Looking for resources that avoid berating people and just simply lay out the data with it’s context from professionals in the field.
I don’t know if I’m changing or the format of constantly pointing out how stupid someone is just gets more views, but it’s getting to be hard to digest. I’m all for learning new things and possible deceptions on claims being made, just without all the sarcasm and personal attacks.
I used to enjoy Thunderf00t, and while his content is probably the same from the beginning I just can’t do that condescending speech for 30mins anymore. My brain just starts to tune it out but I want the information. Professor Dave Explains, is probably borderline for me, Adam Something used to be less energetic with sarcasm in his past videos. Basically anyone that seems to have a personal vendetta with the people involved.
I believe I’ve ran across more positive debunking lately which might be why I want to shift my focus. Some notable mentions: Kyle Hill - Youtube’s Science Scam Crisis (more humorous presentation), acollierastro - harvard & aliens & crackpots: a disambiguation of Avi Loeb (spends most of the time actually talking about history versus attacking Avi Loeb), Fraser Cain - A Big Problem with Modern Science Communication (just an all around kind presenter).
I’m open to any field or subject matter, just wanting creators that aren’t raising their blood pressure while having to use an extremely incredulous negative tone to get their point across. I love to share the more positive videos with others when a conversation comes up and they’ve been sucked into a scam video that’s twisted the narrative. I know if it’s hard for me to watch, then they aren’t going to get more than 2 minutes into a video with that type of approach.
Edit: Thank you everyone for all the awesome recommendations! I’ve added a lot of subscriptions and will make a master-list of all the sources to upload for anyone else looking.
Why not just follow popular educational creators? Anyone who accurately explains science is inherently debunking false claims.
Very true, any recommendations that you enjoy? For the most part as I stated it’s useful for certain topics that come up when someone’s discussing some woowoo, it’s hard for them to sit down and go through a whole course when the context of what they’re discussing doesn’t come up. There’s also the problem of being slightly educated in a topic but then falling down a rabbit hole thinking it’s all legit (quantum subject matter seems to be particularly susceptible).
Tom Scott
Scott Manley
Minute Physics
Veratasium
Numberphile
Computerphile
CGP Grey
Adam Savage’s Tested
Kurzgesagt
Wendover Productions
PBS Eons
Dan Olson (Folding Ideas)
hbomberguy
Captain Disillusion
Smartereveryday
That my shortlist
Hey, just so you know, your comment displays as one big blob without formatting, at least on my app. A single carriage return doesn’t display as a new line. Adding "* " to the start of the line would put your list as bullet points, or adding a second carriage return would put each item on a new line.
Added some more returns lemme know if that helped
That’s much easier to read. Thanks.
deleted by creator
Don’t forget PBS Spacetime!
Some of these are good suggestions, others not so much - unfortunately this area is rife for lots of issues such as undisclosed (or underdisclosed) sponsorship, creating content specifically to further the agendas of think tanks, and just straight up disinformation. There’s lots of criticisms of CGPGrey and Kurzgesagt for example. Just in case you weren’t aware
Great list! I’d add:
SciShow
Steve Mould
SixtySymbols
Periodic Videos
Cody’s Lab
Real Engineering
Kyle Hill is a great one that I don’t see getting recommended often enough.
PBS spacetime
Smarter everyday
Practical engineering
Tom Scott is pretty positive. The videos aren’t about debunking though, more just sharing info on random things.
One “debunking” style video might be the one on VPNs
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=WVDQEoe6ZWY
There’s a other great one on online voting
- 3 blue 1 brown
- applied science
- stuff made here
- breaking taps
- alpha phoenix
- practical engineering
- Tropical tidbits
These are all excellent non-sensationalized channels. It’s only tangentially related to your prompt, but they’re all worth checking out for education/entertainment without obnoxious hype clickbait and controversy.
I only added suggestions that I didnt see in other comments. Many of the other suggestions are also in my personal collection.
Thought Emporium is probably the premier creator when it comes to genetic engineering. I mean other times I’ve mentioned real things he’s done, people thought I was being hyperbolic, but no he is actually training rat neurons to play doom, he did create custom Spider DNA to create spider silk with Yeast and he did engineer a virus to solve his lactose intolerance.
Others have posted everyone I watch! There is another one that isn’t really science but still attempts to be objective and that’s Economics Explained which reviews contributing factors to current and historical global economic trends.
One of the reasons I think this particular type of debunk is rare, is that if you’re reaching that level of professionalism in your approach, then you’re probably getting to the point where it’ll be more efficient for you to simply perform the debunk yourself, since you’re probably able to tell a quality source from your uncle on facebook by that point.
Debunks, as a product, are generally for a certain market. Because not everyone needs them in the first place.
All that said, I think you’re revealing a market that exists, waiting to be tapped. The unemotional and level-headed debunk.
The problem with debunking is that it is inherently boring and an inefficient way to learn. To debunk something, first you have to explain the nonsense to the audience (which is ultimately pointless, especially if they haven’t heard the misinformation before), and then you go step by step providing accurate data.
Itll always be more interesting to provide the correct accurate>!!< information in the first place, because then you can control the narrative that is used to provide the information instead of being forced to conform to the narrative of the misinformation.
A clear, non sarcastic debunk is simply 50% explaining nonsense, then 50% a list of correct information. And a list is boring. That’s why all the debunkers inject personality into the debunks, because that’s the only way to make it interesting and entertaining.
You might like Captain Disillusion, he’s more about VFX type stuff but it’s a good series nonetheless.
This guy is creating amazing short videos where he’s debunking UFO sightings with a huge amount of science and simple graphical tools.
Mick West is amazing
Shoutouts to acollierastro, who mostly addresses ideas instead of people in her debunks. Her videos do contain some snark, but she tries to keep from being unecessarily mean
Kyle Hill and acollierastro are two of my favs.
I also like Dr Becky. She mostly just likes to educate on astrophysics, but whenever the media overblows something in the field she’s usually there to tell you what the data actually means.
Similarly I wouldn’t class it as a debunk channel, but any time there’s a major engineering disaster Practical Engineering usually does a video of what happened mechanically.
And I’d encourage people to go through some of Physics Girls old videos. She got totally sidelined by covid induced ME/CFS but her older content is great.
Here is an alternative Piped link(s):
sidelined by covid induced ME/CFS
Piped is a privacy-respecting open-source alternative frontend to YouTube.
I’m open-source, check me out at GitHub.
Forrest Valkai is an angel
Reacteria is a lot of debunking, but it’s also a lot of dunking
I don’t ever feel like Forrest is being mean, honestly
sabine hossenfelder
I’ve watched that channel in the past, been meaning to check out that latest “capitalism is good” video that’s hit my feed and caused some controversy from what I’ve seen. I’m hoping there’s just context that’s being missed and the video is actually decent.
yeah I skipped that one for the same reason but I think I’ll give it a watch today to see what her point is. Maybe mixed markets? If she’s arguing for free market neo liberalism crap then she should probably stick to science.
If she’s arguing for … crap then she should probably stick to Science.
tldr/w: I probably should’ve only doe this bit here and on her being a physicist versus a science communicator
Humorously enough, she also has a video for that Basically she talks about:
- Why “doing your own research” should be poked at
* Topics she doesn’t have a PhD in and has been told she shouldn’t talk about
* On being a physicist versus a science communicator
- Main video points
- When not to do your own research (When there isn’t enough research) 2.(?) Reasonable expectations (Why she doesn’t talk about UFO’s, a plug for support to do a video on ‘Experts’, limits of Google/internet, what is relevant for understanding? )
- Be honest with yourself (Acknowledge what you dont understand, erroneous mental short cut example)
- Acknowledge biases
Rest of video not as relevant to your point
Do your own research. But do it right. [Video] Now where’s that bot at…?
deleted by creator
I never stated I don’t personally agree with the premise
caused some controversy from what I’ve seen
If you look up “Capitalism is good Sabine” on Youtube you’ll see all the videos I was referring to. I was actually giving the original video the “benefit of the doubt” versus how many counter videos were out there.
Did thunderf00t ever recover from his „the feminazis are destroying the world“, „anti sjw“ bullshit? I remember being linked one of his videos years ago, seeing that bashing women is 90% of his other content and going „well another one for the shitlist“.
Kinda, between the iconic hbomberguy video that tore his videos to shreds and his experiences of being on the other side from his new alt-right pals on the subject of Brexit, he had a bit of a rude awakening and seems to have steered away from political content, but he has never acknowledged any wrongdoing or expressed any remorse for his shitty behaviour.
He likely still holds the exact same opinions as before, but keeps them to himself now. Either way, he isn’t worthy of your support.
Just as an aside, the “people involved” are science deniers. They are malignant sociopaths who invent disinformation for personal gain. And the people who believe them are often violent when challenged.
Scientists have avoided berating people and patiently laid out the data with context from professionals in the field since the beginning of science. This has made the science deniers bolder, and their followers more violent. The professionals are targeted, and the concept of expertise is demonized. That isn’t hyperbole, religious fundamentalists cast education as a tool of the devil.
Anyone who publicly debunks fake science and myths will eventually fall to sarcasm, derision, and anger, because that is what their opposition deserves and requires. We should mock the obstinately ignorant. We should respond to stupidity with anger, because it is not an innocent mistake. It is a threat to society, and it may be what kills us all.
We should respond to stupidity with anger
This is really harmful rhetoric, while I’m sure you didn’t mean it in this way, you’re essentially saying that people should be treated badly simply for being misinformed or, worse, for having an intellectual disability. Wilful ignorance deserves derision, but we absolutely shouldn’t be hateful towards people who aren’t as lucky to be as educated or as intellectually talented as we are
The difference between stupidity and ignorance is intent.
According to who? Because every dictionary I checked has the first definition of stupidity as being something along the lines of “lacking in intelligence”, “having a lack of wit or intellect”, “slowness or incoherence with regards to reasoning”, and ignorance defined as something along the lines of “a lack of knowledge”, “uneducated on some facts” etc.
Neither of those have any involvement whatsoever with intent.
If you want a term to describe intentional ignorance, then the best phrase imo is “wilful ignorance”. If you want a phrase that means that someone is intentionally refusing to accept facts or reason because it would conflict with their beliefs, then “dogmatic” or “bigoted” are better suited than stupid. If someone genuinely doesn’t understand something then you should not be angry with them, that’s just cruel.
While all of that is true, I don’t feel like that’s a stance I wish to take. How do you bridge that gap so that other’s can come out of that space? Berating a child for their beliefs does little in the long run if they have an echo chamber they can retreat to. I completely understand if that’s not your concern and you would rather not waste the time with science deniers, it can be dangerous and frustrating as you’ve stated.
These are not children. There is content for children to learn and understand science. There is content for adults to learn and understand reality, for that matter. Debunking lies and disinformation is not a context that calls for temperance. If someone questions whether climate change is real, or if worm pills are as effective as a vaccine, they should be made to feel stupid. They should be ashamed of giving voice to their ignorance. Asking a question is how you learn. Spreading lies is anathema to education, though.
I’d shout out Folding Ideas for his series on Flat Earthers, NFTs and Blockchain Games. And I’d shoutout Knowledge Fight for debunking pretty much everything Alex Jones has ever said as well as Tucker Carlson and Project Camelot.
This kind of content doesn’t really succeed because it drives less engagement than it would if it was really impassioned and angry, and that means less money. So even creators that start out balanced, neutral and considered are incentivised to become more algorithm friendly by encouraging angry comments on their videos
deleted by creator
It’s far more likely someone clicks on a video explaining something they want to know than a video debunking a misconception they didn’t know people had
I don’t think that’s true, honestly! My instinct tells me that someone would be way more likely to click a video called “why xyz is wrong about solar power” than a video called “learn more about solar power” even if they had no real experience in the area.
There is also a large audience for outage of any sort. If you have a message of “people who believe X are idiots” you’ve got a big audience: all the people who disagree with X love to hear you elaborate all the ways the X people are idiots and thereby feel smart and smug and righteous.
The audience of X believers who might listen to a message of “hey, here’s why X isn’t quite right” is a harder sell. For one thing most people are not looking to hear how some view of theirs is wrong, and even worse, in this polarized environment all the people making hay off of “X believers are idiots” are helping inoculate the X believers against that message.
A little late, but a channel I like is potholer54. He usually talks about COVID or climate change nowadays, and back in the heyday of youtube atheism he did a lot of debunking of young earth creationists and evolution deniers. He has a strong science focus, discussing papers and tracking down peoples’ sources and whatnot.
Here is an alternative Piped link(s):
Piped is a privacy-respecting open-source alternative frontend to YouTube.
I’m open-source, check me out at GitHub.
Popular Mechanics did a lot of debunking 9-11 myths
