complex mathematics that most leading edge physics theories require. We have a phlogistin theory of electronic parts, as well. They work on smoke, and that is obvious because when you let the smoke out, they stop working. :-)

[@tonywells6990]

Redshift is a combination of different effects, but over vast distances redshift due to space expansion dominates (factors of 10 to over 100 times as much) since the local motion of galaxies has a rough limit of a few thousand km/s.

[@scottbrower9052]

He looks like a fool.

[@ApteraEV2024]

21:00 😂❤non pants wearer😅🎉 Thanks Doc😂 TRUTH FACTS RESPECT! 🙏 ❤

[@ApteraEV2024]

..btw, i❤your Background 25:25😂🎉 exactly when I was writing😅❤

[@churchdiscography]

Where can I get the Dr. Siegel facial hair filter for my videos?

[@stevenking7352]

At 42:44 I wondered how do gravitational wave detectors sort out any "gravitational back ground noise from the "Big events"? Like with the early radio telescopes and cosmic background radiation. Is that even an issue? I mean LIGOS is looking for spikes, and maybe that's they only thing they can even detect, but do they have to clean up, and filter their signals to account for dark matter?

[@rgc121044]

Energy equals mass implies energy bends space-time (say "produces gravity" for simplicity)... The front of an EM wave carries energy hence producing gravity. The edge of the expanding observable universe is the front of an EM wave, and it produces gravity towards the front and towards the back of the wavefront. Gravity towards the back of the wavefront (towards the center of the Observable Universe) accelerates baryonic mass toward the edge of the Universe, hence it explains dark energy. As the surface of the edge of the Universe increases the energy density decreases hence gravity decreases and eventually gravity from real mass will take over and start a crunch of real mass (a huge black hole)

[@Aeolus_ca]

Fraser’s final boss has appreared

[@miinyoo]

He jovial mannerisms reminds me so much of a good friend from high school, Weird Al, Salvador Dali and Dr Demento all smashed into one human.

[@willinwoods]

Sutter vs Siegel would be the ultimate celebrity snark match.

[@frasercain]

Hah, I'd love to watch it.

[@Jacob-Vivimord]

Every time I see and hear Ethan Siegel, I can't help but think of Patrick Rothfuss.

[@leonmusk1040]

Finally a voice of reason

[@CACBCCCU]

Remember, relativity kids, October is "Spooky Action at a Distance Month!"

[@BabyMakR]

This guy is like my dad was. If you tied his hands behind his back, he wouldn't be able to talk. I love it. 🤣

[@seano2636]

Did the cosmic microwave background start off as microwaves or has it shifted?

[@AdamChristensen]

24:28 I know who he's referencing and I agree 💯

[@FrancisFjordCupola]

I disagree with a big particle accelerator in Fermi Lab being redundant. Reproducing results is very much important. I love our LHC - but a second system built from different parts by different people finding the same results is what would really solidify the results.

[@davemi00]

Dr Ethan Siegel theorist, stupendous inspirational guest. * fastest 65 minutes ever.

[@jamysmith7891]

It’s good to have a Sasquatch moment, to realize (for a moment) that there is a nonzero chance it’s aliens, But then practice finding two better ideas before the coffee is done brewing

[@zamboni9038]

I had very little sleep last night. Went to take a nap and started this episode. I was so captivated by these conversations that I didn’t even fall asleep! I never heard of Dr Ethan Siegal. You can bet I’ll be checking out his blog. Such a great way of explaining things.

[@jsalsman]

Inflation is universally considered subsequent to the big bang, contrary to 5:13 through 5:25, isn't it?

[@lgme378]

Yes and No, the big bang is the general theory that the universe was not stationary and was very small and grew. The inflation is a complement to explain how fast it grew from 10−36 seconds to between 10−33 and 10−32 seconds after the "Big Bang", but we know that it was not a single point, the math doesn't work approching the Plank time 10-44.

[@tonywells6990]

It's just word salad. Inflation can be considered to be the 'bang', the rapid expansion of the universe. Or it can be considered to be the extension of the original moment of the bang. It could also be what happened before and during the bang or bangs, eg. in eternal inflation.

[@AbAb-th5qe]

I think this hubble tension should be thought of as something captivate young people and attract them to science. I also think Dr. Becky does really well on her youtube channel by communicating the scientific discussion around these kind of topics

[@FantasticForce23]

Yes and those kinds will rise up and last. Sure we have a lot of people who think the earth is flat but hey critical thinking protects people. In the end the cream rises to the top and the flat earthers will fall flat

[@AbAb-th5qe]

@@FantasticForce23 Do we though? It might just be a tiny, but vocal minority. I pity flat earthers for not having good sources of information and being actively misled by their communities to the point they internalize such easily refuted rubbish.

[@FantasticForce23]

@@AbAb-th5qe sadly I believe flat earth is a youtube algorythm experiment. They want to see how they can fool the masses. Sadly these tech companies fire the best and keep only psychos. This was proven when Elon Musk bought twitter. The psychopathic employees were not just engineers they were basically the flat earthers of politics!

[@coreysayre1376]

I hope people will become less polarized over time about everything. Too often do we get into heated arguments or even fights over all sorts of things, things that don't really impact our day to day living. Whether its about disagreements in science, politics, faith, or any other higher pursuits in life, we should not abandon good faith in one another and in our communities. Disagreements handled calmly and with the belief that the other person could have information you don't are often where higher, better answers may be discovered.

[@handle535]

lol, I thought the thumbnail was a joke. What a character!

[@garrettsturgeon5112]

What a wild Mustache is amazing! I agree though KZbin is literally full of so much junk information... my favorites are the ones that title a wicked claim and then doesn't even mention it in the video LOL! I honestly don't listen to any other news but you Fraser Cain! I don't even bother watching other videos. So much JUNK out there makes me sick!!

[@Seadalgo]

I haven't heard the name Big Think in a over a decade, since they first rolled out the floating university during the heyday of the Ted talk. Will have to catch up

[@frasercain]

I think it's just a home for Ethan's blogs, he's not that connected with the other videos and articles they do.

[@normanhairston1411]

This may be a bit out of your wheelhouse but back in the 1980's there was a high-profile startup called "Thinking Machines." There was also Forth, the computer language of AI, and, of course, in 2001, the Stephen Spielberg movie "AI." Thinking machines went bankrupt a few years after it started, no one uses Forth anymore, and AI, the movie, is seldom shown on TV. I understand that the computer hardware is much more capable now and there are improved algorithms, but this round of AI hype seems just like the last one. Is this a real something new or just more of the same?

[@frasercain]

Have you tried to use it? I've found many uses for it, from meal planning to programming. This time around, it's practically useful for many situations, so I think it'll stick around. It has plenty of problems, though.

[@terminusest5902]

Huge potential work for astrophysicist. Just 5 years into this amazing decade. Plus Starship, moon projects, AI, more telescopes and other technologies. Why do we need a god to explain the universe when it is already amazing and we gain new knowledge daily.

[@franktothemax]

Excited to learn that Ethan exists.. not so sure how I feel about the moostache. Never . Mess . with the DOOOOO

[@AbAb-th5qe]

About life on exoplanets, there was an announcement in the last couple of days that Methane and Carbon Dioxide was detected in an exoplanet atmosphere :) K2 18b, is an exoplanet 8.6 times as massive as Earth.

[@jwwebnaut7045]

I wonder what they'd have made of early earth, atmosphere mostly methane, no oxygen.

[@AbAb-th5qe]

@@jwwebnaut7045 Life started on Earth something like a billion years before Oxygen breathing organisms came about right? But not multicellular ones I think. Multi cellular life arose during the "Cambrian explosion", after a "snowball Earth" if I'm remembering correctly.

[@jwwebnaut7045]

@@AbAb-th5qe Sure, but that's beside the question. The atmosphere was fundamentally different from the present. So, what would JWST or the team i.c. have made of It?

[@AbAb-th5qe]

@@jwwebnaut7045 Of viewing an exoplanet similar to the early Earth? I couldn't say, but this exoplanet may have a somewhat similar atmosphere to the early Earth right? I guess we'll find out from them in the coming days

[@Juttutin]

So I'm at the beginning of the video, but off the title and thumbnail, this is perhaps the same underlying problem as freaking idiotic monthly MOON headlines, "A smaller than the last month, but second in this arbitrary modern gregorian calendar period, moon is predicted to be visible over our small Welsh village tonight: how to get the best photos"

[@jsalsman]

I feel like the mass distribution of black holes, which was thought to be practically monochromatic before gravity wave detectors, and is now thought to be much closer to uniform after JWST detection of early quasars, gets almost no attention let alone its implications.

[@guspus3050]

Can you share any resources about this? @jsalsman

[@OzoneTheLynx]

I largely agree with their point as a whole, but to me they also make it seem like you need to overturn scientific concensus in a single paper, when it always was a slow process taking many people. Proposing alternative models is ok as long as your honest about the level of evidence you have for them. Also they kind of make it seem like all these cases of overhyping of scientific findings are because of scientists being malicious. While I'd argue the root cause more likely is performance pressure on career scientists (for example "publish or die") prompting them to do bad or incomplete science and also the media misinterpreting findings (and sometimes blowing them out of proportions for it to go viral). Though even science has it's "black sheep" of course.

[@timjohnson3913]

To emphasize your 1st paragraph, I think the argument that any new theory should recreate all successes of the consensus theory before it can be taken seriously is the most absurd anti-scientific idea that pervades science throughout history and to this day. Feynman has a bit about this in his Cornell Messenger Lectures. He talks about Mayan astronomers who counted beans by moving beans from one jar to the next once a day to predict astronomical events (solar eclipse, etc). A young student says they have an idea about how the objects in the sky might be large rocks that are orbiting eachother and the Astronomers respond: “Can your theory accurately predict the solar eclipse and such and such?” The young student responds: “No, I haven’t developed the theory far enough.” The Pompous Astronomers: “Well WEEEE can predict those things so your theory is not worthy of our consideration until it can.”

[@takanara7]

Yeah, I agree. Theoretically, finding out and ruling out certain theories should be a good thing, but you're way more likely to get published, get career boosts, etc if you find some new hypothesis and you have evidence for it. On the other hand, I think one of the reasons for it is that scientists just get excited about their own theories.

[@rickb06]

Yes, there is in fact a crisis in cosmology and physics as a whole.

[@zushakon1]

Wow Ethan has some intense facial hair! Thanks for a great video

[@ghrey8282]

👍🏻👍🏻

[@ApteraEV2024]

36:00 I See it!! Yes Spiral Galaxies are made from Binary Blackholes Colliding!🎉❤ Awesome,

[@benellison5668]

What's up with the S Dali moustache?

[@bobinthewest8559]

Clearly… we must build an orbital ring with a built in particle collider. What’s the hold up? 😂😂😂

[@jwwebnaut7045]

But orbiting around the galactic centre!