To me as a scientist it is batshit crazy that it is barely taught in school how science works. This should be the most obvious item on the curriculum right next to teaching how to read.

1. Falsifiable 2. Ready to reject old theories in face of new evidences, not just explain inconsistencies away by opaque methods. 3. Verifiable across various disciplines.

What I have observed is that many people use their own experiences, beliefs and biases as “proof” of a given position despite mountains of scientific evidence to the contrary. Also people who distrust science, medicine, etc. will mistake this mistrust for “critical thinking”, when in fact it is mostly an emotional gut reaction.

I'm glad astrology was mentioned. I'm pretty tired of people thinking they know anything about me simply by asking what day I was born. My experiences in life made me who I am, not the position of the stars and planets. Astral signs are 100% meaningless and that's why nobody has been able to guess mine without me telling them.

glad homeopathy was mentioned!! i had a homeopathic doctor when i was a teenager. went to them for four years because of stomache pain and every time i would just get some homeopathic pills (we did do a allergy test though at my first appointment). in the end i figured it out myself that i had lactose intolerance and that my issue was easily fixable. glad it was nothing worse but i feel that a different doctor could have figured that out quicker. i also convinced my parents to not go to the homeopathic doctor anymore because it made me really worried that if they had something serious it would get unchecked for too long.

One challenge is when people think they are being scientific by “just asking questions”, and resent when others refute their claims out of hand with large bodies of evidence that have already been done. They then think that science is it’s own religion because from their perspective they’re not being taken seriously in an environment where challenging existing ideas is supposed to be applauded. But what they don’t realize is that “challenging existing ideas” is not supposed to apply to an entire field or principle or scientific theory all at once, and instead should be done one step at a time. For example, you don’t prove or disprove flat Earth with a single experiment. You do lots of separate, independent experiments and look at the body of evidence as a whole. Additionally, people don’t realize that “theory” in a science context does not mean the same as “theory” in a conspiracy context. In science it refers to an extremely established, proven idea that is already mostly correct, with the minute details needing to be fleshed out. On one hand you want to help people learn what science literacy means, but on the other hand you can’t afford to waste your time with every last troll who is disingenuous and then feigns being offended, promoting their staged experience as evidence that science is the same as religion in terms of determining what is true and what is false. Especially on the internet you literally could just be talking to a bot or AI nowadays, which makes everything even worse.

Now they just need a video explaining how to tell the difference between something that's well researched and propaganda.

It's challenging especially when it comes to psychology too as people also have misunderstood pseudoscience for psychology. Pseudoscience has really tainted psychology's name a lot and it's saddening when people started to have a misconception that people who study psychology can read minds, auras and et cetera. Even worse is that people were lured to sign up for metaphysics course and often we heard it's because they thought these were psychological science

I wonder if the demon of reason would tackle the "moving the goal post" fallacy I have seen some pseudoscience trying to justify itself with that "the product work, they just applied wrong"

beautifully delivered as always. it is sad how prevalent misinformation and pseudoscience is in modern society. i hope that this video reaches a wide audience..

the animation is superb

Pseudoscience are processes, knowledge and people that are promoted to be scientific but actually aren’t. Unfortunately, many people don’t understand how science works, leaving them vulnerable to pseudoscientific ideas. Sometimes the conclusions of science don’t satisfy our fundamental needs, so we tend to rather prefer the interesting stories of pseudoscience. Pseudoscience makes us fall victim to a confirmation bias and wishful thinking by confirming our beliefs, expectations and hopes. People tend to find pseudoscience more emotionally satisfying than actual science. The fundamental difference between science and pseudoscience is that scientists are motivated to understand reality as it actually is, and pseudoscientists are motivated to protect their emotional attachment to their beliefs, expectations and hopes. Pseudoscience avoids many of the steps that makes the scientific process reliable. Pseudoscience tends to be done unsystematically in an unplanned, uncontrolled, disorganized, and unrepeatable way. It tends to appeal to singular studies as sufficient evidence to establish a high degree of confidence in a conclusion (avoids research syntheses and summaries). It tends to be based on untestable ideas that can’t be disproven (unfalsifiable). It tends to assume that correlation implies causation. It tends to rely heavily on anecdotes, hearsay, intuition, authority, popularity, or tradition. It tends to be based on small sample sizes. It tends to have a conflict of interest between the funding source for the research and the results of the research. It tends to be compared to a few lines of evidence (gathered from one type of test and one field of study) by a few people and often these people are unqualified as well. It tends to contain little predictive, descriptive, or explanatory power. It tends to be based on many assumptions and go beyond what the evidence suggests. It tends to be inconsistent with laws and theories in other fields of study. It tends to appeal to supernatural causes to explain natural occurrences. It tends to claim that their ideas can be proved with complete certainty. It tends to try to prove ideas by specifically selecting evidence to justify a desired conclusion that is assumed in advance. It tends to manipulate the analysis of data to allow for a desired result to appear statistically significant (p-value hacking). Pseudoscience tends to not rely on a system of checks and balances. It tends to be based on the effort of a few people and often these people are unqualified as well. It tends to avoid intellectual diversity. It tends to avoid rigorous testing and scrutiny. It tends to be unchanging and not self-corrective. It tends to go beyond the limitations of science. It tends to commit logical fallacies in its arguments. It tends to avoid discussions, feedback, and peer review. It tends to not be published in any credible scientific journals. It tends to avoid the scientific community but rather share the results directly with the general public. It tends to oppose the scientific consensus, focus on minor uncertainties and claim that there is a conspiracy to suppress their ideas.

Sometimes I wonder if social sciences are really science, when I think of science I always think of natural sciences. I am glad in today's world we have access to so much information so we can contrast data better.

Good video! Nice to see some philosophy of science content in the mainstream. Quick tidbits of philosophy provide, inherently, an incredibly difficult challenge because there's always so much complexity underlying every topic. Nevertheless, Dr. De Baerdemaeker did a good job including the most important stuff here.

Labeling something pseudo-science gets instant resistace from enthusiasts and many people who consider themselves open minded. I have been calling it "scientism" which I define as believing in something because it sounds scientific. Practitioners can be scientismists. It seems to go down easier and get the thinking engaged before the emotions.

When reading literature or media about a scientific claim, watch out for absolute terms like "prove/disprove", "always/never", "world's foremost authority on vs expert in". You'd be amazed how many articles you can just skim over and determine that they are not giving an objective view on something.

"Looking scientific and actually BEING scientific are two very different things" if I had a dollar for every KZfaq channel this could apply to

Clean animations, I liked the satisfying ones the most! I think you guys should use them more

I remember getting homeopathic medicine long ago for some skin problems. Yeah, didn't work. So gave up on that one. But i heard one aunt of mine uses homeopathy. Homeopathy still hasn't disappeared. But i think it's become less practiced now with the increase of educated people.

The problem is that "being scientific" is not the opposite of "being human". There are still things we do not unedrstand about us, like the observable correlation between low-quality life and messurable symptoms and illnesses. Hardcore science-rooted doctors would treat the symptoms and dismiss patients with "it's all in your head" or "You are just being paranoid!". Then these people go to the pseudo sciences and they are heard, treated fairly and emotionally contained. This is where homeopathy shines. Dr Mike says it very elonquently "The reason why modern medicine is failing? It is our fault".

Unfortunately, scientists are still human, and they are often resistant to ideas that challenge their long-held theories, which they may interpret as personal challenges against their reputations. A classic example is the case of Galileo, whose theory of heliocentrism defied long-held Aristotelilian ideas as well as the theories of another astronomer, Tycho Brahe (who had reasonable criticisms of Galileo's theory given the limits of contemporary telescopes). We tend to remember the Galileo affair as a conflict of religion vs. science, but that's a massive oversimplification that ignores social tensions, scientific rivalries, and Galileo's own lack of tact. It's also worth remembering that real scientific theories adapt to new information all the time, even if the core tenants remain the same. The Theory of Evolution is an excellent example: The core tenant (the development of different species diverging from a common ancestry) may remain the same, but the mechanics and details have changed considerably since Darwin first formulated his theory.

“One of the great commandments of science is, "Mistrust arguments from authority."” - Carl Sagan

@5:22 "looking scientific and actually being scientific are two very different things" I can't say any better.

Love this video. This content is getting to the nature of "truth". The world needs information just like this.

When my college biology teacher started our unit on evolution he made an important distinction between science and religion. He said that science asks question of how where religion asks the question of why, and when the two ask the other's question problems start to emerge.

If i would've came across this video when i was busy reading graham hancock's books, it would've saved me a lot of time and energy 😂😂😂

Love love love the new animation styles!! Kudos to team TED ED :)))

Fantastic video. It's an interesting and necessary topic to be explained and discussed. Thank you, TED-Ed.

Love this so much 😍 If only everyone in the world reasoned in this way. There'd still be multiculturalism, differences, variety etc, but the world would be so much better too. Spread the word, people!

SCIENCE IS THE BEST

Thank you so much for making this video on such an important topic ❤

Thanks for the great explanatory videos. It’s calming!

Amazing information as always! Just when I think that I've seen all animation styles, animators at Ted-Ed surprise me with yet another beautiful animation. Hats off to the whole team!

The animation is so good!

1-falisifiable 2-response to criticism 3-overall consistency

Probably your most important video to date!

Occam’s razor is probably the best way to determine if something is science or pseudoscience

For those that are interested, there's a brilliant book called 'Bad Science' by Ben Goldacre that expands on this idea.

the animation is so beautiful, applause to the animators

The best metaphor i have heard for homeopathy goes something like: You have a headache. Dissolve an aspirin into the Pacific Ocean. Drink a glass of the ocean to gain the benefits of the aspirin.

"how to spot pseudoscience, from the platform that gives pseudoscience its loudest voice"

The problem here is that you’re assuming that people *want* robust science and are misled by bad science. But speaking from personal experience with family members who are susceptible to alternative medicine pseudoscience, that’s often not true. Sometimes they reject information simply *because* it comes from medical professionals who they no longer trust. And pointing out to them that the scientific method doesn’t require trust, and that it’s good for them to ask questions like “how do we know this to be true?” makes it sound like too much hard work. They’d rather avoid that mental labour and trust their gut instincts, which are often very mistaken.

I thought the animation and style looked familiar. Eoin Duffy is great. Really nice.

What a great video, genius analysis Ted- Ed team ❤👍

The problem today is that people see science as badge to be worn rather then a methodology

Science and pseudoscience can be quite tough to differentiate. Science leans more on scientific facts and discoveries. Pseudoscience relies more on beliefs that may not have any substantial evidences to back up.

There's not just pseodoscience but pseudohistory to contend with, as well!

Strangely, one of the symptoms of caffeine withdrawal is insomnia.

Critical thinking?? We might be in trouble, there isn’t a whole lot of that going spare these days 😂 Jokes aside, brilliant video as always, hopefully it will inspire open and sincere conversation!

Great video! I was wondering if the personality tests that were popular a while ago (like mbti, the big five) were pseudoscience.

I love this graphic and the narrator!!!

Great Video!

Thanks for the video...didnt know there existed a" false "science

As an Orthodox Christian I believe that religion and science are two completely separate elements from each other and should not be mixed with each other. Religion is the philosophical approach to life and science is the rational approach to life.

Truly great video

What a good video 😊

I just thought about my distant family which "cures" cancer with vitamin C drips... sitting at a table, gulping beer and smoking an appalling number of cigarettes. Yep. On another note, this animation aesthetic is quite... cute? I don't know, I like it nevertheless.

Underrated channel😅

Great video Thank you 👍

classic animations, fantastic communication!

Why do so many practitioners and institutions still support this practice? Money.. It's because of money. There are people that pay good money to seek out these useless "alternative" treatments..

MUCH NEEDED VIDEO❤

I hated how science was taught when I was in school. It is a process, not a set of facts and assumptions. Also, anyone who tells me a theory turns into a law, I swear to god I’ll….!

Thank you for being this direct and blunt about it. I’m sure creationist, homeopaths etc will be furious and potentially unfollow you. So this is commendable.

The placebo effect is real and I suspect homeopathy plays into that.

props to the animator, this looks so good

The animation is amazing

Step one: Buy 1 (one) pill of homeopathic anti-depressants Step two: Toss it in your city's reservoir Step three: Watch as depression and hopelessness leave your community I'm so smort, they should give me the noble prize for medsin.

If they try to shame you for not believing in it, it's not science it's religion.

The toming before the UAP hearing *chef kiss*

Hi Andyyy!!!, good to hear you again.......

Average science fan: 🤓 Average pseudoscience enjoyer: 💀 dies*

Hello! I'm looking for advice on how to explain that a belief system simply can't be proven. My classmates keep bringing up beliefs in academic classroom discussions and my teacher won't simply ban the topic because it's important to discuss. The problem is, the argument simply leads back to the bible said so and I'm finding it hard to explain that the bible has no references and therefore cannot be proven. I am honestly all open to any suggestions :*(

I think an important thing to mention is that gaps in understanding aren't the same as contradictory results. For instance young earth creationists like to bring up the way that there are gaps in the fossil record thinking that it contradicts evolution. I think in that case they don't realize the conditions needed to form a fossil or how rare they are. With the highly specific conditions needed to form a fossil gaps in the fossil record are to be expected and evolution doesn't require that every individual species be uncovered.

Apart from the knowledge, the animation was wonderful as well

In India, there is an entire Ministry to support and promote pseudoscience like Homeopathy!

Send this video to all the anti-vaxxers you know

I love both religion and science. I'm grateful for both.

I don't get it, isn't the 3:14 about rejecting disproven theories in favor of new explanations is the same as 3:24 continually modifying theories? How does this explain the differences between science and pseudoscience?

Pseudoscience often revises its theories to describe conflicting perspectives and even introduces nonexistent new theories. I have witnessed some theists employing quantum mechanics to explain the existence of God, which is truly preposterous, and the most alarming part is that many people actually believe it

4. Who paid the science?

Another point is a single “inconsistency” is not a gotcha “theory disproved” if that inconsistency is not accompanied by repeated instances and an explanation that is better at explaining the entirety of what the supposedly disproved theory already does. Thus, homeopathy has to either be consistent with chemistry, biology and physics or offer a testable alternative that explains or is consistent with everything those fields cover. Unless you can show human health is governed by some magic that excludes it from everything else in the universe.

To summarize this video: “If you cannot measure it, it does not exist.”

As someone who works with western astrology it is legitimately more faith based then scientific. It's also a historical thing. It's good for personal/spiritual development but it is not a means of diagnosing and/or treating medical issues. It's also not to be used as a social science, conclusively. however, it can be a way of self-understanding. Apply it to yourself, not to the world (and only if it resonates with you 😉). To many people see it as a cult or just ridiculous when I ca be beneficial. Just don't make any important d visions based on it. Astrology can help you understand yours, but you are more than your astral sign.

Ted ed is not letting any doubt about any topic to exist on this planet earth😅

Where's the demon of reason?😢

nice video

Imagine not fully explaining the Demarcation Problem

0:58 I see what you did there…

My family does take homeopathy especially for long term problems, and it does help to us? like i had 5 gall bladder stones which were pretty big but bcz of it they reduced in size and i have only one left.

A lot of homeopathy dilutes something so much, that it is below 1 molar-mass, so there is not 1 molecule of the diluted thing left.

So is covid vaccination based on pseudo-science or science ?

First?

In real science, supporting evidence mathematically increases the probability of a hypothesis being correct, while in pseudoscience, the “evidence” does not increase that likelihood (and the math can be counterintuitive, so you can’t trust your feelings on what “feels” correct). This makes Bayes’ Theorem a powerful tool for telling the difference between science and pseudoscience, because it can directly calculate the change in probability after collecting a new piece of evidence, and can qualitatively inform whether or not a claim is likely when that probability can’t be quantified directly. The three “tells” I like to ask people to look for that give away pseudoscience are: 1. Non-falsifiable claims. 2. Cherry-picking evidence 3. Pointing at the low initial probability of scientific claims as some kind of disproof, while ignoring the high probability of those claims after the evidence is considered. An understanding of Bayes’ Theorem can inform why all three of the above items are properties of pseudoscience. Schools should really put more of an emphasis on teaching the difference between science and pseudoscience.

The issue with Popper's demarcation principles is that they are epistemologically thin. Some reasoning behind my affirmation (from different perspectives): 1) He mixed two ontologies that are not possibly mixable, as they derive from opposing assumptions: empiricism and rationalism. 2) He may have helped natural scientific advancement, but his demarcation scheme is useless to the so-called "soft sciences" or "the arts" (and here, I am not even arguing that all science is 'soft' because it uses language as a mediator...). 3) His ideals come from a highly individualistic background, which can be quickly seen if we consider his liberal political tendencies (and which causes no shock if we consider majoritarian power tends to neoliberal conglomerates in our time). 4) It diverts the focus away from systematic knowledge, which is a broader concept and encompasses many different traditions in (good) knowledge production. As a side note, the example of homoeopathy is correct but insufficient (and I am aware it was taken from his very examples of what pseudoscience is... and it is quite shocking to see it in a list with astrology). There are many reasons why it was followed at first and why it looked like a possible avenue of scientific investigation. For instance, the idea of treating illnesses with their own diluted causing agent derives from very old ideals of mithridatism and is until today followed by mainstream treatment and preventive preparations like vaccines or desensitization to allergens (despite the clear difference with homoeopathy, as these two strategies have good empirical support... historically, empirical support generally followed practice, not vice-versa). Anyway, simplifying this discussion is not helping anyone. And it is indeed a difficult topic that was not well covered in this presentation (which is rather rare, as TEDEd content tends to have quite strong videos...).

5:07 I think it's probably not the best idea for laypeople to be trying to decide this for themselves; someone who doesn't have the first clue avout a subject probably won't know how to test an idea at the forefront of research and couldn't read the literature or go to conferences to understand how new ideas are treated. Laypeople thinking they have the tools and understanding to judge the scientific consensus for themselves is how you get flat-earthers and climate change deniers and anti-vaxxers. And that's not to say that a layperson can't become an expert, the process is just slow and expensive and so for most people, it's not worth it.

The reference to creationism is misleading and ironic. For one, creationists don't ignore that evidence. They just interpret it differently. Evolution, on the other hand, is the prime example of a theory that's constantly modified to fit new conflicting evidence and of refusing to check internal biases and assumptions, of which it has many. I'm not arguing for the validity of creationism, I'm just saying the only thing Evolution has going for it over creationism is consensus, which in real science means absolutely nothing. In fact, I take it as a red flag. The majority tend to get comfortable in their power as the majority, which leads to lazy science that doesn't care much about is own biases and dismisses alternative theories out of hand. Minority views have to be that much more careful, rigorous, and thorough to be taken seriously and make any headway in the scientific community. And getting funding to do that is very difficult. This all contributes to bad science staying in the majority.

Interesting; how do your experts explain the published results of research conducted on cows suffering from mastoiditis?

“Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.” Just asking questions here. 1) falsifiable- where is the proof that all biological life, animals / humans in particular, share one or any common ancestor? 2)How do the claims of macro-evolution respond to criticism? 3) Consistency - Has anyone observed animals or humans become a different species?

the question should be why the pharmaceutical industry exerts so many influence on modern science. People are not skeptic for nothing. Its by experience. A global scientific fund could help with this problem.