Do NOT question the science

After being rescued from their Island Lockdown, the crew returns to the safety and abundance of their daily lives. Sarah and Ron are ecstatic to get back home and raise their child. Only, Ron’s Bachelor of Science degree (in Art Therapy) convinces him he’s an expert in everything…
Does he solely understand “the science” or is there something deeper he can learn?
______________________________
CREDITS:
Written by Tyler Brandt, Seamus Coughlin, and Sean W. Malone
Research by Matt Hampton
Animated by Seamus Coughlin
Produced & Edited by Sean W. Malone
______________________________
LINKS:
www.simplypsychology.org/Karl...
iep.utm.edu/pop-sci/
www.econlib.org/library/Essay...
link.springer.com/article/10....
fee.org/articles/why-telling-...
fee.org/articles/rule-by-expe...
mises.org/library/intellectua...
www.aei.org/economics/why-has...

[@johnbuscher]

Science sounds an awful lot like silence when Ron screams it like that, well done!

[@Lukas.Cancelosi]

It's almost like a metaphor.

[@Somewhat-Evil]

There is a difference between "hard sciences" like Engineering, Chemistry, and Physics and "soft sciences" like Sociology, Psychology, Arts, and History. One can be proven by math and repeated experimentation while the other is a best interpretation and educated theory based on observable data. The GIGO principle is the bane of all the "soft sciences" if their data is incorrect or stilted the conclusions are almost always fore-doomed.

[@draketheduelist]

SCIENCE! ...I _KEEL_ YOU!

[@sporepda]

@@Somewhat-Evil Thing is, hard sciences are build on axioms, which cant be proven by math or experimentation. And i mean sure, years of research continue to prove that they are right and our understanding of world around us is correct, but i think its important to keep an open mind in case there is some new information that will contradict everything we know, which, considering we are close to starting actually explore the universe, might be pretty plausible

[@rewater]

@@sporepda but also sometimes can be faulty only in practice while the axioms are not necessarily proven wrong, like when simulating lasers, utilizing lasers, studying lasers, printing with lasers, engraving with lasers, mixing with lasers, seeing with lasers, building lasers, focusing lasers (this one I'm pretty sure is the most understood though), the reception of lasers, mixing lasers, the forces in and around the reception of lasers.

[@xanthippus9079]

The most interesting people you learn about in university were once deemed as dangerous lunatics by the bulk of academia.

[@icarue993]

Academia can be a very narrow minded area. Since you generally have a person either grading or supervising, this can lead to bias results or discarding what the suprvisor doesnt like. It is starting to change. In 2011 there was a radical change in how research was done. Before, you could retry experiements until you got lucky enough to grab a sample of the population that fit your view. The sample size was not a thing of scrutiny, and some other things. As such, most/some of the things we knew were actually wrong. Thanks to this, questioning in academia is now allowed and encouraged*. Ofcourse, this would only apply to young people and experience open minded people. People taught that "there's only one way" wont be open to critisism. But EVERYTHING, including old and new science is open to critisism. Somethings have a lot of evidence, but you have to show it. Not just "shut up science".

[@buckberthod5007]

You mean like Ted Kasickney? (Probably spelt that wrong) He was absolutely right that technology was going to destroy our world. Course, they don't teach you about him beyond the fact that he has a "dangerous psycho living alone in the mountains". Never mind the CIA experiments he was subjected too, the psychological torment on his mind, that he had an IQ over 120, etc.

[@jasono2139]

Nah... Virtually everyone in math, physics, and engineering were fairly normal (and extremely intelligent people)... Nobody ever deemed Leonhard Euler, Blaise Pascal, Issac Newton, or Carl Gauss to be lunatics. ...the humanities is a completely different matter though.

[@xanthippus9079]

@@buckberthod5007 That's a good example. Notable examples include: - Stanley Prusiner: discovered prions as the cause of some neurodegenerative diseases. His research was belittled because many couldn't conceive the idea of a protein causing disease. - Barbara McClintock: her work in cytogenetics is essential to understand the genes and cellular processes of replication. The backlash from the scientific community was huge, and she stopped publishing in the early 50s. Two decades later she was vindicated. - Alfred Wegener: the first geologist to propose the continental drift hypothesis. Although his proposal for the mechanism in which this happens was not plausible, his detractors were farther from the truth and treated him as insane.

[@Eluderatnight]

Fruied a coke addict(psych 101 never trust an adict)

[@markdorn8873]

As someone who's dedicated much of his life to the study and application of science, I get sick when I hear people talk about "the science" like that.

[@Kio_Kurashi]

It has the say sounding as if they said "the law" XD

[@icarue993]

About people that use "the science" like that, or people using the stereotype of people using "the science" wrongly?

[@googleuser9383]

I understand that "scientific consensus until refuted" doesn't inspire much confidence in people when you force them to mask or vaccinate.. But it shouldn't! You shouldn't place blind trust in methods that are not properly explored (or show clear results)

[@LordWyatt]

*I AM THE SCIENCE!* Sane: Not yet!

[@Kevin-gg2bl]

This is what ticks me off the most. People say they "trust science," when they have zero clue what science is. Science is, has, and always will be, a debate of information. No true scientific theory has gained any credibility, until people started questioning and trying to dismantling it. Hard. Not just cupcake question, but picking it apart, piece by piece. That's science. Not saying "I am right, don't question me." But saying, "Here's what I think. Here's ALL of the information I have. I dare you to prove me wrong."

[@MercurySteel]

The education system is brainwashing people to believe in this narrative. That's why there are people who say things like "science is real". People who say that doesn't even know what science is.

[@MB-dk6hk]

I find it horrible that people have taken to using "science" as a buzzword to shame people who have concerns.

[@benrex7775]

I had a funny conversation with a coworker. It was just a small conversation where I mentioned that I think the risk of a young healthy thin guy to get a bad case of covid is lower than getting potential side effects of a newly developed drug with no long term data on it. He wanted to end it in a slam dunk mic drop moment and said he trusts the science. I replied with I do too. But I think doctors explaining papers to me is more trustworthy than journalists quoting politicians. He was confused and asked if I seriously look up papers. So much for him trusting science. He just trusts his favorite government branch. And the argument of authority is a fallacy, if I'm not mistaken. That was quite a while back. And today he had a lowkey panic about potentially getting covid as I had contact with the department boss last Friday who tested positive. I was nice enough to do a covid test, just for him. It was negative. But I'm glad too. Even though I don't care about getting it again, I might miss a few days of work because of that and the schedule is strained already.

[@smile-tl9in]

i mean it's true in a vacuum, but some theories are more solid than others. We shouldn't use that as an excuse to start believing conspiracy theory and facebook mom nonsense like vaccine causing autism or earth being flat, and start blaming the education system for brainwashing people. You can't sneak politics in a maths or physics class, expert in a domain probably knows a lot more than you do, and there is such a thing as peer reviews and scientific consensus that give a good idea of what is or isn't most likely to scientifically true

[@MercurySteel]

@@smile-tl9in Of course. We aren't anti-science. Science is a great tool we use to understand the world around us but we also have to recognize the limitations of science. We should teach philosophy of science along side science, so the children can know what they are actually learning. The facebook mom example you gave is very extreme. Of course we don't agree with those kinds of people.

[@DavidStudiosproduct]

Suddenly, I finally realize why it took so long to develop the scientific method 😭

[@TiroDvD]

I love pointing out that when people say "Science" they actually mean the Scientific Method. Then I watch them jump through semantics about Mathematics not being a science but just a "tool". "Give me an example when Math doesn't match up with Reality?" "err ummm err..."

[@Barskor1]

@@TiroDvD Inside a blackhole but to prove that you have to go there....

[@TheSoldierChristian]

@@TiroDvD when they tell you the mathematical truth is "2+2=5".

[@nathanielbass771]

@@TiroDvD fun fact, there is ONE example in existence and it is literally called this because there was no way to quantify their existence despite being a part of many equations involving things like energy and physics: Imaginary numbers, otherwise known as the square roots of negative numbers

[@avroarchitect1793]

@@nathanielbass771 they actually have practical application in electrical power transmission, and many more fields as well. The number " i " is less imaginary and more "perpendicular" to the number line you normally think of. This makes them no less real.

[@BeckJoseR]

My professor told me "we know only what we need right now". In other words, it WILL be proven wrong later. It is just right enough to accomplish our current needs.

[@benrex7775]

I prefer "every model is wrong, some are useful". Or the German one "Wer misst misst Mist." --> Those who measure measure garbage. The one you quoted implies that someone is controlling how much information we are knowing for a specific purpose. I can see two world views on how that is the case. One is the one where the universe is one big consciousness which unifies all of us and directs all our actions and stuff. And the other one I prefer is the Christian one. We have just enough knowledge to know God exists if we actually want to know. If we don't want to then it is easy to convince ourselves otherwise. And I think there are a few examples which support that theory. But this one only applies to one specific question. Who is the creator? Other information is not affected by that control.

[@justanotherchannelonyoutub126]

When you can no longer question science, it becomes its own religion

[@jamestarbet9608]

South Park tackled that years ago when Cartman froze himself and woke up in the future where humans and otters were mortal enemies arguing over the minutia of the different atheism factions. All because... well go watch it yourself.

[@seanfager8063]

Ironically, the Big Three religions of the west share an early patriarch / exemplar whose post-calling name translates to "One who wrestles with God." (Israel, aka Jacob father of Joseph, grandson of Abraham/Ibrahim). I'd say if you can't ask questions it's not a religion, it's a cult.

[@aviadlampert5956]

And its sad because science progresses by questioning what we think we know.

[@funkymunky7935]

It's a cult, not a religion

[@nathanielbass771]

@@funkymunky7935 for future reference, cults are religions but in generalized terms, they are a small, non-mainstream group that is often against conventional thinking. Christianity was at one point defined as a cult before the primary pagan customs of everything else...it got MANY people executed, primarily in China and Africa

[@williamdelahunty3677]

A lot of people confuse reading a study with reading an article that talks about a study. And because of that, a lot of really really really bad studies get promoted as factual science.

[@anjhindul]

Best part is more then half the studies and journals were against the shit the cdc and who did... but that didn't stop them or the media from lying did it? 🤔

[@HerculesBallsInc]

The sad truth is that a lot of people confuse reading just the HEADLINE of an article that talks about a study with reading the study itself.

[@williamdelahunty3677]

@@HerculesBallsInc Now that's some Grade-A one-upsmanship. Well fucking played

[@retroman--]

@@williamdelahunty3677 he did a fine job of upgrading your comment lol

[@isaiahoconnor8236]

I have read multiple articles about studies, then go and read the study they linked to and find the two often have little in common. I have also read studies where the conclusion of the study fits the narrative stated at the opening of the study, even though the data they provided in the study is completely opposite of their findings. For example, there is a study (If you really want to have it I have a copy) That states that sea turtles prefer to eat latex balloons more than any other trash in the ocean. The research was done by a biased environmentalist who did not like balloons, whose research mentor had also published several anti balloon studies and articles. So of course they found that 80% of the trash inside dead sea turtle' stomachs consisted of balloons, thus proving their narrative that balloons are bad and should be banned. They made a whole documentary on this. (They also in the documentary used a study of plastic bags, but said it was balloons so they straight lied). But I downloaded and read the study. Their own conclusion was about 40%of the trash was soft plastic, about 40% was hard plastic, about 10% was other items and the other 10% was latex items. Of the rubber items around 80% were latex balloons. So their study showed balloons only comprised about 8% of trash inside sea turtles, but they spun their own numbers in the study to say it was 80% as it was 80% of the rubber items. Yeah, I have read a lot of studies like this., as I am a professional balloon artist and had to deal with attacks on my industry. Another study tested nonbiodegradable foil balloons, which no one claims are biodegradable, to see if they would biodegrade, even though everyone says they do not. They tossed that in while testing the biodegradability of latex balloons. They of course flubbed that study as well, including testing the biodegradability of latex ballons in dry sand. You know like the dry sand they use to preserve flowers and have caused natural mummies. And then pointed out they did not degrade in dry sand... surprise surprise surprise.

[@Somewhat-Evil]

This is what happens when a "based" babysitter is left for 6 months with an impressionable child. The sitter has to be "based" as she has a job, takes responsibility, understands economics (itemized bill at the ready), and doesn't trust big Government or she'd have turned the kid over to child services and skated months ago. 😁

[@Kebraik]

Good observation. o.o

[@josephpostma1787]

Can you tell me what "based" means? Based on reality?

[@Somewhat-Evil]

@@josephpostma1787 When used in online political language it means "based upon fact" or the opposite of biased viewpoint.

[@dirtydanthesecretsauceman8519]

@@josephpostma1787 It means your based. A sigma. A mega-chad even. To be based you must be on your grindset, completely disregarding any obstacle to your awesome end goal. This means shedding all dead weight in your life, for example: women, family, children, horny, women, non-based friends, eating, drinking, sleeping, and women. I hope this lesson in being based has helped you shed your inferior male identity to become a truly based sigma male.

[@BrazenRain]

@@dirtydanthesecretsauceman8519 the very existence of this meme is great cause for hope

[@nitishsontakke7432]

That child saying the smart stuff was a great opportunity for the dad to say "see, the science works, look how pur baby is speaking intelligently. It proves i am right. I am the science!" With thunder crackling behind him like a supervillain in a girtor movie

[@Munin497]

It's insane how many people actually think of science this way.

[@pattonramming1988]

Science is not a static code of laws it is a dynamic highly nuanced system of constant observation that evolves as our understanding of the laws of the universe continue to expand

[@jasono2139]

Ever notice how the people always talking about "the science" are the people furthest away from doing the actual science they love to talk about??

[@TuskaiTheKid]

Funny thing, in my counseling courses, a professor actually tried to promote Eat Pray Love as actual science on how to improve one's mental health. Fun fact for those who (Rightfully) don't want to sit through it, it's based on a true story by a woman who literally just up and abandoned her Husband because the "Spark" left their marriage. After a lot of "Soul Searching" she realized the only person she really needed to love was herself... then she immediately forgets that lesson and marries the first hot guy she meets. A year later, the author ended up divorcing this Husband as well, because shockingly enough, she learned nothing from her experiences, despite writing a literal book based on said experiences.

[@mattsemrau9800]

I laughed at this comment but then the sadness hit. Modernity sucks ass sometimes.

[@yucatansuckaman5726]

@@mattsemrau9800 yeah its bad

[@blackice8043]

I wonder if it would take the disappearance of gravity to convince them we don't know everything. Not everything in science is a constant.

[@sid2112]

Well for gravity to disappear you would have to negate the mass of the nearby object, in this case, Earth. But there are options! One: Distance. The further away from an object you are, the less effect gravity will have. Two: Something with the same mass hovering over a spot. This negates the gravity, but kills the planet, so let's call that Plan B. Three: Interrupt the Higgs Boson's effects. How I have no idea. Maybe some form of quantum polarization, but that would probably violate everything from thermodynamics to relativity. Elon might be able to help. But in the end, option one seems the most doable. Again, we'll need Elon but everything else is in stock!

[@icarue993]

@@sid2112 for gravity to disappear, everything had to disappear, as any body is attacted to another nearby object. There;s a video of water being attracted to a nail(?) in the ISS because of the lack of a denser body.

[@icarue993]

Specially psychology. There are many many factors to consider. What's true for one person might be false for another.

[@sid2112]

@@icarue993 Well yeah of course, but I was thinking in more practical terms. I'd hate to negate gravity for all of reality! That would be a rough way to end things. Like the kid running our simulation rage quit.

[@BurnBird1]

Yes, if you were to break reality, the scientific method wouldn't work anymore.

[@jonathanwells223]

Now I’m no child development expert, but compared to the people that have kids…

[@1krani]

I know I am. One of my jobs had me more or less playing lifeguard, referee and hostage negotiater all in the same day, all to hyperactive kids. And you know what? I am 100% ready for parenting now. Children ain't got NOTHING new to throw at me anymore.

[@lt3746]

@@1krani Sounds like it was a good experience for you then

[@1krani]

@@lt3746 I wish I still worked there. They shut down a few years ago and the drive was long, but I enjoyed it.

[@heftyjongle2958]

Wait I can claim I’m the science since I have a science degree in graphic communications? What have I been doing for the last year and a half!? Dammit

[@b.delacroix7592]

I have a computer science degree WITH HONORS! Now I'm THE SCIENCE.

[@schuylergeery-zink1923]

I have a Juris Doctor. I AM THE LAW. 😂

[@trap-chan]

@@b.delacroix7592 my printer dosent do its thing how do i get it to do its thing agein mister computer magichen

[@anjhindul]

@@schuylergeery-zink1923 you are not Dredd!!!

[@nicoleforesman9860]

Holy shit, I have a science degree in Accounting! I am the science (and I don't even science very well) SCIENCE!

[@mkosmala1309]

"DON'T QUESTION THE SCIENCE!" ~a guy who doesn't understand how Science works

[@perihelion7798]

To grow in knowledge, science must always be challenged. There is no 'settled science'. There is well-established science theory, and accepted paradigms, but nothing is 'settled'.

[@BurnBird1]

But that sounds like just an excuse to dismiss the science that you don't like. You can just accept the science that fits with your worldview and then just say that everything else is "unsettled" no matter how settled it actually is. The earth being round and orbiting around the sun is just about as settled as science can be. Most people accept that, except for a few of the most extreme right-wingers. Evolution is just as settled as heliocentrism, yet a *lot* of conservatists dismiss it as "unsettled" or "debated" when that really isn't the case.

[@InfernosReaper]

There is some "settled science' but only the most basic of physics, like "you can't get something from nothing" and "water is wet"

[@perihelion7798]

@@InfernosReaper Nothing is 'settled' in science. There are very well established and very robust theories, like Newtonian physics, Relativity Theory, and Quantum Mechanics, but even these are subject to updates. The theory of Evolution of Species has undergone many adjustments, and is still ongoing with constant changes. Settled is stagnation.

[@InfernosReaper]

@@perihelion7798 Generally, sure, but I get the feeling that unless *magic* becomes a thing, 101%+ efficiency will *never* exist.

[@perihelion7798]

@@InfernosReaper True, but it makes my point that science, to be real, must always evolve.

[@palaceofwisdom9448]

"The science" is as clear and indisputable as "my truth".

[@izzieingriselli8973]

I was not prepared for the Einstein baby. Genius as always 🙏🤣

[@mustang607]

"I heard, that marge said, to trust the science." "Well, rose said, that the consensus in the science is settled." "Oh, if rose said that, it must be true."

[@Aeruthus]

The sad reality is people will take this as "science is bad" . Not as science is always progressing and no one is an expert in all fields due to the vast amount of knowledge upkeep required. Great video, just frustrating how people twist things to fit their narrative.

[@carneeki]

I've started to fight science with science and explain the basic math behind why some things just doesn't work. Like if Australia wants to use all solar, we can basically kiss one of our territories goodbye based on land area required for the amount of energy that hits the land. It's science!

[@icarue993]

@@carneeki question science != hate science. You should question science 100% of the time. Question everything, but dont hate it. Question new ideas rather than disregarding them from the get go.

[@carneeki]

@@icarue993 what makes you think I don't?

[@Xanthro2]

OP, how disabled are you to think people will see this as "skyance is bad"? There is flawless logic used to explane how "trusting the skyance" is never wrong. If people are too silly to take a moment of there own time beyond a news bite or a silly cartoon to see what the skyance is really about... Then the skyance they use is working correctly. Social enginering and emotional manipulation are wonderful fields of skyance.

[@icarue993]

@@carneeki I was sort of replying to you and OP of the tread. AGreeng with you and sort of elaborating on your point

[@fierylightning3422]

all the time in science, the truth gets found out, and takes years, decades, even sometimes centuries for the rest of the scientific community to accept.

[@NarwahlGaming]

"Doctors need to start washing their hands between patients." "What the Hell are you on about?"

[@michaelman957]

Apparently the baby sitter was a student of Jordan Peterson and Thomas Sowell. Taking responsibility, working diligently, and educating responsibility child to be a free thinker

[@JamesTDG]

Lol, I love that reaction, because it's incredibly accurate how parents treat their children who think differently

[@DP-fq7iy]

"We discovered something by questioning convention! But you can't question our discovery."

[@qwinn111]

Modern day CDC and WHO described in one video (for WHO, in a psychological sense)

[@thugpug4392]

People will criticize the CDC for changing what they've said as more information is discovered. They report on the results and try and turn what rigorous study has found into applicable policy. Behind the CDC is real science. The implicit suggestion in a lot of statements criticizing the CDC as being too assertive is that anybody should be listened to and anything, no matter how proven and tested, should be questioned by someone who actually has no clue what they're talking about. There's a lot of irony in the statement saying scientists of a different field shouldn't try and discredit people outside of their area of expertise when most the people here are trying to discredit virologists or biologists in the CDC despite not being any kind of expert.

[@qwinn111]

@@thugpug4392 I agree, but overall public statements from citizens are not usually backed by legitimate reasoning or factual evidence, usually stupid shit but that's a given. Most people that make outrageous statements are not in the trusted field, such as the cdc, but today we can have people in the scientific field possibly alter studies or do limited research to push specific agendas (mainly referring to covid on this one) that where I was getting at. I'm not one of those dumbasses with endless speculations because I refuse to learn anything legitimate, true me, the type you might be referring too. But as for WHO, they need to just stop treating psychology like it's a concrete fact based science... cuz it's not, it's a pseudoscience that relying mainly on statical data. Still hella useful, OF COURSE but it almost never presents solid facts or proof so play along like it does is just stupid to me, it almost feels like religion

[@nicholasheimann4629]

Truth gives more authority than a piece of paper.

[@clericofchaos1]

looks like economics wasn't the only thing Seamus was interested in.

[@David_Bruton]

Follow the science brick road!

[@ThereIsNoSpoon678]

Nice job there making “science” sounds like “silence”. Very clever.

[@conserva-chan2735]

I feel horrible for children that never witness the glory of Rocky IV

[@lootic]

The irony is that questioning the results is part of what makes science. If you have a scientific approach to something, you will never be completely sure, but rather you will try to find good evidence and arguments for a certain standpoint.

[@Hardrian_Hardrada_Cicero]

Divorce arc seems verrry eminent with the way things are going. Also, nice nod to Thomas Sowell's "intellectuals and society" near the end too!

[@stuartdemerse7759]

That last scene made me think of a new song parody, “He grounded me with science”, LOL!!

[@bloodyknuckles1953]

Why does the child have an accent almost like Dexter from Dexter’s Laboratory? Love it!

[@The_NonDescript]

I like how Ron's becoming the new Bob! XD

[@notthefbi7932]

Yes definitely don't question science, especially when science pays for all the studies 🤪

[@Vilverna]

this video has taught me that allowing my child to listen to Cardi B will rapidly turn them into a philosopher

[@clickbaker1]

Seamus you have literally the best voice for anything

[@Smartcoughdrop]

I love that this has a connected story.

[@BronyumHexofloride]

Science just like space is vast and impossible to quantify as it is always changing and always being questioned without questioning Science becomes simple opinion, without discourse there cannot be science

[@marshallhuffer4713]

Questioning science is how you do science.

[@DerekVuong7799]

I'm going to show this to my kids.

[@rebekahtyler7406]

LOVE THIS CHANNEL!

[@nomiflower9707]

I'm glad the child had a babysitter

[@krondor007]

Thry forgot having a crowd appearing and clapping in scientific agreement.

[@mohammadkhizar3464]

I heard science too many times and now my head hurts and I need Scilence (pun intended)

[@nadinevalent4436]

thanks for all you all do

[@TheRealMichelozzo]

The fact that the kid spitting hot truth gets put into a time out crib under the pretense of 'science' is not lost on me.

[@Brambazai]

Not your strongest work, but it brings the point home. Updote anyways because this channel is awesome

[@irateastartes1206]

I don't go to my cardiologist to rewire my deck and i don't go to an electrician to tell me what that weird rash is.

[@TheMichaelMove]

Do not Question the Seance! I Have more faith in that statement now.

[@sinisterthoughts2896]

Sums it up pretty succinctly.

[@ericmadsen7470]

Kids say the darndest things..

[@shdz5984]

Baby just WRECKED Ron.

[@nowlwane9623]

Baby: we will let science decide your fate Man: I am the science

[@terryteramotojr]

Love these.

[@0penthaughtz]

Totally on point

[@jasonmorello1374]

Difference between real science and dogma is science is built on questioning and testing, and dogma is the use of faith instead. Faith has points, when the answer is not known. But when there is methods to test and prove, even god can and will be so.Paraphrasing Jefferson, but it is what works. And that is another function is more critical than form when survival is on the line.

[@fintheclonetrooper5039]

POV you were on a island for a month

[@SociallyTriggered]

"Trust the science" is the least scientific thing people can say.

[@TheGameMage_]

Next time Ron is facing a divorce and his wifes taking the kid.

[@RemotHuman]

Exactly that's why the "science changes"

[@janinemaler1801]

Omg the child saying okrrrrrrr❤️❤️❤️❤️😍😍😍

[@treason520]

Poor kid. He's gonna be grounded (locked down) for several years.

[@MrDj232]

If it makes the kid feel any better, The Science would have grounded him no matter what. At least he got to speak his piece.

[@YuriTarrdid]

the little kid didn't sound like a kid. he sounded foreign lol

[@genkibob]

I don't think the babysitter brushed that kid's teeth in all those 6 months.

[@losttriad]

Science: question everything. "Scientists":don't question the science

[@theangryquad3127]

Perfect......

[@brittainwoolley6848]

What was that other major event that took thousands of lives we were told not to question by our president at the time? Oh, that's right. I remember now.

[@P2thaR]

Ya know... Ron sure reminds me of someone... I can't quite put my finger on it...

[@TheHuntermj]

Unrealistic, Sarah knew where she wanted to go to eat

[@mylescasey8914]

"Daah!"

[@Voltboy1449]

Ron out here speedrunning a divorce

[@philltheotherguy1868]

I thought the joke would be that his music actually did make the kid smarter.

[@PLATOLOSOPHY]

I’d love to get involved in this type of content creation. Bravo.

[@djones1379cleo]

Nailed it

[@rotemsinai5929]

I dont usually comment on videos but this one is on point

[@johnree6106]

You can't argue with silence

[@leroylowe5921]

She blinded me with Science!

[@adamwelch4336]

Time to devorce " the science!"

[@LordTyph]

"Trust the science!" 'So the earth is flat then?' "THAT'S NOT SCIENCE, WE'VE ALREADY PROVEN IT'S ROUND!" 'By doubting and refuting that it was flat.'

[@ryanthome7322]

When they say trust the science. I always got the feeling they were talking about political science.

[@Smasher-Devourer]

The entire point of science is literally questioning, testing, verifying, and testing again. Science isn't set in stone.

[@jeetkuneluke]

I sciencely out-science thee!

[@Jabooty_Williams]

See? The cardi B music worked! That kid is a genius!

[@asailijhijr]

If I agree with the current conclusion of science, it's infallible. If I disagree with it, more research is needed.

[@guerilla2013]

That babysitter didn’t tell that boy to brush his teeth. They yellowed out so much they orange…

[@Breidr]

To be fair, Ron was right to not go to Chili's.

[@norwegroletsplay2250]

Okerrrrrr 😂

[@sethcrisel9308]

Lmao the kiddo sounds like a baby bernie sanders

[@Irish381]

He blinded me with ScIEnCe!

[@jbizzle4922]

Ludwig Boltzmann, one of the pioneers in quantum mechanics, killed himself as a broken man because the mainstream science (i.e. the academy) of the day didn't support his position of the atomic model and of entropy, even though he was eventually vindicated. Academia is a highly charged political arena. As much as we want to think it's about the pursuit of knowledge, it's more about intellectuals trying to furnish themselves a prestigious position and then maintaining the status quo for personal gain.

[@randyrhoades8751]

This shit happens because of a cycle I like to call: The Psuedo Cycle. It’s when Psudeo-Intellectuals over time gradually take over an academic space or have the make up of the intellectual sphere and over time their foundational make up changes when real intellectuals take over and real evidence based intellectualism takes over once more, then they start to get lax; some cult of personalities take over and start to reform the make up of the intellectual sphere, rinse and repeat. If Albert Einstein was alive and a scientist in Boltzmann’s time, I think he would have suffered the same fate as Einstein had it a bit more easy being a scientist whose major breakthroughs happened in a time when true intellectuals inhabited the sphere in response to the growing threat of Anti-Intellectualism in WWII and Nazi Germany. Not that Einstein had it easy or did not fight at all, but his theories became fact much more easier than Boltzmann; and even if Einstein was wrong on something the Scientific Community would not have worked to destroy his career like they did with Boltzmann because the people who were in said community were not the same people. In fact the foundation for the theory of relativity is built on the framework of other scientists who were right about the idea of a universal speed limit but were laughed out of the community for daring to question Isaac Newton who for the longest time was held to deity status much like Einstein was for a long while until relatively [haha] recently. Part of the reason Science and Academia in general become so politicized is because people who take and hold it simply want some measure of authority, I should know; I met these kinds if people all the god damn time. As a writer, I cannot understate the fact that every person I have met that got their English and/or Literary degree after approximately 1989 or so has been an absolute smooth brain who clearly only got their degree by sucking up to their professor, repeating whatever talking point they had with the specific written work in question; and used their status as a degree holder as some sort of badge of authority that they can waggle around to some of the peasantry who don’t have it. You can just tell by challenging their ideas or concepts that they get angry because they know you have a point and if they cannot beat you on a fair level with facts and logic. This next bit actually happened to me more than a few times: they will try to manipulate you and tell you that you truly are intelligent but are using strong argumentation in a wrong way (crazy I know) in an attempt to change your mind about challenging them. These people are not intellectuals. They are psuedos who want the authority to say and do shit, nothing more.

[@djinsanity3575]

Ron has turned into Bob's old self somehow. Weird

[@Snakedude4life]

“Trust the science!” *A study on the binomial understanding of chromosome shapes in DNA* “Ah! Heresy!” *Hisses* 🎩 🐍no step on Snek! 🇭🇰🇺🇸

[@davenathan2002]

Hail Glorious *Magical* Science!

[@TomyDayos]

Good vid.