how is this fucker so smart?
>>64470605
Wikipedia
>>64470628
I laft
>>64470605
he reads books
>>64470605
>>64470696
In his garage
I actually was disappointed with his interview on JRE. Dude knows some bizarre facts, but is not really smart.
Numberphile > Veritasium before Derrick became a pretentious douchebag after talking to Dawkins > Vsauce 3 > Vsauce > Vsauce 2 > Veritasium after Derrick turned into a pretentious douchebag after talking to Dawkins
Prove me wrong
>>64470757
Why are you surprised?
He just regurgitates shit he reads on the Internet. Albeit, it is interesting at times I admit.
He looks so jewish
>>64470605
>modern day bill nye
>NDT modern day sagan
>millennial nostalgia wont let the past die
>>64470757
JRE? Link?
>>64470730
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0GIwTG8V-Ko
Who the fuck is JRE?
>popular science is smart
Ooookay.
>>64470972
Jerry
>>64470785
numbers and math aren't that interesting for everyone friend
vsauce covers a wide array of topics in crams in a lot more without you even realising.
>>64470785
most of the guys on numberphile don't know anything about math and just ask expert math autists to gush about their autistic fixation
i know more math than some of those faggots, but it is nice to listen to people like that russian math god from berkeley talk about -1/12.
i wish he would expand on some of the shit more, but i guess what they say already is mindblowing to normalshits.
He does research about odd things so we don't have to.
>Pop science
>>64471091
>Most of the guys don't know anything about math
Uhm they are all literally math professors except for Brady
>>64470605
DOES LE BLACK SCIENCE MAN HAVE A UTOOB
>>64470785
James Grime
a
m
e
s
G
r
i
m
e
>>64471002
>>64471142
So what exactly is wrong about making science popular?
>>64471151
>Uhm they are all literally math professors except for Brady
must be elementary school math professors because some of them are idiots or simply very bad at explaining things
>>64470605
He isn't. He's a mediocre balding loser, also he's a mentally ill degenerate homosexual
>>64471172
>So what exactly is wrong about making science popular?
normies can then pretend like they know something "nerdy" or "smart" when they actually don't know anything
this kills the autist
>>64470785
>Vsauce 3 > Vsauce
>>>/v/eddit
And numberphile has some interesting videos but a lot of them are shit and the guys don't know shit, it should be lower.
You're pretty right about Veritasium though, this guy is sometimes insufferable but his videos are interesting.
>>64471178
in my experience people who are good at math are shit with people.
>>64471178
You can't just claim somethin like that without giving an example
>>64471243
>what is the internet
>>64471204
But if they have learned about it, they do know it, don't they?
>>64471178
You have never been in a math course, have you?
>>64471243
>You can't just claim somethin like that without giving an example
i can't be fucked to go look through the videos and find the guys that suck for you.
the only one that stands out to me who isn't a retard/seems like a retard is James.
this video sums up what an irritating prick he is better than i ever could
https://youtube.com/watch?v=x8DtojIWZC4
>>64471282
NAH ITS JUST FACTOIDS WITH ZERO CONTEXT OR DEPTH OR UNDERSTANDING
GRANTED REPEATING SHIT FROM VSAUCE IS STILL MORE THAN THE AVERAGE DROOLING RETARD IS AWARE OF
>>64471276
A global computer network providing a variety of information and communication facilities, consisting of interconnected networks using standardized communication protocols?
>>64471282
>But if they have learned about it, they do know it, don't they?
no because vsauce and other pop science outlets dumb things down to the point that regurgitating what they say is only half true or sometimes just plain wrong. they like to spout the shit vsauce and co. tells them as factoids and can't continue any conversation about them or give any real input.
regurgitation isn't really knowing when it comes to science.
>>64471361
I didn't put a question mark
>>64471351
But Vsauce usually does try to make sure to put everything in the proper context to give everyone a good understanding of a topic
>>64471204
>Getting people interested in science who would otherwise not be interested is bad
So tell me Dr. how many phD's you have?
>>64471394
Sorry
A global computer network providing a variety of information and communication facilities, consisting of interconnected networks using standardized communication protocols.
>>64471405
ITS CURSORY SHIT FOR PLEBS
>>64471383
But that's a problem with science in general. Every single scientific model is just a dumbed down version of reality. That is simply a matter of human brain capacity hitting its limits.
>>64471405
it's not interest
they don't go doing any research on the topic after that fat fuck stops talking
they don't understand what he's saying half the fucking time
they just like to watch it so they can "feel" smart and repeat some of what he says to other normalfags who also don't know anything and will think they are smart.
it would be like skimming a bunch of webMD articles and trying to have a conversation about Interstitial Cystitis with actual doctors.
>>64471478
Bro, 4chan is full of geniuses with 180+ IQ's. Don't confuse normies with the scientific and creative excellence that makes up this board.
>>64471323
Just pick any video not featuring James and explain how it explains things badly, it's not hard. If you need to "look for them" they seem to be rather the exception than the rule
>>64471421
>the "you have no credibility and cannot remark on a topic unless you are a certifiable expert" fallacy
no one on this board who isn't a director or script writer can comment on movies anymore
/v/ can't talk about games unless they are game devs
hello reddit
>>64471496
i can confirm this
because im one of those people
>>64471478
>But that's a problem with science in general. Every single scientific model is just a dumbed down version of reality.
yes.
but there is a point where you dumb things down to the point that they don't actual resemble or model what they are supposed to be resembling or modeling, and that's what pop science does.
>>64471496
And how do you know that? How do you know there isn't some kid watching Michael explain what supertasks are and becomes inspired because of that video to go major physics or math? Plebs will be plebs but that doesn't really prove there arent also a lot of people taking something from the videos
>>64471529
>/v/ can't talk about games unless they are game devs
They never talk about games so it seems alright.
>>64471529
The fact that you use "normies" as a form of criticism you're putting yourself above the rest. When we're talking on the subject on science you imply to have more scientific knowledge than the so called "normie" or the vsauce guy who he panders to.
This is 4chan and this attitued isn't new, in /tv/ everything is pleb, in /v/ everything is casual, in /ic/ Leonardo da Vinci can't into anatomy, etc.. this site just can't wait to shit on everything while claiming intellectual superiority
>>64471599
>And how do you know that?
i don't. i assume based on encounters with normies.
>>64471639
>The fact that you use "normies" as a form of criticism
it's not a form of criticism. i am a mentally ill engineer and can't relate to "normal people." it's just the most convenient way to refer to that kind of person. the average person isn't interested in math or science or doing their own research, which is why channels like vsauce and co. are so popular. if you want to test it for yourself go ask the average twitter user to solve a simple integral or explain in brief how DNA replication works or fucking any physics question regardless of how simple and watch them flounder.
>>64471525
>If you need to "look for them" they seem to be rather the exception than the rule
yeah after looking over that channel again i think i might have just watched a bad few videos because most of these aren't too bad.
>>64471561
Why yes of course. But it's still important to lead people to these questiond with pop science. In grade school you're taught that Atoms are the smallest things in the world then you learn that Atoms are made up of Protons and Electrons and are taught Bohr's Atom Model. Then you learn that the Bohr Model doesn't make any sense and learn about Orbitals.
You're step by step guided to more complex and more accurate models but you need to do the first steps first to even undertand the basic gist. Pop science is that first step. Of course you can't become a physics prof just by watching Vsauce videos, but there certainly are people who look at the world with a new light after getting something explained to them by Michael. And most certainly there are people who will acceot these things as facts, but a lor of people will start to ask more questions, do their own research and learn more and more about the world and isn't that the point of it all?
>>64471816
>but there certainly are people who look at the world with a new light after getting something explained to them by Michael.
for 5 minutes.
>but a lor of people will start to ask more questions, do their own research and learn more and more about the world and isn't that the point of it all?
do you actually think this is true? do you actually think the average vsauce watcher will go and do research into how the library of babel website actually works and what they're trying to accomplish after watching michael explain it? do you think they actually understand how it works even WHILE he's explaining?
if the average american (i should clarify this) was so diligent and curious then americans wouldn't be stereotyped as idiots, don't you think?
>>64470857
>modern day bill nye
Who's the modern Beakman then?
>>64471893
Not that fag. But while not every single vsauce watcher will go into more depth, a few certainly will, some will get more and more interested in science and eventually do more research or even look into a career in science. In my own personal case it was Isaac Asimov who got me interested in science and physics. So I really don't see how these pop science guys are bad.
Why does he have so many Youtube channels?
>>64472015
GOOGLEBUX
Objectivity is great.
>>64471196
milo is also a degenerate homo but /pol/ sucks his dick like there is no tomorrow, although I agree with mediocre balding looser term
>>64472002
>it was Isaac Asimov who got me interested in science and physics. So I really don't see how these pop science guys are bad.
Isaac Asimov isn't pop science and the average normie hasn't read a book outside of school... i already explained why pop science channels are bad. the kind of person who is interested in science and physics is going to go on to research and learn science and physics in his spare time without ever having to watch or read pop science.
if your high school chemistry/physics/biology/calculus class wasn't enough to spur your interest then you're probably just not going to be interested in that topic.
V I H A R T
I
H
A
R
T
>>64472127
Not him but I got into science by watchig Löwenzahn as a kid. An old german TV show that is probably the equivalent of Bill Nye the sciene guy in America. And by reading some pictured books about Stars and Space.
Of course I was good in science classes in school, but they still could be boring at times and if you got a dull teacher you just have tough luck. Your affinity with science probably doesn't come from how good you were in school but rather by how much you were naturally interested in it. And that "natural interest" started with pop science for most until you reached a point where you realized it all didn't make sense and you had to go deeper into the topics
>>64472127
>if your high school chemistry/physics/biology/calculus class wasn't enough to spur your interest then you're probably just not going to be interested in that topic.
I went to public school in Los Angeles. My chemistry final and I shit you not consisted of making ice cream, for biology don't remember shit, and don't even get me started on my economics teacher, it was only the math teachers who probably ever tried and it was a math teacher how got me into Asimov. Also he was a pop science writer just simply from another time.
>>64472127
>Isaac Asimov isn't pop science
Is this bait?
