The Times and Troubles of the Scientific Method

[@AllyCat77767]

So I watch SciShow every day, and in my biology class today my teacher showed this video and I got really excited because I watch this in my free time and we're watching it during school.

[@possessedchair8144]

Nico di Angelo What an occasion to celebrate

[@DIANAGONZALEZ-on2xd]

why your name is Nico di Angelo brother of hazel levesque?

[@supasem]

lol same just happened today

[@bazoo513]

Good teacher!

[@jae2869]

nerd

[@Mirandalorian924]

I have been a Nerdfighter since about 2008 and I'm currently taking a Biological Anthropology college course; my professor linked us to this video and I'm so incredibly happy.

[@bobjones4469]

First of all, all the things that were discovered without using the method (like theories such as Einstein's) were not accepted UNTIL they could be proven empirically. In fact, one of the biggest hurdle of Einstein's was observing and collecting data on a certain cosmic phenomenon that would support or disprove his theories. So empirical evidence is still king. You can come up with all sorts of ways to formulate the hypothesis of the scientific method but the data collecting and observations are still required for your ideas to be accepted. Second, using machines and instruments for data collecting is nothing new. However, coming up with methods of how to collect data, deciding which data is important, and analyzing and interpreting the data (all very vital aspects of the scientific method) are almost always done by humans. The LHC has not changed this at all.

[@mal35m]

+Bob Jones Very well said. Most of the time I agree with everything Hank says, but not this time. The problems of the scientific method today are no different than yesterday. We have always depended on a brilliant few to build on what we already knew and we have always been limited by the current technology to test out their insights. We are always in the process of refining or replacing old theories. The day may come when the scientific method starts to "run out of steam" but that day has not come yet just because computers are useful to test some things out. In fact, computer modeling will not protect us from bad data collection, politics, prejudice or sloppy thinking. It can also be used to make a bad theory look good just by cherry picking your data points.

[@XerrolAvengerII]

+Bob Jones I think part of the point was that there were, for their time, a number of 'theories' which were partially or wholly untestable during the time that they were conceived. In modern times, it's not difficult to either come up with evidence, or test hypotheses about quantum physics and special relativity. That compared to the tools and technology available at the time, meant there was probably a pretty hefty amount of "educated guessing" going on to make up for the absence of evidence from a lack of test-ability.

[@SciShow]

Thanks, yeah, we messed that up. Adding annotations and a link to a video explaining the situation. Thanks for setting us straight!

[@harshpherwani6590]

@Isabella Grudzinski I don’t think they were after reading the description.

[@kamranrowshandel6395]

In America, people say that doing the same thing twice and expecting the same result is Crazy. There is undeniably a part of the population in America called "felons", and there are also many criminals who have been diagnosed (and I'll go so far as to mention the undiagnosed) with mental disorders. So if one of these crazy people says that killing me because he thinks "I'm illuminati (and I control, for example, the colors of all paints due to Being Illuminati)" is Just Like The Last Time he killed someone because he thought That Guy "was illuminati", and that he expects to Do Time again for having done so, does American society think he's crazy?

[@TheBillymybob]

"The difference between science and messing around is writing it down." - Adam Savage

[@kamranrowshandel6395]

In America, people say that doing the same thing twice and expecting the same result is Crazy. There is undeniably a part of the population in America called "felons", and there are also many criminals who have been diagnosed (and I'll go so far as to mention the undiagnosed) with mental disorders. So if one of these crazy people says that killing me because he thinks "I'm illuminati (and I control, for example, the colors of all paints due to Being Illuminati)" is Just Like The Last Time he killed someone because he thought That Guy "was illuminati", and that he expects to Do Time again for having done so, does American society think he's crazy?

[@McLir]

This is great. Thanks for recognizing Al-Haytham's vital role. As a student of science history, I am surprised how little-known he is.

[@EmperorsNewWardrobe]

4:30 "used math to prove that we see light that...". I thought science never 'proved' because of falsifiability, that we can never prove that a result will be the same in the future, only infer it. The problem of induction.

[@bigbenhebdomadarius6252]

Actually, although Einstein discovered the photoelectric effect and the photon, the photon has nothing to do with gravity in his thinking. General Relativity ascribes the effect of gravity to distortions in the fabric of space-time caused by the masses of the objects in it.

[@bigbenhebdomadarius6252]

+Xenon Creed You know what I would like to know? How does the Higgs boson cause mass to distort the fabric of spacetime, and where are gravitons supposed to fit in the picture? I guess no one really knows yet, but I'd love to see a video summarizing all the current speculations.

[@sifuculreif6448]

+BigBen Hebdomadarius One theory suggests that gravity itself is a "guest" in this universe, and may actually have entered from a nearby universe.

[@SamuraiJACsr]

+BigBen Hebdomadarius Yeah!

[@RacheRache]

Thanks :) I have an exam today about science and scientific theories for which I DID NOT get the chance to do research on but this video covers a lot of points that I could write on! Amazing :) :)

[@BlizzardandBlaze]

Honestly, I think the scientific method is fine. There is nothing that says science has to know everything. Rather, the scientific method tells us our best guess about how the universe works. Furthermore, a scientific explanation need not be prefect to be viable. It's basically telling us that "this is our best guess" as to how the universe works. There might be holes in that guess, but that's where future scientists come in and build on the previous work of previous scientists, do more thinking, come up with better hypotheses that do explain the errant phenomena, then as time goes on and as those better explanations are proven or disproven, we come to a better understanding of the universe. Further, if I'm not mistaken, all hypotheses must be testable somehow. Either by doing the math or by doing experiments. We often don't have the technology to do those experiments when the hypothesis is formed, but sometimes technology catches up, like now we have the Large Hadron Collider so we can test for the existence of the Higgs Boson. (note, I have no clue what the higgs boson means, although, I do know that the LHC tests for it, and that it's supposed to be a hypothesis created WAAAY back that we're only testing for now.) In addition, creativity has it's place in science. Sometimes it takes a creative mind to think of speed as relative, or time as not moving in a continuous stream. The scientific method is what comes in when creativity is finished doing it's work. It says "Ok! it sounds good, and it SEEMS like a really great idea! But, does it hold in the real world". The answer might be yes, the answer might be no. So, I don't believe that the scientific method is in trouble, or somehow flawed. I'd actually be more concerned if there was a proven way that the scientific method could not possibly be used to explain the universe we are in. That would be troubling, because I think the scientific method is pretty much the basis for all science. But, it's worked extremely well so far.

[@tonyprovenza9559]

Just copied and pasted this for my science paper. Thanks, blizzardandblaze

[@denverbogle1375]

You had something to say about this...

[@DragcoDavid]

Finally a science teacher who admits the Scientific Method is not how all Scientists do their experiments and is the be-all-end-all way to do science. I always had a feeling that was the Scientific Method was more of a guideline.

[@Papaconstantopoulos]

I definitely like your videos like this, Hank, that cover one topic and discuss it in depth for a solid ten minutes. Thanks, very interesting.

[@janicecolumbus4917]

Pervy dog? Hank, you're the best!

[@scooterbriody2252]

I hate how we call the dark ages the dark ages when only the white guys were having a hard time...

[@scooterbriody2252]

+Nick Furiously :P the renaissance only happened in Europe...and only to white guys.

[@JackyVSO]

Well, those same white guys have been calling it that because it happened to them. Nobody in China or India refers to that period as "the dark ages". The humanistic perspective where we think of all humans as "us" wasn't conceived of until the 18th century or so and didn't prevail until 1945. Also, a lot of people in China, central Asia and the Middle East had a really bad time in the 13th century because of the Mongols.

[@RafaTROM]

6'58" "Creativity is taking known elements and putting them together in unique ways." - Jacque Fresco.

[@KikiAelita]

This is the sort of thing I would've appreciated hearing more during my school years. A view of science that doesn't say 'here's how it works, hope you don't miss your daydreaming' but a voice that said 'actually, here's how it works - but there's plenty we don't know, so don't just stop dreaming'.

[@blackoak4978]

While I agree that computers are absolutely key to the future of science, it is a little much to imply that scientists will be replaced by computers in the more basic forms. The thing is, it is by doing the thinking, and testing and data analysis that scientists get a deeper understanding of what's going on. All the little things that lead to internalized understanding. If it's all done by a computer then the scientist is just spouting computer guided random stuff. There is knowing, and then there is understanding. Knowing, u can do at a distance. Understanding requires u get ur hands dirty.

[@laetrille]

Just because we cannot test it today, it does not mean it is not real.

[@MyChico333]

So you just believe stuff because it could be real? Unicorns confirmed

[@laetrille]

***** Can you test for dark matter??

[@MyChico333]

laetrille dark matter is not an object we know of or we can find. It's a deduction. We don't know what or where it is, but we do know it's something and it has an effect on the universe. Those effects are what we can measure for the time

[@bigbenhebdomadarius6252]

+laetrille. But it must be at least testable in theory, even if we lack the necessary techniques to do so at the moment. If there is no way at all to test a hypothesis, it is by definition not scientific. This is one of the major objections to the idea of multiple universes, since their existence is by definition unverifiable.

[@diceman199]

+laetrille That depends. Even if we can't test specifically for something it is often possible to compile evidence that shows it cannot be real by directly contradicting things it would need to be real.

[@trollsofalabama]

The way we organize/understand information sometimes need to be completely changed depending on the situation. -Problems where the current understanding isnt good to solve them -A newer way of understanding something greatly simplifies the problem to make the problem doable. The scientific method is still the way to do it, some people are better at the coming up with new hypothesis part than others.

[@Urb4n0Ninj4]

I like that this guy is still debating you despite their complete lack of early human development, and the fact that you just blew them out of the water with a clear and developed understanding while providing an explanation in a scientific, and non-offensive manner... KZbin needs more guys like you, instead of the idiots that just plug their ears, close their eyes and scream "you're wrong i'm right, la-la-la"

[@Losloth]

Thank you! This video is amazing at pulling together some of the most important aspects of the development of science. I bet a lot of hard work went into this movie. I'd love to see some more in-depth look, maybe a series starting with the renaissance, going up through empiricism, positivism and maybe commenting on postmodernism? Good stuff ;)

[@Dougca1985]

Love your show, thank you!

[@TheDBrigner]

From conflict comes resolution, comes understanding, comes SCIENCE!

[@usmannasir8647]

theories are also tested in labs and occasionally tweaked a bit to be more correct, hypotheses are usually a single use ideas that are tossed out once disproven but theories are tested under specific conditions and qualified further

[@mikeshaftx]

"I'm the type of nigga that's built to last. If you mess with me, I'll put a foot in yo ass." -Albert Einstein

[@TheTexas1994]

"The scientific method is flawed! God: 1 Science: 0" -creationists

[@ophist8399]

Nicolas Gleason-Boure aetheism is dumb.

[@TheLonelyPanther]

Oh.. Finally! I had to scroll back in ur video list just to listen to the glorious intro music in FULL! Searching and testing videos for the full music was actually scientific, pun intended 😅

[@jackalderson5885]

Ah yes, good old: Shoot a science experiment until it's destroyed or it's indestructible

[@TheWonderfulDonuts]

Just for anyone who's wandering: Serendipity means a "happy accident" or "pleasant surprise"; specifically, the accident of finding something good or useful while not specifically searching for it. (Yes, I copy and pasted it after looking it up myself)

[@revyaraksha9372]

Wow great episode! I loved this. Once might even say one of the major aims of science is to refine how we do science. Would you consider doing more videos on the history of science? I really enjoy the history behind science and the prevailing thoughts of different eras leading up to our current methods, thoughts, systems etc. etc. as much as the actual science itself. You usually include some of that in your videos but this one seemed more focused on it than usual.

[@JatPhenshllem]

There's an entire series on Crash Course by him called "History of Science" or something. It's really good, check it out

[@klutterkicker]

It took some searching but it appears that sex differentiation occurs right at the beginning of the fetal stage. For the neutrality part, if you don't believe me you can ask Wikipedia. "During gestation, the cells of the primordial gonad that lie along the urogenital ridge are in a bipotential state, meaning they possess the ability to become either male cells (Sertoli and Leydig cells) or female cells (follicle cells and Theca cells)."

[@TheDBrigner]

I don't blame you! And I think you just got to the heart of my comment. People using science to condone conduct is incorrect as science is NOT a code of conduct, it is a system for governing study NOT human behaviour! Thank you!

[@mohitlamba6400]

There are 2 ways of gaining knowledge THE ASCENDING METHOD ie by speculation which is limited by our imperfect senses like tendency to be illusioned, tendency to commit mistakes, tendency to cheat and finally impefect senses and hence finally imperfect instruments, every instrument has its limitations like those found in microscopes(rayleigh condition for seing distinctly), and al other errors like least count, zero error, fluctuating values YOUR VIDEO IS COMPLETELY IN ACCORDANCE TO BHAGVADGITA

[@katsamuein]

school biology here - please correct if/where i am wrong: human sex is determined by X/Y-Chromosomes. female egg is x, male spermium is either x or y, combined, they are either xx = female, or xy = male; thus, the sex is determined the very moment they combine. [phenotypus can vary thanks to errors/interference, genotypus is fixed] no?

[@gbrosnan95]

It makes me really happy that he talks about Thomas Kuhn's book "The Structure of Scientific Revolutions." I did a presentation in my AP Lang and Comp class on the 2nd chapter of the book called "The Route to Normal Science." It talks about paradigm shifts and the evolution of science; I highly recommend anyone interested in science to read at least that chapter.

[@EdwardCree]

A more accurate definition of the scientific method would be "Heuristics approximating Bayesianism". To unpack that a little: 1. Observe a phenomenon which current theory finds too improbable (ie. does not predict). 2. Investigate the conditions for the presence and absence of the phenomenon. 3. Find a minimal, or at least concise, characterisation of those conditions. 4. Use that characterisation to produce generative theories of the phenomenon. (cont)

[@GiannisMamalikidis]

I love SciShow, what it stands for, and all the time you dedicate to make us smarter. I couldn't help but notice this cool SciShow mug that's dark on the outside with a green SciShow logo, and also green on the inside. Can I purchase one? If so, where, and any idea on how much the shipping cost would be to Greece?

[@bsrrhsl]

I'm so glad Scishow posted this video. Teaching so many people the scientific method and invoking interest in discovery and understanding is the type of work that needs to be done to pave the way for ingenuity and progress in the future. I wish this kind of work would be done in schools and hope that maybe in the near future it will be despite all of the opposition

[@KevTheYoungMusicGeru]

This is from a BBC series called "Men of Ideas" hosted by Bryan Magee. The philosopher on this episode is Hilary Putnam

[@ChristianKleineidam]

Aristoteles didn't advocate doing experiments. He advocated making oberservations about the real world. I recommend Hakob Barseghyan's lectures on "History and Philosophy of Science 100". He gave the lectures at the university of Toronto and you can find the video of the lectures on KZbin.

[@9365fall]

i love that; "science is only science if its trying to prove itself wrong"

[@Democlis]

The only difference is the time when something received its name, after some time it simply became "out of use" to use the term "law" when describing a well accepted theory. The ones we still call "law of" are because of tradition but both therms have the same weight.

[@AFSRodrigues]

"The Feeling of Power" is a short story by Asimov, where human society is very advanced but has forgotten all mathematics. Everything is done by computers, maintained by technicians that don't quite understand it. Part of the insight and creativity comes from first using the scientific method. Just like musicians start by playing an instrument, and only compose when they're fluent. I do physical modelling in computers, I'm not anti-technology. But we should be careful about what we throw out.

[@cmdrblahdee]

I think what littleinfinities was getting at was that it's like a mental version of the standard scientific method. Which is true, but that's no reason to say it's the same. You're right, it does take alot of creativity and paradigm shifts are rare.

[@joopie99aa]

An observation leads to the formulation of a question, to which an answer is then hypothesized. A prediction is made based on this hypothesis, and this prediction is then tested through experiment. Then you can make a conclusion based on these experiments. So it's (observation,) question, hypothesis, prediction, experiment, conclusion.

[@PanzerX7]

We're getting there, but slowly. The problem is that we don't have the right material to make a space elevator. We need something strong and flexible enough to withstand both the weather and construction process, and light enough that multiple kilometers can be safely deployed. That's basically the only real hurdle.

[@headphonz777]

I love that kind of "new" science that's bound to come up. I see all these smart kids in my high school and whatnot, and yet, they lack the creativity to really push the field. Offloading the work onto computers would greatly aid in kids exploring more in science, trying to understand concepts, rather than dreading the next excel sheet they have to fill out.

[@Eliasazog1]

In physics, an old theory is NEVER REPLACED COMPLETELY with a new one. What usually happens is that the new theory EXTENDS the old. This is true for Quantum Mechanics and Special Relativity: they both extend Newton's Classical Mechanics, which holds very well for bodys with big enough masses and small enough speeds.

[@DontTellTheIRSAboutMyTaxes]

Guys stop arguing! We have science to discuss!

[@RPGArcher]

when did he say "testing theories" I hear him say scientists were trying to "disprove their own theories", but that's perfectly correct

[@woodbeerighter]

The future of science sounds good, I've broken so many pipettes.

[@TheDBrigner]

I think the major issue is that regardless of spiritual orientation, people flock to annonymous conflict. It's like a verbal drone war, you can throw hurt all you want, but you don't have to be confronted with the consequences of what you said, like confronting a person who is entirely reasonable or worse one who is not. "Trolls" realize this, and use it to their advantage.

[@444lou]

Using ONLY the scientific method to solve a problem is the problem: "Single loop learning" attempts to rectify the error between intent and outcome (the problem) by changing from one specific approach to another." "Double loop learning" takes additional steps to detect and correct errors by modifying existing norms, policies, procedures and objectives or attitudes (the way we look at the problem). In essence exercising unbridled creativity. It is what are minds are built to do.

[@DigitizedSelf]

Oh, I didn't mean to imply anything with regards to the development; I simply meant that a deformation could change the anatomical features of a woman into a man and vice versa. That being said I would naively say that you are correct and that the appearance of a sufficient level of testosterone (presumably) guides the development towards male features. However, since I assume that females do not simply stop their development it seems more correct to view it as a shared initial 'form'.

[@enyvl]

A science robot! A robot that does science! That is GENIUS! It doesn't matter if the results are modest, just the plain concept of it is incredibly awesome!

[@RobKinneySouthpaw]

Hypothesis 1: We are jealous of those who seem to have access to more resources (food) than we do, and want to bring them down as competition. Hypothesis 2: We view their weight (correctly or mistakenly) as a sign of a lack of control and weakness and feel the need to suppress that weakness in our gene pool. A lot of social science and neuroscience would be needed to test those. Maybe someone already has. Time to go to the library and get on EBSCO.

[@MrBriweav]

My favorite science quote (tongue-in-cheek) "If the data does not match the theory, then get new data" HAHA

[@MrThomascow]

I really loved this well written, played and sang beautiful graphics thumbs up

[@MalteKo79]

This was a Triumph I'm making a note here HUGE SUCCESS!

[@trollsofalabama]

I have to disagree with the notion that somehow the creativity isnt part of standard scientific method, it is. It fits in the part of coming up with new hypothesis. When you refine or form a hypothesis, you're using what you understand about the problem to tackle the problem. That's what's going on, you're challenging your understanding of the information presented to you, which is indeed a paradigm shift. Sometimes a person's method of organizing/understanding information is genius vs others

[@rex635]

It's all in the systematic study part. They just fiddle around with something without having a hypothesis or any such thing. Then, if what they're fiddling around with does something, they use it again. If it doesn't, they leave it be. I might've used the wrong word when I said trial and error, because that would suggest they'd have a set of possible tools and try them one by one with a specific purpose. Terribly sorry for chosing my words wrong, there. Maybe 'accidental usage' would be better?

[@ixamraxi]

People like Richard Feynman were quite vocal about the importance of following the scientific method, he can be quoted (hUJfjRoxCbk @ 2m50s) as saying "its only a small section of nature one gets through direct experience, and its through the refined measurements and careful experimentation that we can get a wider view of nature, and then we see unexpected things, things that are far from what we would guess". They thought differently *because* they employed the scientific method.

[@meholatif]

One of the best Scishow videos so far.. great job :)

[@Hellskorn]

I find myself missing the "Booom" at the end. It was just so well placed. Thumbs up for anyone who agrees :)

[@antwan1357]

Correction the scientific method is adapted from the Socratic method observed by Plato when used by Socrates who taught Plato who taught Aristotle

[@HABA300]

I believe this can be pointed not only in the direction of science but everything.

[@MantraOfTheMoron]

Looks at comment section, sighs, and scrolls back up.

[@Qermaq]

I like to put it this way. Science is when you throw away ideas when they do not fit your facts. Faith is when you throw away facts when they don't fit your ideas.

[@lelanddyer9461]

"Snails...on Nyquil" makes me think of a snail just sitting there with his eyes half open looking around like, "fuck...." and then going to sleep.

[@philforrence]

Wow, so thorough. Didn't expect it to get into Kuhn's work! So good.

[@scott98390]

My friend, I say once again: past experience is all any of us have. You are who you are today because of the life you've lived. Yes, I will die, but when I do I will have lived a full life, loving my friends and family, helping others, and trying not to be a dick. I will die, as it is part of a wonderful cycle - it is the final cost of having lived. I hope I live a long life with many years ahead - but if I were to die tomorrow, it wouldn't die "angry and confused". Everything has an end.

[@HughOBrien]

This is the most interesting episode yet.

[@jwe2223]

Scishow! could you please create a video elaborating on new computing techniques and technologies being used in science?

[@IRuinEvrything]

in my opinion, no matter how fast/brilliant/efficient human-founded computing becomes, it will still be an extension of humanity, and since real humans are far more easily/quickly spooked, it would seem Hank is right. The computers can quickly act on data, but it takes a sensitive array of sensors to pick out what to initialize on. Humans, like horses, are very sensitive and alert to anomaly at a distance.

[@Necronswillrule]

according to science it is impossible to know for sure, because there is no known method of testing for parallel universes, meaning: we're stuck at the hypothesis level, because we don't know what experiments to run

[@KentBDouglas92]

You can definitly use thought to discover new views. There are many good thinkers yet to come.

[@drasco274]

This was a really great episode....nice hank and rest of the scishowq team

[@InternetLawman]

It's contextual. The scientific method did give birth to phrenology and evolutionary psychology, but it did also provide an explanation for many a phenomena.

[@cowkong]

Light coming out of their eyes? How would they explain looking in pitch black darkness? Night would happen due to fatigue and a lack of energy to produce more light? Just from what you said it sounds like people back then did not think. OFF TO THE INTERNET TO LEARN! Seriously, though, love the show. Please don't ever leave.

[@Adamantium9001]

I don't know why the existence of occasional big paradigm shifts in our understanding is considered evidence of the limits of the method: it's still just proposing possible explanations of the existing data and then designing experiments to collect new data that will support or refute them. Quantum mechanics and general and special relativity are not replacements of Newton's laws; they're extensions of them.

[@BenTajer89]

I don't think you can quantify knowledge, especially interms of how wrong or right it is. That's like putting aristotle on a balancing scale: with one side for the "wrong" things (heart is for thinking, five elements, ladder of life, etc.) and one side for the "right" things (causality, empiricism, embryos etc.), and deciding that the scale tilts to wrong. That's silly, aristotle's triumphs are still useful today, and his faults have informed others by giving them hypotheses to disprove.

[@MrAcuriteOf1337]

The religous method: Step one) say something Step two) prosecute someone for it

[@Xorkrik]

I'm making a note here: Huge success!

[@Sack_Geyser]

I can understand the desire to correct anything you perceive as wrong, but it's not necessary to debate with everyone. Just say something, allow others to respect or refute your statement as they will, and move on. It's not worth it trying to convince every else-believer of your own ideals, so just let people say/think what they want to say/think. (And yes, I am aware that this statement is, in itself, a contradiction. Feel free to say what you will, I won't tell you otherwise.)

[@brianjonker510]

A lot of times the only thing a Scientist learns is how to ask a better question for his next experiment.

[@rareroe305]

I love pipetting too! It's been my job for 9 years, so I pretty much pipette like a boss now!

[@seanpeery7780]

"Sometimes science is more art then science Morty; not a lot of people know that."

[@metalElvalover]

I appreciate your backing in this discussion, but Einstein was also not religious, nor was he a theist. He was a pantheist. Irreligious but not atheist. These are very fine distinctions that we're making here. He was not religious, but he was not an atheist, he believed in a type of God, but was not a theist, except insofar as one can call pantheists and deists types of theists. But he was not a theist in the "personal, intercessory God" sense of the word.

[@OneUpdateataTime]

A room full of scientists gather round the Method. They stared down expectantly. "Come on Method... come on... tell us the secrets of the universe." The Method starts to whimper and bury its furry little head in its paws. "Awwww,"says Thomas Khun "poor thing. Guys, we're putting too much pressure on the poor thing."

[@rex635]

It would miss definition 1, because it's not a system, because a system is a set of principles and a set is a group or collection of thingS, plural, rather than singular. It would miss the second definition, because it's not carried on, it's a single activity that is induced by accident. It would also miss the third definition, because it's not regular, again: it's just on the occasion that they happen to be fiddling with the thing they may or may not afterwards use as a tool.

[@rex635]

Creating tools is something different from excercising science. Science is about understanding. The chimp doesn't need to understand how the tool works, as long as he knows that it works. And science was not just just developed for testing our hypotheses and theories, but also to help us make the theories and hypotheses. The fact that chimps could do it, too, implicates that it's not the humans making theories, but science. Also, I like the 'we are the chimps motto'... Don't know why... xD

[@rhiflux]

Einstein revolutionised gravity because he was led by strong convictions on what the fundamental principles were - space&time are relative and the speed of light is the same to any observer. That led him to considering gravity as being due to the curvature of space-time geometry. That led him to PREDICT that light would curve around massive objects. Eddington verified this a couple of years later by looking at stars close to a solar eclipse. Light was not known to curve beforehand.

[@oO_ox_O]

We are more well-connected than ever and there is peace and relative stability in parts of the world, so we do have similar times

[@geass11]

1) Abiogenesis. We can mix together "non-life" elements, to build the building block of "life" (amino acids). 2) Definite "nothing". Something has always come from something. Nothing has NEVER been observed and it will never be observed. 3) Why not? Something has always come from something. Since there is things in the Universe, it isn't impossible to think that these things (e.g Gravity) have always existed. 4) Your proof that Gos exists = "is"? Comment when you actually have evidence.

[@oO_ox_O]

> it's confusing, but it kinda makes sense if you think about it... No it doesn't, it has to have some connection to our "space" or it would be insignificant, i.e. not different from non-existing.

[@ahadicow]

Love this video, so rare to see anyone who are science-lover admit reality of science is far more complicated and imperfect than the idealized scientific method. There is so much unnesscesry worshipping of the fabled SM that makes science felt like a religion.

[@AuntieToad]

So perfect for our day at school. Science Fair was on Thursday and we're writing reflections!

[@sleepydesu646]

I, too, love pipette-ing.

[@ragnkja]

To elaborate on what HarlnivorousBeast said about the pipette, in Norwegian it's often called a drop counter.

[@DigitizedSelf]

I agree that the term 'deform' seems loaded and often carries a negative connotation but 'deformation' should be the right word for a transformation which merely alters the shape of something. Furthermore, focusing solely on the anatomical aspects, the correct deformation would seem to be able to change women into something pretty close to men (and vice versa). Naturally I know that this isn't general; there are quite clearly non-anatomical features which doesn't change under a deformation.