Veritasium: this equation will change how you see the world, a John Gribbin plagiarism?

[@timothygerke6982]

To me, Derek's niche with his Veritasium channel is not that he is a science originator but a science communicator. With that said, if he gained his inspiration for the video from Gribbon's work, it would have been ethical to give Gribbon credit and point viewers to Gribbon's work.

[@ritishify]

It's John Gribbin*

[@DynestiGTI]

I've noticed it with a lot of Veritasium's videos, it's just regurgitated stuff from other books/videos from years ago. I don't mind revisiting old topics, but he should provide credit to his sources.

[@medaphysicsrepository2639]

I just feel like he should at least give them some share of the profits he makes.. how hard would it be

[@user-lf6rn7ci5n]

He seems to have cited all of the information he used for that video in the description box though, i’m not sure why he would skip over this book if he used it when he referenced everything else. it does seem odd though, maybe he read deep simplicity and the went straight to the citations that it gave and read and cited those, i’m not sure. definitely seems like a book worth picking up though

[@medaphysicsrepository2639]

It really just depends on how common these examples are in teaching the subject, for example in biology we almost always talk about the galapagos finches, peppered moths, and icefish. Its the "standard" example. Same thing for a vat of steam in thermodynamics or a set of coins. So Im not sure if these are super common examples, either way, you are better off taking the time to read 200-250pg if you want to understand chaos and complexity than you are watching a condensed 10min video.

[@user-lf6rn7ci5n]

@@medaphysicsrepository2639 ah I see. I actually ordered a copy yesterday I'm excited to read it

[@medaphysicsrepository2639]

Let me know how it goes!

[@danielbautz3945]

Hello there. My thoughts (a German student) about Veritasium's video are a bit ambivalent. On the one hand I have to say that without his Video I surely would not have known the chaos theorie and the way he showed the example (even if they are not his) helped me for a better understanding. On the other hand he didnt even put credits or a link in the describtion. In science it is normal that you use foreign works to work with but you have to mention it. And in this case he cleary copied the content and structure without a shoutout and that is right. Anyway, I am very thankful for seeing Veritasiums video because it showed another fascinating aspect of mathematician. And as well I'm very thankful that I saw your video and that you showed me the source. I am thinking about buying the book and read it. Greetings from Germany :D

[@medaphysicsrepository2639]

Always cool that people from across the pond reach out! if you are intersted in learning more about chaos and (more interesting imo) complexity science, in addition to John Gribbin, id also recommend "Scale" by Geoffrey West over at the santa fe institute! its a great read!

[@satyamsinha5429]

well , today i watched veritasium video , i dont think so i would have known about Mendalbrot set or figenbaum constant if i won'T get that video suggestion . i think he should give credit to writter !! well i like stuffs if its more than 60% on a positive side , and i think its 99.9 worth watching . ( Thankyou for giving us information ) - From India

[@christiansitzman5601]

I haven't read this book *yet*, so my opinion is not as informed as I would like, but they are discussing the same mathematical principles. The fact that the shorter explanation contains the same examples and elements as the longer one is not only not evidence of plagiarism, it is an obvious consequence of using scientific studies to explain an observable phenomenon. We all stand on the shoulders of giants. Both creations are resultant from the efforts of innumerable minds working in conjecture and building upon each others ideas.

[@falklumo]

I hate it to be that person, but you are wrong. Right, there is a lot of plagiarism on YT. But this Veritasium video is no example. All examples you mention are the classical textbook examples you now find all over the place for Chaos theory, rabbits and convection roles included ;) Note that original credit goes back into the 70s and before. "Deep Simplicity: Bringing Order to Chaos and Complexity" is itself drawing from the material of others.

[@medaphysicsrepository2639]

The more I look into this I think you are right, its a common example like the peppered moths in biology, this makes me question the utility of such a field though, if its only limited explanatory power is the same handful of things

[@youmaycallmeken]

You're talking about a 2004 book. Veritasium Lists its sources and they are from 2000, 1976, 1984, 1998, 2012, 1992, 1987, 1990, 2016, and 1982. So now did you check whether the book you mentioned teaches stuff from previously published materials and ever has groups of words and examples that are quite identical?

[@medaphysicsrepository2639]

so he plagiarizes multiple books? that contained all the examples of one book?

[@j.avocado]

Many of the examples he used are actually in the James Glieck's book he mentioned so there may be some overlap because it's all on the same subject, perhaps? But I haven't read Gribbins, just a thought

[@medaphysicsrepository2639]

Could be, we often use the peppered moth or icefish as examples in biology

[@Hakuna_Matata2025]

I think it's not plagiarism, Veritasium is a KZbinr educator and what he does is to pass information and knowledge. Although he didn't say where he get the idea he also didn't take the credit for himself which if he does that's the time plagiarism will be an issue..

[@蓮-l1e]

some brazilian channels copy "allmost" contents from outside countries and sometimes they not put copyright, plagiarism.

[@medaphysicsrepository2639]

Ugh so typical of the internet

[@amdistant5547]

I understand your frustration because I just finished reading a book called The Infinite Game by Sinek who has taken the central thesis of the argument from another author called James P. Carse who wrote a book called Finite and Infinite Games. While he does give credit to Carse, what was the point of him writing the book, why didn't he just refer everyone to the original book ?? Because they're all there to fill their own pockets as deep as they can and in Sinek's case, to try to make himself look smarter than he really is.

[@Riochart]

How else would you like for him to explain/show the biforcation diagram, or when you said he plagiarised the equation, how else is he suposed to explain it? He just wanted to bring this topic to the mainstream public eye and i think he has done it beautifully and there is almost nothing wrong with that. In this life everything is a copy of a copy, everything has been said and if in the book it was explained in an excellent way, why shouldnt he show this to the wider audience? But i do agree on one, if he didnt quote the book nor the author he should have done that if that was his source of inspiration. But i dont think people should be so critical and so mean as i can see in the comments. He is a succesful guy and he is pretty good at what he does. The production quality is amazing

[@medaphysicsrepository2639]

he didn’t mention anything about Gibbins work, which is plagiarism. Its not okay to copy someone else’s book written before KZbin existed, idea by idea and example by example. period. You should consider reading the original text by John gribbin then watch the video.. There are numerous applications to chaos theory and I mean NUMEROUS and of all the examples he chooses the exact same ones that john gribbin did? That’s plagiarism. Idc about some elitist bourgeoise who lives in Pedowood with high “production quality” if you copy someone else’s work you are a plagiarist. Another user in this thread mentioned another “KZbinr” who plagiarism was so bad they faced legal action. It happens all the time. Not okay to make millions off of someone else’s work

[@bra_todo]

Credit should be given where credit is due. When you write something without citing sources, it is plagiarism. I agree totally with the point of this video. Thanks to Mr. Underhill for pointing out and bringing the source to our attention. Honesty is crucial. Good reason to subscribe.

[@medaphysicsrepository2639]

@@bra_todo its a difficult line to balance, Roman's criticism is somewhat valid in that there is nothing wrong with wanting to spread information around, some examples are really common and dont warrant a reference, I just dont think that was the case in this example otherwise why would gribbin have been published I just take issue with making money off of it and giving no credit.

[@sliderule5891]

I do not share you assertion of plagiarism at all. Inappropriate here. Have you researched where the material came from in Gribbin's book? John Gibbin is a science writer. Veritasium is a KZbin science teacher. They both do similar work but in different media. However, thanks for introducing me to Gribbin's book. Just ordered it. KZbin is a wonderful platform to learn about many things.

[@medaphysicsrepository2639]

lmk what you think after you read gibbins book, its a good read

[@biology4084]

What assertion? He's asking a question

[@SmokeyDope]

Very good response video! You made great points for your case and i cant help but agree with you, it seems likely that Veritasium did take elements from John Gribbins book without mentioning him. As to the extent of plagiarism, im not so sure as its kinda a subjective judgement as to what is and isn't direct plagiarism unless its a literal copy paste scenario. There is some argument that while he (he as in Veriasium/Derick) took 'heavy' inspiration from the examples and diagrams of Deep Simplicity, he didn't copy word for word from the book, he showed the examples in a different chronology from the book, and presented the material in a new format (with animations and real time graph generation, something a book cannot do). Also, among all the examples its not like John Gribbin himself was responsible for the discovery of anything talked about in the video. So effectively, Derick took the examples and talking points of the book, mixed them in a different order, and presented them in a similar but not exact way while adding bits of visuals. We also for fairness sake should play devils advocate for a moment, there is a small chance that Derick found all these examples and diagrams through academic research into the same published papers that Gribbins used as reference for his book, and because there's only so many ways to skin a cat (or introduce a general audience to the concept of complexity) they both chose the most simple to understand examples, arriving at similar presentations independently. I doubt that's the case, but its always worth considering. So im not entirely sold that its true plagiarism as there is some debate, however i definitely see your POV on the matter. Personally, im happy the video got made in the first place and rose awareness in the general public for complexity, fractals, the M-set and inherent unpredictability in stable systems. for every one person like you or me who has already known about this stuff for years and sees the video as mediocre and skin-deep, there's a million fresh and curious inexperienced minds who got introduced to the beautiful world of complexity and chaos and blown away via the same video. If Derick did plagiarise from Gribbins, then thats a dick move on his part and i lose some respect for him as a person, however its always a good idea to separate creation from creator, the video itself is well made IMHO.

[@medaphysicsrepository2639]

It IS a fine line between the two things and I do believe he is at that line.. I guess I am more so just upset that others dont take the time to read nowadays and instead go to a 10min video on youtube

[@Ones_Complement]

I don't believe in IP as a legal construct, but on a personal level if he lifted so much directly from the work the least he could've done was plug it in the video. Pretty lame.

[@miguelarodz]

Thank you for sharing, one positive bifurcation from Veritasium's video is that it brought me to this video and therefore this book. I am putting it on my wishlist to read. I just wish that he gave credit to the author so possibly more people would by his book.

[@medaphysicsrepository2639]

it is imo the best introduction to chaos and complexity, let me know what you think after you read it

[@lalalanidani]

Veritasium never claimed to make these ideas himself, that is. I’d read this book before that video was ever a thought. Still a good video! Good points, however. There’s a fine line.

[@resonant_theories]

There are no polytmaths anymore? Don't agree.

[@medaphysicsrepository2639]

uh did you mean to comment on this video?

[@resonant_theories]

@@medaphysicsrepository2639 no i saw a featured video on your channel. There was a person saying that. He sounded a bit disappointed.

[@biology4084]

Yes! I totally agree with your sentiment and feel the same way. I'm not a math/physic person though, so hadn't noticed it with this vid. But his most recent one on expert is straight-up David Epstein's book, Range. I also don't know if it's plagiarism, but it's sure not kosher from my point of view, especially, as you say, he is profiting from these videos without referencing or acknowledging the source material. They're presented as his way of communicating the information, and receives ++ accolades for it, when it was someone else's hard work that has been minimally paraphrased.

[@avrywilson577]

Fascinating. Thanks for your video. Incidentally, my favorite of Gribbon is 'The Scientists'. Veritasium (Derek Muller) does have *some good content, but I have many reservations over the mass majority of them. Between obvious click bait and pushing his dissertation agenda (it was on a 'best' way to teach science) I find it disturbing.

[@medaphysicsrepository2639]

Agreed, he is a cheap con imo, taking the mays equation and then modifying it and acting like it was his own doing.. smh... "the scientists" is one of my favorite books, tbh its what made gribbon

[@marmaladekamikaze]

That "bitter nasty taste in your mouth" is a shared one amongst everyone who comes across a slick oiled plagarist and is a sensation that is a shared one, on the matter of Derek Muller. After stumbling upon his sept 2020 video "how kodak exposed the bomb", that only came out following and was word for word copied, including the references found in the video description, from the wikipedia section on the particular fallout event, in the Trinity(device) article. To which I, living in a location geographically nearly diametrically contrary to Derek Muller and likewise that far apart in his claim to being the "researcher" of the video, I did the research wrote about it and summarized the primary sources and went the extra mile, researching and included how this communique between kodak and the bomb testers, continued for decades afterward. With this, my sole researching, reaching the criteria of "notable" in wikipedia policy for inclusion, after a struggle, with another editor, as it isn't strictly about Trinity, only the precedent it set, permitting it for entry into the Trinity article, a whole 6 years prior, to Derek's plagarism of my work, that is still timestamped on the wikipedia article, "initially received september 2014". Yet no attribution is done whatsoever by "verasatium", an ironic name, considering what I now see is an attempt to divine good faith by that words association and providence. None, no attribution is given. At least us wikipedians cite our sources, spending countless hours, pulling together obscure and scattered fragments into a coherent chronological narrative. A difficult and fraught with many frustrating hours task, of tracking down independent corroborating sources, turning back from false rumor avenues, that one has to develop the discernment to investigate further into or not, only from experience. By contrast. These youtube rip-and-peddle performers, in video format, do no such thing. They instead clearly prey upon other people's time and effort, re-package and ship it out in their own format. Taking the equivalent of the work of those who made a VHS tape and converting it into DVD. With clearly both where and who they got it ALL from, given nothing but as much distance put between them as possible. With the extra laughable attempt of theirs, to be followed up, with passing themselves off as also the "researchers" of everything, in their video descriptions. I wish to dearly thank you for your video on, what I had not known was yet another of Muller's thefts of those really doing the hard work. After something of the light of humanity going out following seeing Muller's plagarism of my work, without so much as attribution. I have no doubt that this scumbag Derek Muller, has many, many more similar cases of flagrant plagarism, in his other videos to which he's making both a fraudulent name as a "researcher" and simultaneous illegitimate revenue from, as what content could he create without other people's investigative work? I hope that your video can serve as the lightning rod to those others who feel that taste in their mouths and this place to serve as a gathering place, to where we can begin to assemble and do something about this, crook.

[@medaphysicsrepository2639]

Would you be interested in doing an interview with me about this?

[@marmaladekamikaze]

I'm unfortunately not very photogenic but am aware of another youtuber who plagarized whole text from 2 resesrchers' book, with a write up of this theft occuring, if you search "Amy Shira Teital plagarism", the write up in space review is there. This phenomenon, of youtubers making videos, re-packaging word for word at times, the plagiarism of someone else, who did not have a camera at the time, yet make a video and claim to be a researcher themselves? It is deranged and our lesson learned is, not to trust and share nothing. Never publish anything, lest it be turned into a cash cow for someone else, who will also not give you any attribution, but instead darken their track back to you.

[@medaphysicsrepository2639]

www.thespacereview.com/article/2394/1 You are absolutely right, you need not do an interview whereby you show your face, but Id love to hear more about this and what your experiences have been like

[@auderus]

Your point is well taken, when you stand on the shoulders of giants humility and intellectual rigor demand that you give them credit for the contribution you are profiting from. When you fail to give credit the suggestion is that the contribution you are making is original in at least from if not content, that is plagiarism plain and simple. If a journalist did it it would be , if a student did it it would be and when a media personality does it, it is... plagiarism and exploitation. Shameful. The bad taste in your mouth is righteous indignation born of the value given to intellectual honesty. Thank you for pointing this out, I am subscribing to your channel and unsubscribing to his.... (I am sure that was not your intention, but I want to support where support is due!)

[@medaphysicsrepository2639]

Thanks for the comment, I agree with you in that if a student did this they would absolutely get a zero and be disciplined for it, youtube just seems to give people a free pass on this stuff at times.

[@quasicrystal]

I DISAGREE that Veritasium is guilty of plagiarism! Let me tell you why: Well it surely seems as if there was plagiarism on behalf of Veritasium, as he is not citing the book of John Gribbin. However, teaching myself Chaos at Grammar School (Gymnasium) in the last year physics course, I know that ALL the introductory texts and textbooks cite the same few examples. Actually, this is a bit disappointing because one wished you could have more diverse list examples to show to your students. I have started to make my own examples. THEREFORE I DISAGREE that Veritasium is guilty of plagiarism! I could find with no problem at least another 4 similar texts and webpages etc. with the very same list of examples. These examples are the standard curriculum if you wish to teach your students about deterministic chaos theory. The list of references in Veritasium’s video is probably sufficient to make justice that it is not plagiarism. A book like that of John Gribbin’s does not need to be cited. I don’t know it, but surely it is a good popular book on chaos theory.

[@medaphysicsrepository2639]

This is what I was wondering, are these common examples of chaos theory application that have become common place in every textbook/discussion out there. ? seems like it, disappointing that such a cool topic would have so little applications

[@1pokemonfan5]

Thank you for this video! This was one of the videos that got me into Veritasium, so I am always happy to find criticism of my favorites; as an educator of MS and HS students (social sciences, history, English, humanities, etc.), it helps keep me humble and honest! I am having fun checking out your other videos too. I don't know if you saw Veritasium's latest video on clickbait, but I highly recommend you watch it. He totally gives away the game when he describes the reasons, motivations and ways that he makes content and packaging, ever so slightly bemoaning the necessity of clickbait, justifying video profitablity behind the utilitarian's argument for education of the masses and for the broadest reach/engagement as follows: more views = more engaged eyes (and more money which can be used to do more education material) but is lost to the point you emphasized in your peter thiel video that every person in a growth-based system seeks a worldview/justification for their continued growth. Veritasium has a sneaky trap of ends justify any means should plagiarism be an accusation put his way of "oh well I'm just repackaging this content to reach the maximum amount of people". Anyways, as I find your perspective illuminating and helpful in my own self-reflections, I'm curious about your opinion on the following: as a private school teacher myself, I feel I face a similar problem and pressure of plagiarism in that it is my job to teach many multiple skills/concepts in accessable and relatable ways. The teacher ethos I was taught in grad school and by my public school colleagues is a necessary Robin Hood style "take everything and repurpose it" and one should rarely "remake the wheel". Is that model of American public education privy to the same (proper, I should emphasize) criticisms and standards of plagiarism and intellectual integrity if transfered to a private system, or to extend it further, to a decentralized person-centered consumer style education that creates demand for "Education KZbinrs"? Or is there a kind of pass we give to educators no matter the amount of money they are paid? I am very interested in hearing your thoughts on this and discussing it further if you are interested! Cheers and thank you again for the video!

[@medaphysicsrepository2639]

Wow thanks for the comments, first of all, lets just say it: BSG was and shall remain, one of the greatest sci-fi series of all time. your comments: if you are a private school teacher, you are probably criminally underpaid, in which case you have no obligation to do a good job. (this is my opinion of course) I dont really feel like you can compare the work required to teach a class in a school with the work required to make a youtube video, Ive never made anything with high production quality but teaching is one of the most consuming tasks of all time and you dont have an entire team with you... so i guess to summarize, i feel like there is a difference between education and entertainment, but even then i feel that if you are going to use multiple examples and illustrations from others you should at least say something like "Patrickjmt calls this X" or "Bozemanscience calls this Y" just my thoughts on the matter though.

[@SlicedSlappy]

The overhead hand movements are hilarious

[@medaphysicsrepository2639]

They look like squids

[@DoktorSativa]

It surely wouldn't have hurt for them to give credit where credit is due. Unless, they knew that what they were doing was shady af.

[@rickfearn3663]

"If it looks like a duck"..... Seems like Veritasium has a lot in common with Mr. Biden. Sadly. Veritasium is all show, little creative content. I watched one of his videos and that was enough for life. Much better to find presentations with real creative content. Veritasium is a money machine. Sadly.

[@medaphysicsrepository2639]

After looking at this video it reminds me that he mentions the mays equation in the video but never references that the mays equation is the equation he used to model a population, almost deliberately changing it from insects to rabbits... Theses concepts took at least 150-200pages to teach and explain loosely and in layman’s terms.... I don’t see much merit behind a 10 min video that tries to approach those topics, especially if your content is geared towards the layperson..really irritating. That aside thanks for commenting! Hope you are doing well!

[@rickfearn3663]

@@medaphysicsrepository2639 In my third chemo session today. It is really brutal. Thanks so much for asking.

[@medaphysicsrepository2639]

I cant even imagine..Does it help to think about cell biology, enzyme inhibition, etc. when you are going through that ?

[@tealsculptress]

Bugs the heck out of me, too! Glad someone else sees it that way! Couldn't get away with it anywhere else