Does this video need a disclaimer?
Added 2022-08-29 14:33:57 +0000 UTCHello! I've made a somewhat different video than my usual content. It's about objectivity in science, and explores the story of how during the beginning of the covid pandemic, two huge and prominent scientists disagreed on the best strategy to pursue to deal with covid. The question arises: science is valued for being as objective as possible, but how can it be objective if two well-renowned scientists, given the same data, can come to two conflicting conclusions? After having watched the video it occurred to me that it could be construed as "anti-science", or just be kind of controversial in general. If you'd be so kind, please watch it and let me know if you think it needs a disclaimer clarifying that it is not anti-science, but rather a deeper exploration of the scientific method, or if I should word some parts a bit more carefully, or if I'm being paranoid and should upload as is. Thank you so much!
Comments
This video shows as locked in the USA. Why would that be? Just for the record, I do see the one about Science against Science. Back to your question about disclaimer, you can leave it as is. You're just being paranoid ... unless YouTube is also being paranoid with it (sigh!).
Louis Mashado
2022-09-26 01:43:07 +0000 UTCThank you Steve, I'll upload as is
Up and Atom
2022-08-31 11:38:33 +0000 UTCThank you Vincent. I'll upload as is
Up and Atom
2022-08-31 11:38:20 +0000 UTCSo more specifically to your question, I don't think it needs a disclaimer, but maybe add slightly more clarity to where science can head in a bad direction would be helpful and a great message to get out there.
Michael Geer
2022-08-31 10:52:58 +0000 UTCGreat video, Jade. From my experience most scientists head in a non-scientific direction when they're afraid to admit they were wrong. So I think more of an emphasis on science being the pursuit of objectivity and pursuit of truth as opposed to binarily objective and truthful. All science is biased, because we humans are biased, but science breaks when we stop trying to be less biased and instead try to prove that we are not biased at all.
Michael Geer
2022-08-31 10:50:46 +0000 UTCHi Jade. I think that it's a great video and, as a scientist myself, I agree with what you say and I don't think that it should be controversial. The insight that our own morals and values might be influencing our scientific work is important for us to maintain our objectivity. Although some scientists might take it personally, I think this is fine, the truth is not always agreeable to everybody and hopefully they will come around. My suggestion is just to be clear that you're discussing objectivity in *scientists* and not in *science*.
Ken Takahashi
2022-08-30 15:31:11 +0000 UTCAnother good video Jade. I do have one comment / question. The scientists in question had to make a recommendation - not posit a falsifiable hypothesis subject to experiment. Were the value judgements required in this instance because of the immediate need to action, or was it in formulating the hypothesis?
Stephen Britt
2022-08-30 08:18:48 +0000 UTCI see no need for a disclaimer. Your method of explaining your subject is clear, calm and to the point in your usual way. There will always be people that don’t watch the entire video but they will not be helped by a disclaimer anyway. Go for it!
Martin Dahm
2022-08-29 22:50:50 +0000 UTCGreat video! Well for the nihilistic among us who believe that science not agreeing is a sign of science not working, this particular video probably wouldn't change their mind. But for those of us who are on Team Science, I think the first example in your video is a sobering reminder of the limitations of running a mass experiment for the first time, and also how we can use prior science to make the best possible decision given different local constraints. I feel like the reason for two different science-based policies being implemented is more due to policy, cultural, and social constraints (the biases you mentioned at the end)? Like how China reportedly had near zero covid during the pandemic because they were able to enforce a total lockdown. And in the U.S. we could hardly agree to wear masks. I feel like the dilemma as a scientist is that the issue is circular: to make the best possible model you need to include how society will react to your model (takes me back to your Halting Problem video 😊)
Andi B
2022-08-29 22:07:00 +0000 UTCI also think it should be fine as-is.
Matt Harden
2022-08-29 20:32:34 +0000 UTCIt's fine as is, and the animations are amazing! When the video started with covid I thought, "oh get ready for a fight." But I think you did a great job explaining the points you were trying to get across, and it didn't come across as anti-science. Side note: I really liked your discussion on decisions depending on values, since (at least in my country) there were strategies proposed which (if the models were accurate) revealed a kind of a trolley problem in the mix of ideas. It became clear that no matter what the numbers said, a subjective human had to actually decide what was most important.
J-J
2022-08-29 20:17:29 +0000 UTCYou should upload as is. =) I don't believe you'll receive a single complaint. I also don't see this as a deviant from your normal content. +1 to Dr. Shelley above. I recall a Up and Atom video called "How do you know what you know?" which somehow seems relevant to how perspectives can guide outcomes regardless of the best effort critical thinking.
Brian Wilkins
2022-08-29 20:01:09 +0000 UTCMaybe if you put Covid at the end of the video instead of the beginning would be a good idea. Anyway a disclaimer would protect you from criticism and I don’t know how YouTube deals with keywords about political themes. P.S. Your video is good ne interesting, as usual.
Rémy DG
2022-08-29 19:30:02 +0000 UTCI could write a book (or at least a book chapter on this topic) better though is a quote from someone smarter than me. “Any physical theory is always provisional, in the sense that it is only a hypothesis: you can never prove it. No matter how many times the results of experiments agree with some theory, you can never be sure that the next time the result will not contradict the theory. On the other hand, you can disprove a theory by finding even a single observation that disagrees with the predictions of the theory. As philosopher of science Karl Popper has emphasized, a good theory is characterized by the fact that it makes a number of predictions that could in principle be disproved or falsified by observation. Each time new experiments are observed to agree with the predictions the theory survives, and our confidence in it is increased; but if ever a new observation is found to disagree, we have to abandon or modify the theory.” - Stephen Hawking (A Brief History of Time)
Kirk Shelley MD, PhD
2022-08-29 18:34:05 +0000 UTCHi Jade, I think it’s fine as-is, with your explanation at the end. This should help people who aren’t familiar with the nitty-gritty of the scientific method understand more about how it works.
John Shioli
2022-08-29 17:18:10 +0000 UTCI think you have a disclaimer in the content. "I just want to point out some specs of gray..." around 12:20 mark, personally I don't think you need another disclaimer without sounding too defensive. But I also think the COVID example is unfortunate because of politics and because people cannot even agree on the outcome of the policies (or reality in general for that matter). Is there even a largely accepted study that shows that Sweden did better, same, or worse? I also don't think scientists just looked at data and came up to different conclusions only because data is inherently incomplete. There are outside factors that contribute to the decision and I'm not talking only about the ones you mentioned: morality, different objectives, etc, but simply practical factors. For example, suppression makes sense if you are waiting for a vaccine. That's another data point that was missing: how long would take to make a vaccine, how fast you can distribute it, how effective it would be and so on.
Adrian
2022-08-29 16:57:28 +0000 UTCAs you're describing what happens when science meets its limits in a life or death situation and which desicions might have to be made I don't see any reason for a disclaimer.
Armin Quast
2022-08-29 16:46:43 +0000 UTCI can think of scenarios under which you wish you had posted a disclaimer. I am having a harder time thinking of scenarios under which you regret having posted a disclaimer. Never underestimate the stupidity of humanity (Up and Atom patrons and subscribers excluded of course.)
George Fletcher
2022-08-29 16:04:37 +0000 UTCI would not add a disclaimer. It's a well-rounded presentation. I think that anyone watching until the end will definitely get that.
Bryan Williams
2022-08-29 15:55:58 +0000 UTCCall it "How science really works" and come what may. This topic is always going to be problematic. You did your best (and it's REALLY good), that's all we can ask of you
Stefan Nikolov
2022-08-29 15:55:05 +0000 UTCI'm going to echo the comments above and add that when I was in college and had some free time in my schedule and was already at maximum fee, I signed up for a philosophy of science class that really opened my eyes about what I believed to be objective truth. The fact is that, in addition to the comments you made in your video, science is very much a human endevour and is subject to all the shortcomings of human beings- greed, jealousy, bitterness, ego, etc. There have been scientific discoveries that have been buried, twisted, lied about, all because someone else's legacies was on the line.
DONALD McLeod
2022-08-29 15:34:03 +0000 UTCI think it's great as it is. I see how someone unfamiliar with your channel could be unsure what point you're trying to make during the intro or even the video. But the feeling stays at that 'unsure' level - it never comes off as anti-science - and your final words make your point very clear. ("Specks of gray in an area that is usually thought of as black and white" is a beautiful way to say it btw.) Anyway, this is at least how I feel about the video.
Levis
2022-08-29 15:25:09 +0000 UTC+1 to Vincent's comment. One does not have to watch for long to see that it's not about anti-science. So the only concern would be about those that don't watch, i.e. that only see thumbnail and the title. If you don't make them too provocative you should be fine. (Btw, I inevitably got curious if there have been any follow-up studies on the Swedish vs everyone else's approaches to the pandemic, now that there ought to be some evidence of the effects of them.)
Martin S
2022-08-29 15:04:53 +0000 UTCI don't think this is "anti-science" in the least, but a well-explained discussion as to the issues involved exploring for the truth. I'm aware that science is human endeavor and therefore takes many twists, turns and sometimes back-steps to arrive at that truth. However, many people don't understand that and expect that science should know that truth immediately and if it doesn't it becomes suspect (although I suspect most of your audience doesn't feel that way, I hope!). Perhaps it might make sense if you included a paragraph in the notes explaining how this is a discussion of how science is a human endeavor and that path it takes to discovering the truth is not a straight line. My two cents worth. Keep up these videos, you are very good at explaining so many different scientific phenomenon!
Steve Watson
2022-08-29 14:55:32 +0000 UTCI don’t think a disclaimer would make a difference here. Those that want to take it out of context will do so without watching the entire video. I think you were very well spoken on the topic and it did not come across as anti science. I think it does a great job explaining how scientists might come to very different conclusions without there being some nefarious purpose.
Vincent Karpinski
2022-08-29 14:50:30 +0000 UTC
