Thanks for the link! I watched the video, and for the most part I thought it was informative and balanced. There are several examples where the presenter seems to go a bit too far:
At the beginning of the video, we are shown in rapid succession examples of modern day “dragons” - examples of pseudoscience. Some of the examples are clearly pseudoscience (psychics, ghosts) but others are not, the most glaring example being fish oil. Lovaza is a prescription fish oil medication used for treating very high triglycerides. It’s FDA approved, has been through clinical trials and all that other good stuff, so why is fish oil included as an example of a modern day “dragon”?
While discussing ancient Chinese remedies, the host rightly pointed out that ancient people did not have the medical knowledge that we have today, but he went too far. He implied that ancient people didn’t have any knowledge that we don’t have today, but there’s a lot we don’t know (how the pyramids were built, writing systems, etc). Also, ancient people weren’t a bunch of morons – they had the capacity to organize and establish great societies that endured for thousands of years – something we can’t yet claim for ourselves.
One of the stated “errors” of pseudoscientists is confusion of causation with correlation. But the host failed to mention that this is a common error in the “real” scientific community. For example, many studies have shown that children who watch violent television programs and play violent video games are more aggressive than their peers. The implication is that viewing violent TV causes children to become more aggressive, even though it’s possible that aggressive children find violent TV to be more entertaining than do their peers. Rarely is the public reminded that scientific studies showing correlation in fact do not show or prove causation.
The host makes it clear that pseudoscientists try to thwart critical thinking, and the implication is that the mainstream scientific community is never guilty of the same. If scientists and researchers need funding, or have particular agendas, they are just as capable of thwarting critical thinking as anyone else. The host made it seem as if scientists are above the rest of us mere humans and our frailties.
Near the end of the video, the host lumped together the Loch Ness Monster and the possibility of a black hole at the center of our galaxy. The speculation of a black hole at the center of our galaxy is a supported scientific theory, not pseudoscience.
Finally, skepticism and denial of the unknown are not the same thing. There are some supposedly scientifically-minded members of this forum who deny the mere possibility of certain things because of lack of evidence. Unless there is evidence that a phenomena is not possible, it is not reasonable to deny the possibility of the phenomena. There is much we still don’t know about the physical world and much to be discovered, and some forum members seem to think that “if it hasn’t been discovered, then it doesn’t exist.”
gibran2 is a fictional character. Any resemblance to anyone living or dead is purely coincidental.