Critical Thinking Part 6: A Precautionary Tale 

Love to see the full list of logical fallacies done in the same amazing style.

Explaning repeatable observations, and enabling accurate predictions. That's a golden sentence.

@burpwind - Yeah we started with a real long list and had to whittle it down, the main problem was it was way to long to work with the education module and it needed to have an arc that people could understand - from what logic is, to arguments to the scientific process and it's limitations (you can't get 100%).

This last video is quite interesting, because according to its own logic, all theories ARE in fact "just" theories, since nothing can really be known with 100% certainty. Some (like the examples of evolution and climate change) just have a higher probability of being "certain". Therefore there is actually no such thing as a "fact" at all, and never will be, since knowledge by its own nature is limited. Having said that, its a great little series (if a little over-simplified).

I must protest! The Saturn V launch rocket shown at the end was going STRAIGHT UP through all 3 stages. What sane launch profile wouldn't have the rocket pitch over as it climbed until it was pointed sideways? Even in the Apollo program, we first had to put the payload into Low Earth Orbit before we initiated the Translunar Injection burn.

@MrNoosphere While you have a valid point I disagree, because the message is easily muddled because the issues being used as examples are controversial and the viewer may already have an alternate POV that is technically valid as far as Critical Thinking is concerned, and instead of really thinking about logic will get annoyed or even insulted by the tone taken in the video. On the bright side, our dialogue(?) has been far more enjoyable to me anyway.

Your channel is a hidden gem. You need more subscribers!

The precautionary principle is used throughout all forms of engineering; it's just not called "the precautionary principle." In aeronautical engineering they use triple redundancy in critical systems. This idea was applied to the braking systems in cars. To design a bridge beam, engineers calculate the strength required to withstand the absolute worst case and then add 40% more strength. This is called "the engineering factor. The PP is SOP in engineering because it works best.

@MrNoosphere Sorry, Not sure I consider it yelling. I wanted to make sure that point was illustrated, but it's often impossible to illustrate one properly in youtube comments, so be charitable and understand that some of the things I said might not have been stated as clearly as intended. I could be more succinct in some cases I'm sure, but sometimes too many statements need the support of other statements and have to be stated together. At least that's how I felt at the time.

@burpwind @xexonster @yuan303 @Omniwoof @marxvlog Thanks - we're hoping to do more on the scientific process and explain some of its limitations, touching on Popper and Kuhn, but that's a lot of complex issues to compress into this format and there's time and budget to consider too. We may also add some more fallacies and examine them in the series. To early to tell. :)

I would love to hear all of the accurate predictions made because of evolution. Evolution is a broad elastic theory amendable to adjustment so if the end result doesn't match the result the theory is manipulated. Pure science!

I'd like to thank the fine people of Australia for this informative series.

@UnstoppableDrew "I reckon" is what they said. Translates to, "In science, theory doesn't mean I think/suppose"

Well I'm never looking at chicken nuggets shaped like dinosaurs the same way again.

just wanted to thank you for: a) the awesome series and b) cutting out the sound when the rocket went into space :P

I like information. These videos are informational. Therefore, I like these videos. Keep up the good work!

thank you so much! this is what internet should be about

0:18 "Products are tested" Yeah, I worked in that field. I wouldn't put too much faith in it, if I were you.

@D3mang3l " Yes I am adding politics to my message" well I'm glad you sorted that out.

@MrNoosphere Make sure you read what I said in the next one, I am adding politics into my message, in response to the ones already being used. But I make no claims over whether those politics I am using are ones I ascribe to or not. Understand the premise of my argument is quite simple, these videos use what I consider to be flawed examples of something already better explained using classical methods. Using these controversial ones has already derailed the point. No?

@D3mang3l Yeah, I removed that post precisely for that reason and decided to put some counter-claims up instead. OMG - 8 posts in response? That's the equivalent of yelling, yelling, yelling. I have more to say than this comment box allows, but I keep it succinct so others may reply to the points I raise, one at a time.

2:00 "no mobile phone technology". This is stated with the implicit assumption that mobile phone technology is a net good. I know it has given people what we've asked for. But I'm less convinced it's a net good. Consider that it has enabled your boss to reach you almost anywhere you're likely to go at any time, and has turned that ability into a requirement for some jobs now. Consider also that it enables the detailed tracking of large groups of people. What's the rush?

I want more! I cant believe im learning something from youtube

@DukeOfMarshall What a complete misunderstanding of the video series. The definition of a scientific theory was given right up there ^...give it another viewing, then check out a skeptical resource like skepdic.com. It'll give you everything you need to know, whether you believe it's true or not (which is what science was developed for).

@rg0057 The main argument, however, applies to ANY tool we use, any action we take, anything we do. There is no 100% safety, there is no 100% certainty. Is breathing air good for us? Drinking water? Has someone proved that speaking English doesn't lead to dementia? You can brush off all these examples as stupid and obvious, but there is no logical argument that you could make that either of them are 100% safe or certain.

Just watched the whole thing. Awesome! thank you!

@HunkabrninSteele It is a perfect example, though - 99% of climate scientists are in agreement. You might agree with the 1% who don't, but meanwhile, we need to move forward with the evidence we have and not wait for 100% certainty, because that's impossible.

Thank you for uploading the hippiest thing I have ever seen!

@techNyouvids Yeah for sure. You are doing a great job. Thanks.

@D3mang3l Maybe they're using varied and differing examples to cover different opinions and controversial ones because using safe established ones isn't really saying anything interesting or thought provoking.

So when an apple falls to the ground why is it falling down instead of up? What is the mechanism?

@MrNoosphere Wait... So I'm adding my own politics into this, but the politics added by the video maker are fine? I'm so confused...

Great work on this

Second season gets into the scientific process - link at the end of this video :)

which one? If someone offers to translate we'll take them up on it.

Planning to do any more guys?

Thanks Francisco - what if we made more? :)

What's the word you're using at 0:46" ? (In science, theory doesn't mean ______) Is that some bit of Australian slang or am I just not hearing it right ?

Well you're in for a treat tonight :)

Gravity is a Push - by Walter C Wright.

Check out the teaser vid we've created (linked at the end) :)

can't i be 100% sure that 1+1=2 or that a coin flip will result in heads/tails?

@D3mang3l "So your implying that just because I see something in these videos that is badly done, I am using my own political views as some sort of measuring stick?" - Yep "For all you know I agree with Climate change," - Unlikely, given you've stated these issues are 'controversial'

Subscribed, saw it super early ;)

nice videos, good series :)

@MrNoosphere To say I am adding MY OWN Politics into the message however is also incredibly ironic considering the video we are commenting on. So your implying that just because I see something in these videos that is badly done, I am using my own political views as some sort of measuring stick? For all you know I agree with Climate change, or teach Evolution in a school and agree with it. Maybe you need to watch Video 4 again about getting personal. Calling me a Troll etc.

@Licensetokill29 Hi, here's a couple, - the education module education(dot)technyou(dot)edu(dot)au(slash)critical-thinking - The debunking hand book skepticalscience(dot)com(slash)Debunking-Handbook-now-freely-available-download and - Blur: How to Know What's True in the Age of Information Overload, By Bill Kovach and Tom Rosenstiel - Slow thinking, fast thinking, by Dan Kanehan Hope that helps!

@pureheavenlyevil Thanks. I was hearing it as one word and couldn't figure out what they were trying to say.

Every few years cosmologist say they have to rethink everything they they new about everything almost...so ...what kind of thinking is that...

hmm logic ....logic ...logic and u don't mention the logical absolutes? just thought to point that out ...anyway lovely series

@MrNoosphere Yes I am adding politics to my message because the video maker IMHO made a bad decision in using so many controversial issues and debates in these videos that all have a similar message. Oil Companies can be trusted, and Those who challenge Evolution do not understand science because of the way they use the word theory, and that those who dispute climate change do it for the same reason. This may not be intended, but I am not the first one to notice.

Sorry, that last line in my previous comment should have read 'so if the end result doesn't match the 'prediction' the theory is manipulated'

Guess what? New season has started :)

@D3mang3l Only if you think people who don't believe in evolution are stupid and illogical - that's not what the video said. 'Just a theory' is an argument used against evolution and climate change - the vid explains what a scientific theory is. You're confused because you're adding your own politics to the message.

I garner you don't like GM foods that much, do you?

any other language?plz

@HunkabrninSteele I agree 100%. This is the whole reason I have made the comments I have made. Regrdless of wether you agree with Climate Change, or Evolution These are very POOR examples to explain things that are best explained with simpler less controversial examples. By using these issues, you either confuse the message, or indicate at least the possibility that there is a secondary message, be it intended or otherwise. Those new to Critical thinking may be confused.

Are you actually assuming majority of critical thinkers or peer-scientists are on anti-GMO side??

I'm not impressed with the discussion of risk. I'm not surprised that he glosses over it: the actual argument supports precaution. The short of it: any discussion of risk requires a discussion about types of risk. For example, a 1% risk of 1% of cell phone users getting cancer is not the same type of risk as a 0.00001% chance of 100% ecoservices collapse from the introduction and unanticipated mutability of gm organisms into the ecosystem ecosystem collapse has no acceptable risk factor

more please?

Listen up, agnostics.

This video fits for anti-GMO mobs.

It's a shame that is the last of the series.

Newton's LAW of gravitation is a LAW because it explains how something (gravity) works. It gives us a formula that allows us to calculate the gravitational force acting on an object if we know the masses of the two objects and the distance between them. It explains HOW the gravitational force works. Einstein's THEORY of general relativity is a THEORY because it explains why something (gravity) works. It is a theory because it explains why gravity exists based on the curvature of spacetime. This theory is a theory because it explains why things fall, not just the acceleration with which they fall.

2:35 Your rocket failed to do a correct gravity turn.

So then. It all comes down to Atheism. While I agree that logic is a great & valuable tool .... Never mind. Paraphrasing the lesson here People will justify anything they want by ignoring certain facts. If you only believe in what can be measured then you will never be open to the hidden.

That's the reason LSD was discuntinued in the 50's, because word of mouth was passed around saying that in a few decades people could show up health issues related to use (something impossible to determine). Despite the evident situations in wich the drug could be used to benefict people (i'm not even going into detail about the simple right that people have to achieve states of mind permited by the drug, if the so desire). Laws are many times passed out of political agenda. If they realize that feeding conservative public demands pays out more than to do otherwise, they will do it. Politics is NOT about doing what's right, it's about doing whatever can to extend their position in power.

Theory doesn't mean "I reekon."

PLS DO

Every scientific theory is adjusted to fit evidence. That's how theories work. Or you'd like holding on to dogmas? You have religion for that. It's stuck in the prehistoric times by explaining the natural world.

You need to get off the "Global Warming" thing as an example, you ruin a perfectly good premise with that nonsense, or are you really a Liberal trying to push your theory? Other than that, these are fantastic. I've shared them with hundreds.

Give us moer please! ;)

Wow this episode is a perfect example for the false logic argument in one of the previous clips. Mention how science is something is testable and provable and then call evolution science?? Something that makes untestable and unobservable assumptions about the past feeds these assumptions into a theory and sell it as fact!! Why is my tax money being used to fund your religious worldview?

I feel compelled to point out that the observations about climate often are different than global warming proponents claim. More than once labratories have admitted to altering data to match the theory, and thus far our predictive models regarding climate change continue to be wrong. Polar ice caps seem to be expanding, temperatures remain relatively stable and cyclic, weather patterns don't appear to be changing, CO2 emissions appear not to have as great an effect as previously stated. The point of the video is good, but in the case of climates which 1). Are not static and 2). Change over hundreds, thousands, or millions of years we really do need more (unbiased) data, before we panic ourselves into the next "green" fad

Have you looked at any evidence? Or do you just not like the type of people who object to GMOs? Anyone who has their critical thinking skills switched on should watch anything with Jeffery Smith, or just start here: watch?v=94d-KVorSHM

These are very nicely done videos. However, in 5 & 6, you state that "global warming" & Darwinian evolutionary theory are "scientific fact". That is patently false, as both actually fit better into the categories of "faiths", "religions", and "political movements". We are all "religious", all use a personal filter that we've concocted in our minds & hearts, all consider some things praiseworthy, some distasteful, some beautiful, some ugly, & so on. Both of those religions/worldviews were formed by observing various things with a preconceived worldview...a "filter" or "bias" already in place. We all look at everything that way. No one is truly "objective" or perfectly "open-minded". The religion of Darwinian evolutionary theory has far less observable/scientific backing than the Marvel & DC comic book universes. What you purport is "science" or "scientific fact" has been repeated as such over & over in public education for the past 100 years but simply repeating something & alleging it is "fact" does not make it true. Frankly, since neither we nor Darwin were "there" when reality began, we will never know, before we die, which origins model is "truth" or "fact". Let's simply come to grips w/ that & then move on to defining "science" by way of things we can truly empirically observe & test. Same goes for "global warming". Both sides of that latter issue can present "experts" alleging proof of their worldview, if "experts" are what you need to make something "fact". We as a society must stop calling various proper nouns & long-standing groups as the only purveyors of "religion"...every single human being that has ever lived has been "religious" & worships something; we all serve a different master. That will take us a long way in getting along & communicating.

Chinese lol