Applying the animations to real life is actually really cool-it feels even more fitting since you guys also put in direct sources instead of illustrating it alone
It's a shame that facts are so hard to actually verify. All that work just for a tidbit of trivia. Excellent work though, and a lovely video sharing it, as always
I’m a long-time fan of Kurzgesagt, usually just watching quietly. But today, I had to speak up, this video was absolutely incredible! The style felt so fresh and engaging. Loved every second of it!
Hmm. On Wikipedia it says "A 2022 estimate of the total length of human blood vessels is between 9,000 and 19,000 kilometers." and gives a source. The article is "Blood Vessel."
I checked your sources to see if that new research specifically quotes the specific original source and it does. Even if you just managed to complete your research in the same time as that other paper, you're still gave a valuable example to what to avoid during research. I'm currently in university and shared it with my classmates to give them a heads up on when we get to writing our thesis paper in medicine.
To be fair, usually you dont have a year time to check a single fact, when writing a degree thesis. If you have a credible source, most of the time, you wouldnt dig deeper because at that point, you might as well question every source you use and you wouldnt get anywhere.
@@Daniel-rd6st I think AI could be a great tool for this, specifically tracking down and logging “lost” or semi-forgotten scientific literature in a database
@@Vox_Popul1 True, though AI could only find stuff, that has been publicly available uploaded. Once you actually have to read though physical books or papers, it would struggle.
Loved this one. On a personal and very insignificant note regarding fact checking and peer reviewing - I published a small research paper on waste management, referenced a parameter for fuel use in composting. Got published (after a long time, as everyone knows!) and one of the readers thought the number was too small - we both wrote to the author in the original reference who caught an error in the report - so it all got corrected and fixed. So yay to finding old errors and fixing them, even if it causes some consternation. It did renew my confidence on the general scientific community and the system in general - as maligned and conflicted as it can get.
This. Exactly this. This is what scientific research is all about. The journey of forging new knowledge and disseminating it to the public is not, and has never been, about being perfectly correct, but about continually probing at the edges of our knowledge and triple-checking what we think we already know, discarding the old in the wake of new, more accurate information. In short, it isn't about being right, but becoming less wrong.
<a href="#" class="seekto" data-time="115">1:55</a> i love this mixture of birds with irl backrounds Edit:my best performing comment was one with 119 likes and yall shattered that record
if it's a fact just listed as filler in a scientific paper it's not that bad, if you need to do actual research with the fact you first need to check the sources properly. My guess is nobody really needs this fact for their research.
Imagine growing up as a flat-earth creationist and deconstructing to atheistic naturalism. Most people never have to confront the knowledge they take for granted like that
lol you have no idea It’s basically the human condition. People say shit, other people repeat it and it becomes fact in the minds of the masses. Society is pretty stupid.
Why? Are propagating lies often inherently crafted to be more memorable than the truth (ie '100k' in this video) or are they more fully explained than the truth since they have the heavy lifting of debunking the truth or is it some larger principle of the universe at play, a la thermodynamics' entropy, as in "...everything slowly tends towards stupid unless/until acted upon by smart?" Or something else entirely? I'm truly curious, and I might not be alone.
@@p18yurd The task of spreading a lie is only to open your mouth and say it. Truth takes research and verification. The practice of seeking knowledge *is* the pruning of falsehoods from truths.
Wow, the only channel that does this type of basic pop-science that I've *ever* seen do research. Gives me hope in this massive sea of misinformation 😊 Movies and games constantly get things wrong, which makes it annoying when a piece of media is about something you know. But it's not just pop culture, news articles get it just as wrong, and this sometimes seeps in to our collective knowledge so deeply, that even scientists can be fooled. Thank you for taking the time and setting a good example.
The beauty about all of this isn't even the fact itself, but that you were willing to go to such great lengths to rectify something without needing to. Someday it may come in handy for something that actually DOES need this attention. Thank you for putting in the work.
I know another one: the human body fully matures at 26. The original source for this was basically completely made up and didn't have any real evidence, but pretty much everyone just accepts it as a fact.
I always find it so interesting when creators upload videos like this, where they somewhat go through the process of what it truly takes to fact check a source, instead of just surface level looking, and presenting information they found and fact checked behind the scenes
@@celveeThis may not be as incorrect as you might think. I don't know the source off hand, which is why I say "may," but it is technically incorrect to say that about the body, because the research in question specifically refers to the brain. The brain tends to reach full maturity from the rear, near the brain stem, first. Then the mid-brain, and on to the final steps in the prefrontal cortex. That is where the approximation of maturity around 25 comes from. The rest of the body finishes maturing a few years earlier, depending on when puberty kicks in and how long it lasts for any given person. And of course, even in brain maturity this is an inexact number when speaking about a specific person.
This episode was AMAZING! I loved the partially animated style and the level of detail that you went into this time! I would love to see more videos like this! Keep up the good work!
I absolutely loved this video! Thank you for putting in such hard work to figure this out. As a university student, I'm used to scrutinizing my sources. But this goes above and beyond doing a quick double-checking 😆. Keep up the good work ❤
My love and respect for this channel has jumped up. Been watching em fire videos since primary, really influenced different area's of my life, thank you for the incredible content To anyone who's depressed or feeling down,the rigorous journey got big rewards, let the pain flow. Pray, Gym, read books,talk to a trusted one, learn a cool skill, set goals and YOU ARE A BEAST,MIGHTY, STRONG AND RESILIENT
How time flies. And to think there was a time they were heavily criticized for shady sources and wrong info. Until they addressed the issue and completely changed their approach to fact check themselves as the highest priority. Respect.
Wonderful! Question everything! Never take a fact too seriously unless you know the source is 100% credible! Fantastic reminder to be curious and critical!
Really appreciate this video, the insight, and the animation. The mind blown bird at <a href="#" class="seekto" data-time="589">9:49</a> made me laugh out loud. xD
Thank you so much for all your effort in getting to the bottom of seemingly mundane things. Yours is the true spirit of journalism, seeking the truth not for fame, but in the pursuit of knowledge.
Coming from a research background, I found this video to literally be golden. It reminds me of the old days when my professor said to be "open, but skeptical". Actually, it is alright to be skeptical! Because guess what, even many, many peer-reviewed research articles could commit the same single mistake. Out of the many scientists and researchers lecturing at lots of universities accepted a *fact* deriving from one single person, and yet, one of you guys from Kurzgesagt did not! I really, really hope that you guys are still around when my kids grow up. Yeah, they better be watching this sort video if they are going to be on the Internet!
This is why I love you guys! Your dedication is amazing! Inspiring! And I'm so sorry that this was hard and time consuming. At the very least, you made this work fun and engaging here.
I don't know about formal proof, but conceptually the random configuration means that duplicates are extremely unlikely, and that's kind of verified by large fingerprint databases that lack duplicate entries. A huge part of the problem here though is that you would need to define a threshold for what counts as "the same", since fingerprints are inborn but inevitable variations in skin production and wound healing mean that your own fingerprints change slightly over time, so you can't go down to the atomic level, not to mention that determining if a fingerprint matches another is done using systems that themselves have error rates (either fingerprint readers or manual matching by humans) such that a very similar but non-identical fingerprint could still produce a match, if you counted that as "identical" then the chance of a non-unique fingerprint would be a lot higher
The same way we know that pretty much every arrangement of cards from a fairly shuffled deck is unique. It's incredibly unlikely for there to be 2 identical sets. From the Lozier institute : "As the fingers grow, new ridges and branches form. Between 17 and 19 weeks gestation, a layer of keratin coats the surface of the skin. Smaller, secondary ridges form out of uneven keratin growth. Any factor that can influence friction in the womb can influence a fetus's fingerprint pattern" So we can see that it's a process that takes a while and can be affected by a lot of things. As such, it's supremely unlikely that two people would have the same fingerprints.
There's an episode of Adam Ruins Everything where he tackles fingerprints. Apparently it's entirely pseudoscience and there have been people with exact copies of fingerprints that have been wrongly convicted of crimes and whatnot. If I recall correctly the episode was arguing that it shouldn't be used as legal evidence of a crime but it can be used by law enforcement as a clue. It absolutely shouldn't be used for biometric security. Go look up that episode, it's probably still here on RU-vid somewhere.
<a href="#" class="seekto" data-time="720">12:00</a> “birds aren’t real😩” ok explain these birbs finding your misinformation laughing in your face-they are very much real😤
"Kurzgesagt is a entity of focus, dedication and SHEER FUCKIN WILL." No but seriously, kudos to the sheer commitment to ensure all of your facts, even such relatively minor ones are correct.
I just Googled it aaaand Wikipedia got the winning entry. They source the article you're referring to and show me that the total length is between 9000 and 19000 km. Well done!
Thanks for this. Because of your dauntless determination, now that obscure paper can be given the worldwide recognition it deserves, once this video gets filtered through various social networks. Speaking of which, I'm off to sound even smarter to my friends.
Absolutely incredible video! Eternally grateful for your hard work and this masterclass on fact checking. Thank you thank you. You have done us all a great service!
Now, THIS is scientifically beautiful! It really leaves one wondering how much else we repeat in academia that is incorrect or inaccurate, and how better knowledge and data could change things.
I sourcelessly quoted this at somebody in the context of "we could turn 1500 people into a blood hose to extinguish the sun". My shame is immeasurable.
<a href="#" class="seekto" data-time="328">5:28</a> "Looking for answers to questions nobody is asking and nobody cares about" Except me... That's like one of the top 3 reasons why I open RU-vid
