Excellent wording and short, legible definitions by NDGT. Great, clear messaging of how the science should work to be useful.
Unfortunately, rarely does it work like that, and it is (possibly) due to human errors, biases and vested interest. But that’s a different story.
Horrible editing of the clip (cut and trim) has removed a very important part of this excellent presentation. The final image of the speaker is that he is 100% sure and reliable in all his statements. No wavering, no doubts, no second thoughts and updates while expressing certain opinions. Not a humble human behavior of a scientist. In other clips, you can see unedited NDGT, and he simply is a different person.
The impression may be that NDGT is a rock-solid foundation you can build your house on - thus devaluing his own statement at 3:00 about false confidence. And making him (in the perception of the viewer) a final expert with absolute knowledge. Forgetting that he evaluates work of others only through the fragmentary knowledge that he has achieved so far (however truly great it is).
In other words, we all function within pre-defined frameworks of external knowledge mixed with first-hand experience and (in some cases) personal research. Paraphrasing NDGT: “Becoming an acclaimed expert does not mean that you are right. Being right does not mean that you are an expert.”
Still, a rare and great presentation and a valuable example how arguments should be presented and evaluated.
NDGT spoke eloquently and intelligently. I also remember him promoting the jab. So I’m confused as to when “science” is really science.
Excellent wording and short, legible definitions by NDGT. Great, clear messaging of how the science should work to be useful.
Unfortunately, rarely does it work like that, and it is (possibly) due to human errors, biases and vested interest. But that’s a different story.
Horrible editing of the clip (cut and trim) has removed a very important part of this excellent presentation. The final image of the speaker is that he is 100% sure and reliable in all his statements. No wavering, no doubts, no second thoughts and updates while expressing certain opinions. Not a humble human behavior of a scientist. In other clips, you can see unedited NDGT, and he simply is a different person.
The impression may be that NDGT is a rock-solid foundation you can build your house on - thus devaluing his own statement at 3:00 about false confidence. And making him (in the perception of the viewer) a final expert with absolute knowledge. Forgetting that he evaluates work of others only through the fragmentary knowledge that he has achieved so far (however truly great it is).
In other words, we all function within pre-defined frameworks of external knowledge mixed with first-hand experience and (in some cases) personal research. Paraphrasing NDGT: “Becoming an acclaimed expert does not mean that you are right. Being right does not mean that you are an expert.”
Still, a rare and great presentation and a valuable example how arguments should be presented and evaluated.