YouTube skeptics/debunkers that you would recommend

[RTM]

I've gone off Dave a bit, he comes across as very juvenile in the way you'd expect a teenager who has just discovered the internet. I have started listening to an episode of Decoding the Gurus who are looking at this, they have looked at Eric and others for the last number of years.
Of course listening to the actual show would be the best thing to do, but I don't think I could put up with Piers Morgan who is just interested in a a handbags at dawn spectacle.

 

[Edward Current]

I've gone off Dave a bit, he comes across as very juvenile in the way you'd expect a teenager who has just discovered the internet.

I actually like Dave for that reason. When I see an Eric Weinstein or Terrence Howard* or any number of creationists etc. do their schtick, it makes my blood boil. I realize my opinion isn't shared by everyone, but if someone gets popular on Joe Rogan by misrepresenting something like the state of string theory in academia, for their own personal gain — damaging the public's respect for the scientific enterprise in the process — then they deserve all the mockery that can be dished out. Dave's nasty style is pure red meat for me, and I am here for all of it. That's particularly true since he is so visible, and there's no one else with his visibility who is willing to do push back against disingenuous, unscrupulous, science-damaging frauds with that intensity and zeal. I've been hugely against anti-intellectualism my whole life. It deserves to be walloped. Hard.

Note that Dave treats someone like Sabine Hossenfelder — a trained physicist whose transgressions are more subtle — with considerably more respect. The intensity of his mockery is proportional to the intensity and shamelessness of the transgressions, as it should be.

*Watching the Piers Morgan appearance, I am struck by how similar Weinstein is to Howard. They both spit out unintelligible word-salad whenever they're cornered or are trying to dazzle the audience, and they both make up wild stories about how successful and admired they are. The only difference I can see is that Weinstein's word-salad employs real terms and relations that actually exist between them, whereas Howard straight up invents terminology.

 

[JMartJr]

I've gone off Dave a bit, he comes across as very juvenile...

I actually like Dave for that reason.

Yeah... I like him, but these days I sort of have to wait to watch is stuff until I am in the right mood for his style.

 

[FatPhil]

Professor Dave alert: professional physicist Sean Carroll and professional fraud Eric Weinstein

One question - is "Professor Dave" a professor?

Ooops, two questions... the second one being: what does "fraud" mean?

 

[JMartJr]

One question - is "Professor Dave" a professor?

According to his description on his YT channel,

"I received a BA in chemistry from Carleton College, and performed graduate studies in both synthetic organic chemistry and science education at Cal State Northridge, receiving an MA in the latter. Prior to this I taught for about a decade in various high school and undergraduate settings, specializing in organic chemistry but also teaching general chemistry, physics, and biology."

https://www.youtube.com/c/ProfessorDaveExplains/about
My interpretation of that is "no, not a present, possibly in the past depending on what exactly 'various high school and undergraduate settings' means." I'd take it as a marketing name. I note that detractors often feel they score points by pointing out that he is not a "doctor" of anything, which he never, to my knowledge, claims to be. He's a smart, snarky YouTube science educator and general tutor who did a debunk video or two, found that this got a LOT of views, and so has stuck with it.

 

[yoshy]

One question - is "Professor Dave" a professor?

He was an adjunct professor at the time of creating his channel. He is not anymore.

 

[Mendel]

Professor Dave alert: professional physicist Sean Carroll and professional fraud Eric Weinstein recently appeared on professional dumbass Piers Morgan's podcast, and Dave takes us through the mess.

His editing is nice, and he presents some context at the beginning, but I didn't feel his trash talking comments added to my understanding of the issues.

 

[Edward Current]

His editing is nice, and he presents some context at the beginning, but I didn't feel his trash talking comments added to my understanding of the issues.

It's just red meat. It's science entertainment, to recycle a phrase from earlier in the thread. For me anyway, the trash-talking moments are satisfying, because they are like a more-informed version of the things I yell at the screen at these guys anyway.

Other times, when Dave steps in, he adds serious value. Consider this terrific moment where he pulls apart and contextualizes Piers Morgan's anti-intellectual howling (at 46:45):

Sean Carroll: This very often happens in the progress of human knowledge — that a question we thought was an interesting one, becomes not answered but shown to be not interesting, because we get a deeper understanding.
Piers Morgan: [Belly laugh] I'm sorry, that seems to me a very pompous answer. That is basically trying to imply a superior intelligence to a response to a lesser mortal, by saying that my attempt to get this question answered [what was before the Big Bang] is so stupid that there should be no need by the brainpower in front of me to answer it.
Dave Farina: No, Piers — he's saying that questions that seem legitimate in ignorance sometimes get shown to be nonsensical, once a more fundamental understanding is achieved. For example, someone might ask, "What kinds of exotic elements might exist in other galaxies?" The answer is, all the same ones that exist here. To which the science-illiterate person might reply, "You're so pompous! How can you possibly know what elements are in other galaxies? You and your stupid ivory-tower dogma! Scientists think they're so smart and know everything!" No, we just know what elements are. One proton, hydrogen. Two protons, helium. Every integer, we've got them all, up until nuclei that are so unstable they can't exist for more than a tiny fraction of a second. So, that's all of 'em. The question was shown to be nonsensical on the basis of understanding the periodic table of elements. That's what's happening here, Piers.

I think it's great that Dave is showing people how to think critically of anti-intellectual media figures like Morgan. This particular example is something they can put in their critical-thinking toolbox.

I also agree with @JMartJr — Dave has expanded his fanbase with this style, and it triggers engagement, with people having the same conversations we're having now. Notably, he's doing this by also being educational, and not misleading anyone (except for his YouTube handle @FatPhil) or particularly exploiting his audience. Which is pretty rare these days.

Dave still makes lots of explainer videos! In the past 4 days he's done a 14-minute video on forensics, a 10-minute math video on power-series solutions, and a 12-minute history video on the Maurya Empire. He's been doing this for years. Love and respect.

 

[elvenwear]

It's even more amusing that Eric starts out by claiming Sean has never read the paper, and then Sean shows it to the camera, says he has indeed read it, and proceeds to read from it aloud.

That was the point where the game was up where his paper said he was an entertainer and the theory was incomplete. Wow.

 

[RTM]

It's just red meat. It's science entertainment, to recycle a phrase from earlier in the thread. For me anyway, the trash-talking moments are satisfying, because they are like a more-informed version of the things I yell at the screen at these guys anyway.

Other times, when Dave steps in, he adds serious value. Consider this terrific moment where he pulls apart and contextualizes Piers Morgan's anti-intellectual howling (at 46:45):

Sean Carroll: This very often happens in the progress of human knowledge — that a question we thought was an interesting one, becomes not answered but shown to be not interesting, because we get a deeper understanding.
Piers Morgan: [Belly laugh] I'm sorry, that seems to me a very pompous answer. That is basically trying to imply a superior intelligence to a response to a lesser mortal, by saying that my attempt to get this question answered [what was before the Big Bang] is so stupid that there should be no need by the brainpower in front of me to answer it.
Dave Farina: No, Piers — he's saying that questions that seem legitimate in ignorance sometimes get shown to be nonsensical, once a more fundamental understanding is achieved. For example, someone might ask, "What kinds of exotic elements might exist in other galaxies?" The answer is, all the same ones that exist here. To which the science-illiterate person might reply, "You're so pompous! How can you possibly know what elements are in other galaxies? You and your stupid ivory-tower dogma! Scientists think they're so smart and know everything!" No, we just know what elements are. One proton, hydrogen. Two protons, helium. Every integer, we've got them all, up until nuclei that are so unstable they can't exist for more than a tiny fraction of a second. So, that's all of 'em. The question was shown to be nonsensical on the basis of understanding the periodic table of elements. That's what's happening here, Piers.

I think it's great that Dave is showing people how to think critically of anti-intellectual media figures like Morgan. This particular example is something they can put in their critical-thinking toolbox.

I also agree with @JMartJr — Dave has expanded his fanbase with this style, and it triggers engagement, with people having the same conversations we're having now. Notably, he's doing this by also being educational, and not misleading anyone (except for his YouTube handle @FatPhil) or particularly exploiting his audience. Which is pretty rare these days.

Dave still makes lots of explainer videos! In the past 4 days he's done a 14-minute video on forensics, a 10-minute math video on power-series solutions, and a 12-minute history video on the Maurya Empire. He's been doing this for years. Love and respect.

It's telling that Piers decided to single that out, given all the pomp from Eric throughout the show.

 

[Mendel]

Other times, when Dave steps in, he adds serious value.

Does he, though?

Consider:

Sean Carroll: This very often happens in the progress of human knowledge — that a question we thought was an interesting one, becomes not answered but shown to be not interesting, because we get a deeper understanding.

Dave explains it like so:

Dave Farina: No, Piers — he's saying that questions that seem legitimate in ignorance sometimes get shown to be nonsensical, once a more fundamental understanding is achieved. For example, someone might ask, "What kinds of exotic elements might exist in other galaxies?" The answer is, all the same ones that exist here.

In Dave's example, the fundamental understanding—what elements are—is already achieved, or the question could not be asked. And the question does have an answer.

But Morgan's question—what was before the big bang—does not have an answer, and it's a legitimate question. Carroll answers it by explaining that maybe there was no "before", that the natural history of the universe may be infinite.

So Dave is actually misleading here. He's not enlightening, he's trying to make the point that Morgan asked a dumb question. But that's not Carroll's point.

 

[FatPhil]

In Dave's example, the fundamental understanding—what elements are—is already achieved, or the question could not be asked. And the question does have an answer.

But Morgan's question—what was before the big bang—does not have an answer, and it's a legitimate question. Carroll answers it by explaining that maybe there was no "before", that the natural history of the universe may be infinite.

So Dave is actually misleading here. He's not enlightening, he's trying to make the point that Morgan asked a dumb question. But that's not Carroll's point.

Piers' contribution to the discussion falls into "not even wrong"; I think I physically cringed when he questioned what would be "before eternity" (46m27s), when it had been clearly descibed as "infinite in time in both directions" (46m09s). I do think that part of Sean's point was that Piers had asked a dumb question. However, Piers was not receptive to that part of the communication, immediately just hitting back with the explanation being "cop out". I've not seen the original discussion, I don't know if Sean compares cop outs, as "we don't know therefore there must be a god" is for me a way worse cop out than "it's happened at least once, perhaps it could have happened within a pre-existing universe". Maybe it's because I'm a mathematician, but I find infinity no more contrived and arbitrary than any particular finite number apart from zero. Why stop at 1? Don't start, or don't stop, those are the simplest cases.

I agree that the precise way that Dave framed his elements example was flawed, but it could have worked. We certainly did go from a stage of having no clue about what might be in the far reaches of space to one of knowing it's the same periodic table of elements as here. So the question did go from interesting to mundane as we learnt more. We're still wondering about exotic matters out there, so the subject didn't get entirely put to rest with the periodic table.

 

[Mendel]

So Dave is actually misleading here. He's not enlightening, he's trying to make the point that Morgan asked a dumb question. But that's not Carroll's point.

Morgan actually engineers a moment here where he can accuse modern physics to be "pompous" while avoiding the answer to fundamental questions. When Dave puts Morgan's question down, he plays into that narrative. Carroll does not.

I've been trying to think of a better example.
When aether theory was prevalent, "how fast is the Earth moving?" was an interesting question. But when it was found that the speed of an inertial system does not have any effect on it, the question ceased to be interesting. Today, it is obvious that the speed of Earth can't be answered in the absolute, you need to specify a reference system to get an answer.

 

[nota]

They are not quite 'debunkers', but Folding Ideas and hbomberguy have both made some lovely long-form (meaning multiple hours long) video essays/documentaries on a number of skeptic-related topics (flat earth, climate change denialism, creationism, and so forth) that I hope a few people here would enjoy! They have their own distinct styles that I'm sure some might be put off by, but I personally find them highly watchable and usually pretty funny.

Vaccines and Autism: A Measured Response by hbomberguy is a lovely documentary on Andrew Wakefield's fraudulent paper, and I think that his most recent videos, ROBLOX_OOF.mp3 and Plagiarism and You(Tube) do count as examples of skeptical criticism: the former a thorough debunking of one particular individual's myriad self-aggrandizing lies, the latter an exposé of rampant plagiarism in a number of popular YouTube channels.

Folding Ideas's latest video, Mantracks: a True Story of Fake Fossils, is a wonderful exploration of the fossils (real and fake) discovered in the Paluxy River near Glen Rose, Texas, and their cultural impact. Actually, I watched the first twenty minutes thoroughly engrossed by the history of their discovery, totally blindsided by the revelation that the video was in fact about (spoilers) creationism and pseudoscience! Really a wonderful documentary. Folding Ideas also has a good video on flat earth, called In Search Of A Flat Earth, that is also (spoiler!) a good video on QAnon. I can also happily recommend what I might call Folding Ideas's tetralogy on modern tech-enabled scamming (Line Goes Up, Contrepreneurs, The Future is a Dead Mall, and This is Financial Advice).

Besides all that I can also very willingly endorse @JMartJr's recommendation of Captain Disillusion and @RTM's recommendation of potholer45 (although I have not watched quite so many of potholer's videos). Captain Disillusion's videos are possibly the most well-made and highly polished on the whole of YouTube, and as for potholer45, if I may be so bold as to recommend How many genders are there, Daddy? (What the science says)...

Anyhow, I really appreciate this thread! Lots of lovely recommendations that I'll be sure to look into!

 

[Edward Current]

I've been trying to think of a better example.

How did the GoFast UFO achieve such incredible speeds with no visible means of propulsion?
Oh, there's severe parallax going on, and it's not near the surface like it appears. It's just a balloon or something drifting at altitude.

I suppose a closer example would be one we don't have an answer to, but where there are ways the question might not be as interesting as we think. "What is the nature of dark energy?" or "What exactly is accelerating the expansion of the universe?" might be made uninteresting by timescape cosmology, a minority theory in which the expansion of the universe isn't actually accelerating, but only appears to be accelerating.

I think Dave was trying to bring it down to an example everyone could understand, and was easy to explain to those who didn't.

 

[Mendel]

I think Dave was trying to bring it down to an example everyone could understand, and was easy to explain to those who didn't.

Yeah, but it was an example of something else.

Another way to answer Morgan would've been to reflect the question: what was there before god? It's not a question Morgan can answer, for the same reason Carroll can't answer his, because of course god is infinite, too. It's also not an important question.
(It wouldn't have been wise to reflect the question that way, but it would've been possible.)

 

[Ann K]

When aether theory was prevalent, "how fast is the Earth moving?" was an interesting question. But when it was found that the speed of an inertial system does not have any effect on it, the question ceased to be interesting. Today, it is obvious that the speed of Earth can't be answered in the absolute, you need to specify a reference system to get an answer.

I just saw a clip yesterday (on another topic entirely, that of evolution) where Paul Ens ("Paulogia") explained that in the days when he was brought up as a creationist, "If man came from monkeys, why are there still monkeys" was considered a serious question. This was precisely because it was not really a criticism of evolution, but a criticism of what people uneducated in the field thought evolution was.

If you don't understand the topic under discussion, then you can't ask meaningful questions about it.

 

[JMartJr]

I just saw a clip yesterday (on another topic entirely, that of evolution) where Paul Ens ("Paulogia") explained that in the days where he was brought up as a creationist, "If man came from monkeys, why are there still monkeys" was considered a serious question.

Reminds me of one of Johnny Hart's "B.C." cartoon strips, where two of the cavemen are discussing evolution. This is from memory, can't find the strip now, but...

One of them says "Evolution says we used to be monkeys."

"Prove that I evolved from a monkey!"

"Monkeys have tails. You don't have a tail, so you are no longer a monkey."

Which seemed a nice example of how faulty logic can be used even for a correct position. Plus I found it funny.

 

[AmberRobot]

Here's a good example of an expert correcting Neil Tyson after he confidently but incorrectly explained how lightning works.


Source: https://youtu.be/cZNEHbpvpZY?si=udZ4pUTJOApUiy9N

 

[Kyle Ferriter]

I am a fan of the Folding Ideas YouTube channel produced by Dan Olson. He is not primarily a "skeptic" or "debunker" but he has made several very high quality videos on topics related to "skepticism" and anti-pseudoscience.

Mantracks: a True Story of Fake Fossils
(pseudoarchaeology and pseudogeology and the religious+money motives behind fabricating evidence about Earth's history)

In Search Of A Flat Earth
(flat earth, self-explanatory)

The Minnewanka Curve Experiment [2K/1440p]
(supplement to "In Search of a Flat Earth")

Line Goes Up – The Problem With NFTs
(covering some of the outright fraud and false advertising and theft occurring back in the height of the NFT hype, which is interesting and important regardless of your opinions about a steelman use-case for the abstract concept of cryptocurrency, which arguably can be made, but is not demonstrated in most cryptocurrency hype, especially not in the NFT market)

This is Financial Advice
(criticisms similar to the above NFT video but more general and in-depth about the fraud and cult-like dynamics and false promises in cryptocurrency ecosystem that is obvious to anyone who isn't already fully bought-in to that genre of get-rich-quick/pyramid-scheme hype)

The Future is a Dead Mall - Decentraland and the Metaverse
(skepticism about the VR-world and blockchain-videogaming hype that companies like Meta were pushing, and what was arguably fraud that was taking place selling fake marketing promises to gullible users, and which predictably flopped)

About That Idris Elba Gold Documentary
(criticism of a bizarre "documentary" promoting gold, created by a gold mining industry association, that Idris Elba got paid to lead in)

The Mantracks video covers something I'd learned a little about previously when I took a seminar in college on modern myths, specifically focusing on pseudoanthropology and pseudoarchaeology. One of the primary readings was the book Frauds, Myths, and Mysteries: Science and Pseudoscience in Archaeology, by Kenneth L. Feder.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frauds,_Myths,_and_Mysteries

 

[FatPhil]

This is Financial Advice
(criticisms similar to the above NFT video but more general and in-depth about the fraud and cult-like dynamics and false promises in cryptocurrency ecosystem that is obvious to anyone who isn't already fully bought-in to that genre of get-rich-quick/pyramid-scheme hype)

I liked /Line Goes Up/, but this one just says too little to justify its length. It could probably be condensed into half an hour. However, it was worth a watch just for this screenshot: